2 FlightMechanics

Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, J une 13-14, 2000
2-1
Aerodynamics and Flight Mechanics
Principal Investigators: Mike Bragg
Eric Loth
Graduate Students: Holly Gurbacki (CRI support)
Tim Hutchison
Devesh Pokhariyal (CRI support)
Ryan Oltman (Frasca)
Jason Merrett
Satish Kumar (FAA)
Jianping Pan
2-2
SMART ICING SYSTEMS
Research Organization
Core Technologies
Flight Simulation
Demonstration
Flight
Mechanics
Controls and
Sensor
Integration
Human
Factors
Aircraft
Icing
Technology
Operate and
Monitor IPS
Envelope
Protection
Adaptive
Control
Characterize
Icing Effects
IMS Functions
Safety and Economics
Trade Study
Aerodynamics
and
Propulsion
2-3
Aerodynamics and Flight Mechanics
Goal: Improve the safety of aircraft in icing conditions.
Objective: 1) Develop steady state icing characterization
methods and identify aerodynamic sensors.
2) Develop linear and nonlinear iced aircraft
models.
3) Identify envelope protection needs and
methods.
Approach: First use Twin Otter and tunnel data to develop
a linear clean and iced model. Then develop a
nonlinear model with tunnel and CFD data. Use
the models to develop characterization and
envelope protection.
2-4
THE AERODYNAMICS AND
FLIGHT MECHANICS GROUP
Wind Tunnel
Data
Iced
Aerodynamics
Model
Computational
Fluid
Dynamics
Iced Aircraft
Model
Clean Aircraft
Model
Aircraft - Flight
Mechanics
Analysis
Steady State
Characterization
Flight Mechanics Model
Devesh Pokhariyal
Tim Hutchison
Jason Merret, Ryan Oltman
Satish Kumar, Jianping Pan
Characterization
Flight Simulation
Envelope Protection
Smart Icing System Research
Holly Gurbacki
Aerodynamic
Sensors
2-5
Outline
Development of the Iced Aircraft Model
Steady State Characterization
Hinge-Moment Aerodynamic Sensor
CFD Analysis
Atmospheric Disturbances
Conclusions and Future Plans
2-6
Wind Tunnel
Data
Iced
Aerodynamics
Model
Computational
Fluid
Dynamics
Iced Aircraft
Model
Clean Aircraft
Model
Aircraft - Flight
Mechanics
Analysis
Steady State
Characterization
Devesh Pokhariyal
Tim Hutchison
Characterization
Flight Simulation
Envelope Protection
Holly Gurbacki
Aerodynamic
Sensors
2-7
Outline
Icing effects model

ice
and formulations
variations with environmental variables
Neural network approach
Performance of neural network predictions
Conclusions and future work
2-8
Icing Effects Model
To devise a simple, but physically representative, model
of the effect of ice on aircraft flight mechanics for use in
the characterization and simulation required for the
Smart Icing System development research.
Objective:
2-9
Icing Effects Model
= arbitrary stability and control derivative
(C
L
, C
me
, etc.)
= icing severity parameter
= coefficient icing factor
) A (
C
ice
A
C
k
) A ( C ice iced ) A (
C ) k 1 ( C
A
+ =
) conditions icing ., config and geometry aircraft , IPS ( f k
) A ( C
A
=

2-10

ice
Formulation
C
d
fit as a function of n and A
c
E
C
d
data obtained from NASA TMs 83556 and 105374,
and NACA TNs 4151 and 4155
n = freezing fraction
A
c
= accumulation parameter
E = collection efficiency
C
dref
calculated from C
d
equation using continuous
maximum conditions
( )
( ) min 10 t , conditions . max . cont , data airfoil IRT C
data airfoil IRT C
ref
d
d
ice
=
=
2-11

ice
Reference Value
To nondimensionalize the C
d
equation, a reference
condition was chosen based on FAA Appendix C
Maximum Continuous conditions.
NACA 0012 c = 3 ft.
MVD = 20 m V

= 175 knots
LWC = 0.65 g/m
3
t = 10 min
T
0
= 25 F
These conditions yielded a C
d
= 0.0239 at
ice
=1
2-12

ice
Equation (v3.1)
( ) ) n ( g E A Z
c 1 ice
=
For t 600s:
For t >600s:
( ) ) s 600 ( e 1 Z
ice
t Z
2 ice
3
+ =
g(n) is a function of n that varies between 0 and 1,
and has its maximum at n=0.2
Z
2
= f(maximum
ice
,
ice
at 600s)
Z
3
= f(Z
2
, slope of
ice
at 600s)
ice
(600s) = value of
ice
at 600s
Z
1
=183.339
2-13
0.00
0.13
0.25
0.38
0.50
0.63
0.75
0.88
1.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
n
i
c
e
AcE=.002
AcE=.003
AcE=.004
AcE=.005
Cont. Max. Case
Variation with n and A
c
E
Glaze Ice Rime Ice
2-14

ice
Variation with A
c
E and n
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
0.0000 0.0010 0.0020 0.0030 0.0040 0.0050
A
c
E

i
c
e
n=0.1
n=0.2
n=0.4
n=0.6
n=1
2-15
Formulation
To capture effects of aircraft geometry, the aircraft
specific icing severity factor, , was developed
The aircraft specific icing severity factor
incorporates the aircraft specific airfoil, chord, and
angle of attack
) A ( C ice iced ) A (
C ) k 1 ( C
A
+ =
A A
C
ice
C
k k

