Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lynch Aerodyn Consulting, 5370 Via Maria, Yorba Linda, CA 92886, USA (Former MDC and Boeing Technical Fellow)
b
Principal Engineer/Scientist, The Boeing Company, Huntington Beach, CA, USA
Abstract
This article is a systematic and comprehensive review, correlation, and assessment of test results available in the
public domain which address the aerodynamic performance and control degradations caused by various types of ice
accretions on the lifting surfaces of xed wing aircraft. To help put the various test results in perspective, overviews are
provided rst of the important factors and limitations involved in computational and experimental icing simulation
techniques, as well as key aerodynamic testing simulation variables and governing ow physics issues. Following these
are the actual reviews, assessments, and correlations of a large number of experimental measurements of various forms
of mostly simulated in-ight and ground ice accretions, augmented where appropriate by similar measurements for
other analogous forms of surface contamination and/or disruptions. In-ight icing categories reviewed include the
initial and inter-cycle ice accretions inherent in the use of de-icing systems which are of particular concern because of
widespread misconceptions about the thickness of such accretions which can be allowed before any serious
consequences occur, and the runback/ridge ice accretions typically associated with larger-than-normal water droplet
encounters which are of major concern because of the possible potential for catastrophic reductions in aerodynamic
effectiveness. The other in-ight ice accretion category considered includes the more familiar large rime and glaze ice
accretions, including ice shapes with rather grotesque features, where the concern is that, in spite of all the research
conducted to date, the upper limit of penalties possible has probably not been dened. Lastly, the effects of various
possible ground frost/ice accretions are considered. The concern with some of these is that for some types of
congurations, all of the normally available operating margins to stall at takeoff may be erased if these accretions are
not adequately removed prior to takeoff. Throughout this review, important voids in the available database are
highlighted, as are instances where previous lessons learned have tended to be overlooked. r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights reserved.
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Icing simulation techniques . . . . . . . . . .
2.1. Simulation fundamentals . . . . . . . . .
2.2. Overall simulation effectiveness . . . . . .
2.3. Scaling techniques . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Aerodynamic simulation considerations . . . .
3.1. Single-element lifting-surface performance
3.2. Multi-element lifting-surface performance
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
671
673
674
678
679
680
680
681
670
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
CFD
deg
DHC
ETW
FAA
GA
IBL
IRT
LE
LEWICE
LTPT
LWC
MAC
MD
MDC
min
mod.
MVD
NACA
NAE
NASA
NLF
NTF
RAF
RANS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
683
684
684
685
695
698
703
704
705
709
709
709
719
735
738
749
750
751
755
758
759
761
762
763
Ref.
RJ
RN, Rey. No.
S&C
SLD
TAI
Reference
Regional jet
Reynolds number
Stability and control
supercooled large droplets
thermal anti-ice
1. Introduction
Degradation of the aerodynamic effectiveness of
wings, tails, rotors, inlets, etc., due to contamination
of these surfaces in any form can have serious
consequences, particularly if not known and accounted
for. Typical contamination sources include damage
incurred during ground operations from foreign objects
thrown up from the ground, or from encounters with
ground support equipment, plus a number of in-ight
sources such as encounters with hail, birds, insects, etc.
However, the source which has undoubtably received
the most attention is ice accretions on these surfaces.
Numerous experimental results have shown that even
quite small ice accretions at critical locations can result
in substantial reductions in maximum lifting capability
and control surface effectiveness, control surface
anomalies, quite noticeable increases in drag, and, in
some cases, reduced engine performance and stability.
Decades of operational experiences have revealed
many situations in ight as well as on the ground when
ice can accrete on ice-protected aircraft. These
include:
*
TE
ted
teu
TIP
TU
671
trailing edge
(elevator) trailing-edge-down
(elevator) trailing-edge-up
(NASA/FAA) Tailplane Icing Program
Tupolov
672
673
674
forms at temperatures between about 31C and freezing, and at higher LWCs, where there is insufcient heat
transfer to remove all of the latent heat of the impinging
water droplets, and so some unfrozen water remains.
Glaze ice accretions are normally larger, typically
develop pronounced double horns and/or lobster
tails, and have very rough surfaces, but there are a
myriad of variations possible over a range of air
temperatures, LWCs, and surface geometries. In between these rime and glaze ice accretions lies a wide
variety of mixed ice accretions. Obtaining representative predictions and/or simulations of these larger ice
shapes is clearly desired in order to enable realistic
assessments of the aerodynamic consequences of such
accretions. However, while accurate predictions and
simulations may be desired, it is important to put the
accuracy realistically achievable (now and in the
foreseeable future) with current simulation methodology
in proper perspective in light of some of the fundamental
limitations inherent in the methodology employed.
2.1. Simulation fundamentals
The objective of in-ight icing simulation is to
accurately represent the time-dependent ice accretion
process which occurs when an aircraft ies through a
cloud containing super-cooled water droplets, or encounters freezing rain or drizzle. It has been well
established that three fundamental factors must be
taken into account concurrently for realistic simulation.
