Special Issue Article

Proc IMechE Part F:

J Rail and Rapid Transit
Computational fluid dynamics simulation 2015, Vol. 229(6) 635–643
! IMechE 2014

of rail vehicles in crosswind: Application Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

in norms and standards DOI: 10.1177/0954409714551013

pif.sagepub.com

Mikael Sima1, Sandor Eichinger2, Ander Blanco3 and Irfan Ali4

Abstract
The application of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to the determination of aerodynamic coefficients for crosswind
stability in the context of vehicle assessment has been studied as part of the AeroTRAIN project. The work consisted in
establishing best practice guidelines for the use of standard Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) approaches using a
streamlined and less-streamlined vehicle, project partners applying different computational codes and turbulence models
to a common vehicle, and then application to further vehicles in order to cover a range of different vehicles and yaw
angles. The simulations were complimented with wind tunnel measurements to allow the accuracy of standard RANS
approaches to be judged for various vehicle shapes and yaw angles. This paper summarises the overall results and the
recommendations made for the use of CFD in vehicle assessment of crosswind stability in relation to the EN 14067-6:
2010 standard. The main aspects of the guidelines are reported in a separate paper in this special issue. The considered
standard allows the use of CFD for vehicle speeds up to a maximum of 200 km/h whereas the HS RST TSI (2008) only
allows aerodynamic coefficients to be determined using wind tunnel measurements. The obtained results show that a
well-performed RANS CFD can predict the aerodynamic coefficient of streamlined trains with a relatively high accuracy.
The challenges increase for blunter-shaped trains and may be further influenced by equipment installed on the roof of a
train. Combined with the developed simulation guidelines it is considered that CFD can be used as an alternative to wind
tunnel tests in all cases provided that the accuracy of the approach is validated on a benchmark train with similar features
to those of the simulated train.

Keywords
Rail vehicles, crosswind stability, aerodynamics, CFD, standards and norms, TSI, RANS

Date received: 30 April 2014; accepted: 14 August 2014

comparisons are limited in terms of train shape

Introduction
The determination of the aerodynamic characteristics
of a train for use in the assessment of its level of
crosswind stability currently depends on static tests
performed in wind tunnels. Although numerical simu-
lations are now an integral part in the design of trains
they find more restricted use in vehicle authorisation.
Numerical simulations using Reynolds-averaged
Navier–Stokes (RANS) approaches are allowed in
the EN 14067-6:2010 standard for train speeds up
to a maximum of 200 km/h, but not at all in the
HS RST TSI (2008).1,2 The use of numerical simula-
tions to derive aerodynamic coefficients has been
explored in several studies in recent decades, see, for
example, the reviews of Diedrichs.3–5 It has been
shown that train coefficients can be predicted with a
reasonable and acceptable accuracy. However, the
(most studies are of streamlined trains) and yaw
angle range. In some cases uncertainties remain
about the actual conditions of the test. A comprehen-
sive study of the accuracy that can be achieved with
standard RANS simulations for a range of vehicle
shapes and yaw angles has been performed in the
1
Centre of Competence in Aero and Thermodynamics, Bombardier
Transportation, Sweden
2
qpunkt GmbH, Stuttgart, Germany
3
Technology Management, Aerodynamics, CAF, Spain
4
Rail Systems, Mechanical Systems Engineering, Aerodynamics, Siemens
AG, Germany
Corresponding author:
Mikael Sima, Centre of Competence in Aero and Thermodynamics,
Bombardier Transportation, SE-721 73 Västerås, Sweden.
Email: mikael.sima@se.transport.bombardier.com

Downloaded from pif.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016

636 Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 229(6)

EU FP7 research project AeroTRAIN.6 Based on for vehicle authorisation. The definition of the aero-
these findings, proposals have been made to revise dynamic coefficients follows EN 14067-6:2010.
the current European Norm (EN) and Technical
Specification for Interoperability (TSI) with respect
Simulation of the ICE 3 reference train
to the determination of vehicle aerodynamic co-
efficients using numerical simulations as part of The geometry of an ICE 3 end car given in EN 14067-
the assessment of crosswind stability for vehicle 6:2010 was simulated for the standard single track
authorisation. ballast with rails (STBR) configuration. As the details
As part of the project, the aerodynamic forces of of the wind tunnel used to obtain the reference aero-
several vehicles were measured using the Jules Verne dynamic coefficients were not available, the vehicle
Climatic Wind Tunnel in the Scientific and Technical was simulated in a generalised domain as shown in
Centre for Building (CSTB), Nantes, France. Figure 1 with distances given in Table 1, using a
Additional data in the form of pressure taps and block inlet flow profile. The Reynolds number was
flow field measurements were collected on a stream- 550,000, the model scale 1:25, inlet air speed 70 m/s
lined train and a blunter train (Regional Train) for the and a turbulent intensity of 1% was used with a
purpose of the validation of computational fluid length scale corresponding to 1 m in full-scale.
dynamics (CFD) simulations. Extensive studies on The reproducibility requirements for CFD in
the two types of trains were performed at the EN14067-6: 2010 are similar those for using a wind
Technical University (TU) Berlin to derive best prac- tunnel.1 There are three reference vehicles, an ICE 3
tice RANS simulation guidelines, which are sum- end car, a TGV Duplex power car and an ETR 500
marised in the accompanying paper.7 As part of the power car, for which benchmark aerodynamic
work a suitable setup to simulate the CSTB wind
tunnel was derived. The draft guidelines were applied
by the participating partners (TU Berlin, Bombardier Table 1. ICE 3 generalised domain dimensions following
Transportation, CAF, Siemens) in the CFD crosswind Figure 1. Non-dimensional distances are obtained by dividing by
project work task on the ICE 3 end car, one of the the reference length 3 m at full scale.
reference trains considered in EN 14067–6:2010. This
served as a practical application of the guidelines as Distance
well as a comparison between partners’ codes and Name Non-dim 1:25 (mm) 1:1 (m)
approaches. After this, all partners except TU Berlin
applied the guidelines to other vehicles, thereby L 70.0 8400 210
increasing the range of studied shapes. Simulating W 58.3 7000 175
the vehicle in the wind tunnel allowed the accuracy H 23.3 2800 70.0
of the simulation to be quantified against the measured Ltr,u 18.9 2263 56.6
forces and moments. A summary of these studies are Wtr,u 22.8 2741 68.5
reported together with proposals for the EN and TSI LSTBR,u 11.2 1343 33.6
in relation to the use of CFD to determine aero- LSTBR 7.7 920 23.0
dynamic coefficients for crosswind vehicle assessment

Figure 1. ICE 3, generalised domain.

Downloaded from pif.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016

Sima et al. 637

coefficients are known. The requirement to use a wind aerodynamic coefficients are listed in Table 2. It is
tunnel or CFD is that for one of the reference vehicles clear that the benchmark requirements for CFD in
and for yaw angles relevant for the characteristic wind EN 14067-6:2010 are fulfilled by applying the simula-
curve (CWC) calculation tion guidelines. The results show that individual coef-
  ficients can vary relative to benchmark values more
CMx,lee,test  CMx,lee,bmk  than CMx,lee. The most important coefficients are the
max   5 "max
 ð1Þ
C Mx,lee,bmk side (Cy) and lift (Cz) forces and the rolling moment
CMx, whereas the drag force (Cx) makes no contribu-
 
CMx,lee,test  CMx,lee,bmk  tion to an overturning event. However, that individual
mean   5 "mean
 ð2Þ
C Mx,lee,bmk
CMx,lee is the lee rail roll coefficient, where test
denotes the wind tunnel measurements or CFD simu-
lations of the reference vehicle; bmk denotes the bench-
mark values for the same vehicle provided in the norm.
The maximum and mean deviation allowed are
"max ¼ 0.15 and "mean ¼ 0.1. As part of the EN14067-
6:2010 requirements, the train geometry, blockage
ratio, Reynolds number and wind profile were taken
to be the same as those for the wind tunnel.
The ICE 3 end car simulation results obtained at
TU Berlin using the CD Adapco code ccmþ
(v5.06.007) with polyhedral cells and the k-! SST tur-
bulence model are shown in Figure 2, and the differ-
ences between the obtained results and the EN
components have higher variations than CMx,lee is
also the case for the variation between wind tunnels,
as is exemplified for a non-specified vehicle model
tested in two different EN compliant wind tunnels in
Table 3.
Some small revisions were made to the guidelines
resulting from this work. The study confirmed that
similar results can be attained with an alternative
code (Fluent) and other turbulence models. The
ccmþ quadratic k-" and Fluent realizable k-"
approaches produced positive results. The application
showed that the standard k-" model should not be
used as it is unable to fully resolve the flow field in
the lee side, particularly the lee-side vortex, whereas
by chance and error cancellation CMx,lee might match
for some yaw angle. A comparison was made for 30
and 50 yaw angles. At 50 there was more variation
than at 30 , suggesting a more challenging flow field.
At 30 there was a clear lee-side vortex created by the

