Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Supercooled Large Drops (SLD)”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

20 records · Page 2

Further Refinement of the LEWICE SLD Model

A research project is underway at NASA Glenn Research Center to produce computer software that can accurately predict ice growth for any meteorological conditions for any aircraft surface. This report will present results from version 3.2 of this software, which is called LEWICE. This version differs from previous releases in that it incorporates additional thermal analysis capabilities, a pneumatic boot model, interfaces to external computational fluid dynamics (CFD) flow solvers and has an empirical model for the supercooled large droplet (SLD) regime. An extensive comparison against the database of ice shapes and collection efficiencies that have been generated in the NASA Glenn Icing Research Tunnel (IRT) has also been performed. The complete set of data used for this comparison will eventually be available in a contractor report. This paper will show the differences in collection efficiency and ice shape between LEWICE 3.2 and experimental data. This report will first describe the LEWICE 3.2 SLD model. A semi-empirical approach was used to incorporate first order physical effects of large droplet phenomena into icing software. Comparisons are then made to every two-dimensional case in the water collection database and the ice shape database. Each collection efficiency condition was run using the following four assumptions: 1) potential flow, no splashing; 2) potential flow, with splashing; 3) Navior-Stokes, no splashing; 4) Navi r-Stokes, with splashing. All cases were run with 21 bin drop size distributions and a lift correction (angle of attack adjustment). Quantitative comparisons are shown for impingement limit, maximum water catch, and total collection efficiency. Due to the large number of ice shape cases, comprehensive comparisons were limited to potential flow cases with and without splashing. Quantitative comparisons are shown for horn height, horn angle, icing limit, area, and leading edge thickness. The results show that the predicted results for both ice shape and water collection are within the accuracy limits of the experimental data for the majority of cases.

Wright, William B.↗

Validation Results for LEWICE 3.0

A research project is underway at NASA Glenn to produce computer software that can accurately predict ice growth under any meteorological conditions for any aircraft surface. This report will present results from version 3.0 of this software, which is called LEWICE. This version differs from previous releases in that it incorporates additional thermal analysis capabilities, a pneumatic boot model, interfaces to computational fluid dynamics (CFD) flow solvers and has an empirical model for the supercooled large droplet (SLD) regime. An extensive comparison of the results in a quantifiable manner against the database of ice shapes and collection efficiency that have been generated in the NASA Glenn Icing Research Tunnel (IRT) has also been performed. The complete set of data used for this comparison will eventually be available in a contractor report. This paper will show the differences in collection efficiency between LEWICE 3.0 and experimental data. Due to the large amount of validation data available, a separate report is planned for ice shape comparison. This report will first describe the LEWICE 3.0 model for water collection. A semi-empirical approach was used to incorporate first order physical effects of large droplet phenomena into icing software. Comparisons are then made to every single element two-dimensional case in the water collection database. Each condition was run using the following five assumptions: 1) potential flow, no splashing; 2) potential flow, no splashing with 21 bin drop size distributions and a lift correction (angle of attack adjustment); 3) potential flow, with splashing; 4) Navier-Stokes, no splashing; and 5) Navier-Stokes, with splashing. Quantitative comparisons are shown for impingement limit, maximum water catch, and total collection efficiency. The results show that the predicted results are within the accuracy limits of the experimental data for the majority of cases.

Wright, William B.↗