1、_SAE Technical Standards Board Rules provide that: “This report is published by SAE to advance the state of technical and engineering sciences. The use of this report is entirely voluntary, and its applicability and suitability for any particular use, including any patent infringement arising theref
2、rom, is the sole responsibility of the user.”SAE reviews each technical report at least every five years at which time it may be revised, reaffirmed, stabilized, or cancelled. SAE invites your written comments and suggestions.Copyright 2017 SAE InternationalAll rights reserved. No part of this publi
3、cation may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE.TO PLACE A DOCUMENT ORDER: Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)Tel: +1 724-776-4970 (out
4、side USA)Fax: 724-776-0790Email: CustomerServicesae.orgSAE WEB ADDRESS: http:/www.sae.orgSAE values your input. To provide feedback on thisTechnical Report, please visithttp:/standards.sae.org/ARP6852BAEROSPACERECOMMENDED PRACTICEARP6852 REV. BIssued 2015-12Revised 2017-01Superseding ARP6852AMethods
5、 and Processes for Evaluation of Aerodynamic Effectsof SAE-Qualified Aircraft Ground Deicing/Anti-icing FluidsRATIONALEThe document has been revised to include a caution note about Non-Glycol fluids. SAE publications AMS1424/1 and AMS1424/2 were also included in the list of references.FOREWORDThe qu
6、alification processes for SAE fluids is described in ARP5718, and the standards, including aerodynamic standards, with which the fluids must comply are given in AMS1424 (Type I) and AMS1428 (Types II, III, and IV). These standards require that the aerodynamic performance of all fluids be tested and
7、qualified in accordance with AS5900, the Aerodynamic Acceptance Test (“AAT”). The purpose of the AAT is to ensure that new fluids have aerodynamic performance properties that are not worse than an established, accepted standard. In this way, the AAT provides a general screening of the aerodynamic ef
8、fects of the fluids. Even with successful AAT qualification, however, there can be circumstances which require evaluation of the aerodynamic effect of the fluids on specific aircraft.The intent of this ARP is to provide guidance for the evaluation of aerodynamic effects of fluids on aircraft, if it
9、is determined that an evaluation is required to ensure safe operation of an aircraft with fluids applied. The ARP describes previously used methods and methods under development. To evaluate fluid effects on a particular model, it should typically not be necessary to utilize more than one method des
10、cribed in this ARP; however, depending upon the circumstances, it may be advantageous to do so (e.g., similarity analysis combined with CFD).The recommended practices and other information described herein are limited to the experiences of the members of the SAE G-12 ADF Aerodynamics Working Group.
11、Thus, this ARP is not intended to be an exhaustive discussion of information from all possible sources. Should users of this ARP, or other entities with relevant experience, have additional recommendations or revision suggestions, they are encouraged to contact the SAE G-12 ADF Aerodynamics Working
12、Group.SAE INTERNATIONAL ARP6852B Page 2 of 69TABLE OF CONTENTS1. SCOPE 42. REFERENCES 42.1 Applicable Documents 42.1.1 SAE Publications.42.1.2 Other Documents and Publications 52.2 Definitions and Abbreviations .83. DEICING/ANTI-ICING FLUIDS AND THEIR EFFECT ON AERODYNAMICS 103.1 Deicing/Anti-Icing
13、Fluid Types 103.2 Aerodynamic Impacts103.2.1 Effects on Aerodynamic Performance 103.2.2 Effects on Handling Qualities113.3 AS5900 The Aerodynamic Acceptance Test .123.3.1 History of the Aerodynamic Acceptance Test.123.3.2 Testing Conducted per the AAT123.4 Evaluation of Aerodynamic Effects on Specif