They are the representation of the aerodynamic oweld
(potential and viscous) characteristics on and around the
body and growing ice accretion, the establishment of
the water droplet trajectories with subsequent impingement characteristics and limits, and, lastly, the thermodynamics of the freezing/ice growth process. In the
analytical simulation process, successive thin ice layers
are formed on the surface, and are followed by oweld,
droplet impingement, and ice growth recalculations. The
frame of reference adopted to date for addressing these
factors in analytical as well as ground-test (icing tunnel)
studies of the ice accretion process has been the standard
Galilean transformation of xed body with intended or
assumed uniform onset ow, and with the water droplets
at the freestream velocity prior to encountering the
aircraft oweld [3].
2.1.1. Flowfield determination
A close representation of the oweld around and on
the aerodynamic surface and growing ice shape, either
computationally or experimentally, serves two important functions. The off-body oweld is clearly important for proper simulation of water droplet
trajectories, while the (viscous) ow characteristics
on the surface are critical in establishing the convective
heat transfer levels and distributions which have a major
675
676
677
678
simulation methods (in addition to the SLD capabilities), the technical community may be faced with the
reality that just wanting or needing these improvements does not make them possible (in the foreseeable
future). It is clear that the focus would have to be on
glaze ice shape and roughness predictions, since that
would be the area in most need of improvement.
However, based on the earlier discussion of the most
formidable CFD challenges involved in providing more
accurate glaze ice accretion predictions, it would not be
reasonable or prudent to presume that these advancements could be achieved any time soon.
679
680
*
*
681
682
these results were all obtained using a good state-of-theart sidewall boundary-layer control system. However,
there is no guarantee that all sidewall viscous inuences
have been avoided at critical conditions. It is important
to note that the requirement for effective sidewall
boundary-layer control is much more crucial for multielement geometries since the sidewall boundary layer
experiences the total adverse gradient from the three
elements in this case. At these testing conditions, and
with the basic slat and ap riggings employed, it can be
seen that the maximum lift attainable is limited by an
eventual reduction in lift on the main element. A close
examination of the surface pressure distributions reveals
that the lift reduction on the main element beyond
maximum lift is caused by an unloading of the aft part
of the main element, which, in turn, appears to be
caused by a rather dramatic unloading of the ap itself.
However, surface skin friction measurements show that
neither the ap nor main element surface boundary
layers are even close to separation at these conditions,
nor is there any ow separation on the slat upper
surface, even though the peak suction pressures near the
LE are quite high, corresponding to a local Mach
number of nearly 1.2. Instead, it appears, based on a
review of off-body ow eld measurements, that the
initial ap unloading is somehow brought about by the
very rapid spreading and merging of shear layers and
wakes (from the main element and slat) above the ap
(although there is also the possibility that some
separation in the sidewall juncture region may be
contributing to this limiting phenomena). In contrast,
at lower-angle-of-attack approach conditions (aB81),
wake spreading and merging are of much less consequence, but the ow on the ap upper surface is very
close to separation near the trailing edge (TE). The ow
on the upper surfaces of the slat and main element are
very noncritical at this condition.
With the preceding set of ow physics characteristics,
certain ice accretions are likely to have more serious
consequences than others. Reecting on maximum lift
conditions, any ice accretions which thicken the slat and/
or main element wakes are certainly expected to result in
some reductions in maximum lift. Also, any measurable
ice accretions on the slat are expected to result in an
earlier, leading-edge-type stall (similar to the thin-airfoil
type), since the peak velocities on the un-iced slat at
maximum lift are close to experimentally observed
limits. With the ap being so uncritical in terms of ow
separation at maximum lift conditions, any small ice
accretions on the LE of the ap, even if they existed at
ight conditions, do not pose that much of a threat.
However, at approach conditions where the ow on the
ap is close to separation, any such accretions could lead
to a loss in lift and ap buffeting. At the same time, any
ice accretions on the slat or main element at these
approach conditions are not nearly as critical. This
whole situation can, nevertheless, change quite signicantly with possible slat and ap rigging changes, or
even with a freestream Mach number change. For
instance, if the slat were deected further (i.e., overdeected), then the maximum lift attainable would not
be nearly as sensitive to initial ice accretions on the slat.
The opposite would be true if the slat were deected less
(i.e., under-deected). On the other hand, if the ap were
deected further, or if the negative overhang were
increased, then any ice accretions on the LE of the ap
would have a more adverse impact. The same would
apply at approach conditions with respect to the ap
rigging changes. Further, an increased freestream Mach
number at maximum lift conditions could result in even
more serious penalties for leading-edge ice accretions. At
takeoff conditions, where the slat and ap are normally
not deected as much as for approach, stall is normally
initiated by ow separation at the LE. Hence, any ice
accretions on the slat would be expected to have the
greatest adverse impact, although the magnitude of the
impact would be reduced if overspeed (i.e., using higherthan-the-minimum required speed) was being utilized.
Consequently, it is absolutely essential that the ow
physics controlling stall, or any other situation involving
potential ow separation, be carefully considered
when assessing the effects of various potential ice
accretions on the lifting characteristics of multi-element
congurations.
Analogous with the situation for single-element
lifting-surface congurations, the proper assessment of
ice accretion effects on the lifting characteristics of 3-D
multi-element high-lift systems becomes noticeably more
complex. Again, it is absolutely essential to determine
and account for where stall, or potential separation
on the ap at approach conditions, is initiated spanwise
on the un-iced baseline conguration. Further, because
of the much higher angles of attack encountered with
high-lift systems, any installation of wing-mounted
engines can have an even larger, often very dominant,
impact on stall initiation. In this latter case, it would
therefore be quite difcult to provide any very generally
applicable conclusions regarding ice accretion effects on
maximum lift characteristics for such congurations.
683
684
685
686
687
Reynolds number. Incidentally, this is the same conguration discussed in the preceding section where a
laminar bubble exists at higher angles of attack at 2.5
million Reynolds number on the unroughened airfoil,
but not at 5 million. The results from all three of these
sources in terms of the percentage loss in maximum lift
caused by the leading-edge roughness in this lower
Reynolds number range are depicted in Fig. 6. In each
688
689
690
Fig. 9. Roughness size effects on maximum lift penalty at high Reynolds numbers.
691
Fig. 10. Roughness size effects on maximum lift penalty at low Reynolds numbers [76].
692
Fig. 11. Variations in maximum lift penalty observed with trailing-edge elevator deection.
693
Fig. 12. Roughness size effects on maximum lift penalty for multi-element airfoil geometries at high Reynolds number.
from trailing-edge-up (i.e., aiding lift) towards tailingedge-down (i.e., opposing the lift). Incidentally, for the
two sets of test results reported on in Refs. [77,78], it was
acknowledged in Ref. [78] that only upward elevator
deections (negative de ) were tested, and that later it
was realized that the most critical cases are for aircraft
that need elevator down (xed tailplane) for trim at ap
extension. Interestingly, quite a range of roughness
characterizations are represented in the results shown in
Fig. 11. In Ref. [71], roughness extended back to 20%
chord on both upper and lower surfaces, whereas in
Refs. [77,78], the roughness was more localized to the
leading edge. On the other hand, the results from
Ref. [81] are for a representative inter-cycle ice accretion
remaining on the tail between pneumatic de-ice boot
operation after 15 min with the boot having been cycled
every 3 min up to 12 min. With regard to the test results
summarized in Ref. [81], some data were obtained at a
higher Reynolds number (i.e., a little above 4 million),
but the results are not complete enough to draw any
very quantitative conclusions regarding Reynolds number inuences on the maximum lift characteristics with
elevators deected. Clearly, this is another area where
more studies are warranted.
4.1.3. Multi-element lifting surfaces
Again, in contrast to the relatively large database
which exists for single-element geometries, much less
data is available to help quantify the effects of initial and
inter-cycle leading-edge ice (roughness) accretions on the
aerodynamic characteristics of the much more complex
(mechanical and aerodynamic) multi-element lifting
surfaces routinely employed during takeoff and landing.
In fact, there are only two somewhat limited sets of
relevant high Reynolds number test results [51,82], and
two limited sets of low Reynolds number results [74,83].
But, the little that is available, used in conjunction with
lessons learned with single-element geometries (i.e., there
694
Fig. 13. Roughness size effects on maximum lift penalty for multi-element airfoil geometries at low Reynolds number.
695
696
Fig. 15. Roughness size effects on stall angle reductions at high Reynolds numbers.
697
Fig. 16. Roughness size effects on stall angle reductions at low Reynolds numbers.
Fig. 17. Roughness size effects on stall angle reductions for multi-element airfoil geometries.
698
Fig. 18. Minimum parasite drag increase due to leading-edge roughness [66].
699
Fig. 19. Drag increase at 1:3 VS;1g due to leading-edge roughness [66].
700
Fig. 20. Reynolds number effect on minimum parasite drag increase [67].
Fig. 21. Reynolds number effect on drag increase at 1:3 VS;1g [67].
701
702
703
704
conguration. Now, when the leading-edge contamination is added to both of these congurations, the
resulting elevator hinge moment characteristics look
much like those for the respective unroughened geometries except that the signicant increase in hinge
moments (in the positive direction) occurs at a lower
tail incidence/download as a consequence of the maximum lift penalty (i.e., lower stall angle) associated with
the addition of the leading-edge roughness, etc. Incidentally, this premature stall does result in an earlier change
in the sign of the elevator hinge moments from negative
to positive (i.e., control surface reversal) with positive
elevator deections.
Although these three sets of tailplane test results have
provided some good insights into some possible types
and degrees of changes to elevator hinge moment
characteristics that can be caused by initial, residual
and inter-cycle leading-edge ice accretions, two fundamental concerns still remain. One is that all three of the
experimental studies were carried out at Reynolds
numbers around 2 million, and we have previously seen
many instances where results obtained at this relatively
low Reynolds number are not representative for many,
more practical, higher Reynolds number applications.
Second, these three geometries only represent a small
sample of existing or likely tailplane (or wing) designs,
and hence other types and degrees of changes are likely.
As a case in point, the aforementioned very recent test
results obtained by Papadakis et al. [80] for an 8% thick
full-scale horizontal tail do show a different combination of characteristics. In the clean (unroughened) state,
some of the results look much like a thin lifting surface
design (like the 441 swept tailplane), with a maximum lift
coefcient below 1.0, and quite tame stall characteristics.
However, the elevator hinge moment characteristics at
5.1 million Reynolds number do not look like the
Refs. [77,78] 441 tailplane results at all. In fact, for
elevator deection ranging from 151 to +151, the
hinge moment variations more closely resemble something between the two nominally 12% thick designs just
addressed, with a very pronounced change in trend
toward being more positive (or less negative). However,
in this case, this change occurs a few degrees before
achieving maximum lift conditions rather than concurrent with it as was the case with the two 12% designs.
But, consistent with the test results for the two 12%
thick designs, when the 1.6 min ice shape casting was
added, this change in the slope of the elevator hinge
moments occurred at a 341 lower incidence angle than
occurred in the clean state, although it is not clear that
the stall angle was actually reduced that much.
So, one more time there is additional evidence available
to illustrate the dangers involved in generalizations,
and in trying to use low Reynolds number test results
to predict consequences at higher Reynolds number
conditions.
705
706
Fig. 24. Variation of maximum lift penalty with chordwise location of small disturbances.
Fig. 25. Variation of maximum lift penalty with size and chordwise location of simulated runback and ridge ice shapes.
707
Fig. 26. Variation of maximum lift penalty with airfoil geometry and chordwise location of larger runback and ridge ice shapes.
708
Fig. 27. Variation in maximum lift penalty with geometry and chordwise location of runback and ridge ice shapes.
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
Fig. 28. Ice accretion temperature effect on parasite drag penalty for NACA 0012 Airfoil in IRT [125].
illustrating the inadvisability of generalizing. Incidentally, while the trends indicated by the results
shown in Figs. 29 and 30 are thought to be
appropriate and meaningful, the absolute magnitude
of the penalties indicated may not be for a number of
reasons, not the least of which are doubts about the
appropriateness of the maximum lift levels indicated
for the clean (un-iced) congurations.
An additional noteworthy aspect of the Ref. [132]
results presented in Figs. 29 and 30 for both the GA
NLF and business jet airfoils is that the penalty
caused by the ice accretion in the rst 12 min
represents a signicant part of the penalty eventually
incurred after 22 min. This should not be surprising,
however, in light of the magnitude of the penalties
(seen previously) that are caused by initial leadingedge (roughness) ice accretions.
A further benet derived from testing in icing tunnels
is the number of very helpful and thought-provoking
insights provided relative to the effects of ice
accretions on the multi-element high-lift geometries
used on many aircraft types during takeoff and
landing. A good example of this is the data reported
by Potapczuk et al. [126128], illustrating types of ice
accretions, areas where they can form when testing in
an icing tunnel, and the corresponding effects of
these accretions on the aerodynamic characteristics
717
Fig. 29. Ice accretion temperature and duration effects on maximum lift penalty for GA NLF airfoil in IRT [132].
Fig. 30. Ice accretion temperature and duration effects on maximum lift penalty for business jet airfoil in IRT [132].
718
719
There does not yet appear to be a good understanding of just what constitutes an adequate or
effective simulated ice shape.
Ice accretions which form on some of the downstream elements of multi-element high-lift geometries
in an icing tunnel, especially on the LE of the main
element behind an extended slat or Krueger ap, may
well not be representative of what occurs during
ight in natural icing conditions.
720
Fig. 32. Maximum lift penalty for simulated glaze ice accretion [33].
case with this particular ice accretion are only about 40%,
and do not vary much with Reynolds number over the
range tested. Relative to the corresponding penalties
incurred with the small leading-edge roughness on this
same airfoil, it can be seen that this 40% reduction is about
half again as much as that experienced with the roughness.
The second set of high Reynolds number test results
from the LTPT addressing the effects of simulated ice
accretions on thicker airfoils, this time for the 14% thick
GA NLF airfoil [96,132], are presented in Fig. 33.
Results are shown for both 6 and 22.5 min ice accretions,
and most importantly, results are shown for both
smoothed (2-D) ice accretion simulations and for
simulations having the actual (IRT measured) 3-D
roughness characteristics represented. Also included
are some comparable results from the IRT for the two
(3-D) ice accretions. Important lessons to be retained
from the test results depicted in Fig. 33 include the
following:
*
721
Fig. 33. Maximum lift penalty for actual and simulated glaze ice accretions on GA NLF airfoil [96,132].
compressibility effects. Perhaps the most obvious consequence of the excessive wall interference existing with
this size model is the very early (nonrepresentative)
separation present on the upper surface of the un-iced
(baseline) airfoil approaching the TE. Even prior to
reaching 41 angle of attack, this separation appears to
exist over the last 20% of the chord. This is certainly
indicative of a serious ow problem in the sidewall
juncture region. Hence, it is not likely that either the
indicated baseline or the iced airfoil maximum lift levels
and variations with Reynolds number are really
representative. How this would impact the magnitude
and variation of the indicated penalties is, unfortunately, not known.
