https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?

R=19990052585 2018-02-26T22:21:27+00:00Z

NASA / CR-1999-209326

High Reynolds Number Hybrid Laminar

Flow Control (HLFC) Flight Experiment
IV. Suction System Design and
Manufacture

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle, Washington

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Langley Research Center Prepared for Langley Research Center

Hampton, Virginia 23681-2199 under Contract NAS1-18574

April 1999
 The data in this volume, D6-655648-4, was collected by members of The Boeing Company in a
cooperative effort with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the United
States Air Force under contract NAS 1-18574.

Available from:

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI) National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
7121 Standard Drive 5285 Port Royal Road
Hanover, MD 21076-1320 Springfield, VA 22161-2171
(301) 621-0390 (703) 605-6000
 CONTENTS

1
1.0 SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................

.....o.. 3

2.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ ...3

2 1 Background
• "°°°'°'''° .... °''°•'°'''°
..................................................................
.... °'•°'°°°'°"'°''• 3

2.2 Technical Approach "'"'"""""'"'""'""" ........................................................................

" •......4
2.3 Program Tasks ........................................................................................................

3.0 SUCTION SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................ 5

3.1 Theoretical Suction Distribution .................................................................... 5
"'°''''•°""'° 6

3.2 Practical Suction Distribution .......................................................................................

4.0 SYSTEM DESIGN ................................................................. 15

°°''° °°" ° °° °°''"'" "°'' "°'°'" °°°°°" °" "•'°" "° .o°.. ...... 15

4 1 Flow
"
Path °'° °°°" °°'''''°•°°'°°''°'°" °•°°'°°°°" °'•'°°'" °''" °° °
...................................................... 17

4.2 Design Flows and Pressures "................. ...................................................................... 17

4.3 Flow and Pressure Analysis "........... ............................................................................ 22
4.4 Flutes and Suction Panel ".............................. .............................................................. 23
4.4.1 Flute Width Selection .......................................................................................
4.4.2 Skin Porosity .................................................................................................... 30

5.0 HARDWARE DESIGN ................................................. '.................................................... 339

5.1 Requirements ...............................................................................................................
5 2 System Arrangement
°
....................................................
"°''''''°°''° "° °•'' °°'°'°'°'•°'°''' ......
:...........
°.. .... .o.44
39
5 3 °
Special Features "'''" °° °'°°°'°°°'°°'°°°'°°" •'''°''°"'" °°
.................................................. .44

5 3 1 Flapper Valves
° • °°°'''''•'° .... °'''°•'''° ....... °°
.............................................................. .,.. 44

5 3 2 Check Valves
• ° °''°°"'" "'°°°'° °'''°°'°°°°°•''°°°'°
.......................................................... 44

5.3.3 Pressure Regulating Valve .............. ................................................................. ....46

5.3.4 Shutoff Valve °'°°''°'''°'' °''' °'°''°°" °°"'" """ °•"
.......................................................... ° ............. 48

5.3.5 Plenum .......... °°°°'''''°•°°°°'°''°'•''°°'°°° ......

•..............................................
°" ° ...... ...49

5.3.6 Muffler
..... •"""'"""""""'"'""" -....................................................... .... .... ..... 49
5.3.7 Filter ....................................................................................................
5.4 Turbocompressor Modifications ................................................................................. 50

6.0 SUCTION CONTROL SCHEME ...................................................................................... 5511

6.1 Spanwise Control ........................................................................................................
6.2 Chordwise Adjustment ................................................................................................ 54

7.0 ¢ri-,cE ANDP RGEOpEr a oN...........................................................

iiiii121111111155
7.1 Anti-Ice .......................................................................................................
7.1.1 External Heat Loads ......................................................................................... 57
7.1.2 System Performance ........................................................................................ 60
7.2 Purge .......................................................................................................................... 67

8.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 71

iii
 CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

Appendix A Equations Used in Duct Analysis Pa__gg__e

""'"'""""""--'-'----- .... .--. ...... .. ......... •......... ..m-1
Appendix B
"Corrected" Flow Parameters ............................................................................ B- 1
Appendix C
Example Flute Pressure Drop Calculation ................................ C-1
Appendix D Hole Flow Pressure Drop Code 'ADBTDIF BAS" "....................... ,-, ,
Appendix E " * * ............ _t............................. '/'J- "[
Tapered Hole Flow Pressure Drop Code ADBTSTC.BAS ............................ E-1
Appendix F
Icing Tunnel Test of HLFC Transpiration Thermal Anti-Icing (TAd) ............... F- 1
Appendix G
Leading-Edge Heating Load at Icing Conditions .............................................. G-1
Appendix H
Heat Exchanger Sizing Calculation ................................................................... H- 1

iv
 FIGURES

Title Pa_pagg

3.1-1 Suction Coefficient Requirement ................................................................................... 6

3.1-2 Suction Coefficient Variations With Attachment-Line Location .................................. 6
3.2-1 Wing Buttock Line and Outboard Slat Station Coordinates .......................................... 7
3.2-2 Increased Suction Rates Based On Area Ratios ............................................................. 8
3.2-3 Typical c.' Curve in High-Suction Zone ....................................................................... 8
3.2-4 Practical _q' for the Design Case (C L = 0.5, 0.SM, 39,000 ft)
High- Suctibn Zone ....................................................................................................... 10
Typical c.' Curve in Transition Zone ........................................................................... 11
Local cq' _or the Design Case (C L = 0.5, 0.8M, 39,000 ft)
Transitibn Zone (Flutes 7 and 8) .................................................................................. 12
Typical Cq' Curve Aft Zone (TS Instability Control) ................................................... 13
Practical cq' for the Design Case (C L = 0.5, 0.8M, 39,000 ft)
Flutes 9 th/-ough 20, Aft Zone (TS Control) ................................................................ 14
4.1-1 Airflow Path During Normal Suction System Operation ............................................ 15
4.1-2 HLFC Pneumatic System Schematic ........................................................................... 16
4.2-1 Conditions at Collectors for the Design Case (C L = 0.5, 0.8M, 39,000 ft) ................. 18
4.2-2 Duct Pressures Versus Spanwise Location .................................................................. 19
4.3-1 Friction Factor for Anticipated Duct Roughness ......................................................... 20
4.3-2 Turbocompressor Map ................................................................................................. 21
4.4-1 Flute Layout and Isobar Location ................................................................................ 22
4.4-2 Theoretical Flute Pressure and Measured Drops ......................................................... 23
4.4-3 Flow Network for Off-Design Analysis of Flute 15 .................................................... 24
4.4-4 Flow Versus Span, 0.5 C L Design Case ...................................................................... 25
4.4-5 Effect of C L on Suction Distribution, Flute 2 (CF Control Zone) ............................... 25
4.4-6 Distribution of Cq' Across Flute at a Constant Flow for Various Hole
Spacings (_5).................................................................................................................. 26
4.4-7 Flow at Flute Reverse-Flow Threshold ........................................................................ 27
4.4-8 Effect of Hole Diameter on Minimum Flute Spacing .................................................. 28
4.4-9 Flutes Enlarged To Reduce Spanwise AP .................................................................... 29
4.4-10 Laser-Drilled Holes ...................................................................................................... 30
4.4-11 Flow Models Used for Perforation Analysis ................................................................ 31
4.4-12 Methods of Modeling Flow Through Laser-Drilled Holes .......................................... 32
4.4-13 Computed and Measured Pressure Drop for Three Hole Diameters ........................... 32
4.4-14 Diffuser Recovery Effect of a Laser-Drilled Hole ....................................................... 33
4.4-15 Flow Characteristics for the Two Hole Sizes Used
(at Design Conditions) ................................................................................................. 35
4.4-16 Hole Spacing Required To Obtain Cq' in Aft Zone ...................................................... 36
4.4-17 Outer Skin Perforation Pattern ..................................................................................... 37
4.4-18
Variation of Cq' Due To Perforation Pattern Steps ....................................................... 38
5.2-1 Turbocompressor Installation (Viewed From Inboard Side) ....................................... 40
5.2-2 Turbcompressor Installation (Viewed From Outboard Side) ...................................... 41
5.2-3 General Arrangement of Wing Suction System ........................................................... 42
 FIGURES (CONTINUED)

Title

5.2-4 Typical Wing Leading-Edge Bay (Krueger Flap Drive Not Shown) .......................... 43
5.3-1 Typical Flapper Valve Arrangement ............................................................................ 44
5.3-2 Flapper Valve Drive and Position Indication ............................................................... 45
5.3-3 Anti-Ice Check Valve ................................................................................................... 46
5.3-4 Check Valve ................................................................................................................. 46
5.3-5 Attachment-Line Flow Control Duct and Shutoff Valve ............................................. 47
5.3-6 Plenum Assembly ........................................................................................................ 48
5.3-7 Muffler ......................................................................................................................... 49
5.3-8 Air Filter ....................................................................................................................... 50
6.1-1 Flapper Valve Numbering Convention ........................................................................ 52
6.1-2 Overall System Control Method .................................................................................. 53
6.2-1 Streamwise Pressure Display ....................................................................................... 55
7.1-1 Icing Tunnel Test ......................................................................................................... 58
7.1-2 Reduction in Heat Transfer Rate Due To Fluid Injection (Air to Air) ........................ 59
7.1-3 Comparison of Ice Protection Methods ....................................................................... 60
7.1-4 Flute Thermal Load at Maximum Icing Conditions .................................................... 61
7.1-5 Flute Temperature Distribution (Anti-Icing Conditions) ............................................. 62
7.1-6. Flute Temperature Distribution (Still, on the Ground) ................................................ 63
7.1-7 Flute Temperature Distribution (Normal Takeoff Purge) ............................................ 64
7.I-8 Metering Screen Location Required for Suction Versus Anti-Ice ............................... 65
7.1-9 Air Temperature During Anti-Ice (No Ice Load) ......................................................... 66
7.1-10 Effect of Icing Rates on Air Temperature During Anti-Icing ...................................... 68
7.1-11 Theoretical Ice Formation at Various Icing Rates ....................................................... 69
F-1 Proof-of-Concept Test Model .................................................................................... F-2
F-2 Details of Test Model ................................................................................................. F-3
1=-3 Skin Temperatures in Dry-Air Tests of HLFC TAI System ...................................... F-5
F-4 Leading Edge After 60 sec in FAA Maximum Continuous Icing With
350°F TAI Air, Ambient Air at -20°F ........................................................................ F-6
F-5 Leading Edge After 60 sec in FAA Maximum Continuous Icing With
200°F TAI Air, Ambient Air at -20°F ........................................................................ F-7
F-6 Leading-Edge Temperatures With TAI in FAA Maximum Continuous Icing .......... F-8

TABLES

Table Title Pa__gg

3-1 Suction Coefficients (Local c ' x 100), Flutes 1 Through 6 .......................................... 9

3-2 Suction Coefficients (Local c_' x 100), Flutes 7 and 8 ................................................ 11
3-3 Suction Coefficients (Local Cq' x 104), Flutes 9 Through 20 ...................................... 13

vi
 PREFACE

The program was jointly sponsored by NASA; the United States Air Force, Wright
Laboratory, Flight Dynamics Directorate; and The Boeing Company. The contract was
managed by Mr. R. D. Wagner, Head of Laminar Flow Control Project Office, and Mr.
D. V. Maddalon, Technical Monitor. Mr. R. L. Clark was the Wright Laboratory
(WL/FIMM, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH) Program Manager. The period of
performance was from December 1987 through August 1991.

The program was conducted by the Advanced Development Aerodynamics organization

of Boeing Commercial Airplane Group (BCAG),. supported by the BCAG Nacelle, Strut,
and Propulsion System Engineering, BCAG Structures Engineering, BCAG
Mechanical/Electrical Systems Engineering, and BCAG Flight Test organizations.

The principal contributors to the work described herein are Mr. M. Hamamoto, lead
engineer for systems, Mr. R. H. Horstman, principal analyst, Mr. H. A. Cruver, design
supervisor, Mr. R. Woodcock, lead designer, and Mr. A. Shariatmadar, who conducted
the laboratory calibrations of the skins and internal flow components. Mr. F. J. Davenport
provided technical and document integration services. Mr. A. L. Nagel was HLFC pro-
ram manager.

vii
Specialthanksareowed to Mr. R. D. Wagner and Mr. D. V. Maddalon of NASA Langley
Research Center, who generously contributed time and effort to make their unique
backgrounds of laminar flow expertise and flight test experience available to Boeing
personnel.

Finally, the authors wish to acknowledge the vital contribution of Dr. Werner Pfenninger.
In addition to being a mentor to all participants in modem laminar flow control work, he
made several specific contributions to the present system design, such as advising the
adoption of low turbulence flow control ("flapper") valves and suggesting many aspects
of the suction system arrangement.

.°°

VlU
 SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Note: Symbols and abbreviations appearing in the appendixes are defined where used.

Ap Projected area for droplet impingement

As Heated surface area

b Hole flow exponent; flow exponent

CAD Computer Aided Design

CATIA Computer Aided Three-Dimensional Interactive Application (a commerical

CAD/CAM system)

CF Crossflow

EL Airplane lift coefficient, W/q_S

Cp Pressure coefficient, (P-Poo)/q..

Cp Specific heat of air at constant pressure

C Local wing chord; specific heat of water

Cq Chord suction coefficient, (mass flow per unit span)/p_V..c

Cq' Local suction coefficient, (mass flow per unit area)/po.V_.

