Guided by, Presented By,

Mrs. Liji A RAHUL R

Assistant Professor YCE17CESE13
YCET
1
 OVERVIEW
 Introduction  Support conditions
 Literature review
 Results and discussions
 Objectives
 Conclusions
 Methodology
 References
 Validation

 Modelling

 Meshing

 Loading
2
 INTRODUCTION
 The Hyperloop pod are trains that travel at Ultra High Speeds (UHS)

 This UHS is achieved by having the train travel within a vacuum tube

 Allows to circumvent the air resistance, drag forces of conventional high-

speed trains

 UHS conceptual design makes use of magnetic levitation and linear

accelerators as a means of propulsion

 The proposed working speed of around 900 km/h suggested by virgin

hyperloop one

3
Contd…
 Bridge dynamics only plays an important role at train speeds above 160
km/h

 The cost of developing transportation system above water bodies is high

and the design aspects is also very complex which opens a vast area for
development of such systems underwater.

4
Figure 1. Hyperpod travelling in tube

5
 LITERATURE REVIEW
Keqian Zhang (2016), Research on tubular segment design of submerged
floating tunnel

 Described the dynamic analysis of seabed anchored floating structures

 Non linear modeling of hydrodynamic loads due to waves are studied

 Implemented for dynamic time domain step by step analysis and seismic
load is introduced

 Extreme wave loading is given

 Flexural oscillations occurred at low frequency

 Capable of exciting transverse flexural oscillations of same order of

magnitude
6
Li ZHOU (2007), Dynamic analysis of a high-speed train operating on a
curved track

 Coupled train-track dynamic model is introduced

 To investigate the effect of curved track fastener failure on the

dynamic behaviour of a high-speed train
 Dynamic characteristics of the track when the train passes over the
7000-m radius curved track with different failed fastener numbers at
different speeds are observed
 When the number of the continuously failed fasteners is less than 15,
the train still operates normally on the curved track of 7000-m radius
at the speeds of 200 km/h to 350 km/h
7
Johan Wiberg (2009), Railway bridge response to passing trains
 A simplified 3D Bernoulli-Euler beam element FE model of the bridge was
prepared

 The complex bridge could be simplified by means of beam theory

 The typical value of an equivalent modulus of elasticity was in this case

approximately 25% larger

 The optimization technique gave a modal damping ratio of between 0.92%

and 2.10%

 Lower bound value of 1%, given in the design codes for prestressed
concrete bridges, is not as much on the safe side

8
Arvidsson (2014), Train–bridge interaction – a review and discussion of
key model parameters

 Focus on the vertical dynamic response of bridges

 The effect is less important for short span and long span categories

 The reduction in bridge response is only relevant at resonance

 The reduction in bridge opposed to a moving force model, depends on

many system parameters such as bogie–bridge frequency ratio, the bogie–
bridge mass ratio and the bridge–carriage length ratio

 The greatest reduction due to the use of a TBI model is found in low mass
bridges with a fundamental frequency similar to the bogie frequency of the
train (around 4–6 Hz). 9
Vieira (2014), Dynamic analysis of bridge girders submitted to an eccentric

moving load

 A beam formulation for the dynamic analysis of thin-walled structures that

considers the cross-section warping was presented

 Analysis of a beam submitted to an eccentric moving load was performed

 Beam submitted to a moving load that involves a lateral-torsional coupled

vibration, including the cross-section warping

 Coupled lateral-torsional vibrations of double-T bridge girder were obtained at

significantly lower frequencies than closed cross-sections

 Closed section, moving load speed on maximum rotation is reduced

 The increase of the rotation of torsion occurs at higher velocities 10

Zhibin Jin (2006), Reduction of Vehicle-Induced Vibration of Railway

Bridges due to Distribution of Axle Loads through Track

 The vibration of short span railway bridges excited by passing trains was
investigated analytically

 Moving axle loads from the passing vehicles are modeled as spread loads
instead of simplified point loads

 Based on the low-pass filtering process, a simple reduction coefficient was

proposed

 Reduction coefficient depends only on the load spreading function and the
wavelength of excitation

 Difference in reduction of bridge responses by proposed formula and that

11
by numerical simulations is less than 20%
Xiaoyan Lei (2015), Dynamic Analysis of the High Speed Train and Slab

Track Nonlinear Coupling System

 A model for dynamic analysis of vehicle-track non linear coupling system is

established

 Relaxation technique is introduced to modify wheel-rail contact force

 The accelerations and displacements of the rail, the concrete slab, and the
hydraulically bonded layer as well as the wheel-rail contact forces, increase with
increase of train speeds

 Differences for the maximum and total amplitudes of the displacements and the
accelerations are in the range of 10%

 The higher the train speed is, the larger the differences of the rail acceleration

12
Goicolea (2006), Dynamics of High-Speed Railway Bridges

 A fully nonlinear coupled model is proposed

 Calculations have been carried out for train speeds of 250, 300 and 350
km/h wit different models

 Maximum accelerations experienced are in the order of 0.2 – 0.3m/s 2

 Influence of the vehicle vibration and of the track irregularities on the

bridge deformation is negligible

 It is also seen that these deformations are small at v = 350km/hr

13
He Xia, Dynamic analysis of high speed railway bridge under articulated
trains
 Thalys articulated train passing along the Antoing Bridge on the Paris–
Brussels high speed railway line is analyzed
 Within the train speed range of 200–400 km/h, the maximum deflection of
the girder is 1.79 mm
 Deflection-to-span ratio is 1/28,000

 Maximum vertical acceleration of the girder is 0.65 m/s 2

 The lateral amplitudes and the accelerations are very small, and both of them
increase with the train speed
 The bridges responses such as deflection–span ratios, amplitudes and
14
accelerations are smaller
 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE
 From the literature survey it can be observed that a lot of study has been
carried out in advances of the dynamic characteristics of train tracks and
supporting structures have been achieved through the use of finite element
method

 When It comes to CFD the design and analysis of the structures surrounded
by a fluid medium is also challenging when the pressure variation comes in
it and no working model has been developed yet since vigorous analysis is
required

15
Contd…

 Since Hyperloop is an innovative form of transportation system the model

is unique and challenging when it comes to analysing and designing

 It requires a lot of computational resources and very finite element analysis

 The use of Computational Fluid Dynamics also requires a lot of parameters

 So the model is designed and analysed using ANSYS

16
 OBJECTIVE

 Vigorous dynamic analysis of Hyperloop structure in ANSYS due to a speed of

900 kmph

 Static stability analysis of the Hyperloop structure

 To analyse the natural frequency of the structure with the resonance condition

 To study the amount of deformations in model when a ground acceleration is

induced

 To model and analyse the structure for a 150m submerged condition and analyse
using Computational Fluid Dynamics

17
Contd…

 To analyse the effect of different velocity of waves that hit on the structure
in a fluid medium

 To study the deformations on the structure due to the pressure output from
wave impact

18
 METHODOLOGY
Data collection

Literature review

Software study

Validation

Modelling

Analysis

Static Analysis Dynamic Analysis

Results and discussions

Conclusions
19
 VALIDATION OF SOFTWARE

 The analysis of a hollow circular section

Outer diameter – 0.914m

Inner diameter – 0.897m

Length – 15m

Force – 49.05 kN uniformly

Modulus of elasticity – 2x105 N/mm2

Poisson's ratio – 0.3

20
Figure 2. Hollow circular model fixed at two ends

21
 ANALYTICAL METHOD

 Total deformation of a fixed beam is given by the equation []

wl4
384EI
E – modulus of elasticity of steel (kN/m2 )

I – moment of inertia (m4 )

L – length of the tube (m)

 Total deflection obtained is 7.90 x 10-4 m

22
 NUMERICAL METHOD

Figure 3. Deformation of the model

• The deformation obtained numerically is 7.79 x 10-4 m

23
Contd…

Result obtained Result from ANSYS

% Variation
manually (m) software (m)

7.90 x 10-4 7.07 x 10-4 8.63 %

• The software result is 8.63 % lower than manual result and it is under
permissible limit, so the software is validated

24
 MODELLING
MODEL 1
 Model assigned for transient, static, modal, and time history analysis

 Outer diameter: 4m

 Inner diameter: 3.95m

 Thickness: 0.05m

 Length: 15m each tube

 Material of tube: ASTM A1018 Grade 36

 Material of rail: Aluminium rail 6061-T6

25
Contd…

 Sub track material: Aluminum 6101-T61

 Internal Pressure: 100 Pa

 Bed : Concrete (M30)

 The stiffness value is 1.14 x 106 N/mm

 The damping value is 5 Ns/mm

26
Figure 4. Exterior view of the symmetric section of model 1

27
Figure 5. Interior view of the symmetric section of model 1
28
Figure 6. Sectional view of the tube structure
29
Figure 7. Sectional view of Aluminium rail