Table 3. Variation (in percent) of aerodynamic coefficients for

one car (same model) between two different EN compliant
wind tunnels.

Yaw
angle
(deg)
CFx
CFy
CFz
CMx
CMy
CMz
CMx,lee

0 0 56 128 229 45 139 599

10 10 0 18 6 80 7 8
20 10 3 6 0 31 1 1
30 46 15 7 1 32 45 2
40 161 22 10 10 8 60 6
Figure 2. TU Berlin simulated aerodynamic coefficients for 50 3191 21 18 7 10 68 3
the ICE 3 end car together with EN 14067-6 wind tunnel 60 174 17 14 15 82 104 11
coefficients. This figure is available in colour format online.

Table 2. Difference (in percent) between the TU Berlin ICE 3 simulation results and the EN 14067-6:2010 values.

Yaw angle
(deg)
CFx_EN
CFy_EN
CFz_EN
CMx_EN
CMy_EN
CMz_EN
CMx,lee_EN

10 9.0 10.1 6.7 9.5 220.0 5.3 8.8

20 45.1 2.5 21.0 3.0 5.8 6.5 8.7
30 163.7 1.0 18.3 0.8 49.3 6.9 6.4
40 110.9 1.0 14.1 2.3 40.6 8.9 5.8
50 1.5 1.1 20.6 1.4 13.0 8.1 6.6
60 13.0 0.7 20.4 0.7 19.8 8.4 4.3

Downloaded from pif.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016

638
flow over the front and roof, whereas at 50 the lee-
side vortex moved further away from the train and the
flow has started transitioning into what at 90 is more
like two-dimensional flow around a cylinder.
Accuracy in the prediction of CMx,lee
for different trains and yaw angles
Simulations of various trains, shown in Figure 3, were
made to assess the accuracy of the standard RANS
approach for a range of vehicle shapes and yaw
angles, when employing the derived simulation guide-
lines.7 The trains were all tested in the CSTB wind
tunnel as part of the AeroTRAIN project. The simu-
lation domain represents the wind tunnel, Figure 4, as
derived by TU Berlin in detailed studies of the
Figure 3. Simulated vehicles.
Figure 4. Simulated wind tunnel domain left, CSTB test section right.
Downloaded from pif.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 229(6)
streamlined (IC4) and Regional Train (VT 612).
A separate simulation domain for each yaw angle
and measured vehicle was required, corresponding
to the situation in the wind tunnel. There is a small
yaw angular dependence of the flow in the wind
tunnel that was corrected in the measurements by
the use of an effective yaw angle. In the simulations
there was no yaw component in the incoming flow.
The effect of the supports was found to influence the
flow above the splitter plate. As the number of sup-
ports in the wind tunnel was large it was not possible
to model them individually; therefore, the effect on
the flow was modelled using a porous media volume
under the splitter plate that provided a representative
pressure drop. As the presence of a train influences the
flow around the splitter plate, the pressure drop was
Sima et al. 639

adjusted to match the measured velocity near the roof simulation guidelines and using their tool and
immediately above the measured train. It was also approach previously validated on the ICE 3 train.
found essential to refine the mesh around the leading The IC4, VT 612 and AGC trains were simulated
edge of the splitter plate to resolve the mean flow and with CD-Adapco’s ccmþ code using polyhedral cells
to closely match the measured axial flow on the split- and the k-! SST turbulence model; the ADR train
ter plate (measured without the vehicle). The was simulated using Ansys Fluent, polyhedral cells
approach was chosen to minimise these influences; and realizable k-" turbulence model; the RevCo
however, it adds some uncertainty to the comparison train was simulated using Ansys Fluent, hexcore
of results. cells (Spider 2.0) and realizable k-" turbulence
Table 4 shows the accuracy in the prediction of model. Second-order upwind convective discretisation
CMx,lee for the simulated trains in a comparison with was used in all the considered cases. Figures 5 and 6
the wind tunnel measurements. The simulations were show plots of CMx,lee versus yaw angle for the ADR
performed by the various partners by following the and AGC train, respectively. The IC4 end car had
two variants, one with roof corrugations representing
the actual train and another version that did not have
the roof corrugations (smooth). As the IC4 and AGC
Table 4. Deviation (in percent) of CMx,lee (CFD-WT)/WT
are articulated trains the second cars were measured
(WT ¼wind tunnel) results relative to wind tunnel
and simulated. Also the RevCo has roof corrugations
measurements.
although different from those on the IC4 train.
Yaw angle (deg) Vari. WT The last two columns in Table 4 represent the
variability in the wind tunnel measurements meas-
Vehicle 10 20 30 40 50 60 Mean Max
urements including 7/8 Remax, Remax, the positive
IC4 - end corrug. 3 2 3 5 2 11 3 4 yaw angle sweep and negative yaw angle sweep
IC4 - end smooth 5 2 3 4 (up to 40 ), where Remax had a value of 600,000.
IC4 - second car 13 5 6 Some additional simulations are included that used
VT 612 5 6 10 9 14 24 4 6 a generalised domain with a block inlet flow profile
(GB). The generalised domain was similar to that used
AGC end car 6 3 21 12 3 7 4 6
for ICE 3 shown in Figure 1, but at the scale 1:15.
AGC second car 0 13 8 9 3 4 4 9
It had 70 m (full-scale) lateral and axial upstream
RevCo (corrug.) 9 5 3 6
lengths of no-slip ground, measured from the origin
ADR 4 4 8 6 3 3 for the first vehicle, which ensured that the boundary
With generalised domain and block inlet low profile layer developed along the no-slip ground was not
IC4 - end corrug. 11 6 5 4 21 higher than the STBR. In the wind tunnel domain
IC4 - second car 1 3 5 8 11 the train was rotated for each yaw angle, similar to
AGC end car 13 30 25 20 the real wind tunnel, and then re-meshed. The flow
inlet was always placed in the front boundary. With
AGC second car 19 3 5 2
the GB the same mesh could be used for all wind

Figure 5. CMx,lee of ADR normalised with wind tunnel value at 30 .

