See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/272410127

Wind tunnel test on aerodynamic effect of wind

barriers on train-bridge system
ARTICLE in SCIENCE CHINA TECHNOLOGICAL SCIENCES FEBRUARY 2014
Impact Factor: 1.11 DOI: 10.1007/s11431-014-5675-1

DOWNLOADS

VIEWS

24

4 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Weiwei Guo
Beijing Jiaotong University
21 PUBLICATIONS 213 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Weiwei Guo

Retrieved on: 10 September 2015

SCIENCE CHINA
Technological Sciences
Special Topic: High-speed Railway Infrastructure (II)

February 2015 Vol.58 No.2: 219225

Article

doi: 10.1007/s11431-014-5675-1

Wind tunnel test on aerodynamic effect of wind barriers on

train-bridge system
GUO WeiWei1,2*, WANG YuJing1, XIA He1,2 & LU Shan1
2

1
School of Civil Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China;
Beijing Key Laboratory of Structural Wind Engineering and Urban Wind Environment, Beijing 100044, China

Received June 4, 2014; accepted August 5, 2014; published online October 23, 2014

To investigate the aerodynamic effect of wind barriers on a high-speed train-bridge system, a sectional model test was conducted in a closed-circuit-type wind tunnel. Several different cases, including with and without barriers, with different barrier
heights and porosity rates, and with different train arrangements on the bridge were taken into consideration; in addition, the
aerodynamic coefficients of the train-bridge system were measured. It is found that the side force and rolling moment coefficients of the vehicle are efficiently reduced by a single-side wind barrier, but for the bridge deck these values are increased.
The height and porosity rate of the barrier are two important factors that influence the windbreak effect. Train arrangement on
the bridge will considerably influence the aerodynamic properties of the train-bridge system. The side force and rolling moment coefficients of the vehicle at the windward side are larger than at the leeward side.
wind barrier, train-bridge system, wind tunnel, aerodynamic coefficient, windbreak effect
Citation:

Guo W W, Wang Y J, Xia H, et al. Wind tunnel test on aerodynamic effect of wind barriers on train-bridge system. Sci China Tech Sci, 2015, 58:
219225, doi: 10.1007/s11431-014-5675-1

1 Introduction
As modern trains become more high-speed and light-weight,
they are more sensitive than ever to wind [1]. A train may
become unsafe in strong wind conditions, especially when it
runs on a bridge. To carry out safety analysis of a train running on a bridge in high winds, the aerodynamic forces acting upon the train-bridge system should be determined
[27].
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and wind tunnel
tests are the usual approaches for obtaining the basic aerodynamic forces of a structure [812]. Some challenging issues and uncertainties remain in CFD technique, which
leads to appreciable differences between calculated and
actual results [7]. Compared to CFD, a wind tunnel test is a
*Corresponding author (email: junedragon@163.com)
Science China Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

more reliable way to explore the aerodynamic or aeroelastic

phenomena of a structure.
The high-speed railway line between Lanzhou and Xinjiang in northwest China, which is still under construction,
passes through a region that suffers more from windstorm
damage than almost anywhere else in the world; the wind
velocity often reaches 5060 m/s. Because these strong
winds are the main natural disaster that affects the running
safety of high-speed trains, wind barriers are required for
bridge designs in this region [13,14]. Wind barriers can reduce the aerodynamic forces on the train, but they can also
have negative influence on a bridge because they enlarge
the windward area of the structure. Moreover, the barrier
will exert a disturbance on the wind field and increase turbulence effects, both of which make the wind field around
the bridge structure more complex [15,16]. We studied the
aerodynamic effect of a single-side wind barrier on a coutech.scichina.com link.springer.com

220

Guo W W, et al.

Sci China Tech Sci

pled train-bridge system by a section-model test that was

conducted in a wind tunnel at Beijing Jiaotong University
(China). Based on this test, which considered wind effects
with and without a wind barrier, with barriers of different
heights and porosity rates, and with different train arrangements on the bridge, we calculated the aerodynamic effect
of the barrier on the train-bridge system. Some useful results were obtained, which can provide fundamental data for
barrier design at high-speed railway bridges and running
safety analyses of trains on such bridges.

2 Experimental method
Dimensionless force coefficients of a bridge and a train can
be obtained by a force test or a surface-pressure test on a
rigid-section model in a wind tunnel. Such tests are usually
conducted under smooth wind flow.
In a force test, the section model is mounted on one or
two force balances for the measurement of wind forces. The
force balance is usually fixed to a turntable so the attack
angle of the wind can be adjusted. The force balance must
be designed according to the mass of the model and the
frequency range of interest. The force coefficients of the
model can be calculated by the following equations:

(1)

(2)

(3)

CD ( ) FD ( ) 0.5U 2 HL ,
CL ( ) FL ( ) 0.5U 2 BL ,

CM ( ) M ( ) 0.5 U 2 B 2 L ,

where CD, CL and CM are the drag, lift, and moment coefficients, respectively; FD, FL, and M indicate the measured
drag, lift and moment forces, respectively; H, L, and B
represent the height, length, and width of the section
model (Figure 1), respectively; is the air density of the
wind tunnel; U is the velocity of the wind flow; and is
the attack angle of the wind flow.
In the pressure test, the surface-wind pressures on the
structure are measured at pressure taps that use high-sensitivity silicon piezoresistive sensors and pneumatic connectors. The sensors are referenced to the static pressure of the
test section, measured sufficiently far from the model. As
shown in Figure 2, the drag, lift and moment forces on the
ith tap can be expressed as the product of the pressure and
the surface area:

Figure 1

Aerodynamic forces and moment on section model.

February (2015) Vol.58 No.2

d FD i pi cos i d si ,

(4)

d FL i pi sin i d si ,

(5)

d M i pi di d si ,

(6)

where pi is the measured surface pressure at the ith tap; dsi

is an elementary surface area near the ith tap; i denotes
the angle between the normal line of dsi and the horizontal
line; and di is the vertical distance from the centroid of the
section to the normal line.
By summing all the forces that act on each of the pressure taps surrounding the section surface of the model, the
overall force components can be obtained as
N

i 1

i 1

i 1

FD d FD i , FL d FL i , M d M i ,

(7)

where N is the number of pressure taps on the section

surface.
The force coefficients of the model can be calculated
by substituting eq. (7) into eqs. (1)(3) and letting L=1.

3 Wind tunnel facilities, models and test cases

The wind tunnel lab at Beijing Jiaotong University is a
closed-circuit type (Figure 3). The total length of the test
section (from the nozzle outlet to the diffuser inlet) is approximately 15.0 m. The test section is 3.0 m wide and 2.0
m high. Wind velocity through the test section can be regulated between 0 and 40 m/s by adjusting both the pitch
blade angle and the speed of the fan (which powered by a
400 kW engine), where the fan is placed at the outlet of the
test section. The maximum wind velocity used in this study
was 15 m/s.
The structural models for the vehicle, deck, and wind
barrier are made of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS)
plastic boards. In this study, the model scale is 1:32. The
scaled dimensions of the vehicle, deck, and a single-side
barrier 3.5 m in height are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 2

Illustration of surface wind pressures and forces.

Guo W W, et al.

Figure 3

Figure 4

Sci China Tech Sci

Case
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4

221

Wind tunnel lab at Beijing Jiaotong University.

Scaled model of train-bridge system with barrier (unit: mm).

The test was carried out for four cases (Table 1 and Figures 5 and 6).
All of the cases were carried out in wind environments
with uniform flow. The blockage ratio of the models to the
cross-section of the test section was 4.4%12.23%. According to some research, a blockage ratio higher than 10% is
acceptable in practical engineering [17].
Figure 7 depicts one of the schematic diagrams in case 2.
Because the model can rotate around the decks longitudinal
axis, the drag, lift, and moment are measured as functions of
the wind attack angle . A wind barrier is installed at the
windward side of the deck (Figure 7(a)). The train model is
also set on the windward track on the deck, which is
equipped with 5 groups of pressure taps on its surface; each
group has 40 measuring points (Figure 7(b)). Because of
interference from the tunnel walls, the pressure data of taps
at both ends of the vehicle are dispersed from those at the
middle (RD=33%77%). Therefore, we used the average of
the pressure data obtained from the three groups in the middle part of the vehicle for analysis.
The deck model is placed on a dynamometric system.
The aerodynamic forces and moments of the deck are
measured with a 5-component (Fy, Fz, Mx, My, Mz) force
balance at each end (Figure 8(a)).
Four rack-mount and intelligent-pressure scanner valves
(Figure 8(b)) were used to measure the pressures on the
vehicle surface (256 channels in total). Instantaneous and
simultaneous pressure measurements were carried out at
Table 1

