See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/337495337

ICING EFFECTS ON AIRCRAFT AIRFOILS A PROJECT REPORT

Thesis · January 2018

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32881.63843

CITATIONS READS

0 400

2 authors, including:

Kalivela Venkata Ramana

Politecnico di Milano
7 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

FIEGE-ZALANDO Automated warehouse View project

IKEA - PURCHASING AND SUPPLY MANAGEMENT View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kalivela Venkata Ramana on 25 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ICING EFFECTS ON AIRCRAFT AIRFOILS

A PROJECT REPORT

Submitted by

S AJAYVISHNU CB.EN.U4AEE14004

ASHVIN V S CB.EN.U4AEE14009

KALIVELA VENKATARAMANA CB.EN.U4AEE14024

In partial fulfilment for the award of the degree of

BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY IN AEROSPACE

ENGINEERING

Under the Guidance of

Dr.Balajee Ramakrishnananda

AMRITA SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, COIMBATORE

AMRITA VISHWA VIDYAPEETHAM

COIMBATORE- 641 112

MAY 2018

1
 AMRITA VISHWA VIDYAPEETHAM

AMRITA SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, COIMBATORE-

641112

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis entitled ‘ICING EFFECTS ON AIRCRAFT
AIRFOILS’ submitted by S AJAYVISHNU (CB.EN.U4AEE14004), ASHVIN
VS (CB.EN.U4AEE14009), K VENKATARAMANA (CB.EN.U4AEE14024)
in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree of Bachelor
of technology in AEROSPACE ENGINEERING is a bonafide record of the
work carried out under my guidance and supervision at the Amrita School of
Engineering, Ettimadai, Coimbatore

(Signature)

Dr. Balajee Ramakrishnananda

Project Guide

Assistant Professor

Department of Aerospace Engineering

2
 DECLARATION
We, S AJAYVISHNU(CB.EN.U4AEE14004), ASHVIN
VS(CB.EN.U4AEE14009)and K VENKATARAMANA(CB.EN.U4AEE14024)
hereby declare that this project report entitled ‘ICING EFFECTS ON
AIRCRAFT AIRFOILS’ is a record of original work done by us under the
guidance of Dr.Balajee Ramakrishnananda, Assistant Professor, Department of
Aerospace Engineering. This work has not formed the basis for any
degree/diploma/fellowship or a similar award to any candidate in any University,
to the best of our knowledge

S.AJAY VISHNU :

ASHVIN V. S. :

K VENKATARAMANA :

Place : Coimbatore
Date :

COUNTERSIGNED
Department of Aerospace Engineering
Amrita school of Engineering,
Amritanagar, Coimbatore – 641112.

3
 Acknowledgement

Of all the words in language, few succeed in expressing deep gratitude to

God and His blessings in numerous forms. We hereby express our many thanks to

our mentor, Dr. Balajee Ramakrishnananda, Assistant Professor, Dept. of

Aerospace Engineering; for guiding us through this project, and opening new

directions for us to think in. We are thankful to Mr. Rajesh Senthil Kumar,

Assistant Professor (SR.GR), for sharing with us their experience as well as the

timely supply of components for the project.

Our heartfelt thanks to the Dept. of Aerospace Engineering, Amrita

School of Engineering, Coimbatore; for providing us with the best of facilities and

faculties.

We are also thankful to our parents for supporting us to study in an

educational institution and morally guiding us. We extend our sincere thanks to

all our classmates and friends, particularly, Vignesh Selvam, JTSV Sagar, Final

Year, B. tech (Aerospace Engineering), for their encouragement.

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I ABSTRACT ………………………………………………..6

II LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………..7

III LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………9

IV LIST OF SYMBOLS……………………………………….11

V CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION

1. Why piston engines are still in use. ………………………12

2. Icing effect………………………………………………...13
3. Types of ice formation…………………………………….14
4. Effects of icing…………………………………………….15
5. Drag effect…………………………………………………16

VI CHAPTER 2-METHODOLOGY

1. XFLR5 Software……………………………………………19
2. XFOIL Software……………………………………………21
3. Finalized Critical ice shapes………………………………..21
4. GET DATA Software………………………………………26
5. ANSYS-FLUENT………………………………………….26
6. Validation…………………………………………………..27

VII CHAPTER 3- RESULTS AND DICUSSION

1. Objective Function Formulation…………………………..47

VIII CONCLUSION. ………………………………………….49

IX REFERENCES……………………………………………50

5
 LIST OF TABLES
TAB (2.1)-Initial airfoils selected……………………………………….20

TAB (2.2)-Airfoils filtered based on high Emax and clmax…………….....21

TAB (2.3) - selected merged airfoils……………………………………23

TAB (3.1) without ice (702330f) ……………………………………….36

TAB (3.2) - ICE 1(702330f) …………………………………………....37

TAB (3.3) - ICE 2(702330f) ……………………………………………37

TAB (3.4)-ICE 3(702330f) ……………………………………………..37

TAB (3.5)-ICE 4 (702330f) …………………………………………….37

TAB (3.6) - 802320f…………………………………………………….40

TAB (3.7)-ICE 1 (802320f) …………………………………………….40

TAB (3.8)-ICE 2 (802320f) …………………………………………….40

TAB (3.9) - ICE 3(802320f) ……………………………………………40

TAB (3.10)-ICE 4(802320f) ……………………………………………40

TAB (3.11) - 902310f …………………………………………………43

TAB (3.12)-ICE 1(902310f) ………………………………………….43

TAB (3.13) - ICE 2(902310f) ………………………………………..43

TAB (3.14) - ICE 3(902310f) …………………………………………..43

TAB (3.15)-ICE 4(902310f) ……………………………………………43

TAB (3.16)-All observations of maximum values of parameters………46

TAB (3.17) - ICE 1 maximum values…………………………………..46

6
TAB (3.18) - ICE 2 maximum values…………………………………..46

TAB (3.19)-ICE 3 maximum values……………………………………46

TAB (3.20) - ICE 4 maximum values…………………………………..47

TAB (3.21) - All cases of winter months of objective function values...48

TAB (3.22) - Results……………………………………………………48

7
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIG (1.1) Reciprocating Engine……………………………………………12

FIG (1.2)-Graphs comparison with iced and normal conditions …………..15

FIG (2.1) - A300 airfoil ice shape for high aspect ratio aircrafts …….…..24

FIG (2.2) - NACA0012 airfoil ice shape for high………………………….25

FIG (2.3) - A300 tail plane ice shape for high aspect ratio aircrafts ……....25

FIG (2.4)-DHC6 tail plane ice shape for high aspect ratio aircrafts………..26

FIG (2.5) - NACA0012 Mesh display………………………………………28

FIG (2.6)-cl vs alpha for NACA0012……………………………………….28

FIG (2.7)-Drag polar for NACA 0012……………………………………...29

FIG (2.8)-Comparing the results obtained from both the orders (cl vs α)….29

FIG (2.9)-Comparison (cl vs cd) ……………………………………………30

FIG (2.10)-902310f ………………………………………………………..30

FIG (2.11)-902310f ICE 1 …………………………………………………31

FIG (2.12)-902310f ICE 2…………………………………………………31

FIG (2.13)-902310f ICE 3…………………………………………………31

FIG (2.14)-902310f ICE 4…………………………………………………32

FIG (2.15)-802320f………………………………………………………..32

FIG (2.16)-802320f ICE 1…………………………………………………32

FIG (2.17)-802320f ICE 2…………………………………………………33

8
FIG (2.18)-802320f ICE3…………………………………………………33

FIG (2.19)-802320f ICE4…………………………………………………33

FIG (2.20)-702330f……………………………………………………….34

FIG (2.21)-702330f ICE …………………………………………………34

FIG (2.22)-702330f ICE 2…………………………………………………34

FIG (2.23) - 702330f ICE 3………………………………………………..35

FIG (2.24)-702330f ICE 4…………………………………………………35

FIG (3.1)-cl vs Alpha comparison of all ice shapes (702330f)……………38

FIG (3.2) – cd vs Alpha comparison of all ice shapes (702330f) …………38

FIG (3.3) - cl/cd vs Alpha comparison of all ice shapes (702330f)……….39

FIG (3.4)-cl 3/2/cd Vs Alpha comparison of all ice shapes (702330f)……39

FIG (3.5) - cl Vs Alpha comparison of all ice shapes (802320f) ……….41

FIG (3.6) - cd vs Alpha comparison of all ice shapes (802320f) …….…41

FIG (3.7) - cl/cd vs Alpha comparison of all ice shapes (802320f) …..…42

FIG (3.8) - cl 3/2/cd Vs Alpha comparison of all ice shapes (802320f)…..42

FIG (3.9) -cl Vs Alpha comparison of all ice shapes (902310f) ……..…44

FIG (3.10) - cd Vs Alpha comparison of all ice shapes (902310f) …...…44

FIG (3.11 - cl/cd Vs Alpha comparison of all ice shapes (902310f) ….…45

FIG (3.12) - cl 3/2/cd Vs Alpha comparison of all ice shapes (902310f) …45

9
 ABSTRACT

Small water droplets constitute a cloud. When these water droplets come in
contact with a surface, it freezes because the surface temperature tends to go
below freezing point. Layers of ice start piling up on the surface as time goes on.
This is a major problem faced by aeroplanes flying in cold conditions.

When aircrafts pass through clouds, the leading edge of airfoils are most tends to
ice formation. This can happen in regions like Himalayas, Scandinavian countries
and Serbian region.

Usually, De-icing and Anti-icing systems can be successfully used to control icing
effects but these systems are costly and add to the weight of the aircraft, which
can be important design criteria in small piston engine aircrafts.

To contribute to an understanding of effects of icing and to design aerofoils, the

main objective of our project is to study and analyse existing airfoils and
categorize these airfoils based on maximum Coefficient of Lift clmax and
maximum Aerodynamic Efficiency Emax. With the help of these data, new airfoils
will be generated by interpolation. The airfoils that produce minimum reduction in
clmax and Emax with respect to different icing conditions is analysed by means of
varying the parameters of an objective function.

10
 LIST OF SYMBOLS

AOA (or) α (or) Alpha Angle of attack

cl Coefficient of Lift (2D)

cd Coefficient of Drag (2D)

clmax Maximum Coefficient of Lift (2D)

Emax (or) (cl/cd) max Maximum Aerodynamic Efficiency (2D)

Re Reynolds Number

ϼ Density of air

11
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Piston Engine is typically a heat engine that uses one or more reciprocating
pistons to convert pressure into a rotating motion.

Types of piston engines:

 Internal combustion engine

 Steam engine

Piston engine aircrafts are generally used for low altitudes less than 15000 ft. and
Mach number less than 0.3. They are used in applications in that regime where
they exhibit good efficiency. A piston engine converts chemical energy to
mechanical work through a cylinder crank shaft arrangement as shown below.

P- PISTON

C-CRANKSHAFT

R-CONNECTING RODS

V-VALVES

S-SPARK PLUG

FIG (1.1) Reciprocating engine [1]

1.1 WHY IS PISTON ENGINE STILL USED?

 From a manufacturing and engineering perspective, the reciprocating

engines found in piston aircraft are far less complex as it involves lesser
complex mechanism when compared to its jet counterparts, since the

12
 lesser the complexity lesser the cost of materials used, giving a big thumb
up in terms of cost efficiency[1].

 Reliability and cost of maintenance of a piston engine aircraft is relatively

simple and easy. However, these piston engines are efficient only in the
altitude regimes of less than 15000 ft.[1]

 Piston engine aircrafts easy manoeuvrability and landing make them user
friendly and easy to handle.[1]

 Correct choice for a correct mission. Aircraft Applications like crop

dusting, causal sport at low altitude, fire extinguishers don’t require high
power engines for their mission. So, customers opt a better efficient
aircraft for their purpose in its own regime.

