Copyright© 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

A97-31774 AIAA-97-2317

BLENDED WING BODY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN*

Mark A. Potsdam*, Mark A. Page*, and Robert H. Liebeck§

McDonnell Douglas Aerospace
Long Beach, California

ABSTRACT

The Blended Wing Body (BWB) is a novel

aircraft configuration offering significant
performance advantages over modern,
conventional, transonic transports. Aerodynamic
problems unique to this class of airplane are
investigated with the aim of designing an
aerodynamically viable BWB configuration. The
course of the preliminary design process using
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and
constrained inverse design methods (CDISC) is
illustrated as it encounters critical challenges.

INTRODUCTION Figure 1: BWB Configuration Layout

It has been observed that since the advent of

the transonic transport age, current aircraft layouts
closely resemble those of the airplanes that
launched the era, the DC-8 and B-707. While
advances in engineering and manufacturing have
been significant, aircraft configuration advances
have been evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
The Blended Wing Body (BWB), however, is a
unique, tailless aircraft which combines the
passenger cabin and cargo structure and
propulsion system into the aerodynamic inboard
wing, resulting in an extremely integrated layout.
The McDonnell Douglas 800 passenger, Mach
0.85 trijet BWB is illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. As
shown, the passenger cabin is double deck with
single level cargo areas outboard. It is a
revolutionary transport aircraft configuration with
large performance advantages over conventional
aircraft. Preliminary configuration studies indicate
the following improvements:
L/D +21%
MTOGW -15%
OEW -12%
Fuel Burn -28%
Total SLST -27%
Figure 2: Typical Cabin Cross Section
Aerodynamic advantages are achieved
through reduced wetted area, structurally efficient
use of wing span, relaxed static stability, and
optimum span loading. The estimated gains,
however, are based on conventional aircraft
performance methods. To verify the advantages,
it is necessary to investigate the detailed
aerodynamics of the BWB using computational
fluid dynamics (CFD) and constrained inverse
design methods (CDISC). In particular, several
critical problems unique to the BWB must be
addressed to advance the concept beyond a
preliminary design phase:
• Inboard wing design. The inboard portion of
the wing contains the passenger cabin and
cargo areas within thick, large chord, transonic
airfoils, reaching thickness to chord ratios (t/c)
of -18%. Cabin height leading edge doors
and rear spar impose that the thickness be
maintained along a considerable length of the

*Work
f
supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) under contract NAS1-20275.
Manager, Transonic Aerodynamics Technology, Senior Member AIAA
1
MDC Fellow
§ MDC Senior Fellow, Fellow AIAA
Copyright © 1997 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
799
 Copyright© 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
chord. Deck angle limits are a consideration.
Shock strength is of major concern on the
centerbody. Supersonic flow on the lower
surface is uncharacteristic of conventional
wing designs and must be investigated.
Pillowing of the pressurized outer skin results
in modified aerodynamic shapes.
• Kink region design. The portion of the wing
which blends the thick, inboard airfoils and
thin, supercritical, outboard wing is referred to
as the kink. Design problems in this region
include surface smoothness, lift carry over
from the centerbody, shock strength and
sweep with possible separation, and buffet
tailoring.
• Trim. One of the more critical issues to be
addressed on the BWB is cruise trim. This is a
multidisciplinary problem influenced by the
location of the center of gravity (CG) of the
aircraft and the required stability levels. It is
desired that the airplane be trimmed in the
mid-cruise configuration at nominal CG limits
with minimal control deflections. Detailed
pressure distribution design on the
centerbody and outboard airfoils, planform
layout, and determination of optimal span
loading are important.
Although the synergistic nature of the BWB
necessitates simultaneous input from several
disciplines, the focus here is on wing
aerodynamics. Propulsion, structures, stability
and controls (S&C), and weights considerations
will not be discussed except as they relate directly
to the wing alone cruise aerodynamic design. In
particular, while the propulsion system has a
significant effect on the airplane aerodynamic
characteristics, its influence will not be reported on
for this initial design study. The objective of this
paper is not to demonstrate the absolute
performance of the BWB but to illustrate the
design process, technical challenges, and
application of current CFD and inverse design
methods on a novel aircraft configuration.
METHODS
CFD
Grid generation poses no problem on the
propulsionless BWB configuration. Wing grids are
800
structured, single block, C-O topology, generated
using conformal mapping techniques1. Full chord
winglets can be added naturally using the same
topology. Wing alone analysis grids are
dimensioned 289x65x49 (streamwise x normal x
spanwise) with 225 points on the wing. Grids of
double density in each direction were investigated
for accuracy analysis. Only the normal enrichment
showed minor effects on pressure distribution
shock location and small changes (<2%) in lift-to-
drag ratio (L/D), deemed acceptable accuracy for
this study. Wing/winglet grids are 289x65x85.
Coarse wing design grids are 145x33x25 (every
other point). Normal grid spacing is devised to
yield trailing edge y+ values less than 2 at a full-
scale cruise Reynolds number. The Reynolds-
averaged Navier-Stokes upwind solver CFL3D2
with the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model is
employed.
It should be pointed out that no CFD validation
data exists for the BWB class of aircraft. Upcoming
wind tunnel tests in the NASA Langley Research
Center 14 x 22 ft. and National Transonic Facility
(NTF) at low speed/high lift and high Reynolds
number transonic conditions, respectively, will
provide pressure distributions and force and
moment data for comparison, validation, and
calibration of CFD results.
Inverse Design
Design was performed using the Constrained
Direct Iterative Surface Curvature (CDISC)3
inverse design methodology developed at NASA
Langley Research Center. Both aerodynamic
constraints (on pressure distributions and span
load) and geometry constraints (on surface
smoothness and to enclose the cabin) were
necessary. Development of improved surface
constraints were required to meet cabin hard point
requirements rather than strict thickness (t/c)
distributions. Inverse design was performed on
coarse grids for fast design iterations with minimal
loss in surface pressure accuracy, allowing the
investigation of numerous design options.
DISCUSSION
The course of design will be discussed in two
phases. Starting from an initial Configuration 0,
the first step was to produce a workable design,
focusing on the inboard and kink regions. The
 Copyright© 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
resulting geometry has been designated
Configuration 1. After a thorough analysis of this
configuration, a redesign addressed several
shortcomings, resulting in Configuration 2.
Generation of the initial planform was the
result of considerable interaction between
configuration designers, engineers from
numerous disciplines (structures, S&C,
propulsion, weights, performance, and
aerodynamics), and a multidisciplinary optimizer4.
The effects of cabin and planform layout on
emergency egress, landing gear placement,
balance, spar placement, airport compatibility, and
other factors were investigated.
Definition of the baseline BWB wing was
based on proof-of-concept work which mated
thick, front loaded airfoils inboard with advanced,
supercritical, blunt trailing edge airfoils5 outboard.
CFD analysis of the initial Configuration 0 indicated
that the kink region would be separated in cruise
due to the small chords and a strong shock with
unsweeping tendencies, as seen in Figure 3. A
15% chord extension and increased blending was
required in this transition region to eliminate the
separation. The resulting Configuration 1
planform (Figure 1) also required an aft shear of
the centerbody, dictated by balance
considerations.
Figure 3: BWB Initial Configuration 0
Cruise Pressure Distribution, Mach 0.85
801
Configuration 1 Design
Span loading for Configuration 1 was
determined from a multidisciplinary optimization
(MDO) analysis which examined a multitude of
factors and critical flight conditions in addition to
cruise aerodynamic efficiency to produce, in this
case, a configuration with minimum gross take-off
weight. As seen in Figure 4, the optimized (MDO)
span load at the start cruise lift coefficient, CL, is far
from elliptic with comparatively heavy loading
inboard and reduced loading outboard. Maximum
section lift, q, is required in the kink region. Span
load is plotted as cnord*q/cref. The drivers behind
the MDO span loads were structural weight
considerations and an initial design objective for a
slatless outboard wing necessitating reduced
loading at low speed for stall tailoring.
o
o
Configuration 1 (as-lofted) *\ Vfj
ELLIPTIC \\lj
symbols Indicate section lift (c,) x \|
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
%span,T|
Figure 4: BWB Spanload Distributions
Start Cruise CL, Mach 0.85
Inverse design was performed using a
combination of aerodynamic and geometric
constraints to develop reasonable pressure
distributions and manufacturable surface
definitions. Determination of achievable pressure
distributions has always been a shortcoming of
inverse design procedures. This was especially
true for the BWB design given the lack of previous
experience with this class of aircraft. Use of the
coarse grid design procedure allowed for
numerous design iterations to explore the
envelope of valid, obtainable pressure
distributions.
 Copyright© 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
On the centerbody, to best achieve the MDO
specified loading the inverse design method
increased section q's by increasing forward
camber, resulting in considerable headroom in the
leading edge of the airfoil. The aft part of the airfoil
wraps the cabin/cargo more closely in an attempt
to reduce the strength of the shock, which tends
to occur at the rear spar. Several other important
observations were made during the initial design
phase regarding the BWB configuration and the
thick centerbody in particular. It was seen that the
centerbody pressure distribution and shock
location and strength are relatively insensitive to
angle of attack changes, although, clearly, small q
changes generate proportionately large lift
increments on large chords. Three dimensional
effects attributed greatly to the viability of the thick
transonic airfoil concept, providing relief not found
in a constant chord, swept wing of similar
thickness. It should be noted that the critical,
nondimensionally thickest section of the wing is
not at the centerline but at the interface between
the cabin and cargo areas (r|=0.22) where the
chords become smaller while the actual thickness
has remained essentially constant.
In the kink region, considerable upwash and
lift carry over from the large, thick centerbody
resulted in airfoil designs that were thin and
washed out, yet highly loaded. These effects
tended to make this region buffet critical. Shock
placement was determined by the shock off of the
centerbody rear spar, but using the inverse
design method it was attempted to sweep the
shock in this transition region. The reduced
loadings outboard, in general, only required
retwisting the original airfoils to the desired span
load. The resulting advanced, supercritical
outboard wing panel is relatively shock free, and,
consequently, integration of the winglets was
straightforward.
Geometry constraints on chordwise radius of
curvature smoothness were employed. To
enclose the cabin using the inverse design code
required the specification of t/c at x/c's
representing the front and aft of the cabin.
Definition of the cabin in this manner does not
necessarily wrap a cabin with a level floor. A new
'hard surface' constraint was developed which
allowed actual specification of the cabin corners to
the inverse design procedure rather than just
thicknesses. This allowed the design to progress
802
with the external aerodynamic surfaces touching
but not violating the cabin in the most critical
regions (Figure 2). Additionally, it was necessary
to allow the cargo area to float vertically for
improved airfoil performance and surface
smoothness.
Configuration 1 Analysis
The resulting configuration represented the
first detailed, viable, aerodynamic design of the
BWB. Following a lofting step to smooth the
geometry and integrate the winglets, extensive
cruise, off-design, buffet, and low speed CFD
analyses were performed. At start cruise Q_ and
Mach 0.85, the deck angle is an acceptable 1.5
degrees. The resulting span load and q
distributions are plotted in Figure 4. Figure 5
depicts upper surface pressure contours at start
cruise and incipient buffet (separation onset).
Buffet onset is in the kink region away from the
outboard elevens, as desired. Nominal aircraft
buffet will be at a somewhat higher CL and meets
the 1.3g airline requirement. Low speed, high lift
analyses performed using CFD indicate that the
winglet and wing/winglet junction may be critical
for low speed stall in the absence of slats, but
C|_max requirements appear to be on target. High
lift performance of this configuration will be
compared with data from an upcoming test in the
NASA Langley 14x22 ft. wind tunnel.
The effects of pressurizing the cabin and the
resulting pillowing of the outer skin during cruise
were investigated. A maximum of several inches
of deflection decreased calculated L/D values
approximately 3%. Shock strength at the rear spar
was particularly affected. These deflections are
now included as a structural design constraint.
This is clearly a multidisciplinary design issue that
has been addressed.
The extensive analysis of Configuration 1
served to point out some of the shortcomings of
the design. The configuration is not trimmed,
requiring control deflections for trim in all flight
conditions. The centerbody and kink shock is
fairly strong and unswept, with 2D shock Mach
numbers above acceptable levels of
approximately 1.2. A shock also exists on the
inboard lower surface due to the high thickness
and q requirements. Further consideration of
high lift and icing issues proved the need for an
 Copyright© 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
cruise
Figure 5: Configuration 1, Cruise and Buffet Pressure Distributions, Mach 0.85
outboard slat. Subsequent development and
calibration of the multidisciplinary optimization
code casts some doubt on the overall optimality of
the results. In particular, the MDO code was
underestimating centerbody drag due to
thickness and compressibility while neglecting 3D
relief effects. As seen in Figure 4, variations from
the requested MDO loading are due to surface
smoothness requirements, particularly the bump
in the Configuration 1 as-lofted span load
distribution in the kink region. Closer attention to
spanwise surface smoothness in the inverse
design is necessary.
These shortcomings resulted in L/D values
based on CFD calculations that are lower than the
expected improvement over conventional
configurations at Mach 0.85. L/D values at Mach
0.50, however, are more in line with the expected
BWB claims. Further investigation of the CFD
cruise results revealed considerable profile drag in
addition to the already discussed induced drag
due to poor span loading and wave drag. A study
was performed on a thinned centerbody geometry
which showed the expected L/D values with low
shock strengths. By integrating the thin
geometry, shock-free surface pressures over the
thick Configuration 1 geometry, it was determined
that at least half of the thick-thin profile drag
increment was resulting from 'drag due to
thickness'. This drag cannot be readily perceived
by examining the pressure distributions.
803
separated
region
incipient buffet
Configuration 2 Design
Continued design work on Configuration 1
aimed to address the previously mentioned
deficiencies. An improved starting point was
generated by scaling the airfoils to reduce
thickness and more closely match all the
cabin/cargo hard points (corners), especially in the
leading edge. To fully realize the L/D advantages
inherent in the BWB layout, it was decided to
uncouple the aerodynamics and structures in the
multidisciplinary optimization and employ wing
load alleviation to allow a more efficient span load.
This led to lower q's in the thick centerbody and
higher q's in the thin, supercritical outer panels.
This exchange of thickness and section lift
coefficient is illustrated in Figure 6. A span loading
which was a combination of elliptic and linear, a
constraint available in CDISC, was used. A
blending factor was chosen to yield acceptable
tailoring of the critical buffet location. Retwisting of
the airfoils was performed to produce the desired
span load. While the default in CDISC is to twist
about the trailing edge, twisting of the centerbody
airfoils suggested alternative twist axes so as to
minimize the cabin interference with the
aerodynamic surfaces. Additionally, the kink
airfoils were allowed to wash out, but with
spanwise smoothing and radius of curvature
constraints. Aerodynamic constraints were then
applied to improve the pressure distributions.
 Copyright© 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
Narrow Wing Chord Large Centerbody Chord
Jt/9
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Figure 6: BWB Transonic Design Concept
At this point significant gains in L/D had been
achieved through reduced profile thickness drag,
more efficient span loading, and decreased wave
drag. Figure 7 shows the span load modifications
and accompanying inboard thickness reductions
between Configurations 1 and 2. The t/c changes
also resulted in decreased upper surface shock
strength, while the lower surface shock was
eliminated. Surface pressure distributions for the
Configuration 2 geometry are shown in Figure 8 at
cruise along with surface streamlines and
separation pattern at incipient buffet. Note the
increased shock sweep at cruise and outboard
movement of the critical buffet location as
compared with Figure 5, Configuration 1. Further
sweeping of the outboard shock in cruise is
difficult due to the unsweeping tendencies
caused by the inboard shock, which remains fixed
along the rear spar. Attempting to sweep the
shock aft results in double shock tendencies at
lower CL'S due to excessive aft camber.
Configuration 2 will be tested in the NASA
Langley high Reynolds number National
Transonic Facility (NTF) in 1997. Validation of CFD
analyses and performance numbers is crucial for
continued success of the BWB program.
Separately, progress has also been made in
trimming the aircraft. The BWB uses the
centerbody airfoils for trim rather than inefficiently
unloading the wing tips as is the case with some
flying wings. Due to large chords with large CG
moment arms, negative aft camber and front
loading of the inboard airfoil lower surfaces are
effective in reducing pitching moment magnitude.
Recall that conventional swept wings tend to have
——6—— Configuration 1
- - - B- - - Configuration 2
0.4 0.5 0.6
%span, r\
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Figure 7: Modified Thickness and Span Load
Distributions
nose down, negative pitching moments. Based
on lessons learned from Configuration 1, it is
important to pay attention to shock strength and
the tendency to use additional thickness to gain
lift on the centerbody. Reduced centerbody lift
due to the reverse aft camber has required an
increased angle of attack at cruise of 0.3 degrees.
Pitching moment has been reduced so that the
airplane trims at aft CG with only a small penalty in
L/D. Negative static margin currently requires
stability augmentation. Work continues in
conjunction with configuration layout designers
and weights, structures, and S&C engineers to
modify the planform to converge on a balanced
and trimmed aircraft.
CONCLUSIONS
Inverse design Navier-Stokes codes have
been successfully applied to the development of
a new aerodynamic configuration. The Blended
Wing Body (BWB) is an unconventional aircraft
layout compared with transonic transport aircraft of
the last 40 years. The design is highly integrated
and offers performance improvements of
significant proportions. CFD analysis and design
methods have been used to study the preliminary
detailed aerodynamic design of the BWB,
including inboard, kink, and outboard wing
design. In the centerbody region, thick airfoils
must efficiently wrap the cabin and cargo areas
and have minimal profile drag due to thickness and
804
 Copyright© 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
wave drag from strong, unswept shocks. The
outer wing is a more typical supercritical design.
The kink region must blend smoothly between
inner and outer wing panels.
While this paper has limited its exploration to
the aerodynamics of the BWB wing alone, it
cannot be over-emphasized that the actual
airplane will be highly integrated. Future work will
address the challenging problem of closely
coupled propulsion airframe integration (PAI).
Further planform optimization opens up many
avenues for investigation in the areas of trim,
balance, and stability. Close cooperation between
configurators and propulsion, structures, S&C,
systems, and aerodynamic engineers is required
and will undoubtedly result in valuable
multidisciplinary analysis and optimization tools.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was performed under NASA
contract NAS1-20275. Significant configuration
work and multidiscipline engineering analyses
were performed by Blaine Rawdon, Sean
Wakayama, Paul Scott, Rachel Girvin, George
Rowland, Art Hawley, and Robert Bird at
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace. Calculations were
performed on the Numerical Aerodynamics
Simulation (NAS) facility, NASA Ames Research
Center. The authors would like to thank Dr.
Richard Campbell, Transonic/Supersonic
Aerodynamics Branch, NASA Langley Research
cruise
Figure 8: BWB Configuration 2, Cruise Pressure Distribution and Incipient Buffet Streamlines, Mach 0.85
805
Center, for enhancements to the CDISC method
pertaining to the hard surface constraint. The
wing/winglet grid topology was generated by
David Rodriguez, Stanford University.
REFERENCES
1. Halsey, N., "Use of Conformal Mapping in
Grid Generation for Complex 3D
Configurations," AIAA Journal, vol. 25, no.
10, p. 1286, 1987.
2. Thomas, J., Krist, S., and Anderson, W.,
"Navier-Stokes computations of Vortical
Flows Over Low-Aspect-Ratio Wings," AIAA
Journal, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 205-212, 1990.
3. Campbell, R. and Smith, L. A., "A Hybrid
Algorithm for Transonic Airfoil and Wing
Design," AIAA Paper 87-2552, 1987.
4. Wakayama, S., Page, M., and Liebeck, R.,
"Multidisciplinary Optimization on an
Advanced Composite Wing," AIAA Paper
96-4003, 1996.
5. Gregg, R. and Henne, P., "New Airfoil
Design Concept," AIAA Paper 89-2201,
1989.
6. Nickel, K. and Wohlfahrt, M., 7a//tess Aircraft
in Theory and Practice, trans. Brown, E.,
AIAA, Inc., Washington, D.C., 1994.
separated
region
incipient buffet