Currently, there are three different methodologies for evaluating the aerodynamics of trains; full-scale measurements, physical modeling using wind-tunnel, and moving train rigs and numerical modeling using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Moreover, different approaches and turbulence modeling are normally used within the CFD framework. The work in this paper investigates the consistency of two of these methodologies; the wind-tunnel and the CFD by comparing the measured surface pressure with the computed CFD values. The CFD is based on Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) turbulence models (five models were used; the Spalart–Allmaras (S–A), k-ε, k-ε re-normalization group (RNG), realizable k-ε, and shear stress transport (SST) k-ω) and two detached eddy simulation (DES) approaches; the standard DES and delayed detached eddy simulation (DDES). This work was carried out as part of a larger project to determine whether the current methods of CFD, model scale and full-scale testing provide consistent results and are able to achieve agreement with each other when used in the measurement of train aerodynamic phenomena. Similar to the wind-tunnel, the CFD approaches were applied to external aerodynamic flow around a 1/25th scale class 43 high-speed tunnel (HST) model. Comparison between the CFD results and wind-tunnel data were conducted using coefficients for surface pressure, measured at the wind-tunnel by pressure taps fitted over the surface of the train in loops. Four different meshes where tested with both the RANS SST k-ω and DDES approaches to form a mesh sensitivity study. The four meshes featured 18, 24, 34, and 52 × 106 cells. A mesh of 34 × 106 cells was found to provide the best balance between accuracy and computational cost. Comparison of the results showed that the DES based approaches; in particular, the DDES approach was best able to replicate the wind-tunnel results within the margin of uncertainty.

Link to publication on Research at Birmingham portal General rights Unless a licence is specified above, all rights (including copyright and moral rights) in this document are retained by the authors and/or the copyright holders. The express permission of the copyright holder must be obtained for any use of this material other than for purposes permitted by law. • Users may freely distribute the URL that is used to identify this publication. • Users may download and/or print one copy of the publication from the University of Birmingham research portal for the purpose of private study or non-commercial research. • User may use extracts from the document in line with the concept of 'fair dealing' under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (?) • Users may not further distribute the material nor use it for the purposes of commercial gain. Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document. When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policy While the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.

No abstract