Canada, January 22, 2024

The lectures cover the major aspects of in-flight icing
simulation, ice protection systems, and handling quality
issues. The instructors bring an amalgam of knowledge, as
scientists who have developed codes in current use and
engineers with certification experience combining CFD, EFD,
and FFD, along with cost-effective simulation methods widely
used internationally for certification of aircraft for flight
into known icing.

Description:

 

For an aircraft to obtain a type design certification, it must  

be demonstrated that it can sustain safe flight into known or  

inadvertent icing conditions. The icing certification process  

involves CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) analyses, wind and  

icing tunnel testing (EFD: Experimental Fluid Dynamics), all  

considered “simulation”, and final demonstration of compliance  

through Flight Testing in Natural Icing (FFD: Flight Fluid  

Dynamics).  

 

Modern CFD-Icing methods, working as a direct extension of  

CFD-Aero technologies, have become an indispensable, if not a  

primary tool, in the certification process. One is referred to  

the just published “Handbook of Numerical Simulation of In- 

Flight Icing” (see last page) to note the feverish development  

of new approaches to the simulation of icing over a wide  

variety of flying objects. They are complementing and/or  

replacing 2D methods (airfoils don’t fly; aircraft do), as  

they analyze the aircraft (fuselage, wing, engines, nacelles,  

cockpit windows, sensors, probes, etc.) as an interconnected  

system and not as an assemblage of isolated components.  

 

The judicial mixing of 2D and 3D CFD-EFD simulation tools  

provides a cost-effective aid-to-design-and-to-certification  

when made part of a well-structured compliance plan. CbA  

(Certification-by-Analysis) is a current “hot” subject, and  

this course puts it into real practice, providing efficient  

tools and showing examples of capabilities and limitations. 

 

The course will highlight how modern icing codes are  

“predictive” as they are based on highly validated physical  

models. Just as one example of where 3D is needed, critical  

ice shapes’ identification and related aerodynamic penalties  

based on 2D airfoil calculations may be inaccurate if not  

altogether misleading as wings have sweep, twist, spanwise  

flows, propeller and engine effects, vortex generators, etc.  

that greatly affect/modify/delay stall and its propagation. 

  

The inclusion of icing requirements at the aerodynamic design  

stage allows a more comprehensive exploration of the combined  

aerodynamics/icing envelopes, optimized IPS design, and  

focus/reduce wind tunnels/icing tunnels/flight tests. This  

leads to faster designs, faster testing, faster and more  

complete natural icing campaign, resulting in a safer aircraft  

that is easier to certificate and that remains problem-free  

during its lifecycle.