February (2015) Vol.58 No.2

Four cases in the test

Train on deck
no train
a train
a train
a train

Measurement condition
Without and with a single-side wind barrier
Different train arrangements are compared
Different barrier heights are compared
Different barrier porosity rates are compared

Figure 5 Illustration of test cases. (a) Case 1: with and without barrier on
deck; (b) case 2: with different train arrangements on deck; (c) case 3: with
different barrier heights H; (d) case 4: with different barrier porosity rates

Figure 6

Illustration of barrier with different porosity rates .

each tap at 312.5 Hz for 80 s.

4 Analysis of results
4.1

Case 1

We measured the influence of a single-side wind barrier

222

Guo W W, et al.

Sci China Tech Sci

February (2015) Vol.58 No.2

Figure 7 Schematic diagram of wind tunnel test (unit: mm). (a) Connections, supports, and layout of section model; (b) arrangement of one group
of pressure taps on vehicle surface.

Figure 9 Tri-component coefficients of deck in case 1. (a) Drag force

coefficients; (b) lift force coefficients; (c) moment coefficients.
Table 2

Case 1
Without barrier
With barrier

Figure 8 Experimental instruments. (a) TG351B-type force balance; (b)

ESP-64HD pressure scanner.

with a height of 3.5 m and a porosity rate of 30% on the

aerodynamic coefficients of the deck.
Figure 9 displays the tri-component coefficients of the
deck with and without wind barrier for the wind attack angle ranging from 6 to 6.
The lift force and moment coefficients of the deck decrease due to the existence of the wind barrier, whereas the
drag force coefficients are larger than those of the bare deck
due to the increase of windward area. Table 2 shows the
drag, lift, and moment coefficients of the deck at zero
wind-attack angle.
To verify the measurements, the tri-component coefficients of the deck at zero wind-attack angle between the
CFD simulation and the wind tunnel test are compared in
Table 3. The relative discrepancies (RD) between the two
sets of results are also listed in Table 3. The relative

Tri-component coefficients of deck in Case 1

CD
1.546
3.021

CL
0.567
0.074

CM
0.235
0.180

Table 3 Comparisons of tri-component coefficients of deck between

CFD simulation and wind tunnel test

Wind velocity (m/s)

10

Results
Simulated
Measured
RD (%)

CD
1.426
1.546
7.76

CL
0.614
0.567
8.29

CM
0.228
0.235
2.98

discrepancy is defined as the computed result minus the

measured result, divided by the measured result. The computed tri-component coefficients are all close to the measurements. The absolute relative discrepancies are less than
10%.
4.2

Case 2

We measured the wind forces and pressures on the train-

Guo W W, et al.

Sci China Tech Sci

223

February (2015) Vol.58 No.2

bridge system under different train arrangements on the

deck, herein installed at the windward side as a wind barrier
with a height of 3.5 m and a porosity rate of 30%.
Figures 10 and 11 show the results of the wind tunnel test
on the tri-component coefficients of the vehicle and the
deck for the wind attack angle ranging from 6 to 6.
The aerodynamic characteristics of the train-bridge system
differ when the train is at the windward and the leeward
track. The side force and rolling moment coefficients of the
vehicle at the windward side are larger than at the leeward
side because the wind velocity acting on the vehicle at the
leeward side is smaller. Compared to Figure 9, the
tri-component coefficients of the deck change considerably
when the train is present.
The tri-component coefficients of the vehicle and the
deck at zero wind-attack angle are listed in Table 4.
4.3

Case 3

We measured the wind forces and pressures on the trainbridge system under different barrier heights, herein kept
constant as the barrier porosity rate and with the value of

Figure 11 Tri-component coefficients of deck in case 2. (a) Drag force

coefficients; (b) lift force coefficients; (c) moment coefficients.

Table 4

Tri-component coefficients of train-bridge system in case 2

Case 2

Figure 10 Tri-component coefficients of vehicle in case 2. (a) Side force

coefficients; (b) lift force coefficients; (c) rolling moment coefficients.

