Colin S. Bidwell

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Particle Trajectory and Icing Analysis of the E3

Turbofan Engine Using LEWICE3D Version 3

NASA/TM—2012-217696

September 2012
NASA STI Program . . . in Profi le

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA Scientifi c and Technical Information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role.

The NASA STI Program operates under the auspices 

of the Agency Chief Information Offi cer. It collects, 

organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates 

NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access 

to the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database and 

its public interface, the NASA Technical Reports 

Server, thus providing one of the largest collections 

of aeronautical and space science STI in the world. 

Results are published in both non-NASA channels 

and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which 

includes the following report types:

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major signifi cant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

programs and include extensive data or theoretical 

analysis. Includes compilations of signifi cant 

scientifi c and technical data and information 

deemed to be of continuing reference value. 

NASA counterpart of peer-reviewed formal 

professional papers but has less stringent 

limitations on manuscript length and extent of 

graphic presentations.

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientifi c 

and technical fi ndings that are preliminary or 

of specialized interest, e.g., quick release 

reports, working papers, and bibliographies that 

contain minimal annotation. Does not contain 

extensive analysis.

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientifi c and 

technical fi ndings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scientifi c and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientifi c, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and missions, often 

concerned with subjects having substantial 

public interest.

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scientifi c and 

technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission.

Specialized services also include creating custom 

thesauri, building customized databases, organizing 

and publishing research results.

For more information about the NASA STI 

program, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI program home page at 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question to help@sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA STI 

Information Desk at 443–757–5803

• Phone the NASA STI Information Desk at

 443–757–5802

• Write to:

 STI Information Desk

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

 7115 Standard Drive

 Hanover, MD 21076–1320
Colin S. Bidwell

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Particle Trajectory and Icing Analysis of the E3

Turbofan Engine Using LEWICE3D Version 3

NASA/TM—2012-217696

September 2012

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135

Prepared for the

International Conference on Aircraft and Engine Icing and Ground Deicing

sponsored by the SAE International

Chicago, Illinois, June 13–17, 2011
Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Joseph Veres, Philip Jorgenson and Russell Claus of the NASA Glenn Research Center,

Cleveland, Ohio for contributing the fl ow solution for the E3 compressor and for aid in interpreting turbomachinery

fl ow and particle transport physics.

Available from

NASA Center for Aerospace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076–1320

National Technical Information Service

5301 Shawnee Road

Alexandria, VA 22312

Available electronically at http://www.sti.nasa.gov

Trade names and trademarks are used in this report for identifi cation 

only. Their usage does not constitute an offi cial endorsement, 

either expressed or implied, by the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration.

This work was sponsored by the Fundamental Aeronautics Program 

at the NASA Glenn Research Center.

Level of Review: This material has been technically reviewed by technical management. 
NASA/TM—2012-217696 1 

Particle Trajectory and Icing Analysis of the E3 Turbofan Engine 

Using LEWICE3D Version 3 

Colin S. Bidwell 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Glenn Research Center 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135 

Abstract 

Particle trajectory and ice shape calculations were made for the Energy Efficient Engine (E3) using 

the LEWICE3D Version 3 software. The particle trajectory and icing computations were performed using 

the new “block-to-block” collection efficiency method which has been incorporated into the LEWICE3D 

Version 3 software. The E3

was developed by NASA and GE in the early 1980’s as a technology 

demonstrator and is representative of a modern high bypass turbofan engine. The E3 flow field was 

calculated using the NASA Glenn ADPAC turbomachinery flow solver. Computations were performed 

for the low pressure compressor of the E3

 for a Mach 0.8 cruise condition at 11,887 m assuming a 

standard warm day for three drop sizes and two drop distributions typically used in aircraft design and 

certification. Particle trajectory computations were made for water drop sizes of 5, 20, and 100 m. 

Particle trajectory and ice shape predictions were made for a 20 m Langmuir-D distribution and for a 

92 m Super-cooled Large Droplet (SLD) distribution with and without splashing effects for a Liquid 

Water Content (LWC) of 0.3 g/m3 and an icing time of 30 min. The E3 fan and spinner combination 

proved to be an effective ice removal mechanism as they removed greater than 36 percent of the mass 

entering the inlet for the icing cases. The maximum free stream catch fraction for the fan and spinner 

combination was 0.60 while that on the elements downstream of the fan was 0.03. The non-splashing 

trajectory and collection efficiency results showed that as drop size increased impingement rates 

increased on the spinner and fan leaving less mass to impinge on downstream components. The SLD 

splashing case yielded more mass downstream of the fan than the SLD non-splashing case due to mass 

being splashed from the upstream inlet lip, spinner and fan components. The ice shapes generated 

downstream of the fan were either small or nonexistent due to the small available mass and evaporation 

except for the 92 m SLD splashing case. Relatively large ice shapes were predicted for internal guide 

vane #1 and rotor #1 for the 92 m SLD splashing case due to re-impingement of splashed mass. 

Introduction 

Over the last several years work has been ongoing to develop tools to analyze aircraft configurations 

subjected to Super-cooled Large Droplet (SLD) conditions (Ref. 1) and High Ice Water Content (HIWC) 

conditions (Refs. 2 to 3). Both the SLD and HIWC environments contain conditions outside of the FAA 

Appendix C (Ref. 4) Certification Envelope. The SLD environment contains larger drops than the 

Appendix C envelope which impinge further back and which are subject to breakup and splash at impact. 

The HIWC environment contains large ice or mixed phase particles (50 m) in very high concentrations 

(~10 g/m3

) up to very high altitudes (~40000 ft). This HIWC environment has been responsible for many 

engine anomalies including engine roll backs and shutdowns. Work is underway to quantify the HIWC 

environment and to develop ground test facilities and computational tools to assess the sensitivity of 

various engines to the HIWC threat. New certification rules, which will require aircraft to fly safely 

through these conditions, are on the horizon. These new rules will generate new requirements for aircraft 

ice protection system design and certification and for the tools which aid in these processes. 

 
NASA/TM—2012-217696 2 

The development of icing computational analysis tools which produce sufficiently accurate results in 

a reasonable amount of computational time for turbomachinery flows has been a major challenge 

(Refs. 5 and 6). The use of unsteady tools to simulate the flow and particle transport in the highly time 

dependent turbomachinery flows was seen as impractical and as possibly unnecessary. For this reason a 

methodology was developed at NASA Glenn which uses the steady flow assumption commonly used in 

turbomachinery design tools. These methods typically model blade rows as a single blade with 

circumferential symmetry and circumferentially averaged inflow and outflow boundary conditions which 

are generated from neighboring blade rows. These methods typically march through the turbomachinery 

calculating steady flow for each blade using the upstream blade outflow boundary data and the 

downstream inflow boundary data for the inflow and outflow boundary conditions respectively. Several 

passes through the engine to achieve convergence are typically employed by these methods. 

The newly developed NASA Glenn “block-to-block” icing analysis method follows the same logic 

used in these steady flow turbomachinery flow analysis tools. Droplet transport and ice shape calculations 

are generated for each blade row using steady, single blade flow solutions and the outflow droplet size, 

concentration, and particle velocity data from the upstream blade row as inflow data. The upstream blade 

outflow droplet concentration and droplet velocities are circumferentially averaged before being passed to 

the downstream blade row as an inflow boundary condition. This “block-to-block” method was 

incorporated into the NASA Glenn 3D ice accretion tool LEWICE3D Version 3 (Ref. 7). 

The E3

 engine (Refs. 8 to 10) was selected as a test case for the newly developed “block-to-block” 

method incorporated into LEWICE3D Version 3. The E3 was developed by NASA and GE in the early 

1980’s as a technology demonstrator. The engine was chosen because it is representative of a modern 

high bypass turbofan engine, the geometry and experimental data were publicly available and flow 

solutions were readily available. 

The analysis was done in two parts. The first part was a particle analysis for 5, 20, and 100 m 

particles to explore the nature of particle flow through the E3

. The particles used in this analysis were 

water droplets but they also could represent spherical ice particles which have a similar density. 

Throughout the study the term particle and drop are used interchangeably and are meant to imply particles 

with the same drag characteristics as water drops with a density equal to that of water. The 5 and 20 m 

particles are typical of particle sizes used in Appendix C analysis. The 100 m particle is a typical particle 

size for both SLD and HIWC. The second part was an icing analysis using two water droplet distributions 

typically used in aircraft design and certification. The first distribution was a 20 m Appendix C 

distribution. The second distribution used was a 92 m SLD distribution. The SLD droplet distribution 

was obtained from measurements in the NASA Glenn Icing Research Tunnel during droplet impingement 

tests (Ref. 11). The SLD calculations were done with the SLD splashing model turned off and with it 

turned on to quantify the effect of droplet splashing on the icing characteristics of the E3

. The SLD 

splashing results may provide some insight into the HIWC ice crystal environment throughout the engine. 

It is thought that the large ice crystals contained in the HIWC environment probably breakup into smaller 

particles during impact much like the large SLD drops breakup into smaller drops upon impact. It is also 

important to note that the E3 flight condition chosen for the analysis (cruise at Mach 0.8, 11,887 m) is 

typical of HIWC conditions but not of SLD or Appendix C icing conditions, which typically occur at 

lower altitudes and speeds. The authors believe the icing analysis has merit even though the conditions 

chosen were not consistent with actual Appendix C or SLD conditions. The study represents an initial 

step in exploring the particle and icing characteristics of a turbofan compressor and it illustrates the newly 

developed capability of the LEWICE3D Version 3 software. 

Nomenclature 

d droplet diameter, m 

E3

 Energy Efficient Engine 

HTC Heat Transfer Coefficient, W/m3

/K 
NASA/TM—2012-217696 3 

IGV Inlet Guide Vane 

LWC Liquid Water Content, g/m3 

MVD Median Volume Diameter, m 

 Collection efficiency 

Analytical Method 

Grid and Flow Calculations 

The ADPAC flow solver (Refs. 12 to 14) was used to generate the flow solution for the analysis. The 

ADPAC code is a three-dimensional, finite volume based, Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes flow solver. 

The code computes flows on complex propulsion system configurations using multi-block body fitted 

grids. The method employs a “mixing-plane” procedure to pass boundary condition data between grid 

blocks for the steady state flows. The code supports parallel computing and uses a Baldwin-Lomax based 

turbulence model. 

LEWICE3D 

The LEWICE3D ice accretion code was used for the drop trajectory and icing analysis. The grid 

based code incorporates droplet trajectory, heat transfer and ice shape calculation into a single computer 

program. The code can handle generic multi-block structured grid based flow solutions, unstructured grid 

based flow solutions, simple Cartesian grids with surface patches, and adaptive grids with surface 

patches. The latter two methods allow the use of generic panel code input which, when combined with 

LEWICE3D, is a computationally efficient method for generating ice shapes. The code can handle 

overlapping and internal grids and can handle multiple planes of symmetry. Calculations of arbitrary 

streamlines and trajectories are possible. The code has the capability to calculate tangent trajectories and 

impingement efficiencies for single drops or drop distributions using area based collection efficiency 

methods. Ice accretions can be calculated at arbitrary regions of interest in either a surface normal or 

tangent droplet trajectory direction. The program can run on a variety of single processor and parallel 

computers, including Unix, Linux, and Windows (Microsoft Corporation) based systems. 

Version 3 of the LEWICE3D software, which incorporates several new features, was used for the 

analysis. These features include a new particle splash and bounce algorithm, a new geometry handling 

scheme which allows complex mirroring, transformation and relative motion of input grid blocks and a 

new algorithm which calculates block-to-block collection efficiencies. The capability to calculate particle 

trajectories in rotating reference frames was also added (Ref. 5). These new additions will enable users to 

analyze SLD conditions and to calculate collection efficiency with particle splash and bounce effects 

through turbomachinery. 

The “block-to-block” collection efficiency methodology in LEWICE3D was used to calculate 

collection efficiencies and ice shapes for the low pressure compressor of the E3

 for a cruise condition 

(Mach 0.8, at an altitude of 11,887 m assuming a standard warm day). The flow solution was obtained 

using the NASA Glenn ADPAC flow solver. The work presented in this paper represents calculations on 

the E3

 low pressure compressor for several drop sizes and droplet distributions. 

Analysis 

The E3 analysis included the calculation of flow, particle trajectories and ice accretions. The results 

for the flow are presented along with particle analysis for 5, 20, and 100 m drop sizes. Ice accretion 

calculations were made for 2 droplet distributions typically used in aircraft design and certification. These 

distributions included an Appendix C based 7 bin Langmuir-D distribution with a Median Volume 

Diameter (MVD) of 20 m (Table 1) and a 10 bin SLD based distribution with an MVD of 92 m 
NASA/TM—2012-217696 4 

(Table 2). Ice accretion calculations were made for the SLD distribution with and without splashing. The 

ice accretion calculations were made at six locations in the E3

 low pressure compressor. These included 

the inlet lip, splitter lip #1, splitter lip #2, and the 25 percent span location on the fan blade, inlet guide 

vane #1, and rotor #1 shown in Figure 1. 

The grid structure used for the flow and particle analysis is shown in Figure 1. The grid contained 

12 structured, abutted grid blocks with a total of 327,583 nodes. The steady, viscous flow solution was 

generated for a Mach 0.8 cruise condition at 11,887 m assuming a standard warm day. Flow vectors along 

the centerline of the axi-symmetric solution are shown in Figure 2. 

Figure 3 shows the collection efficiency () and particle trajectory results for the 5 m case. 

Collection efficiency is a non-dimensional measure of the water flux for a surface and is dependent upon 

the amount of convergence or dispersion of particles in a flow and the orientation of the surface relative to 

the droplet paths. A collection efficiency of one implies the surface water loading is equal to the free 

stream water loading. A value less than one means the surface water loading is less than the free stream 

water loading and a value greater than one imply that the surface water loading is greater than the free 

stream level. From the collection efficiency, drop trajectory and drop trajectory impact points shown in 

Figures 3(a) to (d) we can see that impingement occurs throughout the low pressure compressor. The 

droplet trajectories are shown in the rotating reference frame of the fan. The droplet trajectory impact 

point plot (3d) displays the impact locations for the droplets calculated in each of the blocks for the 

“block-to-block” method. This plot illustrates the density and location of the impacting drops used in the 

“block-to-block” method. The peak value of collection efficiency for the fan was 1.2 (Table 3) and 

occurred on leading edge of the pressure side of the fan blade near the blade root. The free stream catch 

fractions were relatively small for the 5 m for the various components shown in Table 3 (6 percent). 

The free stream catch fraction was defined as the ratio of the mass impinging on a component divided by 

the mass available in the free stream for an area equal to the area bounded by the highlight of the inlet lip. 

The elements of interest listed in Table 3 (spinner, fan blade, splitter lip #1, IGV #1, rotor #1 and splitter 

lip #2) removed 11 percent of the mass entering the inlet with the spinner and fan removing the largest 

portion (7 percent). 

The collection and particle trajectory results for the 20 m case are show in Figure 4. As for the 5 m 

drop the 20 m drop revealed impingement throughout the low pressure compressor although the 

impingement area was larger for the 20 m drop (Figs. 3(d) and 4(d)). For most of the components the 

impingement rates were higher for the 20 m drop than for the 5 m drop due to drop inertia. Larger 

particles, which have larger inertia, are more resistive to changes in direction due to flow gradients than 

smaller particles which results in the larger particles being less apt to avoid obstacles. The maximum 

value of collection efficiency for the fan was 1.54 (Table 4) and it occurred on leading edge of the 

pressure side of the fan blade near the root of the blade. The elements of interest listed in Table 4 

(spinner, fan blade, splitter lip #1, IGV #1, rotor #1 and splitter lip #2) removed 49 percent of the mass 

entering the inlet. The fan and spinner elements removed most of this mass (47 percent). 

The collection and particle trajectory results for the 100 m case are show in Figure 5. Impingement 

is visible from Figure 5(d) for the bypass region but not aft of IGV #1 for the inner flow path. The 

100 m drops were not able to negotiate the flow path between the IGV #1 blades due to droplet inertia 

and a higher relative angle-of-attack. From the IGV #1 inflow particle and air velocity vectors shown in 

Figure 6 we can see that that the 100 m drop had a larger relative angle-of-attack than 5 m particle or 

the air. This higher relative angle-of-attack and inertia of the larger 100 m drops results in a 100 percent 

collision rate with IGV #1. The maximum collection efficiency on the fan blade was 0.92 and occurred on 

the aft end of the fan blade near the root. The elements of interest listed in Table 5 (spinner, fan blade, 

splitter lip #1, IGV #1, rotor #1 and splitter lip #2) removed 73 percent of the mass entering the inlet with 

the spinner and fan removing the largest portion (72 percent). 

The collection efficiency results for the 20 m Langmuir-D distribution are shown in Figure 7. The 

results are similar to those for the single 20 m particle. The impingement limits are farther aft on the 

inlet lip and spinner for the distribution than for the single drop size case due to the presence of larger 
NASA/TM—2012-217696 5 

drops in the distribution. The maximum collection efficiency on the fan blade (Table 6) was also greater 

for the distribution case than that for the single drop size case due to the presence of larger drops in the 

distribution case (1.9, 1.5 respectively). The maximum occurred on the leading edge of the pressure side 

of the fan blade near the blade root. The amount of mass impinging on the elements of interest in Table 6 

was also similar to the 20 m single drop case (47 and 49 percent, respectively). The distribution case 

yielded a small amount of mass entering the inner core (0.2 percent of that entering the inlet). This was 

due to the presence of small drops in the distribution case which were able to negotiate the blade passages 

close to the inner wall and enter the inner core. 

Figure 8 presents the collection efficiency results for the 92 m SLD distribution without splashing. 

The magnitude of collection efficiency and the extent of impingement on the inlet lip and spinner are 

larger than for the 20 m Langmuir-D case due to the larger drops present in the SLD distribution. The 

impingement rates and maximum collection efficiencies for the 92 m distribution case were similar to 

those for the single 100 m drop case except that the distribution case generated impingement on the 

elements aft of IGV #1. This was due to the presence of smaller drops in the distribution case which were 

able to negotiate the passages between the upstream blades. The maximum collection efficiency on the 

fan blade was 1.14 and occurred on the aft end of the fan blade near the root. The elements of interest 

listed in Table 7 (spinner, fan blade, splitter lip #1, IGV #1, rotor #1 and splitter lip #2) removed 

67 percent of the mass entering the inlet with the spinner and fan removing the largest portion 

(66 percent). As for the 20 m Langmuir-D distribution case a small amount of mass was calculated 

entering the inner core (0.03 percent of that entering the inlet).

The SLD 92 m collection efficiency results for splashing are shown in Figure 9 and in Table 8. The 

SLD splashing model results in an increase in mass loss as the impingement limits are approached for the 

inlet lip and spinner over the non-splashing result shown in Figure 8. The fan blade impingement 

characteristics for the SLD splashing and non splashing cases were markedly different. The splashing 

case shows a large amount of mass loss near the leading edge of the fan blade toward the root. The 

splashing case also shows higher levels of collection efficiency on the trailing edge of the fan blade near 

the root than the non-splashing case due to re-impingement. The mass collected on the fan blade is 

smaller for the SLD splashing case than for the non-splashing case due to splashing (91.466 and 

134.717 g/s, respectively). The percentage of mass entering the inlet which was collected on the elements 

of interest listed in Table 8 (spinner, fan blade, splitter lip #1, IGV #1, rotor #1 and splitter lip #2) was 

much smaller for the splashing case than for the non-splashing case due to splashing (39 and 67 percent, 

respectively). The splashing case also predicted more mass entering the core than the non-splashing case 

(6.946 and 0.061 g/s, respectively). This additional mass was comprised of a large number of small 

particles generated by the breakup of the larger SLD drops during impact. 

The ice accretion results for several elements of interest in the E3

 compressor are presented in 

Figures 10 to 23. These results include collection efficiency, heat transfer coefficient and ice shape 

predictions for the inlet lip, fan blade, splitter lip #1, IGV #1, rotor #1, and splitter lip #2. The predictions 

were generated for an LWC of 0.3 g/m3

, an icing time of 30 min for a 20 m Langmuir-D distribution, a 

92 m SLD distribution without splashing and a 92 m SLD distribution with splashing. 

From the collection efficiency results for the inlet lip in Figure 10 we can see that the SLD droplet 

distributions yield larger maximum collection efficiencies and extents of impingement than the 

Langmuir-D distribution due to the presence of larger drops. The SLD splashing model also generates 

lower impingement efficiencies than the SLD non-splashing model. 

The fan blade collection efficiency distributions are shown in Figure 11. The SLD non-splashing case 

yielded the largest overall collection. The overall collection was defined here as the area under the 

collection efficiency curve. The SLD splashing case resulted in lower collection efficiency at the leading 

edge of the fan blade than for the SLD non-splashing case due to drop splashing and a higher level of 

collection efficiency at the trailing edge due to re-impingement of mass. The SLD cases showed an 

increase in collection efficiency towards the trailing edge of the fan blade while the 20 m Langmuir-D 

distribution was relatively flat. 
NASA/TM—2012-217696 6 

The collection efficiency distributions for splitter lip #1 are shown in Figure 12. The 20 m 

Langmuir-D distribution generated the highest collection efficiency on splitter lip #1 although the level 

was small ( 0.11). From Tables 6 to 8 we see that the impingement rates were also higher for the 

smaller Langmuir-D drop size case than for the SLD non-splashing and splashing cases (0.645, 0.401, and 

0.105 g/s, respectively). The SLD splashing case revealed a large loss in mass over the non-splashing case 

due to droplet splashing. The smaller impingement rates of the larger 92 m non-splashing SLD case as 

compared to the smaller 20 m Langmuir-D case was counter-intuitive. Generally larger drops produce 

larger collection efficiency on static objects. Two contributing factors to this result are postulated. The 

first is that there is less mass available for impingement at the inflow to splitter lip #1 for the larger drops 

than for the smaller drops because the fan and spinner have removed more of the mass for the larger 

drops. The fan and spinner removed 67 percent of the mass entering the inlet for the SLD non-splashing 

case as opposed to 47 percent for the 20 m Langmuir-D case. It was also thought that the reduction in 

collection efficiency could be due in part to a sweep effect caused by the swirl of the particle paths by the 

fan. From Figure 6 we can see that the larger 100 m drops have a larger initial cross flow component of 

velocity relative to splitter lip #1 as compared to the smaller 5 m drops. This larger cross flow angle or 

relative sweep could result in a reduction of collection efficiency as it does for external swept wing 

droplet impingement (Ref. 15). 

The collection efficiency results for IGV #1 are shown in Figure 13 and in Tables 6 to 8. The SLD 

splashing case shows the largest impingement rate due to re-impingement of mass splashed from 

upstream components. Impingement on both the pressure and suction sides of IGV #1 were calculated for 

all of the distribution cases. For the non-splashing cases most of the impingement was on the upper 

suction surface due to the low relative angle-of-attack of the inflow particles (Fig. 6). The 92 m SLD 

non-splashing case yielded a smaller impingement rate than the 20 m Langmuir-D case (0.9 and 

1.1 percent of the mass entering the inlet, respectively) because of the smaller available mass due to larger 

impingement on upstream components for the 92 m SLD case. The large amount of re-impingement on 

the trailing edge of the pressure surface for the SLD splashing case was comprised of the droplets which 

were splashed from the pressure side of the fan blade and hence entered the IGV #1 at a higher relative 

angle-of-attack than for the non-splashed drops. 

Rotor #1 collection efficiency results are shown in Figure 14. For all three cases there was 

impingement on the entire length of the pressure side of rotor #1 and on the leading portion of the suction 

side. The relative amount of impingement was small for the non-splashing cases (0.06). As for IGV #1 

the 92 m SLD non-splashing case yielded a smaller impingement rate than the 20 m Langmuir-D case 

(0.06 and 0.55 percent of the mass entering the inlet, respectively) because of the smaller available mass 

for the 92 m SLD case. We can see that for the rotor #1 case the SLD splashing case yields 

1165 percent (Tables 7 and 8) more impingement than the SLD non-splashing case due to reimpingement. The re-impinging mass for the rotor was a combination of the mass splashed from the 

upstream components including the spinner, the fan, and IGV #1. 

The collection efficiency results for splitter lip #2 are shown in Figure 15 and Tables 6 to 8. The 

maximum collection efficiencies (0.08) and free stream catch fractions for the splitter #2 lip were 

small for all of the cases (0.0013). The 92 m SLD non-splashing case yielded a smaller impingement 

rate than the 20 m Langmuir-D case (0.03 and 0.17 percent of the mass entering the inlet, respectively) 

because of the smaller available mass for the 92 m SLD case. The SLD splashing case yields 

443 percent (Tables 7 and 8) more impingement than the SLD non-splashing case due to re-impingement. 

The heat transfer coefficient distributions for the inlet lip, splitter lip #1 and splitter lip #2 are shown 

in Figure 16. The largest values were observed for splitter lip #1 due to the smaller leading edge radius of 

curvature for this element. The smaller leading edge radius for this element translates into large velocity 

gradients which yield higher heat transfer coefficients than for the other two elements. All three of the 

elements exhibit transition both above and below the stagnation point evidenced by sharp increase in the 

heat transfer coefficient on either side of the stagnation point. The splitter lip #1 heat transfer coefficient 

distribution shows the earliest transition due to its sharper leading edge. 
NASA/TM—2012-217696 7 

Figure 17 shows the results for the fan blade, IGV #1 and rotor #1. The highest heat transfer 

coefficients are realized by IVG #1 due to its smaller leading edge radius of curvature. Transition occurs 

immediately for all three of the elements due to the relatively small leading edge radius of curvature of 

the elements. 

Ice shape predictions for the inlet lip are shown in Figure 18. The SLD conditions generated the 

largest ice shapes due to the higher collection efficiencies produced by the larger drops present in the 

SLD distributions. The non-splashing SLD case results in a larger shape than the splashing SLD case due 

to mass loss by droplet splashing. The higher water loading for the SLD cases results in a glaze condition 

with small horns evident in the figure. The smaller 20 m Langmuir-D generates a lower water loading 

and a shape more indicative of a mixed condition. 

The ice shape comparisons for the fan blade are shown in Figure 19. The ice shapes for the nonsplashing cases were very similar with the smaller 20 m Langmuir-D case generating a smaller trailing 

edge ice thickness due to lower collection efficiencies than for the SLD non-splashing case. The effect of 

mass loss at the leading edge due to splashing is evident from the splashing and non-splashing ice shapes. 

Also from the figure one can see the increased mass at the trailing edge for the SLD splashing case over 

the SLD non-splashing case due to re-impingement. 

The ice shape predictions for splitter #1 are shown in Figure 20. The largest ice shapes were produced 

by the 20 m Langmuir-D case which also showed the highest collection efficiencies. The SLD splashing 

case is markedly smaller than the SLD non-splashing case due to drop splashing and the resulting mass loss. 

The ice shapes for IGV #1 are shown in Figure 21. The largest ice shape was produced by the 

splashing SLD shape due to the larger impingement rates for this case. The SLD splashing case generated 

a large amount of trailing edge ice on the pressure side of the blade due to re-impingement. The SLD nonsplashing produced a small ice accretion due to the low overall collection efficiency for the case and 

evaporation. All of the ice shapes for IGV #1 were affected significantly by evaporation. The SLD nonsplashing case lost 69 percent while the SLD splashing case lost 19 percent of the impinging mass due to 

evaporation. The 20 m Langmuir-D case lost 48 percent of the mass due to evaporation. 

Ice shape predictions for rotor #1 are shown in Figure 22. The ice shape produced for the SLD 

splashing case was relatively large while those for the SLD non-splashing and 20 m Langmuir-D cases 

were small. The percent evaporation for the non-splashing SLD case was 100 percent while that for the 

splashing case was 15 percent. The 20 m Langmuir-D case lost 70 percent of the mass due to 

evaporation. 

The splitter lip #2 ice accretions are shown in Figure 23. Relatively small accretions were generated 

for the SLD splashing and 20 m Langmuir-D cases. The largest ice shape was produced for the SLD 

splashing case due to re-impingement of mass splashed from upstream components. The SLD nonsplashing case, which showed some impingement, lost 100 percent of the impinging mass due to 

evaporation. The evaporation for the SLD splashing case was 58 percent while that for the 20 m 

Langmuir-D case was 79 percent. 

Conclusion 

Predictions for droplet impingement and ice accretion were generated for the E3 low pressure 

compressor using the new “block-to-block” collection efficiency method incorporated into LEWICE3D 

Version 3 and a flow solution from the ADPAC flow solver. The non-splashing trajectory and collection 

efficiency results showed that as drop size increased impingement rates increased on the spinner and fan 

leaving less mass to impinge on downstream components. The SLD splashing case yielded more mass 

downstream of the fan than the SLD non-splashing case due to mass being splashed from the upstream 

inlet lip, spinner and fan components. The maximum free stream catch fraction for the fan and spinner 

combination was 0.60 while that on the elements downstream of the fan was 0.03. 

 
NASA/TM—2012-217696 8 

The ice shapes calculated for the E3 were highly dependent upon particle size, evaporation and 

splashing. The ice accretions for the inlet lip and fan blade were relatively large and were similar in size 

for the Langmuir-D and SLD distributions. The E3

 fan and spinner combination proved to be a good 

collector removing greater than 36 percent of the mass entering the inlet for the distribution cases. The ice 

shapes predicted for the components downstream of the fan were relatively small due to the availability of 

mass and evaporation except for the IGV #1 and rotor #1 SLD splashing cases. The ice shapes or the 

IGV #1 and rotor #1 SLD splashing cases were relatively large due to the re-impingement of mass 

splashed from upstream components. 

References 

1. Bond, T., Potapczuk, M., Miller, D., “Overview of SLD Engineering Tool Development,” 

AIAA-2003-386, Jan. 2003. 

2. Mason, J; Strapp, W and Chow, P; “The Ice Particle Threat to Engines in Flight,” 44th AIAA 

Aerospace Sciences Meeting, v4, 2006, pp. 2445-2465. 

3. Mazzawy R.S., Strapp J.W.; “Appendix D – An Interim Icing Envelope; SAE 2007-01-3311; SAE 

2007 Aircraft and Engine Icing International Conference; Seville, Spain, November 2007. 

4. Federal Aviation Regulation, Part 25, “Airworthiness Standard: Transport Category Airplanes, 

Appendix C,” DOT, FAA, 1974, rev. 1982. 

5. Hamed, A., Das, K., Basu, D., “Effect Numerical Simulations of Ice Droplet Trajectories and 

Collection Efficiency on Aeroengine Rotating Machinery,” AIAA 2005-1248, 2005. 

6. Wright, W., Jorgenson, P., Veres, J., “Mixed Phase Modeling in GlennICE with Application to

Engine Icing,” AIAA-2010-7674, 2010. 

7. Bidwell, C.S., Potapczuk, M.G., “Users Manual for the NASA Lewis Three-Dimensional Ice 

Accretion Code (LEWICE3D),” NASA TM-105974, December 1993. 

8. Cline, S.J., Halter, P.H., Kutney, J.T., and Sullivan, T.J., “Energy Efficient Engine: Fan and QuarterStage Component Performance Report,” NASA CR 168070, Jan. 1983. 

9. Bridgeman, M.J., Cherry, D.G., and Pedersen, J., “NASA/GE Energy Efficient Engine Low Pressure 

Turbine Scaled Test Vehicle Performance Report,” NASA CR 168290, Jul. 1983. 

10. Rowe, R.K. and Kuchar, A.P., “Energy Efficient Engine (E 3) Scaled Mixer Performance Report - 

Final Report,” NASA CR 167947, Nov. 1982. 

11. Papadakis, M., Elangonan, G., Fruend, G., Breer, M., Whitmer, L., “An Experimental Method for 

Measuring Water Droplet Impingement Efficiency on Two-and Three-Dimensional Bodies,” NASA 

CR 4257, DOT/ FAA/CT-87/22, Nov. 1989. 

12. Adamczyk, J.J., Celestina, M.L., and Beach, T.A., “Simulation of Three-Dimensional Viscous Flow 

Within a Multistage Turbine,” ASME Paper 89-GT-152, 1989. 

13. Hall, E., Heidegger, N., Delaney, R., “ADPAC v1.0 – Users’s Manual,” NASA CR 1999-206600. 

14. Hall, E., Delaney, R., Lynn, S., Veres, J., “Energy Efficient Low Pressure Subsystem Aerodynamic 

Analysis,” NASA TM 1988-208402. 

15. Bidwell C.S and Mohler S.R. “Collection Efficiency and Ice Accretion Calculations for a Sphere, a 

Swept MS(1)-317 Wind, a Swept NACA 0012 Wing Tip, an Axisymmetric Inlet and a Boeing 737-

200 Inlet,” NASA TM-106821, 1995. 
NASA/TM—2012-217696 9 

TABLE 1.—LANGMUIR-D DROPLET 

DISTRIBUTION FOR AN MVD OF 20 m 

D, 

m 

% LWC 

6.2 0.05 

10.4 0.1 

14.2 0.2 

20 0.3 

27.4 0.2 

34.8 0.1 

44.4 0.05 

TABLE 2.—SLD DROPLET DISTRIBUTION 

FOR AN MVD OF 92 m 

D, 

m 

% LWC 

10.96046 0.05 

27.59405 0.1 

51.17964 0.2 

92.18893 0.3 

136.2497 0.2 

179.8884 0.1 

230.625 0.03 

283.3301 0.01 

339.5112 0.005 

391.7745 0.005 
NASA/TM—2012-217696 10 

TABLE 3.—E3 IMPINGEMENT STATISTICS FOR A DROP SIZE OF 5 m 

Element max Impingement rate, 

g/s 

Free stream catch fraction 

Free stream capture tube 

(assuming capture area of 3.26 m2) 

1 237.397 1 

Inlet lip 0.300 2.186 0.0092 

Inlet capture 1.248 189.932 0.8000 

Spinner 0.034 0.338 0.0014 

Fan blade 1.200 13.655 0.0575 

Splitter lip #1 0.305 1.134 0.0048 

IGV #1 0.518 4.757 0.0200 

Rotor #1 2.030 0.904 0.0038 

Splitter lip #2 0.004 0.010 0.0000 

Inner core 0.513 3.487 0.0147 

TABLE 4.—E3 IMPINGEMENT STATISTICS FOR A DROP SIZE OF 20 m 

Element max Impingement rate, 

g/s 

Free stream catch fraction 

Free stream capture tube 

(assuming capture area of 3.26 m2) 

1 237.397 1 

Inlet lip 0.671 25.395 0.1070 

Inlet capture 1.057 190.128 0.8000 

Spinner 0.174 5.110 0.0210 

Fan blade 1.540 83.894 0.3530 

Splitter lip #1 0.183 1.136 0.0048 

IGV #1 0.420 2.286 0.0096 

Rotor #1 0.160 0.612 0.0026 

Splitter lip #2 0.006 0.046 0.0002 

Inner core 0 0 0 

TABLE 5.—E3

 IMPINGEMENT STATISTICS FOR A DROP SIZE OF 100 m 

Element max Impingement rate, 

g/s 

Free stream catch fraction 

Free stream capture tube 

(assuming capture area of 3.26 m2) 

1 237.397 1 

Inlet lip 0.950 85.570 0.3600 

Inlet capture 1.013 199.623 0.8410 

Spinner 0.528 28.160 0.1190 

Fan blade 0.920 115.134 0.4850 

Splitter lip #1 0.070 0.433 0.0018 

IGV #1 0.160 1.679 0.0071 

Rotor #1 0 0 0 

Splitter lip #2 0 0 0 

Inner core 0 0 0 
NASA/TM—2012-217696 11 

TABLE 6.—E3 IMPINGEMENT STATISTICS FOR A 20 m MVD LANGMUIR-D DISTRIBUTION 

Element max Impingement rate, 

g/s 

Free stream catch fraction 

Free stream capture tube 

(assuming capture area of 3.26 m2) 

1 237.397 1 

Inlet lip 0.659 26.574 0.1119 

Inlet capture 1.103 190.289 0.8016 

Spinner 0.178 6.270 0.0264 

Fan blade 1.943 78.901 0.3324 

Splitter lip #1 0.164 0.645 0.0027 

IGV #1 0.203 2.081 0.0090 

Rotor #1 0.176 1.054 0.0044 

Splitter lip #2 0.047 0.318 0.0013 

Inner core 0.086 0.432 0.0018 

TABLE 7.—E3 IMPINGEMENT STATISTICS FOR A 92 m MVD SLD DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT SPLASHING 

Element max Impingement rate, 

g/s 

Free stream catch fraction 

Free stream capture tube 

(assuming capture area of 3.26 m2) 

1 237.397 1 

Inlet lip 0.890 77.401 0.3260 

Inlet capture 1.030 199.847 0.8334 

Spinner 0.405 24.243 0.1021 

Fan blade 1.140 108.041 0.4451 

Splitter lip #1 0.081 0.401 0.0017 

IGV #1 0.142 1.860 0.0078 

Rotor #1 0.027 0.116 0.0005 

Splitter lip #2 0.008 0.056 0.0002 

Inner core 0.016 0.061 0.0003 

TABLE 8.—E3 IMPINGEMENT STATISTICS FOR A 92 m MVD SLD DISTRIBUTION WITH SPLASHING 

Element max Impingement rate, 

g/s 

Free stream catch fraction 

Free stream capture tube 

(assuming capture area of 3.26 m2) 

1 237.397 1 

Inlet lip 0.886 40.904 0.1723 

Inlet capture 1.334 210.935 0.8885 

Spinner 1.563 14.662 0.0618 

Fan blade 3.057 71.090 0.2995 

Splitter lip #1 0.055 0.105 0.0004 

IGV #1 1.178 3.828 0.0161 

Rotor #1 2.133 1.467 0.0062 

Splitter lip #2 0.088 0.304 0.0013 

Inner core 1.288 6.946 0.0293 
NASA/TM—2012-217696 12 

 

(a) Surface model. (b) Grid block structure. 

(c) Element designation. 

Figure 1.—Surface model and grid structure for E3 flow model. 
NASA/TM—2012-217696 13 

(a) Side view. 

(b) Orthogonal view. 

Figure 2.—Centerline velocity vectors for the E3

 low pressure compressor. 
NASA/TM—2012-217696 14 

(a) Collection efficiency. 

(b) Drop trajectories (front view). 

Figure 3.—Drop trajectory and collection efficiency results for the E3 for 5 m drop. 
NASA/TM—2012-217696 15 

(c) Drop trajectories (axial view). 

(d) Drop impact locations (axial view). 

Figure 3.—Concluded. 
NASA/TM—2012-217696 16 

(a) Collection efficiency. 

(b) Drop trajectories (front view). 

Figure 4.—Drop trajectory and collection efficiency results for the E3 for 20 m drop. 
NASA/TM—2012-217696 17 

(c) Drop trajectories (axial view). 

(d) Drop impact locations (axial view). 

Figure 4.—Concluded. 
NASA/TM—2012-217696 18 

(b) Collection efficiency. 

(b) Drop trajectories (front view). 

Figure 5.—Drop trajectory and collection efficiency results for the E3

 for 100 m drop. 
NASA/TM—2012-217696 19 

(c) Drop trajectories (axial view). 

(d) Drop impact locations (axial view). 

Figure 5.—Concluded. 
NASA/TM—2012-217696 20 

Figure 6.—Velocity vectors and collection efficiency results for the E3 for 100 m drop. 

air 

5 m drop 

100 m 

drop 
NASA/TM—2012-217696 21 

(a) Front view. 

(b) Axial view. 

Figure 7.—Collection efficiency results for the E3 for a 20 m MVD Langmuir-D distribution. 
NASA/TM—2012-217696 22 

(a) Front view. 

(b) Side view. 

Figure 8.—Collection efficiency results for the E3

 for a 92 m MVD SLD distribution with no splashing. 
NASA/TM—2012-217696 23 

(a) Front view. 

 

(b) Axial view. 

Figure 9.—Collection efficiency results for the E3 for a 92 m MVD SLD distribution with splashing.
NASA/TM—2012-217696 24 

Figure 10.—Collection efficiency distribution for the E3 inlet lip. 

Figure 11.—Collection efficiency distribution for the E3 fan blade at 25 percent span. 

 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

‐60 ‐40 ‐20 0 20 40 60



Surface Distance From Highlight, cm

MVD 20, Langmuir‐D

MVD 92, SLD No Splashing

MVD 92, SLD Splashing

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

‐25 ‐20 ‐15 ‐10 ‐5 0 5 10 15 20 25



Surface Distance From Highlight, cm

MVD 20, Langmuir‐D

MVD 92, SLD No Splashing

MVD 92, SLD Splashing
NASA/TM—2012-217696 25 

Figure 12.—Collection efficiency distribution for the E3 splitter lip #1. 

Figure 13.—Collection efficiency distribution for the E3 IGV #1 at 25 percent span. 

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐20 2 4 6 8



Surface Distance From Highlight, cm

MVD 20, Langmuir‐D

MVD 92, SLD No Splashing

MVD 92, SLD Splashing

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10



Surface Distance From Highlight, cm

MVD 20, Langmuir‐D

MVD 92, SLD No Splashing

MVD 92, SLD Splashing
NASA/TM—2012-217696 26 

Figure 14.—Collection efficiency distribution for the E3 rotor #1 at 25 percent span. 

Figure 15.—Collection efficiency distribution for the E3 splitter lip #2 at 25 percent span. 

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

‐4 ‐20 2 4 6 8



Surface Distance From Highlight, cm

MVD 20, Langmuir‐D

MVD 92, SLD No Splashing

MVD 92, SLD Splashing

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

‐15 ‐10 ‐5 0 5 10 15 20



Surface Distance From Highlight, cm

MVD 20, Langmuir‐D

MVD 92, SLD No Splashing

MVD 92, SLD Splashing
NASA/TM—2012-217696 27 

Figure 16.—Heat transfer coefficient distributions for the E3. 

Figure 17.—Heat transfer coefficient distributions for the E3 blades at 25 percent span. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10 HTC, W/m2/K

Surface Distance From Highlight, cm

Inlet Lip

Splitter Lip #1

Splitter Lip #2

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

‐5 ‐4 ‐3 ‐2 ‐10 1 2 3 4 5 HTC, W/m2/K

Surface Distance From Highlight, cm

Fan Blade

IGV #1

Rotor #1
NASA/TM—2012-217696 28 

Figure 18.—Ice shapes for the E3 inlet lip. 

Figure 19.—Ice shapes for the E3 fan blade. 

‐20

‐10

0

10

20

30

‐20 ‐10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Y, cm

X, cm

MVD 20, Langmuir‐D

MVD 92, SLD No Splashing

MVD 92, SLD Splashing

‐10

‐5

0

5

10

15

‐5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Y, cm

X, cm

MVD 20, Langmuir‐D

MVD 92, SLD No Splashing

MVD 92, SLD Splashing
NASA/TM—2012-217696 29 

Figure 20.—Ice shapes for the E3 splitter lip #1. 

Figure 21.—Ice shapes for the E3

 IGV #1. 

‐3

‐2

‐1

0

1

2

3

‐2 ‐10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Y, cm

X, cm

MVD 20, Langmuir‐D

MVD 92, SLD No Splashing

MVD 92, SLD Splashing

‐3

‐2

‐1

0

1

2

3

4

‐2 ‐1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Y, cm

X, cm

MVD 20, Langmuir‐D

MVD 92, SLD No Splashing

MVD 92, SLD Splashing
NASA/TM—2012-217696 30 

Figure 22.—Ice shapes for the E3 rotor #1. 

Figure 23.—Ice shapes for the E3 splitter lip #2. 

‐2

‐1

0

1

2

3

‐2 ‐1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Y, cm

X, cm

MVD 20, Langmuir‐D

MVD 92, SLD No Splashing

MVD 92, SLD Splashing

‐6

‐4

‐2

0

2

4

6

‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Y, cm

X, cm

MVD 20, Langmuir‐D

MVD 92, SLD No Splashing

MVD 92, SLD Splashing

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188 

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 

burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. 

Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01-09-2012 

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Memorandum 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Particle Trajectory and Icing Analysis of the E3 Turbofan Engine Using LEWICE3D

Version 3 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Bidwell, Colin, S. 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

WBS 648987.02.03.03.30 

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

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

E-18383 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

10. SPONSORING/MONITOR'S

 ACRONYM(S)

NASA 

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 REPORT NUMBER

NASA/TM-2012-217696 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified-Unlimited 

Subject Category: 03 

Available electronically at http://www.sti.nasa.gov 

This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 443-757-5802

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

Particle trajectory and ice shape calculations were made for the Energy Efficient Engine (E3) using the LEWICE3D Version 3 software. The particle trajectory and icing 

computations were performed using the new “block-to-block” collection efficiency method which has been incorporated into the LEWICE3D Version 3 software. The E3 was 

developed by NASA and GE in the early 1980’s as a technology demonstrator and is representative of a modern high bypass turbofan engine. The E3 flow field was calculated 

using the NASA Glenn ADPAC turbomachinery flow solver. Computations were performed for the low pressure compressor of the E3 for a Mach 0.8 cruise condition at 

11,887 m assuming a standard warm day for three drop sizes and two drop distributions typically used in aircraft design and certification. Particle trajectory computations were 

made for water drop sizes of 5, 20, and 100 μm. Particle trajectory and ice shape predictions were made for a 20 μm Langmuir-D distribution and for a 92 mm Super-cooled 

Large Droplet (SLD) distribution with and without splashing effects for a Liquid Water Content (LWC) of 0.3 g/m3 and an icing time of 30 min. The E3 fan and spinner 

combination proved to be an effective ice removal mechanism as they removed greater than 36 percent of the mass entering the inlet for the icing cases. The maximum free 

stream catch fraction for the fan and spinner combination was 0.60 while that on the elements downstream of the fan was 0.03. The non-splashing trajectory and collection 

efficiency results showed that as drop size increased impingement rates increased on the spinner and fan leaving less mass to impinge on downstream components. The SLD 

splashing case yielded more mass downstream of the fan than the SLD non-splashing case due to mass being splashed from the upstream inlet lip, spinner and fan components. 

The ice shapes generated downstream of the fan were either small or nonexistent due to the small available mass and evaporation except for the 92 μm SLD splashing case. 

Relatively large ice shapes were predicted for internal guide vane #1 and rotor #1 for the 92 μm SLD splashing case due to re-impingement of splashed mass.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Icing; CFD; Particle trajectory; Engine icing; LEWICE3D 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF

 ABSTRACT

UU 

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

38 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email:help@sti.nasa.gov) 

a. REPORT

U 

b. ABSTRACT

U 

c. THIS 

PAGE

U 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)

443-757-5802 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18