30
 Table 1. Specifications of ASTM A1018 Grade 36
Density 7.88 g/cc
Tensile strength, Ultimate > 365 MPa
Tensile strength, Yield > 250 MPa
Elongation at break > 22%
Modulus of elasticity 200 GPa
Electric resistivity 0.000142 ohm-cm
Specific heat capacity 0.481 J/g
Thermal conductivity 89 W/m-K
Shear modulus 78 GPa
Poisons ratio 0.29
Carbon component 0.14 – 0.20 %
Iron component 98.91 – 99.26 %
Manganese component 0.60 – 0.90 %
Phosphorous component < 0.040 %

31
 Table 2. Specifications of Aluminium 6061
Density 2.70 g/cc
Tensile strength, Ultimate 310 Mpa
Tensile strength, Yield 276 Mpa
Elongation at break 17 %
Modulus of elasticity 68.9GPa
Notched tensile strength 324 Mpa
Ultimate bearing strength 607 Mpa
Specific heat capacity 0.481 J/g
Thermal conductivity 89 W/m-K
Shear modulus 26 Gpa
Poisons ratio 0.33
Carbon component 0.14 – 0.20 %
Iron component 98.91 – 99.26 %
Manganese component 0.60 – 0.90 % 32
MODEL 2

 Model assigned for Computational Fluid Dynamics

 Outer diameter: 4m

 Inner diameter: 3.95m

 Thickness: 0.05m

 Length: 150m

 Hammer head pylons at 30m interval

 Material of tube: ASTM A1018 Grade 36

 Material of rail: Aluminium rail 6061-T6

33
Figure 8. Model 2

34
Figure 9. Domain for CFD in model 2

35
 MESHING
 Hyperloop tube is a complex models

 The bed concrete, exterior tube, aluminium rails and the extrusions for rivets were

meshed separately

 The accuracy that can be obtained from any FEA model is directly related to the

finite element mesh that is used

 50mm mesh is used for tube and 500mm for other components

 Tetrahedral shape mesh for tube and rectangular mesh for others

36
Figure 10. Meshed model 1

37
Figure 11. Meshed domain and structure of model 2

38
 LOADING CONDITIONS

 The load mainly is due to the hyperpod which travels inside the tube

 The dynamic loading conditions were given and it varies with time

 The static load taken is 20 tonne which is the maximum condition

 Fast Fourier Transformation was done to find out the dynamic load that

varies with time

39
 Force vs Time
300

250

200
Force (kN)

150

100

50

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Time (s)

Figure 12. Dynamic load without FFT (900 km/h)

40
 Force vs Time
300
250
200
Force (kN)

150
100
50
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
-50
-100
Time (s)

Figure 13. Dynamic load without FFT (900 kmph)

41
Figure 14. Load acting throughout the rail downward

42
Contd…
 For seismic analysis EL Centro earthquake acceleration is given as input

 10 seconds acceleration data in considered

 The acceleration is given in both longitudinal and transverse direction of

the tube

 The hyper pod movement is also considered which is of duration 3 seconds

43
 Acceleration Vs Time
Acceleration (𝐦𝐦/𝐬 ) 0.4

0.3
𝟐

0.2

0.1

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4
Time (s)

Figure 15. Acceleration Vs Time graph of EL Centro earthquake

44
 Time vs Force
300

250

200

150
Force (kN)

100

50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-50

-100
Time (s)

Figure 16. Force acting at a time interval from 2-5 seconds

45
 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS AND
CONNECTIONS

 Model 1 is having fixed supports at both ends of the tube

 Instead of supporting structure a fixed condition assumption is made

 Longitudinal body to ground connection is given and denoted by a spring

 Model 2 is having fixed support at every 30m interval and at extreme ends of tube

cylindrical supports

 The tubes are connected by riveted connections in model 1 and a weld is provided

at interior face

46
Figure 17. Fixed end conditions for model 1
47
Figure 18. Fixed end conditions for model 2

48
Figure 19. Solid to ground longitudinal connections
49
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
STATIC STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF MODEL 1

Figure 20. Deformation of the static model

• The maximum deformation observed is 0.017883mm and it was observed

maximum at the center
50
 Figure 21. Deformation of the static model

 The directional deformation observed is 0.033166mm and it was observed

maximum at the edges

51
TRANSIENT STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF MODEL 1

Figure 22. Total deformation of transient analysis

• The total deformation recorded is 49.05mm and it is at the center of the

30m span and the response frequency was 1.365 Hz
52
 Figure 23. Directional deformation of transient analysis

• The maximum directional deformation in x axis is 2.2597 mm and it occurs

at the ends of tube

53
 Time Vs Deformation
60

50
Deformation (mm)

40

30

20

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Time (s)

Figure 24. Deformation of the static model

54
 Time Vs Directional deformation

2.5

2
Deformation(mm)

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
-0.5
Time (s)

Figure 25. Directional deformation of the static model

55
TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS

Figure 26. Total deformation of transient analysis

• The maximum deformation occurs at 3.824s which is 348.55 mm and it

occurs at the center and the response frequency is 1.185 Hz

56
Figure 27. Directional Deformation of the static model

57
Figure 28. Time vs deformation

58
Figure 29. Directional deformation of the static model

59
MODAL ANALYSIS

 Modal analysis is carried out for 10 modes

 The frequency at 10 modes are found

 The deformation maximum is also observed corresponding to the natural

frequency

60
Figure 30. Mode shapes for 1 and 2
61
Figure 31. Mode shapes for 3 and 4
62
Figure 32. Mode shapes for 5 and 6
63
Figure 33. Mode shapes for 7 and 8
64
Figure 34. Mode shapes for 9 and 10 65
Table 3. Modes and frequency corresponding to it

Mode Frequency (Hz)

1 14.354
2 34.413
3 50.983
4 52.07
5 53.661
6 58.065
7 60.582
8 73.505
9 76.63
10 87.93

66
 COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS

 The fluid dynamics interaction with model is analysed for velocities of:

 2m/s

 3m/s

 4m/s

 The pressure values are imported from CFD to Static analysis and
deformations are found

67
Figure 35. Representation of CFD model setup

68
Figure 36. Velocity contour for 2m/s

69
Figure 37. Pressure developed in structure due to 2m/s velocity stream

70
 Figure 38. Total deformations due to static analysis

• Max deformation occurs at the center of tube between pylons and on the
hitting face
71
Figure 39. Velocity contour for 3m/s

72
Figure 40. Pressure developed in structure due to 3m/s velocity stream

73
 Figure 41. Total deformations due to static analysis

• Max deformation occurs at the center of tube between pylons and on the
hitting face
74
Figure 42. Velocity contour for 4m/s

75
Figure 43. Pressure developed in structure due to 4m/s velocity stream
76
 Figure 44. Total deformations due to static analysis

• Max deformation occurs at the center of tube between pylons and on the
hitting face
77
Table 4. Pressure and deformations corresponding to velocity values

Velocity (m/s) Max Pressure (Pa) Max Deformation (mm)

2 3445 4.4865

3 5106 4.5503

4 8777 4.9953

78
 Velocity vs Pressure
10000
9000
8000
7000
Pressure (Pa)

6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2 3 4
Velocity (m/s)

Figure 45. Velocity Vs Pressure

79
 Velocity vs Deformation
5.1
5
4.9
Deformation (mm)

4.8
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.2
2 3 4
Velocity (m/s)

Figure 46. Velocity Vs Deformations

80
81
 CONCLUSIONS
 The proposed speed of Hyperloop is such that it can introduce significant
dynamic amplification due to the travelling masses loads of the pod

 The value is so large that either the tubes would have to be very much
stiffer than conventional design would suggest or that various vibration
absorbing/mitigation devices would have to be included

 The analysis also points out that limiting the span of the tube between
supports would be dynamically very favorable but it increases the number
of pylons

82
Contd…

 The results of static analysis deformation and dynamic analysis

deformations are not so high and doesn’t affect the structure much

 So the design is feasible and the structure is stable

 When it comes to time history analysis the deformation is greater and more
vibration absorbing mitigation devices has to be introduced

 The damping as well as stiffness values also have to be reconsidered

 The static condition for the CFD model is also stable and deformation are
less and the model is stable too
83
Contd…

 The response frequency of travelling mass and the natural frequency

doesn’t come together and produce resonance effect

 The use of prestressing cable or anchor ends and the effect of buoyancy has
to be considered for further vigorous dynamic analysis and design of the
tube when it comes to moving loads on it

 Even though the Euro code 1991 Part 2 shows some limiting values for
trains travelling at greater speed the current code based design
regulations/recommendations, world-wide, are insufficient for the complete
design
84
Contd…
 This paper highlights the need to consider again the dynamics of a set of
travelling masses

 When the conceptual design of the hyperpod, bridge spans, support

arrangement are defined more explicitly, then appropriate analysis of the
type proposed in this paper can be undertaken to determine the optimal
bridge section design of such systems

85
 REFERENCES
 Hitesh Bhure, Gayatri Sidh and Anand Gharad (2018). “Dynamic analysis of metro rail
bridge subjected to moving loads considering soil structure interaction.” International Journal of
Advanced Structural Engineering, Vol. 3, Issue 1

 Reshma Babu and Jobil Varghese (2018). “Dynamic analysis of metro rail supporting
structures” International Journal of Innovative Science.Vol. 5, Issue 4

 Janzen, (2017) “TransPod Ultra-High-Speed Tube Transportation: Dynamics of Vehicles and

Infrastructure”, Procedia Engineering, vol. 199, no. Supplement C, pp. 8-17

 Hongsheng Yana (2016) “Dynamic response of submerged floating tunnel in the flow field”, 2nd
International Symposium on Submerged Floating Tunnels and Underwater Tunnel Structures,
State Key Laboratory Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, Tianjin, 300072, China

 Man sheng (2016) “The dynamic responses of the of the submerged floating tunnel under
seismic effect”, 2nd International Symposium on Submerged Floating Tunnels and Underwater
Tunnel Structures Procedia Engineering 166, 152 – 159. 86
 Sastry and D.Venkat Reddy (2016). “Analysis of ground vibrations due to metro
trains by numerical modeling.” ATCESD

 Tian Xue-Fei (2016) “Vibration Control of the Submerged Floating Tunnel Under
Combined Effect of Internal Wave and Ocean Current”, 2nd International Symposium
on Submerged Floating Tunnels and Underwater Tunnel Structures

 Xinzheng Wang (2016) “Analysis of Temperature Stress in Control of Bridge

Construction, Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture”, Nanyang Normal
University, Nanyang, 473061, P.R.China

 Xiaoyan Lei, (2015) “Dynamic Analysis of the High Speed Train and Slab Track
Nonlinear Coupling System”, Acta Mechanica, 226 2473-2495.

 Arvidsson (2014), “Train–bridge interaction – a review and discussion of key model

parameters”, Sound Vibr., 320 201-220.
87
 R.F.Vieira, (2014) “Dynamic analysis of bridge girders submitted to an eccentric
moving load”, Engineering Structures, 19 936-944.
 He Xia, (2013) “Dynamic analysis of high speed railway bridge under articulated
trains”, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 19 260-278.
 Nan Zhang (2013) ‘Dynamic analysis of high speed railway bridge under articulated
trains’ Science Direct, Computers and structures 81, 2467-2478
 Hamid Yaghoubi (2012) “Maglev Technology (IMT),” Infrastructure Design,
Signalling and Security in Railway, Tehran, Civil Engineering Division, Department of
Engineering, Payame Noor University
 Bernt Jakobsen (2010) “Design of the Submerged Floating Tunnel operating under
various conditions”, Proceedings Workshop Strait Crossings Subsea Tunnels, 1999,
Oslo Norway.

88
 Johan Wiberg (2009), “Railway bridge response to passing trains”, Vibration study.,
309 407-425.
 Can Akogul and Oguz C. Celik (2008). “Effect of elastomeric bearing modeling
parameters on the seismic design of RC highway bridges with precast concrete
girders.” World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
 Li Zhou, (2007) “Dynamic analysis of a high-speed train operating on a curved track”,
Developments in civil engineering, Vol. 13, Report of the Rilem 65MDB Committee,
 J.M.Goicolea, (2006) “Dynamics of High-Speed Railway Bridges”, Computers &
Structures, 81 2467-2478.
 Zhibin Jin, (2006) “Reduction of Vehicle-Induced Vibration of Railway Bridges due to
Distribution of Axle Loads through Track”, Theory and Experimental Validation, 170
51-78.

89
 Fogazzi (2000) “The dynamic response of sea bed anchored floating
tunnels under seismic excitation”, Earthquake engineering and structural
dynamics 29, 273-295

 Space Exploration Technologies Corp (2016), Space X Hyperloop test

track specifications, Revision 5

 hyperloop@teslamotors.com

 Euro Code 1990

90