2-16
Differences Between and
ice
ice

Chord 3 ft. Actual
Airfoil NACA 0012 Actual
Velocity 175 knots Actual
Angle of Attack 0 Actual
MVD Actual Actual
LWC Actual Actual
T
Actual Actual
Time of encounter Actual Actual
2-17
Effect of LWC and T on
Twin Otter
V130 kts
MVD=20 m
h=9000 ft
Time=600 s
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
LWC (g/m3)
T=0F
T=10F
T=20F
T=25F
T=29F
2-18
Effect of T and LWC on
Twin Otter
V130 kts
MVD=20 m
h=9000 ft
Time=600 s
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
-10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
T (F)
LWC=0.2
LWC=0.65
LWC=1.0
2-19
Effect of MVD and T on
Twin Otter
V130 kts
LWC=0.65 g/m
3
h=9000 ft
Time=600 s 0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0
MVD (microns)
T=0F
T=10F
T=20F
T=25F
T=29F
2-20
k
CA
Definitions
Equations: (using performance data from Twin Otter flight tests)
) k 1 ( ) C ( ) C (
ice C A A
A clean ice
+ =
1
) C (
) C (
k
clean
ice
A
A
A
ice C
=
2
L 0 D D
KC C C + =
2-21
Neural Network Approach
Proposed Neural Network approach to icing characterization:
Environmental Variables: T, LWC, MVD, etc
Ice Shape Neural Net
Ice Shape: horn height, horn location, etc
2-D Aerodynamic Performance
3-D Aerodynamic Performance, Stability and Control
2-D Aerodynamic Neural Net
3-D Aerodynamic Neural Net
2-22
Neural Networks
Based on the structure of the human brain, with
multiple neurons and synapses
Each neuron multiplies its inputs by synaptic
weights to achieve an output
Very good at handling and fitting data that have
complex, nonlinear correlations
Must be trained with a set of known data
For the SIS Project, the Matlab Neural Net
Toolbox has been used
2-23
Neural Network Architecture
Angle of attack
Horn location
Sample neuron: Y= f( W
i
x
i
) with x
i
= inputs to neuron
W
i
are trained with known data (f refers to a sigmoidal
function)
Y = output of a neuron
Output
Layer
Hidden
Layer 2
Hidden
Layer 1
Input
Layer
Horn height
Horn LE radius
C
l
C
d
C
h
C
m
Simple neural net example
(actual neural net uses 5 layers of 8 nodes each)
2-24
Training Data
This neural net was trained using data collected
by Kim and Bragg, which is presented in AIAA 99-
3150
This data examines three ice horn heights and
three leading edge radii at six different locations
The collected data includes C
l
, C
d
, C
m
and C
h
for
the NLF(1)-0414 airfoil
2-25
Training Data (cont.)
3.4%
1.7%
0.85%
0.0%
-0.75%
-1.5%
s/c
locations
2-26
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
-20.0 -15.0 -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Angle of Attack []
C
d
Clean (Exp.) Clean (N.N.)
k/c=2.22% (Exp.) k/c=2.22% (N.N.)
k/c=4.44% (Exp.) k/c=4.44% (N.N.)
k/c=6.67% (Exp.) k/c=6.67% (N.N.)
Prediction of C
d
8 nodes
5 layers
Re=1.8x10
6
s/c=3.4%
r/w=0.0
2-27
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
-20.0 -15.0 -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Angle of Attack []
C
l
Clean (Exp.)
Clean (N.N.)
k/c=2.22% (Exp.)
k/c=2.22% (N.N.)
k/c=4.44% (Exp.)
k/c=4.44% (N.N.)
k/c=6.67% (Exp.)
k/c=6.67% (N.N.)
Prediction of C
l
8 nodes
5 layers
Re=1.8x10
6
s/c=3.4%
r/w=0.0
2-28
-0.12
-0.1
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
-20.0 -15.0 -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Angle of Attack []
C
m
Clean (Exp.) Clean (N.N.)
k/c=2.22% (Exp.) k/c=2.22% (N.N.)
k/c=4.44% (Exp.) k/c=4.44% (N.N.)
k/c=6.67% (Exp.) k/c=6.67% (N.N.)
Prediction of C
m
8 nodes
5 layers
Re=1.8x10
6
s/c=3.4%
r/w=0.0
2-29
-0.30
-0.25
-0.20
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
-20.0 -15.0 -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Angle of Attack []
C
h
Clean (Exp.)
Clean (N.N.)
k/c=2.22% (Exp.)
k/c=2.22% (N.N.)
k/c=4.44% (Exp.)
k/c=4.44% (N.N.)
k/c=6.67% (Exp.)
k/c=6.67% (N.N.)
Prediction of C
h
8 nodes
5 layers
Re=1.8x10
6
s/c=3.4%
r/w=0.0
2-30
Conclusions
Linear icing effects model,
ice
, is almost
finalized
Initial results from neural net analysis
for prediction of 2-D flight performance
parameters are promising
2-31
Future Research
Develop neural nets for prediction of 2-D
aerodynamic coefficients based on a larger data
set
Continue exploration of neural nets for prediction
of ice shape characteristics
Develop improved methods for converting 2-D to
3-D aircraft derivatives
2-32
Wind Tunnel
Data
Iced
Aerodynamics
Model
Computational
Fluid
Dynamics
Iced Aircraft
Model
Clean Aircraft
Model
Aircraft - Flight
Mechanics
Analysis
Steady State
Characterization
Devesh Pokhariyal
Tim Hutchison
Characterization
Flight Simulation
Envelope Protection
Holly Gurbacki
Aerodynamic
Sensors
2-33
Outline
NSU2D predictions with upper-surface ice -
shapes (to establish the effects of location,
size, flap deflection, Re, and airfoil shape)
WIND predictions for leading-edge ice-
shapes (for similar goals to allow 3-D
effects)
Detached Eddy Simulation development with
WIND to increase separated flow predictive
performance for C
L,max
and allow unsteady
hinge moment prediction
2-34
NSU2D
Mavriplis D. (ICASE Jan 91)
Spalart-Allmaras 1-Eq.
Turbulence Model with
transition specification
Unstructured Solution-
Adaptive Triangular Element
Grid
Steady state convergence
accelerated by employing
local-time stepping, residual
smoothing, and algebraic
multigrid algorithm (AMG)
Original mesh
Adapted mesh
2-35
Velocity Contours
NACA
23012m
0.15 Quarter
Round at
x/c=0.10
B.L. tripped
Re=1.8x10
6
=
+
2
=
-
2
=
+
6

