The lectures cover the major aspects of in-flight icing
simulation, ice protection systems, and handling quality
issues. The instructors bring an amalgam of knowledge, as
scientists who have developed codes in current use and
engineers with certification experience combining CFD, EFD,
and FFD, along with cost-effective simulation methods widely
used internationally for certification of aircraft for flight
into known icing.
|
For an aircraft to obtain a type design certification, it must
be demonstrated that it can sustain safe flight into known or
inadvertent icing conditions. The icing certification process
involves CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) analyses, wind and
icing tunnel testing (EFD: Experimental Fluid Dynamics), all
considered “simulation”, and final demonstration of compliance
through Flight Testing in Natural Icing (FFD: Flight Fluid
Dynamics).
Modern CFD-Icing methods, working as a direct extension of
CFD-Aero technologies, have become an indispensable, if not a
primary tool, in the certification process. One is referred to
the just published “Handbook of Numerical Simulation of In-
Flight Icing” (see last page) to note the feverish development
of new approaches to the simulation of icing over a wide
variety of flying objects. They are complementing and/or
replacing 2D methods (airfoils don’t fly; aircraft do), as
they analyze the aircraft (fuselage, wing, engines, nacelles,
cockpit windows, sensors, probes, etc.) as an interconnected
system and not as an assemblage of isolated components.
The judicial mixing of 2D and 3D CFD-EFD simulation tools
provides a cost-effective aid-to-design-and-to-certification
when made part of a well-structured compliance plan. CbA
(Certification-by-Analysis) is a current “hot” subject, and
this course puts it into real practice, providing efficient
tools and showing examples of capabilities and limitations.
The course will highlight how modern icing codes are
“predictive” as they are based on highly validated physical
models. Just as one example of where 3D is needed, critical
ice shapes’ identification and related aerodynamic penalties
based on 2D airfoil calculations may be inaccurate if not
altogether misleading as wings have sweep, twist, spanwise
flows, propeller and engine effects, vortex generators, etc.
that greatly affect/modify/delay stall and its propagation.
The inclusion of icing requirements at the aerodynamic design
stage allows a more comprehensive exploration of the combined
aerodynamics/icing envelopes, optimized IPS design, and
focus/reduce wind tunnels/icing tunnels/flight tests. This
leads to faster designs, faster testing, faster and more
complete natural icing campaign, resulting in a safer aircraft
that is easier to certificate and that remains problem-free
during its lifecycle.
|