Downloaded from pif.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016

640
(a)
Figure 6. CMx,lee of AGC normalised by the wind tunnel value at þ30 . This figure is available in colour format online.
angles and the inlet flow was applied with the correct
yaw angle on the upwind boundaries. Furthermore,
the aerodynamic coefficients of the first and second
cars were evaluated from the same simulation when
that was applicable. The GB represents, in some
sense, the ideal conditions that are the aim in the
wind tunnels.
The predictions are close to the measured values
for the IC4 end car, more or less within the variability
in the measurements excluding 60 . A similar accu-
racy is observed without corrugations, even though
the corrugated end car CMx,lee is significantly higher
than without corrugations, on average 10% higher for
yaw angles between 10 and 60 with the largest dif-
ference being 16% at þ40 . This shows that the
streamlined vehicle is closely predicted and also that
the effect of a corrugated roof is captured. Following
the guidelines and good practice the corrugation
required additional mesh refinement. The ADR is
also well predicted as is the RevCo (although results
were only obtained for two yaw angles). The predic-
tion is less accurate for VT 612, suggesting a more
complex flow field. Least accurate is the prediction
for the AGC, particularly at 30 yaw angle. The
AGC is the only train with a roof fairing. For both
AGC and VT 612 CMx,lee is primarily predicted to be
higher than the measured values. The second cars are
potentially more difficult to predict, as in principle it
relies on a correctly predicted flow around the
upstream vehicle, which forms the upstream flow
condition for the second vehicle. For the articulated
trains studied here, the forces on the second car are
lower than on the first car, and are therefore contri-
buting less to the overall overturning prediction. The
variability of the wind tunnel measurements are
mostly higher for vehicles that are also more challen-
ging for the CFD, and are comparatively low for the
streamlined vehicles.
Using a GB rather than a CSTB wind tunnel
domain has the effect of increasing the coefficient of
Downloaded from pif.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 229(6)
(b)
the leeward rail roll moment. The extent varies with
both vehicle shape and the yaw angle. Depending on
whether this is predicted to be lower or higher with
the wind tunnel setup, the GB prediction may get
closer or further away from the measured value.
Looking closer at the vehicle shapes in Figure 3,
the following points can be made regarding the lead-
ing vehicles.
1. The most accurate predictions are for streamlined
vehicles or vehicles with sloping fronts. The
RevCo has a lower slope in the upper part,
above a bluff lower part.
2. Correspondingly the more challenging to predict
VT 612 and AGC are blunter trains.
3. Corrugations, although increasing CMx,lee, do not
significantly impact the accuracy of the prediction.
However, resolving the corrugation feature
requires a higher grid resolution.
4. ADR and RevCo have underfloor boxes. Whether
or not the underfloor is covered does not particu-
larly seem to affect the accuracy of the prediction.
5. VT 612 has a noticeable roof box that has an influ-
ence on the flow field over the roof.
6. AGC has roof fairings that make the flow different
to that of other trains. The fairing fixes the separ-
ation point to the windward side with the flow
going over (30 yaw angle and more) or into the
roof recess (20 yaw angle and less).
By studying the flow around the trains it is possibly
to isolate some features of the flow. For more stream-
lined trains, e.g. the IC4, ADR and ICE 3, the char-
acteristic lee-side vortex is initiated by the flow
passing over the front of the train. For blunt trains,
there is a separation bubble at the lee side of the front
from flow passing around it, and the lee-side vortex is
generated by the flow over the roof. This separation
region for blunter trains that transitions to a lee-side
vortex further downstream results in the flow and
Sima et al. 641

Figure 7. Plots of velocity magnitude and in plane vectors close after front for: (a) ICE3 (5.9 m from front tip without buffers;
max scale ¼ 1.43 Vin); (b) IC4 (5.5 m; 1.76 Vin); (c) ADR (4.8 m; 2.20 Vin); (d) AGC (4.3 m; 1.42 Vin); (e) VT612 (4.0 m; 1.54 Vin); and
(f) RevCo (4.5 m; 1.28 Vin) at 30 yaw angle. Varying scales but in all cases blue is low speed and high speed is red, purple and/or white.
This figure is available in colour format online.

forces being more difficult to predict. RevCo has a
blunt shape for the lower half of its front and a
lower slope at the upper half that makes it more like
a streamlined vehicle; therefore, the flow has simila-
rities with both blunt and streamlined trains. Figure 7
shows the flow through a section just after the front
for all vehicles at a 30 yaw angle.
Roof boxes can disrupt the flow over the roof and
the lee-side vortex if they are large enough. It is also
likely that there is an influence of streamlining the box
edges. There are low protrusions on the roof of ADR
(57 mm) and IC4 (85 mm), but these do not have a
significant impact on the flow features, in contrast
with the VT 612 where the box is protruding more
(250 mm). It is difficult to say if the higher roof box
makes the flow more challenging to predict, but it
does influence the flow and adds flow features. It is
reasonable that if you can accurately predict the
forces of a vehicle with roof boxes, you will also be
able to accurately predict a similar vehicle without
roof boxes. A roof fairing generates a particular
flow that is more difficult to predict with RANS and
possibly a more advanced modelling technique is
required. As the flow is different from other trains,