1.2 ICING EFFECT:

 Icing is a natural phenomenon where a surface is incident on Liquid Water

Content (LWC) that are present in clouds and ice forms over the surface at
certain atmospheric conditions. Icing can also happen during snowstorm
and snowfall. We see the roofs of the houses, the roads surfaced with
layers of snow. Airfoils that are in use at such snowy places will
experience such icing.[2]
 Clouds are made of water droplets. These water droplets freeze on the
surface it falls on, given the surface temperature is below the freezing
point. As time goes on, layer after layer of ice gets accreted on the surface.
This is a major problem being faced by Aerospace Industries worldwide.
 When aircrafts fly through clouds, leading edges of the wing, inlet leading
edge of the engine are affected by ice formation. This happens to any
surface in high-altitude regions, where the temperature is below 0°C.[2]

13
  Aircrafts experience icing when they fly through clouds. The water
droplets that are present in the clouds hit the aircraft’s surface and the
water droplets froze on impact that results in ice formation over that
surface. The typical areas where the ice forms on aircrafts are the leading
edges of the wing, nose, inlet leading edge of the engine cowling,
propellers of a turboprop or piston prop aircrafts and leading edges of
vertical and horizontal stabilizers.

1.3 TYPES OF ICE FORMATIONS:

Glaze:

. As the altitude decreases, the precipitation melts and forms liquid. This liquid
will form super cooled water droplet at a few hundred meters’ height, which
forms ice on hitting a surface below freezing point on the ground. This surface
can be anything – Glaze ices are formed when a super cooled water droplet hits
the surface when the temperature is below freezing temperature. Just after that, it
freezes to ice instantaneously. This type of ice is transparent, hard and adheres
well to the surface. The average range of temperature where glaze ice is formed is
from 0°C to -6°C. The average density of glaze ice is around 900 kg/m3. Ice
accretion rate depends on wind speed, precipitation rate and temperature.[3]

Rime:

When a surface below freezing point is exposed to super cooled liquid, it forms
rime ice on the surface. The average temperature for the occurrence of rime ice
varies from -10°C to -20°C. The average density of rime ice is from 300 to 900
kg/m3. This decrease in density (when compared to glaze ice’s density) is due to
the fact that air bubbles will be trapped inside the ice amidst the water droplets –
this is the reason the rime ice appears opaque whereas glaze appears transparent.
Rime ice tends to be formed on the windward side of any object.[4]

14
Mixed:

Mixed ices are the types of ice that are partly rime and glaze. This mainly depends
on the temperature. If the temperature is from the -6°C to -9°C, there is high
probability that the ice formed is mixed – the appearance of the ice will be
translucent. [3]

EFFECTS OF ICING:
It is due to the Lift acting on the airfoil that keeps the aircraft afloat and hence the
lift produced plays a pivotal role in the stability of the aircraft. So, the Lift force
and hence the Coefficient of Lift of that airfoil plays a very important role in this
whole scenario. The most hazardous aspect of icing is its aerodynamic effects. Ice
alters the shape of an airfoil, reducing the maximum coefficient of lift and angle
of attack at which the aircraft stalls. It also increase drag and adversely affects the
[9-14]
aerodynamic efficiency. The reader is referred to references for related study
on icing.

Therefore, when cruising at a low angle of attack, ice on the wing may have little
effect on the lift. However, note that the ice significantly reduces the clmax and the
angle of attack at which it occurs (the stall angle) is much lower.

FIG (1.2) - Graphs comparison with iced and normal conditions [2]

15
Ice on an airfoil can have other effects not depicted in these curves. Even before
airfoil stall, there can be changes in the pressure over the airfoil that may affect a
control surface at the trailing edge.

Ice can partially block or limit control surfaces, which limits or makes control
movements ineffective. Also, if the extra weight caused by ice accumulation is too
great, the aircraft may not be able to become airborne and, if in flight, the aircraft
may not be able to maintain altitude.

Icing problem is more important for Piston engine aircrafts because of the absence
of de-icing systems which are present in high speed aircrafts.

Usually piston engine aircrafts do not use de-icing systems as piston engines are
still in use for their low cost and maintenance. Having de-icing systems increases
the overall weight of the aircraft which is an added dis-advantage to the entire
aircraft. Since any wing, propeller blade or control surfaces are derived from
airfoils, it would be appropriate to understand the effects of icing on airfoils first
and design airfoils whose performance deterioration during icing is minimized to
the extent possible.

So, this project’s objective is to take existing airfoils, generate new airfoils by
interpolation and suggest the airfoils that produce minimum reduction of loss
(maximum Coefficient of Lift clmax and maximum Aerodynamic Efficiency Emax)
in efficiency due to icing, so that the suggested airfoils can be used during icing
conditions and can have better efficiency after ice formation when compared to
the other airfoils.

DRAG EFFECT:

Drag tends to increase steadily as ice accretes. An airfoil drag increase of 100
percent is not unusual, and for large horn ice accretions, the increase can be 200
percent or even higher. [2]

16
Some piston engine aircrafts which are presently in use. [4]

 Cirrus
 Cessna.
 Hawker Beech craft.
 Diamond.
 Mooney.

 The objective of this work is to study the effects of icing on airfoils.

 The idea is to generate new airfoils by interpolating between two parent
airfoils in different interpolation ratios some of which would hopefully
produce airfoils better suited for certain icing conditions.
 To compare the merits of two airfoils, a methodology for objective
function formulation is also suggested and deployed.
 Out of a pool of airfoils, airfoils were chosen based on their usage in
piston engine aircrafts and further filtered based on their clmax and Emax.
XFOIL [3] and XFLR5 [3] software were used to merge the airfoils and get
a preliminary idea about the airfoil characteristics.

 Then ANSYS FLUENT [5] was used to get the final values (clmax and Emax)
for the iced and non-iced conditions of selected airfoils. The airfoils were
previously filtered were run on XFOIL and XFLR5 Software to obtain an
approximate version of the results, as Ansys is time consuming. Since
Ansys gives more accurate results because it solves the full N-S equations
while XFOIL/XFLR5 solve an approximate version to get quick results.
(Approximate – solves parabolized N-S equations in the boundary layer
and inviscid flow outside using panel method. This is not suitable for
separated flows).

 Similar methodology has already been used earlier in our senior thesis [3]

however they have done icing effects on wind turbine blade airfoils. In the
current work icing effects on aircraft airfoils on different icing conditions.

17
Further in order to evaluate the airfoils simulated, a method of objective function
is illustrated in which the degree of relative importance given to clmax and Emax and
the iced and non-iced conditions can be controlled. .

18
 CHAPTER-2
METHODOLOGY

Phase I

25 Airfoils are chosen from a pool of airfoils from airfoils tools.com based on
their high clmax and Emax [5]

Phase II

XFOIL analyses were done for the selected 25 airfoils in XFLR5.

