Computational & Technology Resources
an online resource for computational,
engineering & technology publications
Civil-Comp Conferences
ISSN 2753-3239
CCC: 7
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SIXTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON RAILWAY TECHNOLOGY: RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE
Edited by: J. Pombo
Paper 3.11

Application of Kriging Model with Sequential Infill Criterion on Multi-Objective Optimization of Nose Shape for High-Speed Train

Z. Dai1,2, T. Li1, S. Krajnovic2 and W. Zhang1

1State Key Laboratory of Rail Transit Vehicle System, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China
2Department of Mechanics and Maritime Sciences, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden

Full Bibliographic Reference for this paper
Z. Dai, T. Li, S. Krajnovic, W. Zhang, "Application of Kriging Model with Sequential Infill Criterion on Multi-Objective Optimization of Nose Shape for High-Speed Train", in J. Pombo, (Editor), "Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Railway Technology: Research, Development and Maintenance", Civil-Comp Press, Edinburgh, UK, Online volume: CCC 7, Paper 3.11, 2024, doi:10.4203/ccc.7.3.11
Keywords: surrogate model, sequential infill criterion, gradient information, high-speed train, aerodynamic multi-optimization, shape optimization.

Abstract
This study proposes a sequential infill criterion (SIC) appropriate for the Kriging surrogate to address this issue. Multi-objective functions are employed to test the feasibility of constructing a surrogate model based on SIC, and the SIC surrogate model then performs multi-objective aerodynamic optimizations on the high-speed train. The findings indicate that the improvement infill criterion (EIC) that fuses the gradient information (PGEIC) surrogate model achieves the lowest generational distance (GD) and prediction error. The performance of EIC for global search, EIC for Pareto front search (PEIC), and infill criterion for Pareto front search using only gradient information (PGIC) is poor. The final PGEIC-SIC surrogate model of train aerodynamics has less than 1% prediction error for the three optimization objectives. The optimal solution reduces the aerodynamic drag force of the head car and the aerodynamic drag and lift force of the tail car by 4.15%, 3.21%, and 3.56%, respectively, compared with the original model. Furthermore, the nose and cab window heights of the optimal model have been reduced, and the lower contour line is concave. Correspondingly, the streamlined shape appears more rounded and slender.

download the full-text of this paper (PDF, 11 pages, 860 Kb)

go to the previous paper
go to the next paper
return to the table of contents
return to the volume description