Search Results

Two main approaches are available when studying droplet dynamics for in-flight icing simulations: the Lagrangian approach, in which each droplet trajectory is integrated until it impacts the vehicle under study or when it leaves it behind without impact, and the Eulerian approach, where the droplet dynamics is solved as a continuum. In both cases, the same momentum equations are solved. Each approach has its advantages. In 2D, the Lagrangian approach is easy to code and it is very efficient, particularly when used in combination with a panel method flow solver. However, it is a far less practical approach for 3D simulations, particularly on complex geometries, as it is not an easy task to accurately determine the droplet seeding region without a great number of droplet trajectories, dramatically increasing the computing cost. Converting the impact locations into a water collection distribution is also a complex task, since droplet trajectories in 3D can follow convoluted paths.

Numerically predicted roughness distributions obtained in in-flight icing simulations with a beading model are used in a quasi-steady manner to compute ice shapes. This approach, called "Multishot," uses a number of steady flow and droplet solutions for computing short intervals (shots) of the total ice accretion time. The iced geometry, the grid, and the surface roughness distribution are updated after each shot, producing a better match with the unsteady ice accretion phenomena. Comparisons to multishot results with uniform roughness show that the evolution of the surface roughness distribution has a strong influence on the final ice shape. The ice horns that form are longer and thinner compared to constant roughness results. The constant roughness approach usually fails to capture the formation of the pressure side horns and under-predicts the thickness of the ice in this region.