Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, (2019), 32(8): 1797–1827

Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics

& Beihang University
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
[email protected]
www.sciencedirect.com

Assessment on critical technologies for conceptual

design of blended-wing-body civil aircraft
Zhenli CHEN a,*, Minghui ZHANG a, Yingchun CHEN a,b, Weimin SANG a,
Zhaoguang TAN b, Dong LI a, Binqian ZHANG a

a
School of Aeronautics, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China
b
Shanghai Aircraft Design and Research Institute, Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China Ltd, Shanghai 201210, China

Received 20 March 2019; revised 30 March 2019; accepted 23 May 2019

Available online 16 July 2019

KEYWORDS Abstract Civil aviation faces great challenges because of its robust projected future growth and
Aerodynamic design; potential adverse environmental effects. The classical Tube-And-Wing (TAW) configuration follow-
Bended-wing-body; ing the Cayley’s design principles has been optimized to the architecture’s limit, which can hardly
Propulsion Airframe satisfy the further requirements on green aviation. By past decades’ investigations the Blended-
Integration; Wing-Body (BWB) concept has emerged as a potential solution, which can simultaneously fulfill
Stability and control; metrics of noise, emission and fuel burn. The purpose of the present work is to analyze the devel-
Structure opments of critical technologies for BWB conceptual design from a historical perspective of tech-
nology progress. It was found that the high aerodynamic efficiency of BWB aircraft can be well
scaled by the mean aerodynamic chord and wetted aspect ratio, and should be realized with the
trade-offs among stability and control and low-speed performance. The structure concepts of
non-cylinder pressurized cabin are of high risks on weight prediction and weight penalty. A static
stability criterion is recommended and further clear and adequate criteria are required by the eval-
uations of flying and handling qualities. The difficulties of propulsion and airframe integration are
analyzed. The energy to revenue work ratios of well-developed BWB configurations are compared,
which are 31.5% and 40% better than that of TAW, using state-of-art engine technology and future
engine technology, respectively. Finally, further study aspects are advocated.
Ó 2019 Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. This is
an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction

* Corresponding author.
Rapid increasing demands of civil aviation are driven by the
E-mail address: [email protected] (Z. CHEN). high-speed transport requirements of growing middle class,
Peer review under responsibility of Editorial Committee of CJA. global economic growth and urbanization.1 With growing
urbanization, there is a greater demand to connect the world’s
cities. Since 1990, air transportation has grown at a fast
Production and hosting by Elsevier

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2019.06.006
1000-9361 Ó 2019 Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1798 Z. CHEN et al.

around 5% Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR), and is technology standard for CO2 emissions for any sector with
resilient to external shocks. the aim of encouraging more fuel efficient technologies into
The global commercial market forecasts of different com- aircraft designs. The recommended CO2 standard has been
panies (Airbus, Boeing and Commercial Aircraft Corporation developed at the aircraft level, and therefore has considered
of China (COMAC) indicate robust growth of civil aviation at all technologies associated with the aircraft design including
a rate around 4.5% in the next 20 years, as shown in Table 1.2-4 propulsion, aerodynamics and structures.10 However, the reg-
As a result, the passenger number and global fleet will be dou- ulations themselves are not driving technology advancements.
bled to 8 billion and 48000 aircrafts, respectively, till 2037. The The environmental regulations continue to be tightened but
market will be dominated by the Asia Pacific region. Although do so in a way that keeps up with technology advancement,
the number of wide-body aircraft is not large, the value is more which still can stimulate the investments of industries and gov-
than 40%. ernments. To satisfy the regulations and gradually realize the
The expanded and rising demand poses the long-term chal- green aviation, the National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-
lenges in efficiency, safety and environmental sustainability of tration (NASA) of United States of America (USA) and the
aviation.5 In terms of adverse environmental impact, aviation Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe
transport produces noise, particles, chemical product emis- (ACARE) had promoted systematic and adaptive metrics on
sions and contrail formation. The predicted robust growth of noise, NOx emissions of landing and takeoff (LTO) and fuel
civil aviation will bring much more pressure on the global burn, as shown in Table 2.11-15
warming. The current consensus is that the commercial avia- To realize these objectives, the regulations, operations and
tion currently contributes about 2–3% of the carbon dioxide new technology adoptions are required and expected. USA
(CO2) produced by human (anthropogenic CO2 emissions). and European Union (EU) have implemented continuing large
However, the total effect on global warming is probably more scale projects on new key enabling technologies. NASA has
like 3–5% when taking into account the effects of oxides of fundamental aviation research program,16 Subsonic Fixed
nitrogen from combustion and of contrail cirrus by cloud for- Wing (SFW) research program, Environmentally Responsible
mation.6,7 If the business is as usual, the impact of aviation Aviation (ERA) and subsequent New Aviation Horizons
emission on the climate change will grow fast as the commer- (NAH). In EU the joint adventure of clean sky I has been fin-
cial air travel grows. ished and the clean sky II program will be implemented until
Therefore, it is urgent to limit and to reduce environment 2026.17 As developing new technologies for new generation
impact of aviation by legislation, new infrastructure and flight Highly effective aircraft requires substantial time and
management, introduction of new highly effective aircrafts and resources, it takes a long time for new technologies to propa-
adoptions of advanced low-emission technologies. To increase gate into and through the aviation fleet. Whereas fuel effi-
the environmental adaptability of conventional aircraft by ciency and noise reduction can come from technologies of
technical evolution, it would become eventually prohibitively both airframe and propulsion systems, LTO NOx emission
expensive and lead to high risk on sustainable aviation. A reduction can only be directly achieved through propulsion
major step forward cannot be achieved without vast investiga- technology advancements, which is aimed at the reduction of
tions and a radical change of the aircraft concept. To reduce harmful productions per unit weight of the fuel burnt.
the impact of aviation on the climate, an alternative new gen- It is hard to realize the objectives set by ICAO on CO2
eration of airliners is highly expected. emission of net zero increasing on 2020 and of half-reduction
To limit the adverse environmental impact of aviation, the on 2050. In recent researches, through different scenarios, it
International Air Transport Association (IATA) expressed a was shown that current technologies and evolutionary
strongly expected resolution. The International Civil Aviation improvements will not keep pace with many of these growing
Organization (ICAO) updated more stringent regulations on challenges, nor will new technologies and concepts satisfy the
aircraft noise and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emission and intro- expectations of IATA’s resolution.18,19 Even so, new concepts
duced two completely new regulations on carbon dioxide and game-changing technologies will be needed to capture the
(CO2) and non-volatile Particulate Matter (nvPM) emissions.8 opportunities of the future, and this is an alternative way. To
To enable sustainable growth and address climate change, in ultimately realize industry innovation, long-term stable aero-
the IATA’s resolution, it calls for a 1.5% average annual fuel nautics researches are required.
efficiency improvement between 2010 and 2020, carbon neutral The classical Tube-And-Wing (TAW) configuration follows
growth from 2020 onward, and a reduction of 50% in net the Cayley’s design principles that the forms follow the func-
emissions by 2050 compared to 2005 levels.9 The new standard tions, i.e., a cylinder fuselage providing volume, a wing gener-
on aircraft CO2 certification is to reduce greenhouse gas ating lift, the horizontal and vertical tails realizing stability, the
emissions from the air transport system. It is the first global control surfaces acting for control, and the engines providing

Table 1 Market prediction of civil aviation in next 20 years (2018–2037).

Company CAGR of RPK* (%) Passenger aircraft/Value (billion $) Freighter/value(billion $) Wide body/value (%) Asia pacific (%)
2
Airbus 4.4 36563/5603 826/224 8837/47.3 41.6
Boeing3 4.7 41750/6070 980/280 8070/40.9 42.0
COMAC4 4.46 42702/5765 8195/44.4 45.4
RPK* = Revenue Passenger Kilometers.
Assessment on critical technologies for conceptual design of blended-wing-body civil aircraft 1799

Table 2 Metrics of NASA and ACARE.

Metrics Time frame Noise cum LTO NOx below Cruise NOx Rel. Fuel/CO2 Rel. Field length
below Stage 4 CAEP 6 to 2005 best to 2005 best
NASA 200911 N + 1(2015)
32 dB
60%
33%
33%
N + 2(2020)
42 dB
75%
40%
50%
N + 3(2030–2035) 55 LDN (dB) <
75% <
70% Metroplex
NASA 201312 N + 1(2015)
32 dB
60%
55%
33%
N + 2(2020)
42 dB
75%
70%
50%
N + 3(2025)
52 dB
80%
80%
60%
NASA 2017 13
Near-term
(22–32) dB
(70–75)%
(65–70)%
(40–50)%
2015–2025
Mid-term
(32–42) dB
80%
80%
(50–60)%
2025–2035
Far-term
(42–52) dB <
80% <
80%
(60–80)%
Beyond 2035
ACARE*14,15 Vision 2020
50%
80%
50%
Flightpath 2050
65%
90%
75%
*
Refer to year 2000 best in class.

thrust. The swept-wing TAW has been well optimized to the historical perspective of technology progress. First, the pro-
architecture’s limit. It is built from materials that provide a jects of BWB development are summarized and analyzed. Sec-
superior balance between weight, strength, durability and cost. ond, several key-enabling and enhancing technologies are
It is powered by the turbofan engines which also achieve high scrutinized. Third, a non-dimensional parameter, Energy To
efficiency using the simple Joule cycle. Revenue Work ratio (ETRW) indicating aircraft efficiency,24
From 1990s different alternatives were promoted to is adopted to evaluate the efficiency of well-developed BWB
improve the aerodynamic efficiency.20,21 The key is to reduce configurations. Finally, the recommendations and conclusions
aerodynamic drag, structural weight and to improve the engine are drawn.
efficiency. The application of composite materials towards
main structures, like fuselage and wing, and the adoption of 2. Characteristics of BWB
high-bypass ratio turbofans make the TAW outstandingly effi-
cient. A truss-braced wing concept adopts a high aspect ratio Different concepts including conventional TAW, Flying Wing
to reduce the lift-induced drag. The ‘C’ wing and ‘Box’ wing (FW), BWB, Integrated Wing-Body (IWB) and Hybrid Wing
concepts have high spanwise efficiency to reduce the lift- Body (HWB) appear in the literature, which can be categorized
induced drag. Laminar flow control technologies are used to by the relationship between forms and functions, as shown in
reduce the friction drag. Bended-Wing-Body (BWB) concept22 Table 3. For TAW the required function is corresponding to
was promoted to reduce form drag by increasing wetted aspect the form almost individually following the Cayley’s design
ratio, to increase spanwise efficiency by using lifting fuselage, principles. For flying wing concept all functions are provided
and to reduce the interference drag by smoothly blended the by the wing and are inherently coupled. Some functions are
wing and body. By the studies of the past decades, the BWB contrary to others, like high aerodynamic efficiency versus sta-
configuration emerges as an unconventional but promising bility and control. To ease these conflicts and design difficulties
concept, which has the potential to simultaneously fulfill all of FW, an individual body using extended chord length was
relevant metrics. However, there are still enormous challenges adopted to provide volume, lift and hosts of the stabilizer/con-
that need to be resolved.22,23 trol surfaces, landing gear and embedded engines, and further
The aim of the present work is to analyze the development to reduce wetted area. Meanwhile, a smooth transition
of several critical technologies of BWB concept from a between the body and wing is adopted to further reduce the

Table 3 Aircraft concept defined by forms-following-functions.

Concept Lift Capacity Stability Control Thrust PAI
TAW Wing Fuselage Wing Aileron Podded engine UW
H-tail Elevator
V-tail Rudder
HWB Wing/body Body Wing/body Elevons Podded engine UW
V-tail Rudder/SDR AUC
BWB Wing/body Body Wing/body Elevons Podded/buried engine AUC/BLI
Rudder/SDR
FW Wing Wing Wing SDR/TV Buried engine BLI
Notes: H-tail = Horizontal tail; V-tail = Vertical tail; SDR = Split Drag Rudder; TV = Thrust Vector; UW = Under Wing; AUC = Aft
Upper Centerbody; BLI = Boundary Layer Ingestion.
1800 Z. CHEN et al.

interferences and the consequent drag. All these features result stability margins. Therefore, they are very important for flight
in the BWB concept with a multi-functional body without ver- control system design.
tical and horizontal stabilizers. Several system level assessments having gradually improved
Comparing with FW, BWB has a more obvious center- fidelities were performed to know the capability of BWB com-
body, highly aerodynamic efficient outer wing providing part paring with TAW under the same advanced technology sce-
of the lift, and a smoothly blended (integrated) region in nario.12,23–27 It was found that only the BWB configuration
between. The length of the centerbody is normally less than with advanced turbofans can achieve the green-aviation goals
the span width. There is no distinct horizontal and vertical simultaneously. The predicted fuel burn benefit over advanced
stabilizer as on conventional TAW configuration. The longi- TAW designs is much less than early results as Boeing studies
tudinal stability is always relaxed or realized by using down- suggested, which is mostly of single digit gains. However, the
loading of rear center body, outer wing, highly swept angle of noise margin improvement is great because of the noise shield-
the outer wing or their combinations. The directional stability ing provided by the centerbody.
is provided by the winglet or vertical tail, which is usually
insufficient. There are a series of control surfaces along the 2.2. Advantages and challenges
trailing edge of the centerbody to the outer wing, functioning
simultaneously as elevator and aileron for longitudinal and For BWB concept aerodynamic design, structures, SC, noise
lateral controls, therefore, named as elevons. The directional features, Propulsion/Airframe Integration (PAI), and internal
control is mainly provided by rudders on the winglets and is layout are a few areas that differ significantly from the tradi-
assisted by the outboard splitting drag rudders. Due to the tional TAW design. The advantages and disadvantages of
positions of these control surfaces, the moment/lever arms BWB can be summarized as in Table 4. Despite potentially
for pitch and directional control are much shorter than that high aerodynamic and possible structural efficiencies, the
of conventional TAW configuration. Therefore, to satisfy
the requirements on the control authority, the areas of the
elevons are large, which leads to lift loss and high hinge
moments, when further longitudinal trim and stability aug- Table 4 Advantages and disadvantages of BWB
ments are required. configuration.
Although high aerodynamic efficiency and preferable struc- Advantage Disadvantage
tural weight of the wing can be obtained due to a wetted-area
Reduction of the skin friction Weight penalty due to non-
reduction and a preferred spanwise lift distribution, respec-
drag due to wetted area circular pressurized body
tively, this concept still brings design challenges on non- reduction
circular pressurized cabin and Stability and Control (SC) for Trim drag during cruise can be Inferior flying and handling
civil applications. Therefore, the podded engines mounted on avoided by adopting relaxed qualities due to relaxed stability,
the aft-upper centerbody and additional vertical stabilizers stability in pitch limited control authority and
are adopted to eliminate difficulties of engine design and to complex flight control system
satisfy the SC requirements. To alleviate the disadvantages Interference drag reduction by Recovery capability for
of short moment arms, the centerbody is usually lengthened. smooth transition of centerbody potential tumbling for tailless
All these features can be found on TAW that motivate the and wing aircraft
Reduction of lift-induced drag Degraded comfort due to
BWB to be named as HWB. The IWB concept is also of this
due to lifting body and windowless cabin
kind.
improved spanwise lift
distribution
2.1. General characteristics of BWB Wave drag reduction at high Difficulties on satisfying the
transonic speed due to better requirement of evacuation and
The centerbody of BWB is multi-functional. Its non-circular area-ruled shape on airworthiness certification
cross section leads to specific difficulties for pressurized cabin Simplified high-lift devices, wing Sensitive to gust due to low
weight reduction and better wing loading
design. The centerbody provides about 30% lift at cruise when
high-altitude buffet margin can
an elliptical lifting distribution is assumed in spanwise direc-
be realized due to reduced wing
tion. Its integrations with engines and stabilizer/control sur- loading
faces introduce much more difficulties. The smooth Engine integration on the aft- Degraded repairability
integration of the centerbody, a transition region and the outer upper centerbody has the comparing with TAW that
wing determines the attached flow over the BWB, and brings potential to provide greater indicating further infrastructure
distinct aerodynamic efficiency at cruise. Meanwhile due to noise shielding outside cabin investment
the specific geometrical outer mold line of the BWB and the than conventional aircraft
inherent integration, it is not obvious how to define the refer- Local relieving of aerodynamic Limitations on large size BWB
ence area (Sref ) and Mean Aerodynamic Chord (MAC). At the loading by local inertia loading due to taxiway and runway
can reduce bending and shear width limits, gate limits and
earlier development of BWB, Liebeck22 used the area of the
loads on the structure strong wake vortices
trapezoidal wing as reference area, but the definition of
The simplicity of the Potential problems of family
MAC is not clear. During the development, it is normally to configuration suggests a development
use gross planform area and the corresponding MAC as the reduction in part count with a
reference values. Although the specific reference values do corresponding reduction in
not change the lift-to-drag ratio, but they do affect the magni- manufacturing costs28
tude of the force and moment coefficients and the consequent
Assessment on critical technologies for conceptual design of blended-wing-body civil aircraft 1801

BWB concept has not yet been embraced by aircraft manufac- concept was conceptualized with the constraints on cylindrical
turers. One argument is that BWB have some inherent disad- pressure vessel and engines buried in the wing root. This con-
vantages/challenges that can partially offset its advantages.29 cept has large aerodynamic advantages over conventional
Large leaps in aircraft efficiency, coupled with reductions in TAW configuration.
noise and harmful emissions, are critical to the aviation com- Then a one-year project from 1993 to 1994 was funded by
munity’s resolutions of achieving environmental sustainability. NASA to McDonnell Douglas company on the topic of Con-
It cannot be excluded that the arguments in favor of or against cepts for Advanced Subsonic Transports (CAST), which
the BWB are often based on the superficial suspicion against resulted in the first generation BWB (BWB-800-I) releasing
the introduction of new technology. Instead, a satisfactory the earlier constraints on the pressure vessel and the installa-
decision must be based on a rational investigation of a class tion of engines.23,42 After that path-finding project a three-
of vehicles with various degrees of integration of configura- year project conducted by NASA in 1994 was given to a
tions using multi-disciplines. NASA/industry/university team led by McDonnell Douglas/
Boeing company on BWB technology study, which resulted
3. Projects on BWB developments in the second generation BWB (BWB-800-II). This study
demonstrated the feasibility and performance potential of the
The early development of BWB was reviewed by Liebeck on BWB.42,43 In these two projects the design mission of 800 pas-
the promotion of this concept at McDonnell Douglas com- sengers (PAX) and a 13,000 km range at a Mach number of
pany and its subsequent development under the support of 0.85 was set by NASA, which was deemed beyond market
NASA and Boeing.22 Recently, an evolving trend of BWB forecast data for the further development at that time. Then
design was reviewed by Okonkwo and Smith with specific the design mission was adapted to a BWB-450 concept as
emphasize on multidisciplinary design synthesis and optimiza- shown in Table 5. New flattened transonic airfoils and a new
tion.30 A historical perspective on BWB was given by Toren- planform of a longer centerbody were obtained by optimiza-
beek29 with the conclusions that BWB has the potential to tion using an inverse design code CDISC combined with Rey-
satisfy the expectations of real eco-friendly airliners. Here the nolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) solver CFL3D.22,44
technologies of developing BWB are reviewed from the per- After the three-year project, NASA and Boeing did lots of
spective of different development phases and in different joint researches on a converged configuration (BWB-450-1L),
nations. The developing trends are summarized. including system studies,22 low-speed and transonic wind tun-
nel experiments,45 boundary-layer ingesting inlet with active
flow control,46,47 noise assessment,48–51 structure design of
3.1. BWB development in USA non-cylindrical fuselage52,53 and flight test.32,40
At the same time period, a collaborative, multi-disciplinary
A series of projects were carried out in the USA on the devel- project named Silent Aircraft Initiative (SAI) was funded by
opment of BWB, as shown in Table 5.22,31-41 The promotion of Cambridge-MIT Institute (CMI) from 2003 to 2006, aiming
BWB was in response to the Bushnell’s query ‘‘Is there at design an aircraft inaudible outside the airport boundary
naissance for the long haul transport?” in 1988.22 A ‘Batwing’ within a well populated, urban environment.33 The BWB

Table 5 Projects of USA on BWB development.

