Advances in Military Technology

AiMT Vol. 8, No. 1, June 2013

Aerodynamic Characteristics of Multi-Element Iced

Airfoil – CFD Simulation
A. Hyll and V. Horák*
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Military Technology,
University of Defence, Brno, Czech Republic

The manuscript was received on 13 September 2012 and was accepted after revision for
publication on 20 March 2013.

Abstract:
The phenomenon of the in-flight icing can affect all types of aircraft. Presence of the ice
accretion on wings can lead to performance degradation. Thus, it is important to
understand how the different ice shapes affect aerodynamic characteristics. The
prediction of the ice accretion on the wing with flaps of different position was made by
the in-house code ICE 4.1. The two-dimensional CFD simulation was used for the study
of aerodynamic performance degradation of multi-element iced airfoil. The results are
discussed and some of them are compared with the wind tunnel testing.

Keywords:
Aerodynamics, aircraft icing, performance degradation

1. Introduction
The in-flight icing, which is a dangerous phenomenon in aviation, can affect all types
of aircraft including military aircraft. Icing can adversely affect the flight
characteristics of an aircraft. It can increase drag, decrease lift, and cause control
problems. The most critical portion of the flight is the landing, when the airplane is
flown at slow speeds and low altitudes. A few minutes before landing when flaps are
extended the ice accretion on wings and flaps can occur, if the icing conditions are
fulfilled. This is the main reason why the decision was made to study the influence of
the ice accretion on the wing with flaps. From the aerodynamic viewpoint, when
compared to wings without ice, wings with ice indicate decreased maximum lift,
increased drag, stall occurring at much lower angles of attack, increased stall speed,
and reduced controllability [1]. Thus, it is important to know which ice shapes can be
formed on the wings and flaps and understand how they affect the aerodynamics [2].

*
Corresponding author: Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Defence,
Kounicova 65, 662 10 Brno, Czech Republic, phone: +420 973 442 616, E-mail:
[email protected]
6 A. Hyll and V. Horák

2. Simulation of Ice Accretion on Flapped Airfoil

The simulation of the ice accretion on the multi-element airfoil was performed by the
in-house code ICE 4.1 [3], which enables to solve a system of several airfoils. This
code involves mutual flow overlap of multi-element airfoils (e.g. overlap between the
airfoil and flap). The results of air streamlines of droplet trajectories around the airfoil
with a slotted flap are shown in Fig. 1. There can be seen droplet trajectories and
impact locations near the airfoil leading edge. Trajectories of droplets impacting an
airfoil surface are depicted by a black region.
The impact locations, where droplet trajectories intersect an airfoil surface, can
be divided into several separated sections. It can be seen for the case of airfoil with
extended slotted flap in landing position. The flap is not fully overlapped in this case.
Then black regions of impinging droplets trajectories are on both the airfoil leading
edge and the flap surface.

Fig. 1 Droplet trajectories near the airfoil with a slotted flap

and for extended flap in landing position
The resulting predicted ice shapes on the airfoil with retracted flap position and
for angles of deflection 20° and 38° are shown in Fig. 2. The input data of the
simulation are: the airfoil chord b = 0.6 m, the free stream velocity v∞ = 42.9 m s–1, the
angle of attack α = 0°, the cloud liquid water content LWC = 0.8 g m–3, the droplets
median volume diameter MVD = 15 µm, the ambient air temperature T = 273.15 K,
the wing surface temperature Tw = 263.15 K, and the total icing duration time is 600 s.

Fig. 2 Ice prediction on the wing airfoil with a slotted flap:

retracted flap and angles of deflection 20° and 38°
 Aerodynamic Characteristics of Multi-Element Iced Airfoil – CFD 7
Simulation

The ice accretion on the flap causes reduction of the gap size between main
element and flap. Consequently, it can have a large impact on the performance
degradation of iced multi-element airfoils. And there is a potential mechanical
problem in the elevator mechanism itself as well.
The presented geometry of the iced multi-element airfoils is used for the two-
dimensional CFD simulation as the input geometry for the study of the aerodynamic
performance degradation.

3. Two-Dimensional CFD Simulation

The two-dimensional CFD simulation, based on Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes
equations by the CFD software ANSYS CFX 12.0 [4], was applied to simulate the
flow over the shapes of the clean and iced airfoils of retracted flap and for angles of
deflection 20° and 38°.
The computational mesh was generated by using the mesh generator ICEM CFD
[5]. For computing it was created the hexagonal mesh with the first layer height of
2×10–5 m and width varies from 2×10–3 m to 5×10–3 m, which ensures wall distance y+
below 3. The elements are growing in the direction of far field. The total number of
elements varies from 50000 to 70000 according to the airfoil configuration.
The mesh was smoothed (only for retracted flaps) to ensure a continuous
transition between elements. This is important for calculating the transition from
laminar to turbulent flow. The grid near the leading edge of the clean airfoil is shown
in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3 Detail of the mesh for clean airfoil

The input parameters of the CFD simulation were the following:
• The ambient air temperature 25 ºC
• The uncompressible fluid with constant density, with no heat transfer
• The airfoil chord b = 0.6 m
8 A. Hyll and V. Horák

• The free stream velocity v∞ = 44 m s–1

• The Reynolds number corresponding to the given air flow parameters
Re = 1.75×106
• Low free stream turbulence intensity flow (1 %) was considered
• The used turbulence model is the shear stress transport model and the
laminar-turbulent boundary layer transition onset follows gamma-theta model
[6], for the profiles with extended flaps the fully turbulent model was chosen
to start the simulation and that gamma-theta model was used. Faster
convergence was reached by the changing models.
• The calculation was stopped when the average difference between two
consecutive matrices (the residual target) reached 10–5
The numeric model of ANSYS CFX 12.0 is based on control volume method and
iterative solution of resulting system of nonlinear equations [4]. The discretization of
geometry is linear and the discretization of solved variables is of second order. The
solution is solved as a stationary case. The output of the solution is in the form of 2D
display of solved variables in the domain or graph plot of variables along the contour
of airfoil.
There are presented some examples of CFX POST outputs for the case of iced
airfoil with extended flap of angle of deflection 20° and at the angle of attack α = 4°.
The streamlines around the airfoil are shown in Fig. 4. The density of streamlines is
spaced automatically by the ANSYS CFX POST code. Increase in velocity is
noticeable above the profiles.
The velocity distribution around the iced airfoil is given in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6.

Fig. 4 Streamlines around the iced airfoil

Aerodynamic Characteristics of Multi-Element Iced Airfoil – CFD 9
Simulation

Fig. 5 Velocity distribution around the iced airfoil

Fig. 6 Velocity distribution near the iced airfoil leading edge

10 A. Hyll and V. Horák

The pressure distribution around the airfoil is an important parameter in terms of

integral aerodynamic characteristics. The example of pressure distribution around the
iced airfoil with extended flap of angle of deflection 20° and at the angle of attack
α = 4° is given in Fig. 7.

Fig. 7 Pressure distribution around the iced airfoil

Pressure on the airfoil surface is automatically integrated along the whole length
of the airfoil surface to obtain lift and drag.

4. Presentation of Results and Discussion

The advanced CFD simulation was performed for the flow around the clean flapped
airfoil and for the above-mentioned predicted cases of iced airfoils configuration (see
Fig. 2). The lift and drag coefficients were obtained by integrating the pressure
distribution over the wall along the airfoil surface.
Resulting curves of the lift coefficient CL for the clean airfoil with retracted flap
and for angles of deflection 20° and 38° at different angles of attack AOA are shown in
Fig. 8, where these courses are compared with the wind tunnel experimental data. As
can be seen in Fig. 8, the results obtained from the ANSYS CFD simulation agree
quite well with the experimental observations.
The results of the CFD simulation as the courses of the lift coefficient for the
given cases of iced airfoils (Fig. 2) are presented in Fig. 9 in comparison with the
clean airfoil results. It can be seen from this comparison, that the stall occurs at lower
angles of attack and the maximum lift is decreased for iced airfoils.
 Aerodynamic Characteristics of Multi-Element Iced Airfoil – CFD 11
Simulation

