A I A A 93-0300

LDV FLOWFIELD MEASUREMENTS ON A STRAIGHT . ;

AND SWEPT W I N G WITH A SIMULATED I C E
ACCRETION
M. B. BRAGG, M. F. KERHO AND A. KHODADOUST
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
URBANA, IL

3 1 s ~AEROSPACE SCIENCES
MEETING & EXHB
I TI
JANUARY -11-14, 1993 / RENO, NV
For permisdon to copy of tepublkh, contod the American I n s t i e ol Aeconautlcs
..
and Asfronoutics
370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W.. Wcshington. D.C.20024
.~ . ....
..~. ... ,.

->. .. .,,.,.,. T T - . . . . . . ~ ~ , . ~.,~, , - ~ ~ - . . ~ . . ~ . -

,j
, .
. ,.
 ..

LDV FLOWFIELD MEASUREMENTS ON A STRAIGHT AND

SWEPT WING WITH A SIMULATED ICE ACCRETION
u
M. 8. Bragg', M. F. Kerho. and A. Khodadoust"

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

...
Urbana, Illinois

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

The effect of a simulated glaze ice accretion
on the flowfield of a three-dimensional wing is
studied experimentally. The model used for these
tests was a semi-span wing of effective aspect
ratio fwe, mounted from the sidewall of the UlUC
subsonic wind tunnel. The model has a NACA
0012 airfoil section on a rectangular. untwisted
planform. The model was tested in a straight
wing, zero sweep configuration, and a 30degree
sweep configuration. A four-beamtwo-color fiber-
optic laser Dopplervelocimeter (LDV) was used to
map the flowfield. Results of the LDV
measurements on the upper surface of the 0012,
straight finite wing model are reviewed.
Measurements on the centerline of the straight
4 iced model compared well with measurements on
a similar 2-D model. Comparison of LDV-
measured veioc'ty profileswith 3-D Navier-Stokes
predictions revealed correct trends, but with
several differences which are primarily attributed
to the turbulence model and grid resolution used
in the computations. The swept iced wing LDV
results showed a large leading-edge vortex that
sweeps off the trailing edge before reaching the
wing tip. The results compared qualitatively to
flow visualization and 3-D Navier-Stokes
computations. Large spanwise velocities were
measured in the shear layer just after separation.
The wing tip flow was complicated by the
interaction of the wing tip voltex and the leading
edge vortex. Comparisons of the streamwise
component of flow on the model midspan showed
similar characteristicsto those of the straight wing
where 3-D effects were small.
Aircraft and rotorcraft often accrete ice on
aerodynamic surfaces when encountering clouds
of super-cooled water droplets. These accretions
can resuit in aerodynamic penalties which present
performance degradation and a serious safety
hazard. The qualitative effects of leading-edge ice
formation on the aerodynamic characteristics of
fixed wing aircraft are well known'. The ability to
predict, and better understand, the aerodynamic
penalties due to ice accretion on both lifting and
non-lifting surfaces is important since many
components are not ice protected. The Initial
cost, cost of maintenance and weight penalty
associated with ice protection systems makes
their use practical only on the most critical
components.
Most icing experiments, where aerodynamic
measurements have been made, have only dealt
with two-dimensional aircraft components. The
experimental work of Bragg et. ai!+, and the
corresponding computational research of
Potapczui?, Cebec?, and Sanka? , have focused
on a 2-D NACA 0012 airfoil with a simulated glaze
ice accretion. Recently, Bragg et. aI."'* extended
their experimentsto investigatethe Rowfield about
a finite wing with a simulated glaze ice accretion.
Surface pressure, force measurements and flow
visualization studies were made on the semispan
wing in both the straight and wept
configurations. The simulated ice shape used in
these experiments was identical to that used in
the earlier 2-D tests of Refs. 24.
Recently Khodadoust et. al.13-14 have
conducted a detailed study of the flowfield about
the straight 3-0 wing with a laser Doppler
velocimeter, LDV. Measurements were made at

~ ~

'Associate Professor, Department of Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering, Associate Fellow AIM.

'Graduate Research Associate, Department of Aeronauticaland Astronuatical Engineering,Member A I M

d
"Post Docloral Research Associate, Depl. of Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering, Member A I M .
Copyright 0 1993 by M. 6. Bragg. Published by the
-
American InollMe of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Inc., with 1
pemission.
three spanwise stations on the clean and iced
wing at three angles of anack. The centerline
measurements revealed a primarily 2-D flowfield
and compared well to earlier 2-D split-film
measurements. Some 3-D characteristics were
revealed primarily in the separation bubble behind
the simulated glaze ice shape. Analysis of these
data showed that the separated flow behind the
ice horn is in some ways similar to both a laminar
separation bubble and a backward facing step
flow. Measured velocities of the 3-D flowfield
compared well to com utations.
Sankar et. a?i', have performed the
corresponding computational research on the
iced-wing flowfield. They used the full unsteady
threedimensional Navier-Stokesequations on an
algebraic C-grid In a body-fiied coordinate
system to model the flowfield about the 3-D wing.
A two-layer Baldwin-Lomax eddy vlscosity model
patterned after the Cebeci-Smith model has been
used in this work. Sankar et. al. compared the
Navier-Stokes calculations with the experimental
iift and pressure distributions and showed good
results.
This paper presents the first LDV resuits on
the 30degree swept wing with an ice accretion.
After a brief review of the straight wing LDV
measurements, the swept wing data will be
presented in some detail. All swept wing data will
be for the wing with the simulated glaze ice
accretion, at 8 degrees angle of attack and at I
million Reynolds number. This is a very complex
flowfield whose main feature is a leading-edge
vortex in the separated flow behind the upper
surface ice horn. Simple line plots, vector plots
and contour plots will all be used to convey the
flowfield details. While significant time has been
spent analyzing these data, there is still much to
do and some of the analysis must therefore still
be considered preliminary.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Model and Wind Tunnel
The 3-D model used in this test was a
semispan model sidewall mounted in the tunnel.
Using the replaceable root and tip components
the model was configured as both a straight and
30degree swept wing, Figs. 1 and 2. The model
had a span of 37.25 inches and a chord of 15
inches in the unswept configuration. In the swept
configuration the span was 35.18 inches and the
chord in the streamwise direction was 17.32
inches. A NACA 0012 airfoil section was used on
the wing in a plane perpendicular to the leading
edge. This airfoil section was chosen since it is
the Same one used in the earlier 2-13 tests. The
2
ice accretion used is a simulation of that
measured on a NACA 0012 airfoil in the NASA
Icing Research Tunnel. Fig. 3. The icing
conditions were a free-stream velocity of 130
mph. angle of attack of four degrees, Icing time of
five minutes, volume median diameter droplet of
20 microns, LWC=2.1 g/m3 and a temperature of
18oF. The modd was constructed with a
removable leading edge, extending to 0.15 chord.
A clean leading edge and a simulated ice
accretion leading edge were built for this study.
These tests were conducted in the subsonic
wind tunnel at the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign. The tunnel is of conventional design
with approximately a three-by-four foot test
section, eight feet in length. The tunnel operates
at speeds from zero to 165 miles per hour at
Reynolds numbers of up to 1.5 x 1 d per foot.
The tunnel is of open return type and uses four
turbulence screens and honeycomb In the settling
chamber to reduce tunnel turbulence to below 0.1
percent.
Laser Doppler Velocimeter
The laser Doppler velocimeter (LDV) system
used in the current investigation provided direct
measurement of instantaneous velocity at any
spatial location wuvithout intrusion into the flowfield.
The two-component velocity measurements were
made using a four-Watt Argon-Ion laser together
with a commercially available (TSI) four-beam U
two-color fiber-optic LDV system. Both
components were frequency shifted by 40 MHz to
allow reverse flow to be resolved. A 2.131 beam
expander was used to increase the input beam
diameter and the effective scattered light
collection aperture. The measuring volume
formed at the intersection of each beam pair had
a diameter (e') of 126pm and a spanwise extent
of 2.3 mm for the green beams, and a diameter of
119 p m and a spanwise extent of 2.2 mm for the
blue beams. For this optical configuration, a total
of 26 fringes were produced in the measurement
volume. A summary of measurement volume
dimensionsfor the optical setup used in this study
is given in TaMe 1.
Various seeding particles, such as
polystyrene latex spheres, mineral oil smoke and
propylene glycd were consideredfor use In these
tests. Polydisperse propylene glycol particles
produced from a (TSI SixJet) atomizer were
selected due to their low toxicity. Using the
atomizer with propyleneglycol produces harmless
polydisperse particles with a median diameter of
approximatdy 0.9pm". These particles produce
adequate signal to noise ratio and will follow the
flow fluctuations up to 7.0 kHz with better than 99 L
percent fidelity.
 ... '. ,
The four-beam twocoior system was
designed to operate in back-scatter configuration.
The collected light was transmitted through a
v multi-mode fiber-optic cable to a color separator.
After the green scattered light was separated from
the blue scattered light, each was sent to a
photomultiplier. The photomultiplier signals were
downmixed. then processed using TSI 19808
counter processors. A total of 8 fringe crossings
counted were required to validate a Doppler
burst, and a 2 percent comparison was used in
the single-measurement-per-burst mode.
Depending on the measurement location and data
rate, a total number of samples ranging from 4096
in coincidence mode to 1024 in random mode
were used for flow calculations. The outputs were
processed and various Row statistical quantities
were calculated using the TSI FiND Ver. 2.5 LDV
data acquisition and display package on a PC.
The boundary-layer profiles were measured
by traversing the LDV measurement volume using
a three-axis computer controlled traverse. The
commercially available (VEINEX) traverse was
used to position the measuring volume in a two-
foot cube to within 0.001 inch resolution.
Boundary-layer sweeps were made in a direction
perpendicular to the free stream and in some
instances normal to the airfoil upper surface.
Errors and Statistical Uncertainty
4
The primaryosources of bias and uncertainty
in the system'g. were due to cross-beam angle'
measurement, clock synchronization,. and
diverging fringes. These represent the error due
to system sources in the measurement of the
velocity of a single seed partlcle passing through
the measurement volume. A summary of bias
and random errors are given in Table 2. The total
error in the system due to these components
amounted to a minimum of 0.65 percent and a
maximum of 0.85 percent.
Error estimates can also be made which
represent the uncertainty in the mean and
standard deviation as a function of the turbulence
intensity levels and the sample size'4. At a 95
percent confdence limit the statistical uncertainty
was less than two percent at a turbulence level of
30 percent when 1024 samples were taken. The
statistical uncertainty in standard deviation was
4.3 percent for a sample size of 1024 at the 95
percent confidence limit. The number of samples
collected in the flowfield' under investigation
depended on the data rate and the turbulence
Intensity and the model sweep. Sample sizes
from 1024 to 4096 were used.
,-/,
Additional sources of error associated with
counter processors are velocity, fringe and
velocity gradient bias. After carefully analyzing
3
the LDV system, Khodadous1'4 determined that
fringe bias and velocity gradient bias were
negligible. Velocity bias is a more diMcuit error to
quantify. Comparing the data with and without
several velocity bias corrections, only minor
changes in the shear layer velocities were found.
Since the use of these corrections may not be
appropriate in a highly unsteady, separated ROW'^,
no corrections for velocity bias have been made
in the data presented here.
Straight Wing
Since it was anticipated that the flow over the
straight wing would be 2-D. only the 2
components of velocity in the airfoil plane were
taken. The green beams acquired the u velocity
in the streamwise direction and the biue beams
were used to measure the vertical velocity. With
the ice shape on the model, no vertical velocity
will be reported due to poor data rate In this
component. Since the vertical velocity was often
not available. the data could not be transformed
to the airfoil coordinate system and were
therefore left with u in the streamwise. not model
x, direction. The boundary layer traverses were
made perpendicular to the free stream over the
Ice shape and perpendicular to the airfoil model
at x/c locations of 0.10 and greater. The probe
was tilted 3.1 degrees to allow the measurement
volume to be placed as close as possible to the
surface. This placed one of the green beams
parallel to the surface and enabled the first
measurement location to be 0 050 inches off the
surface. Due to the very small spanwise velocity,
tilting the probe introduced no significant error
into the measurement. On the model with
simulated ice, data were taken at three
measurement planes located at y/(b/2) locations
of 0.175, 0.470 and 0.819, Fig. 2. Angles of attack
of 0, 4 and 8 degrees were used as well as data
taken at 4.7 degrees to provide better comparison
to 2-D hot-film data.
Swept Wing
The swept wing flowfield is known to be
highly 3-D and therefore all three velocity
components were measured. This was achieved
by makingtwo separate velocity measurements at
each measurement location. A schematic of the
probe positions relative to the model and tunnel
are shown in Fig. 4. One measurement was
made 'on axis' with the probe axis perpendicular
to the free-stream flow. To enable the acquisition
of the velocity in the region behind the ice horn
the probe was tilted up 7 degrees. Therefore, the
'on axis. measurements gave the exact u.
streamwise. velocity and the vertical veiocity
contaminated with the spanwise velocity. The "off
-

