0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

Development of a Second Generation In-Flight Icing Simulation Code

[+] Author and Article Information
Héloïse Beaugendre1

Computational Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, McGill University, 688 Sherbrooke Street West, 7th Floor, Montréal, Québec H3A 2S6 Canada

François Morency2

Computational Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, McGill University, 688 Sherbrooke Street West, 7th Floor, Montréal, Québec H3A 2S6 Canada

Wagdi G. Habashi3

Computational Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, McGill University, 688 Sherbrooke Street West, 7th Floor, Montréal, Québec H3A 2S6 Canada

1

Presently at: MAB, Bureau 281, Université Bordeaux 1, 351, Cours de la Libération, 33405 Talence Cedex, France.

2

Presently at: Département de Génie Mécanique, École de Technologie Supérieure, 1100 Rue Notre-Dame Ouest, Montréal, Québec, H3C 1K3, Canada.

3

Corresponding author.

J. Fluids Eng 128(2), 378-387 (Feb 24, 2005) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2169807 History: Received April 28, 2004; Revised February 24, 2005

Two-dimensional and quasi-3D in-flight ice accretion simulation codes have been widely used by the aerospace industry for the last two decades as an aid to the certification process. The present paper proposes an efficient numerical method for calculating ice shapes on simple or complex 3D geometries. The resulting ice simulation system, FENSAP-ICE, is built in a modular fashion to successively solve each flow, impingement and accretion via field models based on partial differential equations (PDEs). The FENSAP-ICE system results are compared to other numerical and experimental results on 2D and slightly complex 3D geometries. It is concluded that FENSAP-ICE gives results in agreement with other code calculation results, for the geometries available in the open literature.

Copyright © 2006 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Module interactions within FENSAP-ICE

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Convective heat transfer coefficient distribution against the distance from stagnation point

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Local collection efficiency distribution against the distance from stagnation point

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Run 403 [NASA-CDROM], ice shape comparison between ICE3D (fine grid), LEWICE and experiments

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Run 404 [NASA CD-ROM], ice shape comparison between ICE3D, LEWICE, and experiments

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Run 308 [NASA CD-ROM] comparison between ICE3D and LEWICE after 47.58 and 95.16s of ice accretion

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Run 308 [NASA CD-ROM] comparison between ICE3D, LEWICE and IRT experimental ice shape

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Turbulent airflow solution, Mach number contours, streamlines at the tip and Cp distribution on the blade

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

2D cuts of the convective heat transfer coefficient, in W∕m2K

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

2D cuts of the collection efficiency for stations 1, 2, 3, and 4 along the curvilinear coordinate

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

3D ice shape at blade tip

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

2D ice cuts along the span wise direction for stations 1, 2, 3, and 4

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

3D ice accretion on the Boeing 737-300 inlet, rime ice accretion for 15deg AoA and an inlet mass flow of 10.4kg∕s

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Mach number distribution for the Boeing 737-300 inlet for 0deg AoA and an inlet mass flow of 10.4kg∕s, comparison between FENSAP, LEWICE and Experiments, circumferential cut at 45deg

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Mach number distribution for the Boeing 737-300 inlet for 15deg AoA and an inlet mass flow of 10.4kg∕s, comparison between FENSAP, LEWICE and Experiments, circumferential cut at 45deg

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Local collection efficiency distribution for 0deg AoA, comparison between DROP3D, LEWICE and Experiments, circumferential cut at 180deg

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Local collection efficiency distribution for 15deg AoA, comparison between DROP3D, LEWICE and Experiments, circumferential cut at 90deg

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Rime ice for the Boeing 737-300 inlet for 0deg AoA, comparison of analytical ice shapes between ICE3D and LEWICE, circumferential cut at 45deg

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Rime ice for the Boeing 737-300 inlet for 15deg AoA, comparison of analytical ice shapes between ICE3D and LEWICE, circumferential cut at 135deg

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 20

Glaze ice for the Boeing 737-300 inlet for 0deg AoA, comparison of analytical ice shapes between ICE3D and LEWICE, circumferential cut at 135deg

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 21

Glaze ice for the Boeing 737-300 inlet for 15deg AoA, comparison of analytical ice shapes between ICE3D and LEWICE, circumferential cut at 45deg

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In