Professional Documents
Culture Documents
IMECE2013
November 13-21, 2013, San Diego, California, USA
IMECE2013-65703
Figure (2): Comparison of drag prediction of compressible and Table (2): Aerodynamic drags on trains running in vacuum
incompressible Simulation tubes at 10132.5 Pa
V =0.21 =0.25 =0.36 =0.56 =0.69
Viscous simulation of subsonic, compressible flow F(kN) F(kN) F(kN) F(kN) F(kN)
The main solver settings of viscous subsonic flow in 100 0.3316 0.5016 0.8288 1.5883 2.3695
FLUENT 6.3 are as follows:
150 0.7036 0.8881 1.9048 3.4801 4.6425
Solver: The solver is density based with implicit formulation; 200 1.8527 2.4943 3.9081 6.1752 7.6054
flow remains steady with absolute velocity formulation and the 250 5.0570 5.7452 6.9516 9.3362 11.021
gradient is Green- Gauss cell based.
300 6.8960 7.7319 9.6635 13.089 14.945
k model: Settings of all values related to turbulence in
fluent have been considered as standard
Space; Two dimensional and axisymmetric Table (3): Aerodynamic drags on trains running in vacuum
Material properties: The fluid is air. tubes at 1013.25 Pa
Boundary conditions: Inlet and outlet have taken as pressure V =0.21 =0.25 =0.36 =0.56 =0.69
farfield and pressure outlet respectively. In this simulation flow F(kN) F(kN) F(kN) F(kN) F(kN)
direction is from left to right. Pressure and velocity boundary
100 0.0434 0.0622 0.0991 0.1808 0.2447
conditions are prescribed following the range of values under
consideration e.g. velocity 100 300 m/s and the vacuum 150 0.0938 0.1145 0.2196 0.3855 0.5052
pressure10.1325 10132.5 Pa.
200 0.2251 0.2904 0.4279 0.6582 0.8202
Results and discussions of viscous simulation 250 0.5667 0.6137 0.7457 1.0024 1.1966
300 0.7470 0.8301 1.0425 1.4118 1.6058
The viscous compressible flow simulation results show that the
blockage ratio and different working pressure significantly
affects the aerodynamic drag of the train in a tunnel. The Table (4): Aerodynamic drags on trains running in vacuum
computed results are shown in Tables 2,3, 4 and 5, respectively. tubes at 101.325 Pa
From the table (6) and figure (4), it is seen that aerodynamic
drag increases with blockage ratio almost at the same rate. The
aerodynamic drag on the train is negligible, when the vacuum
pressure below1000Pa. These variation on drag with respect to
vacuum pressures can clearly identify from figure (5).As the
vacuum pressure increases from 1000 to 10000 Pa, the drag
effect enhances slowly, and then increases rapidly beyond
10000 Pa.Thus from the above results it can be concluded that
both blockage ratio and ambient pressure should be maintained
minimum as possible to ensure low drag. Figure (4) Aerodynamic drags on vacuum train under different
blockage ratio at 10132.5 Pa
Figure (3) Variation of drag with respect to blockage ratio at Figure (5) Aerodynamic drags on vacuum train under different
different vacuum pressure and velocity 300 m/s vacuum pressures with 0.25 blockage ratio and velocity 300m/s
Table 7.Aerodynamic drag with different tail shapes under the The above simulated compressible results showed that, the tail
same blockage ratio of 0.25 and vacuum pressure 1013.25Pa shape of train model was also playing an important role on
REFERENCES
[1] D. Oster, Crystal River, Fla. Evacuated Tube Transportation,
United States Patent: 5950543, 1999.
[8] H.B. Kwon, K.H. Jang, Y.S. Kim, Nose shape optimization
of high-speed train for minimization of tunnel sonic boom,
JSME International Journal Series C Mechanical Systems,
Machine Elements and Manufacturing,
2001, 44(3): 890-89