axis' measurements were taken with the probe
axis rotated back parallel to the model leading
edge. This provided the best visibility into the
region behind the ice horn and enough angular
displacement to get good velocity component
resolution. The "off axis" measurement was
rotated up 1 degree. Therefore, this probe
orientation gave almost an uncontaminated
vertical component measurement and a second
measurement which was a combination of the
streamwise and spanwise velocity.
The model coordinate system used in the
swept wing case is shown in Fig. 2. Let u. v and
w be the streamwise, vertical and spanwise
component of velocity, respectively. The u and v
velocity is then determined as foilows. The u,
streamwise. component of velocity is taken
directly from the 'on axis" measurement. The v,
spanwise, component is then determined from''
V-
uCOS(0)- w
SIN (e )
where 6 is the angle between the two
measurements (nominally 30 degrees) and uv is
the velocity measurement from the "off axis"
probe position. The w. vertical, component of
velocity is taken directly from the 'off axis"
measurement. In some cases, near the tip where
the spanwise velocity was small, the v velocity
was taken from the 'on axis" measurement.
Figure 5 shows the measured u and uv velocities
for a given profile and the calculated v velocities.
Here the v velocity is nondimensionalized by the
free-sream velocity, U. Note that at the edge of
the measured profile, z/c = .20, v\U is
approaching 0.0 as it should in the free stream.
From the equation above, uv = u/cos(S ) in the
free stream where v is zero. For this profile v/U
is approximately 0.60 at the measurement location
nearest the surface indicating significant flow
towards the wing tip on the model surface. Since
the v profiles are calculated from the measured u
and uv velocities, the scatter in these
measurements is amplified resulting in a v profile
which is not as smooth as the measured profiles.
Note that the u.v and w velocities are in a
coordinate system fixed with the tunnel, and not
the model. Therefore, u is in the streamwise, not
the model x direction, etc. Also, the actual model
is of the left wing of an aircraft, tested in the
tunnel upside down, where positive y would be
toward the root of the model. This coordinate
Orientation seemed confusing since the positive y
direction was not toward the wing tip. Therefore,
all the data presented here are as if the data were
4
,. . .
for the right wing, and positive y, or v velocity, is
toward the wing tip.
The swept wing measurements were made at
a chord Reynolds number of 1 million and an
angle of attack of 8 degrees. Measurementswere '4
taken at 4 spanwise stations: y/(b/2) = 0.40.
0.55, 0.70 and 0.85. 12 profiles were measured
up from the surface at x\c = O., 0.05, 0.10, 0.20
..., 0.90 and 0.99 from 0.050 inches off the model
surface to 6.5 - 15 inches off the surface. Figure
2 shows the swept wing measurement planes. in
total the 3 components of velocity were acquired
at 2623 measurement locations.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The primary results to be discussed In this
paper are the 3-D LDV measurements taken on
the swept semispan wing with a simulated glaze
ice accretion. The model was tested at 8 degrees
angle of attack and a chord Reynolds number of
1 million. This is the first time these recently
acquired data have been presented. Since ihe
analysis of these data is still underway, these
results should be considered preliminary.
Flowfield measurements about airfoils and
wings with simulated ice have been presented
previouslf44.&'z. The basic nature of the 2-D
bubble was carefully examined by Bragg et. al?
using split-hot-film measurements about an airfoil \u.'
with the Same simulated glaze ice shape
considered in this study. The smooth ice horn
caused a large laminar separation bubble which
reattached to the surface at low angles of attack
shortly after transition occurred in the bubble
shear layer. Khodada~ust'~ recently completed a
detailed study of the flowfield about a straight
wing with simulated glaze ice using LDV
measurements. The Rowfield near the model
midspan was found to closely resemble that of
the 2-0 case. The separation bubble aft of the ice
horn had characteristics of both the laminar
separation bubble and a backward facing step
flow.
This background material will not be repeated
here, but the reader should refer to the many
references. However, comparisons of the LDV
measurements to the earlier spill-hot-film
measurements and CFD resuits on the straight
wing from Ref. 14 will be briefly reviewed. This is
intended to provide confidence in the LDV data
and act as a brief introduction to the very
complex 3-13 results to follow.
Straight Wing
Split hot-film measurements of the flowfieid td
about a NACA 0012 airfoil with the Same

simulated laze Ice accretion were made by
Bragg et. ai.q-4, Khodado~st'~ collected LDV data
near the centeriine of the straight semispan wing
to compare to these earlier results. The LDV data
W
were acquired at a wing angle of attack of 4.7
degrees in an attempt to match the section lift
coefficient to the 2-D value at an angle of attack
of 4 degrees. The split-film and LDV data are
compared in Fig. 6.
The measured velocity profiles at x/c = 0.02,
0.04 and 0.10 are ail at locations prior to bubble
reattachment. The flow separates off the top of
the upper surface ice horn at approximately x/c
= -0.02. u/U is negative near the surface
indicating the reverse Row in the lower part of the
separation bubble. The velocity is seen to
increase rapidly at some distance above the
surface which indicates the loaction of the bubble
shear layer. The profile at x/c = 0.10 is after
transition in the shear layer, and the large
negative velocities near the surface are indicative
of what is sometimes referred to as the
reattachment vortex. The profile at x/c = 0.30 is
after reattachment of the bubble and is typical of
the distorted turbulent boundary-layer profiles
found after bubble reattachment.
The comparison of the LDV measurements on
the centerline of the straight wing and the split
hot-film measurements on the 2-D model are in
general very good. In the separated flow near the
L/ surface and the shear layer the comparisons are
excellent for the profiles at x/c = 0.02, 0.04 and
0.10. The split hot-film data requires that the
probe be placed in the bubble where interference
with the separated bubble are known to occu?.
Therefore, the accuracy of the hot-film data,
particularly in the reverse flow region has been
questioned. The excellent comparison here
supports the hot-film data since the LDV is a
nonintrusive instrument. The two measurements
do not compare well at the edge of the profiles
and up into the inviscid flowfield above the model.
For the measurements at x/c = 0.02, the LDV
measurement of the edge velocity is
approximately 10 percent higher than the split-film
measurement. This trend is present in ail the data
compared to date. It is somewhat surprising
since both measurements should be the most
accurate at the edge of the shear layer and above
where the turbulence levels are low and the probe
interference on the bubble Is small. There are
many possible explanations for the discrepancy
such as 3-D effects and tunnel wall effects. No
attempt has been made to resolve this difference
at this time since time consuming LDV
measurements on the 2-D model would certainly
'-J
be required.
The LDV measurements are compared to the
5
g &*@
CFD results of Kwon and Sankar" in Fig. 7. The
computations used the full unsteady 3-0 Navier-
Stokes equations on an algebraic C-grid in a
body-fitted coordinate system. A two-layer
Baldwin-Loma%eddy viscosity model was used as
the turbulence model The profiles are
qualitatively similar with the boundary-layer
heights and the region of reverse flow well
predicted. However, the computational results fail
to resolve the large velocity gradients seen in the
experimental data. This is particularly evident in
the shear layer. This is most likely due to the grid
resolution which was not adequate in the shear
layer region to resolve these gradients. The
choice of the turbulence model may also
contribute to the di~crepancy'~.it should be
noted that the Computations were conducted
primarily to compare with integrated lift and drag
values where the comparisons are good in most
case^'^.''.
Swept Wing
The swept wing flowfieid is best described
using the simulated flow visualization generated
from the computational resuita3,Fig. 8. Here the
flow is from right to left with the wing tip at the
bottom of the figure. The iced, swept wing
flowfield is characterized by a leading-edgevortex
formed by the separation off the ice horn. The
vortex grows in diameter as in moves outboard
and downstream At 8 degrees angle of attack it
moves up and off the wing before reaching the
wing tip. This flowfield is similar to that on a
sharp leading-edge delta wing or higher aspect
ratio swept wing at high angle of attack. The
leading-edge vortex grows in diameter and the
location at which it leaves the wing moves further
inboard as the angle of attack increases and the
stall propagates in from the wing tip. Comparing
the LDV measurement planes in Fig. 2 to the CFD
flowfield in Fig. 8 provides an idea of what type of
flow might be expected in each plane The
measurements at y/b = 0.4 and 0 55 are inboard
on the wing where the leading-edge vortex is
growing in size, but its axis is still almost parallel
to the leading edge. The measurement locations
at y/b = 0.70 and 0.85 approximately bound the
region where the vortex moves chordwise off the
wing before reaching the wing tip. The CFD
visualization is qualitatively correct, but due to
differences in the computational grid and the
actual wing tip geometry, the actual
measurements may differ somewhat from those
'predicted by CFD.
Vector plots for the time-averaged Velocities
in the 4 measurement planes are shown in Fig. 9.
The view is from the wing tip looking in toward
the root with the free-stream flow from left to

right. The vertical scale is z. in inches up from
the wing surface. in a direction perpendicular to
the free stream. The x axis is nondimensionaiized
with respect to the chord. The z axis is therefore
enlarged relative to the x axis for better clarity.
Only the data up to 4 inches off the surface are
shown. The length of the vectors are proportional
to the measured total speed of the flow at each
location. The vectors are pointing in the local
flow direction and therefore only their projections
into the viewing plane are shown.
Figure 9 contains 4 vector plots, one for each
measurement plane in which data were acquired.
Consider first the data at y/b = 0.4 and refer also
to Fig. 8. The flow in the bottom left-hand corner
is the region just behind the glaze ice horn. Here
the vortical action can clearly be seen. The flow
separates off the ice horn, and rotates clockwise
back down toward the surface. As the flow
rotates, it also moves out spanwise towards the
tip. Therefore, the dominant feature is a vortical
flow behind the ice horn with an axial flow toward
the wing tip. This Is consistent with the CFD
results of Fig. 8 and was also seen in the helium
bubble measurements and flow visualization by
Kerhd'. The flow near the surface at x/c = 0.30
has almost no streamwise. u. component and is
primarily In the vertlcal and spanwise directions.
This resembles the reattachment region in a 2-0
flow.
The vector plot of the flow at y\b = 0.55 is
very similar to that at the 40 percent span
location. However, here the vortex in the
separation region has moved downstream and off
the surface relative to the 40 percent data. This
also is consistent with the CFD results of Fig. 9.
The exact location of the vortex center is difficult
to determine, but it wiil be more visible in later
contour plots. In the 40 percent plane 2-D
reattachment was at approximatelyx/c = 0.3. At
y/b = 0.55, 2-D reattachment is estimated from
the vector plots at x/c = 0.50. This again agrees
qualitatively with Fig. 8 and also with the
measured surface pressures of Khodadoust and
Bragd on the Same 3-D swept wing.
The flow at the 70 and 85 percent stations
from the vector plots appear similar in character
to those at the 40 and 55 percent spanwise
stations. The Same trend continues with the
vortex moving up off the surface and further
downstream. Also note that the reverse flow near
the surface becomes larger as the wing tip is
approached. Near the surface at y/b = 0:85 and
x/c = 0.3 the reverse flow magnitude is a
significant fraction of the free-stream velocity. As
the wing tip is approached the separation affects
the flow further out from the wing in the vertical
direction. Note at the 85 percent spanwise
6
.. . ..
station and toward the trailing edge the flow is
perturbed almost the entire 4-inch distance up
from the wing. Additional features of the flow at
the 70 and 85 percent stations wiil be more easily
seen in different views of the flow.
Figures 10, 11 and 12 show the u/U. v/U and
LJ
w/U contour plots, respectively, for all four
measurement planes. In each case contours of
the component of velocity are shown from the
LDV measurements taken above the iced swept
wing model at 8 degrees angle of attack. The
axes are x/c representing the model leading to
trailing edge and z/c up vertically from the model.
Note that as before the area above the ice shape
and model have been mapped to a rectangular
grid for ease of presentation. Here z is shown
nondimensional with respect to the chord,
therefore the value z/c = 0.23 is the same as the
4 inch vertical extent plotted in the vector plots of
Fig. 8.
In the u, streamwise velocity, contour plots of
Fig. 10 there are several features to note. A high
velocity region with u/U = 1.4 Is seen around x/c
= 0.1 and z/c = 0.07. This is the high velocity
flow over the top of the separation bubble in the
inviscid flow. A contour of zero u velocity can be
found in the plots. The region under this zero
contour gives an idea of the separation bubble
sue which increases at stations further out the
span. This contour intersects the model,
indicating 2-D reattachment at x/c = 0.23, 0.52
and 0.77 at the spanwise stations 0.40. 0.55 and u
0.70, respectively. These numbers are very
similar to those deduced from the vector plots.
The magnitude of the reverse flow also grows as
the wing tip is approached reaching 4.4 and
above at y/b = 0.70. The u contours at the 85
percent station are very similar to those at the 70
percent station. However, the character of the
flow at the 85 percent s p a nstation is different
from that at the three inboard stations due to the
interaction of the wing tip vortex with the leading
edge vortex. This will be more apparent in the v
contour plots.
The spanwise velocity, v/U. contour plots are
shown In Fig. 11. Remember that positive
spanwise velocity is from the wing root to the tip.
The vortical action which rotates counter-
clockwise when looking outboard from the roo
toward the tip creates flow inboard above the
vortex core and outboard below. This Is clearly
seen in the plot at the 40 percent spanwise
station. Near the surface between x/c = 0.1 and
0.5 spanwise velocity of approximately one-half
the free stream is seen while above and slightly
foward of this region v/U is about 4.26. A
similar trend is seen at 55 percent span. At 70
-
percent span the character of the spanwise flow
 changes. Here large spanwise flow is seen near
the trailing edge on the surface, but the flow up
off the surface is more complex. A region of high
spanwise velocity is seen starting at the lower ieft
V '
and continuing to the upper right portion of the
plot. As the leading-edge separation vortex
sweeps off the wing outboard of this station, more
of the rotational velocity will be in the spanwise
direction. This region moves up vertically as the
vortex moves up from the surface as it moves
downstream. Therefore, what is seen is the large
spanwlse velocities from the lower part of the
leadingedge vortex as it moves back from the
leading edge, up off the surface and heads
downstream. Further up from the surface the flow
Is inboard from the upper part of the vortex.
The leading-edge vortex sweeps off the
model trailing edge before the wing tip is reached
and the wing tip flow is dominated by the
influence of the tip vortex. The surface oil flow
show a wing tip region
dominated by the tip vortex which grows in
spanwise extent as the trailing edge is reached.
At the trailing edge this tip region extends inboard
to y/b = 0.85. The CFD particle trajectory plot of
Fig. 8 shows a similar region. Therefore, the
measurement plane at the 85 percent station is in
a very complex 3-D region of the flow, very
different from that seen at the inboard stations.
The v/U contour plot of Fig. 11 shows flow on the
4 surface to be positive or toward the wing tip. The
u/U contour plot of Fig. 10 shows surface
velocities downstream, toward the trailing edge.
This agrees with a wing tip flowfield where a tip
vortex is causing the air to flow downstream and
toward the tip on the upper surface of the wing
tip. if velocities are spanwise on the surface in
this region due to the tip vortex, there must be
flow toward the root up off the surface. This is
seen in Fig. 11 where large negative v/U
velocities are seen, for example at x/c=O.7 and
z/c = 0.15 where v/U = -0.62.
The vertical velocities of Fig. 12 are for the
most part small and less revealing about the
flowfield. Positke vertical velocities of
approximately 0.4 are seen just downstream of
separatlon and above the bubble. These positive
velocities are up from the surface and are due to
the inviscid flow moving around the airfoil and
simulated ice shape. A zero velocity contour can
be seen in each of the plots. For example at the
40 percent spanwise plane, the zero contour line
would intersect the surface at x/c = 0.08. This
location does not change much from
measurement plane to measurement plane and
could be Interpreted in a 2-D sense as the center
of the leading-edge vortex.
An interesting feature of the flowfieid is not
7
revealed in the contour plots. Figure 13 is a
surface p l g of the v/U velocity in the 4
measurdhent planes. Up from the surface is a
positive v velocity, from the root toward the wing
tip. Note the very large spikes in the planes at
y/b = 0.4 and 0.55 near the leading edge. These
very large spanwise velocities toward the tip
exceed twice the free-stream velocity and exist in
the shear layer just downstream of separation.
This spanwise velocity in the shear layer
decreases as the measurement piane moves
outboard where the leading-edgevortex diameter
increases and its strength diminishes. The
accuracy of these data still needs to be examined
carefully since the thin shear layer at this location.
coupled with the length of the measuring volume,
could lead to errors in the u. and therefore the v,
velocity. Preliminary analysis indicates that this
error is small.
Turbulence intensity contour plots for each
measurement piane are found in Fig. 14. Here
the turbulence intensity is from the u velocity only
and is defined as the RMS of the fluctuations from
the'mean divided by the free-stream velocity. At
y/b = 0.40 a local maxima in turbulence intensity
is seen at x/c = 0.28 and z/c = 0.45. In the
straight wing LDV data of Khodadousf4 a maxima
in turbulence intensity appeared in the shear layer
at transition just prior to reattachment of the
bubble. The magnitude was in the range from 30
to 35 percent. This may be what is seen in these
data, although swept wing transition is much
more complex and the plot is only one of three
components of turbulence intensity. Due to the
way the v velocity is obtained, only the mean
velocity is known and therefore the total
turbulence intensity can not be determined.
Additional local maxima appear in the data at the
measurement planes further out on the wing.
These maxima are also in the shear layer.
individual velocity component profiles for 4
chordwise measurement locations at the 55
percent span measurement plane are shown in
Fig. 15. At x/c = 0.0 the u/U velocity is 0.3 on
the surface indicating reverse flow. The u/U
component accelerates very rapidly in a thin
shear layer very close to the surface. The u/U
edge velocity is approximately 1.25. The
overshoot in the u/U velocity just above the shear
layer was also seen in the straight wing data of
Khodad~ust'~ where it was explained as due to
the flow blockage caused by the ice horn. The
w/U component is approximately 0.0 on the
surface which reflects the surface slope at this
x/c location and angle of attack. It accelerates to
a value of 0.6 just above the shear layer which
indicates that the shear layer and inviscid flow
above Is moving up away from the surface at this
location. The w/U velocity approaches 0.0 far
away from the model as it should. The v/U
spanwise component is characterized by very
large values in the shear layer as discussed
earlier. At z/c = 0.015 it reaches a value of
almost 2.25. Aboveand below this value it is
negative at about -0.38. v/U also approaches 0.0
far from the wing.
The u/U velocities from Ref. 14 measured at
the same locations and conditions are shown in
Fig. 16. The straight wing data was acquired at a
higher Reynolds number of 1.5 million. While the
flowfields are quite different, it Is interesting to
compare the streamwise components of velocity.
The 2 u/U profiles at x/c = 0.0 are quite similar.
The boundary-layer thicknesses are about the
same and the maximum reverse flow velocity and
edgevdocity are similar. Even the overshoot just
above the shear layer Is seen in both profiles. At
x/c = 0.10 and x/c = 0.30 the profiles are
qualiiatively similar, but the straight wing profile
has a larger boundary-layer thickness in each
case. The straight wing flow at x/c = 0.60 is stili
separated from the surface and differs somewhat
from the attached profile from the swept wing.
Overail the comparison between the swept wing
flow and the straight wing is very similar at this
station near the midspan. For spanwise stations
near the tip, the comparison would not be
expected to be as good.
Figures 17 and 18 show the LDV and CFd3
derived simulated surface oil flow plots. The LDV
plot, Fig. 17, was created by using the first
measured velocity 0.050 inches off the surface.
The vectors plotted indicate flow direction only
and are not scaled to indicate flow magnitude.
The CFD-generated surface oil flow simulation
used the flowfield at the first computational grid
point off the surface where massless particles
simulate the oil flow. Qualiiatively the surface
flowfiled is quite similar. However, the LDV data
shows less spanwise flow at the inboard station
and a surface flow more towards the leading edge
at the two outboard stations. In general the LDV
data compares better to the actual surface oil flow
taken on the
SUMMARY
LDV measurements on a 30degree swept
wing with a simulated glaze ice accretion have
been presented. Two measurements were taken
at each point in the flow using a 2-component
LDV and combined to obtain the 3 components of
the mean velocity. The flowfield, as interpreted
from these data, is qualitatively the Same as that
predicted by Kwon and Sankar'5 and as was
8
observed previously using various measurement
techniques. The flowfield is characterized by a -
leading-edge vortex that forms due to the
separation that occurs due to the simulated glaze
ice accretion. This vortex grows in size as it
moves out spanwise and toward the trailing edge. 4
The vortex moves off the wing trailing edge
between the y/b =0.70 and 0.85 measurement
planes. The wing tip vortex interacts with the
leading-edge vortex creating a very complicated
wing tip flow.
Significant upstream and spanwise flow are
found just above the model surface. Spanwlse
flow toward the wing tip over twice the free-
stream speed was measured in a small region of
the shear layer just after separation. Spanwise
flow measurements up off the surface at the 70
and 85 percent stations indicated the presence of
the leadingedge and wing-tip vortices. The
streamwise componept of turbulence intensity
reaches nondimensional values exceeding 30
percent in regions of the shear layer. These
values are similar to measurements made by
Khodadoust on a similar straight wing with
simulated ice. Comparison of the u/U
component of velocity from the straight and swept
wing near the centerline showed the flow to be
similar. Comparisons closer to the wing tip where
the flow is more three dimensional would not be
expected to be as favorable.
These measurements have demonstrated the
capabilities of using the current 2-D LDV system u
to obtain the mean 3-D flowfield about the swept
wing. Additional analysis of the current data is
needed to extract additional features of the flow
and to confirm some findings such as the large
spanwise velocities found in the shear layer.
Comparison of the CFD predicted profiles would
be useful, particularly in light of the recent
comparisons conducted by Khcdadoust'4 on the
straight wing. After these comparisons are made,
additional calculations and LDV measurements
may be warranted to further develop our
understanding of the effect of ice on the swept
wing flowfield.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported under a grant NAG
3-1134 from NASA Lewis Research Center. The
authors would like to thank Dr. Mark Potapczuk
and Dr. Jaiwon Shin of NASA Lewis for their
advice and help throughout this research. Special
thanks to Dr. Potapczuk, Dr. Sankar and Dr.
Kwon for their assistance in interpreting the CFD
results.
c

REFERENCES
I . Preston, G. M. and Blackman, C. C., "Effects of
Ice Formations on Airplane Performance in Level
Cruising flight,' NACA TN-1598, May 1948.
2. Bragg, M. B. and Coirier. W. J., 'Aerodynamic
Measurements of an Airfoil with Simulated Glaze
Ice.' AIM-864484, paper presented at the 24th
Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada, Jan.
6-9. 1986.
3. Bragg, M. B. and Spring, S. A..'An
Experimental Study of the flow Field about an
Airfoil with Glaze Ice,' AIAA-874100. paper
presented at the 25th Aerospace Sciences
Meeting, Reno, Nevada, January 12-15, 1987.
4. Bragg, M. B. and Khodadoust. A.,
'Experimental Measurements in a Large
Separation Bubble Due to a Simulated Glaze Ice
Accretion," AIAA-884116, paper presented at the
26th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada,
January 11-14, 1988.
5. Potapczuk, M. G., 'Navier-Stokes Computations
for a NACA 0012 Airfoil with Leading Edge Ice.'
AlAA Paper No. 874101, presented at the 25th
Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada, Jan.
12-15, 1907.
6. Cebeci. T.. "Effects of Environmentally imposed
Roughness on Airfoil Performance." NASA CR
179639, June 1987.
7. Sankar, L N.. Wu. J. C. and Kwon, 0. J.,
'Development of Two- and Three-Dimensional
Navier-Stokes Solvers for Aircraft Icing Studies,'
presented at the Annual Airfoil Performance-in-
Icing Workshop, NASA Lewis Research Center,
Cleveland, Ohio, July 25. 1988.
8. Bragg, M. 6.and Khodadoust, A., 'Effect of
Simulated Glaze Ice On a Rectangular Wing,'
AIM-894750, paper presented at the 27th
Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada,
January 9-12. 1989.
9. Khodadoust, A. and Bragg, M. B., 'Measured
Aerodynamic Performance of a Swept Wing With
a Simulated Glaze Ice Accretion,' AlAA Paper 90-
0490.1990.
10. Bragg, M.. Khodadoust, A.. Soltani. R., Wells,
S. and Kerho, M., "Effect of Simulated ice
Accretion on the Aerodynamics of a Swept Wing,"
AIM-914442. paper presented at the 29th
:;. * .i?
i ,'e..
Aerospate Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada, Jan.
7-10, 1991.
11. Bragg, M. B., Khodadoust. A,. Kerho, M.,
"Aerodynamics of a Finite Wing With Simulated
Ice.' paper presented at the 5th Symposium on
Computational and Physical Aspects of
Aerodynamic Flows, Cebeci, T., ed., Long Beach,
California, January 1992.
12. Khodadoust, A,, Bragg. M., Kerho, M.. Wells,
S. and Soltani, M., "Finite Wing Aerodynamics
with Simulated Glaze Ice", AiAA-924414. paper
presented at the 30th Aerospace Sciences
Meeting, Reno, Nevada, Jan. 6-9, 1992.
13. Khodadoust. A,, Bragg, M. and Kerho, M..
"LDV Measurements on a Rectangular Wing with
a Simulated Glaze Ice Accretion', AIM-92-2690,
paper presented at the 10th Applied
Aercdyanmics Meeting, Palo Alto, California, June
22-24. 1992.
14. Khodadoust, A,, "An ExperimentalStudy of the
Fiowfield on a Semispan RectangularWing with a
Simulated Glaze Ice Accretion', Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1993.
15. Kwon, 0. and Sankar, L, 'Numerical Study of
the Effects of Icing on Finite Wing Aerodynamics,"
AIM-904757, paper presented at the 28th
Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada,
January 8-11, 1990.
16. Sankar. L. and Kwon. L, 'Numerical Studies
of the Effects of Icing on Fixed and Rotary Wing
Aircraft Aerodynamics.' presentation at the Airfoil-
in-Icing Workshop, Nasa Lewis Research Center,
Sept. 1990.
17. Kwon, 0. J. and Sankar, L. N., 'Numerical
Investigation of Performance Degradation of
Wings and Rotors Due to Icing," AiAA-924412,
paper presented at the 30th Aerospace Sciences
Meeting, Reno, Nevada, January 6-9, 1992.
18. Instruction Manual, "Model 9306 6Jet
Atomizer,' TSI Incorporated. June 1987
19. Hanson. S., 'Broadening of the Measured
Frequency Spectrum in a Differential Laser
Anemometer Due to Interference Plane
Gradients,' J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 6(2), Jan.
1973, pp. 164-171.
20.Meyers. J. F.. March 1992. Private
Communication.
 .,
21. TSI Inc., TSI Flow and Information Display
(FIND) Software Instructional Manual, Ver. 2.5.
St. Paul, MN, March 1991.
23. P0tapczuk.M. G., Bragg. M. B. and Sankar, L'
N., 'Simulation of Iced Wing Aerodynamics',
NASATM 104362, also AGARDGPd%,1991, pp.
.
7-1 to 7-15.
22. Bragg, M. B. ,Khodadoust, A. and Spring, S. 0
A,. 'Experimental Measurements In a Large 24. Kerho, M. F.. 'A Study of the Accuracy of
Leading-Edge Separation Bubble Due to a Neutrally Buoyant Bubbles Used as flow Tracers
Simulated Airfoil Ice Accretion,' A I M Journal, in Air', M.S. Thesis, University of lilinois at
Vol. 30,No. 6.June 1992. pp. 1462-1467. Urbana-Champaign. 1992.

NACA 0012 Ichg Conditions

a=4' U-- 130 mph
a=2Opm LWC = 2.1 g/m3
T = 18-F

Smin

- MeasuredShape
.- - - Simulated Shape
Fig. 3 Measured and Simulated Ice Shape

I ..........
Fig. 4 Schematic of u)V Measurements on the

; Swept Wing.
~

I . .......... ___.
u SUrnEYTRUC.
I b-O.L70

0.30 ..
NACAOOl2,JCP-SWEEP WING
x / ~ ~ 0 . 3 0 . y / b - 0 . L Re-1.0~1V.
0, a-W
-x
Fig. 1 Straight Wlng Coordinate System and
Measurement Planes.
v
Y W U R T U M M

0 . ~ 0 . Y )-0.25 0.w 0.25 0.Y) 0.75 1.m 1.25 1.50 '5

Rg. 5 v-Velocity Profile Resdved From Off-Axis 'W

Measurement of (w)-Velocity.
Fig. 2 Swept Wlng Coordinate System and 10
Measurement Planes.
 0.1 0 0.10

0.08
x/c = 0.02
3 0.08
1 x/c
t
= 0.04 1

< 0.05
0.03

0.00
-0.u) -0.10 0.20 0.50 0.80 1.10 1.40 1.70

./U "/U

0.1 0
x/c = 0.1 0

0.07

0.05

0.03
~ 00 00.
@. 0.02
'0.02

0.00
-0.40 -0.10 0.20 0.40 0.80 1.10 1.40 1.10
0.00
0.00 0.30
^, 0
0.w 0.90 I .20
1
1 .M

"/U

Figure 6. Comparison of Velocity Profiles from Split Hot-Film Measurements and LDV
Measurements on the Straight Wing, a=4.7. Re=l.5 Million, yh=O.470.

"::_,ill
0 LDV Measurements, 0 Split Hot-Film Measurements.

0.1 0
x/c=-0.02 x/c=0.04

* 0.08 O
>0.01 . O 8 ~ , - q > 0.04 a. 2 %

0.02

. o
.c
.a
D
0.02
.
0
.
O
. o
o
.

0.00 0.00
-0.6 -0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 -0.6 -0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 L8
"/U

0.08
x/c=o.oa

, , , , , 1'8
I 0.08

O.OB
</c=0.60 0

0
.

.
11
> 0.04 > 0.04
.
Y

0 0
0
0
0.02 0 . 0.02
. o
. o
0.00 0.W
-0.6 -0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8

Figure 7. Comparison of Velocity Profiles from LDV Measurements and Navier-Stokes

Predictions on the Straight Wing, a=4. Re=l.5 Million, y h 4 . 4 7 0 .
0 LDV Measurements, 0 Navier-Stokes Predictions.
-
11
 . I ..

Fig. 8 Particle Trajectory Simulation on the iced Swept Wing, a =8. Re=1.5 Million

Figures 9-16, see pages 13-19.

Wing Tip

Fig. 17 Surface Velocity Vectors from LDV Measurements on the Iced Swept Wing, a =8, Re= 1 Million.

Fig. 18 Surface Oil Flow Simulation on the Iced Swept Wing,a=8. Re=1.5 Million.
12
d
w

Figure 9. Vector Plots of Velocity on the Upper Surface of the Iced Swept Wing, a=8,Re=l Million
 0.22 0.22
0.20 0.20
0.1 8 0.1 8
0.1 6 0.1 6
0.1 4 0.1 4

>" 0.12
0.1 0
0
k
0.1 2
0.1 0
0.08 0.08
0.06 0.06
0.04 0.04
0 02 0.02
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Z/C X/C

Figure 10. (u/U)-Velocity Contours on the Upper Surface of the Iced Swept Wing, a=& Re=l Million
 y / b= 0.40 y/b=0.55
0.22 0.22 h .'02', I . , . ,
Y
0.20
0.1E
0.1 6
0.1 4

x 0.1 2
0.1 0
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0.22
0.20
0.1 E
0.1 6
0.1 4
0.1 2 "
'0.10 >
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 ~ 9 1.0

X/C X/C

Figure 11. (v/U)-Velocity Contours on the Upper Surface of the Iced Swept Wing, a&, Re=l Million
 " ""
00 0 1 0 2 03 04 05 0 6 07 08 09 10

x/c d C

Figure 12. (w/U)-Velocity Contours on the Upper Surface of the Iced Swept Wing, a=8. Re=l Million. ..
4 y/b=0.40 cl
y/b=0.55

.
7
.
3 ,
7

0 0

c c
I I

I y/b=0.70
4 y’b=0.85
e
?
0

,
I

Figure 13. (v/U)-Velocity Surface Plots on the Upper Surface of the Iced Swept Wing, a=8,Re=l Million.
 y/b=0.40
0.22 - 0.22
0.20 - 0.20
0.18 - 0.18
0.1 6
0.1 4

x x 0.1 2
0.1 0
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
x/c

*
m
y/b=0.85
0.22
0.20 0.20
0.1 8 0.1 8
0.1 6 0.1 6
0.1 4 0.1 4
0
0.1 2
-2 >0

0.1 0
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 6.8 0.9 1.0

Figure 14. Turbulence Intensity (“A) Contours on the Upper Surface of the Iced Swept Wing, a=& Re=l Million.
 0 10

0 20

s
0.10

om- 0.00
-0.50-021 0.W 0.25 0.54 0.75 1.W 1.25 1.50 1.75

X/C = 0.30
I X/C = 0.60 1
0.20 0 20

>" z"
0.10 010

0.00 0.00
-0.50-0.25 0.W 0.25 0.54 0.75 1.W 1.25 I.54 1.75 4.50-0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.W 1.25 ?.So 1.75

Figure 15. LDV Measurements on the Upper Surface of the Swept Wing, a=8,Re=l Million,
y/b=0.55.

q 1
0.30 0.30

Ii
0.20 .
x/c = 0.00 x/c = 0.10

1
"
>
0.10 ,*..~; , , , ' ,

..
f

0.00
-0.50 -0.25
. .
0.03 0.25 0.53 0.75 1.W
. I*
1.25 150 1.75
0.00
-0.50 -0.25 0.W 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.W 1.25
0..

!.SO 175

o.2i. 1
U/U U/U

0.30 0.30
X/C = 0.30 1 X/C = 0.60

I
9
0.1 0

, ; . o... ,..;),
0.00
-0.50-0.25
.*.0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 l.W 1.25 1.50 t.75
"/U "/U

Figure 16. LDV Measurements of the u-Velocity on the Straight Wing, a=8,Re=1.5 Million,
y/b=0.470.