Have a personal or library account? Click to login

Optimisation of a Nacelle Electro-Thermal Ice Protection System for Icing Wind Tunnel Testing

Transactions on Aerospace Research
Volume 2023 (2023): Issue 1 (March 2023)
By:
Open Access
|Mar 2023

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Contributions to energy conservation in a finite volume [16].
Contributions to energy conservation in a finite volume [16].

Figure 2.

Schematic representation of the ETIPS of the nacelle. ETIPS, electro-thermal ice protection systems.
Schematic representation of the ETIPS of the nacelle. ETIPS, electro-thermal ice protection systems.

Figure 3.

Schematic view of the heater layers [11].
Schematic view of the heater layers [11].

Figure 4.

Convergence history over the number of generations for no ice constraint runs.
Convergence history over the number of generations for no ice constraint runs.

Figure 5.

Result comparison for the best designs for each constraint. (a) runback water; (b) heat fluxes; (c) ice accretion rate; (d) surface temperature. s/c < 0 represents the outboard, s/c > 0 the inboard.
Result comparison for the best designs for each constraint. (a) runback water; (b) heat fluxes; (c) ice accretion rate; (d) surface temperature. s/c < 0 represents the outboard, s/c > 0 the inboard.

Penalty for each constraint_

ConstraintDescriptionPenalty icePenalty temp.
m˙ice′′=0No ice2.26⋅107∑j=1Nm˙iceinb(sj)-
T ε [Tmin, Tmax]Temp.-2.26⋅107|1−Tsurf (sj)Tmin/max|
m˙ice′′=0T≤TmaxNo ice & temp.4.52⋅107∑j=1Nm˙iceinb(sj)1⋅105∑j=rR|1−Tsurf (sj)Tmax|
B ≤ BmaxT ≤ TmaxIce & temp.4.52⋅107| ∑j=1Nm˙iceinb(sj)Δtlspan ρiceab−Bmax |1⋅105∑j=rR|1−Tsurf(sj)Tmax|

IWT parameters used for the design of the IPS_

IWT parameters
α [°]1.70
u∞[ms]67.48
T∞[K]259.95
ρ[Kgm3]1.2886
P∞[Pa]101,325
MVD [μm]28.0
LWC[gm3]0.583
Δt[s]594

Power consumption comparison_

IPS (constraint)ThermopneumaticETIPS (no ice)ETIPS (temp)ETIPS (no ice/temp)ETIPS (ice/temp)
Lip surf. (m2)0.140.190.190.190.19
q˙IPS′′(kW/m2)1013.026.5313.605.97
q˙IPS( kW)1.42.471.242.581.13

Heating element layers with material properties [4]_

Materialk[WmK]ρ[Kgm3]cp[JKgK]
Heating element (Alloy 90)41.028,906.26385.19
Erosion shield (SS 301 HH)16.278,025.25502.42
Elastomer (Cox 4300)0.2561,3841,256.04 ± 125.6
Fibreglass/epoxy composite0.2941,794.071,570.05
Silicone foam insulation0.121648.251,130.44 ± 125

Best design for each constraint_

ConstraintPminlspan [W/m]mice,inblspan [g/m]mice,outlspan[g/m]Tmax [K]Tmin [K]GA
No ice3305.650320.77326.11266.75CM-GA
Temp.1657.74328.29306.50287.57280.18C-GA
No ice & temp.3452.950316.59325.05275.74M-GA
Ice & temp.1517.02323.72319.57294.14273.21CM-GA
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/tar-2023-0004 | Journal eISSN: 2545-2835
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 32 - 44
Submitted on: Apr 11, 2022
Accepted on: Dec 12, 2022
Published on: Mar 17, 2023
Published by: Sciendo
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 times per year
Keywords:
in-flight icing,
ice protection systems,
optimisation,
genetic algorithms,
nacelle
Related subjects:
Engineering,
Introductions and overviews,
Engineering, other,
Geosciences,
Geosciences, other,
Materials sciences,
Materials sciences, other,
Physics,
Physics, other

© 2023 Mariachiara Gallia, Alessandro Carnemolla, Marco Premazzi, Alberto Guardone, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 2023 (2023): Issue 1 (March 2023)Next article