Proceedings of the ASME 2013 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition
IMECE2013
November 13-21, 2013, San Diego, California, USA
NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION OF AERDYNAMIC DRAG ON VACUUM TUBE
HIGHSPEED TRAIN
Sreeja Bibin
Bengal Engineering and Science University
Shibpur, West Bengal, India
ABSTRACT
This work involves numerical simulations based on finite
volume method to study the effects of different factors on the
aerodynamic drag on a vacuum tube train running at subsonic
and transonic speeds in a partially vacuum tunnel. Investigation
includes the study of the effects of the shapes of head, tail,
vacuum pressure and also blockage ratio of the tunnel on
aerodynamic drag on a high speed train. The simulation is
performed by using fluent software. Two dimensional, axi-
symmetric, compressible Navier-Stokes equations were solved
by using k- turbulent modeling. Five different blockage ratios
at five different speeds of the train have been considered. The
simulated results show that, the blockage ratio and different
working vacuum pressure significantly affects the aerodynamic
drag of the train in a tunnel. Investigations with respect to
different shapes of the head as well as that of the tail indicate
the optimum shape for minimum drag.
INTRODUCTION
A vacuum tube train is conceived for future high-
speed transportation.It is proposed to run
through evacuated (air-less) or partly evacuated tubes or tunnels
(ETT). Tunnels with less ambient pressure can offer many
advantages like less drag less noise etc.(1). These effects in turn
provide less fuel consumption and friendlier environment.
Theoretically speaking, the vacuum tube trains are able to run
through evacuated tubes at transonic and even supersonic
speeds without the penalty of sonic boom or shock layer that
are generally found in the cases of supersonic aircrafts
(2,3,&4).
The need of enhanced speed in ground transportation led to the
development of high speed trains. In the last two decades
enormous developments in this field have taken place. Many
IMECE2013-65703
Sujay Kumar Mukherjea
Bengal Engineering and Science University
Shibpur, West Bengal, India
countries adapted high speed rail networks as an alternative to
airplane service for relatively short distance travels (500 to
1000 km). In a similar study Yaoping ZHANG (5) considered
an ETT tunnel with various blockage conditions. In his work
analysis of the effect of vehicle speed on aerodynamic drag was
made by varying the velocity from 50-300 m/s by using k-
turbulent modeling with incompressible flow solver.
With this booming development of high speed trains, the
aerodynamic analyses of such vehicles have become very
important (6, 7, & 8).
However, in the present work, aerodynamic drags under
different blockage ratios, ambient pressures and also for
different shapes of train model have been calculated
numerically by using FLUENT software. The flow is assumed
to be a steady two dimensional, axi-symmetric compressible
turbulent viscous flow. Navier-Stokes equations coupled with k-
turbulent modeling were solved to calculate the aerodynamic
drag acting on vacuum tube trains.
NOMENCLATURE
V: Train speed in meter per second (m/s)
D: Tunnel diameter in m, its value ranges from 0.21-0.69.
F: Aerodynamic drag acting on the train (kN)
:Cross-sectional area ratio of train to tunnel (Blockage ratio)
u ,v: velocity components in x & y directions
: Density of gas
p: Static gas pressure (Pa)
E: Total specific energy
1 Copyright 2013 by ASME
e: Specific internal energy u%z
u%r u% z + p rz
H: total specific enthalpy
u%z u% z zz
h: Specific enthalpy
V: Train speed in meter per second (m/s) u% z ( E% + p ) + q z u%r rz u% z zz
F =r
% t K%
uz K +
%
k z
Equations of fluid motion
t
u%z +
The commercial CFD solver FLUENT was used in the present k z
study to solve the set of compressible flow N-S equations along
with k equations for turbulent modeling. The set of
equations governing the fluid flow motion have been chosen 0
based on the following assumptions. p +

1. The flow is of a calorically perfect gas. 0

2. It is a two dimensional, axi-symmetric, steady, turbulent, 0
H =r
and compressible flow. r ( P )

r
When the compressible Navier-Stokes equations and the k k% ( C1 P C2 )
turbulence model are written for axi-symmetric flow in
cylindrical coordinate, they can be expressed in vector form as,

(Q) ( E ) ( F ) Additionally the perfect gas equation

+ + +H =0
t r z
p = RT
Where the vectors are given by,
The operating pressures within the tunnel were varied from 10
to10000Pa. The standard values k model parameters as
u% available in FLUENT were used. A Commercial grid generation
r package GAMBIT was used for the model generation and
u% z
Q=r % meshing. The computational domains were meshed with
E quadrilateral grids. Care was taken during mesh generation to
K% cluster grid points near the train model.