Year Project BWB Payload (PAX) Range (km) Ma PAI Experiments
22
1993–1994 CAST BWB-800-I 800 13,000 0.85 4-BLI AUC No.
1994–1997 BWB-tech22 BWB-800-II 800 13,000 0.85 3-BLI AUC High*
1997–2002 Boeing22 BWB-450 478 14,400 0.85 3-podded AUC Low*/high
2002 UEET31 BWB-571 571 13,100 0.855 3-podded AUC No
2002–2012 Flight test32 X-48B 3-podded AUC Low
2003–2006 SAI33 SAX-40 215 9300 0.8 3-core 9-fan BLI No
2004 Quiet green transport34 BWB225-DP-hydrogen 225 6500 0.8 8-podded AUC No
2007 RSCA35 CESTOL170 170 5600 0.8 12-BLI wing spanwise No
2007–2011 SFW36 N2A-EXTE 262 11,100 0.8 2-podded AUC Low
2007–2011 SFW36 N2B 262 11,100 0.8 3-core 9-fan BLI
2008–2010 N + 337 SUGAR-Ray 155 6500 0.7 2-podded AUC No
2008–2010 N + 338 H3.2 354 14,100 0.83 2-core 4-fan BLI No
2010–2011 ERA39 BWB-OREIO 224 12,000 0.80 3-open rotor AUC No
2010–2015 ERA23 ERA-0009A 224 14,800 0.85 2-podded AUC Low
2010–2015 ERA12 HWB216-GTF 216 12,200 0.80 2-podded AUC No
HWB301-GTF 301 13,900 0.84 2-podded AUC No
HWB400-GTF 400 10,700 0.85 3-podded AUC No
2012–2013 Flight test40 X-48C 2-podded AUC
2018 NAH41 BWB BizJet 8 15,200 0.85 2-podded semi-buried No
Ascent 1000 112 5900 0.8 2-podded semi-buried No
BWB-165 165 6500 0.8 2-podded semi-buried No
High* = High-speed wind tunnel test; Low* = Low-speed wind tunnel test.
1802 Z. CHEN et al.

configuration was selected as a technology collector due to its In 2009 under the projected growth of the air transporta-
potentials on aerodynamic efficiency and noise reduction. tion and the consequence of increasing stringent certification
Low-noise technologies of propulsion system, airframe and levels for noise and emissions, and further requirement on
their integration were studied. The resulting SAX-40 concept vehicle fuel efficiency improvements, NASA initialized the
for an Entry Into Service (EIS) year 2025 realized a predicted Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA) project to iden-
noise level at the airport perimeter of 62 dBA and had the tify advanced integrated vehicle, system and component tech-
potential for a fuel efficiency 28% improvement when com- nologies. The integration of these technologies will enable
pared with existing commercial aircraft. Although the priority transport aircraft to simultaneously achieve N + 2 vehicle-
was the noise reduction, SAX-40 achieved remarkable fuel effi- level goals of reduction of noise, emissions and fuel burn in
ciency due to the aerodynamic advantages of the BWB config- the 2025 timeframe. The enabling technologies needed to be
uration. The SAX-40 incorporated a novel concept employing at a Technical Readiness Level (TRL) of 6 by 2020.11
a cambered forward centerbody that increased the forward lift The ERA project had been organized into two distinct
so that the outer wing airfoils could be more highly aft-loaded phases and had three sub-projects on airframe technology,
(supercritical type loading) and still be trimmed at cruise with- engine technology and PAI. Both the cargo and passenger air-
out undue drag from pitch trimming with elevons. This, in craft concepts were required. In phase I, driven by the three
turn, allowed a lower sweep with a thicker but lighter outer vehicle-level goals of noise, emission and fuel burn reduction,
wing. the investigations on noise assessment of HWB, integration
In 2008, Nickol54 performed a risk assessment of SAX-40 of open rotors, and low speed flight experiments of X-48B/C
concept. The technologies including structures and weight pre- were carried out.23 Three advanced vehicle concepts and an
diction, Boundary-Layer Ingestion (BLI) and inlet design, Ultra-High Bypass-ratio (UHB) engine concept were intro-
variable-area exhaust and thrust vectoring, displaced- duced. Five critical technologies on flow-control concepts,
threshold and Continuous Descent Approach (CDA) advanced composite, advanced UHB-engine design, advanced
operational concepts, cost, human factors and overall noise combustor and PAI concept were identified. In phase II, eight
performance were considered of high risk. By comparison, it Integrated Technology Demonstrations (ITD) were imple-
was found that the SAX-40 would have significantly greater mented. They were active flow control of vertical tail and
research, development, test, and engineering and production advanced wing design for drag reduction, Pultruded Rod
costs than a conventional aircraft with similar technology Stitched Efficient Unitized Structure (PRSEUS) of pressurized
levels. It was recommended that further design should strive cabin design for weight reduction, front block compressor
to achieve an appropriate balance among a variety of metrics, design for reduction of thrust Specific Fuel Consumption
such as maintenance costs, fuel burn, emissions, and noise. In (TSFC), UHB engine design for TSFC and noise reduction,
2009 Hall et al.55 also assessed the benefits and penalties of fuel-flexible combustor design for LTO NOx reduction, air-
each of the proposed technologies of SAX-40. A method had frame component design for noise reduction and UHB engine
been developed to estimate the overall change in fuel consump- integration on HWB for noise and fuel reduction. To reduce
tion and engine noise caused by modifications to an aircraft risk on achieving the NASA’s N + 2 noise goal, a one-year
design. A low-risk configuration SAX-L/R1 of the silent air- post-ERA project was also rewarded to Boeing to research
craft with podded engine was designed by tradeoffs between on the noise of a preferred system concept (PSC).
noise and fuel consumption for various technologies. The Historically, NASA funded most of the projects on BWB
low-risk configuration can achieve both lower fuel burn and development and accumulated knowledge and technologies
lower engine noise. on BWB design. Several different BWB configurations were
From 2007 to 2011 a large scale project titled ‘‘Acoustic developed with increasing fidelity. In 2004, Burg et al.56 and
Prediction Methodology and Test Validation for an Efficient Hill et al.49 designed a 300-PAX BWB transport powered by
Low-Noise Hybrid Wing Body Subsonic Transport” was two General Electric (GE) GE-90-like engines using NASA
funded by NASA in the framework of SFW project under standard toolset (FLOPS, NPSS and WATE) aiming at
the fundamental aeronautics program.56 The investigation down-select and assessment of candidate Propulsion Airframe
was a team effort led by Boeing with major contributions from Aeroacoustics (PAA) technologies under NASA’s quiet air-
participants. The primary objective was to design a HWB con- craft technology project. In 2009, Nickol and McCullers11
figuration to meet the initial N + 2 goals in 2009 (see Table 2) designed a 305-PAX HWB configuration (HWB300-2009) for
of NASA SFW project with an EIS year 2020. system study using the same toolset based on the Boeing
Based on the previous assessments of SAX-40,54,55 a pre- BWB-450. In 2010 Collier et al.57 presented two 300-PAX
liminary cargo version of SAX-40 was developed by MIT, HWB configurations, a HWB300A with two podded engines
named SAX-40F, which was identified as N2 for N + 2 noise and a HWB300B with two embedded engines to set fuel-
goal. Two concepts were derived from the SAX-40 by using burn goals and to identify the key technology areas of ERA
Boeing Integrated Vehicle and Design System (BIVDS) tool project. In the same year, Thomas et al.58 promoted eleven
suite: a low risk version designated as the N2A with podded HWB configurations based on HWB300-2009 to assess differ-
engines, and the other retaining the SAX-40 type embedded ent noise-reduction technologies.
engines designated as the N2B. The cambered forward center- In 2012, Nickol59 studied the scaling effects of HWB with
body concept was adopted from the SAX-40 concept. Conven- improved FLOPS, a higher order centerbody weight estima-
tional propulsion and flight control characteristics were tion methodology (HCDStruct)60 and technology assumptions
assumed to determine configuration design methods for low on hybrid laminar flow control, riblets, variable trailing edge
noise as opposed to employing and evaluating operational pro- camber, stitched composites of centerbody, several advanced
cedures used in SAX-40 concept. subsystems and advanced propulsion system. It was concluded
Assessment on critical technologies for conceptual design of blended-wing-body civil aircraft 1803

that given a well-suited set of requirements, the HWB config- started in 2005 and was completed in the 6th framework pro-
uration has the potential to simultaneously reduce fuel burn gram. A Passenger-drive Flying Wing (PFW) configuration
and noise compared to an equivalent technology TAW was advanced. An early version NACRE-PFW1 was derived
configuration. by modifying the centerbody airfoil and applying outer-wing
In 2016, Nickol and Haller12 assessed the performance twist to the VELA-3 aircraft, and had satisfactory aerodynam-
potentials of advanced subsonic concepts including the con- ics, stability and control characteristics. A later version
ventional TAW and unconventional configurations. Three cat- NACRE-PFW2 derived from NACRE-PFW1 by changing
egories of HWB were designed using the technology the location of the engines, kinematics and position of the
advancements of ITDs of ERA and updated weight estimation main landing gear. The engines were moved from under to
method. The airframe technologies of the ERA vehicles for over-the-wing to minimize forward radiated fan noise. The
2025 included a lighter weight structure enabled by damage kinematics of the main landing gears, which were retracted
arresting composites, natural laminar flow wings (enabled by sideways, were made to retract longitudinally and positioned
a Krueger leading-edge high lift system) and nacelles, and beside instead of behind the cargo bay. The cabin layout was
smaller vertical tails implementing active flow control enhance- improved by varying aisle widths, positions, alignments and
ments. The engine technologies included a low-fan pressure shapes regarding emergency evacuation time. The average
ratio with short inlet, swept and leaned fan exit stators, a evacuation time was improved from initial 89.3 s65 to 84 s
highly loaded high-pressure compressor enabling higher Over- for the new baseline cabin layout.66 Split aileron was also
all Pressure Ratios (OPR), and a low NOx combustor. By introduced to enhance the handling quality as well as the sta-
examining the noise, fuel burn, and emissions results, the bility and control.66
HWB concepts adopting GTF engines provide the best overall The Active Flight Control for Flexible Aircraft 2020
performance. (ACFA2020) project67 funded under the 7th framework pro-
In 2018, both regional and single-aisle BWB aircrafts were gram focused on the development of innovative active control
shown superior to the corresponding TAWs under the NASA concepts for advanced configurations from 2008 to 2011. The
NAH project. And a subsonic BWB X-plane was designed.41 design goals were derived from the metrics of ACARE vision
2020, as shown in Table 2, which resulted in ACFA-2020
3.2. BWB development in European Union aircraft.
Besides the projects under the EU framework, there were
Soon after the BWB research of the USA were published, the investigations on BWB in different nations in Europe. A
anticipated benefits of the BWB concept spurred a series of business-jet class BWB having 6 PAX was performed at Von
systematic projects on the investigations of BWB in Europe, Karman Institute for fluid dynamics (VKI).68 In France sev-
as shown in Table 6. The early BWB concept similar to the eral projects were performed.69–74 And in Germany, the study
Boeing concept was studied to objectively evaluate the inherent was performed by German Aerospace Center (DLR)75 and
advantages and challenges of BWB in College of Aeronautics, Universities.76 A collaborative framework to solve complex
Cranfield. The resulting configuration is named BW-98. A sub- aeronautics problem was created during AGILE EU project
scale flying demonstrator was also developed. However, the from 2015 to 2018. In this project, a BWB concept was also
details are not available.61 studied as an example of multi-disciplinary design practice.73
The BWB concept was studied progressively in detail in the
5th, 6th and 7th EU framework programs. A Multidisciplinary 3.3. BWB development in Russia
Optimization of BWB based on BW-98 (MOB)62 and a Very
Efficient Large Aircraft (VELA) project63 were carried out in There is a long continuous development effort in Russia.
the 5th program, with the objective to develop design tools Several BWB concepts appeared in the open literature, as shown
and methods, and to design and optimize a very efficient large in Table 7.77-79 As early as in 1989, the Central Aerohydrody-
BWB aircraft concept (resulting VELA-3), respectively. The namic Institute (TsAGI) investigated the ultra-high capacity
VELA BWB resembles the earlier Russia concept IWB-750. aircraft using flying-wing layout.80 In 1997 a Russia project
The New Aircraft Concept REsearch (NACRE) project64–66 was supported by International Scientific and Technical Center

Table 6 Projects of European countries on BWB development.

Year Project BWB Payload(PAX) Range (km) Ma PAI Experiment
61
1998–2002 Cranfield BWB-98 960 14,200 0.85 3-podded AUC No
2000–2003 MOB62 BWB-MOB 0.85 3-podded AUC
2002–2005 VELA63 VELA-3 750 14,200 0.85 4-podded UW Low
2005–2010 NACRE64–66 NACRE-PFW2 750 14,200 0.85 3-podded AUC
2008–2011 ACFA202067 ACFA-2020 470 13,300 0.85 2-podded AUC No
2010 VKI68 Roysdon BWB 6 0.735 2-podded AUC
2011—now AVECA project69 AVECA-BWB <600 <16700 0.85 2-podded AUC No
2012—now Airbus Future70,71 Airbus BWB 470 13,300 0.85 2-podded AUC
2015–2019 CICAV72 ONERA-BWB 440 14,800 0.85 2-podded AUC
2015–2018 AGILE73 AGILE-BWB 450 15,700 0.85 3-podded AUC No
1804 Z. CHEN et al.

Table 7 Projects of Russia on BWB development.

Year Project BWB Payload Range (km) Ma PAI Experiment
1997–2001 548–97 of ISTC IWB-75077 750 13,700 0.85 4-podded UW Low/high
2014 FW-20078 211 16,000 0.85 2-podded UW/AUC/3-podded AUC Low/high
2019 BWB-32579 325 12,550 0.85 2-podded AUC

(ISTC) to investigate the technologies critical for implementing named NPU-300 featured with an innovative ship-shaped
a flying-wing layout aircraft with super-high capacity.77 The body was conceived to resolve the requirement of evacuation
project was undertaken in conjunction with Airbus and Boe- and to improve passenger experience by providing windows
ing. Four large aircraft configurations were compared in the on both sides. Meanwhile reconciling the low-speed and
conceptual level, which identified three candidate concepts, high-speed performances was concentrated on. Low-speed
an integrated wing body, a lifting body and a pure flying wing, wind-tunnel experiments were performed to validate the low-
for analysis. These concepts were compared with a similarly speed aerodynamic design, whereas the high-speed characteris-
designed conventional configuration in terms of the aerody- tics were studied by using CFD method.84
namics, weight and fuel efficiency. Based on the experimental To further improve the concept for potential applications,
investigations of different wing planforms and conceptual level it was decided to increase payload and cruise Mach number
comparisons, the IWB concept was preferred, as shown in and to keep several experienced design principles on the blend-
Table 7. This concept is resembling but different with BWB. ing of wing and body.85,86 The centerbody was enlarged for
Additionally, the most critical design issue on airworthiness longitudinal control authority and twin vertical tails were
requirement for emergency egress was identified. adopted for providing directional static stability and control.
In recent years, there were continuous efforts on the critical The final configuration for experiments was NPU-330. The
issues of BWB aircraft. Specifically, smaller BWB concepts low-speed and high-speed tests were conducted in the indus-
were studied. The aerodynamic design, PAI,78 noise shielding trial wind-tunnels, and the low-speed and high-speed designs
effect81,82 and structure design of pressurized cabin were were thoroughly scrutinized and validated.
performed.79
3.5. Categorization and development trends
3.4. BWB development in China
The BWB concepts can be categorized into three kinds, BWB,
The investigations on BWB configurations were started late in HWB and IWB, as shown in Fig. 1. The first kind is repre-
China,83 but were progressively funded and continuously stud- sented by BWB-450, which has double swept planform and
ied, as shown in Table 8.84-86 Most of the BWB studies were short aft-body. Several concepts of this kind are still under
performed in the academia. Zhu et al. introduced the investigation in EU countries. The second kind is represented
developments of BWB-800-II, BWB-450 concepts87 and SAX by N2A-EXTE, which has leading-edge carving over the cen-
project.88 Zhang et al. investigated the cabin layout,89 stability terbody to reduce aft-body reflex camber and incorporates
and control90 and effects of design parameters.91 Jiang et al. high-efficiency supercritical airfoils on outboard wing. Addi-
studied the effects of design parameters on cruise efficiency.92 tionally, the aft-body is extended to improve noise shielding,
In 2008 COMAC started the conceptual design of C919. PAI and SC. The third kind is represented by IWB-750, which
As an option a concept named NPU-150 was systematically has a more conventional body and an extended aft-body. The
investigated by Northwestern Polytechnical University in wing position is much more forward relative to the body. Most
corporation with COMAC from 2008 to 2010. An aircraft- of the concepts have under-wing mounted engines, which can
level benefit of 15% less fuel consumption was obtained also be categorized as HWB. However, Boeing’s ERA-0009A
compared with conventional TAW under the same technology is a hybrid of BWB-450 and N2A-EXTE, and is very similar
assumptions. To resolve the constraints on cabin height, the to X-48C with the aft-body extended of X-48B. It is obvious that
cargo payloads were arranged between the outboard wing NPU-330 has a distinct feature comparing with the main three
and the center pressurized cabin. Based on the requirements kinds, showing a forward wing integrated with a slender body.
of green aviation at timeframe 2020 to 2025, a subsequent Usually the gross area and the corresponding MAC are
project was funded on BWB investigation to resolve several used as the reference area and length scale. Both are quite lar-
challenges under the cruise performance constraints from ger than that of TAW as a function of the maximum take-off
2011 to 2014. A new configuration without vertical stabilizer mass (MTO), as shown in Fig. 2(a) and (b), respectively. Both

Table 8 Projects of China on BWB development.

