过冷大水滴动力学行为对翼型结冰的影响分析

刘飞宇; 邓甜

doi:10.13700/j.bh.1001-5965.2022.0213

过冷大水滴动力学行为对翼型结冰的影响分析

doi: 10.13700/j.bh.1001-5965.2022.0213

刘飞宇¹,
邓甜^{1, 2, ,}

1.
中国民航大学中欧航空工程师学院，天津 300300
2.
中国空气动力研究与发展中心结冰与防除冰重点实验室，绵阳 621000

基金项目: 国家自然科学基金(U1933110)；结冰与防除冰重点实验室开放课题(IADL20200305)；天津市教委科研计划项目(2020KJ036)

详细信息

通讯作者:
E-mail： t-deng@cauc.edu.cn

中图分类号: V211.41⁺2
计量
- 文章访问数: 217
- HTML全文浏览量: 80
- PDF下载量: 26
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2022-04-02
- 录用日期: 2022-06-06
- 网络出版日期: 2022-09-15
- 整期出版日期: 2024-01-31

Influence of dynamic behavior of supercooled large droplets on airfoil icing

LIU Feiyu¹,
DENG Tian^{1, 2
, ,}

1.
Sino-European Institute of Aviation Engineering，Civil Aviation University of China，Tianjin 300300，China
2.
Key Laboratory of Icing and Anti/De-Icing，China Aerodynamics Research and Development Center，Mianyang 621000，China

Funds: National Natural Science Foundation of China (U1933110); Open Project of Key Laboratory for Icing and Anti-icing (IADL20200305); Scientific Research Project of Tianjin Education Commission (2020KJ036)

More Information

Corresponding author: E-mail：t-deng@cauc.edu.cn

摘要

摘要:
过冷大水滴（SLD）是极端危险的飞行环境之一。因大粒径水滴独特的动力学行为变形破碎、飞溅反弹，传统结冰计算方法难以准确地反映SLD结冰情况。采用Navier-Stokes方法求解流场、Euler方法计算水滴撞击、Shallow Water模型模拟结冰，并与NASA实验结果进行了对比验证方法可信。结果表明：SLD动力学行为对结冰和冰形影响较大。其中，变形破碎改变了水滴运动轨迹和撞击范围，降低了水滴撞击极限，导致上下结冰极限减小2.83 %、2.13 %；飞溅降低了驻点附近水滴收集率，导致前缘积冰量减少8.09 %；反弹显著降低了水滴撞击极限，导致上下结冰极限减小30.69 %、20.01 %；撞击后飞溅反弹二次水滴再入流场使得上下结冰极限增加6.14 %、3.71 %。同时，与干净翼型相比带冰翼型空气动力学性能严重退化，在相同迎角下，升力更小、阻力更大、气动效率更低。
- 过冷大水滴 /
- 动力学行为 /
- 翼型结冰 /
- 冰形几何特征 /
- 气动特性
Abstract:
Supercooled large droplets (SLD) represent one of the most hazardous flight conditions. The unique dynamic behavior of large droplets, including deformation, fragmentation, splash, and rebound, poses challenges for accurately assessing SLD icing using traditional icing calculation methods. In this study, the Navier-Stokes method was employed to solve the flow field, the Euler method was used to calculate droplet impact, and the Shallow Water model was utilized to simulate ice accretion. The credibility of the proposed methodology was verified by comparing the results with NASA experimental data. The findings demonstrate that the dynamic behavior of SLD significantly influences icing and ice formation. Specifically, deformation and fragmentation alter the trajectory and impact range of droplets, reducing the droplet impact limit, resulting in a 2.83% and 2.13% decrease in upper and lower icing limits, respectively. Splashing reduces the collection efficiency of droplets near the stagnation point, resulting in an 8.09% reduction in leading-edge ice accretion. Rebound considerably lowers the droplet impact limit, leading to a 30.69% and 20.01% decrease in upper and lower icing limits, respectively. Moreover, the re-entry of secondary droplets into the flow field following rebound increases the upper and lower icing limits by 6.14% and 3.71%, respectively. Furthermore, the aerodynamic performance of the ice-contaminated airfoil significantly deteriorates compared to a clean airfoil. At the same angle of attack, the lift decreases, the drag increases, and the aerodynamic efficiency decreases.
- supercooled large droplets /
- dynamic behavior /
- airfoil icing /
- geometric characteristics of ice shape /
- aerodynamic characteristics

HTML全文

图 1 SLD破碎导致的液滴轨迹变化

Figure 1. Change of droplet trajectory caused by SLD breakup

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 液滴撞击壁面示意图

Figure 2. Diagram of droplet impact on wall

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 准稳态结冰模拟流程图

Figure 3. Quasi-steady-state icing simulation flow chart

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 翼型结冰模拟关键参数

Figure 4. Key parameters for airfoil icing simulation

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 5 计算域及网格划分

Figure 5. Computational domain and meshing

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 6 网格无关性验证

Figure 6. Grid independence verification

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 7 翼型前缘冰形特征参数

Figure 7. Ice shape characteristic parameters of airfoil leading edge

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 8 模拟-实验冰形结果对比

Figure 8. Comparison of simulation-experiment ice shape results

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 9 无模型（左）与变形破碎模型（右）云图比较

Figure 9. Comparison of cloud images of no model (left) and deformed breakup model (right)

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 10 翼型弦长中点平面L_WC和水滴速度分布比较

Figure 10. Comparison of L_WC and droplet velocity distribution in midpoint plane of airfoil chord length

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 11 不同模型下水滴收集率β在翼型表面的变化

Figure 11. Variation of droplet collection efficiency β on airfoil surface under different models

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 12 变形破碎+飞溅反弹模型（左）与再入模型（右）云图比较

Figure 12. Comparison of deformation and breakup + splashing and bouncing model (left) cloud images and reinjection model (right)

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 13 水滴平均直径分布比较

Figure 13. Comparison of average diameter distribution of drop

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 14 不同模型下翼型前缘积冰冰形

Figure 14. Icing shape of airfoil leading edge ice accumulationunder different models

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 15 M_VD=20～1000 μm SLD翼型前缘积冰冰形

Figure 15. M_VD=20～1000 μm SLD ice shape at wing leading edge

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 16 水膜溢流现象

Figure 16. Water film runback phenomenon

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 17 翼型升阻力系数随时间变化

Figure 17. Variation of lift coefficient and drag coefficient of airfoil with time

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 18 带冰翼型升阻力系数随迎角变化

Figure 18. Variation of lift coefficient and drag coefficient of icing airfoil with angle of attack

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 19 压力系数C_P在翼型表面的变化

Figure 19. Variation of pressure coefficient C_Pon airfoil surface

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 20 吸力峰值示意图

Figure 20. Diagram of suction peak

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 21 翼型周围压力及流线分布

Figure 21. Pressure and streamline distribution around airfoil

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 验证算例工况

Table 1. Working conditions of examples to be verified

算例	来流速度/(n mile·h⁻¹)	静温/℃	迎角/(°)	L_WC/(g·m⁻³)	M_VD/μm	结冰时间/s
1	200	−10.79	3.8	1.00	20	231
2	100	−9	0	1.17	140	14×60
3	100	−18	0	1.46	170	11×60

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 翼型前缘冰形特征参数模拟误差

Table 2. Simulation error of ice shape characteristic parameters of airfoil leading edge %

算例	特征参数模拟误差
算例	H_upper	H_lower	H_stagnation	θ_upper	θ_lower
1	8.7	2.7	4.2	0.7	3.0
2	−2.3	−9.7	−8.7	2.5	−1.9
3	−3.2	1.9	−2.7	−2.1	7.6

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 不同动力学行为对翼型前缘冰形特征参数的影响

Table 3. Effects of different dynamic behaviors on ice shape characteristic parameters at airfoil leading edge %

模型	特征参数变化
模型	H_upper	H_lower	θ_upper	θ_lower	S_limit,upper	S_limit,lower
变形破碎	−0.73	0.09	−0.31	0.01	−2.83	−2.13
飞溅反弹	−4.33	3.52	1.41	−0.57	−30.69	−21.01
再入	2.97	−2.14	−0.18	0.03	6.14	3.71

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 数值模拟工况

Table 4. Working conditions of numerical simulation

来流速度/ (n mile·h⁻¹)	静温/℃	静压/Pa	迎角/(°)	L_WC/ (g·m⁻³)	结冰时间/s
200	−10.79	101325	3.8	1.00	210

下载: 导出CSV

表 5 翼型前缘冰形特征参数的变化

Table 5. Variation of ice shape characteristic parameters at the airfoil leading edge

