Aeropropulsive Evaluation of Boundary Layer Ingestion for

Medium Electric-Powered UAVs

Esteban Valencia∗ , Miguel A. Ayala † , Victor H. Hidalgo‡ , Stalyn F. Simbaña§ , Victor H. Alulema¶ , Dario Rodriguez ‖ ,
and Edgar Cando ∗∗
Escuela Politécnica Nacional, Quito - Ecuador, 170525

The performance benefits of ingesting the boundary layer (BLI), in conjunction with the
development of novel aircraft concepts - like the Blended Wing Body (BWB) - have been
envisioned with the aim of increasing the aircraft propulsive efficiency whilst reducing the gas
emissions in civil aviation. Preliminary studies have shown that BLI can also lessen considerably
the takeoff gross weight (TOGW) and the fuel consumption. However, these benefits depends
on the incoming flow quality since non-uniform and highly-distorted flows affect severally
the performance of the turbomachinery. Moreover, since the BLI technology has not been
formally considered in the design of medium UAVs, this work seeks to present a preliminary
study regarding the potential benefits of integrating a BWB airframe with three electric ducted
fans embedded into the fuselage. For this purpose, the fan thermodynamic behavior is modeled
through parametric routines using a propulsor inner-control-volume to determine the effects on
the aircraft performance. The flow characteristics, such as the velocity and pressure fields, are
obtained from a high-fidelity numerical simulation (at each duct station) carried out in Open
Foam. This study used five different inlet topologies to study the suitability of incorporating
BLI to medium BWB airframe. Results showed that the low operating Mach and Reynolds
numbers do not produce an important effect on the fan performance, since high inlet duct
recovery factors are achieved. Furthermore, the three dimensional assessment enables to
highlight that the spanwise pressure distribution of the main air frame is not affectted by the
incorporation of semi embedded ducts.

I. Nomenclature

D f an = Diameter of the EDF unit

FPR = Fan Pressure Ratio
Ma = Mach number
P = Power input
Pi = Absolute pressure
pi = Static pressure
Re = Reynolds number
Ti = Absolute temperature
ti = Static temperature
η f an = Fan efficiency
ηinlet = Pressure recovery of the inlet
ηp = Propulsive efficiency
ηth = Thermal efficiency

∗ Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, esteban.valencia@epn.edu.ec, AIAA Member

† Undergraduate Research Assistant, Department of Mechanical Engineering
‡ Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering
§ Research Engineer, Department of Mechanical Engineering
¶ Research Engineer, Department of Mechanical Engineering
‖ Research Engineer, Department of Mechanical Engineering
∗∗ Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering

1
 II. Introduction
In the last decade, the globalization of businesses and tourism has caused that the civil aviation sector experiences a
significant growth, which is reflected in the increase of gas emissions and fuel-power consumption. In this sense, the
NASA N+3 objectives [1], which are part of an ambitious environmental project [2], have imposed the aerospace industry
to reduce the exorbitant fuel burn of today’s flight operations. In the search of new concepts that accomplish the above
mentioned goals, aircraft designers have developed novel configurations like the Blended Wing Body (BWB) [3] and the
Double Bubble aircraft [4] that seek to enhance the aerodynamic performance. In the same way, regarding the propulsion
system, the Boundary Layer Ingestion (BLI) together with Electric Distributed Propulsion (eDP) breakthroughs have
been proposed both to optimize the overall aircraft efficiency and to dismiss the power consumption [5].

In particular, the BLI technology consists on capturing a portion of the boundary layer produced along the fuselage
and re-energize it by the propulsors [6] to dismiss the drag due to friction and wake. Several studies have demonstrated
that implementing this breakthrough could be favorable in some aspects like the lessening of both power required,
structural weight and noise signature [7, 8]. In this context, a fully embedded nacelle, for instance, can ingest a substantial
part of the inboard body boundary layer, reducing the aircraft drag in around 15 % [7]. Moreover, embedded engines
also allows reducing the wetted area and the structural weight considering the pylons dismissal. On the other hand,
the DP technology consist on replacing a single net thrust produced by a large engine for small propulsors distributed
along the spanwise direction of a BWB airframe [5, 9, 10]. Furthermore, replacing large engines for independent small
propulsors allows achieving very high bypass ratios, without limitations in fan size[11], and hence, the propulsion
efficiency is enhanced. Preliminary studies have demonstrated that the combination of DP and BLI could represent
around a 7 % drag reduction compared to today’s aircraft [12].

Nevertheless, the implementation of DP with BLI also brings some challenges, especially related to the integration
between airframe and embedded engines. Furthermore, highly optimized duct intakes must be considered to avoid
pressure losses and the detriment of the fan performance. In particular, the intake pressure losses are linked to the duct
design [13] whereas, the fan performance detriment is related to the combined radial and circumferential distortion
caused by BLI [14]. The compliance of the expected benefits depends on the adequate performance of both the inlet
duct and the turbomachinery. On the one hand, due to the great sensitivity of fans to high-distorted and non-uniform
flows [7], several research have been conducted in order to propose alternative and distortion-tolerant fan concepts
[15–19]. Meanwhile, other works have been focused on the optimization of inlet ducts [4, 13, 20].

Likewise the civil aviation sector, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) have dabbled into civil applications such as
precision agriculture, environmental monitoring and delivery market because of the significant advances in aerodynamics,
manufacture, control and telemetry. Nonetheless, the autonomy of electric UAVs (small and medium) is restricted
to the still deficient energy density of batteries, and thus UAVs’ upgrades are urgently needed to improve their flight
performance. Unfortunately, the study of named technologies (DP and BLI) is mainly focused on the civil aircraft sector
[13]. Indeed, few studies [21] have centered their attention to the potential outcomes that can be achieved in UAVs, and
the outcomes have been evaluated mainly based on parametric and semi-empirical models [14]. Therefore, this work
aims to estimate the outcomes of employing boundary layer ingestion with distributed propulsion systems in BWB
medium airframes through high-fidelity CFD numerical simulations.

III. Methodology
This section describes the process of integrating the airframe with embedded propulsion systems and the methodology
employed to analyze the benefits or drawbacks of the BLI implementation on medium BWB electric-powered UAVs.
For this purpose, the general methodology depicted in Figure 1, which comprises: geometrical definition, propulsion
assessment and CFD evaluation, has been embraced in this work.

Baseline UAV In the present work, the experimental aircraft "NASA X-48B" has been selected as baseline configuration
for the propulsion-airframe integration analysis. The benefits of boundary layer ingestion implemented in this unmanned
aircraft, at low Reynolds and Mach numbers, has been evaluated in previous works [14, 22]. Preliminary results,
obtained with parametric models, have revealed that BLI enables the reduction of the aircraft weight and the increase
of the propulsive efficiency, similarly to the predicted benefits for large transport aircraft. Unlike the actual model
(powered by three turbojet engines podded over the airframe), the baseline model of the present work is powered by

2
 Fig. 1 General Methodology

three high-performance electric ducted fans. The take-off gross weight of the unmanned aircraft (TOGW) was kept
fixed; therefore, the thrust required remained the same. Figure 2 illustrates the clean configuration of this Blended
Wing Body model and Table 1 presents key parameters of this unmanned aircraft and its propulsion system. The three
EDF units are located downstream, a main propulsor is located in the center chord, while the two other are located
symmetrically respect to the main propulsor, separated a distance d from each other. In this study, the propulsor located
in the main chord will be referred to as "centered propulsor", while the other two will be referred to as "distributed
propulsors". Figure 3 depicts the spatial distribution of the three EDF units over the UAV airframe.

54o
BWB UAV: Clean configuration

34o

Wingspan: 6.08 [m]

Fig. 2 Blended Wing Body UAV: Baseline model

3
 Fig. 3 Propulsors location in the center body of the BWB-UAV airframe

Table 1 Planform geometry, propulsion and flight conditions for the baseline BWB-UAV

Baseline UAV Propulsion

b [m] 6.08 3 EDF units D f an = 0.13 [m]
2
Sr e f [m ] 9.30 EDF JetFAN-130 T0 = 152 [N]
TOGW [kg] 35 11 Blades η f an = 0.80 [m]
Flight conditions
Altitude 3000 [masl]
Cruise speed 28 [m/s]
Mach number 0.1

Geometric module It integrates a CAD interface with a structured-mesh generator. The CAD tool is accounted for
the generation of 3D models regarding the UAV layout, inlet architectures (embedded nacelle and S-shaped ducts),
and embedded propulsion systems. Moreover, within this module it is possible to obtain 2-D cross sections along the
chordwise direction of the embedded propulsor to be analyzed through the bi-dimensional 2-D model. On the other
hand, the structured-mesh generator is used to create block-structured meshes of the CAD model. For the bi-dimensional
analysis, the mesh is developed using the ICEM module of the commercial software ANSYS, meanwhile for the
thee-dimensional approach, the mesh is generated using the open-source modules blockMesh and snappyHexMesh
associated to OpenFoam.