2.1 XFLR5 Software:

XFLR is software developed exclusively for the design and analysis of a model
Aircraft. As XFLR is an ideal software tool for analysing airfoils at a given
Reynolds number which is a perfect choice for our project analysis. [3]

XFLR5 version of XFLR is used for airfoil analysis with factors of wind speed,
DAT file format is being used to read the airfoil co-ordinates into the Software.
The Analysis time in XFLR5 software is less than milliseconds making it an easy
task. [3]

In our case each run was conducted at a Reynolds number (Re) of 3*106 at a
density of (ρ) 1.225 kg/m3.

19
 TAB (2.1)-airfoils short-listed based on clmax and Emax

AIRFOILS clmax Emax

CH-10(SMOOTHED) 2.032 244.252

Eppler e-423 2.083 201.813
e-395 1.818 201.733
e-396 1.801 203.347
dae-11 1.72 237.667
Fx 63-120 1.832 150.125
Fx76 mp 1.778 240.26
goe233 1.951 112.025
goe 298 1.946 110.925
mh 113 1.972 188.64
NREL'S S801 1.76 191.332
s1223 2.283 230.658
S1221 w/0 2.183 180.135
S1221 w/4 2.24 174.388
usa98 1.871 93.417
Fx 83w108 1.811 134.994
goe234 1.971 88.901
naca2412 1.596 106.131
Naca23012 1.712 123.748
Naca23015 1.582 104.182
Naca63-215 1.35 89.97
Fx 63-137 1.758 111.989
Roncz low drag 1.561 119.898
Roncz 1082 1.597 180.078

Out of the selected airfoils 6 of them were short listed as they are currently being
used in the piston engine aircrafts.

20
Phase III

3 Airfoils were chosen out of the selected 6 airfoils based on their high clmax and
Emax

TAB-(2.2)-Airfoils further filtered based on high clmax and Emax

Airfoils cl max Emax

naca23012 1.712 123.748
naca23015 1.582 104.182
naca63-215 1.35 89.97
Fx 63-137 1.758 111.989
Roncz low drag 1.561 119.898
Roncz 1082 1.597 180.078

These 3 airfoils are merged using XFOIL software in different combinations to

arrive at a series of different airfoils having various lift and drag characteristics.

Phase IV

2.2 XFOIL software:

In the XFOIL software commands were used for merging two different airfoils at
a specified interpolation ratio of each corresponding airfoil. [3]

Many combinations of those airfoils are done as shown in subsequent illustrative

table.

21
The first 2 digits corresponds to the percentage interpolation of the first airfoil and
followed by first airfoil file directory name, then the next 2 digits denotes
percentage interpolation of the second airfoil merged followed by its
corresponding file directory.(e.g.10f90r indicates the actual nomenclature, 10% of
FX 63-137 airfoil merged with 90% of Roncz 1082)

TAB (2.3) - selected merged airfoils

S. No. Airfoils clmax Emax

1 10f90r 1.846 134.579
2 10f9023 1.901 129.725
3 10r90f 1.457 181.944
4 10r9023 1.612 161.46
5 20f80r 1.799 143.151
6 20f8023 1.889 130.645
7 20r80f 1.522 184.018
8 20r8023 1.628 165.03
9 30f70r 1.749 151.576
10 30f7023 1.874 128.658
11 30r70f 1.585 155.718
12 30r7023 1.642 149.443
13 40f60r 1.699 163.23
14 40f6023 1.858 127.292
15 40r60f 1.52 153.407
16 40r6023 1.661 134.145
17 50f50r 1.648 173.865
18 50f5023 1.839 130.914
19 50r50f 1.668 150.289
20 50r5023 1.677 123.686
21 60f40r 1.598 178.527
22 60f4023 1.815 134.056
23 60r40f 1.713 169.01
24 60r4023 1.688 123.511
25 70f30r 1.539 178.532
26 70f3023 1.815 133.291
27 70r30f 1.76 149.958
28 70r3023 1.697 124.752

22
 29 80f20r 1.49 162.484
30 80f2023 1.805 130.54
31 80r20f 1.806 164.021
32 80r2023 1.707 124.506
33 90f10r 1.461 181.11
34 90f1023 1.713 124.689
35 90r10f 1.848 148.619
36 90r1023 1.713 124.689
37 102390f 1.764 127.95
38 102390r 1.711 124.308
39 202380f 1.806 132.347
40 202380r 1.706 124.71
41 302370f 1.84 136.086
42 302370r 1.697 124.29
43 402360f 1.879 139.208
44 402360r 1.686 123.542
45 502350f 1.911 140.261
46 502350r 1.686 123.542
47 602340f 1.936 141.394
48 602340r 1.659 133.332
49 702330f 1.964 149.873
50 702330r 1.659 133.332
51 802320f 1.999 158.556
52 802320r 1.626 164.512
53 902310f 2.031 169.411
54 902310r 1.616 170.762

In the above table airfoils (r)-roncz1082, (f)-FX 63-137, (23)-

NACA23012
In the various combinations of the airfoils, the highlighted Airfoils were chosen as
hey exhibit high values of clmax and corresponding Emax

23
Phase V

2.3 Finalized Critical Ice Shapes:

Critical ice shapes are those shapes which are expected to possibly produce the
worst performance decrease in an airfoil. Critical ice shapes are important to show
the compliance with the airworthiness regulations as well as to demonstrate the
safely flying ability of the aircraft in icing conditions.
After many tests conducted by FAA namely Dry-air tunnels tests, Icing tunnels
tests, Airborne icing tankers tests, Dry-air flight tests, Natural icing flight tests,
the critical ice shapes that adversely affect the flight handling parameters are
illustrated below [6]

The above said tests are an experimental method to determine the critical ice
shapes. In our work, we do not know the critical ice shape apriori. Hence, to get
an idea of the effects of icing, all the below shapes are tested and averaged.

ICE-1:

FIG (2.1)-A300 airfoil ice shape for high aspect ratio aircrafts [6]

24
ICE-2

FIG (2.2)-NACA0012 airfoil ice shape for high [6]

ICE-3

FIG (2.3)- A300 tail plane ice shape for high aspect ratio aircrafts [6]

25
ICE-4

FIG (2.4)-DHC6 tail plane ice shape for high aspect ratio aircrafts [6]

PHASE VI

2.4 GET DATA Software

GET Data Graph Digitizer is software for computerizing plots and graphs. If the
data values are not clearly available from a scanned scientific graph, this software
helps in obtaining the original coordinates from the graphs. We used this software
to digitize the coordinates of some airfoils. [7]

PHASE VII

2.5 ANSYS Software

From XFOIL Software top three best airfoils were selected due to exhibiting high
clmax and Emax.

ANSYS Fluent simulations were done for these selected airfoils (902310f,
802320f, 702330f).

26
2.6 Validation:

Validation plays a major role in ANSYS FLUENT Simulations because in

ANSYS Workbench while creating a mesh files we should define some
parameters to check whether given parameters are correct or not validation is
required

Among 4 critical ice shapes as shown on PHASE VI second ice shape was
selected for validation and NACA0012 airfoil for a Reynolds number 3*106
whose experimental data are available for comparison. [8]

In ANSYS Workbench Unstructured mesh was used for all airfoils because icing
models are non-uniform with different ice shapes forming at leading edge. So,
unstructured mesh only gives the better results than structured mesh. It would also
be difficult to generate structured mesh for iced airfoils accurately.

ANSYS parameter used

 “C” grid domain was chosen with 20m as radius of curvature and 20m as
horizontal distance
 Unstructured triangular mesh was chosen because irregular ice shapes are
meshed completely
 Viscous model-SST K-ω chosen
 Convergence value from 10-5to 10-6
 Inlet velocity is 43.836 m/s. For different α, the X and Y components was
changed accordingly.
 What is the airfoil chord length?
 What is the solution method used?
 Where do the first order and second order methods fit in?

27
Mesh file was created for NACA0012 as shown below.

FIG (2.5) - NACA0012 Mesh display

Initially we chosen first order algorithm in FLUENT Simulations and the results
from FLUENT are coinciding with the lift curve of experimental data but not the
drag polar as shown below.

Cl Vs α
1.6
c
1.4

1.2

0.8
experimental data

0.6

0.4
1ST ORDER
0.2

0
0 5 10 15 20
α

FIG (2.6)-Cl vs alpha for NACA0012

28
 0.12

cd
0.1
expeimental data
0.08

0.06
1ST ORDER

0.04

0.02
cl
0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

FIG (2.7) – Drag polar for NACA 0012

As observing above results we chosen second order method in

FLUENT Simulations and the results are coinciding with experimental
data better than first order as shown below.

cl cl Vs α
1.60E+00

1.40E+00

1.20E+00

1.00E+00
2nd order
8.00E-01

6.00E-01
experimental data

4.00E-01
1ST ORDER
2.00E-01

0.00E+00
0 5 10 15 20
α

FIG (2.8)-Comparing the results obtained from both the orders (cl vs α)

29
 1.20E-01

2nd order cl VS cd
1.00E-01

expeimental data
8.00E-02

1ST ORDER 6.00E-02

4.00E-02
cl

2.00E-02

cd
0.00E+00
-1.50E+00 -1.00E+00 -5.00E-01 0.00E+00 5.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.50E+00 2.00E+00

FIG (2.9)-Comparison (cl vs cd)

So, we decided to proceed same procedure for selected airfoils with and without
icing model

Mesh files of remaining airfoils shown below

Mesh file for 902310f

FIG (2.10)-902310f

30
Mesh file for 902310f ice1

FIG (2.11)-902310f ICE1

Mesh file for 902310f ice2

FIG (2.12)-902310f ICE2

Mesh file for 902310fice3

FIG (2.13)-902310f ICE 3

31
Mesh file for 902310fice4

FIG (2.14)-902310f ICE 4

Mesh file for 802320f

FIG (2.15)-802320f

Mesh file for 802320f ice1

FIG (2.16)-802330f ICE 1

32
Mesh file for 802320fice2

FIG (2.17)-802320f ICE 2

Mesh for 802320f ice3

FIG (2.18)-802320f ICE3

Mesh file for 802320fice4

FIG (2.19)-802320f ICE4

33
Mesh file for 702330f

FIG (2.20)-702330f

Mesh file for 702330fice1

FIG (2.21)-702330f ICE1

Mesh file for 702330f ice2

FIG (2.22)-702330f ICE 2

34
Mesh file for 702330fice3

FIG (2.23) - 702330f ICE 3

Mesh file for 702330f ice4

FIG (2.24)-702330f ICE 4

35
 CHAPTER-3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Totally, ANSYS FLUENT Simulations for 15 airfoils {(4 iced airfoils*3 merged airfoils)
+3 merged airfoils}. For each airfoil simulations were done till the finding clmax and
Emax. So, totally 144 simulations were done for 216 hours (at an average of 1.5 hrs
each)

All these 144 simulations were done tabulated for the values of clmax and

Emax. for each airfoil as shown below

AIRFOIL-702330F:
TAB (3.1)- (702330f)

without ice
alpha cl cd cl/cd cl3/2/cd
0 0.68101 0.00911 74.74673 61.70000
3 1.00260 0.01165 86.06747 86.20000
4 1.11820 0.01274 87.76391 92.80000
6 1.31090 0.01616 81.10499 92.90000
10 1.70763 0.02309 73.94377 96.60000
11 1.76770 0.02704 65.36869 86.90000
12 1.79840 0.03256 55.23681 74.10000
13 1.81604 0.03933 46.16988 62.20000
14 1.77510 0.05283 33.59745 44.80000
15 1.74454 0.06792 25.68426 33.90000
16 1.69566 0.08496 19.95779 26.00000

36
 TAB (3.2)- ICE 1(702330f) TAB (3.3)- ICE 2(702330f)

ice 1 ice 2
alpha cl cd cl/ cd cl3/2/cd alpha cl cd cl/cd cl3/2/cd
0 0.63485 0.01301 48.81584 38.90000 0 0.57755 0.01818 31.77017 24.10000
3 0.95210 0.01611 59.11095 57.70000 3 0.87366 0.02309 37.83388 35.40000
4 1.04410 0.01846 56.57545 57.80000 4 0.95290 0.02654 35.90024 35.00000
5 1.33700 0.02172 61.55617 71.20000 5 0.99670 0.03310 30.11178 30.10000
6 1.29290 0.02661 48.58517 55.20000 6 1.10771 0.04179 26.50372 27.90000
7 1.23430 0.03387 36.43798 40.50000 7 1.00740 0.05634 17.88072 17.90000
10 1.14530 0.07924 14.45301 15.50000 10 1.05000 0.09780 10.73620 11.00000
14 0.99393 0.16872 5.89098 5.87000 14 0.90810 0.11627 7.81060 7.44000