DETAILS OF VACUUM TUBE TRAIN MODEL

The geometry of the model used for calculating the

aerodynamic drag is shown in figure (1). The diameter of the
u%r train model is equal to 3m , body length is 40m including head
u%r u%r + p rr and tail. The entire tunnel length is 200m. The inlet distance of
the tunnel is 80m, and the outlet distance is also 80m, and the
u% z u%r zr tube diameter used for calculating the aero dynamic drag is 3.6,
4, 5, 6 and 6.6m.
u%r ( E% + p ) + qr u%r rr u%r zr
E =r
% t K%
u%r K +
k r


u%r + t
k r Figure (1): Schematic representation of vacuum train model

2 Copyright 2013 by ASME

Validation of Results
Aerodynamic Drag (kN)
Steady state results were shown and compared in Fig (2) and
Velocity
Table (1) for validation with the work of Yaoping ZHANG (5) Work by Present work
(m/s)
for the case indicated. Yaoping ZHANG (5)
50 0.111 0.1045
It is seen from figure (2) and table (1) that, at low velocities
100 0.456 0.5016
both incompressible and compressible results are very close
due to negligible compressibility effect. However, the 150 0.855 0.8881
compressible results increasingly deviate from incompressible 200 1.870 2.4943
values at the higher velocities. It indicates the necessity of 250 2.947 5.7452
compressible flow simulation at high speed range. 300 4.268 7.7319

Table(1):Aerodynamic drags on trains running in ETT tubes of

blockage ratio 0.25, at pressure 1013.25 Pa

V =0.21 =0.25 =0.36 =0.56 =0.69

F(kN) F(kN) F(kN) F(kN) F(kN)
100 2.782 4.392 7.409 14.654 22.386
150 5.790 7.480 17.732 32.995 44.441
200 16.243 22.650 35.223 58.876 72.537
250 48.872 54.800 66.480 89.797 105.104
300 66.563 88.272 104.53 128.911 142.534

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

3 Copyright 2013 by ASME

 V =0.21 =0.25 =0.36 =0.56 =0.69
Blockage ratio Aerodynamic Drag(kN)
F(kN) F(kN) F(kN) F(kN) F(kN)
100 0.0084 0.0100 0.0156 0.0268 0.0353 0.11 63.4974
0.14 67.5664
150 0.0157 0.0188 0.0266 0.0487 0.0637
0.18 76.0042
200 0.0316 0.0384 0.0529 0.0798 0.0912 0.25 88.2727
250 0.0641 0.0734 0.0879 0.1169 0.1384 0.36 104.5347
0.56 128.9111
300 0.0891 0.0982 0.0123 0.1649 0.0867

Table (6): Aerodynamic drags on trains running in vacuum

Table (5): Aerodynamic drags on trains running in vacuum train tubes at 10132.5 Pa and velocity 300 m/s
tubes at 10.1325 Pa

These results showed that on decreasing the value of pressure

inside the tunnel decreases the values of pressure drag and
viscous drag at same velocity and blockage ratio.

At velocity 300 m/s drag values are plotted with respect to

different blockage ratio for different vacuum pressure as
parameters in Figure (3). Significant drag reduction is seen at
lower ambient pressure.

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

4 Copyright 2013 by ASME

Optimization of vacuum tube train head and tail Variation of aerodynamic drag on the vacuum train with respect
shape to different tail shapes was found and is shown in Table.7. The
In the present work, five different vacuum train head & tail aerodynamic drag is least, when the head of the train is
shapes have been investigated, as shown in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7. triangular with bottom to height ratio of 2:1
Here the compressible simulation carried out with the value of
blockage ratio 0.25 and at vacuum pressure 1013.25Pa (1/100
of standard atmospheric pressure).

(a) Train with semi circle head

(a) Train with semi circle tail

(b) Train with triangular (bottom to height ratio of 1:1) head

(b) Train with triangular (bottom to height ratio of 1:1) tail

(c) Train with triangular (bottom to height ratio of 2:1) head

(c) Train with triangular (bottom to height ratio of 2:1) tail

(d) Train with ellipse head

(d) Train with ellipse tail

(e) Train with blunt head

Figure (7) Different Head models of vacuum tube train

(e) Train with blunt tail

Figure (6) Different tail models of vacuum tube train Similar study was carried out to investigate the effect of
different head shapes by taking the tail shape corresponding to
Initially the effect of different tail shapes on the aerodynamic minimum drag in the previous analysis (figure 7). In both cases,
drag on the vacuum tube train was studied. In this analysis the the blockage ratio was 0.25 and vacuum pressure 1013.25Pa.
shape of head was taken as semicircle for all five cases.
Different tail models used in the present simulation are shown Tail shape of vacuum train Aerodynamic drag(KN)
in fig (6). Semi circle head 8.50213
triangular head (1:1) 9.18961
Tail shape of vacuum train Aerodynamic drag(KN) triangular head(2:1) 8.56386
Ellipse head 8.09053
Semi circle tail 8.86388 Blunt head 8.67477
triangular tail (1:1) 8.99181
triangular tail(2:1) 8.50237 Table 8.Aerodynamic drag with different tail shapes under the
Ellipse tail 8.61419 same blockage ratio of 0.25, optimized triangular 2:1 head
Blunt tail 8.88871 shape & vacuum pressure 1013.25Pa

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

5 Copyright 2013 by ASME

aerodynamics. From table (8) the vacuum train with elliptical
tail gives the minimum value of aerodynamic drag that is
8.09053KN.
The computational domain corresponding to the optimum train
model is shown in Fig. 8. The blockage ratio is taken as 0.25.
Tunnel pressure is maintained at 1013.25 Pa. The
corresponding pressure and mach contours are shown in Fig. 9
and 10 respectively. The pressure contours clearly portrays the
pressure variation along the train model. Mach contours are
clearly showing the velocity variation in the domain.
Figure 8. Grid around a train
Figure (9). Pressure contour inside tunnel
Figure(10). Mach contour inside the tunnel
CONCLUSIONS
Numerical investigations of vacuum tube train aerodynamics
have been performed. Detailed parametric studies are carried
out to explore the influence of blockage ratio, tunnel pressure,
shapes of head and tail on aerodynamic drag acting on the train.
Five different blockage ratios at five specific speeds of the train
have been considered. The simulated results show that, the
blockage ratio and different working pressure significantly
affects the aerodynamic drag of the train in a tunnel. Both the
blockage ratio and vacuum pressure need to be maintained at a
lower value to ensure lower drag. But selection of the optimum
value of blockage ratio and vacuum pressure depends upon
many other criteria like cost of the project which are beyond the
scope of the present investigation. Investigations have also been
done with respect to different shapes of the head as well as that
of the tail. Variations of drag with respect to the shapes of both
head and tail have been noticed. Optimum shapes of head and
tail were found to be an ellipse and triangular (2:1) shape.
REFERENCES
[1] D. Oster, Crystal River, Fla. Evacuated Tube Transportation,
United States Patent: 5950543, 1999.
[2] Li Zhou, Z.Y. Shen, Progress in high-speed train technology
around the world, Journal of Modern Transportation, 2011,
[3] Y.P. Zhang, D. Oster, M. Kumada, et al., Key Vacuum
Technologies to Be Solved in Evacuated Tube Transportation,
Journal of Modern Transportation, 2011
[4] D. Oster, M. Kumada, Y. P. Zhang, Evacuated tube transport
technologies (ET3) tm: a maximum value global transportation
network for passengers and cargo, Journal of Modern
Transportation, 2011
[5] Y.P. Zhang ,X. Zhou, , Y.F. Yao, Numerical simulation on
the aerodynamic drag of high-speed train in evacuated tube,
Science Technology and Engineering, 2008
[6]Xuyong CHEN,Lifeng ZHAO,. Aerodynamic simulation of
evacuated tube maglev trains with different streamlined
designs. Journal of Modern Transportation, 2011
[7] Z.Y. Shen, On developing high-speed evacuated tube
transportation in China, Journal of Southwest Jiaotong
University, 2005, 40(2): 133-137 (in Chinese).
[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
6 Copyright 2013 by ASME