AIAA 2005-2349

Blended-Wing-Body (BWB) Fuselage

Structural Design for Weight Reduction

V. Mukhopadhyay
NASA Langley Research Center
Hampton, VA

46th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics and
Materials Conference,
18-21 April 2005,
Austin, TX
For permission to copy or to republish, write to American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1801
Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500, Reston VA 20191-4344

0
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
AIAA 2005-2349: Tracking No: 25578

BLENDED-WING-BODY (BWB) FUSELAGE STRCTURAL DESIGN

FOR WEIGHT REDUCTION

V. Mukhopadhyay*
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA

Abstract
Structural analysis and design of efficient pressurized fuselage configurations for the advanced Blended-
Wing-Body (BWB) flight vehicle is a challenging problem. Unlike a conventional cylindrical pressurized
fuselage, stress level in a box type BWB fuselage is an order of magnitude higher, because internal
pressure primarily results in bending stress instead of skin-membrane stress. In addition, resulting
deformation of aerodynamic surface could significantly affect performance advantages provided by lifting
body. The pressurized composite conformal multi-lobe tanks of X-33 type space vehicle also suffered from
similar problem. In the earlier BWB design studies, Vaulted Ribbed Shell (VLRS), Flat Ribbed Shell
(FRS); Vaulted shell Honeycomb Core (VLHC) and Flat sandwich shell Honeycomb Core (FLHC)
concepts were studied. The flat and vaulted ribbed shell concepts were found most efficient. In a recent
study, a set of composite sandwich panel and cross-ribbed panel were analyzed. Optimal values of rib and
skin thickness, rib spacing, and panel depth were obtained for minimal weight under stress and buckling
constraints. In addition, a set of efficient multi-bubble fuselage (MBF) configuration concept was
developed. The special geometric configuration of this concept allows for balancing internal cabin pressure
load efficiently, through membrane stress in inner-stiffened shell and inter-cabin walls, while the outer-
ribbed shell prevents buckling due to external resultant compressive loads. The initial results from these
approximate finite element analyses indicate progressively lower maximum stresses and deflections
compared to the earlier study. However, a relative comparison of the FEM weight per unit floor area of the
segment unit indicates that the unit weights are still relatively higher that the conventional B777 type
cylindrical or A380 type elliptic fuselage design. Due to the manufacturing concern associated with multi-
bubble fuselage, a Y braced box-type fuselage alternative with special resin-film injected (RFI) stitched
carbon composite with foam-core was designed by Boeing under a NASA research contract for the 480
passenger version. It is shown that this configuration can be improved to a modified multi-bubble fuselage
which has better stress distribution, for same material and dimension.

I. Introduction manufacturing consideration, large under-carriage

retraction bay, pressure bearing main rear spar and
Structural analysis and design of efficient additional flat pressure bulkheads, a non-traditional
pressurized fuselage configurations for the design approach and material are required, in order
advanced Blended-Wing-Body (BWB) flight to increase bending moment of inertia, without
vehicle has been a challenging problem for many paying significant weight penalty. The first and
years with no clear solution. Unlike a conventional second-generation 800 passenger BWB concepts
cylindrical pressurized fuselage, stress level in a were developed at Boeing Phantom Works through
non-cylindrical shoebox type BWB fuselage is an NASA contract and internal research. Additional
order of magnitude higher, because internal conceptual design of an efficient fuselage
pressure primarily results in bending stress instead configuration concept was developed under NASA
of skin-membrane stress. The pressurized R&D funding.
composite conformal multi-lobe tanks of X-33 type
space vehicle also suffered from similar problem. In this paper, the lessons learned from the early
Thus, the primary objective is to specially design structural design studies of the BWB 800
the primary highly loaded structure and geometry passenger version are summarized. Progresses
such that the load path leads to mostly membrane towards recent 480 passenger version of BWB
stress, thus minimizing the overall structural structural analysis are described. Use of rapid finite
weight of the vehicle, while satisfying stress, element analysis tools and results of several
deflection and buckling safety factors, under the geometric configurations of the Y-braced fuselage
critical flight and ground loads. However, due to

