Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Validates icing predictions in wind tunnel tests, indicating the tool's accuracy for simulations.
This article summarizes work done in terms of validation of recent capabilities of a commercial-of-the-shelf numerical tool, dedicated for icing simulations, namely, Ansys FENSAP-ICE 2024R1. The basis for validation is the experimental data from icing wind tunnel shared by AIAA as part of the Second Ice Prediction Workshop (IPW-2). This research is focused in particular on multi-shot ice accretion simulation to reproduce 29 minutes of swept wing exposure to icing conditions. Significant effort was put on the fine mesh generation process aiming for topology producing high quality hex elements aligned orthogonally with expected flow paths. Our study consists of two multi-shot analyses to compare an effect of finer time-step duration applied in the sequence, to capture finer development of ice roughness and smaller ice features on clean surface of the skin. In general, predicted ice shapes match, in an average sense – to 3D scans of ice, provided within IPW-2. The ice mass is overestimated by 10% to 25% between shots compared to experimental data. Also, 3D features like ice scallops are not clearly captured with given surface mesh size. Some fine differences exist between sequences using finer and coarser shot time durations applied.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pawlucki et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: