Abstract

The suspended monorail (SM) vehicle–bridge system has been considered a promising modern transit mode due to its clear advantages: low pollution, high safety, convenient construction, and low cost. The wind-induced response can significantly affect the running safety and comfort of this type of vehicle due to its special suspended position from a fixed track. This study is the first to systematically investigate its aerodynamic characteristics and interference effects under various spacing ratios using wind tunnel tests and numerical simulations. A high level of agreement between the wind tunnel test and CFD (computational fluid dynamics) results was obtained, and the aerodynamic interference mechanism can be well explained using the CFD technique from a flow field perspective. A wireless wind pressure acquisition system is proposed to achieve synchronization acquisition for multi wind pressure test taps. The paper confirms that (1) the proposed wireless wind pressure acquisition system performed well; (2) the aerodynamic coefficients of the upstream vehicle and bridge were nearly unchanged for vehicle–bridge combinations with varying spacing ratios; (3) the aerodynamic interference effects were amplified when two vehicles meet, but the effects decrease as the spacing ratio increases; (4) the aerodynamic force coefficients, mean, and root mean square (RMS) wind pressure coefficients for the downstream vehicle and bridge are readily affected by the upstream vehicle; (5) the vortex shedding frequencies of vehicles and bridges can be readily obtained from the lift force spectra, and they decrease as the spacing ratio increases; and (6) a spacing ratio of 3.5 is suggested in the field applications to ensure the running safety and stability of the SM vehicle–bridge system under exposure to crosswinds.

Highlights

  • Wind load is considered a typical source of external excitation that intensifies dynamic responses for both bridges and vehicles [1,2,3,4,5,6]

  • Where Pi(t) is the wind pressure time history at point i measured by the pressure scanning valve, which gives a positive value when the pressure acts into the model surface and vice versa for negative values; P0 indicates the static pressure for reference; and ρ represents the air density, which can be determined using the temperature and atmospheric pressure measured at the beginning of the wind tunnel test

  • Where Pi (t) is the wind pressure time history at point i measured by the pressure scanning valve, which gives a positive value when the pressure acts into the model surface and vice versa for negative values; P0 indicates the static pressure for reference; and ρ represents the air density, which can be determined using the temperature and atmospheric pressure measured at the beginning of the wind tunnel test

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Wind load is considered a typical source of external excitation that intensifies dynamic responses for both bridges and vehicles [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Previous studies have systematically investigated the aerodynamic characteristics of the wind–vehicle–bridge (WVB) coupling system through wind tunnel tests, numerical simulation, and theoretical derivation. Han et al [7,8] developed an experimental setup to measure the aerodynamic characteristics of vehicles and bridges in a wind tunnel He et al [9] experimentally investigated the wind pressure distribution characteristics of a typical high-speed vehicle–. The testing precision is decreased to some extent if the electronic pressure scanning valve system is adopted To fill this gap, we first studied the aerodynamic characteristics and interference effects of the SM vehicle–bridge system under exposure to crosswinds for various spacing ratios through wind tunnel tests.

Experimental
Single Chip
Power Management System
Testing
Testing Cases
Data Post-Processing
The three-component aerodynamic calculated using
Experimental Validation for the Wireless Acquisition System
Parametric
Figure
Comparison
11. Wind coefficients of of the the upstream upstream bridge bridge for for Case
12. Comparison
REVIEW10
Double-Line a Downstream
17. Comparison
The maximum
19. Comparison
22. Comparison
27. Computational
Numerical
Aerodynamic Interference Mechanism
Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call