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
derivatives are presented. Design improvements was analyzed. A schematic diagram of the vehicle
are suggested. platform and the bay-3 cross section of two
fuselage concepts are shown in Figure 2. Four
II. Lessons learned from early design studies: structural concepts were studied, namely, Vaulted
Ribbed Shell, Flat Ribbed Shell; Vaulted shell with
Unlike the traditional aircraft tubular Light and Heavy Honeycomb Core; Flat sandwich
fuselage, the high stress and weight problem shell with Light and Heavy Honeycomb Core. A
associated with BWB pressurized cabin can be relative comparison of bay-3 weight and
explained using the sketch in Figure 1. This figure component non-optimal weight breakdown were
illustrates a cylindrical and a square box fuselage made.
under internal pressure p . In a cylindrical pressure FUSELAGE 3RD BAY SECTION
vessel of radius R and skin thickness t, the pressure
is resisted by uniform stretching resulting
membrane stress is equal to p(R/t). In BWB box 4
BAY 3 10
like fuselage, the nearly flat upper cabin wall A A 160
resists the pressure by bending deformation. Let us 300
220

model it as a simply supported beam or plate of 450 175 R

length l, thickness t, then the maximum bending

stress is equal to 0.75p(l/t)2. Assuming R is of same 150 150
order as l, the bending stress is one order of S1
FLAT SHELL VAULTED SHELL
magnitude higher. The problem is aggravated by S2
S3
S4
CONCEPT CONCEPT

the non-linear effect of compressive load acting on S5

the deflected beam or plate. So in order to obtain Figure 2. BWB fuselage bay-3 section, flat ribbed
an efficient structure, one must increase the and vaulted ribbed shell concepts of first
bending stiffness using deep sandwich shell with generation BWB 800 passenger version.
light weight high-strength composite skin with Based on the design load definition
composite deep stiffener. The alternative is to use a developed in Ref. 1, a beam-column based sizing
multi-bubble concept shown in the inset sketch. calculation, a set of coarse finite element model
With proper design, the adjacent bubble membrane (FEM) were developed in Ref. 4. The vaulted shell
stress resultant is balanced by tension in the intra- radius was chosen so as to provide a minimum of 4
cabin wall. inch depth at the mid-arch. From this early FEM
analysis, the vaulted ribbed shell and flat ribbed
Non-Cylindrical Pressure Vessels shell concepts appeared to be significantly better
It is difficult to contain pressure in a shoebox! than the deep sandwich concept. The vaulted
membrane σ = O(pR/t) bending σ = O(p(R/t)2) concept offered the advantages of cylindrical
pressure vessel, but was not preferred due to
manufacturing complexity. The deep sandwich
Pressure p concept was eliminated due to weight and
Pressure p
2R
t
maintenance considerations. The pressure bearing
R
front and rear spar were modeled as deep sandwich
honeycomb flat shell and contributed significantly
t
to the overall weight. The elastic modulus and
typical: R/t = 1000 (R/t)2 = 106 allowable stress properties of an orthotropic resin-
film injected (RFI) stitched carbon composite
Figure 1. High bending stress associated with a material were used. The initial sizing was based on
non-cylindrical pressure vessel. the composite material allowable stress, but no
The first and second generation 800 optimization or buckling analysis was performed.
passenger BWB concepts were developed at From the isolated bay-3 FEM analysis
Boeing Phantom Works (formerly McDonnell results, a comparison of weight components of
Douglas) through NASA contract and internal these four concepts is shown in Figure 3. From this
research (Ref. 1-3). A conceptual design of an study, the double skin vaulted ribbed shell concept
efficient fuselage configuration concept was appeared to have the least FEM structural weight.
developed under NASA R&D funding and Hence, a coarse finite element model of the vehicle
research findings were reported in Refs. 4 and 5. super structure was developed and analyzed using
In Ref. 4, an isolated fuselage bay-3 of the the double skin vaulted ribbed shell concept for the
early 800 passenger version of the BWB design pressurized fuselage section and the outer wing.