Year Project BWB Payload Range (km) Ma PAI Experiment
2008–2010 C919-B NPU-150 150 5600 0.78 2-podded AUC No
2011–2014 SWB84 NPU-300 300 13,000 0.82 2-podded AUC Low
2015–2017 BWB85,86 NPU-330 330 13,900 0.85 2-podded AUC Low/high
Assessment on critical technologies for conceptual design of blended-wing-body civil aircraft 1805

Fig. 1 Evolution of BWB concepts.

increase linearly with aircraft size as that of TAW. The wetted (6) There are no detailed investigations to resolve several
area to reference area ratio (Swet/Sref) of an advanced TAW challenges related to safety including uncontained
(B787-8) is 4.89, which is quite larger than that of BWB. They engine blade burst, thrust reverser and evacuation.
are 2.57, 2.32 and 2.14 for IWB-750, BWB-OREIO and
N2A-EXTE, respectively.
Some developing trends can also be observed and are sum- 4. Critical technologies of conceptual design
marized as in the following:
The fundamental characteristics of BWB as an advanced
(1) The noise shielding effects of the centerbody are gradu- technology collector are high aerodynamic efficiency, low
ally realized and are enhanced by providing further operational empty weight and potential noise shielding when
shielding of jet noise. the engines are mounted on the upper rear centerbody,
(2) It is obvious that the aft-body is extended to alleviate the which are the consequences of entire integration of lifting
challenges on noise shielding, PAI and SC. body, wing, control surfaces and engines. Therefore, BWB
(3) To alleviate PAI and directional stability and control has a feature of inherent-multidisciplinary integration and
challenges and to reduce risks, the podded engines and appears as a Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO)
the vertical stabilizer are incorporated. problem. Trade-offs between different disciplines cannot be
(4) The size of BWB concepts in USA and EU decreases avoided.
from original large value to recent concepts of 200- The critical challenges are how to reconcile the low-speed
PAX to accommodate to the projected market. How- aerodynamics requirement on take-off and landing with high-
ever, the size of concept in China increases from a small speed cruise efficiency, how to balance the adverse require-
number to around 300-PAX which was established in ments on stability and cruise efficiency, and how to realize
design requirement. efficient structures for pressurized cabin and to accurately
(5) There is a lack of depth on investigations of a specified predict the structure weight. For the unconventional BWB
concept projected for future applications, except BWB- aircraft geometry, a solution towards ultra-high efficiency
450 and ERA-0009A. commercial transport systems requires precise knowledge of
1806 Z. CHEN et al.

Fig. 2 Comparisons of reference area and mean aerodynamic chord length of TAW93,94 and BWB as function of MTO.

all aspects of aerodynamics, propulsion, SC, and component

flow physics, including some nonlinear effects.
Table 9 BWB enabling technologies.
The enabling technologies of BWB are listed in Table 9 cor-
responding to its disadvantages listed in Table 4, which are Technology Key items
based on the Boeing’s study23 and our experiences. They col- BWB aerodynamics High cruise aerodynamic
lectively enable large benefits of BWB, although each item efficiency
may just be of little benefit individually. Some technologies Propulsion airframe
including laminar flow control of wing, PRSEUS structure integration
concept, noise shielding, and advanced UHB engines can High-lift and control
enhance the capability of BWB to achieve specified fuel burn aerodynamics
and noise goals. In the following subsections the enabling tech- BWB structures Flat-sided pressure vessel
BWB stability & control, flight SC requirements for
nologies are scrutinized and the enhancing technologies are
controls, and flying qualities BWB configuration
also analyzed. High-speed control law
assessment
4.1. Aerodynamic design and efficiency Actuation system
requirements
The lift-to-drag ratio (L/D) is well known as the aerodynamic Ride quality requirements
efficiency, which can be determined from the drag polar of an for BWB
BWB propulsion Engine operability
aircraft. For straight and level flight, the maximum L/D can be
Thrust reverser
easily obtained as Armored nacelle
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffisffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi


1=6 BWB actuation system Large secondary power
L 1 pE V1 b2
¼ MAC1=6 ð1Þ requirement
D max 2 0:044Uf m Swet
based on an equivalent friction drag coefficient
1=6
Cfeq ¼ 0:044Uf =Re , CD0 Sref ¼ Cfeq Swet , when the zero-lift
drag equals to the induced drag, where
Uf ¼ ð1 þ rU Sfront =Swet Þ, rU are 4.8 for a straight wing, 4.1 for
a swept wing and 3.5 for a fuselage, Sfront is the frontal area).95
A mean full-configuration Reynolds number is
Re ¼ V1  MAC=v, MAC and kinematic viscosity v. E is the
spanwise efficiency factor and b is the wingspan. Using an
alternative statistical approach for conventional jet aircraft
the maximum ðL=DÞmax can be expressed as95
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi


1=6 2
L 1 Swet b
¼ 220p ð2Þ
D max 2 blref Swet
where lref ¼ 10m.
The maximum L/D of TAW and BWB as the function of
MAC and wetted aspect ratio Awet ¼ b2 =Swet are compared Fig. 3 Lift-to-drag as a function of mean chord length and
in Fig. 3. Both MAC and Awet contribute to the high aerody- wetted area (The data of TAW from literature,93,94 TAW
namic efficiency of BWB. The theoretical formula Eq. (1) predicted by Eq. (2), BWB predicted and trend line by Eq. (1)).
Assessment on critical technologies for conceptual design of blended-wing-body civil aircraft 1807

thickness and after-body closure angle, and were designed

through a careful contouring of the upper and lower surfaces.
Technically, there are three different ways to achieve static
stable design. Historically, the flying wings were trimmed by
sweeping the wing and downloading the wingtips using wash-
out, which allows the wingtips to functionally serve as a hori-
zontal tail. However, this method leads to lift loss near the
wing tip and introduces a significant induced-drag penalty.
Due to high swept angle and unideal lift distribution, the effec-
tive aerodynamic wingspan is less than the physical span. Sec-
ond, the centerbody downloading with rear reflex-cambered
Fig. 4 Comparisons of cruise efficiency for TAW and BWB. airfoils can realize the static stability, which make the rear cen-
terbody function as horizontal tail. This method was adopted
in Boeing BWB-450 design.44 As a large portion of lift is
required on the centerbody for the elliptical lift distribution,
can predicted the trend well. Taking the effect of cruise Mach the rear reflex-cambered after-body will lead to higher cruise
number into account, the cruise aerodynamic efficiency is then angle of attack, which is contrary to the requirement on the
proportional to multiplication of Mach number (Ma) and L/D small cruise deck angle. In the project of SAI, the third method
for aircraft with similar engines in a small range of Mach num- was promoted to design SAX-40 using leading-edge carving of
bers. The cruise aerodynamic efficiency parameters MaL/D for the centerbody, which makes the neutral point of the center-
turbofan-powered TAW and BWB aircrafts as a function of body after the center of pressure with leading-edge uploading.
aircraft size are compared in Fig. 4. The efficiency of BWB This method can use supercritical airfoil for the outer-board
is obviously higher than that of TAW cross a large range of wing design without trim penalty.96 Although significant
aircraft size. However, only high cruise aerodynamic efficiency improvements have been made recently thanks to the advance-
is not enough, because the aircraft must be trimmed, easily ments of aerodynamic reverse design and optimization tools, a
controlled and of balanced low-speed aerodynamic suitable stability margin for a high cruise efficiency design is
characteristics. still an open question. Since there is no historical data for
BWB and its MAC is about two times to that of traditional
4.1.1. Trade-off between stability and cruise performance TAW configuration, as shown in Fig. 2(b). Many recently
The aerodynamic design of BWB transport is primarily driven designed BWB configurations are still having relaxed stability.
by cruise performance under constraints on stability and low In our experience, the recommended stability margin can be
speed aerodynamic requirements. High cruise efficiency of half of the traditional TAW aircraft due to its large MAC
BWB is rooted in the integration of the centerbody, outer and requirements of the dynamical stability. The lateral static
wing, control surfaces and engines to reduce wetted area, stability for BWB is not much different with the conventional
and structurally efficient use of large wing span, resulting in configuration, in consideration of that the effect of sweepback
increased wetted aspect ratio and L/D. can increase the effective dihedral with angle of attack.97–99
The cruise aerodynamic design should be under stability However, it is very difficult to realize directional stability with-
and trim constraints. A high-speed aerodynamic optimization out vertical stabilizer. Additional stabilizer will increase the
without considerations on stability, pitching up or down wetted area and weight, but it is still adopted in almost recent
moment, and the lift coefficient at maximum L/D will lead designs.22,36,66,67
to practically degraded configuration, because a practical air-
craft should be trimmed at design lift coefficient. Due to the 4.1.2. Trade-off between low and high speed aerodynamic
development of multidisciplinary optimization, an performances
aerodynamic-design principle gradually forms to realize the Since the robust projected growth of civil aircraft in next
coincidence of zero pitching moment, cruise lifting coefficient twenty years, system capacity improvements are required at
and the maximum lift-to-drag ratio.83 Therefore, it is better hub airports to resolve the airport congestion and delays,
to have positive zero-lifting moment coefficient (Cm0 ) with pos- which has strong implications on the low-speed performance.
itive longitudinal stability margin and negative one vice versa. Therefore, in the SFW project, the goals on performance of
When the longitudinal stability margin is more relaxed, a field length were anticipated to decrease 33% and 50% at time-
higher L/D can be achieved. At the earlier development of frame N + 1 and N + 2, respectively, as shown in Table 2.
BWB, the longitudinal static stability margin was vitally However, wing sizing for conventional transonic transports
relaxed to
15% for the first generation Boeing BWB-800-I, represents trade-offs between efficient high-speed cruise and
therefore, a fly-by-wire (FBW) flight control system was effective high-lift characteristics, which also includes trade-
heavily depended on. For the second generation Boeing offs among weight, cost, complexity, reliability and airframe
BWB-800-II it was still assumed statically unstable to achieve noise. It is difficult to achieve the field-length performance with
high L/D, hence the flight-critical stability augmentation and a system level trade balance.100
flight-envelope protection were required. Boeing BWB-450 The trade-offs between low-speed and cruise performances
was trimmed at the static stability margin of 5%, which was result in the high-lift system normally combining leading-edge
realized by a Boeing proprietary code WingMOD using the slotted slats and trailing-edge slotted flaps on conventional
planform, new transonic airfoil for centerbody and twist distri- TAW aircrafts. BWB aircrafts have larger wing area and low
bution.44 The new airfoils were featured with reduced relative wing loading than that of conventional TAW aircrafts, which
1808 Z. CHEN et al.

implies simplified or eliminated high-lift devices.22 However, (1) Extending the centerbody trailing edge to improve trim
clean BWBs without high-lift devices have exacerbated low- capability by enlarging the lever arm, which can also
speed stall characteristics due to its planform shape.22,26 There- improve noise shielding when the engines are integrated.
fore, it cannot provide high enough maximum lift coefficient to However, the increased wetted area and the resulting
enhance take-off and landing performance required by the increased friction drag should be considered.36
regulations. (2) A leading edge Krueger flap is more preferred than a
High lift system have strong implications with safety and conventional slat, since it can enable a laminar flow wing
allow compliance with several different certification require- by providing protection from insect and debris accre-
ments and procedural necessities, such as approach speeds. tion. A well-integrated slotted Krueger flap has the same
Typical approach speeds for the conventional large twin-aisle capability for low-speed stall protection. However, its
aircrafts are 130–160 knots, which is still difficult for BWB noise characteristics including Krueger cavity need fur-
to achieve with traditional high-lift devices.101 High lift sys- ther investigations.103
tems are required on BWB configurations despite its low wing (3) Simple-hinged flap is much more preferred than a con-
loading, which introduces challenges due to its inherent limited ventional slotted flap due to its favorable pitching
longitudinal control authority. Traditional single slotted flap is moment. If the slotted flap is required, it is better to
hard to be used as a high-lift device, because BWB aircraft can- lay it near the Center of Gravity (CG) in the absence
not trim the resulting high pitching moments. of a conventional horizontal stabilizer.
BWB-800-II and BWB-450 use leading edge slat as high-lift (4) Unconventional active control methods such as thrust
devices to prevent outboard wing stall, which can satisfy the vectoring,70 flap blowing,99belly-flaps104 or boundary
constraints on take-off field length and approach speed. How- layer control blowing system at the leading and trailing
ever, the maximum lift coefficients are quite lower than that of edge can be used to improve low-speed high-lift, control
a conventional configuration.22,23 SUGAR-Ray and and trim. However, the weight, complexity, reliability,
ERA-0009A of Boeing and NASA’s HWBs adopt slotted cost and safety may be challenging in the consideration
Krueger flap at the leading edge with a deployable trailing edge. of practical implementation.
In the ERA project, an adaptive compliant trailing-edge flap (5) To realize the full potential of the clean planform of
was also investigated. However, the metrics on field BWB further investigation need to compromise the
performance was not mentioned. SAX-40 and N2A-EXTE requirements of low-speed and high-speed perfor-
adopt deployable drooped leading edge with trailing edge flap mances. This is mainly because there is no functionally
eliminated and are trimmed by thrust vectoring. IWB-750 and independent horizontal stabilizer and control surfaces.
VELA-3 also adopt the same high-lift devices including slotted
slat and simple-hinged flap. The former has take-off filed length
3350 m. The later has the constraint on the take-off filed length 4.1.3. Comments on spanwise lift distribution and
less than 3350 m, but it has an approach speed of 165 knots, multidisciplinary design optimization
which is quite high.76,77 ACFA-2020 adopts leading edge slat Besides the wetted area reduction by the integration of the
and a single slotted Fowler flap. It was found that the maximum wing and multi-functional body, the high-speed aerodynamic
lift is not enough and it is difficult to trim the resulting pitching efficiency has to be realized by using well designed spanwise lift
momentum. Severe lift losses were also observed when the trim distribution and multidisciplinary design optimization meth-
elevons were deflected. When a planform resembling X-48C ods. Several modern transports have a more triangle loading
with centerbody section extended was used, the approach that increases the induced drag at cruise, but is based on the
performance of ACFA-2020 was improved.101 reduction of the wing root bending moment and the conse-
It can be concluded that the traditional leading edge slat quent lighter structural weight, as well as approach and
and slotted flap cannot be easily used for BWB configuration high-speed buffet aerodynamic characteristics. In the MOB
due to the resulting high pitching moment, unless unconven- project, the triangle, elliptic and an average of triangle and
tional trim device is adopted, such as thrust vectoring. When elliptic spanwise lift distributions were studied on a given plan-
to trim the resulting pitching moment, a severe lift loss leads form to maximize the cruise efficiency.105 The average type was
to higher take-off and landing angle of attack due to the short preferred for lower wave drag compared with elliptic type and
lever arm. Higher angles of attack were not preferred, because lower induced drag compared with triangle type. However, this
passenger comfort rapidly deteriorates at or beyond approxi- conclusion could be plausible and misleading. Because the
mately 8° and further problems during approach can arise modern aircrafts have a trend to increase aspect ratio but trad-
from crosswinds causing the wing tips to touch the ground ing for increasing operating empty mass.106 BWB configura-
before the landing gear.102 tion has low wing loading and potential local-load balancing.
Additionally, BWB configuration is also susceptive to gust, If triangle or mixed type distribution is used, the required lar-
and specifically can be exaggerated at high angle of attack by ger lift over centerbody have to be provided with higher posi-
low speed. To alleviate thise problem, the planform modifica- tive twist, which results in higher deck angle. Therefore, most
tions are properly required. However, a trade-off with cruise of the BWB aircrafts have the elliptic spanwise lift distribution.
performance should be balanced. Therefore, low-speed perfor- Aerodynamic advantages are realized by reduced wetted
mance, stability and control design needs to be integrated with area, structurally efficient use of large wing span, relaxed static
cruise point design during the first stages of the design process. stability, and optimum spanwise loading. Therefore, to better
To improve the low-speed performance, several design adapta- compromise and balance different requirements on cruise effi-
tions can be considered ciency, SC and low-speed performance, MDO method should
Assessment on critical technologies for conceptual design of blended-wing-body civil aircraft 1809

be used in the concept design stage. Because of the lack of full- (1) Control surface layout
scale test data, validation is a major challenge, and relatively
few system-level studies have been performed. Some funda- Control surface architecture is main challenge of BWB
mental questions, like for specified cabin floor area, the opti- design. The options can be partially tailless with only horizon-
mal width and the lift of the center body, are still open. tal or vertical stabilizer, or can be truly tailless without any sta-
Most of the designs are achieved by single-point optimization bilizers. If both stabilizers are adopted, the additional wetted
at cruise condition with specified planform, but without con- surface area would lead to degenerated aerodynamic efficiency.
straints on requirements of the low-speed and SC. However, The BWB configuration typically features redundant elevons
based on past designs77,84,85 and low-speed high-lift design located at the trailing edge of the center body and wing. These
practice,102 the planform has the first order effect on the control surfaces are multi-functional, including trim, longitudi-
low-speed aerodynamic performance. Therefore, when per- nal and lateral control, pitch and directional stability augmen-
forming MDO, the planform should be parameterized and tation, and wing loading alleviation.
can be adjusted to satisfy the constraints. Further details on
review of MDO methods and a design practice to realize the (2) Difficult to choose and realize the static stability margins
low- and high-speed performances were presented in detail in
Ref.107 in this volume. Because of much large reference surface area and chord
length, as shown in Fig. 2, the static stability margin of con-
ventional civil aircraft cannot be used as a reference. Mean-
4.2. Stability and control and flying qualities
while the longitudinal and directional stability is difficult to
be realized, as they are highly interrelated with aerodynamic
In early study of BWB, the challenges related to the SC on efficiency, due to the inherent wing-body integration. Usually
high control power,22 low longitudinal and lateral stabilities, to have high aerodynamic efficiency, the longitudinal stability
as well as small natural yaw damping78 were raised, which have is neutral or unstable. The directional stability is also nearly
aircraft system level impact on aerodynamic efficiency, power neutral stable.
requirement and weight of actuation system. BWB aircrafts
are inherently tailless, which possess some SC characteristics (3) Limited control authority due to short moment arm
of FW type tailless aircrafts.97
The SC characteristics of bare BWB are consequences of its Due to the integration of the wing, body and consequent
unique aerodynamic configuration, mass distribution, propul- planform, the moment arms for movables and control surfaces
sion and the layout of the stabilizer and control surfaces, are short compared to the conventional TAW, which limits the
which are the bases for the development of the full flight con- capability and authority of control surfaces, both in longitudi-
trol laws to satisfy the flying quality requirements, and the pre- nal and lateral directions.22
liminary actuation system and failure requirements. Based on
the gradually deeper investigation and more experiences, the (4) Excessive power consumption and actuator mass
perspectives on challenges, control surface layout and design penalty
methods, and the related flying qualities are drawn.
The BWB is an unconventional configuration lacking in To alleviate the control authority limitations due to short
historical database and design knowledge that can enable the moment arm, larger control surface can be used to obtain lar-
conceptual design phase as TAW configurations. In the ger moments. However, the corresponding hinge moment will
absence of historical data, a physics-based method must bridge increase with the cube of the scale.43 Combined with high
the gaps to generate new knowledge, data, and insights to deflection rates to satisfy the requirements of augmentation,
enable the design. it can result in large secondary power consumption and actu-
One of the new constraints on BWB design is to achieve ator weight penalty. Therefore, it is highly desirable at the pre-
trimmed flight and acceptable static stability throughout the liminary design level to minimize control surface area, while
flight envelope. The trim drag of a BWB can be reduced by ensuring adequate closed-loop handling qualities, with limited
allocating its CG further aft compared to an inherently stable deflections and deflection rates. This challenge has been recog-
TAW. If the negative static margin is too large, flight-critical nized as an enabling technology for the BWB configuration by
stability augmentation would be required as in the cases of Boeing.23
the first- and second-generation BWB. However, the BWB-
450 layout has been balanced by means of optimization of (5) Complex failure case analysis of actuators and control
the lift distribution along the span and application of washout, surfaces
resulting in a configuration trimmed at a stable CG with all
control surfaces in their neutral position.22 This feature results Failure cases of actuators or control surfaces induce a loss
in a very small trim drag in cruise and low-speed conditions. of authority on pitch, roll and yaw axis. The failure case anal-
The degree of static stability selection depends on the design ysis then tends to be more complex than that of classical air-
philosophy and the use of stability augmentation with active craft configurations, where the functions are segregated and
controls. almost independent for each axis.

4.2.1. Stability and control challenges (6) Requirement of new control-surface sizing method
Some of the key challenges in controllability of BWB aircraft Conventionally, control surfaces sizing considers simplified
are summarized as in the following. open-loop handling qualities criteria, such as the pitch rate tar-
1810 Z. CHEN et al.

get for the elevator and the roll rate target for the ailerons. the effect of aeroelasticity on the position of aerodynamic cen-
However, for BWB it is not obviously to size the individual ter must be seriously considered while defining an allowable
control surface, as the functions of control surfaces are not CG range.
independent. Therefore, the conventional control-surface siz- The flying and handling qualities are also closely related
ing methods based on volume coefficient method may be inva- to the aircraft stability and control characteristics. When the
lid and new sizing methods are required.108 inherent stability is high, very high control power is required
to change the aircraft equilibrium. If the inherent stability is
4.2.2. Stability and control architecture low or neutral, small control inputs or perturbations can
change the aircraft equilibrium easily. If the aircraft is
(1) Static stability margin selection unstable, any control input or external perturbation will
As there is no tail and the control surfaces are part of the cause the aircraft diverge when the aircraft is not aug-
wing, the aspects of stability, trim and control need to be con- mented. However, a statically unstable aircraft is always
sidered simultaneously to realize a high aerodynamic efficiency unacceptable, especially for civil transports, unless the period
for BWB design.109,110 The static stability and control are of the associated dynamic mode is very long, or an augmen-
strongly interrelated and conflict with one another. The degree tation system is installed to artificially restore stability.
of stability determines the magnitude of the control action. Therefore, it is important to understand these inherent air-
The right amount of both stability and control has to be craft characteristics in order to properly understand its flying
found. Consequently, the solution is inevitably a and handling qualities.97
compromise.97 The degrees of lateral and directional static momentum
Too much positive static margin entails poor maneuverabil- derivatives are also crucial for SC characteristics of BWB.
ity and trim capability. Particularly, the pitch control may not Due to the large span and high swept angle of BWB, it is
be powerful enough to raise the nose wheel off the ground at not difficult to realize a specified static lateral stability
take-off. Furthermore, the elevator deflection required to trim Clb < 0. If the value becomes overly negative, the aircraft will
the aircraft in level flight may severely reduce the aerodynamic suffer from Dutch roll mode. A positive value would cause the
efficiency and with a consequent loss in performance. A previ- plane to spiral while entering a sideslip. However, the direc-
ous study shows that the more unstable an aircraft is, the faster tional stability cannot be deduced in a straightforward manner
its control surfaces need to move in order to maintain the equi- for existing requirements, mainly due to the unique configura-
librium under disturbance.111 Therefore, a too unstable air- tion, the lack of directional stabilizer or the limitation on its
craft needs an augmentation system that results in a very size. For TAW transports a large directional stability in the
high requirement of control power, even possibly problematic range 0.10–0.25 is recommended. However, it is too large to
flight safety.112 The static margin for TAW is of a magnitude be realized on BWB. A minimum value of 0.03 is somewhat
0.1–0.2, which appears too large for BWB. Consequently, a recommended, but this is generally inadequate for ensuring a
range of ultimate static margin from 0.02 to 0.08 appears to well-damped Dutch roll mode. Donlan114 found a quite limited
be reasonable for tailless airplanes, as suggested by Thorpe113 region of best flight characteristic for FW when
and Donlan.114
0:057 < Clb < 0 and Cnb > 0:057 in Langley free-flight
Since the development of control theory, an unstable mar- tunnel.
gin as low as
0.15 for early BWB have been considered.22 Theoretically, the static stability is just the necessary condi-
However, Bolsunovsky et al.77 argued that due to the problems tion for dynamic stability. Static stabilities in three-axial direc-
relating to the reliability of a fly-by-wire control system and tions do not necessarily result in dynamic stability and good
flight safety, the stability margin should be limited to larger flying qualities. Because the damping derivatives and the mass
than
0.03 in the cruise flight, and a value close to zero can distribution are also critical to the dynamic stability. There-
be used in take-off and landing regimes. The highest L/D fore, the thorough static and dynamic stability analysis can
was realized at stability margin around
0.14 to
0.12 in that only be done for specific well-defined configuration.
work. However, the stability margin was finally limited with It can be concluded that the design of a stable and cruise
the penalty on L/D no more than 0.5.77 efficient BWB is still an open issue, but significant improve-
Based on the design tool development, the BWB-4501L was ments were made recently thanks to the advancement of aero-
finally designed having stability margin of 0.05, which is corre- dynamic optimization tools considering the effects of stability
sponding to a minimum static margin for conventional passen- and control. Whether the BWB is designed stability or not, an
ger transports at aft CG position. As the MAC of BWB is augmentation system is required due to the static stability lim-
around 2.5 times than that of TAW, as shown in Fig. 2, the itations imposed by the realization of high aerodynamic effi-
magnitude of several percent of stability margin is also quite ciency and control authority.
large, considering the absolute chord length. When the SC
characteristics of the aircraft is given, the CG range provides (2) Stabilizer and control surface layout
a measure for tracing the capability of the flight control system
to provide control. For conventional passenger transports a First, a design decision should be made on whether tradi-
general CG range is of 20%–25% MAC. The allowable CG tional horizontal and vertical stabilizers are required or not.
range for IWB-750 cannot exceed 6%–6.5% of MAC in take- Then the control surfaces layout can be decided on the require-
off and landing regimes. Even the MAC of BWB is larger than ments of high-lift, pitch, yaw, roll and drag controls. The lay-
that of TAW, the corresponding CG range is still lower than outs of stabilizer and control surface for BWB are shown in
that of TAW.77 As the stability margin for BWB is small, Fig. 1, and a survey on the details are given in Table 10.
Assessment on critical technologies for conceptual design of blended-wing-body civil aircraft 1811

No horizontal stabilizer is present due to its additional wet- and/or yawing can also appear when deflecting the outboard
ted area and the conflict with the integration of the body and elevens for rolling control.115
wing. In the early design, such as BWB-800-II and BWB-450,22 It can be concluded that the redundancy, the use of multiple
there is no vertical tail on the center body, but on the wingtip control surfaces that provide similar control moments, appears
as winglets. However, it is found that the directional stability to be a universal design decision made on BWB designs.
and control authority of winglets is not enough, therefore, Although the redundancy increases complexity, it is still help-
additional control provided by split drag rudder is required. ful to finely control lift distributions and to flexibly avoid
Most of recently studied concepts use the centerbody mounted aeroelastic mode coupling or structural load issues. The con-
inclined twin vertical tails for directional stability and control. trol surfaces have multiple combined allocations, the conse-
However, the different control-surface layouts do not imply quent multiple control effects and the couplings among
that the purely tailless or twin-tail layout is more suitable for them. Meanwhile, as the control surfaces are very close to each
BWB concepts. All BWBs have leading edge high-lift devices, other, the nonlinear interactions among them were observed.47
but only several concepts adopt trailing flaps, due mainly to Therefore, the control surface layout and allocation are very
the limitation of the pitch control authority. A system of trail- crucial.
ing edge elevons used for flight control is an obvious common
feature, which is usually justified by their short moment arms 4.2.3. Control surface design and control allocation
and low individual control authority. Control surface design is to satisfy the requirement of control
Normally, pitch control is provided by simply hinged ele- authority during the initial design process. An implicit assump-
vons at the trailing edge of the centerbody and additional sim- tion is that the subsequent flight control system can be realized
ilar ones outboard on each side. The center elevons can also be to cope with the aircraft without too much additional control
used for load alleviation. There is also the potential to use sym- authority that would limit the ability of the aircraft to perform
metrical deflection of the inclined vertical stabilizers to aug- critical controls. However, the control system architecture is
ment pitch control. Yaw control is provided by the rudders closely related to the requirement of control authority.
on the two vertical stabilizers. Additional yaw control is real- If an open-loop control is used, the design criterions should
ized by the outboard split drag rudders. Three unconventional be used for control surface design. If a close-loop control is
yaw devices, split drag rudders, thrust vectoring, and winglets adopted, the requirement of augmentation on control author-
with rudders, were evaluated for compensating yaw moment ity should be satisfied. Additionally, in the case of close-loop
induced by one engine inoperative operations. The most control, once the control surfaces are operating at actuator-
promising solution is a combination of winglets and non- limited rates, against the surface stops, or actuator failure,
permanent thrust vectoring based on the criterion of direct then the design reverts back toward the unaugmented case.
operating cost.70 Roll control is provided by asymmetrical The SC characteristics of the bare configuration will be
deflection of the trailing edge elevons on each outboard wing. restored.
However, the aeroelastic effects of the control surface deflec- Therefore, in order to develop the necessary control laws,
tion should be considered while allocating the elevons. the characteristics of BWB SC need to be well understood
Since the pressure center of the inclined or vertical stabilizer and actuation system requirements need to be well defined.
lies above the CG, there is coupling between yawing and roll- To ensure efficient control, the control allocation method
ing moments, as for TAW. The coupling between pitching needs to be specified. When the control allocator is designed

Table 10 Selection of stabilizer and control surfaces for some BWBs.

BWB Slats/krueger Flap Center Out Spoilers V-tail/ Winglets SDR Thrust Total
flap elevon elevons rudder vectoring
BWB-800-II22 10 0 2 6 12 0 2 4 26
BWB-45022 10 0 2 8 0 0 2 4 16
H3.238 Yes
SUGAR Ray37 8 0 3 4 2/2 2 11
ERA-22439 10 0 4 8 2/2 2 14
N2A-EXTE36 Dropped LE 0 1 8 2/2 2 11
ERA-0009A23 2 0 3 10 2/2 2 2 19
Boeing OREIO39 8 3 8 2/2 2 17
HWB301-GTF12 2 1 6 2/2 2 11
IWB-75077 8 6 4 8 1/1 6 25
VELA-363 6 4 4 4 12 2/2 2 24
SAX-4033 Dropped LE 2 Yes
NACRE- 12 2 6 2/2 2 12
PFW264,66
ACFA-202067 8 Drop nose 4 4 2 2 12
ACFA- 8 10 7 16 2 6 41
2020Final67
AVECA-BWB69 10 1 8 2 11
Airbus BWB70,71 2 6 2/2 2 12
1812 Z. CHEN et al.

in the flight control laws, it must provide at least the control

Table 11 A list of criteria for control authority.23
authority in each axis that has been assumed when the SC con-
trol authority analysis was performed. Direction Trim/control Requirement
To ensure safety the failure scenario analysis must be thor- condition
oughly performed. Failure scenario analyses for elevon layout Longitudinal Forward CG Takeoff nose wheel liftoff at 3.0
and sizing were addressed by Garmendia et al.116 and in the (°)/s2 pitch acceleration
ACFA2020 studies.117 The large control surfaces of original Trim at landing reference speed
ACFA-2020 were splitted into smaller ones to eliminate the (VREF) and maneuver to stall
failure critical elevons. (VS = VREF/1.23)
Trim at VREF and go-around at
6.0 (°)/s2 pitch acceleration
(1) Critical criteria Landing nose wheel hold-off
down to stall speed
To satisfy the control-authority requirements of critical After CG Takeoff nose wheel steering with
trims, maneuvers and augmentations, critical criteria are >4.0% weight on nose gear
applied to evaluate the control authority. The moments Stall recovery at
4.0 (°)/s2 pitch
required by trim, maneuver, and Stability Augmentation Sys- acceleration
tem (SAS) specify the requirements of the control system, Lateral- Engine-out Balance engine-out on ground
which must be less than or at least equal to the control author- directional minimum with no sideslip and no nose
ity available at each critical off-design point. These require- control speed wheel steering
ments are the constraints that drive the planform of control Balance engine-out in air with
surface design. no sideslip and less than 5° bank
Control-authority requirements of an infinite number flight angle
conditions need to be evaluated, however, not all of them are Crosswind Trim in 35 knot crosswind with
critical. For unconventional aircraft like BWB, it is uncertain landing trim no crab angle at slowest
approach speed (lightest weight)
which flight conditions are most likely to violate the control
Crosswind A 6° heading (sideslip) change in
authority constraints. The more flight conditions evaluated landing 2 s at maximum wing fuel
are the better, whereas the data and time are quite limited dur- maneuver landing weight
ing the conceptual design stage. A limited number of evalua- Landing roll A 30° bank angle change in 2.5 s
tions poses a risk of missing certain control authority maneuver at maximum wing fuel landing
constraints, which could lead to severe consequences including weight
degraded performance, accidents, expensive redesign and
delays, or even program cancellation.
Control authority analysis can be broken down into the
longitudinal and lateral-directional conditions. Based on the (2) Control surface sizing methods
experiences in the flight experiments of X-48B/C, Boeing sum-
marized a series of crucial criteria for longitudinal, lateral- Control surface sizing is a key challenge for BWB design,
directional control authorities for BWB, as shown in mainly due to unconventional flight dynamics connected with
Table 11.23 The simulations of full scale BWB aircrafts and multiple redundant control surfaces. The control surface sizing
actual flight testing of the X-48B have shown that this set of not only need to satisfy the control authority requirements but
critical maneuvers defines a CG envelope in which a BWB also need to provide level 1 safe handling qualities for civil
can safely operate. When all maneuvers are evaluated, the aircraft.112
most restrictive set is used to define the allowable flight CG The adequacy of these control surfaces is determined in
range. The airplane must be loaded within this CG envelope part by their size, but also by the planform shape. For conven-
or it will not be able to perform all required maneuvers. For tional TAW, the sizing of stabilizer and control surfaces are
AVECA-BWB it was found that the most critical issue is the almost independent after the wing design due to the conve-
rotation at take-off, while the clean configuration has to pro- nience to shifting wing or tail position individually. In a quite
vide a minimum nose-up pitching moment to enable the recent study a conventional volume coefficient method was
rotation.110 used to size twin vertical and inclined stabilizers for BWB.
The engine out and crosswind landing trim requirements Both have dimensions resembling A380. The CFD results
are only marginal by themselves for determining whether a showed that stability derivatives are similar for both twin-
BWB can operate safely. These requirements do not provide stabilizer configurations. The inclined configuration provided
enough control authority to simultaneously stabilize the yaw a smoother response, but its drag is higher. It was concluded
axis and provide enough control for these maneuvers. Study that a twin-stabilizer design is suitable for BWB aircraft.115
has shown that the yaw axis requires the most augmentation Generally, two complementary approaches for BWB stabil-
to provide desired stability for the BWB.23 It is well known ity and control design were studied. The first method is in the
that the B-2 was designed for engine out capability down to framework of MDO integrating a stability and control
the stall speed. This should be considered as a target for design module, or considering stability constraints during the plan-
of the yaw control surfaces for BWB. form optimization.109,118 The second method treats BWB as
During these criteria checking a system way for selection a control-configured vehicle. This approach takes advantages
the type and initial control-surface layout is required. If the of optimization tools to simultaneously optimize a controller
control authority is not enough, the planform modification and some physically meaningful parameters. In the quite
may be the best option for relieving those problems. recent work of Denieul et al.108 the integrated design of
Assessment on critical technologies for conceptual design of blended-wing-body civil aircraft 1813

control-surface sizes and flight-control laws for an unstable direct control allocation provides the smallest errors for it
BWB were constructed to optimize multicontrol surfaces yields smaller deflections, therefore control surfaces act more
under handling quality constraints. Significant gains in terms in their linear efficiency domain. Most recently, an artificial
of the outer elevon’s span that satisfies the closed-loop han- neural network and genetic algorithm were used for the con-
dling quality constraint were demonstrated. trol allocation optimization problem of a BWB to minimize
In the work of Garmendia et al.116 the tradeoffs between the sum of absolute values of hinge moments.123
drag, control authority, actuator weight, and actuation power
requirements as a function of the number and spacing of ele- 4.2.4. Flying and handling qualities
vons were studied. The actuators were sized based on hinge
The Flying and Handling Qualities (FHQ) of BWB inherently
moments computed during nominal and failed control flight
depend on its stability and control characteristics and the flight
conditions. N2A-EXTE was used to demonstrate these trade-
control system. When the flight control system has been
offs. The study concluded that adjacent elevons could be com-
designed, a series of piloted simulation tests can be used to ver-
bined to achieve reductions in weight, power usage, and fuel
ify whether handling qualities requirements can be satisfied
burn. This resulted in a reduced number of elevons from the
under certain specified criteria. This can significantly reduce
baseline and unequal span fractions. In the design of ERA-
the risk of unexpected flight controls problems before design
0009A, explicit vertical tail sizing was not performed. Instead,
decision-making.
the vertical tails were sized to provide the same volume coeffi-
The tailoring of FHQ requires clear and adequate criteria.
cient as the X-48C of a value 0.01279. For X-48C the explicit
FHQ terms present in the military standard, like MIL-STD-
vertical tail sizing was performed to provide more crosswind
1797. The civil requirements, like FAR-25, are qualitative in
and engine-out control margins than that of the X-48B corre-
nature, and do not even refer to the FHQ field explicitly at
sponding to the pilot comments.23 BWB-OREIO also has the
all. Therefore, the trend in the civil transport aircraft industry
similar vertical tail volume coefficient.39
has been for manufacturers to design aircraft with a wide range
After the stabilizer and control surfaces sizing, a series of
of different flying qualities due mainly to the fairly loose con-
CFD and/or wind-tunnel tests need to be conducted to develop
straints. However, a failure to provide good flying qualities
an aerodynamic database. The aerodynamic database is
may lead to unsafe operations, especially in bad weather and
needed to develop the aerodynamic model and associated sim-
emergency procedures.
ulation, from which the bare airframe SC characteristics can be
Handling qualities constraints are expressed both in terms
understood and assessed.
of maximum authority to trim the aircraft and maneuvering
in the whole flight envelope, as well as constraints on open-
(3) Flight control system design and control allocation
and closed-loop poles characteristics. The longitudinal Band-
strategies
width/Phase delay/Gibson drop back criteria, as suggested
Based on the bare airframe stability and control character- by the military standards, together with the Generic Control
istics, a full authority augmented flight control system needs to Anticipation Parameter (GCAP) were proved possible to be
be designed to meet the flying qualities requirements, and pre- used to assess FHQs of BWB aircraft. For the lateral-
liminary actuation system and failure requirements. Most of directional motion, the MIL-F-8785C criteria were used.
the studied BWBs are of relaxed stability or are barely unsta- Although it is possible to assess the FHQ of BWB configura-
ble. Hitting deflection stops or rate limits on an unstable air- tions using these criteria, more research is recommended
craft is potentially catastrophic. In this situation the aircraft specifically on the lateral-directional FHQs criteria and
will revert back to its open-loop, i.e. unstable, behavior.22,71,119 requirements of highly augmented large transport aircraft.97
Therefore, SAS is compulsory for handling qualities and A generic handling quality tool to assess control authority
safety. The essential element of the SAS is the control law, in conceptual design for unconventional aircraft, like flying
which is often implemented in a FBW system. For aircraft with wings and non-symmetric airplanes, was developed by Chu-
significant stability augmentation, the flight control system doba.124 This approach was further developed by Coleman
introduces additional dynamics resulting in a higher order and Chudoba.125 De Castro conducted piloted-handling trials
characteristic equation. Interpretation of high order character- of a FBW BWB civil aircraft in a fixed-base simulator.97 The
istic equations can be challenging. prescribed solution was a slightly unstable aircraft. Both longi-
In the control law design, a proper control allocation is very tudinal and lateral handling qualities were studied. The longi-
crucial, for it will determine pitch, roll and yaw capability of tudinal handling qualities were predicted by using the
the aircraft. It is also difficult because of the intrinsic redun- bandwidth/phase-delay criterion, drop-back criterion, and
dancy feature of BWB control. When the control allocation the GCAP criterion. The lateral handling qualities were deter-
optimization is performed, the control authority, hinge mined by adopting several criteria from the military specifica-
moments, actuation power demands, and actuator forces and tion MIL-F-8785C. The piloted handling trials reveal that the
moments should be taken into consideration. selected BWB configuration has essentially Level 1 or Level 2
Cameron and Princen120 comprehensively studied control FHQs, depending on the task. The main contributions for the
allocation requirements for BWB. Goldthorpe et al.121 Level 2 deterioration were identified as residual lateral-
describes control allocation on the X-48B, featuring some kind directional activity, unconventional flare, ground to flight
of ganging method with tabulated tables to avoid any online model discontinuity, flight path PIO, and insufficient flight
computations. This method is purely deterministic. But it has path control when one engine has failed. Peterson and
drawbacks on a lack of flexibility and implications of high Grant126 used much of the data from de Castro’s work97 to
deflections and deflection rates. Waters122 implemented differ- determine the handling qualities of the BWB, using
ent control allocation strategies on a BWB. He concluded that piloted-handling trials and different criterion on a moving-base
1814 Z. CHEN et al.

