Aerodynamic performance of traveling road vehicles on a single-level rail-cum-road bridge under crosswind and aerodynamic impact of traveling trains

Figures & data

Figure 1. Wind-induced accident in Japan.

Figure 2. Cross-section of Yibin Lingang Yangtze River Bridge (Unit: mm) (Wang & Saul, 2020).

Figure 3. The configuration of the CRH3 model: (a) Scaled prototype from Schober et al. (2010); (b) Numerical model in the present study.

Figure 4. Configuration of the road vehicle: (a) Van; (b) Bus; (c) Truck trailer.

Table 1. Geometrical information about the road vehicles.

	Length	Width	Height	COG from the	COG above the
	(m)	(m)	(m)	head (m)	ground (m)
Van	7.67	2.3	3.34	3.84	1.55
Bus	10.42	2.5	3.29	5.64	1.495
Truck trailer	15.72	2.48	3.78	6.30	1.62

*Note: COG – center of gravity

Figure 5. Calculation domain and boundary condition.

Figure 6. Structural and non-structural hexahedral gird area: (a) calculation domain; (b) bridge deck.

Figure 7. Mesh generation and boundary condition of road vehicle zone (Van).

Figure 8. Mesh generation and boundary condition of train zone.

Figure 9. Flow chart of overset mesh: (a) Assembly; (b) Interpolation.

Table 2. Grid information in the grid independence verification (Unit: million).

	Bridge region	Van region	Train region	Total
Set 1	5.4	Non-struct: 0.71 Struct: 0.009	1.16	7.28
Set 2	7.7	Non-struct: 1.13 Struct: 0.014	1.98	10.82
Set 3	9.5	Non-struct: 1.22 Struct: 0.017	2.44	13.18
Set 4 (Adopted in present study)	10.9	Non-struct: 1.47 Struct: 0.020	2.81	15.20
Set 5	14.1	Non-struct: 1.83 Struct: 0.025	3.31	19.27

Figure 10. Fs of the van on lane 3 in different mesh resolution.

Figure 11. Velocity contour of the steady computation.

Figure 12. Large-scale sectional model wind tunnel test.

Table 3. Comparison between the wind tunnel test and simulation.

Lane Location		CS	CL	CMR	CMY	CMP
Lane 1	Exp	1.575	0.576	−0.016	−0.776	0.108
	Sim	1.458	0.465	−0.173	−0.689	−0.089
	e (%)	−7.43	−19.17	958.33	−11.22	−182.66
Lane 2	Exp	0.842	−0.106	−0.102	−0.375	0.172
	Sim	0.741	−0.074	−0.159	−0.400	0.102
	e (%)	−12.01	−29.57	56.00	6.91	−40.48
Lane 3	Exp	0.468	−0.162	−0.131	−0.315	0.163
	Sim	0.448	−0.128	−0.078	−0.308	0.114
	e (%)	−4.26	−21.47	−40.63	−2.16	−30.00

*Note: Exp - Experiment, Sim - Simulation

Figure 13. Moving model system and test condition: (a) Vertical view; (b) Side view.

Figure 14. Vehicle models in the moving model tests: (a) Van; (b) Bus; (c) CRH3 (up) and cuboid train (down).

Figure 15. Comparison of the variation curve of C_S.

Table 4. Quantitative comparisons among the peak/valleyvalues.

	P1	V1	P2	V2	P3
Experiment	0.04377	−0.03850	−0.01743	−0.04426	0.02961
Simulation	0.04465	−0.04022	−0.01635	−0.04371	0.02891
Percentage Error (%)	2.01	4.47	−6.20	−1.24	−2.36

Figure 16. Comparison of peak/valley values and attenuation ratio: (a) P1; (b) V1.

Figure 17. Pressure distribution of sole-traveling vehicle: (a1) ∼ (a2) Pressure iso-value surface of 100 Pa; (b1) ∼ (b2) Pressure distribution on the vehicle-bridge system; (c1) ∼ (c2) Horizontal plane 1.5 m above the deck. (Unit: Pa).

Figure 18. Definition of the relative location.

Figure 19. Pressure distribution on the vehicle-bridge system (Unit: Pa).

Figure 20. Aerodynamic coefficients of van on different lanes: (a) C_S; (b) C_L; (c) C_MR; (d) C_MY; (e) C_MP.

Table 5. Case details on different road lanes.

No. of	Location of	Location of	Speed	Wind Speed
Case	the Van	the Train	(km/h)	(m/s)
1	Lane 1	Track 1	Van: 80	15
2	Lane 2		Train: 300
3	Lane 3

Table 6. Quantitative information for the aerodynamic forces of the van on different lanes.

			Variation
Coefficients	Lane	Amplitude	Percentage (%)	Normalized
CS	Lane 1	0.0422	10.72	0.30
	Lane 2	0.0755	23.28	0.53
	Lane 3	0.1416	68.96	1.00
CMR	Lane 1	0.0242	11.09	0.34
	Lane 2	0.0312	15.21	0.44
	Lane 3	0.0705	46.10	1.00
CMY	Lane 1	0.0282	36.09	0.25
	Lane 2	0.0388	310.24	0.34
	Lane 3	0.1144	152.55	1.00

Table 7. Case details for the influence on different road vehicles.

No. of		Location of the	Location of	Speed	Wind Speed
Case	Vehicle Type	Road Vehicle	the Train	(km/h)	(m/s)
1	Van	Lane 3	Track 1	Road vehicle: 80	15
2	Bus			Train: 300
3	Truck Trailer

Figure 21. Aerodynamic forces of different road vehicle: (a) C_S; (b) C_L; (c) C_MR; (d) C_MY; (e) C_MP.

Table 8. Quantitative information of different vehicles (Unit: Force-N, Moment N·m).

	Amplitude	FS	FL	MR	MY	MP
Van	Force	1197	358	918	1664	215
	Coefficient	0.1422	0.0427	0.0706	0.1279	0.0165
Bus	Force	1703	528	1134	5627	1337
	Coefficient	0.1336	0.0414	0.0596	0.2958	0.0702
Truck trailer	Force	2169	632	2689	14404	2636
	Coefficient	0.1160	0.338	0.0888	0.4761	0.0871

Table 9. Case details of the superposition of crosswind and train-induced wind.

No. of	Wind speed	Location of the	Location of	Speed
Case	(m/s)	Road Vehicle	the Train	(km/h)
1	0	Lane 3	Track 1	Van: 80
2	15			Train: 300
3	20
4	25

Table 10. Aerodynamic coefficients under different wind yaw angles.

No. of Case	β (°)	CS	CL	CMR	CMY	CMP
1	0.00	−0.001	−0.024	−0.001	−0.020	−0.083
2	34.02	0.203	0.112	−0.151	−0.068	−0.063
3	41.98	0.255	0.155	−0.200	−0.020	−0.034
4	48.37	0.285	0.187	−0.227	0.007	−0.026
Static Model in Section 3.3	90.00	0.448	−0.128	−0.078	−0.308	0.114

Figure 22. Aerodynamic variation of the van at different wind speeds.

Table 11. Peak/valley values and variation amplitudes at different wind speeds (Unit: kN, kN·m).

No. of Case		1	2	3	4
FS	V1	−0.7598	−0.9665	−0.9471	−0.9969
	P1	0.6070	0.2302	0.1204	0.0946
	P1-V1	1.3668	1.1967	1.0675	1.0914
FL	V1	−0.2013	−0.3583	−0.4038	−0.4638
MR	V1	−0.4246	−0.1539	0.0196	0.0166
	P1	0.5489	0.7646	0.8513	0.8967
	P1-V1	0.9735	0.9185	0.8317	0.8801

Wang, Y., & Saul, R. (2020). Wide cable-supported bridges for rail-cum-road traffic. Structural Engineering International, 30, 551–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/10168664.2020.1735-980

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schober, M., Weise, M., Orellano, A., Deeg, P., & Wetzel, W. (2010). Wind tunnel investigation of an ICE 3 endcar on three standard ground scenarios. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 98(6-7), 345–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2009.12.004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar