The Hyperloop High Speed Transportation System

The Hyperloop High Speed Transportation System
An Aerodynamic CFD Investigation of Nozzle Positions and Flow Phenomena
Steven Goddard
10038749
Under the supervision of

Professor Yufeng Yao
Module UFME6V-60-M
MEng Mechanical Engineering (PT)
Academic Year 2015/2016
Total Pages: 62
Abstract
This investigation analyses the conceptual Hyperloop High Speed Transportation System using
Computational Fluid Dynamics software ANSYS Fluent. The Hyperloop is a train-like vehicle levitated
in a near vacuum tube and propelled by a series of linear accelerators. The original concept claims
that the Hyperloop can reach speeds close to Mach 1 (343 m/s) whilst being an efficient, sustainable
and environmentally friendly mode of public transport for the future. This study aims to investigate the
aerodynamics of the Hyperloop concept, experimenting with three nozzle positions and evaluating
observed flow features through a series of increasingly complex simulations.
The study starts by recreating the work of Zhang (2013) who has conducted an investigation into
another similar type of vacuum tube transportation called ‘Evacuated Tube Transport’. The model
created by Zhang and the methodology used is developed further by modifying the relatively simple
geometry and adding an axial compressor and rear nozzle to replicate the proposed Hyperloop
configuration. Other major changes include the use of a density based solver and the assumption of
compressible flow for both steady and unsteady simulations.
The main investigation begins by testing three nozzle positions in 2D and examining the drag
performance, mass flow and aerodynamic features of each of these configurations. In order to provide
proof of mesh independency, 5 systematically coarser meshes were simulated for each of the nozzle
positions. The lower nozzle position was the best performing configuration in terms of drag and was
taken forward for use in 3D Steady simulations where more complex 3D flow features can be
identified.
The 3D steady simulations involved 5 systematically coarser meshes to prove mesh independency in
a similar manner to the 2D study. The drag and mass flow rate was analysed along with other flow
features. A 3D unsteady simulation was also conducted in order to analyse any time dependant flow
features.
The results support some of the claims made in the literature such as the use of a divergent nozzle
before the compressor. They also reveal a number of interesting features that lead to some important
design recommendations such as the high temperatures of the pod underbody, prompting the need
for a thermally resistant material to be used in this area.
The high flow velocity and high turbulent kinetic energy occurring at the nacelle tip and nozzle edge
also suggest the need for special design considerations and geometry optimization in these areas.
This study also provides a validation case and useful data for future studies into the Hyperloop
concept.
Steven Goddard i
10038749
Acknowledgements
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my project supervisor Professor Yufeng Yao for his
attentive and prompt support during the course of writing this report and for introducing me to the
remarkable abilities of modern CFD through his Modelling & Simulation lectures.
Thanks to the rLoop Hyperloop design team who inspired me to take on this topic.
I would also like to thank my family and friends who have always been understanding despite the
demanding schedule from approaching this course as a part time student.
And last but certainly not least I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my fiancé Tara Hosking
for her relentless support and encouragement throughout the duration of my studies.
Thank You.
Steven Goddard ii
10038749
Contents
Abstract .................................................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. ii
Nomenclature ......................................................................................................................................... vi
Glossary of Terms .................................................................................................................................. vi
1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
2 Scope and Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Project Management ............................................................................................................... 3
3 Background and Current State........................................................................................................ 4
3.1 What is the Hyperloop? ........................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Background ............................................................................................................................. 5
3.3 Current State and Alternative Approaches ............................................................................. 5
3.4 Key Players in the Vactrain Sector ......................................................................................... 7
3.5 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 8
4 Literature Review ............................................................................................................................ 9
4.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 9
4.2 Major Work ............................................................................................................................ 10
4.3 Secondary Works .................................................................................................................. 10
4.4 Tertiary Works ....................................................................................................................... 14
4.5 Other Sources ....................................................................................................................... 15
5 Aims .............................................................................................................................................. 16
6 Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 17
6.1 Underlying Theory, Relevant Concepts & Equations ............................................................ 17
6.2 Software ................................................................................................................................ 20
6.3 Geometry/System Constraints and Assumptions ................................................................. 20
6.4 Simulation.............................................................................................................................. 24
7 Numerical Studies ......................................................................................................................... 27
7.1 Zhang Validation Case .......................................................................................................... 27
7.2 Preliminary 2D Hyperloop Case ............................................................................................ 29
7.3 2D Steady Hyperloop Case ................................................................................................... 30
7.4 3D Steady Hyperloop Case ................................................................................................... 36
7.5 3D Unsteady Hyperloop Case............................................................................................... 39
8 Results & Discussion .................................................................................................................... 42
8.1 3D Steady Case Analysis ...................................................................................................... 42
8.2 Unsteady Case Analysis ....................................................................................................... 48
9 Conclusion..................................................................................................................................... 49
10 Recommendations for Further Work ............................................................................................. 51
11 References .................................................................................................................................... 52
12 Bibliography................................................................................................................................... 54
Appendix 1 – Zhang Validation Case Setup Details ............................................................................. 55
Appendix 2 – Flow Rate & Pressure Calculations ................................................................................ 55
Appendix 3 – Project Management ....................................................................................................... 55
Appendix 4 – Simulation Data ............................................................................................................... 55
Steven Goddard iii

10038749
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Original Hyperloop Concept Sketches (Musk, 2013) ............................................................. 4

Figure 2 – Magnetic Linear Accelerator .................................................................................................. 4
Figure 3 - Turbine Powered Tube Train (Radtke, 1974) ......................................................................... 5
Figure 4 – The Shanghai Transrapid Maglev Train (Ploughmann, 2012) .............................................. 6
Figure 5 - ET3 (ET3 Global Alliance Inc., 2013) ..................................................................................... 7
Figure 6 - Hyperloop Pod (Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2015) ........................................... 7
Figure 7 - Cargo Pod (Hyperloop Technologies, 2015) .......................................................................... 8
Figure 8 - Relationship of pod speed and tube diameter, for 3 blockage factors. (Chin et al, 2015) ... 11
Figure 9 - HTT Hyperloop Model (Ahlborn, 2014) ................................................................................ 12
Figure 10 - Mach Number of the HTT Study (Red indicates >Mach 1) (Ahlborn, 2014) ...................... 12
Figure 11 - ANSYS Hyperloop Study - Velocity Contours (Sovani, 2013) ............................................ 13
Figure 12 - 3D Artistic Render of the Pod (Upper Nozzle Configuration) and Tube ............................. 16
Figure 13 – Boundary Layer (NASA, 2015) .......................................................................................... 19
Figure 14 - Pod with diffuser to restrict flow Mach number into the compressor (Chin et al, 2015) ..... 21
Figure 15 - Pod Nozzle Positions .......................................................................................................... 22
Figure 16 - Hyperloop Simulation Schematic........................................................................................ 24
Figure 17 - Mesh Metric Example (2D Lower Nozzle Position) ............................................................ 25
Figure 18 - Validation Case Schematic ................................................................................................. 27
Figure 19 - Grid for Zhang Validation Case (Front) .............................................................................. 28
Figure 20 - Mesh for Zhang Validation Case (Rear) ............................................................................. 28
Figure 21 - Mesh Independence Study ................................................................................................. 29
Figure 22 - 2D Case - Preliminary Run - Velocity Contours ................................................................. 29
Figure 23 - 2D Hyperloop Grid (From Top: Far-Field (Front), Compressor Outlet, Rear Nozzle) ........ 31
Figure 24- 2D Hyperloop Convergence Example (Scaled Residuals) .................................................. 32
Figure 25- 2D Hyperloop Convergence Example (Drag Coefficient) .................................................... 32
Figure 26 – 2D Hyperloop Total Drag Coefficient Comparison ............................................................ 33
Figure 27 - 2D Hyperloop Drag Component Comparison ..................................................................... 33
Figure 28 - 2D Hyperloop Velocity Contours (Upper Nozzle Positions) ............................................... 34
Figure 29 - 2D Hyperloop Velocity Contours (Central Nozzle Positions) ............................................. 34
Figure 30 - 2D Hyperloop Velocity Contours (Lower Nozzle Positions) ............................................... 34
Figure 31 - 2D Hyperloop - Lower Nozzle Position Temperature ......................................................... 35
Figure 32 - Example of Mach number at Compressor .......................................................................... 35
Figure 33 - 3D Mesh with Specific Edge Sizing and Aspect Ratio Based Inflation Layers .................. 37
Figure 34 - 3D Mesh General View ....................................................................................................... 37
Figure 35 - 3D Mesh - Specific Edge and Face Sizing with Aspect Ratio Based Inflation Layers ....... 37
Figure 36 - 3D Mesh – Bounding Box Regions .................................................................................... 37
Figure 37 - 3D Mesh – Body Shell ........................................................................................................ 38
Figure 38- 3D Hyperloop Convergence Example - Scaled Residuals .................................................. 38
Steven Goddard iv
10038749
Figure 39- 3D Hyperloop Convergence Example - Drag Coefficient .................................................... 39

Figure 40 - 3D Mesh General View ....................................................................................................... 40
Figure 41 – Strouhal Number vs Reynolds Number (Belvin, 1990) ...................................................... 40
Figure 42- 3D Unsteady Hyperloop Convergence Example (Initial Conditions) ................................... 41
Figure 43- 3D Unsteady Hyperloop Convergence Example (360 Time Steps) .................................... 41
Figure 44 - Compressor Region Velocity Contour Plot ......................................................................... 42
Figure 45 - Compressor Nacelle Tips - Velocity Contour Plots (From Left: Upper, Lower) .................. 43
Figure 46 - Vortex Core Plot Showing Velocity Profile and Vortex Formation around the Nacelle Tip 43
Figure 47 - Compressor Region – Turbulent Kinetic Energy Contour Plot ........................................... 44
Figure 48 – Temperature Profiles around the Pod Body (On a Ø1.42 m PCD) ................................... 44
Figure 49 – Flow Velocities at the Nozzle Region ................................................................................ 45
Figure 50 – Flow Velocities at the Nozzle Region + Measurement Points (Legend limited for clarity) 45
Figure 51 – Flow Velocity profiles along the Nozzle symmetry plane .................................................. 46
Figure 52 – Turbulent Kinetic Energy (Left: Nozzle Slant, Right: Pod Underbody, Nozzle End) ......... 46
Figure 53 - Vortex Core Plot Showing Velocity Profile and Vortex Formation at the Nozzle ............... 46
Figure 54 – Total Pressure Profiles around the Pod Body (On a Ø1.42 m PCD)................................. 47
Figure 55 – Underbody Temperature (From top: 0, 120, 240, 360 Time Steps) .................................. 48
Figure 56 – Unsteady Drag Coefficient History..................................................................................... 48
List of Tables
Table 1 – General Parameter Summary ............................................................................................... 24