14、ic Aircraft134. RECOMMENDED METHODOLOGIES 134.1 Evaluation Process Flow Chart.134.2 Similarity Analysis .144.2.1 Considerations 154.2.2 Applicability .164.2.3 Pros and Cons 164.3 Wind Tunnel Tests 164.3.1 Historical Testing.164.3.2 Recommended Procedures for Wind Tunnel Testing.164.3.3 Boundary Laye
15、r Tripping.164.3.4 Pros, Cons, and Considerations .174.4 Flight Tests174.4.1 Instrumentation .174.4.2 Fluid Selection and Application.174.4.3 Airplane Performance and Handling Tests .184.4.4 Evaluation of Fluid Behavior .214.4.5 Flight Test Considerations 224.5 Computational Fluid Dynamics and Other
16、 Numerical Analyses .234.5.1 Procedures234.5.2 Applicability .254.5.3 Pros, Cons, and Considerations .255. POTENTIAL PERFORMANCE ADJUSTMENTS . 266. SYNOPSIS 266.1 Recommended Methodologies .266.2 Effects of Fluids on Aerodynamic Performance266.3 Effects of Fluids on Handling Qualities .277. NOTES 27
17、7.1 Revision Indicator27SAE INTERNATIONAL ARP6852B Page 3 of 69APPENDIX A BOEING HISTORY - EVALUATIONS OF THE EFFECTS OF DEICING/ANTI-ICING FLUIDS ON AIRCRAFT AERODYNAMICS AND DEVELOPMENT OF AN AERODYNAMIC ACCEPTANCE TEST. 28APPENDIX B BOMBARDIER HISTORY EVALUATIONS OF THE EFFECTS OF DEICING/ANTI-IC
18、ING FLUIDSON AIRCRAFT AERODYNAMICS . 35APPENDIX C SAAB AB METHODOLOGY - DETERMINING AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE CORRECTIONS WHEN DEICING/ANTI-ICING FLUIDS ARE APPLIED 46APPENDIX D CESSNA METHODOLOGY - FLUID TEMPERATURE USE RANGE DETERMINATION AND FLIGHT TESTING TO EVALUATE DEICING/ANTI-ICING FLUID EFFECTS
19、. 59APPENDIX E BOMBARDIER METHODOLOGY - ACCEPTANCE AND/OR CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR USE OF DEICING/ANTI-ICING FLUIDS 62FIGURE 1 MAXIMUM LIFT LOSS VARIATION WITH TIME (B737-200ADV). 11FIGURE 2 FLOW CHART FOR EVALUATING THE AERODYNAMIC EFFECTS OF DEICING/ANTI-ICING FLUIDS 14FIGURE 3 LIFT LOSS AS A
20、FUNCTION OF TIME - SAAB 2000 (FLAP 0) 20FIGURE 4 DRAG DUE TO THE FLUID - SAAB 2000 (FLAP 0) 20FIGURE 5 FLOW CHART EXAMPLE OF THE POSSIBLE USE OF CFD AND OTHER NUMERICAL METHODS FOR EVALUATING THE AERODYNAMIC EFFECT OF FLUIDS 24TABLE 1 RECOMMENDED METHODOLOGIES 26SAE INTERNATIONAL ARP6852B Page 4 of
21、691. SCOPEThis document describes methods that are known to have been used by aircraft manufacturers to evaluate aircraft aerodynamic performance and handling effects following application of aircraft ground deicing/anti-icing fluids (“fluids”), as well as methods under development. Guidance and ins
22、ight based upon those experiences are provided, including:x Similarity analysesx Icing wind tunnel testsx Flight testsx Computational fluid dynamics and other numerical analysesThis document also describes:x The history of evaluation of the aerodynamic effects of fluidsx The effects of fluids on air
23、craft aerodynamicsx The testing for aerodynamic acceptability of fluids for SAE and regulatory qualification performed in accordance with AS5900x Additionally, Appendices A to E present individual aircraft manufacturers histories and methodologies which substantially contributed to the improvement o
24、f knowledge and processes for the evaluation of fluid aerodynamic effects.NOTE: This document is applicable for fluids that are “qualified” to (i.e., have passed) the tests and other standards prescribed in AMS1424 or AMS1428 and are properly used in accordance with ARP4737.NOTE: There are topics of
25、 potential interest not discussed in this document, such as re-hydrated gel residues (see 2.2).CAUTION: The results and conclusions of the various test programs described herein should not be assumed to be universally applicable.CAUTION: All methodologies presented in this ARP were created or develo