M_VD/μm	ΔH_upper%	ΔH_lower%	Δθ_upper%	Δθ_lower%	ΔS_limit,upper%	ΔS_limit,lower%
60	−1.52	−5.82	−10.35	5.99	287.84	6.36
80	1.22	0.63	−1.51	0.64	54.31	13.82
100	0.16	−0.59	−1.21	0.29	32.44	11.83
120	−0.76	−0.33	−2.35	0.16	14.56	5.41
140	4.33	−0.52	4.07	0.03	16.41	5.43
200	1.84	−0.33	−0.76	0.19	32.99	10.73
300	4.05	−0.12	1.01	−0.13	26.13	9.08
400	3.19	−1.53	2.53	−0.06	12.57	3.85
500	−1.60	0.93	0.98	−0.18	27.23	5.25
1000	12.53	17.04	13.25	−3.81	67.04	12.13

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(31)

[1]	FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION. Airplane and engine certification requirements in supercooled large drop, mixed phase, and ice crystal icing conditions: RIN 2120–AJ34[S]. Washington, D. C. : Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT, 2010.
[2]	VILLEDIEU P, TRONTIN P, GUFFOND D, et al. SLD Lagrangian modeling and capability assessment in the frame of ONERA 3D icing suite[C]//4th AIAA Atmospheric and Space Environments Conference. Reston: AIAA 2012: 3132.
[3]	HONSEK R, HABASHI W G, AUBE M S. Eulerian modeling of in-flight icing due to supercooled large droplets[J]. Journal of Aircraft, 2008, 45(4): 1290-1296. doi: 10.2514/1.34541
[4]	BOURGAULT Y, HABASHI W G, DOMPIERRE J, et al. A finite element method study of Eulerian droplets impingement models[J]. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2015, 29(4): 429-449.
[5]	IULIANO E, MINGIONE G, PETROSINO F, et al. Eulerian modeling of SLD physics towards more realistic aircraft icing simulation[C]// AIAA Atmospheric and Space Environments Conference. Reston: AIAA, 2010: 7676.
[6]	LEAL L G. Bubbles, drops and particles[J]. International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 1979, 5(3): 229-230. doi: 10.1016/0301-9322(79)90021-1
[7]	PILCH M, ERDMAN C A. Use of breakup time data and velocity history data to predict the maximum size of stable fragments for acceleration-induced breakup of a liquid drop[J]. International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 1987, 13(6): 741-757. doi: 10.1016/0301-9322(87)90063-2
[8]	HSIANG L P, FAETH G M. Near-limit drop deformation and secondary breakup[J]. Int Multiphase Flow, 1992, 18(5): 635-652. doi: 10.1016/0301-9322(92)90036-G
[9]	O'ROURKE P J, AMSDEN A A. The TAB method for numerical calculation of spray droplet breakup: No. 872089[R]. Toronto: SAE Technical Paper, 1987: 148-161.
[10]	CLARK M M. Drop breakup in a turbulent flow-I. Conceptual and modeling considerations[J]. Chemical Engineering Science, 1988, 43(3): 671-679. doi: 10.1016/0009-2509(88)87025-8
[11]	IBRAHIM E A, YANG H Q, PRZEKWAS A J. Modeling of spray droplets deformation and breakup[J]. Journal of Propulsion and Power, 1993, 9(4): 651-654. doi: 10.2514/3.23672
[12]	BAI C, GOSMAN A D. Development of methodology for spray impingement simulation: No. 950283[R]. Detroit: SAE Transactions, 1995: 550-568.
[13]	MUNDO C, SOMMERFELD M, TROPEA C. Droplet-wall collisions: Experimental studies of the deformation and breakup process[J]. International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 1995, 21(2): 151-173. doi: 10.1016/0301-9322(94)00069-V
[14]	MUNDO C, TROPEA C, SOMMERFELD M. Numerical and experimental investigation of spray characteristics in the vicinity of a rigid wall[J]. Experimental Thermal & Fluid Science, 1997, 15(3): 80-86.
[15]	MUNDO C, SOMMERFELD M, TROPEA C. On the modeling of liquid sprays impinging on surfaces[J]. Atomization & Sprays, 1998, 8(6): 625-652.
[16]	RUTKOWSKI A, WRIGHT W, POTAPCZUK M. Numerical study of droplet splashing and re-impingement[C]//41st Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. Reston: AIAA 2003: 388.
[17]	WRIGHT W. Further refinement of the LEWICE SLD model[C]//44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. Reston: AIAA, 2006: 464.
[18]	NORDE E, HOSPERS J M, VAN DER WEIDE E, et al. Splashing model for impact of supercooled large droplets on a thin liquid film[C]//52nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting. Reston: AIAA, 2014: 738.
[19]	BILODEAU D R, HABASHI W, BARUZZI G, et al. An Eulerian re-impingement model of splashing and bouncing supercooled large droplets[C]// 5th AIAA Atmospheric and Space Environments Conference. Reston: AIAA, 2013: 3058.
[20]	TRUJILLO M F, MATHEWS W S, LEE C F, et al. Modelling and experiment of impingement and atomization of a liquid spray on a wall[J]. International Journal of Engine Research, 2000, 1(1): 87-105. doi: 10.1243/1468087001545281
[21]	易贤, 李维浩, 王庄宇等. 过冷大水滴结冰过程中动力学行为的影响因素[C]//第十届全国流体力学学术会议论文摘要集. 杭州: 中国力学学会流体力学专业委员会, 2018, 1: 357. Yi Xian, Li Weihao, Wang Zhuangyu et al. Influence factors of dynamic behavior of supercooled large water droplets during icing process [C]//Abstracts of the 10th National Conference on Fluid Mechanics.Hangzhou : Fluid Mechanics Committee of Chinese Society of Mechanics, 2018, 1 : 357(in Chinese).
[22]	张辰, 孔维梁, 刘洪. 大粒径过冷水滴结冰模拟破碎模型研究[J]. 空气动力学学报, 2013, 31(2): 144-150. ZHANG C, KONG W L, LIU H. Research on simulation crushing model of large particle size supercooled water droplets icing[J]. Journal of Aerodynamics, 2013, 31(2): 144-150(in Chinese).
[23]	任靖豪, 王强, 刘宇, 等. 大型商用运输机机翼增升构型水滴撞击特性计算[J]. 空气动力学学报, 2021, 39(1): 52-58. REN J H, WANG Q, LIU Y, et al. Calculation of droplet impact characteristics of wing lift configuration for large commercial transport aircraft[J]. Journal of Aerodynamics, 2021, 39(1): 52-58 (in Chinese).
[24]	周志宏, 易贤, 桂业伟, 等. 水滴撞击特性的高效计算方法[J]. 空气动力学学报, 2014, 32(5): 712-716. doi: 10.7638/kqdlxxb-2012.0179 ZHOU Z H, YI X, GUI Y W, et al. Efficient method for calculating droplet impact characteristics[J]. Journal of Aerodynamics, 2014, 32(5): 712-716(in Chinese). doi: 10.7638/kqdlxxb-2012.0179
[25]	POTAPCZUK M G, TSAO J C, KING-STEEN L C. Bimodal SLD ice accretion on a NACA 0012 airfoil model[C]//9th AIAA Atmospheric and Space Environments Conference. Reston: AIAA, 2017: 4478.
[26]	SUN F, HAN S, QIAN G, et al. A novel multi-objective optimization model for minute-in-trail strategy based on sector workload restriction[C]//2015 3rd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Modelling and Simulation (AIMS). Piscataway: IEEE Press, 2015: 65-70.
[27]	HSIANG L P, FAETH G M. Drop deformation and breakup due to shock wave and steady disturbances[J]. International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 1995, 21(4): 545-560. doi: 10.1016/0301-9322(94)00095-2
[28]	OZCER I, SWITCHENKO D, BARUZZI G S, et al. Multi-shot icing simulations with automatic re-meshing: No. 2019-01-1956[R]. Montreal: SAE Technical Paper, 2019: 956-972.
[29]	FOULADI H, ALIAGA C N, HABASHI W G. Quasi-unsteady icing simulation of an oscillating airfoil[C]//7th AIAA Atmospheric and Space Environments Conference. Reston: AIAA, 2015: 3020.
[30]	WRIGHT W, CHUNG J. Correlation between geometric similarity of ice shapes and the resulting aerodynamic performance degradation-A preliminary investigation using WIND[C]//38th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. Reston: AIAA , 2000: 97.
[31]	BRAGG M, BROEREN A, ADDY H, et al. Airfoil ice-accretion aerodynamic simulation[C]//45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. Reston: AIAA, 2007: 85.