Table 2 – Properties of Air .................................................................................................................... 24
Table 3 – Mesh Quality Criteria ............................................................................................................ 26
Table 4 – Errors and Uncertainty .......................................................................................................... 26
Table 5- Assumptions of the Zhang Validation Case ............................................................................ 27
Table 6 - 2D Hyperloop Mesh Densities and Deviation ........................................................................ 31
Table 7 - 2D Hyperloop Mesh Densities and Deviation ........................................................................ 38
Table 8 - 3D Steady Case - Summary of Case Specific Parameters ................................................... 39
Steven Goddard v
10038749
Nomenclature
𝐴 Area [m2]
𝐶𝑑 Drag Coefficient
D Diameter [m]
𝐸 Total Energy [J]
𝑓𝑠 Shedding Frequency [Hz]
𝑘 Thermal Conductivity [W/mK]
𝐿 Length [m]
𝑀 Mach Number
𝑚̇ Mass Flow Rate [kg/s]
𝑃 Pressure [Pa]
𝑅𝑒 Reynolds Number
r Radius [m]
𝑆𝑟 Strouhal Number
𝑇 Temperature [K]
𝑡 Time [s]
𝑢/𝑉 Velocity [m/s]
𝑦+ Y Plus
𝛾 Specific Heat Capacity [J/K]
𝜇 Dynamic Viscosity [Pa s]
𝜌 Density [kg/m3]
𝜏 Shear Stress [Pa]
Glossary of Terms
CAD Computer Aided Design
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
CPU Central Processing Unit
ERCOFTAC European Research Community On Flow, Turbulence And Combustion
ET3 Evacuated Tube Transport Technologies
ETT Evacuated Tube Transport
HTT Hyperloop Transport Technologies
MagLev Magnetic Levitation
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
PCD Pitch Circle Diameter
PT Part Time
RAM Random Access Memory
RANS Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes
STEP Standard for the Exchange of Product Model Data (ISO10303)
TKE Turbulent Kinetic Energy
Steven Goddard vi
10038749
1 Introduction
For decades engineers have dreamt of transport systems that are fast, reliable, efficient and
sustainable. Buses, trains and even aircraft are all miraculous inventions that have no doubt made a
huge impact on the prosperity of the human race however, each of these transport methods in their
common form are gradually polluting the planet. With the world’s population at over seven billion and
growing (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2016), the demand for all types
of transportation will also grow and without drastic changes this will lead to further increased pollution
with catastrophic implications for the planet. The infrastructure of high density population centres are
also becoming strained and upgrading or widening roads to cope with demand in some areas is near
impossible. A modern solution for the rapid and sustainable transport of people and freight from rural
areas to the dense commercial and industrial hubs is required.
One of the key elements of the recent Paris Agreement (2015) states that governments will
“undertake rapid reductions [of emissions] in accordance with the best available science” and
innovation in transport is essential to achieve this goal.
One exciting and emerging open-source concept called the Hyperloop, proposed by Elon Musk
(Musk, 2013) has the potential to solve this problem in a faster, more reliable, more efficient and more
sustainable manner. Musk identifies the Hyperloop concept as the fifth mode of transport after road,
rail, water and air travel.
The Hyperloop concept builds on ideas of two existing technologies: Vactrain and Magnetic
Levitation. Vactrain consists of a train type vehicle enclosed in a tube that is depressurised to a near
total vacuum. The effect of this is the significant reduction of aerodynamic drag which is the main
source of total drag on high speed vehicles. Maglev also consists of a train type vehicle but in
atmospheric conditions and levitated by magnetism. This results in the removal of rolling friction and
decreases wear between the track/vehicle interfaces.
The Hyperloop concept features a levitated vehicle (known as the ‘Pod’) in an enclosed tube which is
depressurised to around 100 Pa and propelled by linear accelerators placed periodically along the
tube. Once up to speed (which is claimed to be 1220 km/h), due to the reduction in air resistance the
pod can coast for approximately 70 km until needing a boost with a reduction in speed of around 10%.
The 100 Pa environment is a compromise between vacuum power and air resistance and also
reduces the impact of inevitable (but small) pressure losses along the long tube routes.
To overcome a phenomenon called the Kantrowitz limit, which relates to the maximum speed of the
flow around the tube, the Hyperloop concept introduces an axial compressor system. The compressor
system intakes the build-up of air at the front of the pod and compresses it in order to the traverse
passenger and service segments of the pod and deliver it to a nozzle at the rear to produce a small
amount of thrust. This allows the use of smaller tube sizes and therefore reduced overall construction
costs for the project.
Steven Goddard 1
10038749
Although air resistance is low in the tube, the high potential cruising speeds of the Hyperloop concept
will still cause a noticeable amount of aerodynamic drag. Just like other vehicles the Hyperloop will
need to be optimised and studied to form the most efficient yet practical geometry for optimum drag
reduction.
There are three main companies currently pursuing the Hyperloop concept but so far there is little
non-proprietary numerical or experimental data to fully support the concept. A preliminary study has
been conducted by NASA (Chin, 2015) and a similar technology, Evacuated Tube Transport (ETT)
has been studied by the South West Jiaotong University, China. The investigation detailed in this
report builds on these studies and can be used as a baseline or validation comparison for future
investigations or a basis for experimental replications.
In this project the Hyperloop concept will be discussed and the external aerodynamic performance of
the proposed vehicle will be investigated. Due to the lack of information regarding the rear of the pod,
the study is focused on experimenting with three different nozzle positions during the two dimensional
(2D) steady simulations to evaluate the nozzle position effect on drag and flow separation. Related
technical and academic work, reputable media sources and concept artwork will be investigated
together with theory to form an appropriate representation of the Hyperloop pod for computational
fluid dynamic (CFD) analysis.
The simulations will begin with a validation exercise to replicate the results of an ETT related study
(Zhang, 2013). Once the results were within acceptable accuracy of the ETT study the model
geometry and simulation setup will then be adjusted to represent the full scale Hyperloop concept.
This includes the addition of the compressor and nozzle along with defining their appropriate
boundary conditions.
A steady, compressible, 2D simulation will first be performed with varying nozzle positions followed by
a steady, compressible, three dimensional (3D) simulation. These simulations will be supported by
appropriate mesh studies and validation exercises. Following this an unsteady, compressible,
transient simulation will be performed to fully investigate the time dependent unsteady flow features.
Results and analysis will be presented and discussed with appropriate conclusions drawn.
This dissertation describes the research, theoretical and computational methods, results and
conclusions to fulfil the requirements set out in the UFME6V-60-M MEng Individual Project Handbook
(Fowles-Sweet, 2015).
This report is written by Steven Goddard (Student Number 10038749) as part of the MEng
Mechanical Engineering (PT) course at UWE, Bristol during the 2015/2016 student year.
Steven Goddard 2
10038749
2 Scope and Objectives
This study investigates the external aerodynamic performance of a simplified, yet representative
model of the Hyperloop Pod and tube. The model is based on theoretical based calculations and the
information and details obtained from multiple academic works, trusted media and technical reports.
An examination of these sources can be found in the Literature Review. The investigation will not
analyse the internal systems of the pod and will use the input/output values concluded after careful
reasoning from a number of sources as described in the Literature Review and Section 6.
The objectives of this investigation are:
 Evaluate the effect of changing nozzle position on aerodynamic drag as a result of changing
nozzle position.
 Evaluate flow effects such as separation and pressure drag as a result of nozzle position.
 Evaluate and discuss flow phenomena observed during the 2D and 3D simulations.
 Produce a validated and reliable model and CFD set-up to act as a basis for future
investigations into the Hyperloop.
2.1 Project Management
In order to achieve the objectives stated above, a project plan was created in the form of a timeline
that identifies the key milestones and phases of the project with planned times of completion. Also, in
order to collate ideas and questions throughout the start of the investigation a Project Mind Map was
constructed. All project management materials can be found in Appendix 3.
A summary of the key project milestones are listed below:
 15th September 2015 – Choose and topic and create a preliminary plan.
 9th October 2015 – Register a project topic
 30th November 2015 – Complete Literature Review
 18th January 2016 – Complete Zhang Validation Study
 18th February 2016 – Complete 2D Nozzle Position Investigation
 18th March 2016 – Complete 3D Steady Investigation
 1st April 2016 – Complete 3D Unsteady Investigation
 5th April 2016 – Review Draft Report
 12th April 2016 – Finalise Report/Printing & Binding
 14th April 2016 – Project Hand-In.
In addition to the project management documents, review meetings with the project supervisor were
arranged on fortnightly basis.
Steven Goddard 3
10038749
3 Background and Current State
3.1 What is the Hyperloop?
The Hyperloop is a new, high speed and relatively inexpensive transport concept (Figure 1). The idea
consists of a low pressure tube with vehicles (also referred to as pods) that traverse its length at high
and low speeds. The pods are levitated using magnetism or air to avoid rolling friction unlike
conventional trains. They are accelerated along the tube using magnetic linear accelerators (Figure 2)
positioned at various points along the tube with rotors attached to each pod. Frequent linear
accelerators will get the pod up to high subsonic velocity and then significantly fewer accelerators
(approximately once per 110 km) will be used to maintain this cruising speed.
Figure 1 - Original Hyperloop Concept Sketches (Musk, 2013)
However a pod travelling through a tube at high speed even at low pressure will encounter an issue
referred to as the Kantrowitz Limit. There is a blockage ratio (ratio of pod area to tube area) that will
determine when the air flow between the tube and pod becomes choked. When choked the pod will
act like a piston in an engine and begin to compress the air in front, limiting speed.
The unique solution the Hyperloop concept presents is to include an electric axial compressor at the
nose powered by on-board batteries to transfer high pressure air from the front of the pod and out of a
nozzle at the rear as if there was a pressure relief valve on the piston example described earlier.
Figure 2 – Magnetic Linear Accelerator
Steven Goddard 4
10038749
3.2 Background
The Hyperloop concept was originally proposed as an alternative to the California High Speed Rail
(Musk, 2013). Musk’s paper presents a method of travelling between Los Angeles and San Francisco
(610 km) in 30 minutes using a vehicle in a tube under partial vacuum. The first five pages of Musk’s
paper provide an overview of the concept in layman terms and the rest of the paper delves into further
technical depth which includes preliminary capsule & tube specifications, propulsion, route
optimization, safety and cost.
Musk also revealed in interviews (PandoMonthly, 2012) and on social media (Musk, 2013) that the
Hyperloop concept is an open source idea with the intention of interested and capable parties to
refine the design and make the idea commercially viable.
Whilst Musk’s fame certainly helped bring the Hyperloop to the public’s attention recently, the
fundamental idea of travelling in tubes is not new. Perhaps the first mention of this type of travel was
documented by Medhurst (1812) in his work discussing rapid conveyance of goods and passengers
through a tube or even the short story ‘An Express of the Future’ by Verne (1895) whereby he wrote
of a futuristic transport link between Boston and Liverpool by the use of submarine tubes.
Many similar ideas and concepts have been envisaged throughout the last two centuries as both
topics of study and themes in science fiction up until the present day. Some of the more recent
research is discussed in the following section.
Figure 3 - Turbine Powered Tube Train (Radtke, 1974)
3.3 Current State and Alternative Approaches
The Hyperloop concept describes travel in a low pressure tube but the overall concept can be linked
back to previous technological steps in the recent history of high speed rail travel. Throughout the first
half of the 20th century engineers overcame many transport related challenges and by the 1970s
multiple countries were investigating their own high speed rail systems with the Japanese Shinkansen
train being the first and most prominent example.
Steven Goddard 5
10038749
Although world record attempts for conventional high speed rail exceed 540 km/h (BBC News, 2007)
vibration is considered to limit practical use to around 480 km/h (Chant, 2013). Therefore to push
further in the pursuit of speed other technologies were considered.
Figure 4 – The Shanghai Transrapid Maglev Train (Ploughmann, 2012)
The Hovertrain/Ground-Effect Train concept first started to appear in the 1930’s, this idea swapped
rails for hover pads and used a cushion of air to lift the train which aimed to avoid rolling resistance
and decrease infrastructure cost by removing the need for rails. This concept is also similar to the air
bearings proposed in Elon Musk’s Hyperloop whitepaper. However, by the 1970s technological
advancements in magnets revealed a new type of technology that took the research momentum away
from Hovertrains.
Magnetic Levitation (MagLev) is a technology that is currently being pursued by various researchers
and groups such as Inductrack in the USA and SC Maglev in Japan. The technology enables trains to
levitate above a guideway using magnets for both lift and propulsion. Currently two commercial
MagLev trains are in operation, Shanghai Transrapid and Limino in Japan.
Although MagLev solved the issue of rolling resistance there was also the barrier of aerodynamic drag
produced at high speeds to consider. This issue gave rise to Vactrains which is the category of
transport in which the Hyperloop sits.
The Vactrain concept builds on MagLev by enclosing the vehicle and guideway inside a near vacuum
or low pressure tube to reduce air resistance. The reduced pressure allows increased speed and
improved efficiency.
The low pressure tube (often referred to as an ‘Evacuated Tube’) behaves in a similar manner to that
of a train in a long tunnel. Baron et al (2000) studies the alleviation of drag on high speed trains in
very long tunnel with a section on partial vacuum. The key parameters influencing aerodynamic drag
are tunnel geometry, surface roughness, inclusion of pressure relief ducts, train geometry, speed and
blockage ratio (the ratio of tunnel and vehicle cross sectional area). In larger tunnels, “friction effects
along the sides of the train are dominant” and in smaller tunnels “the near-field flow is governed
essentially by compressibility effects”.
Steven Goddard 6
10038749
3.4 Key Players in the Vactrain Sector
At the time of writing there are three main alternative players in the Vactrain sector:
3.4.1 Evacuated Tube Transport Technologies (ET3™)
ET3 is a design patented by Oster (1999) which involves a series of 1.5m diameter tubes at near
vacuum pressure (0.1 Pa). A six person capsule uses linear motors to accelerate and then coast on
a maglev system through the vacuum. The company ET3 Global Alliance Inc. operate a business
model that involves selling licences to operators in order use the technology. They envisage a
national and international web of connected services to be constructed by 2030.
The main differences between ET3 and the Hyperloop involve a very small blockage ratio and no
compressor system on the front of the vehicle. This is alleviated somewhat by the lower tube
pressure but the vacuum pump system required to achieve this environment has the potential to be
very power hungry, any increase in tube pressure will greatly increase the build-up of air at the front
of the vehicle.
ET3 first emerged in the 1980’s and since then much academic research has been conducted on
various aspects of the system. In 2001 Oster travelled to China to work with Dr Yaoping Zhang at
the South West Jiaotong University (SWJU). Zhang has been a key player in evacuated tube
transport research in recent years. The work between Oster and Zhang has also built the
foundations for a number of other papers from SWJU which will be reviewed in Section 0.
Figure 5 - ET3 (ET3 Global Alliance Inc., 2013)
3.4.2 Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (HTT)
HTT was founded by Dirk Ahlborn using crowdfunding and collaboration website JumpStarter. In
February 2015 the company had 200 volunteers working a minimum of 10 hours a week in return for
share options and the company plans to build an 8 km demonstration test track in 2016 (Gizmag,
2015).
Figure 6 - Hyperloop Pod (Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2015)
Steven Goddard 7
10038749
HTT propose a system based on Musk’s original Hyperloop concept with a compressor on the front
of the vehicle, nozzle at the rear all travelling in a tube at 100 Pa. Information on their progress is not
open source but various updates are released via their Jumpstart webpage. Their main technical
report (Ahlborn, 2014) released in December 2014 identifies their progress on many aspects of the
entire concept including a preliminary aerodynamic study which will be discussed in further detail in
Section 0. The report also states that HTT prefers air bearings as the method of levitation due to it
being the most cost effective however it is also investigating the use of maglev and wheeled
alternatives.
HTT’s goal is to create a national Hyperloop system connecting the major cities of the USA.
3.4.3 Hyperloop Technologies
Hyperloop Technologies is a fully commercial company founded and support by several high profile
names including Rob Lloyd (former Cisco President) and Brogan Bambrogan (former SpaceX
engineer). Specific technical information for Hyperloop Technologies is proprietary but press
releases and details through their website reveal the nature of their vehicle.
Figure 7 - Cargo Pod (Hyperloop Technologies, 2015)
Hyperloop Technologies currently have four test rigs, ‘Blade Runner’ for testing scaled axial
compressor blades, this along with Figure 7 suggest the use of a compressor together with a rear
nozzleError! Reference source not found.. They have also created a levitation rig to test a maglev
ystem (Linendoll, 2015), ‘The Big Tube’ for a variety of projects including tube design validation and
‘The Tube Lab’, a mobile laboratory built for modelling, data acquisition, light fabrication and test
monitoring. On the 7th January 2016 another press release revealed multiple full scale tube sections
ready for the construction of a test track in the Nevada desert.
3.5 Summary
To summarise, the Hyperloop is the result and latest iteration of decades of evolving technological
ideas and breakthroughs. The following key players in the Hyperloop world have been identified and
discussed:
 Evacuated Tube Transport Technologies (ET3™)

 Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (HTT)
 Hyperloop Technologies
In the next section some of the more academic and technical based literature will be reviewed.
Steven Goddard 8
10038749
4 Literature Review
4.1 Overview
The following section reviews a mixture of technical and academic work related to this study. The
work is split into Major, Secondary, Tertiary and other sources which reflect their relevance to the
Hyperloop concept and the major work. The list below gives a summary of the literature to be
discussed.
Major Work
 Hyperloop Alpha (Musk, 2013)
Secondary Works
 Open-Source Conceptual Sizing Models for the Hyperloop Passenger Pod (Chin et al, 2015)
 HTT – Official Crowd Storm Documentation (Ahlborn, 2014)
 What Wil It Take to Realise the Hyperloop Dream, ANSYS Blog (Sovani, 2015)
 Hyperloop Cheetah (McFarlane, 2014)
Tertiary Works
 Numerical Simulation and Analysis of Aerodynamic Drag on a Subsonic Train in Evacuated

Tube Transportation (Zhang, 2011)
 Aerodynamic Simulation of Evacuated Tube Maglev Trains with Different Streamlined
Designs (Chen et al, 2012)
Other Sources
 The alleviation of the aerodynamic drag and wave eﬀects of high-speed trains in very long
tunnels (Baron et al, 2000)
 A study on numerical simulation of Aerodynamics for the maglev train (Wu et al, 2004)
 Numerical Simulation of Air Flow Properties around High Speed Train in Very Long Tunnel
(Zhu et al, 2011)
 Evacuated tube transport technologies (ET3): A maximum value global transportation network
for passengers and cargo (Oster et al, 2011)
 Aerodynamic of the trains in tunnels (Faramehr, 2014)
Steven Goddard 9
10038749
4.2 Major Work
The major work for this study is the original open source paper by Musk (2013) who first proposed the
Hyperloop concept.
Hyperloop Alpha - (Musk, 2013)
The paper is split into an overview section and a more detailed technical section. It briefly describes
the idea for a 28 passenger per pod concept with a low pressure (100 Pa) tube constructed of steel
before moving into a more detailed and technical description.
The paper is divided into subsystem sections and describes the capsule details including the basic
geometry, expected aerodynamic drag (approximately 320 N), power requirements, operating
pressure, the trade-off between a hard vacuum and low pressure solution, speed and some of the
aerodynamic challenges to be addressed such as managing the formation of shock waves when the
pod approached sonic speed.
The paper then describes the front facing compressor system with a detailed schematic based around
an outlet nozzle and air bearings which includes the bypass airflow split and inlet/outlet quantities, the
paper does not however give any geometrical detail for these components.
Further sections touch on the specifics of the air bearing system, linear propulsion, tube structure and
route optimisations which is not directly relevant to this investigation.
Musk’s paper is a good start and has paved the way for future research and considerations but it
lacks some critical details which has resulted in many required assumptions throughout this
investigation. These assumptions (described in Section 6.3) have been backed-up where possible by
some of the secondary works mentioned below. Musk has also neglected to include details of
commercially available components such as compressors or air bearings which can cope with the
highly demanding application, however this may be due to the need for a tailored and currently non-
existent solution to this specific problem.
This investigation will be based on Musk’s original plans as far as possible whilst using updated and
more recent literature to validate some of the assumptions or changes made.
4.3 Secondary Works
The secondary academic and technical literature that spawned directly from Musk’s open source
approach in 2013 resulted in some interesting and more detailed conclusions concerning many of the
systems and overall geometry of the pod and tube.
Open-Source Conceptual Sizing Models for the Hyperloop Passenger Pod - (Chin et al, 2015)
This paper is a credible piece of work and directly relates to the Hyperloop. The work is focused on
the aerodynamic and thermodynamic interactions between the pod and tube and investigates the
whole system with a coupled approach. The most relevant section of this study is the compressor
sizing (based on aircraft sizing methods and turbine engine cycle analysis). This section considers the
airflow around the pod with relation to blockage factors and the Kantrowitz limit.
Steven Goddard 10
10038749
To begin the paper suggests the use of cylindrical type geometry to increase structural strength of the
internal pressure vessel and decrease aerodynamic drag, this is opposed to the non-circular
geometry shown in some of the original concept artwork. Starting from the geometry given in Musk’s
proposal taken as cross sectional areas the authors analyse the correlation between the bypass air
and pod Mach number. They conclude that a Mach number of less than 0.65 at the compressor
entrance is required for reasonable compressor efficiency, to do this a diffuser must be added before
the compressor to reduce the air velocity. With a diffuser considered, a relationship between Pod
Mach Number and Tube Diameter is given for three ‘secondary’ blockage factors that represents the
space taken up by the pod outer structure (Figure 8). This relationship shows that the tube diameter
will need to be approximately twice that of the original proposal for the pod to reach Mach 0.8.
Figure 8 - Relationship of pod speed and tube diameter, for 3 blockage factors. (Chin et al, 2015)
Concluding remarks of the paper show the tube/pod size relationship to be the more significant
interdisciplinary coupling, they also conclude that the Hyperloop idea is feasible but state the original
proposal may have been overly optimistic.
This paper is one of the first open-source technical studies into the Hyperloop concept and reveals
some overlooked issues with the original proposal and propose methods to go forward. Papers like
this are important as they begin to reveal more intricacies about the Hyperloop once individual
systems are studied in further detail both explicitly and in a coupled manner.
HTT – Official Crowd Storm Documentation (Ahlborn, 2014)
This document (released in December 2014) details the progress, key opinions and ideas from a
number of contributors of HTT since Musk’s original paper. The document evaluates the current ideas
and provides a direction of where HTT is going in the future and the questions that still require
answers. The document covers a wide range of ideas such as tube construction, national route
optimization and cabin layouts. The sections relevant to this investigation are discussed below.
As described in Section 3.4.2, HTT is a commercial company with crowd sourced volunteers working
in return for share options, the company also has a partnership with the University of California.
Steven Goddard 11
10038749
The key areas in the paper are a review of the ANSYS aerodynamic study (which is covered briefly
further below), HTT produce their own geometry for a similar study based on the recommendations of
ANSYS. The HTT model includes air bearings skis, a cylindrical body and a shallow nozzle position
as shown in Figure 9. The simulations were run with a tube pressure of 100 Pa, air density of 0.00116
kg/m3 and capsule speed of 340m/s with the compressor air split 40/60 between nozzle and air
bearings.
Figure 9 - HTT Hyperloop Model (Ahlborn, 2014)
They conclude that the pod should have a more circular cross section (which agrees with the
suggestions of Chin et al (2015)) or even a tapered design within the limits of passenger comfort.
They describe that the air bearings strongly disturbs the airflow around the capsule and also suggest
significant improvements to pod aerodynamics by lifting the tail. This final claim about tail position will
be analysed during this investigation.
Several contour plots are produced which describe the pod velocity and Mach numbers, an example
is shown in Figure 10. This figure shows supersonic flow beginning just half way across the pod and
at the compressor inlet, this suggests 340m/s at this specific tube/pod ratio is too fast.
Figure 10 - Mach Number of the HTT Study (Red indicates >Mach 1) (Ahlborn, 2014)
An Investigation into the levitation method concludes that the air bearings would be the best solution
based on initial cost, however a maglev or even wheeled design could prove more practical when
considering the 1mm clearance gap of the proposed air bearing design.
HTT are also investigating the idea of using steam as opposed to air as the tube fluid.
This document gives a good indication as to the work HTT are doing but its sources and specific
technical detail is lacking, therefore even though the conclusions of HTT seem convincing they shall
be considered with some caution unless backed up by further sources.
Steven Goddard 12
10038749
What Wil It Take to Realise the Hyperloop Dream, ANSYS Blog – (Sovani, 2015)
Dr Sovani has a PHD in Mechanical Engineering and is Director for the Global Automotive Industry at
ANSYS. His article on a preliminary Hyperloop aerodynamic study provides further information to a
similar article he wrote in 2013 (Sovani, 2013).
Figure 11 - ANSYS Hyperloop Study - Velocity Contours (Sovani, 2013)
From the articles it’s clear the geometry from the original proposal is being used with detailed air
bearing structures, the model also has a high blockage ratio similar to the original proposal.
Figure 11 shows the velocity contours along the pod with the supersonic flow around the sides and
top of the pod and also in the wake, this provides further confidence in the conclusions of Chin et al.
Apart from a video and post processing screenshots, little detailed technical information is provided in
the blog post but Sovani’s conclusion are clear:
 “Air bearings are the most difficult part of the Hyperloop”

 “Compressibility effects of the exhaust air and external air flowing over the bearings and the
interaction of the two will potentially form complex shock structures making operation highly
unstable”
 “Uneven stress markings alongside the body of the pod with a lot of shear stress areas”
 “Pod should be cylindrical with a large compressor at the front”
Overall Sovani doubts air bearings are the best solution but states that the overall Hyperloop concept
is feasible with some tweaks.
Hyperloop Cheetah - (McFarlane, 2014)
Hyperloop Cheetah is the work of Richard Macfarlane and the details of his work are located on his
website www.hyperloopdesign.net. The work appears linked to the HTT document through the use of
similar images, although Macfarlane states that the work is now a solo effort.
The general conclusion of Macfarlane is in favour of a wheel based levitation solution with no
compressor or nozzle. He states that the Kantrowitz limit shall be overcome by the thrust produced by
Steven Goddard 13
10038749
the wheels. The website goes into detail opposing air bearings listing reasons such as: prohibitively
large compressor requirements, previously failed air-cushion trains, shockwave issues with the exiting
airflow from the air bearings and extreme tube surface finish requirements to cope with the minimal
clearance gap. Maglev is also stated as a mature technology that has been cost prohibitive for years.
Macfarlane has completed a fair amount of work towards the Hyperloop concept, however there
seems to be a large bias towards a wheeled design, this has caused more modern potential
alternatives to be written-off without the possibility of future study. The use of thrust from the wheel as
opposed to the compressor airflow bypass idea also differs greatly from the original proposal and
reintroduces the issue of rolling friction.
4.4 Tertiary Works
Tertiary works are defined here as articles, papers and documents that are relevant to the study but
have no direct link to the Hyperloop concept.
Numerical Simulation and Analysis of Aerodynamic Drag on a Subsonic Train in Evacuated Tube
Transportation – (Zhang, 2011)
This paper presents a numerical simulation of the ETT concept and is used as a validation case
during this investigation due to the setup detail, range of results given and its similarity (See Section
7.1).
The paper looks at a simplified pod body (with no compressor or nozzle) with a semi-circular frontal
area of 7.035 m2 and flat rear end. Drag force results are given for tube pressures of 1-10000 Pa and
from 50 – 300 m/s pod velocity.
The paper concludes that the tube diameter should be between 2 m and 4 m with the air pressure
between 1 and 1000 Pa which also agrees with the original proposal by Musk.
More usefully this paper provides flow domain geometry details and main Fluent solver settings such
as the use of the k-ε turbulence model which can enable the study to be recreated and validated over
a range of meshes and then modified to suit the Hyperloop problems. The study is also assuming 2D
steady, incompressible flow with the flow domain extending 2 lengths in front of the body and 2
lengths behind.
Aerodynamic Simulation of Evacuated Tube Maglev Trains with Different Streamlined Designs –
(Chen et al, 2012)
This paper investigates the use of a variety of head and tail shapes along with different vacuum
pressures and blockage ratios. The main conclusions of the work are that the head shape does not
seem to have a large effect on drag. However at 1000 Pa, for the tail, a blunt shaped end provided
less aerodynamic drag at low blockage ratios with the semi-circular tail shape performing better as the
blockage ratio increased past 0.25.
Again with this study the relevance is more to do with the geometry used and the case setup. The
paper specifies a 2D steady state, incompressible flow with a speed of 300m/s at 1000 Pa using the
k-ε turbulence model. The flow domain extends 1 length in front of the body and 2 lengths behind.
Steven Goddard 14
10038749
4.5 Other Sources
Other sources that were considered include some media reports, artistic renders of the Hyperloop pod
and more distantly related studies particularly those on high speed trains in tunnels.
Baron et al (2000) looks at the alleviation of aerodynamic drag on high speed trains in very long
tunnels, he concludes that partial vacuum would be the most viable solution. Wu et al (2004) has
conducted a numerical simulation of aerodynamics for a maglev trains, in this study the k-ε turbulence
model is considered the most effective approach, this agrees with most other papers that have been
reviewed. Zhu et al (2011) also look at air flow properties around high speed trains in very long
tunnels with speeds up to 600km/h, the paper looks at trains with conical noses with 30, 45 and 60
degree angles. They conclude that trains travelling through long tunnels generate significant pressure
difference which increases drag. They also discuss flow separation that occurs along the entire rear
body and vortices in the wake flow of which the kinetic energy increases with nose angle and speed.
It is also worth mentioning Darren Oster who is the founder of ET3. The paper (Oster et al, 2011)
describes the engineering and economic case for his concept. Although convincing, broad
comparisons are made with little technical reasoning or data such as “ET3 is less complicated by
several orders of magnitude” and “mechanical failures are virtually eliminated”. The paper does
however site Maglev as one of its key enabling concepts. ET3 also has several other economical and
technically specific papers written by a number of academics such as Zhang and Kumuda suggesting
that a lot of work has gone into refining the concept, particularly at the Southwest Jiatong University
and the Institute of Evacuated Tube Transport at Xijing University, both in China.
Faramehr (2014) a student of train simulation specialist Dr Hassan Hemida conducted unsteady
simulations of the aerodynamics of trains in tunnels. Faramehr uses an SST k-ω turbulence model
which differs from the other reviewed investigations. A 0.0001 second time step is chosen along with
a high resolution second order scheme in ANSYS CFX. He also uses moving walls for the wall
boundaries of the tunnel.
Steven Goddard 15
10038749
5 Aims
The aim of this project is to perform a numerical simulation and analysis of aerodynamic drag for the
Hyperloop concept. The front facing compressor and rear nozzle will be modelled and investigated
along with the flow effects of the rear nozzle at various positions. Flow separation, vortex formation
and time dependant flow features will be discussed to provide insights to optimise the vehicle
geometry for future studies and development.
The project will start by recreating the work of Zhang (2013) with a 2D steady, incompressible,
pressure based flow simulation over a simplified pod body which represents ET3. This model will then
be modified to represent the Hyperloop geometry and boundary conditions. The 2D study will be used
to investigate nozzle position followed by using the best case in a 3D steady and finally 3D unsteady
simulation to fully understand the flow around the Hyperloop Pod.
This simulation and its geometrical and boundary constraints were decided upon using the open-
source information available, theory based calculations and some assumptions. It is hoped this
project can be used as a baseline and validation case for future studies of the Hyperloop concept.
Figure 12 - 3D Artistic Render of the Pod (Upper Nozzle Configuration) and Tube
Steven Goddard 16
10038749
6 Methodology
This investigation involves analysis of the flow around the Hyperloop pod, the potential methods that
can be used include full-scale physical experimentation, analytical solutions and CFD. Full scale
experimentation is difficult and very costly and analytical solutions are limited to their complexity and
usually involved simple 2D laminar flows which are not relevant in this case.
Therefore this investigation makes use of CFD to solve for the full three-dimensional flow domain to
obtain results in a low risk and affordable way.
6.1 Underlying Theory, Relevant Concepts & Equations
6.1.1 Fluid Flow
6.1.1.1 Turbulent Flow
The flow regime of the majority of engineering problems and in particular the case of the Hyperloop
are turbulent. Turbulence occurs when the Reynolds number of the flow is above a critical limit,
these limits have been defined by experimental investigation and differ based on the type of flow.
Turbulent flow is “A chaotic and random state of motion in which the velocity and pressure change
continuously with time within substantial regions of flow” (Versteeg, 2007).
The flow regime of the Hyperloop case can be proven by using the following equation:
𝜌𝑢𝐿
𝑅𝑒 = (6.1)
𝜇
Where ρ, u, L and 𝜇 represent Density, Velocity, Length and Viscosity respectively.
The simulations are run at 180 and 200 m/s, the remaining variables are constant and explained in
further detail below, this results in Reynolds numbers of 210269 and 233633 respectively.
According to White (2011) this flow is fully turbulent with moderate Reynolds Number dependence.
6.1.1.2 Governing Equations
The Navier-Stokes Equations for three dimensional unsteady flow represent the underlying theory of
the work described in this report. These equations can be simplified by removing the time
dependent terms (a steady problem) or removing the viscous effects of the fluid (Euler equations).
Mass Conservation (Continuity Equation)