26、ped considering solely glycol-based fluids.2. REFERENCES2.1 Applicable DocumentsThe following publications form a part of this document to the extent specified herein. The latest issue of SAE publications shall apply. The applicable issue of other publications shall be the issue in effect on the dat
27、e of the purchase order. In the event of conflict between the text of this document and references cited herein, the text of this document takes precedence. Nothing in this document, however, supersedes applicable laws and regulations unless a specific exemption has been obtained.2.1.1 SAE Publicati
28、onsAvailable from SAE International, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001, Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada) or +1 724-776-4970 (outside USA), www.sae.org.AMS1424 Deicing/Anti-Icing Fluid, Aircraft SAE Type IAMS1424/1 Deicing/Anti-Icing Fluid, Aircraft SAE Type I Glycol (Convent
29、ional and Non-Conventional) BasedAMS1424/2 Deicing/Anti-Icing Fluid, Aircraft SAE Type I Non-Glycol BasedAMS1428 Fluid, Aircraft Deicing/Anti-Icing, Non-Newtonian (Pseudoplastic), SAE Types II, III, and IVSAE INTERNATIONAL ARP6852B Page 5 of 69ARP4737 Aircraft Deicing/Anti-icing MethodsARP5718 Proce
30、ss to Obtain Holdover Times for Aircraft Deicing/Anti-Icing Fluids, SAE AMS1428 Types II, III, and IVAS5900 Standard Test Method for Aerodynamic Acceptance of SAE AMS 1424 and SAE AMS 1428 Aircraft Deicing/Anti-icing Fluids2.1.2 Other Documents and Publications1. “Adverse Aerodynamic Effects Attribu
31、ted to Old AEA Formulation (1987-88) Type II De-Ice/Anti-Ice Fluids,” Advisory Notice No. 34, Boeing Canada, de Havilland Division, 1988.2. “Aerodynamic Acceptance Test for Aircraft Ground Deicing/Anti-Icing Fluids,” Document No. D6-55573, The BoeingCompany, 1992.3. Akkad, A. E., “Comparative Studie
32、s of Boundary Layer and Lift, for a Flat Plate and Wing Model, with Various Fluid Application,” Masters Thesis, University of Quebec at Chicoutimi, 1993.4. Bastian, M. and Hui, K., “Lift-Loss Due to the Presence of Anti-Icing Fluid on a Falcon 20 Aircraft in Out-of-Ground Effect Conditions,” Report
33、No. TP14184E, Transport Canada, 2004.5. Beisswenger, A., Wang, X., Laforte, J.-L., and Perron, J., “Aerodynamic Flow-off of Aircraft Ground Type IV Anti-icing Fluids with Ice Embedded: Laboratory Tests,” in press, Transport Canada, 2007.6. Beisswenger, A. and Laforte, J.-L., “Low Takeoff Rotation Sp
34、eed Commuter Type Aircraft Aerodynamic Performance of Type II and Type IV Fluids,” Report No. FAA DOT/FAA/AR-03/47, 2003.7. Beisswenger, A., Fortin, G., and Laforte, J.-L., “Investigation of Type II and Type IV Aircraft Ground Anti-Icing Fluid Aerodynamic Certification Standards,” Report No. FAA DOT
35、/FAA/AR-03/55, 2003.8. Beisswenger, A., Laforte, C., and Perron, J., “Issues and Testing of Non-Glycol Aircraft Ground Deicing Fluids,” SAE International Conference on Aircraft and Engine Icing and Ground Deicing, 2011.9. Beisswenger, A., Tremblay, M.-M., Laforte, J.-L., and Perron, J., “Investigati
36、on of a New Formulation Reference Fluid for Use in Aerodynamic Acceptance Evaluation of Aircraft Ground Deicing and Anti-Icing Fluids,” Report No. FAA DOT/FAA/AR-06/50, 2007.10. Bouchard, G., Laforte, J.-L., and Louchez, P., “Wind Tunnel Study of Lift Reduction on a Wing Section Covered with Anti-Ic
37、ing Fluid in Supercooled Precipitation,” Canadian Aeronautics and Space Journal, 41(4), 1995.11. Carbonaro, M., Locatelli, C., Mantegazza, C., McSpadden, C., and Moller, I., “Experimental Study of the Flow of a Film of Aircraft De-icing Fluid during a Simulated Take-off at Subfreezing Temperature,”
38、Report No. 1985-02, von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics, 1985.12. Carbonaro, M., “Experimental Study of the Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Two-Dimensional Wing Model Covered with De/Anti-icing Fluid during a Simulated Take-off at Subfreezing Temperatures,” Report No. 1986-22, von Karman Instit
39、ute for Fluid Dynamics, 1986.13. Carbonaro, M., “Further Study of the Aerodynamic Performance of a Two-Dimensional Wing Model Covered with Simulated Frost or with De/Anti-icing Fluid During a Wind Tunnel Simulated Take-off at Subfreezing Temperature,” Report No. 1987-29, von Karman Institute for Flu
40、id Dynamics, 1987.14. Carbonaro, M. and Godrie, P., “Study of Aerodynamic Effects of Ground De/Anti-icing Fluid for Commuters,” Contract Report No. 1992-31, von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics, 1992.SAE INTERNATIONAL ARP6852B Page 6 of 6915. “Certification of Part 23 Airplanes for Flight in Icin
41、g Conditions,” Advisory Circular 23.1419-2D, FAA, 2007.16. Chaput, M., “A Potential Solution for De/Anti-Icing of Commuter Aircraft,” Report No. TP14152E, Transport Canada, 2003.17. Cruse, D. L. and Zierten, T. A., “Boeing/Association of European Airlines (AEA) Evaluation of the Aerodynamic Effects
42、of Aircraft Ground De-/Anti-Icing Fluids,” Society of Flight Test Engineers Nineteenth Annual Symposium, 1988.18. Dart, N., “Numerical Analysis of De-Icing Fluid Flow Off from Aircraft Wings,” Paper No. AIAA-2010-7838, AIAA Atmospheric and Space Environments Conference, 2010.19. “De/Anti-Icing Fluid
43、, Aircraft,” Material Specification, Association of European Airlines.20. Dyer, K., “Anti-Icing Fluid Residues,“ SAE Technical Paper 2007-01-3302, 2007, doi:10.4271/2007-01-3302.21. Ellis, N. D. and Lim, E., “Effects of Anti-icing/Deicing Fluids on the Take-Off Performance of Commuter Aircraft,” Rep
44、ort No. TP 10838E, DHC-TDC 90-1, Canadian Transportation Development Centre, 1991.22. Ellis, N. D., Lim, E., Teeling, P., and Zhu, S., “Wind Tunnel Tests of Aerodynamics Effects of Type I governed by AMS1428USC United States Code of Federal RegulationsVMC Minimum control speedVMU Minimum unstick spe
45、edVR Rotation speedVS1g 1-g stall speedV2 Takeoff safety speedSAE INTERNATIONAL ARP6852B Page 10 of 693. DEICING/ANTI-ICING FLUIDS AND THEIR EFFECT ON AERODYNAMICS3.1 Deicing/Anti-Icing Fluid TypesThe SAE standards categorize fluids as Type I, II, III, or IV. The fluids are qualified to one of two S
46、AE standards, dependingupon their physical performance. Type I fluids are qualified to AMS1424 and are Newtonian fluids. Historically, Type I fluids have essentially been mixtures of glycol, water, surfactants, and corrosion inhibitors. More recently, Type Is utilizing freezing-point depressants oth
47、er than glycol have been introduced. Type I fluids provide very limited holdover time (HOT).Types II, III, and IV fluids are qualified to AMS1428 and are non-Newtonian, pseudo-plastic fluids. This means that as the shear stress on them increases, their viscosity decreases so that they flow off as th
48、e airplane speed increases during takeoff ground roll. These fluid types contain thickening polymers which facilitate the fluid maintaining greater thickness on the airplane surfaces following application, thereby providing longer HOTs than Type I fluids. Type II fluids were developed to satisfy the
49、 desire for longer HOTs than are provided by Type Is. Type IV fluids were developed after Type IIs to further lengthen HOTs. Most recently developed were Type III fluids, which provide longer HOTs than Type Is while maintaining acceptable aerodynamic effects for commuter-type aircraft with low takeoff rotation speeds, although they may be permitted on other types as well.3.2 Aerodynamic ImpactsThe application of fluids rem
