| 引用本文: | 刘堂红,田红旗,王承尧.不同磁浮列车外形的气动性能比较.[J].国防科技大学学报,2006,28(3):94-98.[点击复制] |
| LIU Tanghong,TIAN Hongqi,WANG Chengyao.Aerodynamic Performance Comparison of Several Kind of Nose Shapes of Maglev Train[J].Journal of National University of Defense Technology,2006,28(3):94-98[点击复制] |
|
| |
|
|
| 本文已被：浏览 7024次 下载 6083次 |
| 不同磁浮列车外形的气动性能比较 |
|
|
(1.中南大学 轨道交通安全教育部重点实验室，湖南 长沙 410075;2.国防科技大学 航天与材料工程学院，湖南 长沙 410073)
|
| 摘要: |
| 上海磁浮列车由于流线型车头较短，气动性能并不理想，根据国内厂家给定的列车横断面尺寸和对气动性能的要求，对国产磁浮列车气动外形进行多方案设计，通过求解三维可压N-S方程和k-ε双方程湍流模型，对提出的磁浮列车各种外形方案的气动性能进行数值模拟计算，并根据计算结果进一步改进气动外形，如此反复，直至得出气动性能和外观最优的磁浮列车外形。在最终选定的三种设计方案中，方案3由于水平投影轮廓线较窄、最大纵剖面轮廓线曲率较小，其整车空气阻力和列车交会压力波都较其它两种方案要小，因此为最佳的气动外形方案。通过比较分析，此次选用的国产磁浮列车外形，列车以430km/h运行时三节车总的空气阻力为33.84kN，而上海磁浮列车为54.07kN；国产磁浮列车最大列车交会压力波幅值为2913Pa，而在同等条件下上海磁浮列车为3827Pa，其气动性能明显优于上海磁浮列车。 |
| 关键词: 磁浮列车 数值模拟 外形优化 气动性能 |
| DOI： |
| 投稿日期：2005-12-15 |
| 基金项目:国家863高技术资助项目(2004AA505240)；牵引动力国家重点实验室开放课题资助项目(TPL0402) |
|
| Aerodynamic Performance Comparison of Several Kind of Nose Shapes of Maglev Train |
| LIU Tanghong1,2, TIAN Hongqi1, WANG Chengyao3 |
|
(1.Key Laboratory for Track Traffic Safety of Ministry of Education, Central South University, Changsha 410075,China;2.2.College of Aerospace and Materials Engineering, National Univ. of Defense Technology, Changsha 410073, China;3.2.College of Aerospace and Materials Engineering, National Univ. of Defense Technology, Changsha 410073, China)
|
| Abstract: |
| Due to the short streamline nose, the aerodynamic performance of Shanghai maglev train is not very good. In this paper, several streamline shapes were designed for domestic maglev train according to the given section and requirements supplied by domestic rolling stock works. By using the three-dimensional compressible N-S equations and turbulence model, aerodynamic performances of all schemes were analyzed, and then the streamline shapes were optimized based on the calculation results. In so doing, the best streamline shape with good aerodynamic performance and good appearance were obtained. Because of the narrowest horizontal contour line and the smallest curvature of vertical contour line, the aerodynamic drag force and train passing pressure pulse of the third scheme are the least among the final three selected schemes, so it is the best. The results show that this streamline shape designed for domestic maglev train is better than Shanghai maglev train (TR08) in aerodynamic performance, and the aerodynamic drag force of domestic maglev train is 33.84KN at the speed of 4300 km/h, while TR08 is 54.07KN; at the same time, the train passing pressure pulse of domestic maglev train is 2913Pa, while TR08 is 3827Pa. |
| Keywords: maglev train numerical simulation shape optimization aerodynamic performance aerodynamic drag force train passing pressure pulse |
|
|
|
|
|