simulator. Three pilots rated the same longitudinal and lateral and Mukhopadhyay.53 However, the integrated concept still
handling qualities as that of de Castro. It was concluded that has large weight penalty.53,133 Until now the optimal structural
the simulator motion did not have a significant effect on the layout of BWB is not yet fully understood. A topology opti-
ratings. These studies only evaluated some low-speed maneu- mization method was used to determine the structure layout
vers at takeoff and landing phases. Further studies on high- of BWB passenger aircraft, which is valuable to acquire more
speed handling qualities such as cruise and initial descent are knowledge for optimal structural layout.134
expected. Ultimately, weight is the primary measure of structural per-
formance. The Boeing and NASA focused on developing the
4.3. Cabin structure concepts and weight prediction highly integrated PRSEUS concept under NASA SFW135,136
and ERA project.137,138 The finite element analysis and trade
For BWB, apart from the high aerodynamic efficiency realized studies of centerbody section using PRSEUS demonstrated
by the outer mold line of BWB, an efficient structural design of that BWB aircraft can be structurally as efficient as the con-
lighter weight than TAW is also a critical technology for ventional cylindrical skin-stringer-frame construction.139,140
advantages of BWB. The BWB concept was promoted while Although PRSEUS structure concept offers potential benefits,
releasing constraint on using cylindrical pressure vessel,22,42 the issues of manufacturing and repair, high maximum stress
and exhibits distinct aerodynamic shape. The outer mold line and strain levels, and adverse aerodynamics effect due to the
deformation should be addressed.141
defined by the aerodynamic configuration is a compulsory con-
Recently a concept of structure layout based on the pro-
straint for BWB structure design, because the high aerody-
composite hybrid double lattice-rods panels was used for
namic efficiency is the primary advantage and is of first
BWB centerbody. A weight saving of 22%–25% was estimated
order effects. Although the spanwise distribution of lift is
from the preliminary design.142 The feasibility of the manufac-
favorable to balance local inertia loading and results in weight
turing methods using currently available processes of aircraft
saving of wing structures, the weight penalty of the non-
production was further analyzed. It was found that the manu-
circular pressurized cabin is still challenging. The weight facturing scheme decreases the labor input necessary for man-
penalty of the body is 21% and 28.7% for early concept ufacturing and assembling the flat double-lattice panel of the
BWB-45022 and a recent concept ERA-0009A,23 respectively. pressurized cabin.79
The pressurization load on the compound curvature non- Weight engineering is a principal discipline involved in air-
circular body is resisted by very high out-plane bending stres- craft design. An accurate weight prediction in the conceptual
ses, but not by most efficient hoop tension as circular body of design stage is very crucial to determine the aircraft perfor-
TAW.53 More severely the longitudinal body bending and mance. Weight depends on key factors including aircraft size
spanwise wing bending result in comparable bi-axial loads and geometry, internal structural arrangement, the limit load
on the body shell.23 The cabin pressure load is experienced factor, and the choice of material. It can be obtained statisti-
on every flight, and thus fatigue becomes the design criterion. cally by empirical method, analytically by semi-empirical
Since the large secondary-bending effects of the cabin pressure method, computationally by Finite Element Method (FEM)
loads, the using of metallic materials is precluded, while com- or jointly by combination of these methods. For new aircraft
posites are essentially exempt from fatigue and hence would configurations the empirical and semi-empirical method are
suffer no penalty.28,127 However, the high bi-axial loads make quite limited due to lack of the historical data and primary
the adoption of conventional prepreg composite materials that structure concept. The accuracy of FEM depends on the type
are susceptible to resin-dominated interlaminar failures unfea- of structure and the details of the model. Usually common cal-
sible. Additionally, the compound curvature shape exacerbates ibration factors of 1.25–2.0 are used to correlate the theoretical
manufacturing costs, particularly if conventional multi-piece FEM weight to the actual weight.
aircraft construction techniques are adopted. The bi-axial As an unconventional concept, BWB aircraft lacks histori-
loads make the construction of continuous loading paths much cal data that is typically used for sizing and weight estimation
more difficult. Therefore, the structure design of BWB mainly in the conceptual design phase. Furthermore, the centerbody
concentrated on the structural concept of non-circular pressure section is of particular concern due to its unique loading char-
cabin. acteristics and adoptions of new structure concepts, which
Based on the complex loads on the body resisted by differ- makes sizing and weight estimation even more difficult and
ent structure forms, different concepts were introduced with of high uncertainty.143,144 Inaccuracy and uncertainty of
respect to the BWB centerbody. Weight and cost are the pri- weight evaluations could dissatisfy mission requirements and
mary figures of merit. Four concepts including the integrated degrade the overall viability of BWB concepts. Therefore,
skin and shell,22 segregated skin and shell,22,52,53,127–129 weight prediction has been identified as a high-risk item.54
hard/soft shell130 and oval concepts131,132 were studied. From The developed weight prediction methods for BWB are
the aspects of concept simplicity, safety, passenger experience, summarized in Table 12. The earlier methods are all semi-
structural efficiency, the capability to keep OML, manufactur- empirical, which are quite limited. The recent methods are
ing, space waste, structure forms and load balancing, all the exclusively FEM based methods but have high computational
presented concepts have their pros and cons. From the studies, cost. A coarse-FEM based method was promoted very recently
it can be found that the segregated inner and outer shell is dif- to reduce the cost. All the methods are for specific structural
ficult to manufacture and has high weight penalty133; the concept and materials. Therefore, when one specific method
hard/soft shell concept has large dead weight penalty130; the is adopted, the corresponding limitations should be consid-
oval concept is inferior to satisfy the requirement on ered. The predicted structural weight/mass ratio (Mst/MTO)
OML.131,132 Therefore, the integrated skin and shell concept is from 18% to 26%, which is reasonable compared to that
is a compromised choice as previously made by Liebeck22 of TAW.
Assessment on critical technologies for conceptual design of blended-wing-body civil aircraft 1815

Table 12 Weight prediction methods for BWB.

Year Name Type Structural concept Material BWB Mst/MTO
(%)
1998145 WingMOD Semi-empirical Integrated Sandwich with BWB-800
composite face sheets
2001146 Extended conventional Segregated CFRP BW-98 24.1
Empirical cylinder Light alloy 18.1
2004147 FLOPS weight FEM-based semi-empirical Integrated CFRP BWB-450 21.4
mode
2006129 PrADO FEM Integrated Sandwich panels with VELA-3 like 23.6
stringers and frames
2008148 HyperSizer FEM PRSEUS Laminates using OREIO 24.9
Hercules AS4 and N2A 27.0
IM7 fibers
201260 HCDstruct FEM-based PRSEUS Effective laminates OREIO 24.6–25.8
ERA- 25.9
0009H1
2013144 M&S Physics and FEM-based PRSEUS Effective laminates N2A 22.2
2015143 VaC-CADO Coarse-FEA based on PRSEUS Effective laminates OREIO 24.9
HCDstruct
Note: CFRP = Carbon-Fiber Reinforced Plastic.

also very critical. BWB has specific noise features due to its
unconventional configuration and performance.
The airframe noise mainly includes the noise sources of the
high-lift system and the landing gears. Because the elimination
of trailing edge slotted flap, BWB has no this noise source.
Normally in order to realize laminar flow wing and to improve
low-speed performance, a slotted Krueger flap is adopted as
the leading edge high-lift device to delay outer board wing sep-
aration and to enlarge stall angle. If a drooped leading edge is
adopted, further noise reduction can be realized. However, the
noise features of the Krueger flap and drooped leading edge
are not well understood. The noise could be lower than tradi-
tional slat due to its shallow cove for the Krueger flap. But it
has additional resident cavity and larger brackets than the slat
Fig. 5 Comparisons of OEM/MTO for BWB and TAW.
tracks. These features can bring additional noise sources.
The main landing gears are mounted at the transition
The comparisons of the ratio of Operational Empty Mass region between the centerbody and the outer board wing on
(OEM) to maximum take-off total mass (MTO) between BWB, where local flow speed can be as large as or higher than
BWB and TAW are shown in Fig. 5. For TAW the ratio exhi- freestream flow velocity at approach condition. For the con-
bits a decreasing trend with increasing aircraft size. The ratio ventional TAW configuration, the local flow speed is almost
of BWB is of large scatter and is generally larger than that 20% lower than the freestream velocity. This local flow veloc-
of TAW, except several middle size concepts. This scatter ity is very important because it controls the noise level, follow-
and general trend may be due to the uncertainty of the predic- ing a sixth power law.149 Since the engines are mounted on the
tion method and the weight penalty of the centerbody, rear upper centerbody, the landing gears can be shortened and
respectively. partially podded, which are quite new realizable potentials and
need further investigations.150
4.4. Noise reduction To know the airframe noise characteristics of the BWB,
extensive wind tunnel experiments were performed on leading
In the early development stage of BWB, the high aerodynamic edge slat,151 Krueger flap,152,153 comparisons between them,103
efficiency was thoroughly pursued, therefore its noise reduc- and drooped leading edge with landing gears.154 The computa-
tion potential was not fully appreciated and understood, tional aeroacoustic (CAA) methods were also used to predict
specifically its PAA effects. For BWB-800-II and BWB-450 the Krueger flap noise.155,156 Most of the experiments were
the engine exhaust was aft of the trailing edge,22 which makes done by Boeing and NASA. The noise prediction methods
the shielding of the aft radiated engine noise impossible. Air- for Krueger flap,157 and the landing gears149 were updated
craft noise can be categorized into the airframe noise, the based on the experimental and computational data.
engine noise and the PAA interactions. Considering noise cer- In the timeframe of next generation civil aircrafts, the UHB
tification required by the regulations, the flight operations are geared turbofan could be adopted for its low TSFC and noise
1816 Z. CHEN et al.

feature. However, it is difficult to get proprietary data on noise Based on the accumulative configuration improvements
features of future UHB engines. Engine noise sources have and database on airframe noise and PAA effects, NASA noise
changed from the dominated compressor and jet noise of tur- assessment of BWB began formulation in 2003 and was first
bojet engines to the mixture of fan and jet noise according to published in 2009,165 then updated in 2010,58 2012,166 and
the introduction of high bypass turbofan engines and the incre- 2016167 on NASA HWB. Most recently the uncertainty of
ment of BPR, as shown in Fig. 6.158 UHB engines have the BWB aircraft system noise prediction was studied using the
noise features of mixing fan and jet noise. Fan noise is very direct Monte Carlo method.168 NASA also performed system
tonal and has a well-defined directivity around the engine. noise assessment of N2A-EXTE based on abundant experi-
Jet noise is a distributed source from the plume that extends mental data of airframe noise and PAA effects. Boeing began
five to seven fan-nozzle diameters downstream the engine. As its BWB system noise assessment in 2011 and first published
the fan diameter is very large, to relieve the mounting loss of the results of BWB with podded engines in 2014,23,169 and
UHB engines, a short nacelle is preferred. However, it is hard on BWB with open rotor engines in 2015.170 These assessments
to lay acoustic liner in a shortened nacelle. were implemented in the SFW and ERA projects.
PAA effects of a BWB with UHB engines mounted on aft The cumulative noise levels of BWB are compared with that
upper rear centerbody are of distinct features comparing with of conventional aircrafts in cumulative Effective Perceived
that of the conventional TAW configurations with under wing Noise Level (EPNL) dB, as shown in Fig. 7. It is obvious that
mounted engines. On the one hand, the engine position of the noise level of BWB is quite lower than that of conventional
BWB is favorable for adoption of UHB engine. On the other aircrafts, except the BWB with open rotors. However, they still
hand, the centerbody can provide very effective shielding of cannot reach the NASA goals, which indicates that the noise
upstream propagated noise. However, due to the characteris- shielding is not enough, but further reduction on airframe
tics of the jet noise, it is hard to be shielded. The PAA effects noise is required. A typical tone corrected perceived noise level
mainly depends on the distance of the engine exhauster to the was presented by Guo et al.169 It was shown that the noise
trailing edge of configuration and the characteristics of noise sources of the main landing gear and Krueger flap are domi-
source, like spectra and directivity. Since it is very expensive nant at approach. Whereas at cutback the dominant compo-
to model the PAA effects using high fidelity CAA methods nent is slat noise, and at sideline the sources of aft
and there is no historical database. Therefore, many wind tun- propagation fan noise, landing gear and Krueger are the com-
nel experiments were performed to obtain the PAA character- parably dominant components. Clearly, the engine compo-
istics of BWB using simplified point noise source in nacelle,159 nents are not dominant at any of the three operation
jet noise shielding and jet noise source position mitigation,160 conditions, even though they still make noticeable contribu-
two dual-stream, heated Compact Jet Engine Simulator tions at cutback and sideline conditions where the aft fan noise
(CJES),161 Broadband Engine Noise Simulators (BENS),162 is comparable to the slat noise.23,169
an Ultrasonic Configurable Fan Artificial Noise Source
(UCFANS)163 and open rotor noise.164 It was found that the
upstream propagating fan noise can be effectively shielded,
and that the pylons and their orientation, and the chevrons
have favored effects on jet noise reduction and shielding.160
Flight operational conditions play an important role on air-
craft system noise assessment, because the flight parameters,
such as the flight Mach number and the angle of attack, deter-
mine the noise source levels. Meanwhile, the flight path deter-
mines the distance of the noise propagation, and consequently,
the amplitude of the noise received at the measurement loca-
tions. The flight operations of BWB are quite different with
that of the conventional aircraft. The angle of attack at takeoff
and landing states, normally 10–13°, are much higher than that
of conventional TAW aircraft, normally 4–8°. The higher
angle of attack has adverse effects on noise reduction. The Fig. 7 Comparisons of noise margins of BWB with conventional
approach speed is normally lower than that of TAW configu- TAW aircrafts (ICAO certification data).
ration due to the BWB’s low-wing loading.

Fig. 6 Evolution of engine noise sources with BPR increasing.158

Assessment on critical technologies for conceptual design of blended-wing-body civil aircraft 1817

The potential contributions of different technologies on (4) To relieve the mounting loss of UHB engines, short
the noise reduction23 was studied. A future conventional nacelle is preferred. It is hard to lay acoustic liner in
TAW aircraft with geared turbofan engines at timeframe the shortened nacelle.
2025 has an 18 dB reduction relative to the 1998 aircraft (5) Due to the adoption of UHB engines and the favored
for nearly cumulative 29 EPNL dB below Stage 4. This engine noise shielding by centerbody, the airframe noise
improvement is attributed primarily to the geared turbofan sources emerge as dominant components, which results
engine. The Boeing BWB aircraft ERA-0009A achieves addi- in distinct noise features for BWB aircrafts.
tional 5 dB reduction by acoustic shielding to cumulative 34
EPNL dB below Stage 4. Further technologies are required
on landing gear and leading-edge device to reduce noise level 4.5. Engine technologies
to the N + 2 goal.
A post-ERA Advanced Air Transport Technology (AATT) Fuel efficiency is always a driven design matrix for commercial
project was followed to study the technologies to further aircrafts because it is an important determinant of aircraft
reduce noise. In this project the ground noise footprint area range, size, economics, and emissions. Historically, the fuel
of NASA’s HWB301-GTF was predicted, which is 82.5% less burn per seat kilometer of gas-turbine powered commercial
than that of a B777-like TAW aircraft, with upper and lower aircrafts has been reduced by 70% since the commercial service
level of uncertainty 70% and 85.9%.171 A new set of noise started in the 1950s.7 It exhibits an average rate of about 2%
reduction technologies was also selected and evaluated on per year since 1970. The improvements of the airframe tech-
HWB301-GTF for the 2035 timeframe of the NASA far- nologies contribute about half of the gain, whereas the
term goal, as shown in Table 2. When eighteen configurations advancements of the engines contribute the rest. Therefore,
with different noise reduction technologies were added to form engine is one of the dominant design factors and its technolo-
the final aircraft concept (HWB-FT-2017), a margin of 50.9 gies were recently analyzed in detail concerning green
EPNL dB below Stage 4 was achieved, as shown in Fig. 7. aviation.174
The most noticeable contributions were internal nacelle liner, The contribution of engines to the aircraft efficiency
Krueger flap bracket alignment, Krueger flap cove filler and through engine overall efficiency go , engines’ weight included
partially podded main gear.172 A noise reduction technology in OEM and installation drag penalty. However, the turbofan
roadmap for a Mid-Fuselage Nacelle (MFN) aircraft concept engine is a common technology for different aircraft concepts.
was also established to achieve NASA’s noise goal of the far It needs to improve engine efficiency and to reduce noise and
term timeframe.173 NOx emission simultaneously for sustainable aviation. These
It can be concluded that noise reduction is an obligation for aspects are analyzed in a historical perspective of advancement
future civil aviation reflected on the more stringent noise reg- and recent BWB studies.
ulation. BWB has inherent features with aft upper centerbody The overall engine efficiency go ¼ gth gpr gtr is primarily a
mounted engines, low wing loading and simple-hinged trailing function of the thermodynamic efficiency gth and the propul-
edge flap, which can help noise reduction. The following ben- sive efficiency gpr , gtr is generally fixed and close to 1. The large
efits can be expected
turbofan engines for the most efficient commercial aircraft in
service, as shown in Fig. 8, have thermodynamic efficiencies
(1) Engine noise can be shielded by the airframe.
up to 55% and propulsive efficiencies lying between 70%
(2) The landing gear can potentially be shortened.
and 80%. The resulting overall efficiency is around 40%.
(3) Low-wing loading results in low approach speed.
The thermodynamic efficiency can be improved by increas-
(4) The trailing edge flap noise source can be eliminated.
ing OPR to a possible higher value around 65–70%, combin-
(5) If Krueger flap is used, it has shallow cove and weak
ing with the development of new materials, architectures,
separation, which can reduce noise.
and component technologies. The historical OPR has an
increasing trend174 for engines of GE, Pratt and Whitney
However, BWB has also some flight operation related dis-
advantages for noise reduction

(1) Much higher angles of attack at take-off and landing,

usually 10–13°, than that of TAW aircraft, normally
4–8°. Higher angle of attack can lead to higher
slat/Krueger noise than conventional slat at low angle
of attack.
(2) The main landing gears are mounted at the transition
region from the outer board wing to the centerbody,
where local flow speed at approach condition is higher
than that of TAW aircraft. This difference makes the
main landing gear noise source higher.
(3) If the Krueger flap is used, its brackets are larger than
the tracks of slats, and the road can lead to local flow
separation when they are not along local flow direction.
These additional features of the Krueger can introduce Fig. 8 Commercial aircraft gas turbine engine efficiency trend,
higher noise level. bypass ratio.174
1818 Z. CHEN et al.

(PW) and Rolls-Royce (RR), as shown in Fig. 9(a). In the have OPR 60, FPR as low as 1.35, and BPR larger than 12. A
BWB aircraft design, both Direct-Drive (DD) and GTF engi- lower SFC can be expected.
nes were studied in a series of investigations.12,175,176 The OPR It can be seen that during the past 70 years, a great progress
was increased from an early design of 46 to a later design of 60. has been made on engine design, contributing around half of
The future projections have larger values up to 70. However, the aircraft fuel efficiency. This trend most likely continue by
the higher OPR results in higher combustion inlet temperature increasing OPR and BPR. However, the increasing of OPR
T3, which will lead to higher NOx emission. In the ERA pro- and the requirement of NOx reduction should be harmonized.
ject, the highly loaded front stages of compressor were demon- It will be more difficult for TAW aircraft to adopt larger BPR
strated to realize OPR in a range from 60 to 70,177 and a new engines using under-wing mounting positions. For BWB air-
combustor was successfully tested to reduce LTO NOx emis- crafts it provides an opportunity to adopt larger BPR engines
sions 88% under the ICAO CAEP/6 standard.178,179 because of upper-surface mounting position. However, this
The propulsive efficiency can be improved to a possible opportunity also brings challenges which are analyzed in the
value of 90–95% by reducing fan pressure ratio (FPR = 1.35 following section.
or below) with consequent dropping of the fan exhaust velocity
and increasing BPR, combining with the reduction of the pres- 4.6. Propulsion and airframe integration
sure losses along the internal flow path. The historical BPR
also has an increasing trend, as shown in Fig. 9(b). The highest The layout of BWB aircraft opens new opportunity of propul-
BPR of in-production geared turbofan is larger than 12, and a sion and airframe integration, which can result in system ben-
near future projection is around 15. In the ERA project, a BPR efits of fuel efficiency and noise reduction, but also consequent
of 20.6 for a geared turbofan was studied.12,175,176 However, special challenges. As new integrations are quite different with
for a constant level of thrust, this technology requires that conventional under-wing mounted engine of TAW, no much
the effective fan area increases to avoid commensurate incre- database and experiences have been accumulated. Therefore,
ments in weight, drag, integration losses and fan noise. At most of the studied were carried out by using CFD and wind
the current state of the art, high flight-speed unducted propul- tunnel tests.
sors, such as open rotors, face significant noise, mechanical The BWB concept has been studied with a variety of
complexity, and installation safety concerns that need to be propulsion options, including embedded engines, podded engi-
overcome before they can be considered attractive alternatives nes in nacelles, direct-drive turbofans, geared turbofans and
to ducted fans. open rotors. The engines can also be mounted at different posi-
The cycle parameters and performance of engines adopted tions, including conventional under-wing, aft-upper surface of
for BWB designs are given in Table 13. Two architectures, centerbody, upper wing trailing edge, embedded in the body
DD and GTF, are considered. Most of the conceptual engines with BLI and distributed along the span, as listed in Table 5

Fig. 9 Historical trend of overall pressure ratio and bypass ratio of gas turbine engines.

Table 13 Engine cycle parameters and performances used in BWB studies.

Vehicle application 2010 N + 2 HWB175 2015 LAT176 2016 HWB3012
Architecture DD GTF DD GTF DD GTF
Net thrust (lbf) 15800 16100 13200 12500
Overall pressure ratio 60 60 60 60
Fan pressure ratio 1.482 1.462 1.5 1.35 1.5 1.35
Bypass ratio 14.22 14.95 14.6 20.6 12.85 17.65
Specific fuel consumption 0.5056 0.5021 0.485 0.4644
(lblbf
1h
1)
Assessment on critical technologies for conceptual design of blended-wing-body civil aircraft 1819

Table 14 PAI concepts and their characteristics.

Position PAI mechanisms Design Noise shielding Maintenance Safety
method and operations
well-validated
Under-wing Well-understood Yes No but harmful Easy Good
Aft upper centerbody Less No Good but depends Hard Uncontained engine
on position blade burst
Wing upper-surface Less No Good for upstream- Hard Uncontained engine
trailing edge propagated fan noise blade burst
Embedded with BLI Less No Good Hard Good

to Table 8 for existing BWB concepts. The characteristics of the local flow may be of higher Mach number than the free-
these concepts are given in Table 14. Upper surface mounted stream flow, and can be highly distorted at high angle of attack
concepts are not well studied, lacking design methods, difficult or sideslip angle. Both of these features can increase noise and
for maintenance and operations, and having some safety con- decrease aircraft performance. At cruise condition, the pylons
cerns. But all can provide better noise shielding effects. The have significant amounts of interference drag and a significant
most adopted concept is aft-upper-centerbody position that amount of separation happens due to the appearance of strong
is analyzed in detail in the following. Several studied are also shock. At higher power conditions such as takeoff or climb
summarized. out, the stream tube of air that goes through the rotors con-
The location of engines on the aft-upper surface of the cen- tracts so rapidly that the adverse pressure gradient can be high.
terbody has a unique feature that can provide propulsion noise This feature can cause the boundary layer separation and con-
shielding, enabling very low flyover noise. However, it also sequence of performance penalty. It was concluded that the
leads to more complex maintenance and operational issues BWB with open rotor must be designed to mitigate these prob-
comparing with that of the conventional under-wing mounted lems in order to reach fuel burn and noise goals.
engines. In consideration of safety issues, the challenges asso- To reduce the risk for near term application, podded tur-
ciated with uncontained engine blade burst appear for turbo- bofan engines have been mostly considered. Because the inlet
fans and much more severely for open rotor. This risk could flow of engines is in the downstream flow of centerbody, the
be minimized with newly developed technology and the use integration of engines on the pylons near the trailing edge of
of redundant structure, but having weight penalty. There is upper surface is quite challenging. The interferences between
also a potential issue with nose wheel liftoff from pitch-up the propulsion and airframe can be quite complex. On the
when current types of thrust reversers are used. one hand, the mounted engine can lead to strong local flow
In the early investigations, the embedded type integration distortions, which can result in high airframe drag due to
on the aft-upper surface were heavily studied,45–47 which can shock formation and/or local flow separation. On the other
have obvious benefits of reducing friction and ram drag hand, the inlet flow of engines can be highly distorted at high
because of wetted area reduction and low momentum wake angle of attack or high sideslip angle, which can result in fan
filling, respectively. However, the benefits are also of high risk flow instability and engine efficiency reduction. The longitudi-
due to the penalties on the fan efficiency and stall margin nal position of the engine is also crucial to the noise shielding
caused by high total pressure loss and inlet flow distortion. effects of fan and jet noise. Additionally, due to the adoption
Hence, the investigations on the fan forced response and dis- of UHB turbofans, the increase in the nacelle drag and
tortion tolerant fan are highly required. As early as in 2005 weight are detrimental to the aircraft performance. More
CFD based design methods for PAI was evaluated within challenges on the short nacelle design, noise reduction and
the UEET project on BWB-450-1L configuration with three integration are recognized and strongly depend on engine
embedded boundary-layer ingestion engines at transonic con- position.
dition of Mach number 0.85. Their effectiveness was generally Several different mounting locations were tested by TsAGI
confirmed by high Reynolds number wind tunnel tests. How- on IWB configuration, as shown in Fig. 1078 Wind tunnel tests
ever, further sensitive numerical and experimental design revealed that the configuration with two under-wing pylon-
methods were recommended to capture small design changes.45 mounted engines is of the most favorable aerodynamic inter-
Based on the requirement of ERA, the open rotor was cho- faces. Four under-wing engines are also acceptable. However,
sen for its potential to provide the greatest fuel burn reduction both configurations with over-wing initial engine positions,
relative to all other potential propulsion options for BWB- suffer from the early onset of wave drag divergence, although
OREIO.39 The BWB provides the potential of noise shielding they can provide engine noise shielding. The configuration
when the engines are properly mounted on the upper surface, with aft-upper surface mounted engine can be improved by
which can alleviate one of the main drawbacks of the open some modifications, but it still inferior to the configuration
rotor. Therefore, the PAI problem of open rotor integrated with under-wing mounted engine.78
with BWB was studied in detail by using CFD method. Open In the N2A-EXTE development, the PAI was also investi-
rotor engines have unique problems relative to turbofans due gated in detail by using CFD.36 The results of original N2A
to the direct exposure of rotors to flow. When the engines show that the local Mach number at the inlet of the nacelle
are mounted on the aft-upper surface of centerbody, where can be larger than 0.9 at cruise Mach number 0.8, as shown
1820 Z. CHEN et al.

In the framework of EAR projects, the PAI problems

including drag penalty at cruise condition, inlet flow distor-
tion, power-on effects on stability and control, and engine
operability were studied in detail by combining numerical
and experimental methods.181 Extensive CFD analyses and
optimization studies were performed to minimize installation
drag of the engine nacelle at transonic conditions.182 The con-
tours of centerbody line and nacelles were optimized to elimi-
nate the shock interactions between the nacelles and the body,
Fig. 10 Experimental aerodynamic model of IWB configura- as shown in Fig. 12. The refined configuration ERA-0009H1
tions with different engine positions.78 from the baseline ERA-0009A has only 1.4% drag penalty
of engine installation estimated from CFD analysis.
At low speed a 5.75% scale model183 was tested with flow
through nacelles, powered ejectors and turbine powered simu-
lators to study the high-lift system,119 flow distortion at the
inlet face184 and power effects,185 respectively. The inlet distor-
tion having total pressure ratio as low as 0.95 was observed in
the wind tunnel test of 5.75% scale model of ERA-0009G con-
figuration mounted with flow-through nacelle at a high angle
attack combing a slight sideslip.119 However, the test results
using powered ejectors showed the distortion and pressure
recovery levels were acceptable for engine operability.184
Inlet flow characteristics of the model scale and full scale
were also performed using CFD method to compare measured
and predicted distortion levels, respectively.186 Compared to
flow-through nacelle testing on the same BWB model, the con-
trol surface effectiveness, pitching moment and drag were
found to increase with the turbine powered simulator units
operating. However, the improved control surface perfor-
mance must be balanced with engine performance and acous-
tics in a comprehensive airframe design.185 The engine
response to the inlet distortion was predicted based on a cou-

Fig. 11 Challenges of PAI of N2A.36

in Fig. 11(a). Therefore, the nacelle design method for conven-

tional wing mounted engines should be revised.
To achieve shielding of downwards propagating engine
noise, the engine pods are in local flow of high Mach number,
which leads to appearance of strong shocks over the nacelles
and corresponding flow separations, as shown in Fig. 11(b).
This introduces further challenges to minimize adverse PAI
effects. Meanwhile, a significant loss in lift is observed due to
that the inlet spillage disrupts the lift generating flow circula-
tion over the centerbody. The remedies by shifting nacelle axial
location and height over the body and by increasing inlet mass
flow to reduce flow spillage were found ineffective. To alleviate
these adverse PAI effects, the aft-body was extended by 10%
to allow engine nacelle locating in lower Mach number flow
with additional benefits of noise shielding and longitudinal
control authority enhancing. Redesigns of the centerbody lines
with dishing and outer cowl lines were implemented. The final
design can recover the L/D of N2A with less compressibility
drag compensating the friction drag due to aft-body extension.
However, the increased surface area did increase weight as well
as absolute drag so there was an increase in fuel burn. How-
Fig. 12 Nacelle and fuselage reshaping to reduce transonic drag
ever, N2A-EXTE configuration shows unacceptable flow
at cruise condition.182
characteristics for engine operability.180
Assessment on critical technologies for conceptual design of blended-wing-body civil aircraft 1821

pled inlet-fan CFD simulation. Separate analyses were per- mission fuel weight. It was used as a figure of merit to examine
formed to assess performance, fan operability, core engine optimal aircraft design range for minimal fuel use. A Payload
operability, and fan blade vibratory stress. It was concluded Fuel Energy Efficiency (PFEE) was introduced by Hileman
that, for all the inlet distortion cases that were within the et al.190 as a metric to quantify the energy efficiency of aviation
expected operational envelope of the PSC aircraft, the engine on the fleet level for aviation environmental performance.
operability and fan blade stress metrics were determined to Through literature review, it can be observed that the pre-
be within acceptable limits, and there were relatively small dicted fuel benefit of BWB over TAW varies significantly
impacts to engine performance.187 between studies, due to differences in design requirements, sys-
It can be concluded that the aft-upper centerbody mounting tem architectures, as well as study ground rules and technology
position of the podded engines is an option with most possibil- assumptions. A non-dimensional fuel efficiency parameter,
ity and low risk. However, the interactions between airframe ETRW, introduced by Poll24 based on Breguet equation is
and the engines should be studied in detail and be enhanced adopted here to evaluate the fuel efficiency of BWB aircraft,
at off-design conditions on aircraft stability and control and in terms of engine overall, aerodynamic and structural efficien-
engine operability. A detailed aerodynamic design of PAI cies. The ETRW can be written as
was performed on NPU-330 and was presented in Ref.188 in




1 OEM 1 1
kexpð
XÞ
this volume. ETRW ¼ 1þ
ðgo L=DÞmax PM X kexpð
XÞ
b
5. Overall efficiency evaluation ð3Þ
 
where PM is the payload; X ¼ g  R= LCVðgo L=DÞmax is non-
Aircraft fuel efficiency is very critical for unconventional BWB dimensional range (LCV is the lower calorific value of the fuel,
aircraft, which is an aircraft level measure in terms of engine, R is the range and g is the gravitational acceleration constant);
aerodynamic and structural performance. It is also closely k ¼ 1
e, where e is the lost fuel index, and a value of 0.015 is
related to the emissions for environmental concerns. Only pro- used; b  0:04 þ 0:01b0 based on FAR regulations, where
viding higher aircraft fuel efficiency BWB aircraft can earn its b0 ¼ 1
kexpð
XÞ.
way for future application. The comparisons of fuel efficiency between TAW and BWB
Different parameters can be used to indicate aircraft fuel aircrafts across whole size range are shown in Fig. 13. To
efficiency. Energy intensity in terms of energy consumed per exclude the effects of early TAW the aircrafts of Boeing and
seat kilometer for various aircraft types was used by Lee et al.93 Airbus are included after first flight year 1981 and 1987,
as an indication. It was also extended as a metric to assess var- respectively. The mean ETRW for TAW of Boeing and
ious scenarios of aviation development. A fuel efficiency metric BWB concepts with go ¼ 0:4 are 1.014, 1.011 and 0.694,
named Payload Fuel Efficiency (PFE) was defined by Green189 respectively, as shown in Table 15. The fuel efficiency of
using Breguet equation in terms of range, payload weight, and BWB is about 31.5% better than that of TAW almost across
the aircraft size. The worst BWB concept is AGILE-BWB
due to its inferior L/D of 18.73 When more advanced engine
technologies resulting go ¼ 0:45 is used, the savings can be as
high as 40.0%. To exhibit the effects of the payloads, the mean
values of ETRW across the aircrafts with different PAX and
the assessments at the end of ERA project12 are compared in
Table 15. The benefit of BWB increases from 25.6% to
45.3% as PAX increases from the range 100–199 to the range
200–299 at go ¼ 0:4, which is 34.7–52.2% at go ¼ 0:45 corre-
spondingly. When the PAX is equal or larger than 400, the
benefit of BWB decreases in the present prediction, which is
due to that most of the large BWBs are studied much earlier
than the smaller versions. However, the recent NASA assess-
Fig. 13 Comparisons of ETRW for TAW and BWB aircrafts. ments still confirm the aforementioned conclusion.12

Table 15 ETRW comparisons of across different aircraft sizes between BWB and TAW.
Aircraft type ETRW/reduction (%)
PAX 100-199 PAX 200-299 PAX 300-399 PAX 400 All type mean
Airbus 0.887 1.177 0.884 1.190 1.011
Boeing 0.928 1.163 1.069 1.172 1.014
BWB-0.40* 0.675/
25.6 0.711/
39.2 0.534/
45.3 0.767/
35.1 0.694/3
1.5
BWB-0.45* 0.592/
34.7 0.626/
46.5 0.467/
52.2 0.668/
43.5 0.607/
40.0
TAW-200512 1.165 0.740 0.821
HWB-GTF12 0.637/
45.3 0.393/
47.0 0.415/
49.4
Notes: BWB-0.40* = BWB with go ¼ 0:4; BWB-0.45* = BWB with go ¼ 0:45.
1822 Z. CHEN et al.

