2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.jweia.2017.03.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The performance of different turbulence models (URANS, SAS and DES) for predicting high-speed train slipstream

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
51
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 130 publications
(52 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
1
51
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The zonal methods separate the near wall region (resolved using a RANS model) and the outer regions (where LES is used) by a distinct interface (also see Jakirlic and Maduta (2015)), while the non-zonal methods seamlessly bridge the two regions. The comparison/assessment between various turbulence models for canonical/simplistic bluff bodies has been widely reported (Guilmineau et al (2017), Maleki et al (2017), Serre et al (2013) and others); more realistic geometries have also been assessed (Wang et al (2017), Jakirlic et al (2017a), Jakirlic et al (2017b), , Ashton et al (2016) and Pereira et al (2018a)). It may be noted that different methodologies/closure models for turbulence have been proposed over the past few years, and only the major models are mentioned here.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The zonal methods separate the near wall region (resolved using a RANS model) and the outer regions (where LES is used) by a distinct interface (also see Jakirlic and Maduta (2015)), while the non-zonal methods seamlessly bridge the two regions. The comparison/assessment between various turbulence models for canonical/simplistic bluff bodies has been widely reported (Guilmineau et al (2017), Maleki et al (2017), Serre et al (2013) and others); more realistic geometries have also been assessed (Wang et al (2017), Jakirlic et al (2017a), Jakirlic et al (2017b), , Ashton et al (2016) and Pereira et al (2018a)). It may be noted that different methodologies/closure models for turbulence have been proposed over the past few years, and only the major models are mentioned here.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Figure 4 (a) and (b) shows the time-averaged vorticity contours and velocity vectors at the plane x/W=1 in the wake of simplified model and complex model, respectively. It can be noted that a dominating pair of counter-rotating streamwise vortices, well-established in literature [1][2][3][5][6][7]13,14], exists in both configurations. The vortex pair moves downwards and outwards in the wake.…”
Section: Numerical Validationmentioning
confidence: 54%
“…Additionally, CFD provides much more detailed information of the flow, which is helpful for understanding the inherent physics and mechanism of the issues concerned [4]. A systematic comparison of accuracy of different turbulence models applied to slipstream prediction of a HST has been conducted by Wang [5] , which shows that IDDES presents superior consistency with the experimental data in the predicting slipstream. Muld applied Proper Orthogonal Decomposition (POD) to study the flow structure of the Aerodynamic Train Model (ATM) with bogie section under the body and two different flow structures are extracted in the wake of the ATM, namely vortex shedding and bending of the counter-rotating vortices [6] .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At present, numerous scholars have used the IDDES (based on the k-ω shear-stress transport turbulence model) method to study the unsteady aerodynamic performance around a train. For example, Wang et al [21] compared the accuracy of different turbulence models in predicting the slipstream. The results show that the slipstream velocity obtained with the IDDES method has good consistency with experimental data.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%