D Diameter (of duct, hole, or tube, depending on context)

f Friction factor (for internal flow)

g Acceleration of gravity

HLFC Hybrid laminar flow control

HX Heat exchanger

h Heat transfer coefficient

Heat of vaporization of water

k Hole flow coefficient

L Distance along fute between collectors

M Mach number

OSS Outboard slat station

P Pressure (as indicated by context or subscript)

PRSOV Pressure Regulating Shutoff Valve

psf Pounds per square foot

ix
 SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED)

Q'r Anti-icing heat load

q** Free stream dynamic pressure p=V2,,./2

R Gas constant for air

Re Reynolds number, pV//t.t (V, I depend on context)

S Airplane reference wing area (1,951 ft2 for a Boeing 757)

S Streamwise arc length on wing surface

T Temperature (as indicated by context or subscript)

TAI Thermal anti ice

t/c Thickness to chord ratio

TS Tollmien-Schlichting

V Velocity (as indicated by context or subscript)

W Airplane weight

WBL Wing buttock line

Weight flow (hole, suction surface, flute, duct or compressor, as indicated by

context or subscript)

WF Flute width

GREEK LETTERS

Droplet impingement efficiency

7 Ratio of specific heats (1.40 for air); supercooled moisture density in atmosphere;
surface tension

_5 Hole spacing; ratio of pressure to sea level standard pressure

E Duct internal roughness; surface emissivity

e Ratio temperature to sea level standard temperature; wetting angle

Viscosity

p Density

Stefan-Boltzrnann constant

SUBSCRIPTS

Referring to atmospheric ambient (free stream) conditions

x
 1.0 SUMMARY

A pneumatic system to suck boundary layer air through a porous leading-edge panel was designed,
built, and installed on a Boeing 757 airplane. The panel and suction system were developed to permit
flight demonstration of Hybrid Laminar Flow Control (HLFC) at high Reynolds hum ber on a modern
turbofan-powered transport and to conduct flight research on laminar flow control technology.

The system was designed to provide a suction flow of 11.5 lb/min at Mach 0.80 and 39,000 ft altitude,
with exterior surface pressures corresponding to an airplane lift coefficient of 0.50. The overall flow
was controlled by varying the speed of the turbocompressor that served as its suction source. The
distribution of suction flow was controlled by a system of remotely adjustable internal valves,
working in conjunction with ground-replaceable pressure reducing screens.

The design requirements prohibited both local ouffiow and large spanwise discontinuities of suction
flow, because of concern that either one would cause boundary layer transition. To achieve this, the
six spanwise flow channels ("flutes") under the skin near the nose were made very narrow (0.30 in)
and aligned with the theoretical local isobars of the wing pressure distribution. Farther aft, it was
possible to make the flutes wider and to let them run across isobars, tailoring the flow quantity by
varying the skin porosity. Because of possible boundary layer tripping due to internal acoustic
effects, substantial effort was also devoted to developing "'flapper" control valves. These valves
permitted adjustment of suction distribution without the internal turbulence characteristic of
conventional butterfly valves.

Five separate main spanwise ducts were required because of the varying pressure levels of the skin
areas they served. Furthermore, the available space was severely constrained by the need to
accommodate the retracted Krueger flap and its actuators. Nevertheless, use of the CATIA
computer-aided design system made it possible to develop the pneumatic hardware and its
arrangement without the added cost of a mockup.

Purging and thermal anti-icing capabilities were provided by valving engine bleed air into the system
and blocking the turbocompressor inlet. The bleed flow then pressurized the ducts and flutes,
providing transpiration heating of the leading edge.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

2
 2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 BACKGROUND

The potential for reducing wing friction drag by increasing the extent of laminar flow was recognized
more than half a century ago. However, boundary layer instabilities associated with high Reynolds
number and with sweepback prevented achievement of si_cant laminar runs on the wings oflaxge
high-performance airplanes. In the 1960s, the USAF X-21 program showed that those problems
could be overcome by using slot suction to stabilize the boundary layer if care was taken to control
wing surface roughness and waviness. The program failed as a demonstration of practical laminar
flow control because of a flawed joint design that required continual repair or replacement of
aerodynamic smoothing material. There was also debate as to whether the complexity of a suction
system that covered the entire wing with slots and subsurface plumbing was justified by the
performance gain.

The concept of Hybrid Laminar Flow Control (HLFC), patented by L. B. Gratzer of The Boeing
Company (U. S. Patent No. 4,575,030), greatly simplifies laminar flow control by confining suction
surfaces and plumbing to the leading edge. HLFC maintains laminar flow downstream of the wing
front spar solely by tailoring the pressure distribution.

Other concerns, relating to anti-icing and to clogging or roughening of suction surfaces due to insect
accretion, were addressed by the NASA Leading Edge Flight Test Program (refs. I and 2). A
modified Lockheed JetStar airplane equipped with an HLFC '_love" overa portion of the wing span
was flown in a variety of hostile environments and demonstrated reliable operation.

The present program was undertaken by The Boeing Company, with partial NASA and USAF
sponsorship, to--

a. Perform high Reynolds number flight research on HLFC.

b. Obtain data on the effectiveness of HLFC on a large, high-subsonic-speed

transport airplane.

c. Develop and demonstrate practical design concepts for I-/LFC systems.

2.2 TECHNICAL APPROACH

A Boeing-owned 757 airplane (No. NA 001, the first 757 built) was modified to include all the critical
systems for a full-scale HLFC application, plus flight-operable suction controls and extensive
instnmaentation to meet I-ILFC research requirements. The 757 was ideally suited to the program
because its advanced aerodynamic technology wing permitted attainment of the needed HLFC
pressure distribution with only a small contour change ahead of the front spar, and the smoothness
of the existing between-spar structure allowed the test to be conducted with minimal fairing or
coating beyond normal paint. This ensured that the data obtained would have practical application
to standard production wings and not be restricted to ideally smooth surfaces.
2.3 PROGRAM TASKS

The progam effort consisted of-

t. Aerodynamic Design. Det-mition of the surface pressures and suction quantities required to
achieve extended laminar flow, followed by geometric design of the wing contours needed
to obtain the surface pressures. This task is treated in volume II.

bB Leading-Edge Structural Design and Fabrication. The design, construction, and installation
of a 22-ft section of wing leading edge having provisions for suction througha porous outer
skin and for a Kmeger-type leading-edge flap serving both as an integral part of the airplane
high-lift system and as a shield against insect accretion at low altitude. The leading edge was
required to meet stringent aerodynamic smoothness and waviness requirements under load,
as well as to provide structural integrity. This task is discussed in volume m.

C_ Suction System Design and Manufacture. The design of the system of air passages, ducts,
valves, and pump, and the specification ofleading-edge outer skin porosities. The system was
required not only to provide the suction flows required for laminarization but also to
demonstrate anti-icing capability. To achieve this, hot pressurized air was required to flow
out through certain portions of the porous skin. The system was also required to provide a
wide range of suction flow adjustment to permit optimization of HLFC suction quantities and
to permit generation of boundary layer behavior data under a variety of suction conditions,
in support of research on boundary layer analysis methods. This task is reported in this
volume (vol. IV).

d* Flight Test and Data Analysis. The definition and installation of suitable instrumentation to
evaluate boundary layer conditions and suction system performance, followed by the
conduction of the tests, acquisition of data, and evaluation of test results. This task is reported
in volume I, together with an overview of the program as a whole.

4
 3.0 SUCTION SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

The system must provide a maximum suction quantity distributed as discussed in sections 3. I and
3.2. To satisfy research requirements, there is also a need for the ability to operate at reduced suction
levels and with considerable flexibility of suction distribution, both chordwise and spanwise. Note
that the system cannot be "shut off" (i.e., operated at zero flow everywhere). Flows between
internally connected skin regions will be driven by external pressure differences, resulting in a
patchwork of local suction and efflux.

Abrupt spanwise variations in suction flow must be avoided because they are likely to cause
boundary layer transition. This implies that the "'flutes" (air passages under the skin) must not be
blocked except at their extremities. The pressure drops through the skin must therefore be great
enough to accommodate expected spanwise pressure variations. At the same time, the permissible
flow per hole is limited by the effective aerodynamic roughness associated with individual holes
(versus the ideal of continuously distributed porosity). The holes must therefore be very small to
provide the needed flow resistance.

The system must also be able to operate in reverse flow, to distribute hot engine bleed air to the leading
edge for anti-icing, and to permit purging the system of ingested water.

3.1 THEORETICAL SUCTION DISTRIBUTION

The initial design suction requirement was based on the boundary layer stability theory in general
use in early 1988. (Details are provided in vol. 17 of this series.) Later in the program, an improved
analysis by F. Collier of NASA showed that the overall effect of the curvature terms neglected in the
classical theory is stabilizing, and a lower suction level should be sufficient. However, because the
new method was as yet unproven, the original suction level was used for design, but the safety margin
fLrSt contemplated was not applied.

The suction requirement was expressed as a continuous distribution of "local suction coefficient'"
(ca') as a function of arc length along the airfoil surface. The Cq' is defined as the mass flow of suction
air'per unit area divided by the product of freestream velocity and freestream density. Figure 3.1-1
shows the theoretical requirement at a section close to the inboard end of the HLFC panel. The arc
length was measured from the attachment line (i.e., from the point on the leading edge where the flow
divides to pass over or under the wing). Because the attachment line moved up and down depending
l

on the flight condition, the relative position of the Cq distribution and the flutes also changed (fig.
3.1-2). Therefore, if the shape of the suction curve was to follow the flight conditions, some system
adjustment was required.

The suction distribution was characterized by an initial high-suction zone (see fig. 3.1-1) to stabilize
the boundary layer against crossflow (CF) instability. This was followed by a change zone that
ramped the suction to a uniform low level required in the aft zone to control Tollmien-Schlichting
(TS) instability.
 High-suc_on zone _ I1
(controls crossflow J J II

is _ I I Aftzone //
I L, controls To_lmien-Schlichlin instabi" J J

0
5 10 15 20
$,in

Figure 3.1-1. Suction Coefficient Requirement

I I A q' changeByscmen c_' Byflapper

I I
s • Low 330 510
WBL
I High _Sl'dfting cq'
requirement curve

S
View AoA

Figure 3.1-2. Suction Coefficient Var_tions With Attachment-Line Location

3.2 PRACTICAL SUCTION DISTRIBUTION

The discussions of practical suction requirements in this section will refer to spanwise locations on
the wing using wing buttock line (WBL) axes. These locations are the natural choice for aerodynamic
analysis because they are oriented to the wing chord plane and the freestream wind vector. For

6
purposes of system or structural design, however, it is usually more convenient to use outboard slat
station (OSS) axes oriented to the physical leading edge of the wing. Figure 3.2-1 shows the relation
of the two coordinate systems, each of which was used where applicable in this report.

Because the porous leading edge was blocked at intervals by the supporting stringers, local suction
rates through the open areas (over the flutes) had to increase to compensate. Figure 3.2-2 shows a
practical c^' distribution in which the local suction at the flutes was increased by the ratio of total to
q
open surface area. Within the accuracy of the stability theory, the interruptions were short enough
to provide adequate protection, because the area-averaged suction quantity was the same.

To determine the flow requirement over the test span, the high-suction crossflow (CF control) zone
was analyzed at seven wing locations. The six flutes contained within this zone were designed to
follow isobars, thereby ensuring an even flow throughout the span. The Cq' curve defining the suction
requirement, in the six flutes, is shown in figure 3.2-3, and consists of.-z-"
!

a. Line 1--from the stagnation line to isobar Cp = 0.7, increase the Cq from 0 to
13 x 10-4 as a linear ramp.

b. Line 2--from isobar Cp = 0.7 to Cp = 0.2, maintain a constant Cq = 13 x 10"4.

!

c. Line 3--from isobar Cp = 0.2 to Cp = -0.5, decrease the Cq from 13 x 10-4 m

6 x 10-4 as a linear ramp.

WBL 750
WBL 30O-.-.-_

_.1

Figure 3.2-1. Wing Buttock Line and Outboard Slat Station Coordinates
 30

2O

10

5 10 15
2O
S, in

Rgure 32-2. Increased Suction Rates Based On Area Ratios

_ne 2
13 ; 1

¢b

7 0.2 -.0.5
Attachment
line Cp(isobar)

Figure 3.2.-3. Typical Cq'Curve in High-Suction Zone

8
Table 3-1 shows a breakdown of the flute suction requirements for the seven spanwise locations
based on the percentage of open area and relative flute position along the Cq' curve. These data are
presented graphically in figure 3.2-4.

The isobars aft of Cp = - 0.5 were highly irregular and having the stringers follow them was
impractical The suction area aft ofCp = - 0.5 (flute 6) and forward of the front spar was divided into
14equally spaced flutes. The fast two of these equally spaced flutes (flutes 7 and 8) lay in a change
zone where the Cq' requirement was changing from crossflow control (c,,' = 6 x 10-4) to TS instability
control (Cq' = 2 x 10-4). The bounds of this transition were isob_ Cp = -0.5 upstream and
- o, of flute 8. Figure 3.2-
approximately 4% of chord downstream, which corresponded to the aft edge
5 shows this typical ca' curve and table 3-2 shows the practical Cq' based on the percentage of open
¢'1 I •

area and relative flute position along the Cq curve, which is presented _aphically in figure 3.2-6.

The remaining 12 flutes in the aft zone were designed to provide a constant Cq' of approximately
2 x 10 "4. These 12 flutes were bounded by s/c = 0.04 (flute 8) forward and the wing front spar aft. The
typical ca ' curve for this zone is shown in figure 3.2-7. The practical ca ' based on the percentage of
open are;i is shown in table 3-3 and is presented graphically in figure 3.2-8.

Table 3-1. Suction Coefficients (Local Cq'X 104), Flutes I Through 6

Seqment 2 ,3 4 5 6 7

Flute WBL 345 371 398 424 450 477 503

Number 45.4 44.5 46.5 45.9

% Open Area I 45;9 46.8

1 26.0 24.0 24.5 25.5 26.0 24.5

28.5 29.0 28.5 28.0 28.5 28.5 28.0

2 '1
3 27.5 28.5 27.5 27.0 27.0 27.0 26.5
H=, i

24.5 24.0 23.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5

5 21.0 19.5 19.5 18.5 19.0 18.5 18.0

, i

6 17.0 15.0 16.0 14.5 15.0 14.5 14.0

 u U II
o. o. o=

20
SegmentI (WBLs4s)
10

Segment 2 (WBL 371)

10

Segments (WBL_S=)
lO

X Segment 4 (WBL 424)

10

10
SegmentS (WBL450)

Segment 6 (WBL 477)

10

20

Secjment7(WBL5_)
10

I I I I I I
0 1 2 3 4 5 m

Arc length from attachment line, in

Figure 3.2-4. Practical Cq' for the Design Case (CL = 0.5, 0.8M, 39,000 [1) High-Suction Zone

10
 _mlo
I
I
I
I
I
! I
"X 6
I
I
2 I

0 I
!
I
I ,
_=_.s _=o._ s--_-
C

Rgum _2_ T_ical _' Curve m Trans_on Zone

Table 3-2. Suction Coefficients (Local Cq'x 104), Flutes 7 and 8

Seqment 2 3 4 7

Flute WBL 345 371 398 424 45O 477 503

Number % Open Area. 58.1 59.4 60.1 59.0 58.3 58.3

7 10 11 10.5 11 11 11.5

8 5.5 5.5 5.5

11
 Practical Cq'.-_ Cp = -0.5 S/C "- 0.04
Flute 6 (ref).-_ \

Segment1 (WBL345)

Segment 2 (WBL 371)

10

Segment3 (WBL398)
10

qm,

Segment 4 (WBL 424)

_ lO

segm_t s C_VeL
4SO) "
10

Segment 6 (WBL 477)

1

Segment 7 (WBL 503)

10 "-

I I I I I I I I [ I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Distance (S) from attachment line, in

Figure 32-6. Practical Cq'for the Design Case (C L= 0.5, 0.SM, 39,000 [t)
Transition Zone (Flutes 7 and 8)

12
 i
I
I
I
l %
%
I %
I %
%
I %
I
I v

I
I
I
I
Rute 9 Front
• S _0.O4 spar
C

Figure 3.2-7, Typical Cq' Curve Aft Zone (TS Instability Control)

Table 3-3. Suction Coefficients (Local Cq' x 104), Flutes 9 Through 20

Segment 4 5 6 7
i

Flute WBL 345 371 398 424 45O 477 5O3

Nur'nber % Open Area 58.1 59.4 60.1 60.1 59.0 58.3 58.3

9 3,6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6

10 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6

11 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6

12 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6

13 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6

i

14 3.6 3.5 ,3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6

15 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5, 3.6 3.6 3.6

16 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6

17 3.6 3,5 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6

18 3.6 3,5 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6

19 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.6 3,6 3.6

20 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6

13
 10
_-'_'"k'L Rute number

Segmeclt 1
•.. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 (WBE 345)
.. V1D_ V1V1 D V1D D_ V1 D
0
IIIil11111 IIIIIil11111,11

Segment 2
(WBL 371)
--....n n n n n n o o n n_o_o_
o IIII1111 I 111Illl II I11-7-1-}--

"\
segment 3
".\non n n n n O n n nn (WBL_Je)

0
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

5 °'_,°,
Segment4
(WBL 424)
-...
n n n nn o n nnnnn
o
I1111111111111IIIIIIIIII

SegmentS
(VmL 4so)

0
,,,
onnnnnnnn F
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Segment6
"\\
.....
..nnnnnnnn (WBL 477)

,,,
,,,,, I-IoF1
,,,,,,,,
P,
5 -
..
"-..
Segment7 #.

",...__o_o
n n n_onn n nnn (WBLSOS)

0
1 11llJl IllJ iH_i li I I Ji II I11 I
Attach- 5 10 15 20 25
Front o
ment o
Distance (S) from attachment line, in
line spar

Figure 3.2-8. Local Cq'for the Design Case (CL = 0.5, 0.SM, 39,000 ft)
Flutes 9 Through 20, Aft Zone (TS Contro0

14
 4.0 SYSTEM DESIGN

4.1 FLOW PATH

The airflow path in the suction system during normal operation is as follows (fig. 4.1-1):

a. Air enters the system through perforations in the wing outer surface (skin).

b. Passages (flutes) under the surface direct the air spanwise. These passages are created by
the support structure (stringers) and the wing skins.

Co Air exits from the flutes at evenly spaced locations through collectors. The flow rates
from the flutes are balanced by screens located in the collectors. From two to nine flutes
may feed each collector.

d° From the collectors, air enters the spanwise ducting system. Tributaries merge through
aerodynamic valves (flapper valves) in a sequence that ensures flow controllability for
all sections.

e. Finally, the air exits the system, and the airplane, through a turbocompressor mounted in
the strut.

Figure 4.1-2 is a schematic diag-ram of the entire I-/LFC pneumatic system, with duct pressures and
collector airflows for the design operating condition (M = 0.8, CL= 0.5, 39,000 ft altitude) noted.

Perforated surlace (outer sldn)

Flutes

Stringers

Span_dse ducts

®
Turbocompressor

® s
Figure 4.1-1. Adfflow Path Durin.q Normal Suction System Operation

15
16
 4.2 DESIGN FLOWS AND PRESSURES

Valve settings and screens were selected to balance and distribute suction rates through the wing skin.
The resulting system conditions for the design case are shown in figure 4.2-1 for the flutes and
collectors and in figure 4.2-2 for the ducts and the turbocompressor. The design philosophy was to
install the largest possible duct. Nevertheless, an internal Mach number of about 0.4 occurs along the
inboard section of duct 2 and again near the entrance of the turbocompressor.

4.3 FLOW AND PRESSURE ANALYSIS

The duct pressure-drop analysis was conducted using a computer code having component subrou-
fines that were easily adapted to different configurations. Each duct was analyzed segment by
segment until it merged with another. At that point the lower pressure was selected and the analysis
continued for the merged flows. The equations used in the duct analysis are given in appendix A.

The friction factor used in duct pressure drop analyses was expected to range widely because of
varying roughness. As a practical approximation, a single roughness value (e) of 0.0001 ft was used
throughout (fig. 4.3-1).

A NASA-owned turbocompressor, previously used as a suction pump on other laminar flow control
flight test pro_ams, was loaned to Boeing and modified for the present application. Its suction
capacity was verified when the flow requirement had been determined. Figure 4.3-2 is a
turbocompressor performance map provided by the manufacturer. It shows curves of pressure ratio
versus corrected flow rate* for a series of corrected rotor speeds overlaid on efficiency contour lines.
This map, however, was developed for applications where the air being compressed enters at a
pressure that is approximately equal to ambient. In the present system, the inlet pressure was as low
as one-third of ambient, and the leakage direction (for shaft seals and so forth) was opposite to that
for which the turbocompressor was designed. Consequently, greater losses were expected.

Therefore, the mrbocompressor was bench-tested as a suction pump to determine its performance in
the present application. The line labeled "suction curve" in figure 4.3-2 shows the measured
performance at the topping speed, 48,000 rpm. Pumping capacity is substantially reduced in this
mode of operation, with the suction curve well below and to the left of the corresponding "pressure
curve."

The HLFC system requires a pressure ratio of 2.86 at a flow rate of 11.5 lb/min at altitude. Correcting
to sea level standard conditions, 152 lb/min are required at the same pressure ratio. The available
pressure ratio, indicated by the symbol on the suction curve, is 3.86. A comfortable margin over the
requirement is therefore available. (In fact, because of the low temperature at altitude, the
48,000-rpm topping speed actually corresponds to a corrected speed of around 53,000 rpm, and the
indicated margin is conservative.)

* "Corrected _ quantities are referred to sea level standard conditions. An example is given in appendix B.

17
 $ _8 _, ---_ _o _#6 _I z603 o 2r,i.s o zt_.2 fi lsi.2 _ zss.s _ _A
_ i,_ll o. i_ D • . ....

. 1-1_ D Outboard

=-o
_li'O ll_ _ _ o _., ..... •

I. --l_t I --- I ._- I I_ t 17_ I 1t I 111 I Is.-, llsi I_s_l

i, _._"-_ _ ,,,_ _ _' "-_ "i, _ _ _' -" ,/ _/ /

_0-=,_ ._,, ._._ ._ ._ ,,, ._./

__"__ _ _ ll_ o. _.-- _ i 2_ I 243 I 243 I I_3 ! 243 I 243 I 243 i

_^ _,_I_ \ ,_._ -.Li_="_-i A "=.omo ---ouo .am .oiss .oeit .o_s .o_ .os_ .oess /

_'i__l'_ _[_ _ _ _ PEXT-Average external pressure psf __

___e_._ _ _cn" I PF-Flute pressure

•_J ,-, .... o-°¢men pressure loss . .o

"-"7 r"c _o_mctor _ V I-
_L""'_ _ pressure coefficient

_in_#r_zl _-I C_nditi_ns at Collectors for the Oesian Case (C_ = 0.5. 0.SM. 39.000 ft) .

18
 _1 L6/VL_3_'IH _L07_.

q)

C3

_F

o
O

O
(3
P

19
D°°
°Q°
,°°

2O
 4.8
50,000

4.6

4.4

4.2 culve

at topping speed
(48,000 rpm,
S.L St'd)

3.6 Suction curve at

topp_gspeed
• (48,000 rpm,
3.4 S.L S_d)

Pressure curves 45,000

at various s

40,000

pump speed

35,000

Efficiency percent (typical)

20,000

10,000 -3
1.0
0 20 4O 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

Corrected flow rate, Ib/min

Figure 4.3-2. Turbocompressor Map

21
 4.4 FLUTES AND SUCTION PANEL

The basic flute design philosophy was to provide a constant internal pressure by following isobars
in the CF control area, while maintaining a spacing that prevented outflow. In the TS control area
the pressure gradients were small but the contours were irregular. So to obtain the constant internal
(flute) pressure, the porosity was varied while the spacing of the flutes was held constant. The layout
of these flutes is shown in figure 4.4-1.

The additional requirement on the flute design was ofspanwise continuity. Any barrier to flow within
the flute would produce unacceptable steps in the local Cq' that could have been detrimental. The
method of spanwise flute pressure control therefore depended on matching pressure gradients
generated by internal flow to the changes in extern_ pressure and flow requirements that occurred
in the off-design conditions.

A method for analyzing collector ducts with large numbers of tributary flows was developed by
Haerter (ref. 3). His procedure was used to analyze HLFC flute flow, and laboratory tests of candidate
flute designs were found to give good a_eement with that model (fig. 4.4-2). (Details of the flute flow
calculations axe presented in appendix C.)

The flute flow model was combined with the exponent/constant method of representing the flow
resistance of perforated skin (sec. 4.5) and with standard duct friction terms to construct flow
networks to analyze off-design conditions (fig. 4.4-3). The variation in flow through the skin was
predicted for the flutes exposed to the largest spreads of external pressure for lift coefficients from
0.45 to 0.60. The worst case flute was number 15, located in the aft (TS control) zone. Flapper valve
adjustment was able to maintain adequate suction uniformity (fig. 4.4-4). Over 85% of the span, Cq'
was essentially constant and the deviation elsewhere was acceptable.

The isobar variation in the forward (CF control) zone with changing C L was much less drastic. In
fact, very little valve adjustment was required to compensate for this effect. To illust'-ate this, figure
4.4-5 shows the performance of a small flute designed for C L = 0.5 but exposed to the pressures
corresponding to C L = 0.4 and 0.6. Because the flute may fall into a different part of the suction
requirement curve, the overall suction level may be adjusted.

Figure 4.4-1. Flute Layout and Isobar Location

22
 Rute test data pressure drop along flute No. 1 at 39,000 ft, M = 0.8
1

0.8

0.6 0

o.......-o ,a= 1.1

Ib/min
0.4

[] nn

w=0.7
O.2 Ib/min
CaJculated_ = 0.056 psi (appendix C)
Q.

2
"0

0.1 w=0.4
Ib/min
_o.os

"_= 0.2
Ib/rnin
0.04
'_= 0.1
Ib/min

ell

0.02

"I"

I I I, I l l I I l I f f l I |
0.01
0.10 0.35 0.60 0.85

Location along _e flute, X/L

Figure 4.4-2. Theoretical Rute Pressure and Measured Drops

4.4.1 FLUTE WIDTH SELECTION

The practical Cq' was previously depicted as a bar graph (fig. 3.2-2). The Cq' acmally varies across
the width of th_ flute because of the external pressure gradient; the upstream edge of the flute is
exposed to a higher static pressure than the downstream edge. Sufficient flow resistance throu_da the
perforated skin to avoid outflow and flatten the upper line while not exceeding system capacity due
to pressure loss was ensured by the proper selection of hole spacing, hole diameter, and flute width.
Figure 4.4-6 shows how this Cq' variation changed with hole spacing. Note the reverse flow threshold
for 0.00326 lb/s and the 0.003-in-diameter hole that occurs at a spacing of 0.017 in.

The flow into a flute on the threshold of reverse flow at its downstream edge was expressed in terms
of the flute width w F, the external pressure P, and the external pressure gradient dP/ds. In the next
section the flow per hole will be represented by an expression of the form

mH= kP(AP)b,
where AP is the pressure difference across the skin. Setting AP = 0 at the downstream edge and
integrating across the flute, the minimum acceptable mass flow per unit span for the flute was

ds Idsl o (b+l)(b+2)

23
24
 ,==-=,e,- - C L = 0.6, valves adjusted for correct flow at ends [
i

-,=,- =,=- Required flow conditions obtained at C L = 0.5 J

l JLegend:
==too '=a" C L= 0.6, valves adjusted for correct flow midspan J
C L= 0.45, valves adjusted for correct flow midspanJ

-z-

, I I I I I I
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

Fraction of span
Outboard

I_gure 4.4-4. Flow Versus Span, 0.5 CL Design Case

30 ¸

.dLmemoooo_memo_=-
25

2O

o= _s

10 ........... Required ¢q' (using 0.0016 perf, 0.01 spacing, at 39K, 0.SM
CL = 0.6, calculated %'

: C L = 0.4, calculated Cq'

• C L = 0.5, calculated c_'
.J

I I I I I
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Fm_onofsp_

Figure 4.4-5. Effect of CL on Suction Distribution, Flute 2 (CF Control Zone)

25
 0.0016

0.0014

0.0012
\
0.0010

0.00O8 Flowing in

0.0006

0.0004
flow---._ ... _ _ ,..._ .....
A 0.0002 0.028
0.02 (flows in)

0 _ _ ' _ 0.017 (reverse-flow _ reshoJd)

-0.0002

-0.0004 Rowing out __ 0.012 (some flows out)

-0.0006

-0.0008 _ 0.008

-0.0010
)
Hole spacing, in

-0.0012

I[ (0.O03-in
Perforateddiameter)
skin /
|1 ii

Net now = 0.00326 Ib/s

0.21 in

A= 114 span flute area = 0.21 x4.31 x 12= 10.86 in2

ExtemaJ gradient = 1,148 psf Po = 429 psf (design case)

Figure 4.4-6. Distribution of Cq'Across Flute at a Constant Flow for Various Hole Spacings (_)

26
where Po was the exterior pressure at the upstream edge of the flute and N was the number of holes
per unit area. Given a mass flow requirement, this relationship established the maximum flute width.
Figure 4.4-7 shows an example for an early candidate design using 0.002-in-diameter holes at 0.01-
in spacing.

0.018

0.016

0.014

=c 0.012

"6
,1F,
0.010

_o
o.oo6
E
.E
.c
0.006

0.004

Po = 535 psf, T = 432"R

0.002 = 1,400 D = 0.0021 in

10,000 holes_n 2

I t I I I l
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16

Rute width, ft

Figure 4.4-7. Flow at FTuteReverse-Row Threshold

27
The constant of proportionality in the hole flow formula is very sensitive to hole diameter, because
both area and viscous friction losses are affected. Using the above analysis for a series of hole sizes,
a plot like that shown in figure 4.4-8 was constructed to show the effect of hole diameter on minimum
flute spacing. In this case it was assumed that stringers block the holes over 45% of the skin area. The
example given shows that for 0.0016-in-diarneter holes, a maximum flute spacing of 0.45 in is
indicated.

Design concrdions:
Airspeed 0.SM
Pressure 545 psf
1.000
Gradient 1,400 psf
0.800 e_' 4 x 10-4 (29% of design)
Hole spacing 0.01 in
0.600
Thiekne_ 0.04 in
All_ude 39,000 ft

Fraction open area 0.55 (practical Cq'--'7.27 x 10"4)

Temperature 432_

O.2OO

0.020

0.010

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.001 0.002 0.003 0.O04

0.0016
Hole diameter, in

Figure 4. 4-8. Effect of Hole Diameter on Minimum Flute Spacing

28
After the flute width was established, analysis showed that the use of simple rectangular stringers
could produce high spanwise pressure gradients in the flutes with the highest Cq' (flutes 2, 3, and 4).
To reduce this effect, these flutes were enlarged as shown in figure 4.4-9. Tlaig reduced the typical
flute velocity from 130 to 95 ft/s. Also, the collector locations were spaced evenly along the span.
Together, these changes reduced the spanwise pressure drop along the flute from 44.1 psfto 7.7 psf.
(Referring to fig. 4.2-1, the anticipated skin pressure drop is 455 to 325, or 130, psf for flute 3. The
pressure change of 7.7 psf will generate a 5.9% change in Cq' along this span.)

Rule Spanwise Pressure Drop, psf,

at Design Conddion (0.SM, 0.5 CL, 39K ft)

Inboard location Oulboan:l location

Conflg- Flute
ura_on No. Solid stringer Hog-out stringer Solid slringer Hog-out sMnger
Ori_naJ 1 20.0 11.3 22.7 12.5
design 2 27.2 15.5 34.0 18.7
3 44.1 25.5 2O.2 11.1
24.3 16.5 9.1
5 27.2 15.9 19.8 10.9
4
6 41.2
18.0 10.3 12.9 7.2

8.3" 4.6
12. 5 6.8"
12.7 7.0"
10.4 5.7 _
7.5" 4.1
4.9 ° 2.7

Figure 4.4-9. Flutes Enlarged To Reduce Spanwise _P

29
 4.4.2 Skin Porosity

When the stringers (and flutes) follow isobars, the practical Cq' depends on flute pressure. Within
this area, constant skin porosity was used. The first six flutes follow isobars and have a design
porosity using 0.0016-in-diameter holes at 0.01 in spacing.

In the TS control zone, the stringers were evenly spaced. Because the isobars were not, the external
pressures over the flutes varied considerably. There were 14 of these flutes in the aft zone and each
one had a variable porosity associated with it. Because the required suction rates in the aft zone were
much reduced relative to the forward high-suction zone, aerodynamic roughness (ref. 4) allowed
larger hole diameter and spacing, which reduced drilling costs. The design porosity used 0.0023-in-
diameter holes with a spacing that varied betweenO.015 and 0.029 in.

The flow characteristics for these small, laser-drilled holes were approximated by a superposed
incompressible friction term and a compressible flow term based on the minimum diameter.

The laser-drilled holes were typically tapered inward (fig. 4.4-10). This provided the advantage of
avoiding blockage due to the wedging of particles when the smallest area faces outward. One
disadvantage was that it complicated the flow analysis.

The flow re_ime that governs the hole flow was classified as laminar and compressible. The three
methods that have been used to model the flow characteristics were--

a. Simple Incompressible. Ignore the compressibility; fred an equivalent (empirical) hole diameter
that performs as tested within a limited range.

b°
Equivalent Orifice and Tube. The friction term was modeled by an incompressible tube, using
an equivalent diameter and actual length (material thickness). The compressible term was
modeled by using the actual minimum diameter multiplied by a discharge coefficient.

Outer skin _rface

Hole diameter (outer)

Inner skin surface 1, °

I -o.oo
The taper profile was obtained by a rubber casting of perforations.

Figure 4.4-10. Laser-Drilled Holes

30
 c. Adiabatic Tapered Tube. Using numerical integration techniques, the losses along the hole were
computed with compressible expressions for area, velocity, Mach number, and friction factor.

These three methods are illustrated in figure 4.4-11. Model 3 was used to generate the complete flow
versus zh° curve for the design flight condition.

An explicit expression for w and AP was required for flow analysis. To accomplish this, a curve of
the form

= kP(z P)b
was fitted to the adiabatic tapered tube model in the re,on of interest.* Figure 4.4-12 shows how
these curves-account for the friction/compressibility effects.

Once the relationship of the effective diameter to actual diameter is determined, it may be used for
a range of hole sizes. The scaling ability is shown in figure 4.4-13 as a comparison of the output from
the numerical integration code "ABDTDIF.BAS" (app. D) to actual test data.

An interesting diffuser effect occurs in the holes that have a slight taper angle such as these. As air
gavels inward along the taper, the flow is "'attached" to the wall and the static pressure rises in the
normal flow direction and fails in the reverse flow direction. This results in less flow resistance in
the suction direction. Figure 4.4-14 shows the theoretical pressures along a tapered hole in the two
flow directions, as computed using the "ADBTSTC.BAS" code (app. E).

If the taper angle is large, as in other drilling methods, or the Reynolds number is large enough to bring
on transition and flow separation, the diffuser effect does not occur. Some electron-beam-drilled
holes actually behave in the reverse.

[J L .[

Ptow------_ Px+dPx

• v]
dPx = "P;_ ll'M2fdx (I+(Z_.I)M 2)
2D (1-M 2) ._
64
f--_

Q Simple incompressible @ Equivalent ofitice + tube Q Adiabatic tapered tube

Figure 4.4-11. Flow Models Used for Perforation Analysis

*Coefficient k has the dimensions (lbngs)/(lb/R2) l+b.

31
 Upstream pressure = 14.7 psl. T = 70 °F (average)

Methods
(_)(_

A Testpoin_
0.0021411 holes

1.00

0.01
0.1 10.0 100.0 1.000.0 10.000.0
Pressure dropacross sldn.pst

Figure 4.4-12. Methods of Modeling Row ThroughLaser-DrilledHo/es

1.000.00 I

100.00

0.10

model (0.001-in dia) --

ADBTDIF.BAS

(o.oo21-=
dia)
0.01 x (O.O03-india)
0.1
10 1000
Pressuredrop _¢mss s_n. psf

Figure 4.4-13. Computed and Measured Pressure Drop for Three Hole Diameters

32
 2,200
Sea levell=P'_ m R. _ .....
2 000 I._ _ Reversed flow _ _ "" --.. -.. _..'__ --- ..-..... Total
• II _ - """ "" --,.., "" _
M _ta/ (2.67 x lO-/ib/s) _ _.

1,800 _ " Static-- "_

1,6oo_ \
1,400 _j,'_c Normal flow

o. 1,2.00 / - (4.08 x 10"7 Ib/s)

1,000

I I I I I I !
0 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.0350 0.040

Distance, in

I d = 0.0016 _ Normal flow

i
d = 0.00451 Reversed flow

• -

Figure 4.4-14. Diffuser Recovery Effect of a Laser-Drilled Hole

33
 The two hole sizes seIected for the suction panel design were as follows (fig. 4.4-15):

For crossflow control:

Inlet diameter 0.0016 in
Exit diameter 0.00416 in

Hole spacing 0.010 in

Flow constant at design condition k = 6.34 x 10 13

Exponent at design condition b = 0.966

Flow range expected 3 x 10-9 < _ < 1.3 x 10-8 Ib/s/hole

For TS control:
Inlet diameter 0.0023 in
Exit diameter 0.00598 in

Hole spacing 0.015 _<d _<0.029 (variable)

Flow constant at design condition k = 2.54 x 10"12 (Z_' <_.18 psi")
Flow constant at design condition k = 4.23 x 10"12 (AP > 18 psf)
Exponent at design condition b = 0.988 (AP <18 psi')
Exponent at design condition b = 0.8098 (AP > 18 psi')
Flow range expected 2 x 10-9 < _ < 7 x 10-9 lbls/hole

For the 14 flutes in the TS control zone, the span was divided into 12 sections (detrmed by air load
rib and hinge rib locations). The external pressure, percent open area, area of segment, and design
flute pressure were computed for each section. Based on these conditions, an ideal hole spacing was
computed that would provide the correct cq' (fig. 4.4-16). It was determined by the manufacturer of
laser-drilled material that the positional drilling accuracy was +0.001 in. The design of the
perforation pattern was resolved into the 0.002-in increments dictated by the drilling accuracy (fig.
4.4-17). The effect on Cq' is shown in figure 4.4-18.

34
 WH= 4.23 x 10"12(550)(,_P) 0"8098

(Ap 18) ('_P > 18) 7

WH= 2.54 x 10"12(550)(AP) 0"988 --X_sSS S

1
Upstream pressure = 550 psfa, temp = 432 "R sf |//
kP
sS /d b

100.00 = SS / f

o sssssf " /

==
10.00 : j j'_ /J "
o_ 1._ - Row

J
I 0o0023"i
range

0,10 = _7_

O.O016-in dia

0.01
S,,,, .........................
0.1 1 10 18 100 1,000 10,000

Pressure drop across skin, psf

Figure 4.4-15. Row Characteristics for the Two Hole Sizes Used (at Design Conditions)

35
 o 0

f
(0
0

"_ i _'-i ._
-_ I _1_ _"

G, 0

NO_
,_ e- o)
X . CG

I I I I I I I I I I I I
0

z
u!'$ c_

36
 Rib segment
A B C D E F G J K L
,.....°....° .....°., ;.;.........:..°.o-......- -.-...-.-:..-;-.
,........°.......°..... .......°........°.......*..o-.-.-.-.-...-
2O ,..... -...........°°, .'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'°'-°.
. ..°.°.....-°-.-.-.-. ::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::: :.:.:-:.:.;.:-:-:-;-: :. :.:. :- :- :.:. :.:

19 ::::::::::::::::::::::
:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:-:-:.:, ..-.-..- ....
. .-.-.-.-.-..-o-.-.. - .... "..'. ,

18 ..°.-.-.-.-.-.°°o.-.o. !ii_!ii_!iii!_ii!i!i!i
:::::::::::::::::
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
• ..o.oO,°°o.%....*... ::::::::::::::::::::::
......-.-.....-.-
,- 17 _:_:_:_:_:_:i:i:_:!:!:
:i:i:_:_%??i:i:!
:":':':':: :'::
0
•°..-..o..°oO°O°.. -o-.
-°-°.°°°-.°...°.%°.°.
E 16 ....o.o.............°.
-°o.°.°.%°.-o.°-.°oO.
°.. °°.-.o°o°°°°o-o°°-.
.°..°o..O...Oo°°°°°.-o
*..°*.°.-.-.o°°°-°°.°.

N 14 :'::T::'J:T::'::::
.'.......,

:::':::':::':::-:
_ 13
O

11 i

10
9
•.o.°.o...o.°.o.-°°.-..i
i!i!_!i!iii!i!i!i!i!_i!_!i!i!ii_!iii!i!i!i!ii
i:i:_:_:i:_:i:i:i:i:i_

:':;:;.:.:.::

N
::::::::::::::::::::::: ,o..O.O.°o..O....°...._
• °-.-.o .%°.o.-. -o-.-._

5xx
_xx ,o.° .. ........

_NN ....... tighlight

,///_z
.... \\\\\\\\\\

"'''I/////////
.......

_i/_I/_
_)))))))):
,_,_,\\\\\\',

Hole Spacing:

_o.o,o _o.o1_ _.o_, _-_o._ _/_o°o_

F--1o.o1_
_o.o1_ _o.o_ _to.o_ _-_o.o_
Note: Using O.O023-in-diameter holes, except the 0.01 hole spacing, which has a O.O016-in diameter:

Figure 4.4-17. Outer Skin Perforation Pattern

37
 2il
2.0

C 12
!
14
15

FLUTE r4o

)
Z ! 11
Cq" x 10 4

1.8-1.9
! .9-2.0
2.0-2.1
2 1o2.2
2 2-2.3
2.3-2.4
2.4-2.5

Figure 4.4-18. Variation of Cq'Due To Perforation Pattern Steps

38
 5.0 HARDWARE DESIGN

5.1 REQUIREMENTS

The suction system had to provide an adequate source of suction for the wing test panel.

The suction rate and suction distribution had to be remotely controUable from the aircraft cabin.

The resulting ducting system had to contain provisions for anti-icing and purging of the perforated
leading-edge skin.

The wing portion of the ducting system had to fit entirely within the wing leading edge. The pump
section of the ducting system, together with the pump, had to fit inside a special fairing located under
the port wing and behind the port engine nacelle.

It was a design goal to keep the maximum Mach number in the ducts below 0.3. The ducting
minimum bend radius was to be 3 diameters.

Careful attention was required to minimize leakage and to avoid internal features that might cause
separation or perturbations in the airflow.

The suction system had to be designed so that it could be installed in or removed from a structurally
completed wing leading edge.

The entire suction system had to be supported to withstand the flight loads defined in volume KL

As far as possible, the suction system employed standard design practice and standard components
to achieve minimum cost and technical risk.

5.2 SYSTEM ARRANGEMENT

To fit a system of this complexity into such a tight envelope (see figs. 5.2-1, -2, and -3), standard
practice would include building a mockup to permit some preassembly and fit checking before
manufacture of the final hardware. However, in an experimental prob,'am that planned only one set
of hardware, the construction of a mockup would almost double the suction system manufacturing
task. Therefore, a decision was made at the beginning of this program to employ a new three-
dimensional CAD system, CATIA, for development of an "electronic mockup.'" This decision was
a good one; during the suction system installation only one significant interference was discovered.

The CAD approach to design provided two additional benefits:

a. An enhanced ability to respond to design change suggestions, which resulted in a superior

end product.

b. The opportunity to generate 3D datasets that were used to machine complex contours in
various components, saving considerable time in drafting, machining, and inspection.

39
 !

Ii tl

40
 !

!i

c_

41
 q_

L_

L_

42
The low-pressure,-Iow temperature duty of the suction system suggested the use of aluminum,
wherever possible, for valves and ducting and also allowed the use of rubber sleeves and hose
clamps to connect the various components (fig. 5.2-4).

Only in the turbocompressor drive ducting (450°F and 45 psig) was it necessary to use other
materials such as Inconel and stainless steel, although, in some cases, The availability of certain
standard parts (e.g., duct flanges, valves, couplings, etc.) made it cost effective to use
something other than aluminum.

The suction system schematic diaadam (fig. 4.1-2) shows the major role that valves played in
this experiment. While this was anticipated from the beginning, what did come as a surprise
was the degree to which each valve had to be custom designed because of its peculiar function,
operating parameters, or space limitations. Although considerable effort was expended in
searching the market, no commercial, off-the-shelf valve was obtainable that would fit the
available space and do the job.

Flapper valves

Inboard Air load rib

_aairo-e¢_
anti-ice duet

valve

Colle_or

K=rexit=cOon firings

Suction ducts

Figure 52-4. Typical Wing Leading-Edge Bay (Krueger Flap Drive Not Shown)

43
 5.3 SPECIAL FEATURES

A number of components designed for the HLFC suction system are complex enough to warrant
discussion.

5.3.1 Flapper Valves

A flapper valve is a Y duct in which a pivoted flap located at the intersection of two passages can rotate
and alter the area ratio of the two throats (figs. 5.3-1 and 5.3-2). For this program it was necessary
that each valve be remotely controllable, so each flap was driven through a worm-gear arrangement
by a reversible trim motor. In addition, it was necessary during flight testing to be aware of flap
position, so each valve was equipped with a linkage-driven potentiometer that reported the angular
position of each flap. For each location in the system, each valve and each valve port had to be sized
to match the adjoining, circular cross-section ducting. However, the flap needed a constant-width
passage in which to operate. The resulting design had an inner towpath that transitioned from
circular at each of the three ports to rectangular at the intersection. In addition, there was a
requirement to diffuse each entry passage so that a corresponding acceleration could be introduced
where flow mixing occurred. Therefore the resulting inner contour was complex and not easy to
define or machine in conventional terms; but it was well suited to the 3D electronic dataset referred
tO in section 5.2.

5.3.2 Check Valves

The suction system schematic diagram shows two check valves in the wing. Because of special
requirements and space limitations, it was necessary to design two custom valves for this program.
The first valve (fig. 5.3-3) was a conventional spring-loaded valve which allowed de-icing and
purging of the lower leading edge while preventing suction flow from that region. The second valve
(fig. 5.3-4) was installed to prevent a major loss of anti-ice or purge air through the outboard section
of the test panel and yet offer minimum obstruction to the suction flow. This was accomplished by
installing a thin, circular flap in a curved duct and pivoting the flap off center so that the flap trailed
in the suction flow but slammed shut against a stop during purge or anti-ice operations.

5.3_3 Pressure Regulaling Valve

There were two pressure regulating and shutoff valves (PRSOV) in the system: one in the
turbocompressor turbine drive duct and the other in the anti-ice/purge duct. In each application it was
necessary to modify a production valve so that the regulated pressure could be remotely adjusted

Axis of
flal

Suetiota
flow
Main duct
&

Figure 5.3-1. Typical Flapper Valve Arrangement

44
 PotenlJometer

V'mw Showing Potentiometer for Posit/on Indication

Potentiomete r.,..-_,__

Actuator mounti
" • b_

Reversible DC Mm motor

View Showing Flap Drive Actuator

,- Limit switches

Axis of flap_

\ \
\
rotation \
w=:.2J 1
\.j
Suction flow

View Showing Flap Drive Internal Components

Figure 5.3-2. Flapper Valve Drive and Pos#ion Indication

45
 L \
\

m4)..
Flow

_000000000 a
/ ob

\r z

q-
Figure 5.3-3. AntMce Check Valve

Spindte
supportbushing

Suc_onduct
(au_wy)

Z=

Figure 5.3-4. Check VaJve

from the cabin. This was accomplished by mounting a reversible trim motor on the pilot valve load
spring and providing stops so that a maximum pressure could not be exceeded.

With the first modified PRSOV in the system, it was possible to regulate the overall suction rate by
controlling turbocompressor speed, thus avoiding the need for an ambient air vent valve. The second
modified PRSOV allowed the operator to purge the system at a low level (1 to 3 psi) and to introduce
the anti-ice air gradually to protect instrumentation in the ducting.

5 3.4 Shutoff Valve

This valve is found in the attachment-line flow control duct (fig. 5.3-5) where its function was to
prevent the escape of warm air during, anti-ice/purge functions. The shutoff valve was normally

46
spring-loaded closed, and was pneumatically energized to the open position by the turbocompressor
start solenoid (i.e., at the beginning of each turbocompressor run). At turbocompressor shutdown
the valve automatically returned to the closed position, where it was ready for purge or anti-ice
functions. The valve itself consisted of a circular flap mounted on a spindle that penetrated the duct
diametrically. One end of the spindle carried a pinion gear that engaged a spring-loaded, piston-
driven rack. The whole mechanism was contained in an aluminum housing welded to the duct.

Operating Flow
pressure

Piston

Exit

Figure 5.3-5. Attachment-Line Flow Conbol Duct and Shutoff Valve

47
5.3.5 Plenum

Figure 4.1-2 shows there was a need to intersect the suction system ducting with the anti-ice/purge
ducting so that the suction system could be subjected to back:flow. Also, at low-flow conditions in
the suction mode, provisions had to be made to introduce ambient air into the suction pump inlet
through two antisurge valves.

Figure 5.3-6 shows a plenum designed to meet these requirements and also provide system
overpressure protection by means of a rupture disk. Antisurge air was introduced through an annulus
at the outside diameter of the main duct, thus avoiding the duct blockage of previous designs.

..-:--.

f
Mounting flange for
anlJsurge valve

Figure 5.3-6. Plenum Assembly

48
5.3.6 Muffler

Immediately upstream of the turbocompressor inlet was an acoustically treated section of ducting.
It was designed to attenuate high-frequency noise generated by the turbocompressor wheel that could
have caused propagation upstream and disturbance of the wing boundary layer.

Figure 5.3-7 shows the construction details of the muffler. The duct liner was a feltmetal cylinder
backed by a honeycomb core, enclosed in a steel tube. The assembly was equipped with suitable
flanges at each end.

5.3.7 Filter

The air supply for the anti-ice and purge functions was drawn from the aircraft environmental control
system and was unfiltered at the extraction point. Therefore it was necessary to protect the leading-edge
skin from particles that might have plugged the perforations. A 5-lain filter was designed and installed
as shown in figure 4.1-2.

A cross section through the filter assembly is shown in figure 5.3-8.

Row

Honeycomb core

Fellmetal face sheet

Figure 5. 3- 7. Muffler

49
 Clamp

Row
r

¢b

.-i
dter housing F'd_er element

Figure 5.3-8. AJr l_iter

5.4 TURBOCOMPRESSOR MODIFICATIONS

As in previous programs, the suction source was a modified 707 turbocompressor furnished for this
experiment by NASA.

Additional modifications for this installation included a new overhead mounting system, the
provision of an isolation valve in front of the compressor inlet, and check valves near the surge valves
to prevent the escape of warm air during the anti-ice/purge functions.

50
 6.0 SUCTION CONTROL SCHEME

The suction system provided the flexibility and control required for a research program, but exceeded
that considered necessary for production airplanes. To obtain the flexibility necessary for research,
several redundant flow paths (i.e., flutes versus ducts) provided smooth spanwise Cq' transitions, but
they complicated the control.

The control scheme was based on pressure differentials between the flutes and the local external
l

pressures. By monitoring and controlling these differentials, Cq was controlled.

6.1 SPANWISE CONTROL

For spanwise control, the pressures outside and inside the flute were displayed graphically on a
system control panel, and only one flute associated with each of the five spanwise ducts was analyzed.
Using the flapper valve numbering convention shown in figure 6.1-1, the spanwise control was
obtained as follows (fig. 6.1-2):

a. One flute for each of the spanwise ducts was selected for display (in this case the lowest
pressure flute in each collector):

i.e., Flute 2 Forward duct

Flute 4 Second duct
Flute 6 Third duct

Flute 11 Fourth duct

Flute 12 Aft duct

b. The static pressures outside the flutes, for the entire span, were displayed as lines. The
horizontal axis was, therefore, the distance along the flute (repeated five ames) while the
vertical axis was the pressure or Cp.

c. The internal pressures for the entire span of a given flute were displayed along the
corresponding external pressure lines as circle symbols. (The lever and fulcrum symbols
were not displayed on the control panel, but are shown in figure 6.1-2 to illustrate the
interrelationships of the controls.)

i.e., Flute 2 Points A,B,C, D

A-inboard flute pressure

B, C-midspan flute pressure

D--outboard flute pressure

Flute 1 Points M,N,O,P

M-inboard flute pressure

N, O--midspan flute pressure

P-outboard flute pressure

51
 n'z n'z

52
 (3

:2:
II

53
 The flute pressure required to obtain the correct Cq' is shown as a dashed line below the external
pressure. This is a computed line based on Cq' required, external pressure, and skin porosity.

The flapper valves were manipulated to generate flute pressure gradients by diverting flow spanwise.
The effect on the flute pressures was cumulative (i.e., valve 5 balanced flow between point D versus
points A, B, C). Some examples are--

a. By closing valve 15, flute pressure B increased relative to flute pressure A.

b. By closing valve 7, flute pressure L increased relative to flute pressures I, J, K.

c. By closing valve 1, flute pressures A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, increased relative to

flute pressures M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T.

d. The overall suction rate was varied by changing the compressor speed.

e. The adjustments were continued until flute pressures A through T lay on their appropriate
dashed lines (required flute pressures).

6.2 CHORDWISE ADJUSTMENT

After the spanwise adjustments were complete, the streamwise adjustment was made. This
adjustment was very coarse in flight but could be improved by on-the-ground metering screen
replacement. The control logic was identical to that used in spanwise control (fig. 6.2-1).

Perhaps, in future applications, this process could be accomplished automatically (by computer)
thereby optimizing system performance for all flight conditions.

54
Inboard

This correction requ=res

\ a screench_ge._.

S(a_ --_-)

Inboard/
Midspan

Outboard/
Midspan o_ Required §ute

Omboard
Refer to figure 6.1-2
pressure I.D.

P o
U,.

Flute pressures (typical) _--

Figure 6.2-1.
Streamwise Pressure Display

55
This page intentionally left blank

56
 7.0 ANTI-ICE AND PURGE OPERATION

7.1 ANTI-ICE

During early Boeing feasibility studies, an innovative idea emerged: anti-icing by a reverse flow of
hot air through the suction ducting. This scheme has the potential for greatly increased efficiency
compared to the conventional approach of blowing hot air against the inside of the leading edge, for
the following reasons:

a. The skin is heated more efficiently because of the high heat transfer coefficients between
the air and the inside surface of the perforations.

b°
The air emerging from the perorations is in direct contact with the ice, so virtually all
the heat is available for melting the ice. In addition, blocking of the perforations by ice
was not expected to be a concern in natural icing. Aerodynamically deposited ice was
found to be nattuaUy porous (ref. 4).

C. Convective cooling of the skin is reduced by the insulating effect of the layer of warm air
flowing back over the wing surface. While this effect is large for convective heating or
cooling, it is relatively unimportant in the present application because the primary mode
of heat transfer is by direct impingement of supercooled water droplets on the wing.

In the HLFC flight experiment, the performance of the anti-ice system was compromised signifi-
can@ by limitations that arose during the design. In particular the structural adhesive temperature
limit of 240°F required the addition of a heat exchanger that reduced the total amount of airflow that
could be obtained. As actually manufactured the experimental system was less powerful than that
of a production 757. Fortunately, the limitations of the experimental system can be overcome in
production.

7.1.1 External Heat Loads

The wing anti-ice system provided sufficient heat to prevent the formation of ice on the leading edge.
Ice formation was limited to an area near the stagnation line where the angle of incidence was
sufficiently near normal that the supercooled droplets attached. Droplets with incidence angles less
than this simply passed by. This incidence angle was found to be between 24 and 37 deg in icing
tunnel tests (app. F) with perforated material (fig. 7.1-1). The lowest incidence angle, 24 deg,
corresponded to a surface distance of 5 in and a projected distance of approximately 3.5 in above the
stagnation line. The distance below the stagnation line was shorter (projecting a.pproximately 1.5 in)
and it was determined by the practical limits imposed by the Krueger flap and mechanism. By using
this distance of 3.5 and 1.5 in vertically and a projected span distance of approximately 15 ft
horizontally, an area was obtained that, when swept through a volume of _ven droplet concentration,
produced the ice loading.

QICE = _ Ap T** V_, c A T W running wet

QICE = _ Ap Too V_ (c A T E + hfg) evaporative

57
Inboard O_

Icing Tunmd Photograph (After 18o see)

i I--
/ 3 1/2 in

,.
1 1/2 in |

Azea of Predominant Icing

Figure 7.1-1. Icing Tunnel Test

58
The running-wet loading was applied to the surface below the stagnation line where runback was not
detrimental to performance. All the ice had to be evaporated above the attachment Line because any
runback would have refreezed on the upper surface and caused laminar transition later in cruise.

An impingement efficiency (15) of 32% had been derived from previous icing tests (ref. 5) using a
relationship of the normal velocity component and the vertical distance from the attachment line.

Another heating load encountered during the anti-ice operation was convection. Convective heat
transfer coefficients for surfaces with transpiration are modified by the insulating effect of the air
exiting the surface (ref. 6). Good approximations of this effect have been obtained using boundary
layer growth mixed with transpiration flow to obtain the boundary layer temperature. From this an
effective heat transfer coefficient and resultant heat loss is obtained (fig. 7.1-2).

QCONV = heft AS (Ts - TAW)

After ignoring structural conduction, the last heat load to consider was due to radiation, which was
approximated as follows:

QRAD = G A S e (Ts4- T4).

The total heating load for the maximum icing condition is then

QT = QICE + QCONV + QRAD-

For the present design condition, QT is 146,240 BTU/hr. (See app. G for details of calculation.)

0.85---4 "
0.8-

I_ BLTAW'+ rnlT 1
T BL=_
r_1 + rhBL
0.6-

Flow from boundary layer growl_ heft

ho

0.4 o
_ layer

...........
¢.............
¢.........
,7.................... 0.2-
r_lT 1 Z'Perfomted skin

Flow from transpiration

0 1 I I I I I I 6
0.46 1 2 3 4 55
-r

PwVw _
p---_--v x 103

Figure 7. 1-2. Reduction in Heat Transfer Rate Due 7"0 Fluid Injection (Air to Air)

59
 7.1.2 System Performance

Normally engine bleed air is used as the heat source during the de-ice operation. The air is hot (300 °
to 400°F), so a relatively small amount is required.

146,240

(0.24) (350- 185)

= 3,693 lb/hr (61.5 lb/min)

However, the HLFC leading-edge temperature had to be limited to 240°F because of thermal stress
and adhesive limitations. Therefore, a larger amount of air was needed.

_ (146,240/60 = 184.6 lb/min (using 2400F air)

WNEEDED- (0.24) (240- 185)

A comparison of a conventional anti-icing system and the transpiration system used in this program
is shown in figure 7.1-3. The heating capacity for the transpiration system is considerably below that
required for an evaporative system (fig. 7.1-4). Presently, the combination of these factors have
reduced the system capacity to approximately 0.06 inches of ice per 5 rain (running we0. Explanation
of these factors foUows.

Wing leading edge _ Perforated outer skin X k k

(spray tube) j_ =&_ _ _ Adhesiv. bond w_r pane

high heat transfer Exhaust

Conventional Deicing Transpiration Anli4cing

Figure 7.1-3.Comparison of ice Protection Methods

60
 3000

15,000 ft aJlJtude
Tam b = 20OF
0.5 gm ice/m3 air
M=0.6
2500
CL= 0.373
EX. = 2.15 deg

lee load
2OO0

e_
o.
_9

1500
).-
nn

.-r

IOO0

5OO
System capacity at 24OO1
=

Evapotath, e
!

I
I
I I l I t I
1 2 3 4 5 6
Attachment
line Flute number

Figure 7.1-4. Flute Thermal Load at Maximum Icing Cond#ions

Bondline Temperature. Finite difference heat transfer modeling was conducted for the anti-ice
conditions for airspeed and ambient temperature without ice loading to simulate the worst case anti-
icing bond tempeiature (fig. 7.1-5). The maximum allowable bond temperature (240°F) was attained
using 300°F air. The allowable stress temperature is based on adhesive stress levels between the
stringers and skin. The adhesive used in the bonding process had this strength-versus-temperature
limitation. The other, higher temperature adhesives evaluated for this program were not satisfactory
for reasons of insufficient lay-up tackiness or melt flow.

61
 25O 20OF
h=z_ w/,_K 2to ,_ 250 260
2zo 250^..\ 23o 1260 270 \/2so
, , 1 \1 i 13 14 15/ /16 17

'7,o, 7"17W
= i _
Ti ii 240
;-
h = 7075
J{
240 i R/i
T -2" -I%' [ ;_

= 707!
"

5 27O
li 5_ i_ i! / /
230
.._,_ _ 2_
230
4 4 4
h= 140 h = 140
\ _h=140
3 3 3, _----_. 3
300OF 300OF
h=140 250

2 2 2 300°F
h= 140 .-' 7 "
25_ 240 -
•
i i h= 140
,....
1
1 2 8 10 11 12 .13 14 15 16 17

24o h = 102""
_F

Iil_!"_::"

__._ 260°-270°F_

_:G-. . ., 24o=-25OOF_
..... ].]" 230°-240°F_
S

220o-230OFl I

Figure 7.1-5. Rute Temperature Dist_bution (AntHcin.q Conditions)

The temperatures dcpen_d on external flow conditions. Under static or low-speed conditions higher
temperatures would occur (figs. 7.1-6 and -7). It was not considered feasible to provide a sufficient
number of temperature sensors to ensure that no part of the system exceeded the allowable
temperature unless the air temperature itself was limited to 240°F. Therefore a heat exchanger was
added to reduce the bleed air to this temperature.

Beat Exelm_er Performance. The largest heat exchanger that could fit into the strut fairing could
only provide limited cooling capacity. Based on this space availability, the AiResearch precooler
m oriel 182400-1 -1 was selected. The core dimensions for this unit were approximately 10 by 6 by 8
ill.

The purpose of this heat exchanger was to reduce the en_ae bleed air temperature to safe levels at
the stringer and skin bond when the system was in the purge or anti-ice mode.

62
 h = 10.2 w/m2K 295 80OF

2 3_4 5 / 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
f 't
i / h = 707;
h = 7075

iT
h = 7075_/ - - !5
5
295
_ 295
4 I i 4 4 I_----, 4
' " i h = 140
h=l_ i h = 140

h=140
_F i -3 300OF 292 3 q'----'_. 3
"_ 300OF
f T '_ \.T 2
292_ T 2
i _ h=140
./h = 140 i . i ,/"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
8 9J10
h= 10.2 _"
80OF

o
.=l

/_gure 7.1-6. Flute Temperature Distnbution (Still, on the Ground)

The heat sink for reducing the bleed air temperature was freestream ram air at the following nominal
design conditions:

P** = 1,057psf

ALT = 18,000 ft

T** = 20°F

M = 0.4.

At these conditions the heat exchanger was capable of providing approximately 501b/rain for purge
or anti-ice. This was far short of the 185 lb/min required for an evaporative anti-ice system.
Appendix E contains the heat exchanger calculations that predicted the maximum flow rate.

Effect of Metering Screen. The flutes that shared a common collector but were exposed to an
external pressure gradient required flow balancing screens between the higher pressure flutes and the
collectors (air extraction fittings). During sucdon the screens were sized to produce the desired flow

63
 h = 95.7 w/rn2"K 60OF
29o 280 \ 27s 2_p290 29o 2.8o 28o

........ •i..... "_.-.t ..... -........ -........ -....... _, ..... ¥ ............... t. ..... |.-t- ........................... ,..Li ..... _ ........
._-7oT_JZ
/l- -_ ".." -" "- /
,.,:,o,, I]_
j..'. ]. ]; !/_
:--; \ ,
,-,:,o,.
5

4
rirv.......,.......
i -i,........i,,........,,4
i _,," _,,/li i
4 ,;........,4
h= 140 _ " " ! \ ! ,.
\'! ! i i "= l.,.o i ", =1,o
{ ....... ,,o....... .4 ....... 4 ...... -' _3 3 t ....... -t 3
: : 300°F .
300OF : : : : h = 140

• i.......
.......
4.......
....... .......

275 h = 10.2 J
60OF

w-

Figure 7.1-7. Rute Temperature Distribulion (Normal Takeoff Purge)

by restricting flow at areas of locally high external pressure (fig. 7.1-8).

The consequence of using metering screens is that, during anti-ice or reverse flow, the screens restrict
the flow in the region where it is most needed. In other words, compensating for the external pressure
gradient during blowing requires that screened and open flutes be switched during suction to obtain
balanced flow.

The anti-icing flow throu_ the flutes that have screens is so low that free,stream recirculation within the
flute, due to external pressure gradients, will probably nullify any heating effect and drop the skin
temperature to near the local boundary layer temperature.

Spmrwise Temperature Distribution. The average distance between collectors was approximately
4 ft. This required some anti-ice air to traverse a considerable spanwise distance before exiting
through the perforations in the skin. Heat was lost to the structure and atmosphere in the process,
lowering the flute temperature.

Figure 7.1-9 shows the system temperature at the onset of icing. Note how the spanwise temperature
change was most dramatic along the flutes.

64
 Perforated_

_ Stringer

_ Collector (ref)
_-- Flute

• :-

® ®

Nom_ sucbon opera,on Screen must be moved

for balanced anti-ice flow

\
,, \
ttt _ ................ •

, %
',,\ i "--.. $_--mo._,o_ute_
i ........ Flute pressure required for blowing

Exten-_J pressure

: ......... Flute pressure required for suc_on

.J
1 2

Flute number

Fi.oure 7.1-8. Meterinq Screen Location Required for Suction Versus Anti-Ice

65
 Leading-edge conditions at the beginning of icing:
L_ Evaporates
Running wet

Forward

240

220

2O0

180 =._ Evaporation _mpemt,,re

(boiling point)
U.

160

_140 -

E120
$
m

o_10o

80 :-

60

40 -
Melting point
g
20-
£
..J
I I I I I z
300 350 400 450
WBL,

FTgure 7.1-9. Air Temperature During Anti-Ice (No Ice Load)

66
Extemal surface temperatures are further degraded by the changes in icing rates. Figure 7.1-10 shows
the theoretical system temperatures with ice loading and figure 7.1-11 shows the ice buildup
anticipated at various ice loads.

7.2 PURGE

Water from rain or condensation occasionally collected in the system. To remove this water, airflow
was reversed in a manner similar to the anti-icing operation. The important factor in purging was
not the heat flux but rather the pressure drop across the skin. The pressure drove water from the holes
and out into the freestream. Therefore, this operation had to be done in above-freezing temperatures
to avoid nmback ice.

Tests have shown that the pressure required to purge could be as high as 1 psig (ref. 4). Assuming
a worst case set of conditions, the pressure required to overcome surface tension is

AP = 2_/s'r cos0
r

AP = 150 psf(1.04 psig) 7st = 0.005 lb/f_ (water) surface tension

where r = 6.67 x 10 z i_ 0 = 0 (maximum condition wetting angle).

Because the bleed airflow rate was limited, the purge operation had to be conducted sequentially.
Starting with the forward duct, the system was cleared collector by collector until the aftmost section
had been cleared. In this way no more than one spanwise duct at a time was pressurized and the heat
exchanger capacity was not exceeded.

67
 240
I
22O

200

Evaporates
180

rRunning wet
160
Flute
tern
ou. 140i
g I
_= Skin
temp
0 Ib/hr-ft span
E Flute

8O span (0.o6 in ice/5 rain)

Various
Flute ice loads
6O
/. \

6.5 IbJhr-ft (0.4 in ice/5 rain) Running wet

2O

1 I I I
3O0 350 4O0 45O
WBL, in

Figure 7.1-10. Effect of Icing Rates on Air Temperature During Anti-Icing

68
 Onset of icing--rate = 0

Rate = 0.06 ird5 rain

[ ...........................:.'r'
....... _..,:,,,
,i, : ' _. ii_.i '._.i.i" ':'i
I III i .............. J ..... ) iil ,

Rate = 0.3 in/5 rain

Rate = 0.4 irv'5 rain

Rate = 1 in/5 min

L_eltd .

I_lce form=ion

[] Run back and refreeze

Figure 7.1-11. Theoretical Ice Formation at Various Icing Rates

69
This Page IntentionaJ.ly Left Blank

7o
 8.0 REFERENCES

1 Fischer, D. F., and M. C. Fischer, "The Development Flight Tests of the Je_Star LFC
Leading Edge Flight Test Experiment," NASA CP-2487, 1987.

2 Maddalon, D. V., and A. L. Braslow, "Simulated-Airline-Service Flight Tests of Laminar-

Flow Control With Perforated-Surface Suction System," NASA TP2966, 1990.

3 Haerter, A. A., "Flow Distribution and Pressure Changes Along Slotted or Branched Ducts,"
A.S.H.R.A.E. Journal, January 1963.

4 Goldsmith, J., "'Critical Laminar Suction Into an Isolated Hole of a Single Row of Holes,"
Northrop Report NA1-57-529 or BLC-45, February 1957

5 Bowden, D. T., "Investigation of Porous Gas-Heated Leading Edge Section for Icing
Protection on a Delta Wing," NACA RM E54103, May 1954.

6 Leadon, B. M., and C.J. Scott, "Transpiration Cooling Experiments in a Turbulent Boundary
Layer," Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, August 1956.