6. Conclusions and outlook (2) The effects of structural displacement (mainly the defor-
mation of the centerbody) on the cruise aerodynamic
efficiency need to be evaluated.
Blended-wing-body aircraft has emerged from past decades’
(3) The safety issues related to certification including uncon-
investigations as potential architecture replacing conventional
tained engine blade burst, thrust reverser and evacuation
tube-and-wing aircraft to satisfy the requirements of growing
need to be investigated in detail.
markets, more stringent regulations and sustainable aviation.
(4) The effects of flight speed on the noise shielding and air-
The developments of this concept in different nations were
frame noise reduction need to be investigated.
analyzed in a historical perspective. The enabling technologies
(5) A blended-wing-body concept needs to go further out-
including aerodynamic design, structure concepts for non-
side of the conceptual design stage to exhibit more
circular pressurized cabin, stability and control, and propul-
potentials and problems.
sion and airframe integration were scrutinized. The enhancing
technologies including noise reduction, engine advancements
were also discussed. The aircraft-level fuel efficiency was eval-
uated and compared with that of conventional aircrafts. The Acknowledgements
following conclusions can be drawn
This work was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds
(1) Four different concepts including tube and wing, hybrid for the Central Universities (Nos. 3102019JC009 and
wing body, blended wing body and flying wing were cat- G2016KY0002).
egorized based on the principle of the forms following
the function. References
(2) The high aerodynamic efficiency of blended-wing-body
aircraft comes from large mean aerodynamic chord 1. Ward K, Neumann F. Consumer in 2050: the rise of the EM
and high wetted aspect ratio, which can be well scaled middle class. HSBC Global Res 2012.
2. Schulz Eric. Global market forecast 2018–2037. Blagnac
using these two parameters including that of tube and
Cedex: The Airbus Company; 2018.
wing aircraft.
3. Tinseth Randy. Commercial market outlook 2018–2037. Farn-
(3) The trade-offs among stability and control, cruise aero- borough: The Boeing Company; 2018.
dynamic design and low-speed aerodynamic design have 4. The Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (COMAC).
been realized but have not been well investigated. A per- 2018–2037 COMAC annals global market forecast report. Shang-
ceptible trend to extend the centerbody length can be a hai: COMAC; 2018 [Chinese].
potential solution. 5. Green JE. Greener by design – the technology challenge.
(4) The integrated shell and skin concept using pultruded Aeronaut J 2002;106(1056):57–103.
rod stitched efficient unitized structure is the most 6. Jupp JA. The design of future passenger aircraft-the environ-
promising solution for non-circular pressurized cabin. mental and fuel price challenges. Aeronaut J 2016;120
(1223):37–60.
However, the weight penalty and weight prediction of
7. Penner JE, Lister DH, Griggs DJ, Dokken DJ, McFarland M,
new structures are still of large uncertainty. The struc-
editors. Aviation and the global atmosphere: a special report of the
ture efficiency is inferior to that of tube-and-wing air- intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge
craft based on the published blended-wing-body design. University Press; 1999.
(5) There are no static stability margins that can ensure 8. Environment Branch of ICAO. ICAO environmental report:
dynamic characteristics. Since stability and control and Aviation and climate change. Montreal: Int Civil Aviat Organ;
flying qualities are closely related, clear criteria are 2016.
required for flying qualities evaluation, stability and 9. IATA. IATA resolution on the implementation of the aviation
control design, and flight control low design. ‘‘CNG2020 Strategy”. Cape Town: IATA; 2013.
(6) The airframe noise sources become dominant due to the 10. ICAO. Doc 9501, environmental technical manual volume III,
procedures for the CO2 emissions certification of aero-
adoption of ultra-high bypass ratio engines and the
planes. Montreal: Int Civil Aviat Organ; 2018.
noise shielding. The higher operating angle of attack
11. Nickol CL, McCullers LA. Hybrid wing body configuration
and local flow speed lead to specific noise feature of system stud. 47th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting including the
high-lift device and landing gears. new horizons forum and aerospace exposition. Reston: AIAA;
(7) The propulsion and airframe integration is quite difficult. 2009.
During the integration, aerodynamic efficiency, noise 12. Nickol CL, Haller WJ. Assessment of the fuel burn reduction
reduction, and engine operability should be balanced. potential of advanced subsonic transport concepts for NASA’s
(8) At the aircraft-level the mean fuel efficiency of blended- environmentally responsible aviation project. 54th AIAA aero-
wing body is more than 31.5% better than the existent space sciences meeting. Reston: AIAA; 2016.
tube-and-wing design. More improvement can be 13. National Aeronautics Space Administration. NASA aeronautics
strategic implementation plan. Washington, D.C.: NASA; 2017.
expected by adopting advanced technologies.
14. European Commission. Directorate-general for research and
innovation (2001) European aeronautics: a vision for 2020. Lux-
Further investigations are expected embourg: Office for Official Publications of the European
Community; 2001.
(1) New structural layout of the whole blended-wing-body 15. European Commission. Directorate-general for research and
aircraft needs to be explored using like topology opti- innovation, and directorate general for mobility and transport
mization method. (2011) flightpath 2050: Europe’s vision for aviation: maintaining
Assessment on critical technologies for conceptual design of blended-wing-body civil aircraft 1823

global leadership and serving society’s needs. Luxembourg: port. Huntington Beach: Boeing Research and Technology; 2011,
Office for Official Publications of the European Community; Report No.: NNL07AA54C; 2011.
2011. 37. Bradley MK, Droney CK. Subsonic ultra green aircraft research:
16. NASA. Aeronautics research: an assessment. Washington, D. phase I final report. Hampton: NASA Langley Research Center;
C.: The National Academies Press; 2008. 2011, Report No.: NASA CR-2011-216847.
17. Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking. Clean sky 2 joint undertaking 38. Greitzer EM, Bonnefoy PA, De la Rosa Blanco E. N+3 aircraft
work plan 2015–2017. Bern: Euresearch; 2015. concept designs and trade studies, final report volume 1. Cleve-
18. Grahamn WR, Hall CA, Morales MV. The potential of future land: NASA Glenn Research Center; 2010, Report No.: NASA/
aircraft technology for noise and pollutant emissions reduction. CR-2010-216794/VOL1.
Transp Policy 2014;34(1):36–51. 39. Pitera DM, DeHaan M, Brown D. Blended wing body concept
19. Poll DIA. 21st Century civil aviation: is it on course or is it over- development with open rotor engine integration. Hamp-
confident and complacent? – Thoughts on the conundrum of ton: NASA Langley Research Center; 2011, Report No.:
aviation and the environment. Aeronaut J 2017;121 NASA/CR–2011-217303.
(1236):115–40. 40. Kisska M. Flight testing the X-48C advancing the BWB concept.
20. McMasters JH, Paisley DJ, Hubert RJ, Kroo I, Bofah KK, Aerospace systems and technology conference. Reston: AIAA;
Sullivan JP, et al. Advanced configurations for very large 2013.
subsonic transport airplanes. Washington, D.C.: NASA Langley 41. Yang SL, Page MA, Smetak EJ. Achievement of NASA new
Research Center; 1996, Report No.: NASA/CR-198351. aviation horizons N+2 goals with a blended-wing-body x-plane
21. Bushnell DM. Frontiers of the ‘‘responsibly imaginable” in designed for the regional jet and single-aisle jet markets. 2018
(civilian) aeronautics.. The 1998 AIAA Dryden lec- AIAA aerospace sciences meeting. Reston: AIAA; 2018.
ture. Reston: AIAA; 1998. 42. Liebeck RH, Page MA, Rawdon BK. Blended-wing-body sub-
22. Liebeck RH. Design of the blended wing body subsonic sonic commercial transport. 36th aerospace sciences meeting &
transport. J Aircraft 2004;41(1):10–25. exhibit. Reston: AIAA; 1998.
23. Bonet JT, Schellenger HG, Rawdon BK, Elmer KR, Wakayama 43. Potsdam MA, Page AM, Liebeck RH. Blended wing body
DL, Brown DL, et al. Environmentally responsible aviation analysis and design. 15th applied aerodynamics confer-
(ERA) project-N+2 advanced vehicle concepts study and ence. Reston: AIAA; 1997.
conceptual design of subscale test vehicle (STV)-final 44. Roman D, Alien JB, Liebeck RH. Aerodynamic design chal-
report. Washington, D.C.: NASA Dryden Flight Research lenges of the blended-wing-body subsonic transport. 18th applied
Center; 2011, Report No.: NASA/CR-2011-216519. aerodynamics conference. Reston: AIAA; 2000.
24. Poll DIA. The optimum aeroplane and beyond. Aeronaut J 45. Campbell RL, Carter MB, Pendergraft Jr OC. Design and testing
2009;113(1140):151–64. of a blended wing body with boundary layer ingestion nacelles at
25. Kimmel WM. Systems analysis approach for the NASA envi- high reynolds numbers (invited). 43rd AIAA aerospace sciences
ronmentally responsible aviation project. 3rd AIAA atmospheric meeting and exhibit. Reston: AIAA; 2005.
space environments conference. Reston: AIAA; 2011. 46. Rodriguez DL. A multidisciplinary optimization method for
26. Thompson TR, Stouffer V, Foley R, McClain E, Johnson D, designing boundary layer ingesting inlets. 9th AIAA/ISSMO
Murphy C, et al. Technology portfolio analysis for environmen- symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimiza-
tally responsible aviation. AIAA/3AF aircraft noise and emissions tion. Reston: AIAA; 2002.
reduction symposium. Reston: AIAA; 2014. 47. Carter MB, Vicroy DD, Patel D. Blended-wing-body transonic
27. Schutte JS, Mavris DN. Evaluation of N+2 technologies and aerodynamics: summary of ground tests and sample results
advanced vehicle concepts. 53rd AIAA aerospace sciences meet- (invited). 47th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting including the new
ing. Reston: AIAA; 2015. horizons forum and aerospace exposition. Reston: AIAA; 2009.
28. Velicki A, Thrash P. Blended wing body structural concept 48. Manneville A, Pilczer D, Spakovszky ZS. Nosie reduction
development. Aeronaut J 2010;114(1158):513–9. assessments and preliminary design implications for a function-
29. Torenbeek E. Blended wing body aircraft: a historical perspec- ally-silent aircraft. 10th AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics confer-
tiveEncyclopedia of aerospace engineering. p. 1–10. ence. Reston: AIAA; 2004.
30. Okonkwo P, Smith H. Review of evolving trends in blended wing 49. Hill GA, Brown SA, Geiselhart KA, Burg CM. Integration of
body aircraft design. Prog Aerosp Sci 2016;82:1–23. propulsion-airframe-aeroacoustic technologies and design con-
31. Daggett DL. Ultra efficient engine technology systems integra- cepts for a quiet blended-wing-body transport. AIAA 4th aviation
tion and environmental assessment. Washington, D.C.: NASA technology, integration and operations (ATIO)
Langley Research Center; 2002, Report No.: NASA/CR-2002- forum. Reston: AIAA; 2004.
211754. 50. Reimann CA, Tinetti AF, Dunn MH. Noise prediction studies
32. Risch T, Cosentino G, Regan CD, Kisska M, Princen N. X-48B for the blended wing body using the fast scattering code. 11th
flight-test progress overview. 47th AIAA aerospace sciences AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference. Reston: AIAA; 2005.
meeting including the new horizons forum and aerospace exposi- 51. Guo YP, Brusniak L, Czech M. Hybrid wing body (HWB) slat
tion. Reston: AIAA; 2009. noise analysis. 51st AIAA aerospace sciences meeting including the
33. Hileman JI, Spakovszky ZS, Drela M, Sargeant MA, Jones A. new horizons forum and aerospace exposition. Reston: AIAA;
Airframe design for silent fuel-efficient aircraft. J Aircraft 2013.
2010;47(3):956–69. 52. Mukhopadhyay V, Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Kosaka I, Quinn
34. Guynn MD, Freeh JE, Olson ED. Evaluation of a hydrogen fuel GN, Vanderplaats GN. Analysis, design, and optimization of
cell powered blended-wing-body aircraft concept for reduced noncylindrical fuselage for blended-wing-body vehicle. J Aircraft
noise and emissions. Hampton: NASA Langley Research Center; 2004;41(4):925–30.
2004, Report No.: NASA/TM-2004-212989. 53. Mukhopadhyay V. Blended-wing-body (BWB) fuselage struc-
35. Kim HD, Berton JJ, Jones SM. Low noise cruise efficient short tural design for weight reduction. 46th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/
take-off and landing transport vehicle study. Washington, D. AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics and materials confer-
C.: NASA Glenn Research Center; 2007, Report No.: NASA/ ence. Reston: AIAA; 2005.
TM-2007-214659. 54. Nickol CL. Silent aircraft initiative concept risk assess-
36. Kawai RT. Acoustic prediction methodology and test validation ment. Hampton: NASA Langley Research Center; 2008, Report
for an efficient low-noise hybrid wing body subsonic trans- No.: NASA/TM-2008-215112.
1824 Z. CHEN et al.

55. Hall CA, Schwartz E, Hileman JI. Assessment of technologies for AGILE EU project. 2018 aviation technology, integration, and
the silent aircraft initiative. J Propul Power 2009;25(6):1153–62. operations conference. Reston: AIAA; 2018.
56. Burg CM, Hill GA, Brown SA, Geiselhart KA. Propulsion 74. Mialon B, Fol T, Bonnaud C. Aerodynamic optimization of
airframe aeroacoustics technology evaluation and selection using subsonic flying wing configurations20th AIAA applied aerody-
a multi-attribute decision making process and non-deterministic namics conference. Reston: AIAA; 2002.
design. 10th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and opti- 75. Fuchte J, Pfeiffer T, Ciampa PD, Nagel B, Gollnick V.
mization conference. Reston: AIAA; 2004. Optimization of revenue space of a blended wing body. 29th
57. Collier F, Thomas R, Burley C, Nickol C, Lee CM, Tong M. international congress of the aeronautical sciences, 2014.
Environmentally responsible aviation-real solutions for environ- 76. Schmidt A, Brunswig H. The AC20.30 blended wing body
mental challenges facing aviation. 27th international congress of configuration: development & current status 2006. 25th interna-
the aeronautical sciences, 2010. tional congress of the aeronautical sciences, 2006.
58. Thomas RH, Burley CL, Olson ED. Hybrid wing body aircraft 77. Bolsunovsky AL, Buzoverya NP, Gurevich BI, Denisov VE,
system noise assessment with propulsion airframe aeroacoustic Dunaevsky AI, Shkadov LM, et al. Flying wing—problems and
experiments. 16th AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics confer- decisions. Aircr Des 2001;4(4):193–219.
ence. Reston: AIAA; 2010. 78. Bolsunovsky AL, Buzoverya NP, Chernyshev IL, Gurevich BI,
59. Nickol CL. Hybrid wing body configuration scaling study. 50th Tsyganov AP. Arrangement and aerodynamic studies for long-
AIAA aerospace sciences meeting including the new horizons forum range aircraft in ‘‘flying wing” layout. 29th international congress
and aerospace exposition. Reston: AIAA; 2012. of the aeronautical sciences, 2014.
60. Gern FH. Finite element based HWB centerbody structural 79. Dubovikov E, Fomin D, Guseva N, Kondakov I, Kruychkov E,
optimization and weight prediction. 53rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/ Mareskin I, et al. Manufacturing aspects of creating low-
AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics and materials confer- curvature panels for prospective civil aircraft. Aerospace 2019;6
ence. Reston: AIAA; 2012. (18):1–14.
61. Smith H. College of aeronautics blended wing body development 80. Byushgens GS. Aviation in 21st century. Symposium on aeronau-
programme. International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences. tical technology in 21st century., 1989.
Harrogate: ICAS; 2000. 81. Ostrikov NN, Denisov SL. Airframe shielding of noncompact
62. Morris A, Arendsen P, LaRocca G, Laban M, Voss R, Hönlinger aviation noise sources: theory and experiment. 21st AIAA/CEAS
H. MOB-a European project on multidisciplinary design opti- aeroacoustics conference. Reston: AIAA; 2015.
mization. 24th international congress of the aeronautical sciences, 82. Ostrikov NN, Denisov SL. Mean flow effect on shielding of
2004. noncompact aviation noise sources. 22nd AIAA/CEAS aeroa-
63. Hepperle M. The VELA project [Internet]. Cologne: DLR; 2005 coustics conference. Reston: AIAA; 2016.
[cited 2019 Feb 24]. Available from: https://www.dlr.de/as/en/ 83. Zhang BQ, Chen ZL, Li J. The trend of aerodynamic
Portaldata/5/Resources/dokumente/projekte/vela/ configuration development in large subsonic transport aircraft.
The_VELA_Project.pdf. Proceeding of the key technology of large aircraft forum, 2007
64. Godard JL. Semi-buried engine installation: the NACRE project [Chinese].
experience. 27th international congress of the aeronautical 84. Li PF, Zhang BQ, Chen YC, Lin Y. Aerodynamic design
sciences, 2010. methodology for blended wing body transport. Chin J Aeronaut
65. Galea ER, Filippidis L, Wang Z, Ewer J. Fire and evacuation 2012;25(4):508–16.
analysis in BWB aircraft configurations: computer simulations 85. Zhang MH, Chen ZL, Zhang BQ. A conceptual design platform
and large-scale evacuation experiment. Aeronaut J 2010;114 for blended wing-body transports. 30th congress of the interna-
(1154):271–7. tional council of the aeronautical science, 2016.
66. Frota J, Nicholls K, Whurr J, Muller M, Gall PE, Loerke J, et al. 86. Gu WT, Chen ZL, Zhang BQ. Physically-based multidisciplinary
NACRE final activity report 2005–2010. Sixth framework design optimization framework coupling airframe and propul-
programme priority for aeronautics and space, 2011. sion. 30th congress of the international council of the aeronautical
67. Maier R. ACFA 2020-an FP7 project on active control of flexible science, 2016.
fuel efficient aircraft configurations. Prog Flight Dyn GNC Avion 87. Zhu ZQ, Wang XL, Wu ZC, Chen ZM. A new type of transport-
2013;6:585–600. blended wing body aircraft. Acta Aeronaut Astronaut Sin 2008;29
68. Roysdon PF, Khalid M. Blended-wing-body lateral-directional (1):49–59 [Chinese].
stability investigation using 6DOF simulation. 88. Zhu ZQ, Wang XL, Wu ZC, Chen ZM. Discussion of design
Inotech@Aerospace. Reston: AIAA; 2011. methods for silent and fuel efficient medium range civil transport.
69. Méheut M, Grenon R, Carrier G, Defos M, Duffau M. Acta Aeronaut Astronaut Sin 2008;29(3):562–72 [Chinese].
Aerodynamic design of transonic flying wing configurations. 89. Liao HJ, Zhang SG. Design of cabin layout for blended wing
CEAS/KATnet II conference on key aerodynamic technolo- body passenger transports. Journal of Beijing University of
gies. Brussels: CEAS; 2009. Aeronautics and Astronautics 2009;35(8):986-9 [Chinese].
70. Saucez M, Boiffier JL. Optimization of engine failure on a flying 90. Zhang SG, Lu YH, Gong L, Liu XJ. Research on design of
wing configuration. AIAA atmospheric flight mechanics confer- stability and control of a 250-seat tailless blended-wing-body civil
ence. Reston: AIAA; 2012. transport aircraft. Acta Aeronaut Astronaut Sin 2011;32
71. Denieul Y, Bordeneuve-Guibé J, Alazard D, Toussaint C, (10):1761-9 [Chinese].
Taquin G. Integrated design of flight control surfaces and laws 91. Zhao ZG, Zhang SG. Analysis of effects of BWB airliner design
for new aircraft configurations. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2017;50 parameters on its economic profitability. J Beijing Univ Aeronaut
(1):14180–7. Astronaut 2011;37(8):937–42 [Chinese].
72. Gauvrit-Ledogar J, Defoort S, Tremolet A, Morel F. Multidis- 92. Jiang J, Zhong BW, Fu S. Influence of overall configuration
ciplinary overall aircraft design process dedicated to blended parameters on aerodynamic characteristics of a blended-wing-
wing body configurations. 2018 aviation technology, integration, body aircraft. Acta Aeronaut Astronaut Sin 2015;37(1):278–89
and operations conference. Reston: AIAA; 2018. [Chinese].
73. Prakasha PS, Vecchia PD, Ciampa P, Ciliberti D, Charbonnier 93. Lee JJ, Lukachko SP, Waitz IA, Schafer A. Historical and future
A, Jungo A, et al. Model based collaborative design & trends in aircraft performance, cost, and emissions. Annu Rev
optimization of blended wing body aircraft configuration: Energy Env 2001;26(1):167–200.
Assessment on critical technologies for conceptual design of blended-wing-body civil aircraft 1825

94. Jenkinson LR, Simpkin P, Rhodes D. Civil jet aircraft 114. Donlan CJ. An interim report on the stability and control of
design. London: Arnold; 1999. tailless airplanes. Langley Field: NACA Langley Aeronautical
95. Torenbeek E. Advanced aircraft design: conceptual design, Lab; 1944, Report No.: NACA/TR-796.
analysis and optimization of subsonic civil airplanes. West 115. Larkin G, Coates G. A design analysis of vertical stabilisers for
Sussex: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd; 2013. blended wing body aircraft. Aerosp Sci Technol 2017;64:237–52.
96. Sargeant MA, Hynes TP, Graham WR, Hileman JI, Drela M, 116. Garmendia DC, Chakraborty I, Mavris DN. Method for
Spakovszky ZS. Stability of hybrid-wing-body-type aircraft with evaluating electrically actuated hybrid wing body control surface
centerbody leading-edge carving. J Aircraft 2010;47(3):970–4. layouts. J Aircraft 2015;52(6):1780–90.
97. de Castro H. Flying and handling qualities of a fly-by-wire 117. Kozek M, Schirrer A. Modeling and control for a blended wing
blended-wing-body civil transport aircraft [dissertation]. Cran- body aircraft – a case study. Cham Heidelberg: Springer; 2014. p.
field: Cranfield University; 2003. 18–25.
98. Rahman NU. Propulsion and flight controls integration for the 118. Lyu Z, Martins JRRA. Aerodynamic design optimization studies
blended wing body aircraft [dissertation]. Cranfield: Cranfield of a blended-wing–body aircraft. J Aircraft 2014;51(5):1604–17.
University; 2009. 119. Vicroy DD, Dickey E, Princen N, Beyar MD. Overview of low-
99. Rahman NU, Whidborne JF. Propulsion and flight controls speed aerodynamic tests on a 5.75% scale blended-wing-body
integration for a blended-wing-body transport aircraft. J Aircraft twin jet configuration. 54th AIAA aerospace sciences meet-
2010;47(3):895–903. ing. Reston: AIAA; 2016.
100. Hartwich PM, Dickey ED, Sclafani AJ, Camacho P, Gonzales 120. Cameron D, Princen N. Control allocation challenges and
EL, Lawson EL, et al. AFC-enabled simplified high-lift system requirements for the blended wing body. AIAA guidance,
integration study. Hampton: NASA Langley Research Center; navigation, and control conference and exhibit, guidance, naviga-
2014, Report No.: NASA/CR–2014-218521. tion, and control and co-located conferences. Reston: AIAA; 2000.
101. Mohr M, Paulus D, Baier H, Hornung M. Design of a 450 121. Goldthorpe SH, Rossitto KF, Hyde DC, Krothapalli. X-48b
passenger blended wing body aircraft for active control investi- blended wing body flight test performance of maximum sideslip
gations. J Aerosp Eng 2012;226(12):1513–22. and high to post stall angle-of-attack command tracking. AIAA
102. Paulus D, Christoph W, Hornung M. Blended wing body aircraft guidance, navigation, and control conference. Reston: AIAA; 2010.
- recommendations from high lift and control surface design and 122. Waters SM, Voskuijl M, Veldhuis LL, Geuskens FJ. Control
optimization. Fluid dynamics and co-located conferences. allocation performance for blended wing body aircraft and its impact
Reston: AIAA; 2013. on control surface design. Aerosp Sci Technol 2013;29(1):18–27.
103. Bahr CJ, Hutcheson FV, Thomas RH, Housman JA. A 123. Adegbindin M, Love N, Kapania RK, Schetz JA. Control power
comparison of the noise characteristics of a conventional slat optimization using artificial intelligence for forward swept wing
and Krueger flap. 22nd AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics confer- and hybrid wing body aircraft. 17th AIAA/ISSMO multidisci-
ence. Reston: AIAA; 2016. plinary analysis and optimization conference. Reston: AIAA; 2016.
104. Staelens YD, Blackwelder RF, Page MA. Study of belly-flaps to 124. Chudoba B. Development of a generic stability and control
enhance the lift and pitching moment coefficient of a blended- methodology for the conceptual design of conventional and
wing-body airplane. 25th AIAA applied aerodynamics confer- unconventional aircraft configurations [dissertation]. Cran-
ence. Reston: AIAA; 2007. field: Cranfield University; 2001.
105. Qin N, Vavalle A, Le Moigne A, Laban M, Hackett K, 125. Colema G, Chudob B. A generic stability and control tool for
Weinerfelt P. Aerodynamic considerations of blended wing body conceptual design, prototype system overview. 45th AIAA
aircraft. Prog Aerosp Sci 2004;40(6):321–43. aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit. Reston: AIAA; 2007.
106. Poll DIA. On the application of light weight materials to improve 126. Peterson T, Grant PR. Handling qualities of a blended wing body
aircraft fuel burn –reduce weight or improve aerodynamic aircraft. AIAA atmospheric flight mechanics confer-
efficiency? Aeronaut J 2014;118(1206):903–34. ence. Reston: AIAA; 2011.
107. Zhang MH, Chen ZL, Tan ZG, Gu WT, Li D, Yuan CS, et al. 127. Sodzi P. Damage tolerant wing-fuselage integration structural
Effects of stability margin and thrust specific fuel consumption design applicable to future bwb transport aircraft [disserta-
constraints on multi-disciplinary optimization for blended-wing- tion]. Cranfield: Cranfield University; 2009.
body design. Chin J Aeronaut 2019;32(8):1847–59. 128. van der Voet Z, Geuskens FJJMM, Ahmed TJ, Ninaber van Eyben
108. Denieul Y, Bordeneuve J, Alazard D, Toussaint C, Taquin G. A, Beukers A. Configuration of the multibubble pressure cabin in
Multicontrol surface optimization for blended wing–body under blended wing body aircraft. J Aircraft 2012;49(4):991–1007.
handling quality constraints. J Aircraft 2018;55(2):638–51. 129. Hansen LU, Heinze W, Horst P. Representation of structural
109. Mader CA, Joaquim RR, Martins A. Stability-constrained solutions in blended wing body preliminary design. 25th interna-
aerodynamic shape optimization of flying wings. J Aircraft tional congress of the aeronautical science, 2006.
2013;50(5):1431–49. 130. Geuskens FJJMM. Conformable pressurized structures: design
110. Méheut M, Arntz A, Carrier G. Aerodynamic shape optimiza- and analysis. ’s-Hertogenbosch: Uitgeverij BOXPress; 2012.
tions of a blended wing body configuration for several wing 131. Vos R, Geuskens FJJMM. Aircraft fuselage. Patent Netherlands
planforms. 30th AIAA applied aerodynamics confer- N2007397; 2011.
ence. Reston: AIAA; 2012. 132. Vos R, Geuskens FJJMM, Hoogreef MFM. A new structural
111. Denieul Y, Alazard D, Bordeneuve J, Toussaint C, Taquin G. design concept for blended wing body cabins. 53rd AIAA/ASME/
Interactions of aircraft design and control: actuators sizing and ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics and materials
optimization for an unstable blended wing-body. AIAA atmo- conference. Reston: AIAA; 2012.
spheric flight mechanics conference. Reston: AIAA; 2015. 133. Mukhopadhyay V. Hybrid wing-body pressurized fuselage mod-
112. Denieul Y. Preliminary design of control surfaces and laws for eling, analysis, and design for weight reduction. 53rd AIAA/
unconventional aircraft configurations [disserta- ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics and
tion]. Toulouse: L’Université De Toulouse; 2017. materials conference. Reston: AIAA; 2012.
113. Thorpe AW. Note on the longitudinal stability and trim of 134. Singh G, Toropov V, Eves J. Topology optimization of a blended
tailless aircraft. Farnborough: Royal Aircraft Establishment; wing body aircraft structure. 17th AIAA/ISSMO multidisci-
1942, Report No.: RAE TN-Aero 1021. plinary analysis and optimization conference. Reston: AIAA; 2016.
1826 Z. CHEN et al.

135. Velicki A. Damage arresting composites for shaped vehicles – 155. Kreitzman J, Cheng R, Moffitt NJ, Babcock D, Bent P. A
phase 1 final report. Huntington Beach: The Boeing Company; qualitative acoustic analysis of Krueger device noise utilizing
2009, Report No.: NASA/CR-2009-215932. CFD/CAA experiments. 23rd AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics confer-
136. Velicki A, Yovanof N, Baraja J, Linton K, Li V, Hawley A, et al. ence. Reston: AIAA; 2017.
Damage arresting composites for shaped vehicles – phase ii final 156. Moffitt NJ, Babcock DA, Kreitzman J, Cheng R. Two
report. Huntington Beach: The Boeing Company; 2011, Report Approaches to resolving the flow physics of a Krueger flap for
No.: NASA/CR–2011-216880. CFD/CAA analysis. 23rd AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics confer-
137. Wu HYT, Shaw P, Przekop A. Analysis of a hybrid wing body ence. Reston: AIAA; 2017.
center section test article. 54th AIAA/ASME/ASCE AHS/ASC 157. Guo YP, Burley CL, Thomas RH. Modeling and prediction of
structures, structural dynamics, and materials confer- Krueger device noise. 22nd AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics confer-
ence. Reston: AIAA; 2013. ence. Reston: AIAA; 2016.
138. Velicki A, Hoffman K, Linton KA, Baraja J, Wu HYT, Thrash 158. Epstein A. The lessons of P&W’s geared turbofanTM engine and
P. Hybrid wing body multi-bay test article analysis and assembly the implications for the future, keynote address. 22nd interna-
final report. Hampton: NASA Langley Research Center; 2017, tional symposium on air breathing engines (ISABE 2015). Bed-
Report No.: NASA/CR–2017-219668. fordshire: ISABE; 2015.
139. Mukhopadhyay V. Hybrid wing-body pressurized fuselage and 159. Reimann CA, Tinetti AF, Dunn MH. Noise scattering by the
bulkhead, design and optimization. 54th AIAA/ASME/ ASCE/ blended wing body airplane: measurements and prediction. 12th
AHS/ASC SDM conference. Reston: AIAA; 2013. AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference. Reston: AIAA; 2006.
140. Mukhopadhyay V. Hybrid-wing-body vehicle composite fuselage 160. Czech MJ, Thomas RH, Elkoby R. Propulsion airframe aeroa-
analysis and case study. 14th AIAA aviation technology, integra- coustic integration effects for a hybrid wing body aircraft
tion and operations conference. Reston: AIAA; 2014. configuration. Int J Aeroacoust 2012;11(3&4):335–68.
141. Mukhopadhyay V, Sorokach MR. Composite structure modeling 161. Doty MJ, Brooks TF, Burley CL, Bahr CJ, Pope DS. Jet noise
and analysis of advanced aircraft fuselage concepts. AIAA shielding provided by a hybrid wing body aircraft. 20th AIAA/
modeling and simulation technologies conference. Reston: AIAA; CEAS aeroacoustics conference. Reston: AIAA; 2015.
2015. 162. Hutcheson FV, Brooks TF, Burley CL, Bahr CJ. Stead DJ, Pope
142. Mareskin I. Multidisciplinary optimization of pro-composite DS. Shielding of turbomachinery broadband noise from a hybrid
structural layouts of high loaded aircraft constructions. Proceed- wing body aircraft configuration. 20th AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics
ings of the 30th congress of the international council of the conference. Reston: AIAA; 2015.
aeronautical sciences, 2016. 163. Sutliff DL, Brown C, Walker BE. Hybrid wing body shielding
143. Nigam N, Ayyalasomayajula S, Qi X, Chen PC. High-fidelity studies using an ultrasonic configurable fan artificial noise source
weight estimation for aircraft conceptual design optimization. generating typical turbofan modes. 52nd aeorspaces science
16th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization meeting. Reston: AIAA; 2014.
conference. Reston: AIAA; 2015. 164. Guo YP, Thomas RH. Experimental study on open rotor noise
144. Laughlin TW, Corman JA, Mavris DN. A parametric and shielding by hybrid-wing-body aircraft. AIAA J 2016;54
physics-based approach to structural weight estimation of the (1):242–53.
hybrid wing body aircraft. 51st AIAA aerospace sciences meeting 165. Thomas RH. Subsonic fixed wing project N+2 noise goal
including the new horizons forum and aerospace exposi- summary. Cleveland: NASA; 2007.
tion. Reston: AIAA; 2013. 166. Thomas RH, Burley CL, Olson ED. Hybrid wing body aircraft
145. Wakayama S. Multidisciplinary design optimization of the system noise assessment with propulsion airframe aeroacoustic
blended-wing-body. 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO symposium experiments. Int J Aeroacoust 2012;11(3&4):369–410.
on multidisiplinary analysis and optimizaiton. Reston: AIAA; 1998. 167. Thomas RH, Burley CL, Nickol CL. Assessment of the noise
146. Howe D. Blended wing body airframe mass prediction. Proc Inst reduction potential of advanced subsonic transport concepts for
Mech Eng G 2001;215(6):319–31. the NASA environmentally responsible aviation project. 54th
147. Bradley KR. A sizing methodology for the conceptual design of AIAA aerospace sciences meeting. Reston: AIAA; 2016.
blended-wing-body transports. Hampton: NASA Langley 168. Thomas RH, Burley CL, Guo YP. Progress of aircraft system
Research Center; 2004, Report No.: NASA/CR-2004-213016. noise assessment with uncertainty quantification for the environ-
148. Li V, Velicki A. Advanced PRSEUS structural concept design mentally responsible aviation project. 22nd AIAA/CEAS aeroa-
and optimization. 12th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis coustics conference. Reston: AIAA; 2016.
and optimization conference. Reston: AIAA; 2008. 169. Guo YP, Thomas RH, Burley CL. On noise assessment for
149. Guo YP, Burley CL, Thomas RH. Landing gear noise prediction blended wing body aircraft. 52nd aerospaces science meet-
and analysis for tube-and-wing and hybrid-wing-body aircraft. ing. Reston: AIAA; 2014.
54th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting. Reston: AIAA; 2016. 170. Guo YP, Thomas RH. System noise assessment of hybrid wing–
150. Thomas RH, Nickol CL, Burley CL, Guo YP. Potential for body aircraft with open-rotor propulsion. J Aircraft 2015;52
landing gear noise reduction on advanced aircraft configurations. (6):1767–79.
22nd AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference. Reston: AIAA; 2016. 171. Thomas RH, Guo YP. Ground noise contour prediction for a
151. Guo YP, Brusniak L, Czech M, Thomas RH. Hybrid wing body NASA hybrid wing body subsonic transport aircraft. 23rd AIAA/
(HWB) slat noise analysis. 51st AIAA aerospace sciences meeting CEAS aeroacoustics conference. Reston: AIAA; 2017.
including the new horizons forum and aerospace exposi- 172. Thomas RH, Guo YP, Berton JJ, Fernandez H. Aircraft noise
tion. Reston: AIAA; 2013. reduction technology roadmap toward achieving the NASA 2035
152. Pott-Pollenske M, Almoneit D, Wild J. On the noise generation noise goal. 23rd AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics confer-
of Krueger leading edge devices. 21st AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics ence. Reston: AIAA; 2017.
conference. Reston: AIAA; 2015. 173. Guo YP, Thomas RH, Clark IA, June JC. Far term noise
153. Burnside NJ, Horne WC, Elmer KR. Phased acoustic array reduction roadmap for the mid-fuselage nacelle subsonic trans-
measurements of a 5.75% hybrid wing body aircraft. 54th AIAA port. 2018 AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference. Reston: AIAA;
aerospace sciences meeting. Reston: AIAA; 2016. 2018.
154. Hutcheson FV, Spalt TB, Brooks TF, Plassman GE. Airframe 174. Epstein AH. Aeropropulsion for commercial aviation in the
noise from a hybrid wing body aircraft configuration. 22nd twenty-first century and research directions needed. AIAA J
AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference. Reston: AIAA; 2016. 2014;52(5):901–11.
Assessment on critical technologies for conceptual design of blended-wing-body civil aircraft 1827

175. Kestner BK, Schutte JS, Gladin JC, Mavris DN. Ultra high 183. Dickey ED, Princen NH, Bonet JT, Ige GK. Wind tunnel model
bypass ratio engine sizing and cycle selection study for a subsonic design and fabrication of a 5.75% scale blended-wing-body twin
commercial aircraft in the N+2 timeframe. Proceedings of jet configuration. 54th AIAA aerospace sciences meet-
ASME Turbo Expo 2011, GT2011, 2011. ing. Reston: AIAA; 2016.
176. Van Zante DE, Suder KL. Environmentally responsible aviation: 184. Carter MB, Shea PR, Flamm JD, Schuh MJ, James K, Sexton
propulsion research to enable fuel burn, noise and emissions MR, et al. Experimental evaluation of inlet distortion on an
reduction. 22nd international symposium on air breathing engines ejector powered hybrid wing body at take-off and landing
(ISABE 2015). Bedfordshire: ISABE; 2015. conditions. 54th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting. Reston: AIAA;
177. Prahst PS, Kulkarni S, Sohn KH. Experimental results of 2016.
the first two stages of an advanced transonic core compressor 185. Shea PR, Flamm JD, Long K, James KD, Tompkins D, Beyar
under isolated and multi-stage conditions. Cleveland: NASA MD. Turbine powered simulator calibration and testing for
Glenn Research Center; 2015, Report No.: NASA/TM—2015- hybrid wing body powered airframe integration. 54th AIAA
218886. aerospace sciences meeting. Reston: AIAA; 2016.
178. Walton JC, Chang CT, Lee CM, Kramer S. Low NOx fuel 186. Tompkins DM, Sexton MR, Mugica EA, Beyar MD, Schuh MJ,
flexible combustor integration project overview. Cleveland: NASA Stremel PM, et al. Computational evaluation of inlet distortion
Glenn Research Center; 2015, Report No.: NASA/TM—2015- on an ejector powered hybrid wing body at takeoff and landing
218886. conditions. 54th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting. Reston: AIAA;
179. He ZJ, Kopp-Vaughan K, Wey C, Chang CT, Cheung AK, Lee 2016.
CM, et al. Emission characteristics of a P&W axially staged 187. Lord WK, Hendricks GJ, Kirby MJ, Ochs SS, Lin RS, Hardin
sector combustor. 54th AIAA aerospace sciences meet- LW. Impact of ultra high bypass/hybrid wing body integration
ing. Reston: AIAA; 2016. on propulsion system performance and operability. 54th AIAA
180. Gatlin GM, Vicroy DD, Carter MB. Experimental investigation aerospace sciences meeting. Reston: AIAA; 2016.
of the low-speed aerodynamic characteristics of a 5.8-percent 188. Xin ZQ, Chen ZL, Gu WT, Wang G, Tan ZG, Li D, et al.
scale hybrid wing body configuration. 30th AIAA applied Nacelle-airframe integration design method for blended wing
aerodynamics conference. Reston: AIAA; 2012. body transport with podded engines. Chin J Aeronaut 2019;32
181. Flamm JD, James KD, Bonet JT. Overview of ERA integrated (8):1860–8.
technology demonstration (ITD) 51A ultra-high bypass (UHB) 189. Green JE. Civil aviation and the environment-the next frontier
integration for hybrid wing body (HWB). 54th AIAA aerospace for the aerodynamicist. Aeronaut J 2006;110(1110):469–86.
sciences meeting. Reston: AIAA; 2016. 190. Hileman J, Katz JB, Mantilla JG, Fleming G. Payload fuel
182. Deere KA, Luckring JM, McMillin SN, Flamm JD. CFD energy efficiency as a metric for aviation environmental perfor-
predictions for transonic performance of the ERA hybrid wing- mance. 26th international congress of the aeronautical sciences,
body configuration. 54th AIAA aerospace sciences meet- 2008.
ing. Reston: AIAA; 2016.