With regard to the ice accretion conditions selected
for this study, the main areas of concern relative to not
having the most critical type of ice accretions are the
relatively low LWC, droplet size, and ight velocity.
The ambient temperature is also a little low as well.
Consequently, considering all of the concerns,
limitations, and uncertainties associated with the only
two available sets of high Reynolds number wind
tunnel results for thicker airfoils, it is not really possible
to reliably predict the maximum lift penalties likely
to be encountered in ight under the most critical
icing conditions, but they are probably in excess
of 50%. Clearly, some new well focused research is
needed to provide more insights into just how large
might these penalties be that could be encountered in
ight.
722
Fig. 34. Maximum lift penalty for actual and simulated ice accretions on business jet airfoil [133].
723
Fig. 35. Maximum lift penalty for simulated glaze ice accretions on business jet T-tail model [80].
724
725
726
Table 2
Further low Reynolds number test results addressing maximum lift penalties for larger ice shapes [75,138,142,144,145]
727
Fig. 36. Maximum lift penalties for spoiler glaze ice simulations on NACA 0011 airfoil [149].
728
Fig. 37. Maximum lift penalties for protuberance simulations of glaze ice accretions on GA NLF airfoil [151].
Important items to be noted from the results summarized in Fig. 38 are as follows:
*
729
Fig. 38. Variations in maximum lift penalty with trailing-edge elevator deection for thinner surfaces with large ice shapes.
730
Fig. 39. Variations in maximum lift penalty with trailing-edge elevator deection for thicker surfaces with large ice shapes.
731
Fig. 40. Variations in maximum lift penalty for high-lift congurations with Hard LEs.
732
733
Fig. 42. Five-element high-lift geometry and IRT ice accretions [126128].
Thus, based on the data available addressing maximum lift penalties caused by larger ice accretions on
high-lift systems having LE devices, the largest penalties
encountered to date are around 25% if ice is allowed to
form on the extended leading-edge device. This is
noticeably less than seen for high-lift geometries not
having leading-edge devices, and clearly much less than
incurred by single-element geometries. If ice is not
allowed to form on the leading-edge device, then any
734
Table 3
Low Reynolds number test results addressing maximum lift penalties caused by Larger ice shapes on multi-element high lift
congurations with leading-edge devices
Fig. 43. High Reynolds number test results for ice accretions on multi-element airfoil [158].
penalties caused by (realistic) ice accretions on downstream elements would appear to be relatively minor.
However, because of well-founded concerns that the
most detrimental possible ice accretions were likely not
addressed in these investigations, some well conceived
new studies are needed to establish the upper limit of
these penalties, both with and without the LE device ice
protected. As part of these studies, attention needs to be
focused on establishing just what are the most critical
(and realistic) ice accretions which can form on the
downstream elements. Items needing to be addressed
include:
*
735
Fig. 44. Stall angle reductions caused by larger ice accretions on 2-D single-element airfoils.
736
Fig. 45. Stall angle reductions caused by larger ice accretions on 3-D single-element wings and tails.
737
Fig. 46. Stall angle reductions caused by larger ice accretions on tails with elevators deected.
Fig. 45, the one ight test data point for the An-12 [74],
and the test results for the 8% thick full-scale business
jet T-tail model [80], neither conguration is really that
appropriate for establishing more general trends. The
An-12 has a fairly thick wing, and the ice accretion
involved was certainly not at all representative of a
critical accretion, while the business jet tail model had
an un-iced maximum lift coefcient of only 0.94 at the
test Reynolds number. So, the well conceived high
Reynolds number testing recommended to better establish the upper limit of maximum lift penalties that can be
caused by the most detrimental large ice accretions is
likewise needed to establish the upper limit of corresponding stall angle reductions feasible at ight conditions, since that cannot be done now with data presently
available.
6.2.2. Single-element lifting surfaces with trailing-edge
control surfaces
The available and (somewhat) applicable test results
for these congurations with control surfaces deflected
for both 2-D and 3-D geometries are illustrated in
Fig. 46. Again, unfortunately, there is only one set of
high Reynolds number test results available, and these
are for the full-scale business jet tail model with the low
un-iced maximum lift level. Overall, the results appear to
be very similar to those displayed in Figs. 44 and 45 for
single-element geometries without such control surfaces
deected. And, there does not appear to be anything out
of the ordinary happening with the critical trailing-edgedown elevator deections. The only results indicating
that stall angle reductions might be noticeably greater
for these deections are the Ref. [153] very low Reynolds
number data. But, the Ref. [80] high Reynolds number
data for the same business jet tail geometry tend to
dispel that notion, and, in the process, provide yet
738
Fig. 47. Stall angle reductions caused by larger ice accretions on multi-element high-lift congurations.
739
Fig. 48. Variation in drag penalty with operating conditions for NACA 0012 airfoil with simulated IRT glaze ice shape [139141].
740
Fig. 49. 12-A working group correlation of airfoil drag increases due to ice accretions [98].
741
Fig. 50. Drag penalties for simulated glaze ice accretions on GA NLF airfoil [96,132].
742
Fig. 51. Relationship of drag penalties and maximum lift losses with simulated glaze ice accretions on GA NLF airfoil [96,132].
743
Fig. 52. Compressibility effects on relationship of drag penalties and maximum lift losses for GA NLF airfoil [96,132].
Fig. 53. Drag penalties for simulated glaze ice accretions on business jet T-tail model [80].
744
Fig. 54. Reynolds number effects on drag penalties for simulated glaze ice accretions onbusiness jet T-tail model [80].
745
Fig. 55. Relationship of drag penalties and maximum lift losses with simulated glaze ice accretions on business jet T-tail model [80].
Fig. 56. Reynolds number and roughness effects on relationship of drag penalties and maximum lift losses on business jet T-tail
model [80].
746
Fig. 57. Relationship of drag penalties and maximum lift losses with simulated glaze ice accretions on various 2-D airfoils at speed
ratio=1.3.
Fig. 58. Relationship of drag penalties and maximum lift losses with simulator glaze ice accretions on various 2-D airfoils at speed
ratio=1.5.
747
Fig. 59. Relationship of drag penalties and maximum lift losses with simulator glaze ice accretions on various 2-D airfoils at speed
ratio=1.8.
748
Fig. 60. Drag penalties caused by larger ice accretions on multi-element high-lift airfoils at speed ratio=1.3.
749
750
751
752
Fig. 62. Upper surface roughness (ground ice/frost) size effects on maximum lift penalty at high Reynolds numbers for single-element
lifting surfaces.
753
Fig. 63. Reynolds number effects on maximum lift penalty caused by upper surface roughness (ground ice/frost) on single-element
airfoils [170].
Fig. 64. Maximum lift penalties caused by upper surface frost/roughness on multi-element high-lift congurations with leading-edge
devices at high Reynolds numbers.
754
755
Fig. 65. Comparison of maximum lift penalties caused by upper surface frost/roughness on multi-element high-lift geometries with and
without leading-edge devices.
756
Fig. 66. Upper surface roughness (ground ice/frost) size effects on stall angle reductions at high Reynolds numbers for single-element
lifting surfaces.
757
Fig. 67. Upper surface roughness size effects on stall angle reductions for multi-element high-lift congurations with leading-edge
devices at high Reynolds numbers.
Note:
All configurations have upper surface roughness
0-100%.
Fig. 68. Comparison of stall angle reductions caused by upper surface frost/roughness on multi-element high-lift geometries with and
without leading-edge devices at low Reynolds numbers.
758
759
Fig. 69. Drag penalties caused by upper surface ground frost/ice (roughness) accretions on multi-element takeoff geometries.
760
Adverse ice accretion effects, especially those associated with stall characteristics, are much larger on
non-dimensionally thicker (single element) lifting
surfaces which have baseline maximum lift coefcient
capabilities in excess of 1.0. Corresponding ice
accretion effects on thinner surfaces with lower
maximum lift capabilities are often minimal.
Unfortunately, the superior performing thicker
surfaces are much more prevalent on xed wing civil
aircraft types of most interest.
Smaller, dimensionally thinner surfaces (with smaller
leading-edge radiuses) such as tails are more efcient
ice collectors than (dimensionally) thicker surfaces
such as wings. Consequently, (percentage) degradations on these smaller surfaces are often larger for the
same icing encounter. This can be an important issue
when addressing tail stall concerns.
Percentage penalties in terms of maximum lift
reductions and drag increases are typically roughly
inversely proportional to the number of surface
elements, (i.e., the baseline performance capabilities).
For example, congurations with leading-edge devices such as employed on most larger transport
aircraft are the least impacted. Conversely, congurations having hard LEs typical of most
smaller transports/aircraft typically incur noticeably
higher penalties. And, it follows that single-element
761
9. Recommendations
Presuming that the top level objective is to eliminate
aircraft accidents caused by icing which could have been
avoided if ight crews, operators, etc., had been alert to
the potentially serious consequences of various forms of
ice accretions, and hence taken appropriate precautionary actions, there are some important steps remaining
to be taken. Foremost amongst these should be the
following:
*
762
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge and express our
utmost appreciation for the very valuable contributions
of Gene Hill and Jim Riley from the FAA, Mike Bragg
from the University of Illinois, and our editor, Barry
Haines, in terms of the constant encouragement to
continue with this (long) review, supplying additional
new pertinent data and other information, and in
providing most helpful and insightful critiques of draft
versions of the paper throughout its preparation. We
would also like to recognize the signicant value added
to this review by Gene Addy from NASA Glenn in
providing yet-to-be published high Reynolds number
test results for a variety of ice accretion shapes.