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
The vehicle element von-Mises stress distribution panel. These load definition was used in Ref. 5, for
and deformation at the critical 2.5 g pull-up load the following three structural analyses models and
case are shown in Figure 4. design study.
(a) Idealized beam-column model stress and
bucking analysis:
ribs 12% ribs skin
(b) Top surface panel plate model FEM analysis
12%
skin
31%
Vaulted Ribbed
31%
4 floor
18%
floor
18% and optimization of rectangular composite plates:
3 Flat Ribbed spars
sidewall
sidewall (c) Multi-bubble model concept FEM analysis of a
spars 20%
representative section of the BWB fuselage:
20% 19%

19%
2 Vaulted Light HC skin
core 19% core
19% skin
27%
27%

1 Flat Light HC III. a) Idealized beam-column model

floor
floor
21%

21%
0
0 5000
5000 10000 LB
10000 spars
sidewall

sidewall
16%
An idealized beam-column model stress
16%
spars 17% and bucking analysis including the nonlinear effect
17%

of bending deflection was performed using closed

Figure 3. Weight component comparison of bay-3 form solution. Analysis equations and sample
fuselage concepts. results of this idealized deep sandwich with
aluminum skin are shown in Figure 5.

54,000 52,000
psi psi
Maximum
MAXIMUM bending moment
BENDING MOMENT/(pr.l 2 /8) vs. P/Pcr
t l
2.5
P P
Load case 3: Load case 3: t
pr
18.6 psi internal cabin 18.6 psi internal cabin
pressure on outer flat skin, 27,000 26,000 pressure on inner vaulted skin, Mmax 2
pr.l 2 5 pr.l 4 12(2sec µ − 2 − µ 2 )
pr.l.l/8
Mmax( P) ⋅ 8
490,000 lb elliptic aero load 490,000 lb elliptic aero load M
max
=
8
+
384 EI 5µ
4 P
2
at 2.5g pull-up maneuver at 2.5g pull-up maneuver pr ⋅ l
1.5

Maximum Stress/Yield Stress vs. P/Pcr

1
400 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
250
0.8 P
Pcr
σmax( P) pag
0.6 d P
Fcy σ max = Mmax +
2I 2Wt
0.4
π P
µ= Pcr = π EI / l
2 2
2 Pcr
0.2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
P
Pcr

Figure 5. Idealized beam-column analysis with

Figure 4. Von-Mises stress and deflection of nonlinear effect of bending deflection.
double skin ribbed vaulted shell fuselage and
primary wing structure.
Z
In this FEM analysis, the stress levels at Y(Span-wise) A Curved Panel

the wing-fuselage junction and wing rear spar were Flat HC Panel B

well above the allowable limit and needed to be X(Chordwise)

Y(Span-wise)

resized and redesigned. The pressure bearing front C X Pressure

and rear spar also needed to be modeled properly. A B

Chord-wise High
D
Moreover, no sizing study or bucking analysis was C D
Vaulted Compression

performed. The FEM weight of this configuration A

of half the vehicle structure was 29200 lbs (13245 B

Curved Panel
kg). The actual as built weight of the airframe with
C Span-wise
all the fasteners, doublers, are usually twice the S1
S2
Vaulted

FEM weight. In later design, the front pressure S3

S4
Catenary
D
High
bearing spar was eliminated and the wing leading S5 Compression

edge curved surface was designed to bear the cabin

internal pressure load. Figure 6. Top surface ribbed and vaulted plate
panel models at a highly loaded fuselage section.
Based on the full vehicle FEM analysis
from Ref. 1-3, a set of critical design loads were b) Top surface panel plate models
developed for detailed design and optimization of The top surface panel models at a highly
the most highly loaded central section fuselage loaded fuselage section are shown in Figure 6. A

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
rectangular composite sandwich plate model, a 5. A summary of FEM analysis and optimization
cross-ribbed flat panel, a vaulted ribbed panel, and results are presented in Table 1.
a catenary’s supported panel were analyzed in Ref.
Concept Initial Optimized
depth skin t p/pcr wt/area depth skin P/Pcr wt/area max disp. material
meter meter kg/sq.m meter meter kg/sqm. meter
2D HC Beam 0.15 0.006 0.4 42.4 0.264 0.0045 0.18 37.9 0.03AL
2D HC Beam 0.1524 0.0064 0.42 25.55 0.1778 0.0051 0.37 21.3 0.048SRFI
flat HC 0.137 0.003 0.5 15.3 0.201 0.0046 0.66 24.1 0.0086SRFI
flat ribbed 0.152 0.003 0.5 13.5 0.184 0.0058 0.66 25.6 0.0064SRFI
flat HC+cat 0.167 0.003 0.5 15.4 0.201 0.0046 0.71 24.2 0.009SRFI
vaulted HC 0.2 0.003 0.5 17 0.17 0.0033 0.66 25.4 0.0112SRFI
Table 1. Summary of beam column and plate analysis and optimization results.

balanced multi-bubble stiffened-shell pressure

c) Multi-bubble models
vessel concepts were developed. Diameters of the
The multi-bubble fuselage configuration cylindrical segments were almost same as a typical
concept was developed for balancing internal cabin B777 cylindrical fuselage.
pressure load efficiently, through membrane stress
in inner-stiffened shell and inter-cabin walls. An In this design shown in Figure 8, the two
outer-ribbed shell was designed to prevent merging bubble-sections meet with the inter-cabin
buckling due to external resultant compressive vertical wall at an angle, so that surface in-plane
loads. For comparison purposes, FEM based membrane forces are in self-equilibrium. Thus in
structural analysis results were also presented for an ideal case, the resulting membrane stresses on
conventional B777 type cylindrical fuselage the cylindrical section skin are balanced by tension
section and A380 type elliptic section fuselage. in the inter-cabin walls. This geometrical
Figure 7 shows a schematic view of the three arrangement could reduce undue bending at these
vehicle fuselage sections. joints, thereby preserving the advantage of a
cylindrical section fuselage, under internal cabin
pressure.

Von-Mises nodal stress,

Pascals (0.000145 psi)
1.90 E+8

1.43 E+8

9.57 E+7

BWB

4.79 E+7

Figure 7. Conceptual Fuselage section analyzed for

3.14 E+5
B777, A380 and BWB 800 class vehicles.
Figure 8. Double-bubble concept: Nodal Von-
Double-bubble design: Mises stress in due to 127530 Pascal (18.6 psi)
As explained earlier, and from the design internal pressure.
results described in Ref. 5, the rectangular
composite sandwich plate and cross-ribbed panel Triple-bubble design:
designs were found to be structurally inefficient to This special geometry was extended to a triple-
carry the internal cabin design pressure and bubble 3-floor multi-aisle fuselage, shown in
compressive load simultaneously. Based on the Figure 9. These force-balanced double and triple
lessons learned from these analyses, 3-floor load- bubble configurations were extended to a four-
bubble 3-floor concept with additional outer

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
stiffened double panels, at top and bottom of the membrane stress equilibrium at outboard joints.
fuselage, as shown in Figure 10. In this and Additional span-wise running tie-rods were also
subsequent FEM models, cylindrical skin segments used at the top and bottom of the cabin. Since only
were stiffened with ring stiffeners, which are half the fuselage was modeled, symmetric clamped
generally typical for commercial transport aircrafts. boundary conditions were assumed at the plane of
symmetry.
Von-Mises nodal stress,
Pascals (0.000145 psi) Von-Mises element stress,
Pascals (0.000145 psi)
1.81E+8
2.50 E+8

