Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T10:13:49.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Validation study for prediction of iced aerofoil aerodynamics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

S. Marques ,
K. J. Badcock ,
J. H. M. Gooden ,
S. Gates  and
W. Maybury
S. Marques
Affiliation:
[email protected], Department of Engineering, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
K. J. Badcock
Affiliation:
[email protected]
J. H. M. Gooden
Affiliation:
National Aerospace Laboratory NLR, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
S. Gates
Affiliation:
AgustaWestland Yeovil, UK
W. Maybury
Affiliation:
AgustaWestland Yeovil, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ice accretions can significantly change the aerodynamic performance of wings and rotor blades. Significant performance degradation can occur when ice accreations cause regions of separated flow, to predict this change implies, at a minimum, the solution of the Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes equations. This paper presents validation for two generic cases involving the flow over aerofoil sections with added synthetic ice shapes. Results were obtained for two aerofoils, namely the NACA 23012 and a generic multi-element configuration. These results are compared with force and pressure coefficient measurements obtained in the NASA LTPT wind-tunnel for the NACA 23012, and force, PIV and boundary-layer measurements obtained at DNW for the multi-element case. The level of agreement is assessed in the context of industrial requirements.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 114 , Issue 1152 , February 2010 , pp. 103 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2010 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Bragg, M.B., Broeren, A.P. and Blumenthal, L.A., Iced-airfoil aerodynamics, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2005, 41, pp 323–362 10.1016/j.paerosci.2005.07.001Google Scholar
2. Wright, W.B., Potapczuk, M.G. and Levinson, L.H., Comparison of LEWICE and GlennICE in the SLD Regime, NASA/TM–2008-215174, 2008.Google Scholar
3. Pan, J. and Loth, E., Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes simulations of airfoils and wings with ice Shapes, J Aircr, 2004, 41, (4), pp 879–891 10.2514/1.587Google Scholar
4. Pan, J. and Loth, E., Detached eddy simulations for iced airfoils, J Aircraft, 2005, 42, (6), pp 1452–1461.10.2514/1.11860Google Scholar
5. Broeren, A.P., Bragg, M.B. and Addy, H.E., Flowfield measurements about an airfoil with leading-edge ice shapes, J Aircr, 2006, 43, (4), pp 1226–1234.Google Scholar
6. Lee, S. and Bragg, M.B., Experimental investigation of simulated large-droplet ice shapes on airfoil aerodynamics, J Aircr, 1999, 36, (5), pp 844–850.10.2514/2.2518Google Scholar
7. Broeren, A.P. and Bragg, M.B., Effect of Airfoil Geometry on Performance With Simulated Intercycle Ice Accretions, AIAA Paper No 2003–0728.Google Scholar
8. Broeren, A.P., Lee, S., Lamarre, C. and Bragg, M.B., Effect of Airfoil Geometry on Performance With Simulated Ice Accretions Volume 1: Experimental Investigation, DOT/FAA/AR-03/64, August 2003.Google Scholar
9. Dunn, T., Loth, E. and Bragg, M.B., Computational investigation of simulated large-droplet ice shapes on airfoil aerodynamics, J Aircr, September-October 1999, 36, (5).10.2514/2.2517Google Scholar
10. Lee, S., Dunn, T., Gurbacki, H., Bragg, M.B. and Loth, E., An Experimental and Computational Investigation of Spanwise-Step-Ice Shapes on Airfoil Aerodynamics, AIAA 98-0490, January 1998.Google Scholar
11. Pan, J. and Loth, E., RANS Simulations of Airfoils with Ice Shapes, AIAA 2003-0729, January 2000.Google Scholar
12. Pan, J. and Loth, E., Detached Eddy Simulations for Airfoil with Ice Shapes, AIAA 2004-564, January 2004.Google Scholar
13. Reinders, W., Data report of the effect of in-flight icing on the 2D high lift model 5-6 in the low-speed wind tunnel LST, NLR CR 94551 C, 1994.Google Scholar
14. Gooden, J.H.M., PIV measurements on a 2D transport aircraft airfoil with leading edge ice, NLR CR-2007-336, 2007.Google Scholar
15. Osher, S. and Chakravarthy, S., Upwind schemes and boundary conditions with applications to Euler equations in general geometries, J Computational Physics, 1983, 50, pp 447–481.10.1016/0021-9991(83)90106-7Google Scholar
16. Van Leer, B., Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme II: monotonicity and conservation combined in a second order scheme, J Computational Physics, 1974, 14, (4), pp 361–374.10.1016/0021-9991(74)90019-9Google Scholar
17. Jameson, A., Time dependent calculations using multigrid, with applications to unsteady flows past airfoils and wings, Technical Report 91-1596, AAA, 1991.Google Scholar
18. Badcock, K.J., Richards, B.E. and Woodgate, M.A., Elements of computational fluid dynamics on block structured grids using implicit solvers, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2000, 36, pp 351–392.10.1016/S0376-0421(00)00005-1Google Scholar
19. Wilcox, D.C., Turbulence Modelling for CFD, DCW Industries, 1993.Google Scholar
20. Schiavetta, L.A., Badcock, K.J. and Cummings, R.M., Comparison of DES and URANS for Unsteady Vortical Flows over Delta Wings, 47th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada, USA, January 2007, AIAA-2007-1085.10.2514/6.2007-1085Google Scholar
21. Spalart, P.R. and Allmaras, S.R., A One Equation Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic flows, 30th Aerospace Science Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, USA, January 1992, AIAA-1992-0439.Google Scholar
22. Drela, M., Xfoil 6.6 User Primer, MIT Aero and Astro Engineering, 14 March 1996. Comparison of LEWICE and GlennICE in the SLD Regime.Google Scholar