TAB (3.4)- ICE 3(702330f)

TAB (3.5)- ICE 4(702330f)

ice 3 ice 4
alpha cl cd cl/cd cl3/2/cd alpha cl cd cl/cd cl3/2/cd
0 0.59034 0.01709 34.54705 26.50000 0 0.60087 0.01734 34.65225 26.90000
3 0.92877 0.01876 49.52119 47.70000 3 0.93564 0.01851 50.55601 48.90000
4 1.01487 0.02141 47.40533 47.80000 4 1.01430 0.02244 45.21061 45.50000
5 1.07440 0.02679 40.10003 41.60000 5 1.08590 0.02648 41.00831 42.70000
6 1.12240 0.03319 33.81640 35.80000 6 1.12910 0.03331 33.89571 36.00000
7 1.13830 0.04211 27.03415 28.80000 7 1.13130 0.04422 25.58171 27.20000
8 1.14610 0.05337 21.47501 23.00000 8 1.11540 0.05837 19.11077 20.20000
9 1.12840 0.06874 16.41667 17.40000 10 1.03840 0.09643 10.76899 11.00000
10 1.10900 0.08480 13.07845 13.80000 14 0.74846 0.17243 4.34076 3.76000
14 0.96786 0.16637 5.81740 5.72000

37
 2

1.8
clVs α
cl
1.6

1.4

1.2
Without ice
1
ice1
0.8 ice2
0.6 ice3
0.4 ice4

0.2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
α

FIG (3.1)-Cl vs α comparison for all ice shapes (702330f)

0.2
cd VS α
0.18

0.16
cd
0.14
ice1
0.12
ice2
0.1
ice3
0.08
ice4
0.06
without ice
0.04

0.02

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
α
FIG (3.2) - Cd vs α comparison for all ice shapes (702330f)

38
 cl /cd cl /cd Vs α
100

90

80

70
without ice
60
ice1
50
ice2
40 ice3
30 ice4

20

10

0
α
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

FIG (3.3) - cl/cd vs α comparison for all ice shapes (702330f)

Cl3/2/Cd cl 3/2/cd Vs α
1.20E+02

1.00E+02

8.00E+01
without ice

6.00E+01 ice 1
ice 2
4.00E+01 ice 3
ice 4
2.00E+01

0.00E+00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 α 18

FIG (3.4)-cl3/2/cd Vs α comparison for all ice shapes (702330f)

39
 TAB(3.7)-ICE 1 (802320f)
ice 1
Alpha cl cd cl / cd cl3/2/cd
AIRFOIL-802320F: 0 0.70358 0.01340 52.52165 44.10000
3 1.01910 0.01714 59.46782 60.00000
TAB (3.6)- 802320f 4 1.10740 0.01980 55.92082 58.80000
5 1.17310 0.02337 50.19898 54.40000
without ice 6 1.22970 0.02855 43.07633 47.80000
Alpha cl cd cl/ cd cl3/2/cd 7 1.25580 0.03641 34.49431 38.70000
0 0.76222 0.00955 79.80442 69.70000 8 1.26200 0.04740 26.62335 29.90000
3 1.01916 0.01191 85.60054 86.40000 9 1.24350 0.06874 18.09122 20.20000
4 1.18860 0.01316 90.33288 98.50000 10 1.18540 0.07998 14.82176 16.10000
6 1.37130 0.01687 81.29113 95.20000 14 1.02008 0.24697 4.13032 4.17000
10 1.75286 0.02605 67.28566 89.10000
11 1.82370 0.02953 61.74917 83.40000 TAB (3.9)- ICE 3(802320f)
12 1.81360 0.03790 47.85603 64.40000
13 1.81010 0.04771 37.93964 51.00000 ice 3
14 1.81122 0.05710 31.71986 42.70000 Alpha cl cd cl/cd cl3/2/cd
15 1.73913 0.07227 24.06522 31.70000 0 0.67138 0.01687 39.80671 32.60000
16 1.69768 0.08849 19.18497 25.00000 3 0.99068 0.01974 50.18897 50.00000
4 1.06220 0.02305 46.09043 47.50000
5 1.12600 0.02749 40.96482 43.50000
TAB (3.8)-ICE 2 (802320f) 6 1.16760 0.03481 33.54690 36.20000
7 1.17890 0.04640 25.40842 27.60000
ice 2 8 1.16530 0.05955 19.56942 21.10000
Alpha cl cd cl/cd cl3/2/cd 10 1.10240 0.09270 11.89277 12.50000
0 0.63861 0.01850 34.52692 27.60000 14 1.03973 0.16396 6.34151 6.47000
3 0.82760 0.03834 21.58750 19.60000
4 0.88310 0.04663 18.94033 17.80000
5 0.93097 0.05585 16.66852 16.10000 TAB (3.10)-ICE 4(802320f)
6 0.96864 0.06605 14.66614 14.40000
7 0.99990 0.07702 12.98319 13.00000 ice 4
8 1.01840 0.08887 11.45905 11.60000 Alpha cl cd cl/cd cl3/2/cd
9 1.04150 0.10204 10.20678 10.40000 0 0.66343 0.01739 38.15667 31.10000
10 1.02340 0.11689 8.75524 8.86000 3 0.99168 0.01943 51.04648 50.80000
14 0.97320 0.17560 5.54214 5.47000 4 1.07000 0.02277 46.99785 48.60000
5 1.12950 0.02769 40.79679 43.40000
6 1.16090 0.03565 32.56564 35.10000
7 1.16520 0.04693 24.82900 26.80000
8 1.13660 0.06290 18.07139 19.30000
10 1.08760 0.09955 10.92505 11.40000
14 1.08769 0.18299 5.94402 6.20000