1.88 E+8
1.35E+8

1.24 E+8

9.03E+7
6.22 E+7

4.52E+7 0.0

Fig. 10 Element nodal Von-Mises stress at top due

0.0 to 84835 Pascal (12.3 psi) internal cabin pressure
and 164350 kg/meter (9200 lbs/in) span-wise
Figure 9. Triple bubble force balanced three floor compressive load on top panel and equal tensile
fuselage configurations: Nodal Von-Mises stress load at bottom panel.
due to 127530 Pascal (18.6 psi) internal pressure
Von-Mises element stress,
Pascals (0.000145 psi)
These outer panels initially consisted of 1.75 E+8

two stiffened shells supported by the cylindrical

inner fuselage sections at midpoint. These outer 1.30 E+8

shells were not connected to the inter-cabin vertical

walls directly at top. The outer shell was added to 8.73 E+7

provide bending and buckling stiffness to span-

wise bending loads that were not considered in the 4.36 E+7

double- and triple-bubble concepts. This model

was subjected to the standard 12.3 psi (84835 0.0

Pascal) internal cabin pressure as load case 1. For

Fig. 11 Five-bubble force-balanced stiffened
load case 2, top stiffened panels were subjected to
fuselage concept with vented double outer skin:
164350 kg/meter span-wise compressive loads.
Element nodal Von-Mises stress at top surface due
Equal and opposite tensile loads were applied at
to 84835 Pascal (12.3 psi) internal cabin pressure
bottom panels, to represent an equivalent
and 164350 kg/meter (9200 lbs/in) span-wise
maximum estimated bending moment.
compressive load on top panel and equal tensile
load at bottom panel.
Four-bubble-design:
The four-bubble configuration, shown in
Figure 10 was analyzed with internal design IV. Unit weight comparison.
pressure loads, as well as with estimated equivalent
compressive loads on top panels (and equal tensile Initial results of the redesigned multi-
load on bottom panels) due to fuselage bending, in bubble fuselage appear to be significantly better
order to obtain acceptable stress, deflection and compared to the flat shell design. Figure 11 shows
buckling stability safety factor. Von-Mises stress distribution at element nodes
computed on top surface due to combined internal
Five-bubble-design: cabin pressure and span-wise compressive load on
In the five-bubble fuselage concept, top panel and equal tensile load at bottom panel.
shown in Figure 11, the radius of inner cabin These stresses were well within allowable limits
vaulted ceiling was reduced from 3.875m to 3.75 and about 25% lower than the four-bubble design
meters. Radius of the outer cabin was reduced to with about 10% increase in unit weight/floor area.
3.248 meters in order to get approximate

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Unit We ight weight
Relative FEM normalized Com parison
per unit floor area.