Deck

Vehicle

CD

CL

CM

CD

CL

CM

Windward

2.700

0.095

0.065

0.382

0.325

0.044

Leeward

2.822

0.106

0.076

0.094

0.122

0.017

30%.
Figure 12 shows the pressure distribution curves on the
vehicle surface at different barrier heights (the measuring
point positions are shown in Figure 7(b)). With increasing
barrier height, the pressures on the windward side of the
vehicle surface (points 1 to 11) efficiently decreased.
Figure 13 show comparisons of the tri-component coefficients of the train-bridge system at zero wind attack angle
by different barrier heights. The aerodynamic coefficients of
the vehicle are sensitive to the barrier height. As the height
increases from 0 to 3.5 m, both the side-force and rolling-moment coefficients gradually decrease. The former
drops much more obviously than the latter but both indices
slightly increase for the barrier higher than 3.5 m. Unlike

224

Guo W W, et al.

Sci China Tech Sci

February (2015) Vol.58 No.2

Table 5

Tri-component coefficients of train-bridge system in case 3

Case 3
H=0 m
H=2.0 m
H=3.5 m
H=5.0 m

CD
2.614
2.628
2.700
3.247

Deck
CL
0.253
0.290
0.095
0.238

CM
0.019
0.017
0.065
0.083

CD
1.335
1.230
0.382
0.386

Vehicle
CL
0.480
0.355
0.325
0.060

CM
0.207
0.126
0.044
0.070

Figure 12 Pressure distribution on vehicle surface in case 3.

bridge system under different barrier porosity rates, herein

kept constant as the barrier height and with the value of 3.5
m.
Figure 14 shows the pressure distribution curves on the
vehicle surface with different barrier porosity rates. The
pressures on the windward side of the vehicle surface
(points 1 to 11) increase remarkably with the increasing
porosity rates.
Figure 15 show the distribution curves of the tri-component coefficients versus barrier porosity rates. The aerodynamic coefficients of the vehicle are more sensitive than

Figure 13 Tri-component coefficients of train-bridge system vs. barrier

height H. (a) Vehicle; (b) deck.

Figure 14 Pressure distribution on vehicle surface in case 4.

the vehicle, the drag force and moment coefficients of the

deck increase slowly with the barrier height. In short, when
the height of barrier is 3.5 m, the side-force and rolling-moment coefficients of the vehicle are closest to zero,
so that the vehicle is easier to resist overturning. Meanwhile,
the aerodynamic coefficients for the deck are the most
agreeable. Therefore, the optimal barrier height for this
train-bridge system is 3.5 m.
The tri-component coefficients of the vehicle and the
deck at zero wind attack angle in this case are listed in Table 5. The side-force and rolling-moment coefficients of the
vehicle are efficiently reduced due to the existence of the
wind barrier, but the barrier brings a negative effect to the
deck. With a single-side wind barrier of a 3.5 m height and
a 30% porosity rate, the drag force and moment coefficients
for the vehicle are reduced by 71.4% and 78.7%, respectively; for the deck they are increased by 3.3% and 242.1%.
4.4

Case 4

We measured the wind forces and pressures on the train-

Figure 15 Tri-component coefficients of train-bridge system vs. porosity

rate . (a) Vehicle; (b) deck.

Guo W W, et al.

Sci China Tech Sci

those of the deck to the porosity rate. Both the side-force

and rolling-moment coefficients of the vehicle obviously
increase with the porosity rate. Therefore, the porosity rate
of the barrier should be controlled in order to ensure the
shelter effect.
The tri-component coefficients of the vehicle and the
deck at zero wind-attack angle are listed in Table 6. Unlike
the vehicle, the drag force and moment coefficients of the
deck decrease slowly with the porosity rate, due to the decrease of windward area.