2-36
Effect of SLD Ice-Shape Location
NACA 23012m, Ice-shape size of k/c=0.0083,
B.L. Tripped, Re=1.8x10
6
HINGE MOMENT
LIFT
2-37
C
p
NSU2D
NACA
23012m
Ice-shape
size of
k/c=0.0083
=3
B.L. Tripped
Re=1.8x10
6
2-38
C
l
for Fully Separated Flow
Ice-shape size of k/c=0.0083,B.L. Tripped; Re=1.8x10
6
Expt. Clean C
l,max
NSU2D Clean Fully separated
C
l
Expt. Ice-Shape C
l,max
NSU2D Ice-Shape Fully separated
C
l
NACA 23012m
NLF 0414
2-39
Leading Edge Ice Shapes
WIND RANS (Ver. 3.0)
NPARC Alliance (AIAA paper 98-0935)
Same turbulence model used as NSU2D
To be compatible with NASA GLENN
To Allow Efficient 3-D Simulations
To Allow DES
GRIDGEN (Ver. 13.4)
Pointwise Inc.
2-40
Iced NLF-0414 Airfoil
s
k
c
2.22% 3.4% 6
4.44% 3.4% 5
6.67% 3.4% 4
2.22% 0 3
4.44% 0 2
6.67% 0 1
k/c s/c Case
2-41
Iced NLF-0414 Airfoil : C
l
, C
d
s/c=0%, k/c=6.67%
Re=1.8 X 10
6
, Ma=0.185
2-42
l
, C
d
s/c=0%, k/c=4.44%
Re=1.8 X 10
6
, Ma=0.185
2-43
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
C
l
k/c=6.67% (Exp.) k/c=6.67% (N.N. trained on CFD)
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
C
d
Neural Net Simulations
s/c=0%, Re=1.8 X 10
6
, Ma=0.185

2-44
l
, C
d
s/c=3.4%, k/c=6.67%
Re=1.8 X 10
6
, Ma=0.185
2-45
Iced NLF-0414 airfoil : C
l,max
Re=1.8 X 10
6
, Ma=0.185
2-46
Need for DES
RANS does not give robust solution to massively
separated flow and this may prevent accurate
prediction of C
l,max
(especially for iced airfoils)
Solution: Employ eddy-capturing scheme to
handle large-separation regions
Possible Choices:
LES (Large Eddy Simulation) uses subgrid filter to
capture large scales
DNS (Direct Numerical Simulation) resolves all scales
DES (Detached Eddy Simulation) allows LES in free
shear regions and RANS in attached flow
2-47
Approximate CPU time (cycles x N)
1.E+09
1.E+12
1.E+15
1.E+18
1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Re
L
3D-RANS
LES
DNS
DES
C
P
U
2-48
Detached Eddy Simulation
Allows RANS description in the
boundary layers and LES description for
massively separated regions
Can be formulated on S-A model with d
(distance from the wall) replaced by
Has only one adjustable constant C
DES

d

d
min( d, C
DES
)
max(x, y, z)
(Spalart et. al. 1999)
2-49
Geometry of the Grid for the Backstep
Viscous Wall B.C.
Inviscid wall
Outflow
H
9
H
105 H 30 H
Inflow
2-50
Backstep Instantaneous Vorticity
RANS LES
C
DES
=1.0, t=0.00125 H/Uinf, After 8000 cycles
WIND-DES
2-51
Grid Resolution Study: Sample plot
X
R
/X
R
=0.07, X
o
/ = 0.05
WIND-DES
2-52
Conclusions
NSU2D reasonably predicts the trends of all the
aerodynamic forces and moments for upper
surface icing on NACA 23012m and NLF 0414
(but C
l,max
not robust)
WIND-RANS predictions agree reasonably well
with experimental results for leading-edge icing
for NLF 0414
WIND-DES has been developed and captures
the coherent structures in the free shear layer
for backstep flow
2-53
Future Work
Apply WIND-RANS to 2D ice-shapes on other
airfoils (in particular the Twin Otter wing and
tailplane) for the 2D aerodynamic net database
Extend WIND-RANS to 3D iced wings for the
3D aerodynamic net database
Apply WIND-DES to iced airfoils and wings to
allow improved C
l,max
and predict unsteady
hinge moments
(Far term) Apply WIND-DES to simultaneously
model wing and tail with unsteady ice accretion
2-54
Wind Tunnel
Data
Iced
Aerodynamics
Model
Computational
Fluid
Dynamics
Iced Aircraft
Model
Clean Aircraft
Model
Aircraft - Flight
Mechanics
Analysis
Steady State
Characterization
Devesh Pokhariyal
Tim Hutchison
Characterization
Flight Simulation
Envelope Protection
Holly Gurbacki
Aerodynamic
Sensors
2-55
Outline
Introduction
Flight Mechanics Models and Icing Effects
FDC code and modifications to the code
Effect of Ice on Aircraft Flight Mechanics
Cruise and hold in constant power flight
Turbulence, sensor noise and filters
Icing on selected aircraft components
Neural Network training data
Conclusions
2-56
Twin Otter Model
Twin Otter Aircraft Characteristics
Parameter Value Units
Wing Area 39.02 m2
Wing Span 19.81 m
Aspect Ratio 10
Mean Aerodynamic Chord 1.981 m
Mass 4150 kg
Moments of Inertia: Ixx, Iyy, Izz, Ixz 21279, 30000,44986, 1432 kg.m2
Flap Deflection 0 deg
2-57
Stability and Control Model
Model is derived primarily from flight dynamics data
in AIAA report 86-9758, AIAA report 89-0754 and
AIAA 93-0754
Icing scaled using parameter ( = 0.0675, /
ice
= 0.79)
Non-dimensional derivatives:
C
Y
C
Yp
C
Yr
C
Y r
C
l
C
lp
C
lr
C
l a
C
l r
C
n
C
np
C
nr
C
n r
C
n a
clean -0.6 -0.2 0.4 0.15 -0.08 -0.5 0.06 -0.15 0.015 0.1 -0.06 -0.18 -0.12 -0.001
iced -0.48 -0.2 0.4 0.138 -0.072 -0.45 0.06 -0.135 0.0138 0.08 -0.06 -0.169 -0.11 -0.001
C
Z0
C
Z
C
Zq
C
Ze
C
X0 K
C
m0
C
m
C
mq
C
me
clean 0.360 -5.660 -19.970 -0.608 0.041 0.052 0.400 -1.310 -34.200 -1.740
wing_ice 0.360 -5.342 -19.700 -0.594 0.050 0.053 0.400 -1.285 -33.000 -1.709
tail_ice 0.360 -5.520 -19.700 -0.565 0.046 0.053 0.400 -1.263 -33.000 -1.593
all iced 0.360 -5.094 -19.700 -0.550 0.062 0.057 0.400 -1.180 -33.000 -1.566
2-58
Flight Dynamics Code 1.3
FDC 1.3 is a free source code by Marc Rauw (based in the
Netherlands: http://home-2.worldonline.nl/~rauw/)
Code developed using MATLAB and SIMULINK
6 DoF equations, 12 nonlinear ODEs
Autopilot/open loop simulations
Atmospheric turbulence model
Code modifications:
Nonlinear derivatives represented using AOA look-up tables
Changes in derivatives due to ice accretion simulated as a
function of time
Incorporated sensor noise
Included hinge moment models
Flight Dynamics and Control Toolbox
2-59
Open Loop Analysis Tool for Nonlinear Twin Otter Model
2-60
Closed Loop Analysis Tool for Nonlinear Twin Otter Model
outputs
2-61
FDC Validation
The FDC Code is validated by comparing the
response of a doublet to published NASA
data (AIAA 99-0636) for the Twin Otter
aircraft
The validation results are published in AIAA
2000-0360
The response of other Twin Otter models to
the elevator doublet are also observed
2-62
Elevator Doublet Input
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
TI P Fl i ght p5220
Current Steady-State
Mi l l er and Ri bbens
1 8
DATCOM
e

(
d
e
g
)
Ti me ( s)
Twin Otter
V
0
=111 kts
h=5620 ft
2-63
Twin Otter Response to Elevator Doublet
5610
5620
5630
5640
5650
5660
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
TI P Fl i ght p5220
Cur r ent St eady- St at e
Mi l l er and Ri bbens
1 8
DATCOM
A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e

(
f
t
)
Ti me ( s)
Twin Otter
V
0
=111 kts
h=5620 ft
2-64
Atmospheric Turbulence and Noise
The turbulence model used in the FDC 1.3 steady state
analysis is based on the Dryden spectral density
distribution
Turbulence intensity can be varied and are
characterized by the effect on the aircraft z-acceleration
Sensor noise magnitudes are twice the uncertainty
values given in AIAA 93-0398 and are modeled as
band limited white Gaussian distributions
The effects of turbulence provide an overlap between
the quasi-steady characterization and the dynamic
characterization
2-65
Effects of Filtering
Filters are applied to data obtained from the constant
power cruise flight conditions, in the clean and iced
configurations. The initial trim values for the Twin
Otter are:
V = 160 kts
h = 9000 ft
A/C RMS z-acceleration = 0.15g
The data, sampled at variable time steps, is post-
filtered using low-pass Butterworth filters
2-66
120
130
140
150
160
170
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Turbulence and Sensor Noise
Filtered Turbulence and Sensor Noise
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
k
t
s
)
Time (s)
Effects of Filtering, V
Twin Otter
Const. Alt.
Const. Power
V
0
= 160 kts
h=9000 ft
ice
= 0 to 0.5
Filter:
2
nd
order low
pass Butterworth
f
cutoff
=0.17 Hz
2-67
Performance in Holding Turn and Cruise
A holding pattern is represented by a standard-rate
turn and cruise flight at constant power.
Initial trim conditions for the standard-rate turn and
cruise case in clean and iced configuration:
V = 136 kts
h = 6560 ft
Standard 2 minute turn rate.
2-68
Performance in Holding Turn and Cruise, V
Twin Otter
Const.
Power
Const. Alt.
V
0
=136 kts
h=6560 ft
= 0 to 0.5
Holding turn:
3/s turn
120
125
130
135
140
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Cruise, No Ice
Cruise, Ice
Turn, No Ice
Turn, Ice
V

(
k
t
s
)
Time (s)
2-69
Holding Turn and Cruise,
Twin Otter
Const.
Power
Const. Alt.
V
0
=136 kts
h=6560 ft
= 0 to 0.5
Holding turn:
3/s turn
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Cruise, No Ice
Cruise, Ice
Turn, No Ice
Turn, Ice

(
d
e
g
)
Time (s)
2-70
e
Twin Otter
Const.
Power
Const. Alt.
V
0
=136 kts
h=6560 ft
= 0 to 0.5
Holding turn:
3/s turn
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Cruise, No Ice
Cruise, Ice
Turn, No Ice
Turn, Ice
e

(
d
e
g
)
Time (s)
2-71
a
Twin Otter
Const.
Power
Const. Alt.
V
0
=136 kts
h=6560 ft
= 0 to 0.5
Holding turn:
3/s turn
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Cruise, No Ice
Cruise, Ice
Turn, No Ice
Turn, Ice
a
(
d
e
g
)
Time (s)
2-72
r
Twin Otter
Const.
Power
Const. Alt.
V
0
=136 kts
h=6560 ft
= 0 to 0.5
Holding turn:
3/s turn
-0.8
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Cruise, No Ice
Cruise, Ice
Turn, No Ice
Turn, Ice
r
(
d
e
g
)
Time (s)
2-73
Hinge Moment Models
Models are used in simulations to study the
potential use of hinge moment sensors as
aerodynamic performance monitors
C
h
and C
h_rms
capture the effects of icing on the
flow field over the airfoil surface.
C
h_rms
is the RMS of the unsteady hinge moment,
which is a measure of flow field separation due to
ice accretion
Models based on hinge moment measurements
taken at UIUC on a NACA 23012 airfoil with
quarter round ice-shapes (AIAA 99-3149)
2-74
Hinge Moment Models
Models are based on limited experimental
hinge moment data.
C
h
and C
h_rms
models are a functions of angle
of attack, elevator deflection and icing
parameter,
Hinge moment models do not include the
effect of control surface mass.
2-75
C
h
model
-0.4
-0.35
-0.3
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Angle of attack, deg
C
h
= 0 = 0
=0.14 =0.14
=0.2 =0.2
=0.1 =0.1
2-76
C
h_rms
model
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Angle of Attack, deg
C
h
r
m
s
= 0 = 0
=0.07 =0.07
=0.14 =0.14
=0.2 =0.2
2-77
Ice Location Effects
Ice accretion on different aircraft locations was
considered:
Tail ice
Wing ice
A constant power, constant altitude scenario,
maintained by the autopilot, was considered
V = 155 kts
h = 7550 ft
2-78
Effect of Ice Location on
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (sec.)
A
n
g
l
e

o
f

A
t
t
a
c
k

(
d
e
g
.
)
Wing Iced
Tail Iced

ice
= 0.0

ice
= 1.1
2-79
Effect of Ice Location on V
135
140
145
150
155
160
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (sec.)
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
k
n
o
t
s
)
Wing Iced
Tail Iced

ice
= 0.0
ice
= 1.1
2-80
Effect of Ice Location on
E
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (sec.)
E
l
e
v
a
t
o
r

D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
d
e
g
.
)
Wing Iced
Tail Iced

ice
= 0.0

ice
= 1.1
2-81
Effect of Ice Location on Thrust
1320
1340
1360
1380
1400
1420
1440
1460
1480
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (sec.)
T
h
r
u
s
t

(
l
b
f
)
Wing Iced
Tail Iced

ice
= 1.1

ice
= 0.0
2-82
Determining Ice Location
An analysis of the aerodynamic outputs
shows the difficulty in determining the
location of ice the tail ice encounter
resembles a less severe all aircraft icing
encounter
The increase in drag due to ice accretion
dominate the aerodynamic outputs in both tail
and all aircraft iced cases
2-83
Hinge Moment Sensors
The wing and tail hinge moments are calculated
for the aileron and elevator deflections
respectively
The values used for the tail is based on the
Twin Otter horizontal tail chord length of 4.75 ft.
A linearized relationship between the wing and
tail icing severity parameter is used
A constant power, constant altitude scenario,
maintained by the autopilot, was considered
V = 155 kts
h = 7550 ft
2-84
Effect of Ice Location on Wing C
h
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (sec.)
W
i
n
g

H
i
n
g
e

M
o
m
e
n
t

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
Aileron Iced
Elevator Iced

ice
= 1.1

ice
= 0.0
2-85
Effect of Ice Location on Tail C
h
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (sec.)
T
a
i
l

H
i
n
g
e

M
o
m
e
n
t

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
Aileron Iced
Elevator Iced

ice
= 0.0

ice
= 1.1
2-86
Effect of Ice Location on Wing C
h_rms
0.003
0.0035
0.004
0.0045
0.005
0.0055
0.006
0.0065
0.007
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (sec.)
R
M
S

W
i
n
g

H
i
n
g
e

M
o
m
e
n
t

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
Aileron Iced
Elevator Iced

ice
= 0.0

ice
= 1.1
2-87
Effect of Ice Location on Tail C
h_rms
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
0.016
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (sec.)
R
M
S

T
a
i
l

H
i
n
g
e

M
o
m
e
n
t

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
Aileron Iced
Elevator Iced

ice
= 1.1

ice
= 0.0
2-88
Hinge Moment for Varying Trimmed V
C
h
and C
h_rms
are calculated for the following
trim velocities:
V = 78 kts
V = 97 kts
V = 117 kts
V = 136 kts
V = 155 kts
All other conditions are held constant:
H = 6560 ft

ice
= 0.7112
2-89
Wing Ice Cases
Wing Ice Only
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
H
i
n
g
e

M
o
m
e
n
t
,

C
h
Elevator
Aileron
Elevator Clean
Aileron Clean
Wing Ice Only
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
R
M
S

H
i
n
g
e

M
o
m
e
n
t
,

C
h
r
m
s
Elevator
Aileron
Elevator Clean
Aileron Clean
2-90
Tail Ice Cases
Tail Ice Only
-0.18
-0.16
-0.14
-0.12
-0.1
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
H
i
n
g
e

M
o
m
e
n
t
,

C
h
Elevator
Aileron
Elevator Clean
Aileron Clean
Tail Ice Only
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
R
M
S

H
i
n
g
e

M
o
m
e
n
t
,

C
h
r
m
s
Elevator
Aileron
Elevator Clean
Aileron Clean
2-91
Icing Characteristic N-Net Input Data
FDC
Lat/Long.
Trim
Characterization
Dynamic
Parameter ID
Clean Trim
Characterization
Hinge
Moment
Measurements

Turbulence
Measurement
Noise
C
h
w
, C
h
t
Red Random Signals
Blue Neural Net Data
C
m e
, C
mq
,
C
n*
,
, e, C
d
,
C
d_dot
,
, e, C
d
,
, ,
E
C
h
w
_RMS
, C
h
t
_RMS
Expected Clean
Derivatives
Icing
Characterization
Neural
Network
2-92
Conclusion
Use of
ice
parameter provides a simple model to
determine iced aircraft data
Effect of ice on V, , and
e
for the constant power case
are significant, and could be used to characterize the
accretion
Effects of turbulence and sensor noise can be filtered.
Flight maneuvers increase the apparent effects of ice
and improve the potential for ice detection
The use of hinge-moment data to distinguish tail from
wing ice is encouraging
2-93
Future Research
Validate a fully nonlinear force and moment
model
Explore constant velocity and other scenarios
using FDC
Obtain hinge moment data for more airfoils and
ice-shapes including the Twin Otter airfoil
Examine envelope protection strategies
2-94
Wind Tunnel
Data
Iced
Aerodynamics
Model
Computational
Fluid
Dynamics
Iced Aircraft
Model
Clean Aircraft
Model
Aircraft - Flight
Mechanics
Analysis
Steady State
Characterization
Devesh Pokhariyal
Tim Hutchison
Characterization
Flight Simulation
Envelope Protection
Holly Gurbacki
Aerodynamic
Sensors
2-95
Introduction
Concerns about false alarms in the Smart Icing
System were raised at Reno 2000
Since the effects of windshear and other atmospheric
disturbances may be similar to icing, false alarms in
the Smart Icing System could possibly occur
The SIS should be able to distinguish quickly
between the icing and atmospheric disturbances so
appropriate recovery maneuvers can be executed
Preliminary analysis of the effects of microbursts will
determine if further research is required
2-96
Objectives
To devise a simple, but physically representative, model
of the effect of microbursts, gravity waves, and other
atmospheric disturbances on aircraft flight mechanics.
Then use this model to evaluate the effects on the SIS
system.
To evaluate concerns of possible false alarms of the
SIS due to atmospheric disturbances
Objective:
Motivation:
2-97
Microburst
Taken From Mulgund and Stengel, Journal of Aircraft, 1993
2-98
Microburst Model
Microburst model is from Oseguera and
Bowles, NASA TM 100632
Microbust Parameters are
U
max
: Maximum outflow (ft/s)
Z
max
: Height of maximum outflow (ft)
R : Radius of the microburst (ft)
2-99
Microburst Model
NASA TM
100632
R = 2500 ft
U
max
= 63 ft/s
Z
max
= 119 ft
2-100
Implementation in FDC
Wind force components
wind gravity propulsion c aerodynami z
wind gravity propulsion c aerodynami y
wind gravity propulsion c aerodynami x
Z Z Z Z F
Y Y Y Y F
X X X X F
+ + + =
+ + + =
+ + + =
( )
( )
( )
w w w w
w w w w
w w w x
pu pv w m z
ru pw v m Y
rv qw u m X
+ =
+ =
+ =
&
&
&
2-101
Comparision
A FDC trajectory was compared to results
from, Target Pitch Angle for the Microburst
Escape Maneuver by S. Mulgund and R.
Stengel, JoA, 1993
Due to current limitations in the FDC the
exact aircraft maneuver could not be
simulated
Both aircraft were light twin-turboprops
Instead of a Target Pitch Angle (TPA) escape
maneuver a maximum power maneuver was
used
2-102
Comparison
Simulated microburst parameters
R = 3000 ft
U
max
= 80 ft/s ~ 47.4 kts
Z
max
= 150 ft
Initial conditions
Altitude = 1400 ft
Trim condition
2-103
Comparison
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
-10000 -5000 0 5000 10000
Position (ft)
A
l
p
h
a

(
d
e
g
)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
FDC, Present Method
JOA
2-104
Microburst Analysis
11 different microbursts were simulated
in FDC varying Radius, and U
max
Simulation conditions
V = 136 kts
Initial altitude varied from 1312 ft to 2625 ft
Altitude hold autopilot setting
No recovery maneuver
2-105
Microburst Analysis
Microburst Number Microburst Paramaters Severity
R (ft) Umax (ft/s) Zmax (ft) Umax/R (1/s)
1 1000 5 150 0.0050
2 1000 10 150 0.0100
3 1000 20 150 0.0200
4 3000 5 150 0.0017
5 3000 10 150 0.0033
6 3000 20 150 0.0067
7 3000 60 150 0.0200
8 3000 120 150 0.0400
9 5000 10 150 0.0020
10 5000 20 150 0.0040
11 5000 40 150 0.0080
2-106
Wind Velocities for Microburst #5
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (s)
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
k
t
s
)
Uw, Wind X-Component
Vw, Wind Y-Component
Ww, Wind Z-Component
2-107
Results for Microbursts and Icing
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (s)
A
l
p
h
a

(
d
e
g
)
Microburst #5
Microburst #9
0.04XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
0.08
0.1
ice
= 0.50, /
ice
= 0.08
ice
= 0.91, /
ice
= 0.09
ice
= 1.10, /
ice
= 0.09
2-108
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (s)
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
k
t
s
)
Microburst #5
Microburst #9
0.04XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
0.08
0.1
ice
= 0.50, /
ice
= 0.08
ice
= 0.91, /
ice
= 0.09
ice
= 1.10, /
ice
= 0.09
2-109
1550
1575
1600
1625
1650
1675
1700
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (sec)
A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e

(
f
t
)
7400
7420
7440
7460
7480
7500
7520
7540
A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e

(
f
t
)
Microburst #5
Microburst #9
0.04XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
0.08
0.1
ice
= 0.50, /
ice
= 0.08
ice
= 0.91, /
ice
= 0.09
ice
= 1.10, /
ice
= 0.09
2-110
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (s)

e

(
d
e
g
)
Microburst #5
Microburst #9
0.04XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
0.08
0.1
ice
= 0.50, /
ice
= 0.08
ice
= 0.91, /
ice
= 0.09
ice
= 1.10, /
ice
= 0.09
2-111
Comparison to an Icing Case
Compared the rates of change of alpha,
velocity, and altitude
Case
d/dt (deg/s)
dV/dt (kts/s) dh/dt (ft/min)
d
e
/dt (deg/s)
Microburst 1 0.1718 -0.4505 -466.6 -0.0343
Microburst 2 0.3830 -1.1468 -990.3 -0.0805
Microburst 4 0.0269 -0.2000 -150.0 -0.0143
Microburst 5 0.0472 -0.6000 -150.0 -0.0427
Microburst 6 0.1345 -1.5000 -266.7 -0.0851
Microburst 9 0.0229 -0.2917 -55.5 -0.0203
0.04 0.0040 -0.0323 0.0 0.0039
0.08 0.0204 -0.7951 0.0 -0.0196
0.1 0.1030 -0.2537 -5.0 -0.0943
2-112
Comparison to an Icing Case
Microburst rates of change were larger than
the worst icing case initially, but after a long
icing encounter the rates were comparable
These large differences sould make it
straightforward to distinguish between icing
and wind shear encounters
Altitude is maintained for the icing case, but
not in the microburst case
In addition dynamic identification data would
be available to help identify windshear as well
2-113
Conclusions
Initial analysis of the microbursts
demonstrated that the encounters would be
distinguishable
Effects are similar but of different magnitude
or occur at different times (late in the
encounter)
Different strategies for recovery needed
Very important not to misinterpret the encounter
Still need to address the gravity waves and
other atmospheric disturbances
2-114
Future Work
Validate the FDC windshear model
Add icing to the windshear encounters
Possibly develop a windshear neural
network to detect windshear
Analyze the effect other atmospheric
encounters, gravity waves, etc
Need a simple model for gravity waves
2-115
99 00 01 03
Federal Fiscal Year
98 02
Aerodynamics and Flight Mechanics Waterfall Chart
Linear Iced Aircraft Model
CFD
Wind Tunnel Testing
Nonlinear Iced Aircraft Model
Determine Need for and Select
Aerodynamics Sensors
Steady State Characterization of Icing Effects
Char. Method
2-116
Conclusions
Linear icing effects model,
ice
, is almost finalized
Initial results from neural net analysis for prediction of
2-D flight performance parameters are promising
Effect of ice on V, , and
e
for the constant power case
are significant, and could be used to characterize the
accretion.
The use of hinge-moment data to distinguish tail from
wing ice is encouraging.
CFD reasonably predicts important trends. Moving to
WIND-DES for better max lift prediction.
Initial analysis of the microbursts demonstrated that the
encounters would be distinguishable.
2-117
Future Research
Continue exploration of neural nets for prediction of iced
aircraft characteristics.
Validate a fully nonlinear force and moment model.
Improve the hinge moment models.
Develop envelope protection strategies.
Apply WINDS-DES to iced airfoils to improve maximum
lift prediction.
Analyze the effect other atmospheric encounters, gravity
waves, etc.

2 FlightMechanics

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2 FlightMechanics

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, J une 13-14, 2000

Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, J une 13-14, 2000

Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, J une 13-14, 2000

Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, J une 13-14, 2000

Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, J une 13-14, 2000

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi