Crosswind Stability Evaluation of High-Speed Train Using Different Wind Models

• Published in: Chinese journal of mechanical engineering Vol. 32; no. 1; pp. 1 - 13
• Main Authors: Yu, Mengge, Jiang, Rongchao, Zhang, Qian, Zhang, Jiye
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Singapore Springer Singapore 30.04.2019; Springer Nature B.V; SpringerOpen
• Edition: English ed.
• Subjects: Accuracy; Aerodynamic loads; Aerodynamics; Algorithms; Assurance; Characteristic wind curves; Computation; Crosswind; Crosswinds; Dynamic models; Electrical Machines and Networks; Electronics and Microelectronics; Engineering; Engineering Thermodynamics; Heat and Mass Transfer; High speed rail; Instrumentation; Machines; Manufacturing; Mechanical Engineering; Multibody systems; Original Article; Power Electronics; Processes; Railway vehicle; Rollover; Rollover risks; Safety; Stability analysis; Theoretical and Applied Mechanics; Turbulent wind; Wind effects; Wind loads; Wind model; Characteristic wind curves; Crosswind; Railway vehicle; Wind model; Rollover risks
• ISSN: 1000-9345; 2192-8258
• DOI: 10.1186/s10033-019-0353-7

Different wind models are being used for the operational safety evaluation of a high-speed train exposed to crosswinds. However, the methodology for simulating natural wind is of substantial importance in the wind–train system, and different simplified forms of natural wind result in different levels of accuracy. The purpose of the research in this paper is to investigate the effects of different wind models on the operational safety evaluation of high-speed trains. First, three wind models, namely, steady wind model, gust wind model, and turbulent wind model, are constructed. Following this, the algorithms for computing the aerodynamic loads using the wind models are described. A multi-body dynamic model of a vehicle is then set up using the commercial software “Simpack” for investigating the dynamic behavior of a railway vehicle exposed to wind loads. The rollover risks corresponding to each wind model are evaluated by applying the definition of characteristic wind curves (CWC). The results indicate that the CWC computed using the gust wind model is marginally higher than that computed using the turbulent wind model; the difference is less than 1%. With regard to the steady wind model, the assurance coefficient substantially affects the final CWC. A reasonable agreement of CWC between the steady wind model and turbulent wind model can be obtained by applying an “appropriate value” of the assurance coefficient. This study included a systematic analysis of the operational safety evaluation results using different wind models; the analysis can serve as a reference basis for different engineering accuracy requirements.