Downloaded from pif.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016

642
it is difficult to say that if a train with a roof fairing is
closely predicted then the prediction for trains with
other features will have the same or better accuracy.
In general, it can be concluded that the accuracy of
the prediction is higher for streamlined trains than for
blunt trains. Non-smooth roof arrangements compli-
cate the flow and are likely to reduce the accuracy of
the prediction. Therefore, an accurate prediction for
one of the EN14067-6:2010 benchmark vehicles,
which are all streamlined and do not have protrusions
on the roof, does not mean that a similar prediction
accuracy will be achieved for all vehicles. Further
appropriate benchmark vehicles are required to
ensure the accuracy of the prediction.
The current definition of accuracy (equations (1)
and (2)) is probably suitable for application to other
benchmark trains. However, it can be seen in the vari-
ability of the measured values of CMx,lee that it is
higher for AGC and VT 612, and also for the
second car of IC4 and AGC. This suggests that the
variation in measurements for different wind tunnels
is also higher for the trains that are more challenging
for CFD than for the current EN14067-6: 2010 bench-
mark trains. Further checks on blunt trains with non-
smooth roof arrangements in different wind tunnels
could give more insight to the inherent sensitivity and
whether it could be argued that less strict require-
ments are required on the prediction accuracy for
these trains.
As far as yaw angles are concerned, the most
challenging seems to be within the most relevant for
determining CWCs, i.e. 15–50 . It appears that the
accuracy is less for 60 , but on the other hand it is
only in few cases, if any, that 60 is relevant for the
calculation of the CWCs.
Recommendations for standards
The results for the AeroTRAIN investigations sum-
marised in the last sections lead to recommendations
for amendments to the CEN/TSI methodology for
the use of CFD to quantify the aerodynamic coeffi-
cients relating to crosswind stability.8 The main
approach in EN 14067-6: 2010 is maintained, how-
ever, further benchmarks for the validation of the
method are recommended to reflect the fact that
vehicles with blunt or streamlined front shape as
well as geometrical features in the roof region
create different challenges for the flow prediction.
This is complemented with guideline recommenda-
tions for the current industry standard RANS simu-
lation methodology to minimise the variability in
predictions by different users. In addition, it is rec-
ommended that CFD can be used as an alternative
to wind tunnel testing in all cases, given the fulfil-
ment of the accuracy requirements.
The following is a recommendation for classifying
benchmark vehicles taking the simulation results into
account. A general requirement of a benchmark
Downloaded from pif.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 229(6)
Table 5. Classification of benchmark trains.
Roof
No or low Roof Roof
Front protrusions box(es) fairing
Blunt 1-A 1-B 1-C
Streamlined 2-A 2-B 2-C
vehicle is that it has similar flow features (similar
shape) as the new vehicle that is to be quantified.
Benchmark vehicles are classified into six different
groups as shown in Table 5. There are two main
classes (relating to the front shape of the leading
vehicle):
. 1: blunt;
. 2: streamlined.
Within these classes there are three different cate-
gories that depend on the roof geometry or layout:
. A: no or low protrusions (<100 mm);
. B: roof box or boxes;
. C: roof fairing.
Low protrusions extend less than 100 mm around
the surrounding roof. All roof boxes are considered to
be equal such that any roof configuration that is not
category A or C is category B.
There is a need to define streamlined and blunt
vehicles. Streamlined vehicles have a lee-side vortex
starting at the front at a 30 yaw angle. This should
be verified, e.g. by plotting vectors of in-plane vel-
ocity for cross-sections normal to the train direction,
at several positions starting ahead of the front and
continuing to the middle of the first car. No signifi-
cant separation zone with low speeds should be vis-
ible in the velocity magnitude or axial velocity.
Examples are ICE 3, IC4, ADR and RevCo. Even
though the RevCo front shows blunt characteristics
in the lower half and streamlined characteristics in
the upper part, the CFD results suggest that the
dominant feature is the shape of the upper half of
the front as regards slope and curvature. Examples
of blunt vehicles are VT 612 and AGC. If in doubt,
the shape of the benchmark vehicle and the new
vehicle should have similar-shaped fronts and roof
areas. The simulation flow fields should have similar
features. Furthermore, to be conservative, the bench-
mark vehicle, if in doubt, should be considered to be
streamlined, whereas the new vehicle, if in doubt,
should be considered blunt.
If the simulation approach is validated for a blunt
vehicle it is also valid for a streamlined vehicle of the
same roof category. Similarly, if the simulation
Sima et al.
approach is proved for a vehicle with roof category B,
it is also valid for roof category A. This means that if
the simulation approach is validated for:
. 1-B, it is also valid for 1-A, 2-B and 2-A;
. 2-B, it is also valid for 2-A;
. 1-C is also valid for 2-C;
. 1-A is also valid for 2-A.
For assessing a new vehicle a generalised domain
with block inlet flow profile should be used that
includes more detailed requirements on the domain.
For validating the approach using a benchmark vehi-
cle, a representation of the wind tunnel geometry and
conditions when the measurements were made is suit-
able to minimise setup influences on the comparison.
However, since it may be difficult to accurately repre-
sent the wind tunnel and the aim of the wind tunnel is
to mimic block profile conditions, a generalised
domain with a block profile may be used.
Simulations replace wind tunnel tests; as such the gen-
eral parameters as for example Reynolds number
should be chosen to be representative of the wind
tunnel test conditions. It is also considered that very
accurate numerical simulations could provide valid-
ation data, i.e. provide numerical benchmarks.
Conclusions
A structured procedure has been employed to assess
the accuracy that can be achieved with standard
RANS simulation approaches to assess aerodynamic
coefficients relating to crosswind stability for a range
of vehicle shapes and yaw angles. It was made pos-
sible by many partners considering a large range of
vehicles within a project combining both wind tunnel
tests and simulations, which has not previously been
done to this extent for crosswind studies of rail vehi-
cles. The work resulted in the proposal of best practice
simulation guidelines to minimise the variability in
predictions by different users and recommendations
for amendments to the CEN/TSI methodology
relating to the use of CFD. It is recommended
to allow simulations instead of wind tunnel tests
in all cases the accuracy requirement is fulfilled. On
the other hand, the benchmark assessment of accur-
acy is extended to reflect the finding that different
vehicle shapes provide different flow features and
challenges.
Funding
This paper describes work undertaken in the context of the
AeroTRAIN project, Aerodynamics: Total Regulatory
Downloaded from pif.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
643
Acceptance for the Interoperable Network (www.trio-
train.eu). AeroTRAIN has been a collaborative project
medium-scale focused research project supported by the
European 7th Framework Programme co-ordinated by
UNIFE, contract number: 233985.
References
1. EN14067-6: 2010. Railway applications - aerodynamics -
part 6: requirements and test procedures for cross wind
assesment.
2. EU TS1 2008/232/EC: 2008. Technical specification for
interoperability relating to the ‘rolling stock’ sub-system
of the Trans-European High-Speed Rail System.
3. Diedrichs B. Computational methods for crosswind stabil-
ity of railway trains, a literature survey. Report TRITA
AVE 2005: 27, 2005. Stockholm, Sweden, Royal Institute
of Technology.
4. Diedrichs B. Aerodynamic calculations of crosswind sta-
bility of a high-speed train using control volumes of arbi-
trary polyhedral shape. In: Zasso A, Belloli M, Cheli F,
et al. (eds) The BBAA VI international colloquium on bluff
bodies aerodynamics & applications, Milano, Italy, 20–24
July 2008, pp.1–16.
5. Dipartimento di Meccanica – CIRIVE, Politechnico
Milano; Possibly editors (a cura di): Alberto Zasso,
Marco Belloli, Federico Cheli, Giorgio Diana, Sara
Muggiasca, Daniele Rocchi; 1–16. ISBN 88-901916-4-3.
6. Diedrichs B. Aerodynamic crosswind stability of a regio-
nal train model. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail Rapid
Transit 2010; 224: 580–591.
7. Sima M, Grappein E, Weise M, et al. Presentation of
the EU FP7 AeroTRAIN project and first results. In:
The ninth world congress on rail research, Lille, France,
22–26 May 2011.
8. Eichinger S, Sima M and Thiele F. Numerical simulation
of regional train in cross-wind. Proc IMechE, Part F:
J Rail Rapid Transit 2015; 229(6): 625–634.
9. Sima M, Eichinger S, Blanco A, et al. WP3 – T3.3 CFD
simulations output document. AeroTRAIN project publi-
cation D6.3(1), A.3.3, 2012.
Appendix 1
Notation
CMx rolling moment coefficient (around
longitudinal axis between rails)
CMx,lee rolling moment coefficient around lee
rail
Cx drag force coefficient
Cy side force coefficient
Cz lift force coefficient
Re Reynolds number
Vin inlet velocity