Note to reader
While the authors have made every effort to
review and include herein all known available and
pertinent test results applicable to dening the important
consequences of various types of ice accretions on
aircraft aerodynamics, it is very possible because of our
language and other limitations that we may have missed
some. If there are additional pertinent data that are
available which would be useful in either modifying or
References
[1] Anon, Aircraft Accident Report, ATR Model 72212,
Roselawn, Indiana, October 31, 1994, NTSB/AAR-96/01,
vol. 1, 1996.
[2] Marwitz J, Politovich M, Berstein B, Ralph F, Neiman P,
Ashenden R, Bresch J. Meterological conditions associated with the ATR72 aircraft accident near Roselawn,
Indiana on october 31, 1994. Bull Am Meteorol Soc
1997;78(1):4152.
[3] Kind RJ, Potapczuk MG, Feo A, Golia C, Shah AD.
Experimental and computational simulation of in-ight
icing phenomena. Prog Aerosp Sci 1998;34:257345.
[4] Hansman RJ, Turnock SR. Investigation of surface water
behavior during glaze ice accretion. AIAA J Aircr
1989;26(2):1407.
[5] Hansman RJ. Micro physical factors which inuence ice
accretion. Proceedings of the First Bombardier International Workshop on Aircraft Icing/Boundary-Layer
Stability and Transition, Montreal, Canada, 1993.
p. 86103.
[6] Wright WB. Users manual for the improved NASA lewis
ice accretion code LEWICE 1.6. NASA CR-198355,
1995.
[7] Cebeci T. Calculation of ow over iced airfoils. AIAA J
1989;27(7):85361.
[8] Chung J, Choo Y, Reehorst A, Potapczuck M, Slater J.
Navier-stokes analysis of the oweld characteristics of
an ice contaminated aircraft wing. AIAA Paper 99-0375,
1999.
[9] Joongkee C, Reehorst AL, Choo YK, Potapczuk MG.
Effect of airfoil ice shape smoothing on the aerodynamic
performance. AIAA Paper 98-3242, 1998.
[10] Langmuir I, Blodgett KB. A mathematical investigation
of water droplet trajectories. Army Airforce TR No.
5418, 1946.
[11] Bourgault Y, Habashi WG, Dompierre J, Boutanios Z,
DiBratolomeo W, An Eulerian approach to supercooled
droplets impingement calculations. AIAA Paper 97-0176,
1997.
[12] Lozowski EP, Oleskiw MM. Computer modeling of timedependent rime icing in the atmosphere. CRREL Report
83-2, USAF, 1983.
[13] Ruff GA, Berkowitz BM. Users manual for the NASA
lewis ice accretion code (LEWICE). NASA CR-185129,
1990.
[14] Cransdale JT, Gent RW. Ice accretion on aerofoils in
two-dimensional compressible owFa theoretical model.
RAE TR 82128, 1983.
[15] Brunet L. Conception et discussion dun modele de
formation du givre sur des obstacles varies. ONERA
Note Technique 1986-6, 1986.
763
764
[59] Chin VD, Peters DW, Spaid FW, McGhee RJ. Floweld
measurements about a multi-element airfoil at high
Reynolds numbers. AIAA Paper 93-3137, 1993.
[60] Klausmeyer SM, Lin JC. An experimental investigation
of skin friction on a multi-element airfoil. AIAA Paper
94-1870, 1994.
[61] Lynch FT. subsonic transport high-lift technologyFreview of experimental studies. AIAA Overview of High
Lift Aerodynamics, 1995.
[62] Lynch FT, Potter RC, Spaid FW. Requirements for
effective high lift CFD. 20th ICAS, 1996.
[63] Ying SX, Spaid FW, McGinley CB, Rumsey CL.
Investigation of conuent boundary layers in high lift
ows. AIAA J Aircr 1999;36(3):55062.
[64] Dow Sr., JP. Roll upset in severe icing. Federal Aviation
AdministationFAircraft Certication Service, 1995.
[65] Jacobs EN. Airfoil section characteristics as affected by
protuberances. NACA Report 446, 1932.
[66] Abbott IH, von Doenhoff, Albert E, Stivers LS.
Summary of airfoil data. NACA Report 824, 1945.
[67] Loftin LK, Smith HA. Aerodynamic characteristics of 15
NACA airfoil sections at seven Reynolds numbers from
0.7 million to 9.0 million. NACA TN 1945, 1949.
[68] Ladson CL. Effects of independent variation of Mach,
Reynolds numbers on the low-speed aerodynamic characteristics of the NACA 0012 airfoil section. NASA TM
4074, 1988.
[69] Loftin Jr., LK, Bursnall WJ. The effects of variations in
Reynolds number between 3.0 million and 25.0 million
upon the aerodynamic characteristics of a number of
NACA 6-series airfoil sections. NACA Report 964, 1950.
[70] Abbott Jr., FT, Turner Jr., HR. The effects of roughness
at high Reynolds numbers on the lift and drag
characteristics of three thick airfoils. NACA ACR No.
L4H21, 1944 (Wartime Report No. L-46).
[71] Mavriplis F. Icing, Contamination of aircraft surfacesFindustrys concerns. Proceedings of the First Bombardier International Workshop on Aircraft Icing/
Boundary-Layer Stability and Transition, Montreal,
Canada, 1993. p. 515.
