Aircraft Icing. FAR 25, Appendix C charts. Prof. Dr. Serkan ÖZGEN. Dept. Aerospace Engineering, METU Fall 2015

Transcription

1 Aircraft Icing FAR 25, Appendix C charts Prof. Dr. Serkan ÖZGEN Dept. Aerospace Engineering, METU Fall 2015

2 Outline FAR 25 and FAR 29 Appendix C charts Using FAR 25 Appendix C charts Liquid water content as a function of horizontal extent and ambient temperature Liquid water content as a function of horizontal extent and droplet size Alternative ways to document test data and compare with Appendix C Water catch rate (WCR) and total water catch (TWC) Icing severity definitions Variation of icing severity as a function of horizontal extent and ambient temperature Comparing test data with natural probabilities Serkan ÖZGEN 2

3 FAR 25 and FAR 29 Appendix C charts FAR 25 App. C consists of 6 figures. Has been in use since 1964 for selecting values of icing-related cloud variables for the design of inflight ice protection systems for aircraft. First 3 figures are known as continuous maximum conditions representing stratiform icing conditions or layer-type clouds. The last 3 figures are known as intermittent maximum conditions representing convective or cumuliform clouds and icing conditions. Serkan ÖZGEN 3

4 FAR 25 and FAR 29 Appendix C charts Traditionally, continuous maximum conditions have been applied to airframe icing protection, Intermittent maximum conditions have been applied to engine ice protection. Figures 1 and 4 indicate the probable maximum (99%) value of cloud water concentration (liquid water content LWC) expected over a specified reference distance for a given temperature and representative droplet size in the cloud. Reference distance: 17.4 nm (20 statute miles) for continuous maximum clouds, Reference distance: 2.6 nm (3 statute miles) for intermittent maximum clouds. Serkan ÖZGEN 4

5 FAR 25 and FAR 29 Appendix C charts The actual drop size distribution (typically 1-30 microns) in clouds is represented by a single variable droplet median volume diameter (MVD). Overall MVD 15 microns in stratiform clouds, Overall MVD 19 microns in convective clouds. The MVD has proven useful as a simple substitute for the actual droplet size distributions in ice accretion computations. Serkan ÖZGEN 5

6 Continuous maximum (stratiform) atmospheric icing conditions, Figure 1 Serkan ÖZGEN 6

7 Continuous maximum (stratiform) atmospheric icing conditions, Figure 2 Serkan ÖZGEN 7

8 Continuous maximum (stratiform) atmospheric icing conditions, Figure 3 Serkan ÖZGEN 8

9 Intermittent maximum (cumuliform) atmospheric icing conditions, Figure 4 Serkan ÖZGEN 9

10 Intermittent maximum (cumuliform) atmospheric icing conditions, Figure 5 Serkan ÖZGEN 10

11 Intermittent maximum (cumuliform) atmospheric icing conditions, Figure 6 Serkan ÖZGEN 11

12 Using FAR 25 Appendix C charts There is no comprehensive guide for using, interpretation and application of Appendix C. Design engineers typically select a conventionally recommended MVD and a temperature appropriate to the flight level of concern and use them to obtain the probable LWC from Figure 1 or 4 of Appendix C. Serkan ÖZGEN 12

13 Using FAR 25 Appendix C charts Selecting exposure distances (HE) LWC values obtained from Figure 1 or 4 are valid only for the reference distances of 17.4 nm or 2.6 nm, respectively. If there is a reason to design for a longer or shorter exposure distance, the LWC originally selected may be reduced or increased by a factor obtained from Figure 3 or 6 in Appendix C. Longer averaging distances will result in lower maximum LWC. Serkan ÖZGEN 13

14 Using FAR 25 Appendix C charts Selecting exposure distances (HE) Common applications: To estimate ice buildup amounts on unprotected surfaces during a long exposure of miles. LWC obtained from Figure 1 is reduced by the factor obtained from Figure 3. To estimate ice buildups on unprotected surfaces during a 45 minute hold. LWC obtained from Figure 1 is used at full value, without reduction. This assumes the worst case in which the holding pattern happens to be entirely within a 17.4 nm region of cloudiness containing the maximum probable LWC. Serkan ÖZGEN 14

15 Using FAR 25 Appendix C charts Selecting MVD values Common applications: For computing the impingement limits of droplets (chordwise extent of ice accretion) on an airfoil an absolute droplet diameter of 40 microns is used. In general, MVD=20 microns is used for the computation of ice accretion amounts for standard exposure distance (17.4 nm) or longer. Another reference recommends the use of the entire range of MVDs. The designer is advised to consider exposures to droplets with an MVD up to 40 microns over distances up to 17.4 nm at least. Serkan ÖZGEN 15

16 Using FAR 25 Appendix C charts Difficulties comparing with test data Users often wish to plot the points representing combinations of LWC, MVD and temperature used in Wet wind tunnel tests, Computer simulations, Test flights behind airborne spray tankers, and test flights in natural icing conditions. on Figures 1 and 4. The problem is that these figures are valid only for the fixed averaging distances. A better way is to convert Figures 1 and 4 to equivalent, distance based envelopes where the LWC curves have already been adjusted for the distance effect. Serkan ÖZGEN 16