Fig. 8 Comparison of calculated (solids line) and measured (dashed lines)

lift coefficients for the clean airfoil for: a) retracted flap; b) angle of deflection 20°;
c) angle of deflection 38°

Fig. 9 Comparison of lift curves for clean (solid lines) and iced (dotted lines) airfoils
for: a) retracted flap; b) angle of deflection 20°; c) angle of deflection 38°
On the other hand, the computation of the drag coefficients by the CFD
simulation usually does not provide us with very good results. Fig. 10 presents the
dependence of the drag coefficient CD on the angle of attack AOA. It is seen that
results of the CFD simulation do not correspond to the wind tunnel testing very well in
absolute values, but the curves’ tendencies agree with the phenomena.
12 A. Hyll and V. Horák

Fig. 10 Comparison of calculated (solid lines, small letters) and measured (dashed
lines, capital letters) drag coefficients for: a, A) retracted flap;
b, B) angle of deflection 20°; c, C) angle of deflection 38°

Fig. 11 Comparison of drag curves for clean (solid lines) and iced (dotted lines)
airfoils for: a) retracted flap; b) angle of deflection 20°; c) angle of deflection 38°
The results of the CFD simulation as the courses of the drag coefficient for the
given cases of iced airfoils are shown in Fig. 11 in comparison with the clean airfoil
results. It can be seen the strong influence of icing for negative angles of attack
similarly as for lift curves in Fig. 9.
A combined effect of lift and drag is described by the polar curves. Polar curves
for clean and iced airfoils for given configurations are shown in Fig. 12.
 Aerodynamic Characteristics of Multi-Element Iced Airfoil – CFD 13
Simulation

Fig. 12 Comparison of polar curves for clean (solid lines) and iced (dotted lines)
airfoils for: a) retracted flap; b) angle of deflection 20°; c) angle of deflection 38°

5. Conclusion
The performance degradation of iced airfoils was studied using the CFD simulation.
The Navier-Stokes CFD (ANSYS CFX) simulation provides a reasonable prediction of
the lift coefficients. Comparing the lift curves for the given multi-element airfoil
configurations can result in fairly good agreement between the CFD simulation and
wind tunnel testing, as seen in Fig. 8. The CFD prediction of drag coefficient is not so
precise (see Fig 10).
The expected stall occurring at lower angle of attack, decreased maximum lift,
and increased drag is clearly observable in Fig. 9 and Fig 11, even for this case of
relatively low icing. Interesting is the strong influence of icing for the multi-element
airfoil, which is observed for negative angles of attack (see Fig. 9 and Fig. 11).

References
[1] PARASCHIVOIU, I. and SAEED, F. Aircraft Icing. Wiley 1984, 235 p.
[2] CHÁRA, Z., HORÁK, V. and ROZEHNAL, D. Aerodynamic Degradation of
Iced Airfoils – Experiments and CFD Simulations. Proceedings of the ASME
Fluids Engineering Division Summer Conference 2009, FEDSM2009. Vol. 1,
Issue Part C. Vail, Colorado: ASME, August 2-6 2009, p. 1679-1685.
[3] HOŘENÍ, B., HORÁK, V. and CHÁRA, Z. Improved Ice Accretion Prediction
Code. Advances in Military Technology, 2008, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 44-50.
[4] ANSYS CFX. Reference Guide. Release 12.0. ANSYS, Inc., April 2009.
[5] ANSYS ICEM CFD 11.0. Tutorial Manual. ANSYS, Inc., January 2007.
[6] LANGTRY, RB. and MENTER FR. Transition Modeling for General CFD
Applications in Aeronautics. AIAA Paper (2005-522), 43rd AIAA Aerospace
Science Meeting and Exhibit. Reno, Nevada: AIAA, January 2005.
14 A. Hyll and V. Horák

Acknowledgement
The work presented in this paper has been supported by the Czech Science Foundation
project No. P101/10/0257 and by the institutional development funding PRO-K216
“Support of Research, Experimental Development, and Innovation in Mechanical
Engineering”.