Moser-2022-Generation of Validation Data For A

AIAA AVIATION Forum 10.2514/6.
2022-3457
June 27-July 1, 2022, Chicago, IL & Virtual
AIAA AVIATION 2022 Forum
Generation of Validation Data for an

Electrothermal Ice Protection System
Richard Moser 1 and Bernhard Reinholz2
AeroTex GmbH, Vienna, 1060, Austria
Wolfgang Breitfuß 3
Rail Tec Arsenal Fahrzeugversuchsanlage GmbH, Vienna, 1210, Austria
Downloaded by SHANGHAI JIAO TONG UNIVERSITY on July 14, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2022-3457
Stefan Diebald 4, Philipp Kollmann 5 and Sebastian Humpel6

ATT advanced thermal technologies GmbH, Dobl-Zwaring, 8143, Austria
Reinhard Puffing 7, David Kozomara 8 and Simon Schweighart 9

AIIS - Austrian Institute for Icing Sciences, Köflach, 8580, Austria
Wolfgang Hassler 10, Thomas Neubauer 11 and Andreas Tramposch 12

FH JOANNEUM GmbH, Graz, 8020, Austria
This paper provides information on the generation of validation data for electrothermal
ice protection system numerical tools, based on testing on a 2D wing section at the RTA test
facility in Vienna. Updates to the RTA calibration capability are provided, including for the
Freezing Rain, MVD > 40 microns regime. Latest developments in ice shape scanning and
post-processing are shown, including for runback ice generated from heated cases. Some
preliminary comparisons to the measured data are provided using different simulation tools,
including unheated ice shapes.
1
Aircraft Icing Consultant, AeroTex GmbH, AIAA Regular Member.
2
Aircraft Icing Engineer, AeroTex GmbH.
3
Project Manager, Rail Tec Arsenal.
4
Project Manager R&D, ATT advanced thermal technologies GmbH.
5
Development Engineer, ATT advanced thermal technologies GmbH.
6
Head of Electronics and Control, ATT advanced thermal technologies GmbH.
7
Managing Director, AIIS – Austrian Institute of Icing Sciences.
8
Project Manager R&D, AIIS – Austrian Institute of Icing Sciences.
9
Mechanical Engineer, AIIS – Austrian Institute of Icing Sciences.
10
Associate Professor, FH JOANNEUM GmbH
11
Lecturer and Research Assistant, FH JOANNEUM GmbH
12
Lecturer and Senior Researcher, FH JOANNEUM GmbH
Copyright © 2022 by AeroTex GmbH. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
I. Nomenclature
AoA = Angle of Attack
ATT = Advanced Thermal Technologies
CM = Continuous Maximum
CS = Certification Specification
DP = Design Point
EASA = European Aviation Safety Agency
ECU = Electronic Control Unit
FZDZ = Freezing Drizzle
FZRA = Freezing Rain
GUI = Graphical User Interface
HTC = Heat Transfer Coefficient
IM = Intermittent Maximum
IWT = Icing Wind Tunnel

LWC = Liquid Water Content
MCCS = Maximum Combined Cross Section
MVD = Median Volumetric Diameter
NACA = National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
PSD = Particle Size Distribution
PTC = Positive Temperature Coefficient
RH = Relative Humidity
RTA = Rail Tec Arsenal
SAT = Static Air Temperature
UAS = Unmanned Aircraft System
t = time
x = chordwise aerofoil ordinate
y = thickness aerofoil ordinate
II. Introduction
As part of the Austrian government co-funded research project JOICE, a number of organizations are working together
to improve knowledge and capability in the field of aircraft icing. One key area of the project is the generation of
validation data for numerical simulation tools for electrothermal ice protection systems. There is currently relatively
little open-source data available in this area, which is hindering greater use of the tools within industrial design
practice. An improved validation database would go a long way to aid further development in this area, indicating
where additional improvements may be needed. Under the JOICE project a 3D ice accretion validation test has also
been performed, which will be reported in the future.
This paper presents an overview of a test campaign designed to generate validation data for a 2D wing section
incorporating a heater foil with a number of independent heater zones. The ability to test in a wide range of different
icing conditions, including Appendix O Freezing Drizzle and Freezing Rain based on the European Aviation Safety
Agency Certification Specification for Large Aeroplanes (EASA CS-25) [1], is also presented.
Initial comparisons to unheated ice shapes are presented using the current state of the art 2D simulation tools available
to the involved partners.
III. Test Facility and Test Article Description

The test campaign was conducted in the RTA facility [2] based in Vienna, Austria. The facility was originally
developed as a climatic test site for trains and consists of two chambers: one defined as large, one as small. They are
approximately the same cross section (~5m x 6m), but the large chamber is longer (100m compared to 33.8m). The
large chamber can attain speeds of up to 80m/s, whilst the small chamber is limited to around 50m/s. The large chamber
was used for the current test. The icing spray system consists of up to 11 spray bars, each equipped with 24 nozzles.
An additional contraction section is used in combination with the spray system to provide a test velocity of 80m/s (155
knots) at 0°C and was used for this test campaign. The standard test section area available when using the spray system
is 2.9m x 1.7m x 3m (w x h x l) independent of whether the additional contraction is fitted or not. The distance between
the spray bars and the model is 13m, which is sufficient for the droplets to attain the ambient conditions (temperature
and velocity) under CS-25 Appendix C icing conditions. The general test area is shown in Figure 1. Special nozzles
can be utilised to generate Freezing Rain conditions (a portion of the CS-25 Appendix O envelope). Overall, the
2
majority of the Appendix O envelope can be achieved in the facility, although there are limitations on the minimum
and maximum Liquid Water Content (LWC) value which can be reached.
Figure 1: View of test area with force jig, from mouth of contraction
The 2D wing utilised is a NACA23012 aerofoil section, Figure 2. It was unswept, with zero taper or twist and had a
chord of 1.2m. The span of the test specimen was 2.0m. The NACA23012 section was chosen partly due to the fact
that this geometry has been utilised by other research organisations for previous testing, so there is already a database
available.
Figure 2: Aerofoil section for 2D wing test specimen
An isometric view of the test specimen provided by AIIS is shown in Figure 3, which also includes the plates at each
end to connect the specimen to the force jig inside the test section area. The RTA force jig, which has been utilized
for testing of wing sections [3] and UAS [4] in previous research work, allows the measurement of forces and
moments, as well as changes in AOA during testing.
3
Figure 3: Isometric view of the 2D wing
The construction of the model was from wooden and metal ribs and spars, with a foam core (Figure 4 and Figure 5).
On the foam core two separate layers of glass fibre-reinforced plastic were applied in which the electrothermal heaters
and sensors were incorporated.
Figure 4: 2D wing internal design
Figure 5: 2D wing foam design

The specimen was split into 2 spanwise regions in the center, each of which had a slightly different heated layout. On
side 1 (left as viewed from the front), a very narrow heated strip was used close to the leading-edge highlight, Figure
6. A total of 5 independent chordwise heated zones exist. The figure also shows locations of temperature
instrumentation (thermocouples, Type K) within the structure. For each heated region there was one thermocouple
below the heater element and one on the outer face of the structure. There was also a thermocouple just aft of the
heated extent on both upper and lower surfaces. The narrow heater was 15mm wide, each upper surface heater was
103mm wide and each lower surface heater was 112mm wide.
4
Figure 6: Heater layout, 2D wing specimen, side 1

The layout for side 2 (right side when viewed from the front) was very similar to side 1, but the heater closest to the
leading edge was increased in width to 35mm, Figure 7. The upper and lower surface heaters were reduced in width
to 80mm. As for side 1, thermocouples were included within the structure.
Figure 7: Heater layout, 2D wing specimen, side 2

The heater elements, manufactured by ATT, were made from Positive Temperature Coefficient (PTC) material. This
means that the electrical resistance increases with temperature, providing a means to self-regulate the temperature. All
heater zones were designed to operate at around 62°C. With the chosen layer setup a maximum steady power draw of
approx. 1.5 W/cm² (depending on the test conditions) could be achieved. The heater elements have been operated
using a tailor-made electronic control unit (ECU), which allows for an individual control of each heater zone through
a graphical user interface (GUI). This gave significant flexibility to be able to choose the chordwise protected extent
for each run. In practice, runs were performed with one of three configurations: heater element 3 only, heater elements
2-4 or all heater elements. Side 1 and side 2 could be run in different configurations if desired.
5
IV. RTA Appendix O Calibration
Over the last several years, RTA have been continuously working to improve their ability to reproduce conditions
from the Appendix O portion of the CS-25 icing envelope. This is particularly true for Freezing Rain conditions. These
conditions are very difficult to produce in standard icing wind tunnels, partly due to the bi-modal nature of the droplet
distributions but also due to the effect of gravity which tends to cause the larger droplets to fall to the ground, resulting
in highly non-uniform icing cloud. Due to the particular set-up at RTA, including a non-symmetric contraction and
proprietary nozzles, these issues have been mitigated.
As part of on-going research, RTA have defined spray settings to be able to reproduce the majority of the Appendix
O envelope. Results from particle size distribution measurements for Freezing Drizzle are shown in Figure 8. The
right figure shows several different spray settings. Whilst none of the distributions match exactly the defined
distribution from Appendix O, it must be remembered that this definition is itself the average of a wide range of
measurements.
Figure 8: Particle size distributions for Freezing Drizzle: MVD < 40 microns (left) and MVD > 40 microns
(right)
The measured LWC uniformity for the Freezing Drizzle, MVD > 40 microns case is shown in Figure 9. The LWC
values were measured using a Nevzorov probe, with the value at the tunnel centre position being used as the reference
value. For Appendix C icing conditions, the accepted variability for LWC is +/-20%. There are currently no agreed
target values for Appendix O. Whilst the region containing values within +/-20% of the reference value is smaller than
for an equivalent Appendix C case, it can be seen that there is a good spanwise region where wing testing can be
performed.
Windspeed = 60 m/s, LWC = 0.50 g/m³, Freezing Drizzle MVD = 100 µm
1275 1.5
1125 1.45
1.4
975
1.35
825
1.3
675
1.25
525 1.2
375 1.15
1.1
Tunnel Height [mm]
225
1.05
75
1
-75
0.95
-225 0.9
-375 0.85
-525 0.8
0.75
-675
0.7
-825
0.65
-975
0.6
-1125 0.55
-1275 0.5
Tunnel Width [mm]
Figure 9: LWC uniformity for Freezing Drizzle, MVD > 40 microns
6
The Freezing Rain condition is the most difficult to obtain good uniformity for. The higher inertia of the droplets
means that less mixing occurs. RTAs developments in this area have significantly reduced the high and low spots
which can often be found in the LWC distribution for these cases. The calibrated particle size distribution for Freezing
Rain, MVD > 40 microns, is shown in Figure 10, with the LWC uniformity plot provided in Figure 11. It can be seen
that the more uniform region has contracted compared to the Freezing Drizzle case, but that there is still a reasonable
region in which a uniform distribution is found.
Figure 10: Particle size distribution for Freezing Rain, MVD > 40 microns
Figure 11: LWC uniformity for Freezing Rain, MVD > 40 microns
V. Ice Scanning System

The ice scanning system was provided and operated by AIIS. 3D scanning for the documentation of ice shapes was
first applied by Lee et al. in [5] and [6] at NASA. With scanning, ice shapes can be documented significantly more
accurate compared to traditional methods, such as pencil tracings. AIIS utilizes a certified laser scanning system with
an overall system accuracy of 0.048mm. In order to prepare the surface of the ice shape to be optically detectable by
7
the laser scanning system, a thin layer of TiO2 was applied. Coating of the ice shape does not influence ice thickness
and roughness measurements in the relevant magnitudes, as a previous investigative study showed [7]. For ice
thickness measurements a second scan of the clean wing was used as a reference geometry for comparison.
Registration and alignment of the ice shape with the reference shape was performed through capturing tactile
measurement points with the absolute positioning system of the scanning arm on the RTA force jig. By that, any
changes in angle of attack through different runs were neglectable. The positioning accuracy of the ice shape relative
to the reference geometry was within the overall system accuracy.
Figure 12: Ice scanning system in use
VI. IWT Test Results Summary

When developing the test matrix, significant consideration was given to coverage of sufficient conditions to investigate
the necessary parameters, including the different portions of the icing atmosphere (Appendix C Continuous Maximum,
CM, Appendix C Intermittent Maximum, IM, and all achievable portions of the Appendix O atmosphere), temperature,
LWC, speed, AoA and heater configuration. AeroTex defined a ‘potential’ test matrix which consisted of 70 different
conditions. As researchers, more data is always desirable. However, practical aspects mean that testing has to be
limited. Runs were therefore prioritized and the test schedule allowed a lot of flexibility so that runs could be chosen
based on previous results to maximize the usefulness of the overall data-set. This did mean significant re-planning
both during each test day and at the end of each day, so close co-operation between the test team was vital.
A total of 21 icing conditions were actually performed over the 6 day test period, Table 1. These were made up of 8
Appendix C cases (1 of which was in IM icing, the remainder being in CM icing), 1 Freezing Drizzle case with MVD
< 40 microns, 8 Freezing Drizzle cases with MVD > 40 microns and 4 Freezing Rain cases with MVD > 40 microns.
The majority of the cases were heated, but some unprotected cases were also performed for reference. Pressure
distributions were measured using embedded pressure ports within the leading edge to aid in determining the exact
onset angle of the flow, but unfortunately issues with these ports meant that no reliable data was captured. One dry air
run, with heaters operating, was also performed in order to provide data for comparison to the simulation codes without
the effect of water/ice.
8
Table 1: Achieved test matrix

An example unprotected ice shape for a Freezing Rain condition is shown in Figure 13. This is the data captured from
the ice scanning system, showing thickness variation in both the chordwise and spanwise direction. Spanwise
uniformity is generally good, except close to the walls.
Figure 13: Ice Shape Evaluation, wrapped (FZRA, AoA +3 deg, V 80 m/s, SAT –10°C, MVD 535 μm, LWC
0.25 g/m3, t 900 s)
The scanning post-processing also allows the ice shape to be viewed as an unwrapped image, as illustrated in Figure
14. This is the same case as that shown in the previous figure. This makes the uniformity level slightly easier to
distinguish.
9
Figure 14: Ice Shape Evaluation, unwrapped (FZRA, AoA +3 deg, V 80 m/s, SAT –10°C, MVD 535 μm, LWC
0.25 g/m3, t 900 s)
Using the post-processing procedures developed by AIIS, statistical analysis can be performed. A large number of
spanwise cuts are made, from which it is possible to assess the mean ice shape, the Maximum Combined Cross Section
(MCCS) and the standard deviation, Figure 15. This is extremely useful when comparing to numerical simulation
cases and allows a much better understanding of potential areas of required modelling improvement. The MCCS is
often taken as the chosen metric for comparison to the simulation codes, since it provides a level of conservatism.
However, the data shown below indicates the potential significant differences between the mean and MCCS shape,
and even between the mean plus one standard deviation and the MCCS. This high fidelity data will aid in future
discussions on which comparisons are most useful within the aircraft icing community, for example under future
AIAA Ice Prediction Workshops.
Figure 15: Ice Shape Evaluation, profiles (FZRA, AoA +3 deg, V 80 m/s, SAT –10°C, MVD 535 μm, LWC
0.25 g/m3, t 900 s)
The scanning process is also able to provide detailed results for the heated cases, including the runback generated,
Figure 16. This is also highly useful when comparing to the numerical simulations, since it provides the means to
determine average height, length and spacing of the rivulets, as well as statistical data to define the variability. Further
work will be performed to attempt to provide standardized outputs from the scan cases so that metrics between
measurements and predictions can be compared easily. This will feed into current work, both under the JOICE project
and internationally, for improved methods of runback ice prediction for heated surfaces.
10
Figure 16: Ice Shape Evaluation, rivulets (FZRA, AoA +3 deg, V 80 m/s, SAT –5°C, MVD 535 μm, LWC 0.33
g/m3, t 600 s)
An example power trace from the tests is shown in Figure 17. The case starts in dry conditions, with spray started at
approximately 1100s. Since the heaters are manufactured from PTC material, they attempt to maintain constant
temperature and the power draw increases under the additional water loading. The initial switch-on of the heaters was
staggered to avoid over-current limits on the main power supply.
Figure 17: Example power traces, DP6, Appendix C icing, IM

The corresponding temperature traces for this case are shown in Figure 18. The traces are provided for the side of the
model with the larger leading edge heated strip. Only three (out of five) of the heaters were activated for this run. The
effects of lateral conduction can be seen on some of the unheated areas, which show a slow warming during the dry
period but then cool once spray is switched on.
11
Figure 18: Example temperature traces, DP6, Appendix C icing, IM
VII. Examples of Code to Experiment Comparison for Unheated Cases

Comparisons between the experimental data and simulations are currently underway. Some initial comparisons for
unheated cases are shown below, and comparisons for heated cases will be presented in a future paper.
The first comparison is a Freezing Rain case with MVD > 40 microns (DP66 from Table 1). The results on the airfoil
shape are shown in Figure 19. The airfoil surface is shown by the black line with the ice shape prediction from the
TAC2 simulation code (AeroTex) shown in blue and that from the ICEAC2DV3 code (FH JOANNEUM, [8]) in
orange. The simulations for this case were performed using the Particle Size Distribution (PSD) which was measured
at the RTA facility, simplified into 11 bins. The TAC2 simulation code incorporates splash and bounce corrections
for the larger droplets contained within the spectrum, using the method from [8]. There are two different ice shapes
shown from the results of the scans: the solid red line is the mean ice shape determined across the entire span, whilst
the dotted red line is the slice from the spanwise centerline. Firstly, it can be seen that the centerline shape does not
differ greatly from the mean ice shape. The predictions show a very good match with the stagnation region ice
thickness. The measured ice horns are slightly further forwards than the TAC2 prediction, and the TAC2 predicted
upper surface ice horn is slightly thicker than measured. The ICEAC2DV3 predicted horns are further forwards than
the measured ones. The horn positions and thickness can also be reviewed on the unfolded ice shapes shown in Figure
20 (note that no ICEAC2DV3 results are included). This includes the MCCS ice shape, where it can be seen that
significant additional thickness is shown, especially further aft on the surface. The chordwise predicted extent of the
ice matches relatively well with the scanned mean ice shape.
It should be noted that the angle of attack for this, and both further cases, was modified from +3° to +1.5° in the
predictions as this gave much better comparison in the ice position on the surface. Unfortunately, since pressure
distribution data was not available for this test, it was not possible to verify the actual aerodynamic angle.
12
13
Figure 20: Ice shape comparison for DP66, unfolded
Figure 19: Ice shape comparison for DP66, airfoil shape
The second comparison case was DP42 which was an Appendix C Continuous Maximum icing case with MVD of 20
microns. The TAC2 predictions for this case were made with a static temperature 0.5°C lower than that stated in Table
1, whilst ICEAC2DV3 utilized the Table 1 value. 0.5°C is within the accepted temperature uncertainty for such
facilities. The TAC2 predictions also used a Langmuir-E distribution based on the MVD, whilst the ICEAC2DV3
simulations were performed using simply mono-disperse droplets with the MVD value. RTA have determined that a
Langmuir-E distribution is close to calibration data for Appendix C icing conditions, as measured using a Malvern
Spraytec device. The airfoil ice shape comparison is shown in Figure 21. For this case there are two TAC2 predictions
shown: the blue line is the prediction using standard input parameters. This prediction shows a reasonable match with
both upper and lower surface ice horn thickness and position, but the stagnation region ice thickness is significantly
under-predicted. The chordwise predicted extent of the ice is well-matched to the measurements. Within the TAC2
simulation code it is possible to specify a minimum convective heat transfer coefficient (HTC). With this option
selected and a minimum value of 350W.m-2.K-1 set, the prediction improves significantly. Work is currently under-
way to improve the HTC prediction capability at AeroTex, for both 2D and 3D predictions. This result could indicate
that further refinement of the model is required to accurately capture the HTC distribution. However, it is also feasible
that the higher HTC is due to tunnel effects. Icing wind tunnels generally exhibit some higher turbulence levels than
may be experienced in flight conditions (some level of turbulence is required in order to promote the required level of
mixing of the water droplets). Since the RTA contraction ratio is lower than most other similarly sized facilities, the
turbulence level may be higher in certain cases. The different contraction at RTA offers significant benefits in terms
of generation of Appendix O conditions, and these are considered to outweigh any potential detrimental increase in
HTC. There are also some other potential causes of the difference in ice shape, such as heat flux into the substrate (not
currently modelled in either of the simulation codes) or variable ice density, which will be investigated as the analysis
progresses further. The ICEAC2DV3 prediction shows a very similar stagnation ice thickness value as for the TAC2
case with unmodified HTC, but the ICEAC2DV3 horn angle is slightly higher than that given by TAC2.

The unfolded version of the ice shape is shown in Figure 22. For this case there is significantly less difference between
the mean and MCCS scanned ice shapes, especially further aft around the airfoil. The use of MCCS for the definition
of ice shapes, either for comparison to predictions or for use in aerodynamic investigations (including for certification)
needs to be considered, particularly for Appendix O cases.
14
The final comparison ice shape presented is for a very similar Appendix C case. The difference compared to DP42 is
that the static temperature was lowered by 1.5°C in order to assess the sensitivity of the ice shape to temperature
variation. The resultant ice shapes are shown in Figure 23 and Figure 24. The measured ice shape for this case again
shows very little difference when considering the mean scan shape and the centerline cut. When comparing the scan
shapes in Figure 23 with that from DP42 shown in Figure 21 it can be seen that the colder case exhibits a much flatter
front face and the horn angles have reduced. Using the standard inputs for TAC2 again shows a significant under-
prediction of the stagnation region ice thickness (less than 50% of the measured thickness) and a very similar result
can be seen for ICEAC2DV3. As for the previous run, the case was re-calculated using TAC2 whilst setting a
minimum HTC of 350W.m-2.K-1. The prediction of stagnation region ice thickness significantly improves with this
setting, although the prediction still does not match particularly well with the measured ice shape. As for previous
predictions the chordwise extent of the ice matches well with the predictions. The slight under-prediction of the
ICEAC2DV3 iced extent is likely due to the use of mono-dispersed droplets rather than a spectrum. Overall, TAC2
and ICEAC2DV3 give largely consistent predictions when the HTC in TAC2 is not modified.
15
16
VIII. Conclusions
Under the JOICE research project a wide range of data was collected on a 2D model with a NACA23012 profile,
including various icing conditions and configurations and a wide range of temperatures and different heated extents.
State of the art measurement techniques such as 3D scanning were utilized in combination with classical measurement
methods for temperatures and powers. The ice scan information allows very detailed study of the accretion, both in
general and very local terms. In particular for heated cases the runback ice can be documented in terms of the extent,
spacing and thickness of the rivulets. This has provided a large database of cases which can be used for current and
future improvement of numerical methods for ice accretion and ice protection system simulation.
The demonstrated capability of being able to produce conditions within the Appendix O icing envelope has opened
further opportunities to validate numerical simulation tools for this regime, both for unheated and heated cases.
Initial comparison of unheated ice shapes to the measured scan data shows broad agreement, although there are local
differences, especially in stagnation ice thickness. These phenomena need to be further investigated to understand
whether additional improvements to the numerical simulations are required or whether there are external factors which
are affecting the accretions.
Acknowledgments
The JOICE consortium would like to acknowledge the financial support under grant agreement 881057 from both the
Austrian Research Promotion Agency (Österreichische Forschungsförderungsgesellschaft, FFG) and the Federal
Ministry for Climate protection, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology (Bundesministerium für
Klimaschutz, Umwelt, Energie, Mobilität, Innovation und Technologie (BMK)), without which this work would not
have been able to be completed.
References
[1] European Union Aviation Safety Agency, “Certification Specifications and Acceptable Means of Compliance for Large
Aeroplanes (CS-25),” Amendment 25, June 2020.
[2] ‘Climatic / Icing Wind Tunnel Vienna – General Information and Guide for Customers’, MK08-04-AU-01, Version
4.6, April 2021
[3] Puffing, R., Hassler, W., Neubauer, T., Kozomara, D., and Ferschitz, H., “Aerodynamic Assessment of Complex 3D
Ice Shape Replications,” SAE International Conference on Icing of Aircraft, Engines, and Structures, June 2019,
Minneapolis, MN, United States, SAE Technical Paper, 2019-01-1936, 2019, June 2019, doi:10.4271/2019-01-1936.
[4] Kozomara, D., Neubauer, T., Puffing, R., Bednar, I., and Breitfuss, W., “Experimental Investigation on the Effects of
Icing on Multicopter UAS Operation,” AIAA Aviation Forum 2021 - Virtual Event, August 02-06-2021, 2021, DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-2676.
[5] Lee, S., Broeren, A., Addy, H., Sills, R., and Pifer, E., “Development of 3D Ice Accretion Measurement Method,” 4th
AIAA Atmospheric and Space Environments Conference, Document ID: 20120014348, New Orleans, LA, 25 June
2012, URL: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20120014348.
[6] Lee, S., Broeren, A. P., Kreeger, R. E., Potapczuk, M., and Utt, L., “Implementation and Validation of 3D Ice
Accretion Measurement Methodology,” 6th AIAA Atmospheric and Space Environments Conference, Document ID:
20150000868, Atlanta, GA, 16 June 2014, URL: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20120014348.
[7] Austrian Institute for Icing Sciences, “Instrumentation for 3D Scanning of ice shapes: Report on the development and
assessment of 3D scanning systems and associated evaluation tool,” H2020 ICE GENESIS, public deliverable,
December 2020.
[8] Hassler, W., "A Refined In-Flight Icing Model and its Numerical Implementation," SAE Technical Paper 2019-01-
1937, 2019, https://doi.org/10.4271/2019-01-1937.
[9] Cliquet, J., Bartels, C., and Bautista, C., “A Combined Post-Processing Method for SLD Modelling,” in SAE 2015
International Conference on Icing of Aircraft, Engines, and Structures, Prague, June 22-24, 2015.
17