[72] Bragg MB, Gregorek GM. Environmentally induced
surface roughness on laminar ow airfoils: implications
for ight safety. AIAA Paper 89-2049, 1989.
[73] Gulick BG. Effects of simulated ice formation on the
aerodynamic characteristics of an airfoil. NACA WR
L-292, 1938.
[74] Ingleman-Sundberg M, Trunov OK, Ivaniko A. Methods
for prediction of the inuence of ice on aircraft
ying characteristics. Report JR-1, a joint report from
the Swedish-Soviet Working Group on Flight Safety,
1977.
[75] Bragg MB, Khodadoust A, Kerho M. Aerodynamics of a
nite wing with simulated ice. Computational and
Physical Aspects of Aerodynamic Flows, Long Beach,
CA, 1992.
[76] Ferguson S, Mullins Jr., B, Smith D, Korkan K. Fullscale empennage wind tunnel test to evaluate effects of
simulated ice on aerodynamic characteristics. AIAA
Paper 95-0451, 1995.
[77] Trunov OK, Ingleman-Sundberg M. Wind tunnel
investigation of hazardous tail stall due to icing. Report
[78]
[79]
[80]
[81]
[82]
[83]
[84]
[85]
[86]
[87]
[88]
[89]
[90]
[91]
[92]
[93]
[94]
[95]
765
766
[134] Bragg MB, Gregorek GM. Aerodynamic characteristics of airfoils with ice accretions. AIAA Paper 820282, 1982.
[135] Bragg MB, Gregorek GM, Lee JD. Airfoil aerodynamics
in icing conditions. AIAA J Aircr 1986;23(1):7681.
[136] Bragg MB, Zaguli RJ, Gregorek GM. Wind tunnel
evaluation of airfoil performance using simulated ice
shapes. NASA CR 167960, 1982.
[137] Wickens RH, Nguyen VD. Wind tunnel investigation of
wing-propeller model performance degradation due to
distributed upper surface roughness and leading edge
shape modication. AGARD CP-496, Paper 11, 1991.
[138] Bragg MB, Coirier WJ. Detailed measurements of the
ow eld in the vicinity of an airfoil with glaze ice. AIAA
Paper 85-0409, 1985.
[139] Bragg MB, Coirier WJ. Aerodynamic measurements of
an airfoil with simulated glaze ice. AIAA Paper 86-0484,
1986.
[140] Bragg MB. Experimental aerodynamic characteristics of
an NACA 0012 airfoil with simulated glaze ice. AIAA J
Aircr 1988;25(9):84954.
[141] Bragg MB, Khodadoust A. Experimental measurements
in a large separation bubble due to a simulated glaze ice
accretion. AIAA Paper 88-0116, 1988.
[142] Bragg MB, Khodadoust A. Effect of simulated glaze ice
on a rectangular wing. AIAA Paper 89-0750, 1989.
[143] Khodadoust A, Bragg MB, Kerho M, Wells S, Soltani
MR. Finite wing aerodynamics with simulated glaze ice.
AIAA Paper 92-0414, 1992.
[144] Khodadoust A, Bragg MB. Measured aerodynamic
performance of a swept wing with a simulated ice
accretion. AIAA Paper 90-0490, 1990.
[145] Bragg MB, Khodadoust A, Soltani MR, Wells S, Kerho
M. Effect of simulated ice accretion on the aerodynamics
of a swept wing. AIAA Paper 91-0442, 1991.
[146] Papadakis M, Gile Lain BE, Youssef GM, Ratvasky
TP. Aerodynamic scaling experiments with simulated
glaze ice accretions. AIAA Paper 2001-0833, 2001.
[147] Jackson DG, Bragg MB. Aerodynamic performance of
an NLF airfoil with simulated ice. AIAA Paper 99-0373,
1999.
[148] Gile Lain BE, Papadakis M. Experimental investigation
of simulated ice accretions on a natural laminar ow
airfoil. AIAA Paper 2001-0088, 2001.
[149] Papadakis M, Alansatan S, Seltman M. Experimental
study of simulated ice shapes on a NACA 0011 Airfoil.
AIAA Paper 99-0096, 1999.
[150] Papadakis M, Alansatan S, Wong S-C. Aerodynamic
characteristics of a symmetric NACA section with
simulated ice shapes. AIAA Paper 2000-0098, 2000.
[151] Kim HS, Bragg MB. Effect of leading-edge ice accretion
geometry on airfoil performance. AIAA Paper 99-3150,
1999.
[152] Lee S, Kim HS, Bragg MB. Investigation of factors that
inuence iced-airfoil aerodynamics. AIAA Paper 20000099, 2000.
[153] Papadakis M, Alansatan S, Yeong HW. Aerodynamic
performance of a T-tail with simulated ice accretions.
AIAA Paper 2000-0363, 2000.
[154] Laschka B, Jesse RE. Determination of ice shapes
and their effect on the aerodynamic characteristics
[155]
[156]
[157]
[158]
[159]
[160]
[161]
[162]
[163]
[164]
767