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

Mariachiara Gallia; Alessandro Carnemolla; Marco Premazzi; Alberto Guardone

doi:10.2478/tar-2023-0004

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

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: Mariachiara Gallia, Alessandro Carnemolla, Marco Premazzi and Alberto Guardone

Open Access

|Mar 2023

Figures & Tables

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

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

Schematic view of the heater layers [11].

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

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_

Constraint	Description	Penalty ice	Penalty temp.
m˙ice′′=0	No ice	2.26⋅107∑j=1Nm˙iceinb(sj)	-
T ε [T_min, T_max]	Temp.	-	2.26⋅107\|1−Tsurf (sj)Tmin/max\|
m˙ice′′=0T≤Tmax	No ice & temp.	4.52⋅107∑j=1Nm˙iceinb(sj)	1⋅105∑j=rR\|1−Tsurf (sj)Tmax\|
B ≤ B_maxT ≤ T_max	Ice & 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)	Thermopneumatic	ETIPS (no ice)	ETIPS (temp)	ETIPS (no ice/temp)	ETIPS (ice/temp)
Lip surf. (m2)	0.14	0.19	0.19	0.19	0.19
q˙IPS′′(kW/m2)	10	13.02	6.53	13.60	5.97
q˙IPS( kW)	1.4	2.47	1.24	2.58	1.13

Heating element layers with material properties [4]_

Material	k[WmK]	ρ[Kgm3]	cp[JKgK]
Heating element (Alloy 90)	41.02	8,906.26	385.19
Erosion shield (SS 301 HH)	16.27	8,025.25	502.42
Elastomer (Cox 4300)	0.256	1,384	1,256.04 ± 125.6
Fibreglass/epoxy composite	0.294	1,794.07	1,570.05
Silicone foam insulation	0.121	648.25	1,130.44 ± 125

Best design for each constraint_

Constraint	Pminlspan [W/m]	mice,inblspan [g/m]	mice,outlspan[g/m]	Tmax [K]	Tmin [K]	GA
No ice	3305.65	0	320.77	326.11	266.75	CM-GA
Temp.	1657.74	328.29	306.50	287.57	280.18	C-GA
No ice & temp.	3452.95	0	316.59	325.05	275.74	M-GA
Ice & temp.	1517.02	323.72	319.57	294.14	273.21	CM-GA

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

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: ŁUKASIEWICZ RESEARCH NETWORK – INSTITUTE OF AVIATION

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

Keywords:

in-flight icing,

ice protection systems,

Related subjects:

Introductions and overviews,

Materials sciences, other,

Physics,

Physics, other

© 2023 Mariachiara Gallia, Alessandro Carnemolla, Marco Premazzi, Alberto Guardone, published by ŁUKASIEWICZ RESEARCH NETWORK – INSTITUTE OF AVIATION
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Volume 2023 (2023): Issue 1 (March 2023)

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

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Penalty for each constraint_

IWT parameters used for the design of the IPS_

Power consumption comparison_

Heating element layers with material properties [4]_

Best design for each constraint_

Paradigm

My account