Numerical comparison of aerodynamic performance between stationary and moving trains with varied-height windbreak wall under crosswind
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the impact of windbreak wall’s heights on the aerodynamic characteristics’ difference of trains between moving and stationary numerical simulation methods. The 1/8 scaled train model with windbreak wall at three heights under crosswind was simulated based on the IDDES turbulence model. The results found that the error of aerodynamic loads between two simulation methods increases with the elevation of the windbreak wall’s height with the largest value observed in the tail car. Comparing the time-averaged pressure on the train body in the two simulation methods, the most notable disparity manifests in the head car. The negative pressure around head car in stationary case is larger than that in moving case. For stationary simulation, the flow field is primarily influenced by the vortex structures generated at the end of the windbreak wall. In contrast, for moving simulation, the vortex structures on the leeward side of the train are predominantly formed by the detachment from the train’s top. In conclusion, the aerodynamic loads and flow field characteristics of the train exhibit noticeable discrepancies under two simulation methods, and the disparities increase with the elevation of the windbreak wall’s height.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".