17 Continuous maximum LWCs converted to distance adjusted values Serkan ÖZGEN 17

18 Intermittent maximum LWCs converted to distance adjusted values Serkan ÖZGEN 18

19 Appendix C curves converted to distance based format (MVD=15 m) Serkan ÖZGEN 19

20 LWC as a function of HE and T a (Continuous maximum, MVD=15μm) Serkan ÖZGEN 20

21 LWC as a function of HE and T a (Continuous maximum, MVD=20μm) Serkan ÖZGEN 21

22 LWC as a function of HE and T a (Continuous maximum, MVD=30μm) Serkan ÖZGEN 22

23 LWC as a function of HE and T a (Intermittent maximum, MVD=20μm) Serkan ÖZGEN 23

24 LWC as a function of HE and MVD (Continuous maximum, T a =0 o C) Serkan ÖZGEN 24

25 LWC as a function of HE and MVD (Intermittent maximum, T a =0 o C) Serkan ÖZGEN 25

26 The entire supercooled cloud database (660 icing events, nm in icing conditions) Serkan ÖZGEN 26

27 Graphing flight data (t exp =10 min, V =150knot) Serkan ÖZGEN 27

28 Graphing flight data (t exp =10 min, V =150knot) Serkan ÖZGEN 28

29 Sample flight data compared with Appendix C Continuous maximum, Appendix C, MVD=15μm Serkan ÖZGEN 29

30 Sample flight data compared with Appendix C Continuous maximum, Appendix C, T a =0 o C Serkan ÖZGEN 30

31 Icing tunnel test points on Appendix C envelopes Continuous maximum Serkan ÖZGEN 31

32 Icing tunnel test points on Appendix C envelopes Continuous maximum, MVD=20μm, V =174 kt Serkan ÖZGEN 32

33 Water catch rate In some applications, such as in testing thermal antiicing systems, the rate of water catch is important. For a given amount of LWC, the speed at which the aircraft flies through it and the droplet collection efficiency of the wing is important in determining how much heat is required to keep the leading edges at a required elevated temperature. Water catch rate is calculated from: WCR V tot LWC Serkan ÖZGEN 33

34 Water catch rate Serkan ÖZGEN 34

35 Total water catch Another item of interest for an icing encounter may be the total amount of ice accreted on certain components, such as unprotected surfaces. Here, the rate of water (ice) accumulation may not be important, but rather the total water catch during the encounter(s). The TWC may be useful for estimating the weight of ice accreted on aircraft components, except for any losses due to shedding or melting. Total water catch is calculated from: TWC tot HE LWC average Serkan ÖZGEN 35

36 Total water catch Serkan ÖZGEN 36

37 Acceptable Exposures What is an adequate exposure, or how much exposure is enough? This can be set in terms of TWC. Maximum TWC from the envelopes for a 17.4 nm exposure at the same temperature as the available icing conditions during the test flight can provide a reference. This can be used as the target TWC to be achieved during the test flight. Serkan ÖZGEN 37

38 Icing severity definitions Test exposures can be reported based on whether the encounters correspond to trace, light, moderate or severe icing conditions. Icing severity can be calculated from: db dt a V r Icing severity Trace Light Moderate Severe Time expired for 0.25 ice formation t > 1 hour 15 min < t < 60 min 5 min < t < 15 min t < 5 min Serkan ÖZGEN 38

39 Continuous maximum, Appendix C converted to icing severity envelopes Serkan ÖZGEN 39

40 Sample icing intensity compared with cont. Max., Appendix C, converted to icing severity envelopes Serkan ÖZGEN 40

41 Comparing test data with natural probabilities The differences between FAR 25 App. C and nature The envelopes in Appendix C do not show all the values that can exist in nature. They also do not give information about the probability of encountering various LWCs, MVDs, temperature durations in icing conditions. Only the probable maximum (99% percentile) values of LWC are shown. Designers of ice protection systems for military aircraft would like to consider lesser percentile values of LWC to accept more risk as a tradeoff against extra weight, space and electrical power reqirements. Serkan ÖZGEN 41

42 Comparing test data with natural probabilities Flight tests and icing wind tunnel tests Serkan ÖZGEN 42

43 Natural 99% limits vs altitude for highest temperatures available at the altitude (MVD=15-20 m) Serkan ÖZGEN 43

44 Natural probabilities for LWC averages at altitudes < 2500 ft AGL Serkan ÖZGEN 44

45 Natural probabilities for LWC averages at altitudes 5000 ft ± 2500 ft AGL Serkan ÖZGEN 45

46 Natural probabilities for LWC averages at altitudes ft ± 2500 ft AGL Serkan ÖZGEN 46

47 Natural probabilities for LWC averages at altitudes ft ± 2500 ft AGL Serkan ÖZGEN 47

48 Natural probabilities for LWC averages at altitudes ft ± 2500 ft AGL Serkan ÖZGEN 48

49 Sample flight data compared with natural probabilities for LWC averages at altitudes< 2500 ft Serkan ÖZGEN 49

50 Natural HE limits and 99% LWC limits for different MVDs in stratiform clouds at 0 o C to -10 o C Serkan ÖZGEN 50

51 Sample flight data compared with natural 99% LWC limits for different MVDs Serkan ÖZGEN 51