Moser-2022-Generation of Validation Data For A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moser-2022-Generation of Validation Data For A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AIAA AVIATION Forum 10.2514/6.

Generation of Validation Data for an

Stefan Diebald 4, Philipp Kollmann 5 and Sebastian Humpel6

Reinhard Puffing 7, David Kozomara 8 and Simon Schweighart 9

Wolfgang Hassler 10, Thomas Neubauer 11 and Andreas Tramposch 12

IWT = Icing Wind Tunnel

III. Test Facility and Test Article Description

Figure 2: Aerofoil section for 2D wing test specimen

Figure 4: 2D wing internal design

Figure 5: 2D wing foam design

Figure 6: Heater layout, 2D wing specimen, side 1

Figure 7: Heater layout, 2D wing specimen, side 2

Tunnel Width [mm]

Figure 9: LWC uniformity for Freezing Drizzle, MVD > 40 microns

V. Ice Scanning System

Figure 12: Ice scanning system in use

VI. IWT Test Results Summary

Table 1: Achieved test matrix

Figure 17: Example power traces, DP6, Appendix C icing, IM

Figure 18: Example temperature traces, DP6, Appendix C icing, IM

VII. Examples of Code to Experiment Comparison for Unheated Cases

Figure 21: Ice shape comparison for DP42, airfoil shape

Figure 22: Ice shape comparison for DP42, unfolded

are affecting the accretions.

You might also like