February (2015) Vol.58 No.2

3.5 m for this train-bridge system. The porosity rate of the

barrier should be controlled to ensure the shelter effect.
This work was supported by the National Basic Research Program of China (973 Project) (Grant No. 2013CB036203), the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51308034), and the 111 Project (Grant No. B13002).
1

5 Conclusions

We investigate the aerodynamic effect of a wind barrier on

a train-bridge system by means of wind tunnel tests on 1:32
scale models. Our main conclusions are summarized as follows.
(1) Due to the protection of the wind barrier, the aerodynamic coefficients of the vehicle are efficiently reduced.
With a single-side wind barrier of 3.5 m height and 30%
porosity rate, the side-force and rolling-moment coefficients
of the vehicle are reduced by 71.4% and 78.7%, respectively.
(2) Although it is helpful to the vehicle, the wind barrier
has a negative influence on the bridge. This is because it
enlarges the windward area of the structure, and thus remarkably increases the drag and moment forces on the deck.
(3) Train arrangement on the deck will influence the
aerodynamic properties of the train-bridge system, because
it changes the flow pattern around the deck. The side-force
and rolling-moment coefficients of the vehicle on the
windward track are larger than on the leeward track due to
the higher wind velocity at the windward side.
(4) The height and porosity rate of the wind barrier are
two important factors that influence the windbreak effect.
According to our tests, the optimal height of the barrier is
Table 6
Case 4

=0
=10%
=30%
=50%

Tri-component coefficients of train-bridge system in case 4

CD
2.739
2.728
2.700
2.607

Deck
CL
0.191
0.127
0.095
0.367

CM
0.070
0.068
0.065
0.051

CD
0.086
0.030
0.382
0.775

Vehicle
CL
0.032
0.181
0.325
0.276

CM
0.012
0.006
0.044
0.120

225

6
7
8

10

11

12

13
14

15

16

17

Chen R L, Zeng Q Y, Huang Y Q, et al. Analysis theory of random

energy of train derailment in wind. Sci China Phys Mech Astron,
2010, 53: 751757
Li Y L, Qiang S Z, Liao H L, Xu Y L. Dynamics of wind-rail vehicle-bridge systems. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod, 2005, 93: 483507
Zhang T, Xia H, Guo W W. Analysis on running safety of train on
bridge with wind barriers subjected to cross wind. Wind Struct, 2013,
17: 203225
Guo W W, Xia H, Zhang N. Dynamic responses of Tsing Ma bridge
and running safety of trains subjected to Typhoon York. Int J Rail
Transport, 2013, 1: 181192
Guo W W, Xu, Y L, Xia H, et al. Dynamic response of suspension
bridge to typhoon and trains II: Numerical results. J Struct Eng, 2007,
133: 1221
Xu Y L, Zhang N, Xia H. Vibration of coupled train and cable-stayed
bridge systems in cross winds. Eng Struct, 2004, 26: 13891406
Xu Y L. Wind Effects on Cable-Supported Bridges. Singapore: John
Wiley & Sons, 2013
Shirai S, Ueda T. Aerodynamic simulation by CFD on flat box girder
of super-long-span suspension bridge. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod, 2003,
91: 279290
Bocciolone M, Cheli F, Corradi R, et al. Crosswind action on rail vehicles: Wind tunnel experimental analyses. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod,
2008, 96: 584610
Cheli F, Corradi R, Rocchi D, et al. Wind tunnel tests on train scaled
models to investigate the effect of infrastructure scenario. J Wind Eng
Ind Aerod, 2010, 98: 353362
Zhu L D, Li L, Xu Y L, Zhu Q. Wind tunnel investigations of aerodynamic coefficients of road vehicles on bridge deck. J Fluids Struct,
2012, 30: 3550
Diana G, Fiammenghi G, Belloli M, et al. Wind tunnel tests and numerical approach for long span bridges: The Messina bridge. J Wind
Eng Ind Aerod, 2013, 122: 3849
Qian Z Y. Strong wind disaster and control countermeasure for
northwest China railways (in Chinese). Chin Rail, 2009, 51: 14
Ge S C, Jiang F Q. Analyses of the causes for wind disaster in strong
wind area along Lanzhou-Xinjiang railway and the effect of windbreak (in Chinese). J Rail Eng Soc, 2009, 5: 14
Kwon S D, Kim D H, Lee S H, et al. Design criteria of wind barriers
for traffic. Part 1: Wind barrier performance. Wind Struct, 2011, 14:
5570
Kim D H, Kwon S D, Lee I K, et al. Design criteria of wind barriers
for traffic. Part 2: Decision making process. Wind Struct, 2011, 14:
7180
Suzuki M, Tanemoto K, Maeda T. Aerodynamic characteristics of
train/vehicles under cross winds. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod, 2003, 91:
209218