Search Results

This paper depicts icephobic coating performances of 274 different coatings, including 11 grease-type coatings, which were tested over the past 10 years in various research projects at the Anti-Icing Materials International Laboratory (AMIL). Icephobic performance is evaluated using two comparative test methods. The first method, the ice Centrifuge Adhesion Test (CAT), measures the force required to separate the accreted ice from the coating (e.g. adhesive failure). The test involves simultaneously icing, under supercooled precipitation, the extremity of bare reference and freshly coated aluminum samples. The ice adhesion shear stress is calculated from the ice detachment rotation speed. The results are reported as Adhesion Reduction Factor (ARF), which is the ice adhesion stress on the bare aluminum reference samples divided by the ice adhesion stress on the coated samples.

Two commercial hydrophobic coatings: StaClean™ with a water droplet contact angle of 101° and Wearlon® Super F1-Ice with a contact angle of 115° and one superhydrophobic coating: HIREC 1450 with a contact angle of 152° were studied combined with a thermoelectric anti-icing system under icing conditions. All coatings and the reference surface were tested under glaze and rime ice. The deicing tests were conducted in the Anti-icing Materials International Laboratory's (AMIL) low speed closed loop Icing Wind Tunnel with 0.4 g/m₃ liquid water content, a 26.7 ± 2.6 μm water droplet median volumetric diameter, 21 ± 0.5 m/s air speed and temperatures of -5 and -20 ± 0.5°C. For these tests, a 4\mi chord NACA 63-415 airfoil 2D blade box-section of 10\mi covered with a thin aluminum sheet protected at the leading edge and on the bottom by a thermoelectric anti-icing system composed of two 1/2\mi x 10\mi heating elements with a power density of 40 W/in₂, was used.

Deicing and anti-icing fluids are used to remove and prevent ice formation on aircraft before takeoff. Holdover times (HOT) published by the FAA are used by pilots as guidelines indicating the amount of effective time of a fluid under certain freezing precipitation types. However, the times on these tables are based on endurance time tests involving a visual estimate of failure on a flat plate [1]: when 30% of the fluid is covered with white snow under snow precipitation, although the times have been correlated to aircraft wing tests [2] they do not address the mechanism of fluid failure. To measure and understand the fluid mechanisms conducting to failure, the Anti-icing Materials International Laboratory (AMIL) developed a simplified test with a generic deicing propylene glycol-based fluid. The test consisted of pouring 400 mL of the generic deicing fluid on a 5 dm by 3 dm level flat plate where the plate edges were rimmed with insolated walls to make a waterproof open box.

Deicing fluids are used to remove and prevent ice formation on aircraft before takeoff. These fluids are essentially composed of water, a freeze point depressant (FPD) usually glycol, a surfactant or wetting agent and a corrosion inhibitor. All commercial fluids are qualified to SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) specifications, which test for aerodynamic acceptance, anti-icing endurance, corrosion inhibition, material compatibility, fluid stability and environment. However, these tests have been built around a fluid with a glycol FPD. More recently, with environmental pressure, fluids with other FPDs have been developed and qualified. The other FPDs include: acetates and formate salts, sorbitol, and other undisclosed FPDs. The acetates and formates, which came out in the early 1990s led to suspected corrosion problems. This led to the additional requirement for corrosion tests for non-glycol deicing fluids in paragraph 3.1.1 of AMS1424.

Gel residues occur as the result of repeated anti-icing fluid application that leaves a powdery film upon dryout that, when rehydrated, can swell up to over 600 times its weight. When these gels collect on aircraft flight control surfaces in aerodynamically quiet areas and freeze, they give rise to reduced performance, increased stick force, slowed rotation and have caused jammed flight controls. Laboratory tests have been developed to simulate the gel formation by drying out fluids and rehydrating them. However, by their complex nature, much variation is seen between test results from different laboratories and the results are not yet considered by fluid users. Testing carried out at AMIL on different fluids with different test methods has led to a more reproducible results and a potential classification of fluids based on their gel formation potential (GFP).

Simulating freezing and frozen precipitation in an indoor laboratory setting can permit year round evaluation of de/anti-icing systems and fluids. At AMIL, freezing rain, freezing drizzle, icing fog and in-cloud icing as well as frost, snow, ice pellets and icing clouds can be simulated in a variety of cold chambers of different heights and with different wind conditions using specialized spraying systems and temperature set-ups. Freezing rain is simulated using a 9 m high vertical chamber capable of supercooling water droplets from 100 to 1000 μm, so they freeze not long after impact. The freezing drizzle is simulated in a 4 m high chamber where supercooled droplets from 50 to 250 μm freeze on impact. Icing fog and in-cloud icing are simulated with the help of a pneumatic spray nozzle system which allows for a finer water spray, in the 20 μm diameter range. The frost is simulated by saturating a cold room with humidity generated from a heated, temperature controlled water bath.