The concept that mass can neither be created nor destroyed. The following equation is the
unsteady, three dimensional mass conservation equation for compressible flow:
𝜕𝜌 𝜕(𝜌𝑢) 𝜕(𝜌𝑣) 𝜕(𝜌𝑤)

+ + + =0 (6.2)
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑧
Where ρ, t and 𝑢 𝑣, 𝑤 are density, time and velocity in the 𝑥, 𝑦 and 𝑧 directions respectively.
Steven Goddard 17
10038749
Momentum Conservation
The concept (implied by Newton’s second law) that momentum remains constant so long as no
external forces are applied. Similar to the description above, momentum is neither created or
destroyed and is only changed by the action of forces.
This is the X-Momentum equation and is one of 3 similar equations for X, Y and Z coordinates:
𝜕(𝜌𝑢) 𝜕(𝜌𝑢2 ) 𝜕(𝜌𝑢𝑣) 𝜕(𝜌𝑢𝑤) 𝜕𝑝 1 𝜕𝜏𝑥𝑥 𝜕𝜏𝑥𝑦 𝜕𝜏𝑥𝑧

+ + + =− + ( + + ) (6.3)
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑧 𝜕𝑥 𝑅𝑒 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑧
Where 𝑅𝑒 and 𝜏 are the Reynolds Number and shear stress.
Energy Conservation
The concept that energy is neither created nor destroyed, only converted to different forms
(potential, kinetic, etc...) and is represented by the following equation:
𝜕(𝜌𝐸) 𝜕(𝑢𝑗 𝜌𝐸) 𝜕 𝜕𝑇 𝜕(𝑢𝑗 𝑃) 𝜕(𝜏𝑖𝑗 𝑢𝑗 )

+ − (𝑘 )+ + =0 (6.4)
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗
Where E, T, K and P are Total Energy, Temperature, Thermal Conductivity and Pressure respectively.
6.1.1.3 Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) Equations
Due to the random fluctuations of turbulent flow in space and time the RANS equations describe the
flow in a statistical manner. The flow variables are split into mean and fluctuating components which
is known as Reynolds decomposition, these time-averaged quantities are much more efficient to
compute.
The RANS equations simplify the governing equations listed above but add in Reynolds stresses
that need to be calculated.
The two equation realisable k-ε model is used to approximate the Reynolds Stresses in this study,
this model was chosen as the majority of literature reviewed made use of the similar standard k-ε
model, being a two equation model it is also fairly efficient in terms of computational power. The
realisable model was chosen due to its improvement when dealing with adverse pressure gradients,
separation and recirculation. More information on this model can be found in Shih et al (1995).
6.1.1.4 Boundary Layer Flow
Boundary layer flow is important in many cases including aerodynamics and represents a region of
the flow very close to the surface of an object. Molecules of fluid directly adjacent to the surface
have a velocity of 0 m/s, this is known as a no-slip wall. These stationary molecules of fluid act on
the adjacent layers, slowing down the fluid. Generally as one moves away from the surface the flow
eventually speeds up to the free stream velocity unless the flow interacts with other geometry or flow
features. The boundary layer is categorised into 3 layers:
 Wall Layer – Where viscous laminar shear is dominant.

 Outer/Mainstream Layer – Where turbulent shear is dominant.
 Overlap Layer – Where both viscous and turbulent shear are important.
Steven Goddard 18
10038749
Figure 13 – Boundary Layer (NASA, 2015)
Resolving the boundary layer in CFD completely requires an extremely fine mesh very close to the surface. This
is dictated by y+ which is a function of the Reynolds number. However for computational efficiency several near-
wall approximation models have been developed that require a far less demanding y+ and therefore less nodes
in the near wall mesh.
In this simulation standard wall functions will be used with the two equation realisable k-ε model.
6.1.2 Drag Calculation
Drag is a key variable in this investigation and is given by the following equation:
𝐶𝑑 𝜌𝑉 2 𝐴
𝐷= (6.5)
2
Where 𝐶𝑑 , 𝜌, 𝑉 and 𝐴 are Drag Coefficient, density, velocity and area respectively.
The drag force and coefficient are calculated during the solving stage within Fluent and CFD but it is
worth deducing from this equation that drag force is a function of density, velocity and frontal area.
6.1.3 Kantrowitz Limit & Bypass Ratio
The Kantrowitz limit is a description of the maximum bypass ratio that can be permitted without the
flow becoming supersonic. This limit is given by the following equation (Ratnayake, 2010):
1 1 1 1
𝐴𝑏𝑦𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝛾 − 1 2 2𝛾 𝛾−1 2 1 2 𝛾 − 1 1 𝛾−1
=[ ] [ ] [1 + 2
] [1 − ]
𝐴𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 𝛾+1 𝛾+1 𝛾 −1𝑀 2𝛾 𝑀2 (6.6)
Where 𝛾 and M are Specific Heat Capacity and Mach Number respectively.
In the case of a standard train in a tunnel the size of the pod would need to be small relative to the
tube, however with the compressor Musk (2013) has proposed this will overcome the Kantrowitz
limit by bypassing compressed air through the pod, for more information see Kantrowitz (1945).
Steven Goddard 19
10038749
6.2 Software
6.2.1 Computer Aided Design (CAD)
6.2.1.1 CATIA V5
CATIA V5 is a product design and 3D CAD package. It can be used to created detailed CAD parts
and assemblies that can be exported in a variety of neutral formats that are compatible with
ANSYS. This software has been used to create the geometry for the 3D simulation cases which
were exported at STEP format files and imported into ANSYS Workbench.
6.2.1.2 ANSYS Design Modeller
ANSYS Design Modeller is another CAD package that was used to create the 2D fluid domains. It
provides a simple but capable set of tools to make a wide range of geometries and is integrated in
ANSYS Workbench.
6.2.2 CFD Meshing, Pre-Processing, Solver and Post-Processing Tools
6.2.2.1 ANSYS Workbench
ANSYS Workbench provides an interactive schematic view and management environment for the
project. Analysis components such as geometry creation, meshing, pre-processing, solver and post
processing can be arranged systematically and methodically to create multiple simulation versions
with varying parameters in one file. Workbench also allows for comparison of results and
optimization by use of parametric controls.
6.2.2.2 ANSYS Meshing
ANSYS Meshing was used to discretise the CAD models for use in Fluent. The software provides
simple to use, automatic meshing tools along with the ability to define much more detailed meshing
constraints where required such as edge, face and body sizing, inflation layers and meshing
methods.
6.2.2.3 Fluent
Fluent is also part of the ANSYS suite and was used for all simulations. This software allows the
setting of all fluid flow properties and the application of mathematical models with some of the most
widely used turbulence models and wall functions built into the software. Fluent is where boundary
conditions and solver preferences for the problem are set. The Fluent solver is very trusted, verified
and stable for CFD problems within industry and academia.
6.3 Geometry/System Constraints and Assumptions
This project will be based on the descriptions given by Musk (2013) in his original Hyperloop concept.
However some geometrical and system changes have been made based on subsequent research
and work produced since, these will be explained and reasoned below. Case specific changes will be
explained further in Section 7.
Steven Goddard 20
10038749
6.3.1 Pod and Tube
As there is currently no preferred geometry and design for the Hyperloop, the pod shape and
geometry is influenced by Musk (2013) and recommendations of subsequent studies. The tube
geometry is also discussed in this section due to the coupled nature of the pod and tube
parameters.
As per the recommendations of Chin et al (2015), for the pod dimensions given in Musk (2013), the
tube diameter must be increased based on a function of pod Mach number and blockage factor. The
blockage factor shown in Figure 8 represents the ratio of ADiffused and APod as shown in Figure 14.
For a compromise between pod speed and practical tube diameter a 4m diameter tube will be used
with a 0.9 blockage factor (ADiffused/Apod) allowing a pod Mach number of 0.82 (according to Chin,
2015) which represents a freestream velocity of 281.26 m/s.
Figure 14 - Pod with diffuser to restrict flow Mach number into the compressor (Chin et al, 2015)
On further investigation, for the 2D simulations 281.26 m/s can be reached providing a nozzle
diameter of 0.8m is used and 23% of the total air flow is directed through the compressor system.
This ensures both the nozzle and the bypassing air around the pod do not reach Mach 1, the
compressor with a larger diameter than the nozzle will naturally have a slower flow velocity than the
nozzle. However, to overcome convergence issues which may have been caused by the formation
of local shockwaves at the nacelle tips, the freestream flow velocity has subsequently been reduced
to 200 m/s for the 2D studies and 180 m/s for the 3D studies. The series of 2D simulations have
used the same velocity meaning that a useful comparison of the drag force can still be made.
The tube pressure will be defined as 100 Pa with a freestream temperature of 300 K.
Chin also describes that in order to achieve a reasonable compressor efficiency a diffuser is
required at the compressor entrance to reduce the Mach number of the flow whilst not restricting the
overall pod Mach number. A diffuser will be modelled from dimensions scaled from Chin (2015).
Sovani (2015) and Ahlborn (2014) also conclude that the pod should be of circular cross section as
opposed to original artistic renders. Sovani also recommends the pod to be as symmetrical as
possible and for the front opening to resemble an aircraft jet engine for improved aerodynamics.
Steven Goddard 21
10038749
As per Musk (2013) the pod cross sectional area APod will be 1.4m2 and ADiffused will be 1.26m2
resulting in diameters of 1.335m and 1.266m respectively. To improve mesh quality, radii have been
included at the compressor and pod interface resulting in a compressor diameter of 1.0467m.
The nozzle has a diameter of 0.8m, this was derived based on the mass flow and velocity around
and through the pod and will be discussed later. Further calculations are given in Appendix 2.
Figure 15 - Pod Nozzle Positions
The length of the tube is not defined in literature however Musk specifies 28 passengers per pod.
According to Netflights (2016) the average economy seat width in a commercial airliner is 430mm.
Based on these dimensions the Hyperloop can allow two seats per row. Average seat pitch is stated
as 780mm which gives a total passenger compartment length of approximately 11m. In addition to
this, a 3m length to house the multistage axial compressor and a 4m length for the tapered nozzle
area has been assumed. The nozzle length will allow room for other necessary components such as
batteries and life support systems. The total length of the pod is therefore 18m.
In the 2D study the three nozzle positions that are investigated are represented in Figure 15 the best
performing configuration is then used for 3D analysis.
6.3.2 Levitation System
Levitation choice for the Hyperloop system is a debatable topic. The most common systems being
considered are MagLev and Air Bearings which both have their advantages and disadvantages.
Musk’s original paper (Musk, 2013) suggests the use of an air bearing system supplied using a
portion of the bypassed compressed air. HTT (Ahlborn, 2014) also consider air bearings as a low
cost option. However Sovani (2015) concludes that air bearings are “the most difficult part of the
Hyperloop”. The flow speed of the air supply for the air bearings will also be a function of pod speed
and therefore wheels are needed to support the pod until it reaches a high enough speed unless
compressed air is used. McFarlane (2015) discounts air bearings and proposes a wheeled
alternative, he suggests air bearings are unfeasible due to unachievable high air flow with the
potential to cause choking flow and also the minimal clearances between bearing and tube. Two
Steven Goddard 22
10038749
major companies involved in the Hyperloop: Hyperloop Technologies and ET3, use MagLev as their
levitation system.
This study assumes a maglev system but does not include any protruding geometry or fairings in the
model in order to reduce complexity. Magnetic drag is also assumed to be negligible.
The gap between the floor and the pod is defined as 20mm to represent the hover height of an Arx
Pax hover engine (ArxPax, 2015). Arx Pax are a commercial company and have been closely
involved in the recent Hyperloop Pod design competition due to take place in California in August
2016. They have produced a scaled hover engine that is being used by some teams in the
competition and have also designed full scale models for eventual use on the Hyperloop and other
concepts and designs.
6.3.3 Compressor
The axial compressor is situated at the front of the pod. This system allows the pod to travel through
the tube without choking air flow between the pod and tube walls, overcoming the Kantrowitz limit
(See Section 6.1.3). If the flow were to choke around the pod, air would accumulate at the front of
the vehicle requiring a much higher forward force. The internals of the compressor system are not
modelled but due to the exclusion of air bearings 100% of the air entering the compressor will be
discharged at the rear nozzle.
The compressor is represented as a pressure_outlet boundary in the simulation.
The total mass flow rate of the tube can be calculated using the following equation:
𝑚̇ = 𝜌𝐴𝑢 (6.7)
Where 𝜌, 𝐴 and 𝑢 are density, tube area and velocity respectively.
With a pressure of 100 Pa, temperature of 300 K and assuming the air is an ideal gas, 𝜌 can be
calculated as 1.16144e-3 kg/m3. The total and component specific mass flow rates differ for the 2D
and 3D case and are discussed further in Sections 7.3 and 7.4 respectively.
6.3.4 Nozzle
The nozzle is situated at the rear of the pod. It discharges a portion of the compressed air producing
a small amount of thrust used to help overcome small amounts of aerodynamic drag from the
remaining air passing over the pod.
The diameter of the nozzle as explained in section 6.3.1 is 0.8 m. Due to the assumed use of
ArxPax hover engines 100% of the mass flow at the compressor outlet will be present at the Nozzle
Inlet.
Steven Goddard 23
10038749
6.3.5 Summary
To summarise, the following general parameters form the basis of the simulation cases:
Table 1 – General Parameter Summary
DTube 4m DNozzle 0.8 m LComp 3m ρ 1.16144e-3 kg/m3 VPod 200 m/s
180 m/s
APod 1.4 m2 ADiffused 1.26 m2 LNozzle 4m PTube 100 Pa T 300 K
DPod 1.335 m DDiffused 1.266 m LTotal 18 m
6.4 Simulation
6.4.1 General Information
6.4.1.1 CFD Code and Computing Platform
All simulations were solved in ANSYS Fluent using an Intel Core i7-4790K 4.00 GHz CPU with
16GB 2400 MHz RAM.
6.4.1.2 Problem Schematic
All cases (apart from the initial Zhang study) consist of the elements shown in Figure 16.
Figure 16 - Hyperloop Simulation Schematic
6.4.1.3 Boundary Conditions
Descriptions of each boundary condition, further details of applied parameters and assumptions are
case specific and are discussed in more detail in Section 7.
6.4.1.4 Fluid Properties, Modelling and Solver Options
Air was used in this simulation with the following properties:

Table 2 – Properties of Air
Density Ideal Gas Viscosity 1.7894e-5 kg/ms
Specific Heat Ratio 1006.43 j/kgK Molecular Weight 28.966 kg/kgmol
Thermal Conductivity 0.0242 w/mk
The two equation realisable k-ε turbulence model was used based on findings of the literature study.
The model has the advantages of being a widely used and validated model with benefits for
resolving confined flows and a good reputation for resolving adverse pressure gradients, separation
and recirculation. Standard wall functions were also selected in Fluent to approximate the near wall
flow.
Steven Goddard 24
10038749
An implicit density based solver and the energy equation was used due to the flow Mach number
being higher than 0.3. This means that compressibility effects can have a noticeable impact on the
overall flow resulting in an interdependence between density, momentum and energy.
Second-Order Upwind interpolation schemes were used for increased accuracy along with Least-
Squares Cell-Based gradient as recommended by ANSYS.
When solving, the standard scaled residuals were monitored along with body drag and a point
measuring velocity in the wake region. The solution was considered converged when the residuals
were below 1e-5 or the drag and velocity monitors remained constant to 0.0001 accuracy.
6.4.2 Mesh Design
The mesh is unstructured and quad-dominant and is constructed using bounding box sizing, inflation
and face/edge sizing methods. No inflations layers were applied to the tube walls as these were
specified as moving and would not create a significant viscous flow layer that required resolving.
Wall functions are used to estimate the flow conditions very close to the wall allowing relaxation of
the Y+ requirements which are between 11 and 300. Y+ is a dimensionless measurement relating to
the first cell height from the pod body and needs to be specified correctly in order to resolve the
boundary layer sufficiently.
To understand that the mesh was of sufficient quality, ‘Element Quality’, ‘Skewness’ and ‘Orthogonal
Quality’ mesh metrics were some of the criteria examined during mesh creation.
Figure 17 - Mesh Metric Example (2D Lower Nozzle Position)
For each mesh the criteria of Table 3 was used as a guide and the vast majority of elements
satisfied this. However during mesh creation there were a negligible amount of elements that scored
Steven Goddard 25
10038749
beyond these limits. Their position and relevance within the mesh was considered before continuing.
An example of mesh quality is shown in Figure 17.
Table 3 – Mesh Quality Criteria

Mesh Metric Acceptance Criteria
Skewness 0 – 0.5 (Considered Excellent)
Orthogonal Quality 0.95-1.00 (Considered Excellent)
Element Quality >0.3
6.4.1 Verification
ANSYS Fluent is a very well known, robust and trusted piece of software, furthermore the standard
models used within this investigation are considered highly verified for a variety of flow types.
Results and discussion of iterative, spatial and temporal convergence are given in Section 7.
6.4.2 Validation
Validation during this investigation was difficult due to the lack of experimental data or previous
available work on the topic, however some relatively similar research has been produced and
discussed in Section 0.
The validation approach to this investigation involves recreating the work of Zhang (2013) and
gradually building on this case using techniques learned and settings proposed by Zhang and
various other sources.
6.4.3 Identified Sources of Error and Uncertainty
Due to the nature of this investigation combined with the discrete methods used, various sources of
error and uncertainty present themselves. Some of these are listed below along with measures
taken to limit their impact:
Table 4 – Errors and Uncertainty
Sources of Error Sources of Uncertainty

Round-Off Error – Reduced by using double precision. Inaccuracies due to limited information – Reduced through use
Iterative Convergence – Various convergence criteria were of previous research and best practice guidelines.
monitored to ensure an acceptable accuracy. Geometry Approximation – Based on previous research, length
Discretisation Errors – Risk reduced through mesh justified based on typical aircraft dimensions.
independence study.
Boundary Conditions / Limitations of the Turbulence Model
Coding Errors – Reduced by using a reputable code.
Simplifications of the flow (2D/Steady)
Human Error
Result Interpretation
Steven Goddard 26
10038749
7 Numerical Studies
This section describes the series of numerical studies that were performed. Identifying case specific
setup parameters, mesh independency, convergence and in for the Zhang and 2D case, results are
also discussed to inform subsequent cases. A summary of all the numerical studies described in this
section are given below:
 Zhang Validation Case (Based on Zhang, 2013)

 Preliminary 2D Hyperloop Case
 2D Steady Hyperloop Case
 3D Steady Hyperloop Case
 3D Unsteady Hyperloop Case
7.1 Zhang Validation Case
As far as the author is aware there are no experimental or peer reviewed numerical results for the
Hyperloop in the public domain. Therefore a 2D case was set up to replicate the results of Zhang
(2013). The purpose of this validation exercise was to enable the investigation to start from a proven
and published set of results. From here the geometry and boundary conditions were modified to suit
the proposed Hyperloop case. This paper was chosen as it deals with a simple but similar geometry
to the Hyperloop case which will be studied. It also provides results in the pressure and velocity range
that this investigation is going to focus on.
7.1.1 Case Setup
As shown in Figure 18, this case features a 200m by 5m flow domain representing the tube with a
40m by 3m ETT Train body with a semi-circular front positioned symmetrically on the tube axis.
Figure 18 - Validation Case Schematic
The case was based on the solver settings provided in Zhang’s paper. A full description of the case
setup can be found in Appendix 1. Not all settings were explicitly stated in the paper and hence
some assumptions have been made. These assumptions are show in Table 5 and described below:
Table 5- Assumptions of the Zhang Validation Case
Operating Pressure 101.325 Pa
Body Wall Roughness Height/ Constant 0, 0.5
Inlet Turbulence Turbulent Intensity = 1%
Turbulent Viscosity Ratio = 10
Pressure Outlet Gauge Pressure = 0
Backflow Turbulent Intensity = 5%
Backflow Turbulent Viscosity Ratio = 10
Top (Wall) Moving Wall, 300m/s in X direction.
Roughness Height/Constant 0, 0.5
Solver Spatial Discretization All Second Order.
100 iterations at first order if not converging.
Steven Goddard 27
10038749
The turbulence properties at the inlet/outlet were chosen based on the recommendations of Lanfrit
(2005). The inlet intensity of 1% represents a flow that has not yet been disturbed by the train, the
5% intensity at the outlet represents a more disturbed flow which the train has passed through.
Initial conditions were determined using the Fluent Hybrid initialisation tool.
Grid design in the paper was achieved using Gambit (specialised meshing software) and no further
details were given. This software was not available during this investigation and so a grid was
constructed based on the authors best knowledge and experience along with following best practise
guidelines from Lanfrit (2005) and ERCOFTAC (Casey et al, 2000).
Figure 19 and Figure 20 show the main features of the grid at the front and rear of the ETT train.
Inflation layers run along the top of the tube and around the train surface. There is also body of
influence element sizing starting coarse at the inlet and outlet and with a finer mesh nearer to the
body, the resolution of the wake region has also been increased.
Figure 19 - Grid for Zhang Validation Case (Front)
Figure 20 - Mesh for Zhang Validation Case (Rear)
7.1.2 Mesh Independency, Convergence and Results
Mesh independency was determined by running five different incrementally finer grids at each
velocity step given in the paper. Mesh independence was considered acceptable from the 218151
element mesh (See Figure 21). Further refinement yielded little difference in results at 300 m/s.
Convergence of the solution was determined by all residual parameters reaching 1E-5. Additionally
a drag monitor and point in the wake measuring velocity was set up. These values all converged to
at least 1E-4 before the residuals reached the designated convergence criteria.
Steven Goddard 28
10038749
Figure 21 - Mesh Independence Study
With Zhang’s study adequately replicated the geometry and boundary conditions were modified for
the proposed Hyperloop case. Pre-processor settings for the 2D Hyperloop simulation remained
similar to the Zhang study with minor adjustments to suit.
7.2 Preliminary 2D Hyperloop Case
The first test case was a simulation with the new Hyperloop geometry. The flow speed was at 0.82
Mach and for this case the nozzle inlet and compressor outlet were set as stationary walls. As shown
in Figure 22 with no compressor the flow easily reaches supersonic velocities around the pod as
expected. This case also provided a way to check the far field flow domain boundaries and the
general case setup before adding the complexities of the compressor and nozzle.
Figure 22 - 2D Case - Preliminary Run - Velocity Contours
Steven Goddard 29
10038749
7.3 2D Steady Hyperloop Case
The 2D Hyperloop case investigates the aerodynamic performance of the pod when changing the
position of the rear nozzle, Figure 15 shows the lower, central and upper nozzle configurations that
have been simulated.
7.3.1 Boundary Conditions
The parameters and assumptions for each boundary condition are explained below. Temperature
parameters were specified as 300 K for all relevant boundary conditions.
Inlet
The main flow inlet is modelled as a ‘Pressure Far-Field’ with a 100 Pa gauge pressure and 0.5877
Mach number representing 200 m/s. The turbulence specification was based on an intensity of 1%
and turbulent viscosity ratio of 10 to represent flow that was largely undisturbed in accordance with
the recommendations of Lanfrit (2005).
Outlet
The main flow outlet is modelled as a ‘pressure_outlet’ with a 100 Pa gauge pressure. The
turbulence specification was based on a backflow intensity of 5% and a backflow viscosity ratio of 10
to represent the wake flow which is more disturbed from the traversing pod in accordance with the
recommendations of Lanfrit (2005).
Outlet-Comp
For a density based solver it was necessary to specify the compressor outlet as a ‘pressure_outlet’.
The gauge pressure was specified as Total Pressure using the following equation:
1 7.1
𝑃𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝑃𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 + 𝑃𝐷𝑦𝑛𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑐 = 𝑃𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 + 𝜌𝑢2
2
This results in a pressure of 117.946 Pa.
A target mass flow rate of 0.2137 kg/s is also specified based on 23% of the 2D flow entering the
compressor. This represents an approximately equal flow speed between the nozzle/compressor
and the bypass. For further details see Appendix 2.
Turbulence properties were based on a backflow intensity of 1% and a backflow viscosity ratio of 10.
Inlet-Nozzle
The nozzle inlet is modelled as a ‘Pressure_inlet’. The gauge pressure was set as 130.72 Pa and
was calculated in the same way as the compressor outlet. A supersonic/initial gauge pressure was
specified as 100 Pa and turbulence properties were based on a 5% turbulent intensity and turbulent
viscosity of 10.
Top/Bottom Wall
The top and bottom wall are identical and are both modelled as 200m/s moving ‘wall’ boundaries.
Body
The pod body surface is modelled as a simple no slip ‘wall’.
Steven Goddard 30
10038749
7.3.2 Mesh
7.3.2.1 Design
Mesh design was conducted in accordance with Section 6.4.2. Figure 23 gives an example of the
2D Hyperloop mesh illustrating some of the bounding boxes and inflation layers used.
Figure 23 - 2D Hyperloop Grid (From Top: Far-Field (Front), Compressor Outlet, Rear Nozzle)
In order to improve mesh quality, radii were included at the compressor inlet face, this resulted in a
decrease in skewed elements in these corners. Also a very fine mesh was applied in the proximity of
the nozzle inlet due to issues with unnaturally high velocities at random regions along the nozzle
edge, this mesh improvement resolved this issue.
7.3.2.1 Mesh Independence Study
Mesh independence was ensured by comparing 5 systematically coarser meshes (10% increase in
element size) for the three different nozzle cases resulting in a total of 15 simulations.
Table 6 - 2D Hyperloop Mesh Densities and Deviation
Drag Net Mass