71
 APPENDIX A. EQUATIONS USED IN DUCT ANALYSIS

Hole flow:

wa = K PEx (AP) b K = 6.34 x 10_3for 0.0016 - in diameter, 0.04 - in thickness

b = 0.966 for 0.0016 - in diameter, 0.04 - in thickness

wa = flow rate per hole (lb/sec/hole)

K = 2.54 x 10Iz for 0.0023 - in diameter, 0.04 in - thickness

b = 0.988 for 0.0023- in diameter, 0.04 in - thickness

PEx = external surface static pressure, psf

AP = pressure drop across hole, psf

Flow through skin:

wa = _'H NA = _'rx A / _2 = wab( % open) (L) / [35(100)]

_'a = flow through surface (lb/sec)

'#x_ = flow rate per hole (lb/sec/hole)

N = number of holes per ft 2

A = area of surface, ft 2

b = flute pitch, ft

L = flute length, ft; assume 1/4 of test panel span

% open = flute open area / total area %

3 = hole spacing, ft

Duct friction factor (solved iteratively):

K = duct wall roughness (use 0.0001 ft)

Duct resistance: D = duct diameter, in
R e = Reynolds number
In = natural log
f.-

I (-0.85859)ln(12K 1
_.3.7D
-_ 2.51
Re x/f
f = friction factor

To = ref density = 0.075 lb/ft 3

Y = actual density Ob/ft 3)
K R = flow constant = 4.458
L = duct length, ft
D = duct diameter, in
R D = duct flow resistance
L v I
"WE

(lb/min) 2

"wc = inches of water column pressure

F = friction factor

A-1
 Duct pressuredrop:

. "we
Ap = ff144 psf_(0.0361 psi I RDW 2
R D = duct resistance _, (lb/min) 2
k psi j\ "wc /
_, = flow rate in duct (lb/min)

AP= psf

Expansion resistance:

REx =I_0"00520+0"0594(1-e-°2°75°)]I'D _" D/1 1

yo = ref density = 0.075 lb/ft 3

y = actual density, lb/ft 3

0 = angle of expansion deg (60- (leg max)

(if0 > 60 letO= 60)

D 1 = diameter at entrance, in

D 2 = diameter at exit, in

REx = resistance of expansion (lb/min) 2

Expansion pressure drop:

AP(total) = (144) (0.0361) REx ,_,2

REx = resistance of expansion _'(lb/min) 2
f ¢¢ = flow rate, lb/min

AP = pressure drop (total), psf

D2
Elbow resistance:

[ l * /°'' ]

Rel- [0.0234 + 0.3667e "_61 x 10"_D_)- ]f

+ 0. 382
(1 - e -4"59x lO'(_1

K o = Correction factor for angle =

0 = bend angle, deg

= flow rate, lb/min
D = diameter, in
bt = viscosity, lb- sec/ft:
R = centefline bend radius

A-2
Duct pressuredrop:
70 = refdensity = 0.075 lb/ft 3
AP= 144IP_s.f)(0.0361)Iy° ) R_w 2
7 = actual density, lb/ft 3
kpm) \ 7)
= flow rate, lb/min
AP = pressure drop, psf

f. "we

Re_ = elbow resistance/,(lb/min) 2

Valve resistance:

0.3719Kv K = valve loss coefficient

Rv = D4 D = valve size diameter, in

R, = valve resistance L.(lb It/ wemin) 2 /

Valve pressure dron:
AP= 144 fPSf_(0.0361 psi _r7o _R_x_2
7o = refdensity = 0.075 lb/ft 3
/ psi )\ "wc)_, 7 )
7 = actual density, lb/ft 3

2 R, = valve
•_, - flow rate,
resistance
lb/min
_.(lb/--_m)_
"WC
.)
Orifice flow rate:

Subcritical:
P1 = upstream pressure, psf

= 2.05 P_ AC P2 = downstream pressure, psf

I(._12 )1"4_' IP2_ 1"71
A = area, ft 2

Critical: (P2 -< 0-528P1) C = discharge coefficient = 0.65

0.525 Pl AC T I = air temperature (total), °R

1,1

Note: These equations were derived from "handbook" quality equations from many sources, or
curve-fitted from datasets. The equations were then modified to use consistent units and
placed in computer subroutines for access depending on geometry.

A-3
 APPENDIX B. "CORRECTED" FLOW PARAMETERS

The following are the turbocompressor conditions shown in section 4 and in figure 4.3-2. They have
been included to illustrate the analytical method used for compressor sizing.

_, = 11.4546 ib/min
•w "_'i _ 11.456_
81 0.06889
= 151. 76 lb/min
Ol-!
Ts-m
(normalized compressor flow)
432.43
01 =
518.67
From figure 4.3-2:

01 = 0.08332

151.76
For w-_' =

P_a- = 3. 86 (available)
P1T
145.75
The reouired pressure ratio: 2,116.22

P:T] =P- 411 2.82 S_ =0.06889

\P1T JREQD PIT 145.75

Because Prr > the compressor capacity is acceptable.

\ PIT J_EQD

B-1
 APPENDIX C. EXAMPLE FLUTE PRESSURE DROP CALCULATION

Haerter (ref. 3) analyzed pressure variations in ducts with large numbers of tributary flows.
Assuming constant density and duct cross-sectional area, he integrates the momentum equation to
obtain an expression for the pressure drop from a point where the average duct velocity is zero (i.e.,
halfway between collectors) to a point where the average duct velocity is V 1. For the case where the
tributary flow is at right angles to the duct flow (so it contributes no momentum),

AP = -(p/2) V12( f L/3D H +2)

where f is the friction coefficient, L is the length of the flow (one-half the distance between collectors,
2.2 ft), and DI. I is the hydraulic diameter (four times duct area over perimeter). For the present case
the mass flow is 0.362 lb/min and the duct area is 0.564 in 2. For a temperature of 400 °R and a
pressure of 238 lb/ft 2, the density is 0.00035 slugs/ft 3, leading to a flow velocity of 136.5 ft/s. The
Reynolds number is about 7,500, giving a friction coefficient of 0.0345 for an assumed roughness
of 0.00016 ft. The hydraulic diameter is 0.0514 ft.

Substitution into Haerter's formula gives AP = -8.08 psf (0.056 psi), a small enough change from the
intital pressure to justify the assumption of incompressibility.

C-1
 APPENDIX D. HOLE FLOW PRESSURE DROP CODE "ADBTDIF.BAS"

Computer program ADBTDIF.BAS is used to predict the pressure drop through perforated material.
Refer to section 4.4 and figures 4.4-12 and 4.4-13.
I0 'ADBTDIF.BAS ADIABATIC DIFFERENTIAL MODEL
15 I=l
20 D1 = .0021 * (.00255 / .0021) / 12
35 D2- 2.6" DI
37 CD = .7
38 DI=CD*DI
40 CP = 6000
50 K=I.4
60 TO = 4:32.432
70 R = 1716

80 THK = .O4 / 12
90 PO = 550
100 X=O
105 D=41
110 G = 32.2
120 A=3.14159*D1^2/4
130 DX = .00002
140 'INITIAL VALUES
141 IF[I= 1) THENPI=PO- 1
142 IF[I=2) THENPI=PO-5
143 IF [I= 3) THEN PI = PO - 7
144 IF [I= 4) C,OTO 550
145 I'=I+ 1
150 'INPUTqNPUT P1 THROAT PRESSURE PSF";P1
160 P=P1
170 V=[2*CP*TO*(1-(P1/P0) A((K - 1)/K)))^.5
175 V1 =V
180 T = TO* (P1 / PO) ^ ((K-l) / KI
195 OAM = P * G / flR*'r)
196 WH = GAM * A * V 'SIMPLIFIED
200 M =V/ ((K* R'T) ^.5)
204 MU = .317 * (T ^ 1.5) * (734.7 / (i"+216)) * 1E-10
206 RE =GAM *V* D / (G * MU)
208 F=64 / RE
210 GAM = P * G / JR*T)
22O DIFFERENTIALS
230 DM=M*((I +.5*(K-1)*(M^2)) /(I-[M^2)))*K*(MA2)*F*DX/ (2*D)
240 M=M+DM
245 IF (M > 1] GOTO 500
250 DP=-P*((1 +(K- 1)*(M ^2))/(1-[MA2)))*K*IM ^2)*F+DX/(2*D)
260 P=P+DP
270 DGAM=GAM*(-I /(I-(M ^2)))*K*(M ^2]'F*DX/{2*D)
280 GAM = GAM + DGAM
290 DV=V*(I / [I-[MA2)))*K'(M^2)*F'DX/ (2*D)
300 V=V+DV

D-I
 310DT-_-T'[{M^2)°(K - I}/(I-{M^2)}}*K*(M ^ I}.F.DX/(2OD}

320 T = T + DT

325 X -- X + DX

327 Q = INT ( (X / THK) ° 100}

330 PRINT "P-=-': P: "%DONE='; Q

340 IF [X > THK] GOTO 390

350 D = DI + (D2 - DI) *X/THK

360 MU = .317 ° {T ^ 1.5) ° [734.7 / {T + 21@ ) * 1E-10

370 RE --GAM °V *D / [G ° MU)

380 F= 64 / RE

385 C,OTD 22O

390W=WH°(I/.010^2)

400 LPRINT" "

405 LPRINT "HOLE DIAMETER="; 01 * 12 / CD; " INCH"

410 DELP = PO - P

420 PRINT "DELTA P--'; DALP; " FLOW--": WJ; " ;B/SEC/HOLE"; "INITIAL P='; P1

421 LPRINT "DELTA P=-'; DALP; "FLOW="; WJ; " ;B/SEC/HOLE"; "INITIAL P=-"; PI

430 PRINT" M=". M; "F="; "RE='; RE; "T='; 'I"; "V="; V

431 LPRINT" M='; M; "F='; "RE="; RE; "T="; T; "V=": V

432 C,OTO 20

440 END

SO0 LPRINT "FLOW IS SONIC AT X=": X * 12: "INCH"

505 W = 3H • (I / .01) ^ 2

506 LPRINT

,507 DELP = PO = P

Sl0 PRINT "DELTA P="; DALP: "FLOW="; WJ: " ;B/SEC/HOLE"; "INITIAL P=-'; P1

520 LPRINT "DELTA P='; DALP; " FLOW="; WJ: ";B/SEC/HOLE": "INITIAL P=", PI

530 PRINT" M=": M; "F="; "RE=": RE; "T="; T; "V="; V

540 LPRINT" M=": M: "F=": "RE="; RE; "T='; T; "V=': V

541 GOTO 20

550 END

D-2
 APPENDIX E. TAPERED HOLE FLOW PRESSURE DROP CODE
"ADBTSTC.BAS"

Computer program ADBTSTC.BAS is used to predict the pressure drop through perforated material
with static pressure recovery due to diffuser effect. Refer to section 4.4 and figure 4.4-13.

I0 'ADBTSTC.B.a_ ADIABATIC DIFFERENTIAL MODEL-NO SEPARATION-CONSTANT TOTAL TEMP,

STATIC MACH NO

12 ' AT DESIGN CONDITION

15 I=1
2O D I = .00167 / 12
35 42= 2.7" DI
37 CD = .74
38 DI =CD *DI
39 D2 = CD * D2
40 CP = 6000
5O K=I.4
6O TO = 432
70 R = 1716
80 THK = .04 / 12
9O PO= 550
I00 X=O
105 D=DI
I i0 G = 32.2
120 A=3.14159*D1^2/4
130 DX = .00004
140 _NITIAL VALUES
141 IF (I = I) THEN PI = PO - .001
142 IF (I ---2) THEN P 1 = PO - .004
143 IF [I = 3) THEN PI = P0 - .01
144 IF (I = 41 THEN P1 = PO - .04
145 IF (I = 5} THEN P1 =P0 - .1
146 IF (I = 6) THEN P I = P0 - .4
147 IF (I = 7) THEN P1 =PO-I
148 IF{I = 8) THEN PI =PO -4
149 IF (I = 9) THEN P1 - PO - I0
150 IF(I= I0) THEN PI =PO- 40
151 IF fl = 11) THEN P1 =PO- 70
152 IF (I = 12) GOTO 55O
160 I=I+I
170 Vl = [2 * CPTO* (I -(PI / PO) ^ ( (K- I}/K} )) ^ .5
180 TI=T0"(P1/PO) A(IK- 1)/K)
182 PT=PO
184 TS=TI
186 PS = PI
188 WH=(PS*G/(R*TR)*{3.14159*(DI ^2)/4)*VI
190 "LOOP 2
igi D =DI +{D2-DII*X/THK
193 A = 3.14159" (D ^ 2) / 4
195 GAM = P5 " O / (R * TS}
2O4 MU = .317 * ITS ^ 1.5) * (734.7 / fTS + 216) ) * 1E-10
2O5 v = WH I (C_M- _
206 RE = GAM" V* D / (O * MU)

E-l
 208 F=64 / RE

210 DPT = F* DX " (V ^ 2} * GAM/(D " 2 * G)

220 PT = PT - DPT

230 C = [K* R* TS} ^ .5

240 M =V/C
245 IF {M > I) GOTO 500

250 PS = PT / ((I + (K - i) * (M ^ 2) / 2) a (K / {K- I}) )

260 TS = TO / (I + ((K - I) / 2) * {M ^ 2]}
270 PCT = (X / THK] * 100
325 X = X + DX

327 Q = IN'r ( [X / THK) * i00)

330 PRINT "GAM="; GAM: "A=': A: "V="; V, "C="; C; "M="; M; "PS=": PS: "PT="; PT: "%DONE="; 0
340 PCT = (X/THK) GOTO 390
385 GOTO 190

390 W =WH * (1 / .01) ^ 2

395 X = 0
400 LPRINT"

405 LPRINT "HOLE DIAMETER="; D1 * 12 / CD; "INCH"

410 DELP = {:30- PS

420 PRINT "DELTA P="; DELP; "FLOW="; WH; "LB/SEC/HOLE"; "INITIAL P="; P1
421 LPRINT "DELTA P="; DELP; "FLOW="; WH; "LB[SEC/HOLE"; "INITIAL P='; PI
430 PRINT" M="; M; "F="; F; "RE=": RE; ""IS="; 'IS: "V="; V
431 LPRINT" M='; M; "F="; F: "RE="; RE; ""IS="; TS: "V='; V
432 GOTO 140
44O END
500 LPRINT""
501 LPRINT""

502 LPRINT" FLOW IS SONIC ATX ="; X • 12; "; INCH"

505W=WJH*(I /.Ol) a2
506 X =0
507 DELP = PO - PS

510 PRINT "DELTA P='; DELP: " FLOW='; WH; " LB/SEC/HOLE"; " INH'IAL P=-'; P1
520 LPRINT "DELTA P=-": DELP; " FLOW=": WH; "LB/SEC/HOLE'; " INITIAL P="; P1
530 PRINT" M="; M; " F="; F; " RE=": RE; " TS=": TS: " V="; V
540 LPRINT " M="; M; " F=': F; " RE="; RE; " "IS="; "IS: " V='; V
541 GOTO 140
55O END

E-2
 APPENDIX F. ICING TUNNEL TEST OF HLFC
TRANSPIRATION THERMAL ANTI-ICING (TAD

1.0 MODEL DESCRIPTION

An existing 757 leading edge slat icing model was modified by addition of electron-beam (EB)
perforated titanium outer skins and six simulated 0.6-in-wide suction flutes. Between flutes, 0.6-in
strips, where stringers would have blocked the flow, were sealed with cured bonding material held
in place by heavy gauge aluminum tape (fig. F-l). The slat represented a full-scale swept outboard
leading edge, but the aft body was truncated to a model chord of 34.5 in. The perforated skin covered
10 in of the model's 16.25-in span. It was hand formed and fastened to stainless steel support ribs
and to skin doublers at the aft edges by metal screws. Wood strips prevented TAI flow from reaching
the skin aft of the simulated flutes (fig. F-2).

Two skins were tested:

a. A piece of scrapped 0.040-in-thick skin from EB perforation tests, with 0.005-in holes
spaced at 0.05 in.

b. A 0.032-in-thick skin, provided by NASA, with 0.0039-in perforations at 0.032-in

spacing.

The specimens were checked for perforation uniformity by placing photographic film on their back
surfaces and exposing the fronts to a point light source. The "scrap" skin showed a substantial area
of blocked holes, while the NASA specimen had only a few, randomly placed, "'dry" holes.

The model was mounted horizontally at zero angle of attack in the Boeing Icing Research Tunnel.
The TAI air was supplied at the inboard end of the model through a 0.5- by 7.2-in cutaway opening
in the inboard end mounting rib. An exit plenum at the outboard end provided a bypass route for
simulating higher velocity through the flutes. All internal joints were sealed with high-temperature
RTV silicone rubber compound.

Instrumentation consisted of six skin thermocouples, one static pressure tap and air thermocouple in
each plenum and calibrated flow tubes to measure supply and exit airflows. The tunnel was
instrumented for liquid water content (LWC), and for tunnel air temperature and velocity. Droplet
size and distribution were obtained from calibrated spray nozzles.

2.0 TEST CONDITIONS

Tests were run at 170 mph airspeed and 2,000 ft pressure altitude. Air temperatures were +_.20°F. Dry-
air runs were made at both temperatures. Icing runs were made using 20-_tm droplets with 0.50 g/
m 3 LWC at the higher temperature and 0.15 g/m3 at the lower temperature. These are FAR Part 25
"maximum continuous" icing conditions.

F-1
q) O)

zrl _ .,-.

0 -- d o_
0 o
"_ ._=

212 m z
u_

Fo2
 g_
c_

L_

F_3
 3.0 RESULTS

Initial test runs were made using the 0.040-in skin. Because of the extensive dry-hole areas, there was
considerable ice buildup on the outboard side, and the required airflow could only be reached at a
pressure that caused leakage through the taped joints. It was concluded that results representative
of a production skin could not be obtained with this sample. The remainder of the test was therefore
run using the 0.032-in (NASA-owned) skin sample. The data presented below are for that skin only.

3.1 Dry Air Tests

Figure F-3 shows skin temperatures measured at +_20°F ambient air temperature and the design TAI
airflow for the HLFC leading edge, 3 lb/min (3.6 lb/min/ft span). The TAI air supply temperatures
were 350°F and 200°F. Data for "conventional" 757 and 767 TAI tests are shown for comparison.
The HLFC transpiration flow system shows much less chordwise temperature variation. (The
conventional TAI systems spray hot air onto the inside of the leading-edge skin from a supply tube.
It impinges at the nose and flows aft, cooling as it goes.)

A heat balance analysis was done for the 200°F air supply (with bypass) cases, giving a heat transfer
coefficient of 10.2 BTU/hr/ft 2 "F for the external flow over the upper surface. This compares with
the 24.3 BTU/hr/ft 2 °F that could be expected for a nontranspiration surface. The 58% reduction is
in good agreement with theory, and implies a potential TAI bleed flow requirement advantage for
transpiration heating.

3.2 Icing Tests

The 350°F air supply kept the leading edge essentially ice free and without runback in simulated FAR
Part 25 maximum continuous icing at both ambient temperatures (fig. F-4). However, with the 200°F
air supply, ice buildup was observed on areas where the flow was blocked by stringers, and runback
freezing was observed aft of the heated sector (fig. F-5). This buildup continued for the duration of
the run and did not shed. Figure F-6 shows skin temperatures for both ambient and both supply
temperatures under dry air and wet conditions. For the 350°F supply, the wet-skin temperature
approaches the dry value going downstream. This implies that the impinging mo_ture has mostly
evaporated.

3.3 De-Icing

To investigate the capability of the system to remove ice that has already accumulated, ice was
allowed to build, with the TAI shut off, at -20°F and 0.15 g/m 3 LWC, to the point shown in figure
7.1-1. Some 350°F air was then provided, and it removed the ice from the perforated area in 3 rain.
This process was possible because of the porosity of ice formed by impingement of supercooled
droplets. If the ice had solidly plugged the skin perforations, bleed flow would have been unable to
reach the skin.

F-4
 D.

°_

/
E
o

.J

_4

uL

o
.J

I I
I I

0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 t_ 0 t,O 0
O4

-i0 '_ur_ed_e; u!_s

F-5
Figure F-4. Leading Edge After 60 sec in FAA Maximum Continuous Icing With 350 °F TAI Air,
Ambient Air at -20_ F

F-6
Figure F-5. Leading Edge After 60 sec in FAA Maximum Continuous Icing With 200 ° F TAI Air,
Ambient Air at -20_F

F-?
 °@_/_

/ °_

U. I_.

r-I r_

l _I

o_

I I 1 I I I
0 0 0 0 0 0 O
0 14; 0 t._ 0
¢0 C_ OJ _

:10 '_un_eduse_ u!_IS

F-8
4.0 CONCLUSIONS

The test program showed that--

a. Thermal anti-icing by transpiration heating through a perforated skin designed for

laminar flow control is feasible.

b° TAI air bleed requirements may possibly be less for such a system than for a
conventional internal flow arrangement, because transpiration reduces heat loss from the
skin to the external airflow.

F-9
 APPENDIX G. LEADING EDGE HEATING LOAD AT ICING CONDITIONS

The following is an approximate heating load calculation for determining the heat required to melt
ice that forms below the attachment line and evaporate ice that forms above the attachment line. The
flight conditions are 15,000 ft altitude, 0.6 Mach, level flight, and 3.12 x 10 -5 Ib/ft 3 droplet
concentration.

Qr = Q_+ Qco_ + 0._

= TE+h,,)

= (0.32) (3.5_ X 15_(

lbj_3"12 f_x air
10" ice) (644) (1.0[185- 20] + 987)

Oact = 32.4 BTU/sec (116,660 BTU/hr) evaporative above attachment line

Q_ct = 13A, T. V. (c A T,v)

= (0.32, (1.5.__x 15_(

lb)_,,
3"12_air
x 105 icel (644) f1"0140-20])

QJc_ = 0.241 BTU/sec (868 BTU/hr) running wet below attachment line

= frs- TAw)

=(29.75) (5 x 17)(185- 50.9)

Qco_ = 28,259 BTU/hr above attachment line only since adiabatic wall

TAw = 50.9 °F > 40 °F

Oat_ = _ Ae (Ts" - T 2)

-(1.713x 10 9) ( _-5 x 17 ) (0.3) ((644.6)" -(479.6) 4)

= 435.9 BTU/hr evaporative above attachment line

= o Ae (Ts' - T..')

=(1.713 x 10 9) _ x I7 (0.3)((499.6)4-(479.6) 4)

= 17.1 BTU/hr running wet below attachment line

Qr = (116,660 + 868) + 28,259 + (435.9 + 17.1)

Qr = 146,240 BTU/hr

G-1
 APPENDIX H. HEAT EXCHANGER SIZING CALCUI_TION

The following is a heat exchanger load calculation to determine the amount of air available for
purge or anti-icing. It begins with the cooling side.
The pressure available to drive the cooling air through the heat exchanger is the difference
between the total pressure at the inlet and the freestream static at the exit.
k

tm = PT-P-
= 1,180.2 - 1057 1.4
14-1 2

ziP = 123.2 psf

PT = 1,180.2 psf

Based on the heat exchanger loss coefficient ofC = 225.64 and assuming the heat exchanger is
the predominant pressure loss, the cold side velocity is
1

TT -= T.(1 +_-!M 2)
k. cp_ ) P_ = RT r
1

= ( 2(123.2) _i 1,180.2
V _225.64(0.001389)) Pc = 1,716(495) TT= T,(1 + _-!(0.4) 2)

V = 28.04 ft/s Pc =0.001389 slugs/ft 3 T T _--495.0OR (35.4°F).

The _:old side flow rate is calculated and a guess of 50 lb/min is used on the hot side.

Wc = Pcg AV /vh = 50 lb/min (guess)

= (0.001389) (32.2) (0.556) (28.04)

_rc = .6973 lb/sec

Wc = 41.8 lb/min

Using the NTU method with a UA = 1,130, the heat exchanger effectiveness is:

UA 1,130
NTU = -- = - 1. 877
vCcCp 41.8(60)(0.24)
601.92
Z = w¢c....._._p
_ 41.8(0.24)(60) = = 0.836
'&hCp 50(0. 24)(60) 720

Z = [1_ e-_("__-_) ?
Z

0.836
s = 0.6069.

H-1
This results in the following heat exchanger exit conditions:

q8
To: = To:d q ::)
(.oc,)
= (601.92) (450- 35.4)

= 35.4 -t (249,556)(0. 6069) q = 249,556 BTU/hr

601.92
T¢_ = 287.0°F (cooling air exit)

T., =Thl qe
" (whcp)
= 450 - (249,556)(0.6069)
720
Th_ = 239.7°F (bleed air)

To summarize, the heat exchanger performance is

Bleed air:
Flow rate 50 lb/min
Entering temp 450°1;'
Exiting temp 239.7°F

Ram cooling air:

Flow rate 41.8 lb/min
Entering temp 35.4°F
Exiting temp 287°F

H-2
 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Fo_
OURN__I_
Public rm_,¢,,_.-,_bur_. for._is c_"_ c_ _-,;_,-_,a_orl is 6._,_ii_,d to a ver_ 1 hour per..respon_..: including the time fo 'reviewing instructions, searching e_g data
._.,_,__ _,._ ,,,...ta _.._ _ ,_pk.t.o _ _.,,,_ _ _.p _ _,,t_ _:. oo_t. ,.o,,_._ _ ,_,.,,o,,.tim.tao,anyo,h.,
1-1" "" - o_..t_n, _ su_g_..m_ tor ...r___ mJsouraen, to WaShington I-maoquaners betvces, I_rectomle vor Infon'nation Operations and
_Vael_, _)cJ4m2_50_ uavls mgnway, ::_uite ,L-_4, _lington. VA Z_Z_,_-430_, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwodc .ecluctlon Pro)ect (0704-0188),
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

April 1999 Contractor Report

4. TITLE AND SUu'il_ I.JE
5. FUNDING NUMBERS
High Reynolds Number Hybrid Laminar Flow Control (HLFC)
Flight Experiment C NAS 1-18574
IV. Suction System Design and Manufacture

6. AUTHOR(S)
WU 522-32-31-01
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

P. O. Box 3707
Seattle, WA 98124-2207

9. SPONSORiNG/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDt_E._ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA/CR- 1999-209326
Langley Research Center
Hampton, VA 23681-2199

11. SUPPLEMENTARY Nui t:_,

Langley Technical Monitor: Fayette S. Collier, Jr.

Point of Contact: Ronald D. Joslin

12e. D_¥HIBUTION/AVAILABIUTY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTK)N CODE

Unclassified-Unlimited
Subject Category 02 Distribution: Nonstandard
Availability: NASA CASI (301) 621-0390
13. AB61MACT (Maudmum 200 wO_,_)

This document describes the design of the leading edge suction system for flight demonstration of hybrid
laminar flow control on the Boeing 757 airplane. The exterior pressures on the wing surface and the required
suction quantity and distribution were determined in previous work. A system consisting of porous skin, sub-
surface spanwise passages ("flutes"), pressure regulating screens and valves, collection fittings, ducts and a
turbocompressor was defined to provide the required suction flow. Provisions were also made for flexible
control of suction distribution and quantity for HLFC research purposes. Analysis methods for determining
pressure drops and flow for transpiration heating for thermal anti-icing are defined. The control scheme used to
observe and modulate suction distribution in flight is described.

14. SUB,JEC; TERMS

15. NUMBER OF PAGES
Laminar Flow Control, Boundary Layer Suction, LFC, Flight Experiment 105
16. PRICE CODE

A06
17. SECU_gTT _FiCATION 18. ,51d;;UIHi I ¥ _I'IUAi IUfl 1_. 51:GUHIIlr I[;_II-IGAIIUN 20. UMIIATI(_N
OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UL

N_N 7540-O1-2_
tsnclard I;01111 2_8 (Hey. 2-89)
rescribed by ANSI SId. Z-39-18
298-102