Propulsion module The propulsion module is accounted for the parametric assessment of boundary layer ingestion
using a middle-fidelity thermodynamic model. The inputs of this module are: the performance characteristics of the
electric ducted fan (provided by the manufacturer), the flight conditions at cruise (considering a typical UAV mission for
surveillance applications), and the characteristics of the flow entering the BLI propulsor (i.e. velocity and pressure
profile of the boundary layer). The averaged values of the velocity and pressure profiles, obtained from the 2-D
CFD analysis, are employed to calculate the benefits or drawbacks of boundary layer ingestion for the proposed inlet
configurations. The power input, the pressure recovery, and the propulsive, thermal, and overall efficiency have been
defined as figures of merit to assess the five inlet topologies and select the one that provides the highest aerodynamic
and propulsive performance.

Multi-platform CFD module It incorporates two powerful CFD tools: ANSYS Fluent for the 2-D analysis and
OpenFoam for the 3-D approach. This multi-platform tool has been developed and tested previously by the authors, which
have written scripts to automate the mesh generation, the simulation process, and the data analysis, taking advantage
of the scripting capabilities of each software. The inputs of this module are: the geometry and the structured-mesh

4
(provided by the geometric module) and the flight conditions (i.e. Mach and Reynolds number). For both, the 2-D CFD
analysis and the 3-D CFD approach, the drag polars, the pressure distribution and the velocity flow field are computed.
For the sake of simplicity and to keep organized the models the aero-propulsive evaluation has been developed from
two main perspectives: I) a multi-fidelity 2-D analysis and II) a high-fidelity 3-D approach.

A. BLI assessment: 2-D multi-fidelity

The 2-D multi-fidelity assessment enables to determine rapidly but accurately the aerodynamic and propulsive
characteristics of the five inlet configurations embedded in the UAV airframe. The multi-fidelity analysis comprises:
the parameterization of the inlet topologies, the 2-D CFD simulation of the propulsion-airframe integration, and the
thermodynamic assessment of the BLI configurations.

Parameterization of the inlet configurations The parameterization of the inlet geometry is based on Ref. [23],
which presents a parameterization approach of S-shaped ducts as function of the outer diameter of the propulsor, Table 2
and Figure 4 illustrate this non-dimensional approach, which has been tested numerically and experimentally (S-shaped
duct embedded in a flat plate) at different Reynolds and Mach numbers (in the subsonic regime). In the present work,
the power plant consists on a set of electric ducted fans embedded in the UAV airframe; therefore, the inner diameter of
the duct (diameter of the fan plus the tip clearance) is employed for the parameterization of the S-shaped ducts. In
addition, a typical NACA 1 nacelle, embedded in the UAV airframe, has been evaluated. The parameterization of the
NACA 1 nacelle also depends on the inner diameter of the duct, as depicted in Table 3 and Figure 5.

Fig. 4 Dimensionless parameterization of S-shaped ducts [23]

Table 2 Dimensionless parameters for S-shape ducts sizing [23]

Parameter Inlet A Inlet B Inlet C Inlet D

Lnacelle /Dfan 3.144 3.144 3.139 3.139
a/Dfan 0.195 0.269 0.143 0.174
∆H/Lnacelle 0.330 0.330 0.314 0.314
A2 /Ai 1.070 1.070 1.057 1.057
Wi /2 Hi 0.95 0.95 1.420 1.420
a/b 2 3 2 3

5
 Parameter Value
D/L 0.2000
r/R 0.0143
l/L 0.1238
Dfan /D 0.5360
Table 3 Parameterization of NACA 1
Fig. 5 Parameterization of a NACA 1 nacelle

2-D CFD simulation This study permits to determine the characteristics of the flow captured by the BLI propulsion
system using a high fidelity tool. The 2-D CFD study enables to assess rapidly & accurately the aerodynamic performance
of the five inlet configurations, since the evaluation is performed individually for the centered propulsor and the
distributed propulsors. The 2-D geometry and the structured mesh of the five inlet topologies embedded in the BWB
airframe were generated in the geometric module. For this, the cross section of the clean configuration of the UAV
airframe (Figure 2) was intersected with the bi-dimensional shape of the S-shape duct topologies. Then, the mesh was
generated automatically in the geometric module, using the software ICEM. Figure 6 depicts the mesh generation,
the refinement zones, and the mesh adaptation to the S-shaped duct. A refinement block was defined around the BLI
propulsor in order to capture the boundary layer and the viscous effects. The k − ω SST turbulence model was employed
to run the numerical simulation in the software ANSYS FLUENT 18.1. Finally, the 2-D CFD study provides the the
pressure and velocity profiles for the centered and distributed propulsors, for subsequent analysis in the propulsion
module.

Fig. 6 2D Structured Mesh for the aerodynamic evaluation of BLI using CFD

6
B. Thermodynamic study: Analytical approach
The present thermodynamic model is based on the inner control volume approach, similar to a previous work that
addressed the implementation of BLI and distributed propulsion in small and medium UAVs [14]. Unlike that previous
work, the calculation of the averaged values of velocity and total pressure relies on the high-fidelity results provided by
the 2-D CFD module. Figure 7 presents the stations defined for the inner control volume approach, the pre-compression
zone is not included in this approach due to the complexity of establishing the flow characteristics in this zone. The
thermodynamic model requires the flow properties ((Cp ) , (Cv ) , (R) , γ), calculated for the given flight conditions. The
following assumptions have been included in the model: ideal gas conditions, adiabatic process, and duct losses are
negligible.
For all reference stations, the Mach number (Mai ), the flow velocity (Vi ), and the static/total pressure and temperature
(ti , Ti , pi , Pi ) are determined using equations 1 to 4, respectively. Station 0 corresponds to the free stream conditions,
where the Mach number, the static pressure, and the static temperature are well defined. Station 1 corresponds to the
propulsor inlet, station 2 makes reference to the fan face, and station 3 coincides with the fan flow exit. The values
of p1 p2 and V1 V2 are obtained from the 2D-CFD tool. Due to the assumption of adiabatic process, there is no heat
addition between stations 0 − 1; therefore, T2 = T1 = T0 . Considering this study does not consider the interaction of
the flow with the turbo-machinery, the addition of mechanical work between stations 2 − 3 is modelled only with the
Fan Pressure ratio (FPR) that ranges from 1.1 to 1.15 , these values area typical for ducted fan propulsors [24]. At
station 3, P3 and T3 are calculated with equation 5. Due to the subsonic flight conditions and under the assumption of
duct losses to be negligible, the properties of station j are equal to the flow properties at station 3.

Fig. 7 Inner control volume formulation: EDFs embedded into the UAV airframe

Vi
ai = γ R ti ; Mi =
p
(1)
ai
γ−1 2
Ti = ti (1 + Mi ) (2)
2
γ−1 γ
Pi = pi (1 + Ma2 ) γ−1 (3)
2

ti V2
=1− i (4)
Ti 2 CP
1 γ−1 P3
T3 = T2 (1 + (FPR γ − 1)) ; where : FPR = (5)
η f an P2
The power input to generate the thrust required (stations 2 − 3) is calculated with equation 6. To account the
benefits of BLI in terms of power consumption, the propulsive efficiency, the thermal efficiency, the power input, and
the pressure recovery have been established as figures of merit to compare the aerodynamic and propulsive performance
of the five inlet configurations assessed in this work. Equations 7 and 8 are employed to calculate the propulsive
efficiency and the thermal efficiency, respectively. Whilst equation 9 allows to determine the pressure recovery at the
inlet [25]. After the 2-D CFD analysis and the thermodynamic assessment, the inlet configuration that provides the
better aerodynamic and propulsive performance is selected for the subsequent three-dimensional aerodynamic evaluation
using a high fidelity CFD tool.
P = mÛ Cp (T3 − T2 ) (6)

7
 2
ηp = V3 V2
(7)
V0 + V0

V32 − V02
ηth = mÛ (8)
2P
P2
ηinlet = (9)
P1

C. CFD study of BLI: 3D approach

In this stage, the 3D configuration of the best aero-propulsive configuration (previously selected) is assessed through
a high-fidelity CFD simulation. In this way, the UAV airframe with three embedded propulsors, as well as the C-type
flow domain, were designed in the geometric module, using the commercial CAD software SOLIDWORKS. Afterwards,
a substract boolean operation between the flow-field and the UAV architecture was performed to create a single solid.
The resulting 3D configuration was exported to the BlockMesh module to split the flow-field in blocks. Then, these
data were exported to the SnappyHexMesh module in order to refine specific zones of interest and to set the hexaedral
mesh parameters. As can be seen in Figure 8, interest zones in the structured mesh, like the propulsors’ inlets, were
carefully refined in order to capture the boundary layer and the viscous effects caused by the stream-flow. The wall
layers’ behavior, as well as their number, was established to assure that the Y + < 1 be less than one. Finally, the numeric
solver SIMPLEC (Semi implicit method of pressure linked equation consistent) was defined to solving the Reynolds
Average Navier-Stokes equations and the k − ω SST turbulence model was employed in the OpenFOAM environment to
characterize both pressure and velocity fields [26]. The boundary conditions of this CFD simulation are described in
Table 4.
C-grid Topology Mesh refinement around Refinement box around
(blockMesh) the UAV airframe the propulsor

Mesh refinement inside Mesh refinement around

the S-duct the S-duct
UAV (half-view)

Fig. 8 3D Hybrid mesh build up using Block-Mesh and SnappyHexMesh

8
 Table 4 Boundary conditions for the numerical simulation

Parameter Value
Inlet velocity [m/s] 27.4
Setting angle [deg] 1.54
Pressure outlet Pa 0
Tur bkE a 4.49x10-6
Tur bOmega b 1.78
a Kinetic turbulence energy at inlet
b Uniform specific dissipation rate at inlet

IV. Results and discussion

A. BLI assessment: 2-D multi-fidelity

As mentioned before, BLI has been extensively evaluated for implementation in large transport aircraft at high
Reynolds and Mach numbers (high subsonic and transonic Mach numbers). Unlike those works, the present study
evaluated the effects of the aero-propulsive integration of a BLI propulsion system in medium and electric-powered
UAVs at really low Reynolds and Mach numbers, corresponding to the cruise condition of a typical surveillance mission
using UAVs. The study focused on evaluating the aero-propulsive effects of embedding the propulsors in the UAV
airframe. Following, the results of the propulsion-airframe integration for the five inlet topologies are presented

Parameterization of the inlet configuration Table 5 summarizes the sizing of four S-shaped ducts, according to the
parameterization approach presented before. The dimensions are quite similar; however, the slight variations produce
significant changes in the aerodynamic and propulsive behaviour of these inlet configurations, as presented below. The
results remarks the importance of the accurate design of the duct for boundary layer ingestion purposes.

Table 5 S-shape duct sizing for the present case of study

Parameter Inlet A Inlet B Inlet C Inlet D

Lnacelle [cm] 40.87 40.87 40.80 40.80
Lnacelle + a [cm] 43.50 44.36 42.65 43.06
a [cm] 2.53 3.49 1.85 2.25
b [cm] 1.26 1.16 0.92 0.75
Hi [cm] 9.04 9.04 7.46 7.46
∆H [cm] 8.10 8.10 7.70 7.70
Wi [cm] 17.25 17.25 21.13 21.13
D f an [cm] 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0

2-D CFD simulation This section discuss how boundary layer ingestion affects the aerodynamic performance of the
UAV. In order to establish a baseline for comparison, the clean airframe configuration was also assessed. Figure 9
presents the 2-D aerodynamic coefficients Cl and Cd for the five inlet topologies and the clean UAV airframe for both
the centered propulsor (Figure 9a) and the distributed propulsor (Figure 9b).
For the centered propulsor (Figure 9a), inlets C and D increases notably the drag coefficient (49% and 47%,
respectively), compared with the clean UAV airframe. Inlets A and B also increase the drag coefficient; however, the
increase is lower compared with inlets C and D. The difference in the percentage of increase is due to the geometry of
the leading edge of the inlet. Inlets A and B present a thicker leading edge, while inlets C and D depict a thinner leading
edge. This phenomena makes the pressure drop to be higher for inlets C and D and slightly lower for inlets A and B. In
what respect to the 2-D lift coefficient, the integration of the S-shaped ducts decreases slightly the total lift coefficient.
Similarly to the drag coefficient, inlets C and D generates the highest variation. In what concerns to the NACA 1 nacelle,

9
the installation of this inlet topology does not generate significant changes in the aerodynamic performance of the UAV,
this is because the NACA 1 nacelle is not fully embedded in the airframe;and produces less deflection in the incoming
flow as can be observed in the 2D analysis, unlike S-shaped ducts; where the flow separation effect is more meaningful
compared with the NACA 1 nacelle. For the distributed propulsor (Figure 9b), all the S-shaped duct configurations
affects negatively to the aerodynamics of the UAV, similar to the centered propulsor. In this case, the NACA 1 nacelle is
the inlet topology that produces the larger reduction in the lift coefficient; however, this is the best configuration in terms
of drag increase, since the variation is not significant.

(a)

0.58 0.017

0.54 0.015

Cl 0.50 0.013 Cd
0.46 0.011

0.42 0.009
Clean UAV

NACA 1
INLET B

INLETD
INLET C
INLET A
airframe

(b)

Fig. 9 2-D aerodynamic coefficients for the five inlet topologies compared with the clean airframe configuration

Figures 10 present the velocity contours for the centered. In this case, inlets C and D produce flow separation inside
the duct, this is because of the sudden geometric transition between the upper surface of the airfoil section and the
lower-inner surface of the S-shaped ducts. Inlets A and B also generates flow separation; however, the effect of this
phenomena is less significant compared with inlets C and D. When comparing the five inlet configurations, the NACA 1
nacelle appears as the best inlet topology from the aerodynamic perspective. In 10, it is appreciated the NACA 1 nacelle
generates a more uniform flow field inside the duct; which could be beneficial for the performance of the BLI propulsor.
A similar behaviour has been encountered for the distributed propulsor, for this case, NACA 1 nacelle also present
the best aerodynamic performance, while inlets C and D present the inferior aerodynamic characteristics. Finally, the
velocity flow-fields, depicted in Figure 10, are employed in the parametric thermodynamic module to compute the
effects of boundary layer ingestion in medium and electric-powered UAVs.

10
 Velocidad (m/s)

INLET A
45

40

INLET B
35

30

INLET C
25

20

INLET D
15

10

INLET NACA1
5

0.0

Fig. 10 2D velocity flow field for the centered propulsor

Thermodynamic study: Analytical approach This section discusses the propulsive effects of integrating a BLI
propulsion system in the UAV airframe. For this, the power input, the thermal efficiency, the propulsive efficiency, and
the total pressure recovery have been defined as figures of merit. For all these figures of merit, inlets C and D present
the best propulsive performance. They require less power to generate the thrust required and present the highest thermal
and propulsive efficiency. This is because the averaged values of the velocity profiles for this two configurations are
higher than the ones encountered for inlets A and B. In the propulsive analysis, NACA 1 nacelle presents the inferior
performance, since the averaged value of the velocity flow-field inside the duct is lower compared with the S-shaped
duct configurations. A similar behaviour has been encountered for the distributed propulsor, where inlets C and D also
provide the higher values of propulsive efficiency and pressure recovery. That is inlets C and D provide more benefits of
boundary layer ingestion compared with inlets A and B and with the NACA 1 nacelle. In order to select the best inlet
configuration, the Mean Weighted Residuals (MWR) approach was employed. Table 6 presents the operating point
that provides the best performance of each inlet configuration. In this table, it can be appreciated that the lowest fan
pressure ratio for all the inlet topologies is FPR = 1.01. Table 7 presents the selection criteria and the ponderation of
the MWR approach employed to select the best inlet configuration, taking into account the propulsive benefits but also
the aerodynamic effects. From this analysis, it was found that inlet A provides a balanced performance in terms of
aerodynamics and propulsion.

11
 Power input Thermal efficiency
0.45 1.0

0.8
0.35

0.6
inlet A
0.25 inlet B

n th [-]
P [W]

0.4 inlet C
inlet D
NACA 1
0.15 0.2

0.0
0.05

0 -0.2
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1 1.05 1.1 1.15
FPR FPR

Propulsive efficiency *10^-3 Total pressure recovery

1.4 1002

1.2 1000

1.0 998
Ninlet [-]
n p [-]

0.8 996

0.6 994

0.4 992

0.2 990
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 0 1 2 3 4
FPR FPR

Fig. 11 Results: power input, thermal efficiency, propulsive efficiency and total pressure recovery for the central chord

Table 6 Best performance for each inlet

12
 Table 7 Mean Weighted Residuals for the selection of the inlet

B. CFD study of BLI: 3D approach

A mesh independence study was conducted to determine the number of cells where both residuals and aerodynamic
coefficients converge. It was determined that results are mesh-independent from 12 million cells. Although the wall Y +
parameter was monitored to be less than 1 in the ducts, non-relevant surfaces were not exhaustively refined to optimize
the computational power and a Y + value between 50 to 500 was considered acceptable.

Velocity distribution in the propulsors The axial velocity distribution in the middle section of central and side
propulsors were monitored by employing cutting planes in the post-processing stage. The results depicted in Figure 12
demonstrate that the velocity in the radial direction does not vary significantly and hence, the radial flow distortion
is not considerable as in transport aircraft, which operate at higher Reynolds and Mach numbers. Note that, in the
side propulsor, a stronger separation effect in the downstream section of the duct is expected because the transverse
component of the velocity is greater near the wing tips.

Fig. 12 Velocity contours over the center and distributed propulsor middles chords

Aircraft pressure contours Figure 13 shows the pressure distribution in both upper and lower surface. As expected,
the lower surface present greater pressure which means that the aircraft is producing lift by itself. Moreover, a lower
pressure zone is distinguished in the upper face of the wing (leading edge section) which means that an elliptical
distribution of lift is expected and lateral stability is assured. It is important to highlight that the duct installation did not

13
create a significant disturbance with respect to the pressure distribution and thus, the aircraft aerodynamic performance
is not greatly affected.

Pressure [Pa] Upper surface Lower surface

7.033e+04
70247

70107

669967

669828
66.977e+04

Fig. 13 Pressure contours over the BWB airframe

Inlet pressure distribution The pressure distribution over the inlets, which is shown in Figure 14, illustrates that the
incoming flow is pre-compressed on the internal surface of the internal nacelle lip. This in turn, makes that velocity
increments and experience an accommodation in the downstream section of the duct.

Pressure [Pa]
7.033e+04
7

70247
7

70107
7

69967
6

69828
6
6.977e+04
6

Fig. 14 Pressure distribution on the inlets of ingested nacelles

Total pressure recovery As can be seen in Figure 15, the central duct presents a symmetrical pressure distribution,
but a high-pressure zone can be distinguished on the upper part of the duct. Nonetheless, the total pressure is recuperated
in a considerable range [0.9966-1] which implies that these kind of ducts are feasible for low Reynolds applications
as the UAVs case. Regarding the side propulsor, note that the pressure contours are not axi-symmetric because the
transverse component of the flow velocity is stronger in this zone due to the tip vortex effect. However, this duct present
a more-uniform pressure distribution which means that the employed turbomachinery could work more efficiently. The
results estimated through numerical simulations are in accordance with the simplified two-dimensional model with a
maximum difference of 20%.

14
 Upper wall
Pt2/Pt0
1.000e+00 High pressure
zone

00.99843

00.99656

00.99468

99.928e-01 Bottom wall

a) Central chord b) Distributed Chord

Fig. 15 Pressure contours over a cross-section of center and side nacelles

V. Conclusions
A conceptual multifidelity study regarding the boundary layer ingestion with distributed propulsion technology
applied to medium BWB UAVs was carried out. For this purpose, a combination between two and three dimensional
assessments was employed. In the 2D approach, three prospective duct architectures were evaluated through moderate-
fidelity CFD simulations in order to select the best configuration. This allowed to estimate the average speed at different
duct stations to perform a parametric thermodynamic analysis, which showed that ducts installation is feasible for
low Reynolds and Mach numbers as the UAVs case. Afterwards, a high-fidelity three-dimensional CFD simulation
was accomplished in OpenFOAM to corroborate the results obtained in the 2D modelling. For this aim, a structured
hexaedric mesh was created in Block-Mesh and refined in SnappyMesh, where quality and orthogonality parameters
were monitored. These mesh-generator tools were preferred because of their suitability and versatility to work with
complicated geometries. Moreover, results obtained from the two and three dimensional approaches differs in a
maximum value of 20% which means that moderate-fidelity CFD simulations can be used in iterative design processes
that are characteristics of early design stages. Both methods show agreement with previous studies performed in the
civil aviation field and demonstrated that pressure recuperation in embedded ducts is achievable at low Reynolds flow
regimes. Therefore, this study pave the way to future studies that involve refined geometries (considering pylons and
other structures) and experimental assessments in wind tunnels.

Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by Escuela Politécnica Nacional for the
development of the research projects: PIMI 15-03 and PIMI 18-01.

References
[1] Bruner, S., Baber, S., Harris, C., Caldwell, N., Keding, P., Rahrig, K., Pho, L., and Wlezian, R., “NASA N+ 3 Subsonic Fixed
Wing Silent Efficient Low-Emissions Commercial Transport (SELECT) Vehicle Study. Revision A,” 2010.
[2] Ashcraft, S. W., Padron, A. S., Pascioni, K. A., Stout Jr, G. W., and Huff, D. L., “Review of propulsion technologies for N+ 3
subsonic vehicle concepts,” , No. October 2011, 2011.
[3] Abbas, A., De Vicente, J., and Valero, E., “Aerodynamic technologies to improve aircraft performance,” Aerospace Science and
Technology, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2013, pp. 100–132. doi:10.1016/j.ast.2012.10.008, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.
2012.10.008.
[4] Uranga, A., Drela, M., Greitzer, E., Titchener, N., Lieu, M., Siu, N., Huang, A., Gatlin, G. M., and Hannon, J., “Preliminary
Experimental Assessment of the Boundary Layer Ingestion Benefit for the D8 Aircraft,” 52nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting,
2014, p. 906.

15
 [5] Sehra, A. K., and Whitlow, W., “Propulsion and power for 21st century aviation,” Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 40, No.
4-5, 2004, pp. 199–235. doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2004.06.003.

[6] Sabo, K. M., and Drela, M., “Benefits of Boundary Layer Ingestion Propulsion,” , No. January, 2015, pp. 1–14. doi:
10.2514/6.2015-1667.

[7] Plas, A., Sargeant, M., Madani, V., Crichton, D., Greitzer, E., Hynes, T., and Hall, C., “Performance of a Boundary Layer
Ingesting (BLI) Propulsion System,” 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA, Reno, Nevada, 2007, p. none.

[8] Anabtawi, A., Blackwelder, R., Lissaman, P., and Liebeck, R., “An experimental investigation of boundary layer ingestion in a
diffusing S-duct with and without passive flow control,” 37th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 1999, p. 739.

[9] L, C., “Turboelectric distributed propulsion system modelling,” ????

[10] Felder, J., Kim, H., and Brown, G., “Turboelectric Distributed Propulsion Engine Cycle Analysis for Hybrid-Wing-Body
Aircraft,” 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including The New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, , No. January,
2009, pp. 1–25. doi:10.2514/6.2009-1132, URL http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2009-1132.

[11] Kim, H., “Distributed Propulsion Vehicles,” 27th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, ICAS, Nice, France,
2010, p. none.

[12] et al Goldberg Chana, “Installed performance assessment of a boundary layer ingesting distributed propulsion system at design
point.” 2016.

[13] Rodriguez David, L., “A multidisciplinary optimization method for designing boundary layer ingesting inlets.” 2009.

[14] Valencia, E., Saá, J. M., Alulema, V., and Hidalgo, V., “Parametric study of aerodynamic integration issues in highly coupled
Blended Wing Body configurations implemented in UAVs,” 2018, pp. 1–15.

[15] Cousins, W., Dmytro, V., Tillman, G., and Gray, E., “Design of a Distortion-Tolerant Fan for a Boundary-Layer Ingesting
Embedded Engine Application,” , No. July, 2017, pp. 1–11. doi:10.2514/6.2017-5042.

[16] Florea, R. V., Voytovych, D., Tillman, G., Stucky, M., Shabbir, A., Sharma, O., and Arend, D. J., “Aerodynamic Analysis of a
Boundary-Layer-Ingesting Distortion-Tolerant Fan,” 2013, p. V06BT38A006. doi:10.1115/gt2013-94656.

[17] Perovic, D., “Distortion Tolerant Fan Design,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, 2019. URL https://www.repository.
cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/292447.

[18] Bakhle, M. A., Reddy, T., Herrick, G., Shabbir, A., and Florea, R., “Aeromechanics Analysis of a Boundary Layer Ingesting
Fan,” , No. August, 2012, pp. 1–12.

[19] Pokhrel, M., Shi, M., Ahuja, J., Gladin, J., and Mavris, D. N., “Conceptual Design of a BLI Propulsor Capturing Aero-Propulsive
Coupling and Distortion Impacts,” , No. January, 2019, pp. 1–13. doi:10.2514/6.2019-1588.

[20] Gorton, S., Owens, L., Jenkins, L., Allan, B., and Schuster, E., “Active flow control on a boundary-layer-ingesting inlet,” 42nd
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 2004, p. 1203.

[21] Ma, Y., Zhang, W., Zhang, Y., Li, K., and Wang, Y., “Effects of distributed propulsion crucial variables on aerodynamic
and propulsive performance of small UAV,” Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, Vol. 459, Springer Verlag, 2019, pp.
1535–1550. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-3305-7_123.

[22] Valencia, E. A., Alulema, V. H., and Hidalgo, V. H., “Weight assessment for a blended wing Body-Unmanned aerial vehicle
implementing boundary layer ingestion,” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. 383, No. 1, 2018.
doi:10.1088/1757-899X/383/1/012068.

[23] Berrier, B. L., Carter, M. B., and Allan, B. G., “High Reynolds number investigation of a flush-mounted, S-duct inlet with large
amounts of boundary layer ingestion,” 2005.

[24] Sadraey, M. H., Aircraft design: A systems engineering approach, John Wiley & Sons, 2012.

[25] Hill, P. G., and Peterson, C. R., “Mechanics and thermodynamics of propulsion,” Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.,
1992, 764 p., 1992.

[26] Holzinger, G., “OpenFOAM–a Little User-Manual,” CD-Laboratory-Particulate Flow Modelling Johannes Keplper University,
Linz, Austria, 2015.

16