40
 cl cl Vs α

2.00E+00

1.80E+00

1.60E+00

1.40E+00

1.20E+00 without ice

1.00E+00 ice 1

8.00E-01
ice 2
6.00E-01
ice 3
4.00E-01

2.00E-01 ice 4

0.00E+00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
α

FIG (3.5)- cl Vs α Comparison for all ice shapes(802320f)

cd cd Vs α
3.00E-01

2.50E-01

2.00E-01 Without ice

ice 1
1.50E-01
ice 2
ice 3
1.00E-01
ice 4

5.00E-02

0.00E+00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 α

FIG (3.6)- cd VS α comparison for all ice shapes(802320f)

41
 cl cl /cd VS α
1.00E+02
without ice
9.00E+01

8.00E+01 ice 1

7.00E+01
ice 2
6.00E+01

5.00E+01 ice 3

4.00E+01 ice 4
3.00E+01

2.00E+01

1.00E+01

0.00E+00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 α

FIG (3.7)-c l /c d Vs α comparison for all ice shapes (802320f)

cl3/2/cd

1.20E+02 cl3/2/cd Vs α

1.00E+02

8.00E+01
without ice
ice 1
6.00E+01
ice 2
ice 3
4.00E+01
ice 4

2.00E+01

0.00E+00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
α

FIG (3.8)-cl3/2/cd VS α comparison of all ice shapes(802320f)

42
 TAB (3.12)-ICE 1(902310f)

AIRFOIL-902310F: ice 1
Alpha cl cd cl / cd cl3/2/cd
0 0.76372 0.01415 53.99222 47.18438
TAB (3.11) - 902310f 3 1.08080 0.01799 60.09452 62.47519
4 1.16230 0.02125 54.70677 58.97938
without ice 5 1.25450 0.02387 52.56652 58.87685
Alpha cl cd cl / cd cl3/2/cd 6 1.28670 0.03058 42.07652 47.72858
0 0.84297 0.01017 82.91236 76.12466
7 1.34090 0.03585 37.39890 43.30689
3 1.17030 0.01254 93.32536 100.95975
4 1.27190 0.01397 91.07117 102.70874 8 1.32800 0.04739 28.02338 32.29383
6 1.48190 0.01685 87.96747 107.08572 10 1.26310 0.08169 15.46287 17.37837
10 1.81240 0.02711 66.84863 89.99524 14 1.04900 0.08869 11.82825 12.11457
11 1.84890 0.03239 57.08948 77.62700
12 1.84120 0.04145 44.41978 60.27357
13 1.83834 0.05009 36.70006 49.75989 TAB (3.14)- ICE 3(902310f)
14 1.83540 0.06060 30.28963 41.03546
15 1.75311 0.07946 22.06379 29.21357 ice 3
16 1.73492 0.09214 18.82932 24.80127
Alpha cl cd cl / cd cl3/2/cd
0 0.71609 0.01873 38.24246 32.36157
3 1.07570 0.01953 55.08501 57.13194
TAB (3.13)- ICE 2(902310f) 4 1.13620 0.02398 47.37325 50.49642
5 1.20550 0.02868 42.02838 46.14517
6 1.21650 0.03789 32.10694 35.41237
ice 2
7 1.21530 0.04804 25.29767 27.88831
Alpha cl cd cl / cd cl3/2/cd
0 0.72000 0.01880 38.29787 32.49682 10 1.16080 0.09894 11.73213 12.64024
3 1.07570 0.01953 55.08501 57.13194 14 1.09330 0.18900 5.78466 6.04849
4 1.14000 0.02400 47.50000 50.71612 TAB (3.15)- ICE 4(902310f)
5 1.20550 0.02868 42.02838 46.14517
6 1.21700 0.03790 32.11082 35.42392 ice 4
7 1.21530 0.04804 25.29767 27.88831
10 1.17000 0.09900 11.81818 12.78332 Alpha cl cd cl / cd cl3/2/cd
14 1.10000 0.19000 5.78947 6.07205 0 0.72932 0.01790 40.73503 34.78781
3 1.06860 0.01985 53.83104 55.64682
4 1.21300 0.02466 49.19895 54.18589
5 1.17690 0.03138 37.50119 40.68318
6 1.17170 0.04396 26.65560 28.85337
7 1.18640 0.05327 22.27019 24.25714
8 1.15160 0.06895 16.70268 17.92409
10 1.13070 0.10134 11.15738 11.86413
14 1.10000 0.20591 5.34214 5.60288

43
cl c lVs α
2.0000

1.8000

1.6000

1.4000
without ice
1.2000
ice 1
1.0000
ice 2
0.8000 ice 3
0.6000 ice 4

0.4000

0.2000

0.0000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 α

FIG (3.9)- c l v s α comparison for all ice shapes(902310f)

FIG(3.10)-Cd vs α comparison for all ice

shapes(902310f)

cd
FIG(3.10)-Cd vscα
d Vs α
comparison for all ice
0.2500
shapes(902310f)
0.2000

without ice
0.1500
ice 1
ice 2
0.1000
ice 3
ice 4
0.0500

0.0000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 α

FIG (3.10)-c d v s α comparison for all ice shapes(902310f)

44
 cl / c d c l/cd Vs α

100

90

80

70 without ice
60 ice 1

50 ice 2

40 ice 3

30 ice 4

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 α 18

FIG (3.11)- cl / cd v s α comparison for all ice shapes(902310f)

cl 3/2 /c d cl 3/2 /c dVs α

120

100

80
without ice
ice 1
60
ice 3
ice 2
40 ice 4

20

0 α
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

FIG (3.12)-cl3/2/C d Vs α comparison for all ice shapes (902310f)

45
The values of C L MAX, CD MAX, CL/CD MAX and CL3/2/CD MAX are tabulated below
for various conditions.

Without ice:

TAB (3.16)-All observations of maximum values of parameters

Airfoil clmax cl/cd max cl3/2/cd max

702330f 1.81604 86.06747 96.60000
802320f 1.82370 90.33288 98.50000
902310f 1.84890 93.32536 107.08570
ICE-1:

TAB (3.17)- ICE 1 maximum values

Airfoil cl max cl / cd max cl3/2 /c d max

702330f 1.33700 61.55600 71.20000
802320f 1.26200 55.92082 60.00000
902310f 1.34090 60.09452 62.47519
ICE-2:

TAB (3.18)- ICE 2 maximum values

Airfoil c l max cl/ cd max cl3/2/cd max

702330f 1.10771 37.83400 35.40000
802320f 1.04150 34.52692 27.60000
902310f 1.21700 55.08501 57.13194
ICE-3:

TAB (3.19)-ICE 3 maximum values

Airfoil cl max c l/ cd max cl3/2/cd max

702330f 1.14610 49.52100 47.80000
802320f 1.17890 50.18897 50.00000
902310f 1.21650 55.08501 57.13194

46
ICE-4:

TAB (3.20)- ICE 4 maximum values

Airfoil cl max cl/ cd max cl3/2/ cd max

702330f 1.13130 50.55600 48.90000
802320f 1.16520 51.04648 50.80000
902310f 1.21300 53.83104 55.64682

OBJECTIVE FUNCTION FORMULATION

By seeing above results, we developed an Objective function formulation to
evaluate the airfoils and choose the best one among them based on required
conditions.

OBJECTIVE FUNCTION-1:

Generally, for piston engines more weightage given to clmax than the Emax

.so, randomly we chosen these values and only real aircraft designer should know
exact values of how much weight age given to clmax and Emax

Generally, for piston engines more weight age given to clmax than the Emax

For creating below function, we chosen 70 % clmax and 30 % Emax

{X/12} [¼ {Σ {(cl max/cl max avg) *0.7+ (cl/ cd max/c l/ cd maxavg) *0.3} ice}

+{Y/12} [{(clmax/cl maxavg) *0.7+ (cl/ cd max/cl/ cd maxavg) *0.3}] without-

-ice

Σ- ice1+ ice2+ice3+ice4

X- number of winter months

Y- number of non-winter months

47
 .

The results were tabulated of each airfoil as shown below

TAB (3.21) - All months of winter cases and objective function values

Airfoil 2 months winter 4 months winter 6 months winter 8 months winter

702330f 0.91108 0.84477 0.77846 0.71215
802320f 0.92543 0.85191 0.77839 0.70487
902310f 0.97275 0.90548 0.83821 0.77093

OBJECTIVE FUNCTION-2:
For some piston prop aircrafts designers should also consider (cl3/2/cd)max for
endurance along with clmax and Emax

{X/12}[¼{Σ{(clmax/clmaxavg)*0.4+(cl/cdmax/cl/cdmaxavg)*0.3+(cl3/2/cdmax/
cl3/2/cdmaxavg)*0.3}ice}+{Y/12}[{(clmax/clmaxavg)*0.4+(cl/cdmax/cl/cdmaxavg)*0.3+(cl3/2
/cdmax/ cl3/2/cdmaxavg)*0.3}]without ice

Σ- ice1+ ice2+ice3+ice4

X- Number of winter months

Y- Number of non-winter months

For creating above function, we chosen 40 % clmax, 30 % Emax .and 30%

(cl3/2/cdmax) The results were tabulated of each airfoil as shown below

TAB (3.22)- Results

Airfoil 2 months winter 4 months winter 6 months winter 8 months winter

702330f 0.93180 0.87050 0.80920 0.74791
802320f 0.94267 0.87645 0.81024 0.74402
902310f 0.97035 0.91061 0.85086 0.79112

48
 CONCLUSION

From the results of objective function, we are able to observe that for each
subsequent case of winter durations the value of our objective function
changes. If the flying conditions are of two months winter duration then
the airfoils 802320f and 902310f are the best airfoils that can be chosen.
Similarly for a duration of four months winter and eight months of non-
winter case 902310f merged airfoil is ideal to choose and for the case of
six months winter and six months non winter in some of the Scandinavian
countries the merged airfoil 902310f is the best to be used .In case of
eight months winter case also the same airfoil suits the best from the
observation, but in case of ten months winter and 2 months non winter
902310f is the best and 702330f takes the second position and 802320f
takes the third position

49
 REFERENCES

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocating_engine

2. http://www.flightlearnings.com/2012/11/01/general-effects-of-icing-on-
airfoils/

3. ANJANA L,GOKUL KRISHNAN,PRASHANT KOWSHIK

K,THAMIZARASAN K under the guidance of Dr.Balajee
Ramakrishnananda, “ICING EFFECTS ON THE PERFORMANCE ON
WIND TURBINE AIRFOILS” Department of AEROSPACE Engineering,
Amrita School of Engineering,Ettimadai,Coimbatore-India.

4. https://www.nbaa.org/business-aviation/aircraft/pistons/

5. Airfoiltools.com

6. Tao HU, Haixia L V. Bin TIAN, Duo SU, “Choosing critical ice shapes on
airfoil surface for the icing certification of aircraft” Airworthiness
Technology and Management centre, China Aero Poly-Technology
Establishment, AVIC Jiangshan Road 7, Chaoyang District, Beijing
100028, China

7. http://connectedresearchers.com/graph-digitizer-comparison-16-ways-to-
digitize-your-data/

8. Abbott, I. H., & Von Doenhoff, A. E. (1959). Theory of wing sections,

including a summary of airfoil data. Courier Corporation.

50
9. A.Ebrahimi, M.Hajipour and H.Hasheminasab, “Experimental
Investigation on the Aerodynamic Performance of NLF-0414 Iced Airfoil”
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Sharif Unviersity of
Technology,Tehran,Iran April 6,2015

10. M.B. Bragg, A.P. Broeren, and L.A.Blumenthal, “Iced Airfoil

Aerodynamics” Aerospace Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign,illnois 61801

11. Kim and Michael Bragg, “Effects of leading edge ice accretion geometry
on airfoil performance”, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champiagn,
Illinois 61801

12. A.A Prikhod Kho and S.V.Alekseenko, “Numerical Simulation of the

progress of icing on Airfoils with Formation of a “Barrier ice”. Journal of
Engineering Physics and Thermophysics, Vol.87, No.3,May,2014

13. M.B. Bragg and D.C. Heinrich, “Effect of Underwing Frost on a Transport
Aircraft Airfoil at Flight Reynolds Number” University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champiagn,Urbana,Illinois 61801

14. Sohrab Gholamhosein Pouryoussefi, Masoud Mirzaei, Mohammad-Mahdi

Nazemi, Mojtaba Fouladi and Alireza Doostmalmoudi, “Experimental
study of ice accretion effects on aerodynamic performance of an NACA
23012 airfoil” Department of Aerospace Engineering, Toosi University of
Technology,P.O. Box 16765-3381,Tehran,Iran

51
 52
View publication stats