Drag Net Mass
Nozzle Coefficient Flow
Mesh Elements Coefficient Flow
Positon Standard Standard
Range Range
Deviation Deviation
Upper 224451 194997 172077 152861 138024 1.16E-3 4.87E-4 1.16E-3 1.61E-4
Central 212665 184310 162752 149652 130798 1.74E-3 7.57E-4 1.74E-3 2.73E-4
Lower 200250 174903 156259 141473 128953 5.12E-4 5.37E-4 5.12E-4 1.99E-4
Steven Goddard 31
10038749
The results of the 5 different meshes for each nozzle position are shown in Table 6. These results
show that the meshes used ranged from 1.16E-3 and 5.12E-4 in terms of Drag Coefficient deviation
and 4.87E-4 to 7.57E-4 for Net Mass Flow deviation. This accuracy was considered an adequate
balance between mesh size and computation time, it was concluded that further mesh refinement
would not significantly improve accuracy.
7.3.3 Convergence
Convergence of the solution for each mesh was very similar. An example of the scaled residual and
drag coefficient convergence can be seen in Figure 24. The convergence for all scaled residuals did
not reach 1e-5, particularly energy and continuity which ended at approximately 5e-3 and 3e-3
respectively. However the convergence of these variables tend to become constant suggesting
steady equal changes between each iteration. This behaviour can often be taken as an indication of
convergence.
To further clarify adequate convergence a drag monitor was setup along with an area weighted
average velocity surface point in the wake flow region. These monitors became the primary measures
of convergence. Both the drag and velocity point became very steady at around the 5000th iteration,
the solution then was left running to 8500 iterations which allowed the y-velocity, epsilon and k scaled
residuals to drop below 1e-5.
Figure 24- 2D Hyperloop Convergence Example (Scaled Residuals)
Figure 25- 2D Hyperloop Convergence Example (Drag Coefficient)
Steven Goddard 32
10038749
7.3.4 Results
Figure 26 shows the comparison of drag force results from the fifteen 2D simulation cases. The
results for the upper nozzle disagree with the suggestions of (Alhborn, 2015) of lifting the tail position
to improve aerodynamics. In fact the upper nozzle position is shown to increase the total drag
coefficient by 0.1.
Figure 26 – 2D Hyperloop Total Drag Coefficient Comparison
On further analysis whilst the viscous drag coefficient of all nozzle positions is reasonably similar
(0.29±0.015) the pressure drag coefficient is larger (+0.1 to +0.13) than the other results (Figure 27).
When comparing the velocity contour and vector plots of the three configurations (Figure 28 to Figure
30) it can be seen that the upper nozzle position creates a much larger area of low velocity
recirculating flow below the nozzle when compared to the lower and central nozzle positions, this
could be due to the larger divergence of the underbody flow. The flow in this region shows the largest
recirculation in the divergent section, below the nozzle inlet plane. The flow is also disturbed by the
lower boundary of the nozzle jet and the bottom wall until returning to normal further downstream.
Overall, the high total drag force rules out the choice of an upper nozzle position.
Figure 27 - 2D Hyperloop Drag Component Comparison
The drag coefficients between the lower and central nozzles are close, with the lower nozzle position
being the best performing with a drag coefficient of 0.686. Initially this may seem like the most
Steven Goddard 33
10038749
suitable option however when investigating other flow variables between these two configurations
some interesting observations can first be made.
Figure 28 - 2D Hyperloop Velocity Contours (Upper Nozzle Positions)
The flow velocity on the central nozzle (Figure 29) can be seen to exhibit almost no separation on the
top face of the nozzle due to the more gradual rear slant angle, however a region of recirculation on
the bottom face can be seen which behaves similarly to the upper nozzle position but on a smaller
scale. The lower nozzle (Figure 32) shows a clear area of separation on the top face of the nozzle but
almost no degradation to the flow on the lower face due to the proximity to the tube wall.
Figure 29 - 2D Hyperloop Velocity Contours (Central Nozzle Positions)
Figure 30 - 2D Hyperloop Velocity Contours (Lower Nozzle Positions)
Steven Goddard 34
10038749
The temperature of the flow at the underbody should also be mentioned. With the central nozzle the
temperature reaches 766 K before gradually returning to the freestream temperature through the
divergent section below the nozzle. The lower nozzle (Figure 31) on the other hand reaches
temperatures of 1051 K and rapidly reduces temperature on contact with the nozzle jet. This
temperature issue may be a limitation of the 2D model and may be resolved when running the 3D
simulation which will allow the flow to exit around the sides of the pod, rather than being forced
through the narrow 2D channel.
Figure 31 - 2D Hyperloop - Lower Nozzle Position Temperature
Other features worth noting are:
 High Mach number present on the upper compressor nacelle tip, this appears on all
simulations and is the only small area of the flow that reaches just beyond sonic speed. The
nacelle geometry was scaled using the information given in (Chin, 2015) and it is likely that
these particular areas of the pod will require further detailed analysis and optimization.
Figure 32 - Example of Mach number at Compressor
Overall the lower nozzle position has performed best in terms of drag and although creating very hot
temperature flow at the underbody this is hoped to be resolved in the 3D study. The lower nozzle
configuration is now taken forward for use in the 3D investigation.
Steven Goddard 35
10038749
7.4 3D Steady Hyperloop Case
The 3D Steady Hyperloop case follows on directly from the 2D study and uses the lower nozzle
position model as this was deemed the best configuration in terms of drag coefficient and other
observed flow features. The 3D model aims to more accurately model the Hyperloop system and
reveal more of the aerodynamic phenomena present on the Hyperloop pod.
This section details the case setup. Results and discussion are given separately in Section 8.
7.4.1 Geometry
The geometry used was the lower nozzle position. This CAD model was created using Catia V5 and
imported to ANSYS as a STEP file. In order to ensure the model was efficient in terms of computer
resource use a semi-circular flow domain was created with symmetry down its axis. This
represented one half of the pod/tube.
The parameters and assumptions for each boundary condition are similar to the 2D study (See
Section 7.3.1) however some of the specific numerical values have changed to represent the 3D
cross section, these differences are explained below:
Inlet
A 0.5247 Mach number (180 m/s) is specified on the inlet ‘Pressure far-field’. This is 20 m/s slower
than the 2D model and is specified based on the Mach number estimation calculations to overcome
sonic speed occurring in the bypass region of the tube. See Appendix 2 for details.
Outlet-Comp
The resulting gauge pressure as per Equation 7.1 was set at 119.663 Pa.
A target mass flow rate of 0.919 kg/s is specified based on 7% of the flow entering the compressor.
This represents an estimated and approximately equal flow speed between the nozzle/compressor
and the bypass.
Inlet-Nozzle
The resulting gauge pressure as per Equation 7.1 was set at 157.622 Pa.
Top/Bottom Wall
In the 3D model the top and bottom wall are now the same face/boundary and is modelled as a 180
m/s moving ‘wall’ boundary.
7.4.3 Mesh
7.4.3.1 Design
Mesh design for the 3D model was conducted in a similar way to the 2D mesh and in accordance
with Section 6.4.2 along with some more specific mesh controls. The very first attempt at a mesh
resulted in 72 million elements which was beyond the capabilities of the computing resources
available, therefore it was obvious that mesh refinement would need to be limited to specific areas of
Steven Goddard 36
10038749
interest and predicted areas where flow parameters would be changing rapidly.
Figure 33 - 3D Mesh with Specific Edge Sizing and Aspect Ratio Based Inflation Layers
Figure 34 - 3D Mesh General View
The general mesh, especially the far-field was much coarser than the 2D model. Biased edge sizing
and first aspect ratio inflation was also applied to the pod body which enabled mesh refinement
biased towards model edges rather than expending unnecessary computing power for elements along
the main horizontal pod body.
Figure 35 - 3D Mesh - Specific Edge and Face Sizing with Aspect Ratio Based Inflation Layers
Bounding boxes provided a way to moderate element size in specific regions. The 2D mesh was split
into five regions as shown in Figure 36. Region’s 1-4 were cylindrical about the tube axis and region 5
was cylindrical about the pod axis. A final body of influence was created in very close proximity to the
pod called the body shell and consisted of a 20mm thick layer (Figure 37). When combined with an
inflation mesh control this allowed a very fine layered mesh close to the pod body and on the
underside of the pod.
4
1 2 3
5
Figure 36 - 3D Mesh – Bounding Box Regions
Steven Goddard 37
10038749
Figure 37 - 3D Mesh – Body Shell
The inflation layers around the pod were also sufficiently detailed and resulted in an acceptable y+
of approximately 10.
7.4.3.2 Mesh Independence Study
Mesh Independence was ensured in a similar manner to the 2D study. Five systematically coarser
meshes (10% increase in element size) were compared by looking at drag coefficients and net mass
flow rates. Full drag force results will be discussed in more detail in Section 8.
Table 7 - 2D Hyperloop Mesh Densities and Deviation

Drag Net Mass Drag Coefficient Net Mass Flow
Mesh Elements Coefficient Flow Standard Standard
Variance Variance Deviation Deviation
6084905 5119315 4472108 3937289 3524677 2.82E-2 5.716E-9 1.68E-1 7.56E-5
The variance and standard deviation between all mesh sizes was very low which suggests good
mesh independency. The 5119315 element model was used going forward as this represented an
acceptable accuracy and a reasonable solving time.
7.4.4 Convergence
In order to decrease solver time first order numerical methods were used for the first 3000 iterations
followed by a switch to second order numerical methods for the remainder of the solution. This is
shown in Figure 39 by the spike in the scaled residuals and the sudden drop on drag convergence.
Figure 38- 3D Hyperloop Convergence Example - Scaled Residuals
Overall all variables converged beyond 1e-5 apart from continuity which converged to 1.4e-5 after
6000 iterations. This convergence was considered acceptable and was also backed up by the drag
coefficient convergence of ±1e-4 accuracy and surface point average velocity monitor which
converged to an accuracy of ±1e-5.
Steven Goddard 38
10038749
Figure 39- 3D Hyperloop Convergence Example - Drag Coefficient
7.4.5 Summary
A summary of the case specific parameters are shown below. All other parameters are as per the
general settings given in Section 6.
Table 8 - 3D Steady Case - Summary of Case Specific Parameters
Inlet Mach Number 0.5247 (180m/s)

Outlet_Comp Gauge Pressure 119.663 Pa
Target Mass Flow Rate 0.0919 kg/s
Incoming Flow Percentage 7%
Inlet_Nozzle Gauge Pressure 157.622 Pa
Top/Bottom Wall Type Moving
Speed 180 m/s
Reference Data Area 0.7 m2
Solver Settings First Order 3000 Iterations
Seconds Order 3000 Iterations
The results of the simulation form part the main outcomes of this study and will be discussed
together with the unsteady results in Section 8.
7.5 3D Unsteady Hyperloop Case
Following on from the steady 3D simulations a transient (unsteady) simulation was performed to
investigate time dependent flow features. The basic setup and pre-processing including boundary
conditions were as per Section 7.4.
7.5.1 Geometry
A full 3D CAD model was created for the transient case geometry, this included some minor
adjustments to the bounding boxes.
The parameters and assumptions for each boundary condition are identical to the 3D Steady Case
(See Section 7.4.2) however the target mass flow rate for the Outlet-Comp was set to 0.1834 kg/s to
reflect the increased mass flow for the full 3D geometry.
7.5.3 Mesh
As the unsteady case geometry represented a full model of the pod, the mesh size would double.
This proved problematic due to system memory limitations. Therefore the mesh was coarsened by
Steven Goddard 39
10038749
20% to improve memory usage, this also decreased solving time. The main body and rear nozzle
faces (identified in Figure 40) were also coarsened separately for more efficient solving.
Figure 40 - 3D Mesh General View
7.5.4 Temporal Settings
In order to set up the transient analysis a suitable time step was needed. To calculate this the
Strouhal Number was determined. The Strouhal Number is a dimensionless quantity that gives a
measure of oscillating flow mechanisms and is usually described by the following equation:
𝑓𝑠 𝐿
𝑆𝑟 = 7.2
𝑈∞
Where fs, L and 𝑈∞ represent shedding frequency, characteristic length (in this case the pod
diameter) and freestream velocity respectively.
To actually determine the Strouhal Number Figure 41 can be used and if the Reynolds number is
between 250 < 𝑅𝑒𝐷 < 2 × 105 the empirical formula given in equation 7.3 can be used.
Figure 41 – Strouhal Number vs Reynolds Number (Belvin, 1990)
19.7
𝑆𝑟 = 0.198 (1 − ) 7.3
𝑅𝑒𝐷
With a Reynolds number of 210269 this is just beyond the limits for the empirical equation, however
when looking at the range identified in Figure 41 the Strouhal Number should be between 0.18 and
0.25 giving an average of 0.215 which will be used for the simulation.
Rearranging equation 7.2 the shedding frequency can be found:
𝑆𝑟 𝑈∞ 0.215 × 180
𝑓𝑠 = = = 27.64 𝐻𝑧 7.2
𝐿 1.4
According to Lanfrit (2005) each cycle should be resolved by at least 30 time steps which results in
829 time steps per second. Lanfrit (2005) also suggests that for meaningful results a periodic
behaviour of the flow must appear, this requires at least 10 periods to be calculated. For the
Steven Goddard 40
10038749
frequency of 27.64 Hz the minimum simulation time would therefore be 0.362 seconds resulting in
300 time steps. In order to ensure that periodic behaviour occurs, 12 periods were chosen to be
simulated resulting in a simulation time of 0.434 seconds divided into 360 time steps of 0.001206
seconds. The solver was set to perform 30 iterations per time step.
7.5.5 Convergence
Initially the case was run as steady state in the same manner as the 3D Steady Case. This gave
suitable well converged initial conditions to take forward to the unsteady simulation, see Figure 48 .
When in transient time mode, the Transient Formulation was set to Second Order Implicit and
Courant Number was set to 5. The solver monitored drag and a velocity point in the wake region.
The solver was also set to auto save and export CFX-Post compatible solution data every 10 time
steps. 10 time steps was chosen due to limits on file size for the data files.
Figure 42- 3D Unsteady Hyperloop Convergence Example (Initial Conditions)
Figure 43- 3D Unsteady Hyperloop Convergence Example (360 Time Steps)
Steven Goddard 41
10038749
8 Results & Discussion
In order to investigate the flow effects of the lower nozzle pod configuration, 3D steady and unsteady
simulations were conducted in accordance with Section 7.4 and 7.5. Results and observations from
these simulations are described in the following section.
Upon analysing the results the following parameters were of primary interest:
 Drag Coefficient / Drag Force
 Velocity/Mach Number
 Temperature
 Total Pressure
 Unsteady Flow Features
Full simulation case files, solution data, convergence charts and relevant images can be found in
Appendix 4.
8.1 3D Steady Case Analysis
The 5119315 element mesh case is used for the results analysis unless otherwise stated.
The first area of interest is the front facing axial compressor region. When focusing on the pod
symmetry plane shown in Figure 44 this reveals that the flow velocity along the centreline of the pod
increases to around 200 m/s as it approaches the most constricted region of the duct, faster areas of
the flow also appear around the nacelle tip. As the duct area increases the flow velocity slows to
around 160 m/s and then increases back up to around 220 m/s on the centre line when it approaches
the compressor outlet. This supports the beneficial use of having the divergent nozzle section as
suggested by Chin (2015) to slow the flow down before the compressor entrance.
Figure 44 - Compressor Region Velocity Contour Plot
Slow moving flow develops around the inner walls of the nacelle reaching up to the compressor face,
the low speed flow is more prominent on the bottom of the nacelle. The higher flow velocity on the
upper nacelle face is likely caused by the higher speed flow stream that originates from the upper
nacelle tip. Minor viscous effects of the lower tube wall will also cause the freestream flow velocity to
Steven Goddard 42
10038749
slow down. The high velocity of the upper flow stream has a further reach than the lower stream with
the lower and upper reaching maximum velocities of 265 m/s and 250 m/s respectively (Figure 45).
The nacelle tip also had a similar effect in the 2D study (Figure 32).
Figure 45 - Compressor Nacelle Tips - Velocity Contour Plots (From Left: Upper, Lower)
Figure 46 - Vortex Core Plot Showing Velocity Profile and Vortex Formation around the Nacelle Tip
Another main observation of interest at the compressor region is the turbulent kinetic energy (TKE)
(shown in Figure 47) which is also influenced by the nacelle tip and the edge of the radius where the
compressor outlet begins. Figure 47 is using a scaled legend to resolve some of the lower magnitude
turbulence however the maximum TKE occurs very close to the nacelle tip and reaches 27887 J/kg.
These small areas of increased turbulence can have a detrimental effect on the aerodynamic drag
and cause vortexes in the flow as shown in Figure 46.
The key problem that should be emphasised here is that the geometry of the nacelle (both the angle
and the tip radius) have a clear and potentially undesirable effect on the flow speed. At freestream
velocities closer to Mach 1 the flow speed local to the nacelle tip could likely go supersonic which
could prove problematic for the axial compressor and the overall aerodynamics, pod stability and
structural strength due to unwanted vibration. Careful optimisation of the geometry in this area is
important.
Steven Goddard 43
10038749
Figure 47 - Compressor Region – Turbulent Kinetic Energy Contour Plot
The next area of interest is the underside of the pod. Half way across the diameter of the pod at the
coordinate z = 0m, the channel between the tube wall and the pod is at its minimum of 20mm.
Figure 48 shows the temperature profiles taken from seven longitudinal lines starting at the top of the
pod and spaced as shown in the legend, around the pod centreline on a PCD of 1.42 m.
Figure 48 – Temperature Profiles around the Pod Body (On a Ø1.42 m PCD)
The data reveals that the temperature rises to around 680 K in the 20mm channel and is less intense
as the gap between the pod and wall increases, for example the values taken at 157.5 degrees show
a maximum temperature of approximately 420 K. As the flow exits the channel beyond the end of the
nozzle the temperature abruptly decreases to approximately 300 K as it interacts with the flow from
the rear nozzle and is no longer constricted by the pod. The pod has a negligible effect on
temperature changes before the 135 degree measurement.
If the pod underbody is made from conventional materials such as aluminium, this temperature is only
250 K away from its melting point 930 K and given other factors such as increased fluid temperature
Steven Goddard 44
10038749
due to environmental heating this could be a significant concern. It is likely to be the case that
protective treatment or an additional thermally insulated layer be included to protect from these high
temperatures. An alternative would be to use a lightweight and durable material with higher melting
point such as carbon fibre for the aero shell construction.
Figure 49 – Flow Velocities at the Nozzle Region
At the rear of the pod the flow velocity shows a high speed jet coming from the nozzle inlet with a
velocity starting at 256 m/s before merging with the free stream velocity of 180 m/s (Figure 49). With
the flow velocities observed at the nozzle, compressor and bypass region it is reasonable to suggest
that the freestream flow velocity could be increased further for future studies, pushing the Hyperloop
maximum speed envelope higher.
Measurement
Points
Figure 50 – Flow Velocities at the Nozzle Region + Measurement Points (Legend limited for clarity)
When focusing on the nozzle slant the flow reaches a minimum velocity in the x direction of 0 m/s at
the wall, this can be seen in Figure 51. Figure 51 shows the velocity profiles along the rear nozzle
slant in the symmetry plane, each profile is measured along the lines shown in Figure 50. The velocity
profiles reveal the expected characteristics of a good boundary layer with the flow speed increasing
as it interacts with the freestream.
The absence of any reverse flow or flow separation indicates that the rear nozzle slant angle of 8.5
degrees is acceptable. Reducing this slant angle would mean either reducing nozzle size or nozzle
section length which is seems unnecessary unless vehicle mass is an issue.
As per the nacelle tips (but to a lesser extent) there is region of high TKE starting at the rear of the
nozzle slant and also at the nozzle end on the underside of the pod, this can be seen in Figure 52 –
Note that the legend scales have been limited for clarity. Whilst not as intense as the nacelle tips on
Steven Goddard 45
10038749
the compressor (maximum TKE of 27887 J/kg), the rear slant and underbody produce maximum TKE
of approximately 1700 J/kg and 4000 J/kg respectively which suggests the nozzle inlet is another area
where further geometric optimisation should be focused on in future.
Freestream
Flow Velocity
Figure 51 – Flow Velocity profiles along the Nozzle symmetry plane
Figure 52 – Turbulent Kinetic Energy (Left: Nozzle Slant, Right: Pod Underbody, Nozzle End)
Figure 53 - Vortex Core Plot Showing Velocity Profile and Vortex Formation at the Nozzle
Steven Goddard 46
10038749
The pressure profiles around the pod were analysed in a similar manner to the temperature profiles.
Measurements were taken on a 1.42 m PCD spaced as shown on the legend in Figure 54, from the
top of the pod.
The Total Pressure profiles appears similar (±5 Pa) across the majority of the pod body up until the
rear nozzle section. The total pressure along the rear slant increases from 105 Pa to a maximum of
122 Pa at the top of the pod reducing as the readings approach the underbody. This behaviour
continues until the end of the pod body (18 m) whereby the total pressure suddenly increases from
108 Pa to a maximum of 151 Pa at the very bottom of the pod, this sudden pressure increase
becomes less intense as measurement are taken further from the bottom of the pod. The areas of
increased pressure then gradually reduce back to 125 Pa after approximately 20 m.
End of Pod Body
Rear Nozzle Section
Figure 54 – Total Pressure Profiles around the Pod Body (On a Ø1.42 m PCD)
The pod produced a drag coefficient of 0.435, this was made up of 88% viscous drag and 12%
pressure drag. In terms of total drag force this equates to 5.73 N at 180 m/s. This figure is far lower
than the initial calculations of Musk (2013), although the geometry of the pod and tube and also the
speed has been reduced in this case. Even at a speed of 312 m/s (700 mph) the drag force equates
to 34.4 N which falls below Musk’s prediction of 320 N.
The low drag force is primarily influenced by the low air density as expected. However a comparison
can be made to the drag coefficient of 0.435 which is similar to that of a modern car (White, 2011).
A further observation is that viscous drag is more dominant in the 3D case than the 2D case, this
could be due to the increased areas of reversed flow seen on lower nacelle tip and the nozzle slant of
the 2D model. This could also suggest that a 2D model is an inadequate method of fully studying the
Hyperloop concept.
Steven Goddard 47
10038749
8.2 Unsteady Case Analysis
One unsteady simulation was performed in order to understand any time dependent flow features.
Results from this case form a preliminary investigation that should be explored further in the future.
Overall, no oscillatory motion was found to be present in the simulations, most variables appeared to
be very steady throughout the total simulation time. One area of interest was the temperature of the
underbody that appears to increase as time goes on.
Figure 55 – Underbody Temperature (From top: 0, 120, 240, 360 Time Steps)
The average drag coefficient of 0.448 was also very similar to the 3D steady case. The unsteady
behaviour of the drag was very small but varied between 0.44847 and 0.449 as shown in Figure 56
Figure 56 – Unsteady Drag Coefficient History
All other variables and flow features were similar to the 3D Steady case.
The lack of oscillating flow features or vortex shedding is unusual however this may be caused by a
number of reasons such as:
 Effects of the enclosed tube geometry

 Very low atmospheric pressure (100 Pa)
 Smooth/ streamlined surface of the pod
The absence of unsteady features may also be due to features occurring at a lower/higher shedding
frequencies. The Strouhal number of the flow occurred just beyond the standard limits of Figure 41
and should be revisited in future work.
Steven Goddard 48
10038749
9 Conclusion
A study has been conducted into the Hyperloop high speed transportation system in order to
investigate the aerodynamic effects of varying rear nozzle positions and to understand the 3D flow
characteristics around a representative model of a Hyperloop pod.
Validation of a simple train geometry in a vacuum tube was completed based on the work of Zhang
(2013). This simulation then formed the basis of a series of increasingly complex simulations cases.
The first milestone was the recreation of a study by Zhang (2013), this study was completed
successfully with solver convergence to within 1e-5 and drag results were compared well against the
literature.
The next phase of the study was a 2D steady simulation whereby the geometry and boundary
conditions of the Zhang case were modified to suit the Hyperloop, this included two additional
boundaries for the front facing compressor and rear nozzle. In this phase of the investigation three
rear nozzle positions were analysed. Drag force, temperature, velocity and pressure were some of the
key variables studied during post processing. In order to prove mesh independency a total 5
systematically coarser meshes were run for each nozzle configuration, resulting in a total of 15
simulations.
The Lower nozzle performed the best with a drag coefficient of 0.686 and other more desirable flow
features. Although the central nozzle configuration came a close second and should not be
discounted in future studies, the asymmetrical shape of the central nozzle may even be preferred due
to its potential use of more simple manufacturing methods.
The preference of both the lower and central nozzle configurations contradict the recommendations of
Ahlborn (2014) who suggested a lifted rear nozzle would significantly improve aerodynamic
performance. In fact this high nozzle position configuration resulted in a higher drag coefficient by 0.1.
Following on from the 2D case, the lower nozzle configuration was modelled into a half 3D CAD
representation. This was discretised into 5 systematically coarser meshes in order to prove mesh
independence. The cases were each run using first order solver settings for 3000 iterations followed
by another 3000 iterations on 2nd order solution methods, this improved solving time and for each
case all scaled residuals converged beyond 2e-5 with the majority of criteria reaching well below that.
The results from the 3D simulation cases conclude a number of interesting points and reveal areas of
the pod that require further design considerations. Firstly, the Hyperloop pod should include a
divergent section before the compressor as per the recommendations of Chin (2013), however careful
consideration must be payed to the design and geometry of the nacelle including the angle and tip
radius as these areas exhibited high velocity and very high TKE.
The underbody of the pod reveals temperatures reaching up to 680 K. With the additional of
environmental heating, especially if the Hyperloop is built in locations such as California, these
temperatures could rise close to the melting point of conventional materials such as aluminium.
Further detailed testing of this narrow channel at the bottom of the pod should be carried out, but the
Steven Goddard 49
10038749
current results suggest that a thermally insulated layer or light weight, high temperature material such
as carbon fibre should be used for the construction of the pod aero shell.
The rear of the pod showed good results with no recirculating flow or separation on the rear nozzle
slant, this suggests that a slope angle of 8 degrees is suitable. Also, small areas of high TKE were
discovered on the rear edges of the pod adjacent to the nozzle inlet.
A preliminary unsteady simulation case was run to investigation any transient flow features. Overall
no oscillatory motion was found to be present in the simulations and all but the temperature variables
changed negligibly over the total simulation time. Temperature at the underbody appeared to get
hotter over time as per the steady simulations and further reinforces the need for consideration of
using a temperature resistant material in this area. The lack of unsteady flow features is unusual and
should be investigated more in future studies.
The drag coefficient for both the steady and unsteady simulations were similar with the steady drag
coefficient measured at 0.435. This resulted in a drag force of 5.73 N which falls well below Musk’s
original estimate of 320 N. Musk includes the use of air bearings and a smaller tube which may
contribute to increased drag.
Overall this investigation has focused on modelling a representative model of the Hyperloop based on
available technical and academic literature. 2D and 3D models were then setup and simulated in
steady and transient modes. The investigation has compared and evaluated three rear nozzle
configurations, taking the best performing nozzle and using this for the 3D simulations.
The 3D simulations were analysed and have revealed a number of interesting and informative flow
features around the pod and provide good observations that can be referred to in future studies or
design work.
The models and simulations detailed in this report can be used as a basis for future investigations into
the Hyperloop concept.
Steven Goddard 50
10038749
10 Recommendations for Further Work
This investigation consisted of numerous variables, assumptions and unknowns. As such the work
produced should be further developed and validated. Throughout the study various avenues for
further research and refinement have appeared that could be used as the basis for further work, some
of these are listed below:
 Scaled or full size experimental study to validate simulation results.

 The k-ε has been used throughout this study based on the work and results of the literature
study. Comparing other turbulence models would be useful to fully support the use of k- ε.
 Refinement of the compressor outlet and nozzle inlet boundary conditions by fully
understanding the local flow conditions at these faces.
 Optimisation of the nozzle section and compressor section lengths.
 Optimisation of the compressor nacelle.
 Addition and optimisation of a nozzle nacelle.
 Further transient simulations to examine the unsteady flow behaviour.
 Geometry model which includes hover engines and their associated fairings.
Steven Goddard 51
10038749
11 References
Ahlborn, D. (2014) Hyperloop Transportation Technologies – Official Crowd Storm Documentation [online].
Hyperloop Transportation Technologies. Available from:
www.lintvkrqe.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/crowdstorm.pdf [Accessed 12 January 2016]
Baron, A., Mossi, M., Sibilla, S. (2000) The alleviation of the aerodynamic drag and wave effects of high-speed
trains in very long tunnels. Journal of Wind Engineering and Aerodynamics. 89, 365-401
BBC News (2007) French set new rail speed record [online], available:
www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6521295.stm [Accessed 5 January 2016]
Belvin, R. (1990) Flow Induced Vibration [diagram]. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Casey, M., Wintergerste T. (2000) ERCOFTAC Special Interest Group on “Quality and Trust in Industrial CFD”
Best Practice Guidelines. ERCOFTAC.
Chant, T (2013) Promise and Perils of Hyperloop and Other High-Speed Trains. Available from:
www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/tech/hyperloop-and-high-speed-trains [Accessed 5 January 2016].
Chen, X., Zhao, L., Ma, J., Lui, Y. (2012) Aerodynamic Simulation of Evacuated Tube Maglev Trains with
Different Streamlined Designs. Journal of Modern Transportation. 20(2), 115-120
Chin, J.C., Gray, J.S., Jones, S.M. and Berton, J.J., (2015) Open-Source Conceptual Sizing Models for the
Hyperloop Passenger Pod. In: AIAA SciTech Conference. January 2015. Florida: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics. Available from: www.arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2015-1587 [Accessed 10
November 2015].
ET3 Global Alliance (2010) ET3 [image]. Available from: www.et3.com [Accessed 10 January 2016].
European Commission (2015) The Paris Protocol – A Blueprint for Tackling Global Climate Change Beyond 2020
[online]. Brussels: European Commission. (COM(2015) 81 final/2). Available from:
ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/paris_protocol/docs/com_2015_81_en.pdf [Accessed 29 January 2016].
Faramehr, S. (2014) Aerodynamic of the Trains in Tunnels [online]. MRes, University of Birmingham. Available
from: www.etheses.bham.ac.uk/5468/1/Faramehr14PhD.pdf [Accessed 8 April 2016].
Fowles-Sweet, W. (2015). Part Time MEng Project Module Handbook [online]. MEng Individual Project [online].
Available from: www.www.my.uwe.ac.uk [Accessed 28 January 2016].
Hyperloop Technologies (2015) Cargo Pod [image]. Available from: www.hyperlooptech.com/image-library

[Accessed 10 January 2016].
Hyperloop Technologies (2015) Pod in Dock [image]. Available from: www.hyperlooptech.com/image-library

Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (2014) Hyperloop Pod [image]. Available from:

www.hyperlooptransp.com/ [Access 10 January 2016].
Kantrowitz, A., Donaldson, C. (1945) Preliminary Investigation of Supersonic Diffusers [online]. Report number:
L5D20. Washington: National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. Available from:
www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/b184216.pdf [Access 23 February 2016].
Lanfrit, M. (2005) Best Practice Guidelines for Handling Automotive External Aerodynamics with FLUENT
[online]. FLUENT Deutschland GmbH. Available from:
www.southampton.ac.uk/~nwb/lectures/GoodPracticeCFD/Articles/Ext_Aero_Best_Practice_Ver1_2.pdf
[Accessed 7th February 2016].
Linendoll, K (2015) Hyperloop Tech CEO predicts the Hyperloop could become reality by 2020. Popular Science
[online] 11 November. Available from: www.pops.ci/2W1lwd [Accessed 10 January 2016].
Mack, E. (2015) California is getting a Hyperloop, but not where you think. Available from:
www.gizmag.com/agreement-reached-to-build-first-passenger-hyperloop/36285/ [Accessed 10 January 2016].
Steven Goddard 52
10038749
McFarlane, R. (2016) Hyperloop Cheetah. Available from: http://www.hyperloopdesign.net [Accessed 12 January

2016]
Medhurst, G. (1812) Calculations and Remarks Tending to Prove the Practicability, Effects and Advantages of a
Plan for the Rapid Conveyance of Goods and Passengers Upon an Iron Road Through a Tube of 30 Feet in
Area, by the Power and Velocity of Air. 1st ed. Soho, London: D. M. Shury.
Musk, E. (2013) Elon Musk. Twitter [online]. 15 July. Available from:

www.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/356776740409974785 [Accessed 17 November 2015].
Musk, E. (2013) Hyperloop Alpha - Preliminary Design Study [online]. Hawthorne, California: SpaceX. Available
from: www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha-20130812.pdf [Accessed 17 November 2015].
Netflights (2016) Legroom Chart. Available from: www.netflights.com/legroom-chart.aspx [Accessed 23 February

2016].
Oster, D. (1999) Evacuated Tube Transport [online]. ET3.com Inc. US5950543 A. Available from:
www.docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US5950543.pdf [Accessed 10
January 2016].
Oster, D., Kumada, M., Zhang, Y. (2011) Evacuated tube transport technologies (ET3) a maximum value global
transportation network for passengers and cargo. Journal of Modern Transportation. 19 (1), 42-50.
PandoMonthly (2012) Fireside Chat with Elon Musk. YouTube [video]. 13 July. Available from:
www.youtu.be/uegOUmgKB4E [Accessed 24 November 2015].
Ploughmann, L. (2012) The Shainghai Transrapid Maglev Train [photograph]. In: Flickr [online]. Available from:
www.flickr.com/photos/criminalintent/7391133386 [Accessed 10 January 2016].
Radkte, G. (1974) Personengeschosse in der Röhre: Zwanzigmal schneller als der Schall [Painting]. At: Retro-
Futurism [online]. Available from:
www.retro-futurismus.de/radtke_zukunft.htm [Accessed 24 November 2015]
Ratnayake, N. (2010) Analysis of a channelled centerbody supersonic inlet for F-15B flight research. 48th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, California. Arc [online]. Available from:
www.arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2010-477 [Accessed 23 February 2016]
Shih, T., Liou, W., Shabbir, A., Yang, Z., Zhu, J. (1995) A new k-ε eddy viscosity model for high Reynolds number
turbulent flows – Model development and validation. Computer Fluids. 24(3), 227-238.
Sovani, S. (2013) Bringing the Hyperloop One Step Closer to Reality through Simulation. ANSYS Blog [blog]. 25
September 2013. Available from: www.ansys-blog.com/20130925hyperloop/ [Accessed 12 January 2016]
Sovani, S. (2015) A Brave New World – What It Will Take to Realise the Hyperloop Dream. ANSYS Blog [blog]. 2
March 2015. Available from: www.ansys-blog.com/a-brave-new-world-what-it-will-take-to-realize-the-hyperloop-
dream/ [Accessed 12 January 2016]
Sutton, G., Biblarz, O. (2001) Rocket Propulsion Elements. 7th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2016) World Population Probabilistic Projections,
World Population Prospects [online]. Available from: www.esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/
Verne, M. (1895) An Express of the Future. The Strand Magazine [online]. November 1895, Available from:
www.julesverne.ca/vernebooks/jvexpress.html [Accessed 24 November 2015].
Wu, Q., Yu, H., Li, H. (2004) A study on numerical simulation of aerodynamics for the maglev train. Railway
Locomotive & Car. 24(2), 18–20.
Zhang, Y. (2013) Numerical Simulation and Analysis of Aerodynamic Drag on a Subsonic Train in Evacuated
Tube Transportation. Journal of Modern Transportation. 20 (1), 44-48.
White, F. (2011) Fluid Mechanics. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Steven Goddard 53
10038749
12 Bibliography
Anderson, J. (2001) Fundamentals of Aerodynamics. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Anderson, J (1995) Computational Fluid Dynamics: The Basics with Applications. 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Loraine Blaxter (2006) How to research. 3rd ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
CAE Associates Inc. (2013) Predicting Fluid Force and Drag with ANSYS CFD – CAE Associates e-Learning.
YouTube [video]. 4 September. Available from: www.youtu.be/6adO0mv-eWw [Accessed 19 January 2016]
Yao, Y. (2015). Lecture Notes and Reading Materials – Semester 2. Modelling and Simulation (Computational
Fluid Dynamics).
Steven Goddard 54
10038749
Appendix 1 – Zhang Validation Case Setup Details
Please see the file on the supporting memory stick, located in the following directory:
\\Data\Zhang Data\ Zhang Simulation Setup.xlsx
Appendix 2 – Flow Rate & Pressure Calculations
Please see the file on the supporting memory stick, located in the following directory:
\\Calculation Spreadsheets\Flow Speed & Boundary Pressure Calculations.xlsx
Appendix 3 – Project Management
Please see files on the supporting memory stick, located in the following directories:
\\Project Management\Project Plan.xlsx
\\Project Management\Mind Map\Hyperloop Project MindMap.pdf
Appendix 4 – Simulation Data
Due to the large amount of data please see the files on the supporting memory stick, located in the
following directories:
Workbench Files
Zhang Study - \\Numerical Studies\Zhang Study\

2D Hyperloop - \\Numerical Studies\Hyperloop 2D\
3D Hyperloop - \\Numerical Studies\Hyperloop 3D\
Data
Zhang Data - \\Data\Zhang Data\

2D Hyperloop - \\Data\2D Hyperloop Data\
3D Hyperloop - \\Data\3D Hyperloop Data\
Steven Goddard 55
10038749

The Hyperloop High Speed Transportation System - An Aerodynamic CFD Investigation of Nozzle Positions and Flow Phenomena

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Hyperloop High Speed Transportation System - An Aerodynamic CFD Investigation of Nozzle Positions and Flow Phenomena

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Aerodynamic CFD Investigation of Nozzle Positions and Flow Phenomena

Under the supervision of

Academic Year 2015/2016

Steven Goddard iii

Figure 1 - Original Hyperloop Concept Sketches (Musk, 2013) ............................................................. 4

Figure 39- 3D Hyperloop Convergence Example - Drag Coefficient .................................................... 39

Table 1 – General Parameter Summary ............................................................................................... 24

2 Scope and Objectives

The objectives of this investigation are:

2.1 Project Management

A summary of the key project milestones are listed below:

3 Background and Current State

3.1 What is the Hyperloop?

Figure 1 - Original Hyperloop Concept Sketches (Musk, 2013)

Figure 2 – Magnetic Linear Accelerator

Figure 3 - Turbine Powered Tube Train (Radtke, 1974)

3.3 Current State and Alternative Approaches

Figure 4 – The Shanghai Transrapid Maglev Train (Ploughmann, 2012)

3.4 Key Players in the Vactrain Sector

3.4.1 Evacuated Tube Transport Technologies (ET3™)

Figure 5 - ET3 (ET3 Global Alliance Inc., 2013)

3.4.2 Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (HTT)

Figure 6 - Hyperloop Pod (Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2015)

3.4.3 Hyperloop Technologies

Figure 7 - Cargo Pod (Hyperloop Technologies, 2015)

 Evacuated Tube Transport Technologies (ET3™)

 Hyperloop Alpha (Musk, 2013)

 Numerical Simulation and Analysis of Aerodynamic Drag on a Subsonic Train in Evacuated

4.2 Major Work

Hyperloop Alpha - (Musk, 2013)

4.3 Secondary Works

HTT – Official Crowd Storm Documentation (Ahlborn, 2014)

Figure 9 - HTT Hyperloop Model (Ahlborn, 2014)

Figure 11 - ANSYS Hyperloop Study - Velocity Contours (Sovani, 2013)

 “Air bearings are the most difficult part of the Hyperloop”

Hyperloop Cheetah - (McFarlane, 2014)

4.4 Tertiary Works

4.5 Other Sources

6.1 Underlying Theory, Relevant Concepts & Equations

6.1.1 Fluid Flow

6.1.1.1 Turbulent Flow

Where ρ, u, L and 𝜇 represent Density, Velocity, Length and Viscosity respectively.

6.1.1.2 Governing Equations

Mass Conservation (Continuity Equation)

𝜕𝜌 𝜕(𝜌𝑢) 𝜕(𝜌𝑣) 𝜕(𝜌𝑤)

𝜕(𝜌𝑢) 𝜕(𝜌𝑢2 ) 𝜕(𝜌𝑢𝑣) 𝜕(𝜌𝑢𝑤) 𝜕𝑝 1 𝜕𝜏𝑥𝑥 𝜕𝜏𝑥𝑦 𝜕𝜏𝑥𝑧

Where 𝑅𝑒 and 𝜏 are the Reynolds Number and shear stress.

𝜕(𝜌𝐸) 𝜕(𝑢𝑗 𝜌𝐸) 𝜕 𝜕𝑇 𝜕(𝑢𝑗 𝑃) 𝜕(𝜏𝑖𝑗 𝑢𝑗 )

6.1.1.3 Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) Equations

6.1.1.4 Boundary Layer Flow

 Wall Layer – Where viscous laminar shear is dominant.

Figure 13 – Boundary Layer (NASA, 2015)

6.1.2 Drag Calculation

6.1.3 Kantrowitz Limit & Bypass Ratio

6.2.1 Computer Aided Design (CAD)

6.2.1.2 ANSYS Design Modeller

6.2.2 CFD Meshing, Pre-Processing, Solver and Post-Processing Tools

6.2.2.1 ANSYS Workbench

6.2.2.2 ANSYS Meshing

6.3 Geometry/System Constraints and Assumptions

6.3.1 Pod and Tube

Figure 15 - Pod Nozzle Positions

6.3.2 Levitation System