25
BWB
Without With
Bay 3 Buckling
20 Buckling
load load
lb/sqft floor area

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Bay3 FHHC

Bay3 VHHC

Bay3 VLRS

Cylinder

Elliptic

2-Bubble-11.6m

3-Bubble-15.5m

HHC Panel

4-Bubble-19.3m

5-Bubble 17.2m
Fus elage Concepts

Figure 13 Equivalent flat plate thickness and elastic

Figure 12. Relative Finite Element Model weight property estimation scheme (Ref. 6).
of fuselage configurations per unit floor area: (Ref.
4: FHHC- flat sandwich shell with heavy The equivalent plate thickness and
honeycomb core; VHHC- vaulted shell with heavy Young’s modulus were obtained as shown in
honeycomb core; VLRS- vaulted ribbed shell; Figure 13. The extensional stiffness, k, and
HHC- heavy honeycomb core flat shell). bending stiffness, E*I, were equated for the
skin/stringer arrangement and the equivalent flat
plate. The figure also shows the equations used to
Figure 12 shows a relative non-optimal
determine the thickness and modulus of elasticity
FEM weight comparison from Ref. 5. These
of the equivalent flat plate. Although this scaling
relative unit weights were computed as ratio of
did not use standard non-dimensional parameters
total finite element weight of the structure divided
for plate bending and buckling equations, this
by floor areas inside the fuselage section. First
simplification enabled sizing of a series of scaled
three concepts labeled BWB bay-3 weights of
FEM model of 200 to 480-passenger version
vaulted shell with heavy honeycomb (VHHC); flat
vehicles with design variables such as Cabin Area
sandwich shell with heavy honeycomb core
(5 models), take-off gross weight (to provide
(FHHC); and vaulted ribbed shell (VLRS) also
aerodynamic load distribution), and Skin/stringer
included side walls, front and rear pressurized spar
depth and spacing arrangement modeled with
of similar construction4. It should be noted that
equivalent flat plate. However this study did not
these previous designs were not optimized or
take advantage of the multi-bubble geometric
analyzed for buckling stability, although sizing was
configuration and its stress balancing property,
done using 2-D nonlinear beam-column analysis
since it was intended for projecting a weight trend
similar to that described earlier in the paper.
based on the number of passengers, with 480
passenger version as a baseline. Moreover,
V. BWB Derivative Vehicle Sizing
material modulus of elasticity property scaling
resulted in under estimation of the weight. The
The weight comparison shown in Figure weight regression equations had to be scaled using
12 provided a trend of fuselage FEM weight per baseline vehicle weight data.
unit floor area. These FEM models contained beam
elements for stringers and stiffeners and shell VI. Y braced box fuselage
elements for skin. Since these FEM models used
for the multi-bubble concept were too detailed to In a recent study of a 480 passenger
extend into a full vehicle FEM, Bradley (Ref. 6) version of BWB by Boeing under a NASA
recently developed a simple methodology for research contract (Ref. 7), box-type Y braced
sizing a conceptual derivative BWB vehicle using fuselage alternative was designed and analyzed
an approximate equivalent thickness property with with special resin-film injected (RFI) stitched
plate finite element analysis. Equivalent plate carbon composite skin with foam-core. The Y
thickness was obtained from the bending stiffness brace reduces the bending at the joint of the roof
of skin-stringer combination and equivalent and cabin walls. The stitched foam-core with RFI
isotropic plate. skin provides higher bending stiffness without

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
adding significant weight penalty. The design also vaulted shell. A large number of rapid FEM
considered span-wise I-section and J-section analyses were done with solid and ribbed shell finite
stiffeners with RFI-foam construction. element model for different configuration for stress,
deflection and safety margin check using
SolidWorks and Cosmos/DesignStar FEM software.
Each FEM model represent a slice of fuselage with
24 inch (0.61 meter) frame spacing, 0.25 inch
(0.0063m) skin and frame with AL6061 material,
with about 26,000 degrees of freedom. The fuselage
is subjected to 9.2 psi (62760 Pascal) internal
pressure load and 1 psi (6896 Pascal) floor load.
The FEM model is inertia balanced to satisfy free
body boundary condition.
Figure 14. Box fuselage scheme with Y-brace for
480 passenger version BWB vehicle.

A schematic view of this 3 bay Y braced fuselage

concept is shown in Figure 14. An initial finite
element analysis of the fuselage indicated
excessive stress at the joint where the pressurized
section ends and non-pressurized section begins.
To alleviate this stress, additional Y brace were
added as shown in Figure 15a and 15b.

Figure 16a Modified fuselage designed with Y brace

replaced by vaulted shell.

Figure 15a. Modified fuselage design with additional

Y brace at wing-fuselage junction.

Figure 16b Factor of safety distribution on modified

fuselage designed with Y brace replaced by vaulted
shell, AL6061 material, 24 inch (0.61 m) frame
spacing, 0.25 inch (0.0063m) thick skin, at 9.3 psi
(62760 Pascal) internal pressure and 1 psi (6896
Pascal) floor load.

Modeling of sub-structure with stitched

Figure15b. Factor of safety distribution of fuselage
composite skin and foam core is necessary for
slice with AL6061 material, 24 inch (0.61 m) frame
future detailed analysis, as an alternative to multi-
spacing, 0.25 inch (0.0063m) thick skin, at 9.3 psi
bubble aluminum skin-stringer construction.
(62760 Pascal) internal pressure and 1 psi (6896
Detailed full vehicle finite element analysis is
Pascal) floor load.
presently being conducted at Boeing. The Boeing
design report also proposed, for phase-II,
Figures 16a and 16b show the modified
fabrication of a series of test components and tests
fuselage designed with the Y brace replace by
in order to determine the elastic properties of test

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
coupons for future finite element analysis and to 4
Mukhopadhyay, V., 'Structural Concepts Study of
establish the failure modes of stitched RFI Non-circular Fuselage Configurations,' Paper No.
composite construction of vehicle components. AIAA SAE WAC-67, World Aviation Congress, Los
Angeles, Calif. Oct. 22-24, 1996.
Conclusions
5
Mukhopadhyay, V., Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, J.,
Design and analysis of efficient structural concepts Kosaka, I., Quinn, G., and Vanderplaats, G.,
for pressurized fuselage design of blended-wing- “Analysis, Design and Optimization of Non-
body type flight vehicles were presented. Vaulted cylindrical Fuselage for Blended-Wing-Body
shell and special multi-bubble geometric Vehicle,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 41, No: 4, July-
configuration are efficient in distributing the stress August, 2004, pp. 925-930.
due to internal pressure load for these non-
conventional flight vehicles. Due to manufacturing 6
Bradley, K. R., “A Sizing Methodology for the
concern, Y braced box type fuselage design using
special composite material construction is a possible Conceptual Design of Blended-Wing-Body
practical alternative. It is shown that this Transports, MS Thesis, Joint Institute for
configuration can be improved to a modified vaulted Advancement of Flight Sciences, George Washington
shell partial multi-bubble type fuselage which has University, Sep. 2003.
better stress distribution, for same material and 7
dimension. Efficient design of non-cylindrical Velicki, A., and Hansen, D. A., “Novel Blended
pressurized structure is vital for non-conventional Wing Body Structural Concepts,” NASA TCAT
Aeronautics and Exploration Mission vehicles. NRA Phase-I Final Report, Boeing Co. CA, July
Advanced Geometric configuration for stress 2004.
balancing and Composite Material fabrication
techniques are essential. Structural weight penalty
can be severe. For a successful design, it is
necessary to develop efficient rapid geometric and
structural layout, FEM analysis and optimization
tools.

Acknowledgement

The author wishes to thank Dr. Robert Liebeck,

Daniel Hansen and Alexander Velicki of Boeing
Company and Kenneth Bradley of US Air Force
for their contribution and insight. The work was
funded by Efficient Aerodynamics and Shape
Integration (EASI) project, Conceptual Design
Shop (CDS) sub-project. The finding support by
EASI Project manager Jim Pittman and EASI/CDS
sub-project Manager Craig Nickol are gratefully
acknowledged.

References
1
Liebeck, R. H. "Configuration Control Document
CCD-3: Blended Wing Body:" Final report Under
Contract NAS1-20275 NASA Langley Research
Center, Oct. 1, 1997.
2
Liebeck, R. H., Page, M. A., and Rawdon, B. K.
“Blended-Wing-Body Subsonic Commercial
Transport.” AIAA Paper 98-0438, Jan. 1998.
3
Liebeck, R. H, "Design of the Blended Wing
Body Subsonic Transport," Journal of Aircraft,
Vol. 41, No. 1, Jan-Feb. 2004, pp. 10-25.

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics