Design point analysis of a distributed propulsion

system with boundary layer ingestion implemented in

UAVs for agriculture in the Andean region
Esteban Valencia

Marco Benalcazar

Juan Manuel Saa

Nicolas Magne
Escuela Politecnica Nacional, Departamento de Ingeniera Mec
anica, Quito,Ecuador, 17-01-259

Victor Hidalgo
Tsinghua University, State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and engineering, 100084, Beijing, China
The numerous applications that unmanned aerial vehicles present for the agricultural
and medical sectors have motivated the assessment of more efficient concepts, which can
enhance their payload and range. In this context, alternative propulsion concepts which
present higher synergy with current power energy systems have been studied. Two concepts
well documented and explored are boundary layer ingestion and distributed propulsion system. In this work, the performance of a baseline unmanned aerial vehicle for agricultural
applications using the aforementioned technologies is studied. The study has focused to
define the design space for this type of aerial vehicles and capture performance trends
which can help to define the suitability of these technologies. For this study, a parametric
model for the propulsion system has been implemented taking into account the detrimental
performance effects due to BLI and intake pressure losses. To assess the suitability of these
technologies, the power consumption and boundary layer characteristics at propulsors intake have been studied. The study case is defined for the Andean region which is 3000 m
above sea level. Preliminary results show that BLI does not present representative benefits compared with its installation complexities. However, distributed propulsion and the
implementation of thrust split between electric ducted fans showed potential opportunities
in the development of novel unmanned aerial concepts.

Nomenclature
BLI
DP
U AS
BW B
CL
CD
CDo
S
M
Re
r
R

Boundary Layer Ingestion

Distributed Propulsion/Design Point
Unmanned Aerial System
Blended Wing Body
Lift Coefficient
Drag Coefficient
Zero Lift Drag Coefficient
Reference Area
Mach Number
Reynolds Number
Ratio of specific heats for air
Gas constant for air

Associate

Professor, Corresponding author Email: esteban.valencia@epn.edu.ec

Professor at EPN
Research assistant at Escuela Polit
ecnica Nacional
Research assistant at Escuela Polit
ecnica Nacional
Associate Professor at EPN, PhD researcher at Tsinghua University
Auxiliar

1 of 17
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

AR
Aspect Ratio
e
Wing Span Efficiency
b
Wing Span

Air Density
t
Static temperature
T
Total temperature
p
Static pressure
P
Total pressure
m

Mass flow
Cp
Air specific heat
CDE Drag coefficient for the best endurance
CLE Lift coefficient for the best endurance
f
Fan efficiency
Pin Pressure losses at the intake
FN
Thrust required
PW
Power required
TQ
Torque required

Boundary layer thickness, dimensionless correction for temperature

Dimensionless correction for pressure

p
Propulsive efficiency
Vinf ty Air velocity at the intake
Vj
Air velocity at the exit fan
ESC Electronic speed controller
P Wesc Electronic speed controller power
P Wm Electric motor power
P Wcom Communication power
P WC Communication power
GP S Global position system
IM U Inertial measurement unit

I.

Introduction

During the last decades, small unmanned aerial systems (sUAS) have been implemented in a wide range
of industrial sectors. The technological breakthroughs that have been achieved in autonomous systems have
contributed to the enhancement and technification of agricultural and cartographic sectors. For instance,
the implementation of these technological solutions are expected to generate nearly 80% out of an 82 billion
USD market due to new highly-skilled jobs, tax revenue and market share.3 Furthermore, it is expected
to represent a big economic and job generation impact for the U.S. economy. For instance, for the period
2015-2025, 103 776 new jobs are expected to be generated.1
The Ecuadorian economy is largely based on oil and agriculture sectors. Its variety of climate conditions
produces large areas of cultivable land, from the coast to the Andean region. The altitude at which machinery and devices have to operate make this latter a challenging case of study for precision agriculture.
Furthermore, the complex geographical characteristics of the Andean region make difficult and very expensive to explore them for geomatics and others applications. These reasons have encouraged the searching of
novel platforms for precision agriculture, where the improvements in terms of performance translates to an
increment in the effectiveness of the processes. In this context, sUAS have demonstrated to be an important
tool for precision agriculture and geomatics. This is mainly due to their versatility and capability of monitoring large areas, with relative low costs in comparison with other alternatives as manned aerial vehicles or
satellites.
The propulsion system is the core of an aerial powered system. Therefore, its improvement is a major
task, where different technologies and concepts converge. This trend is not an exception for sUAS, as more
efficient propulsion systems contribute directly to increment payload weight and endurance, which as result
reduces direct and indirect operating costs.
This work explores the performance of a sUAS concept implementing novel features such as: BWB air-

2 of 17
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

frame, distributed propulsion and BLI . Therefore, this work has utilized a parametric approach to assess their
effect in propulsion performance. Additionally, the concept of thrust split for electric propulsion has been
implemented as a design space variables, which enables to assess different propulsion array configurations.
A.

Aerodynamic Assessment

The Blended Wing Body is an airframe that combines different airfoils not only for the wings, as a conventional airplane, but for the center body as well. Thus, it generates lift throughout the whole airframe,
not only on the wings.16 This concept has been studied, by NASA and BOEING, as an alternative to
the typical tube-and-wings configuration for massive transport obtaining a working prototype in 2007: the
X-48B.7, 20 Figure 1 shows a perspective of these aircraft and a comparative lift/load distribution of BWB
an a tube-wing configuration.16

(a) The X-48-B airframe.7

(b) Lift and load comparison between a conventional aircraft and a

BWB.16
Figure 1. Airframe assessment

The studies performed by BOEING showed 15% reduction in TOW (take-off weight), with 27% reduction
in energetic consumption for a BWB subsonic transport for 800 passengers.16 These milestones were achieved
due to the superior aerodynamic characteristics of the BWB. This is because of the fact that there are better
lift distribution along the airframe as shown illustratively in figure 1 (b).
The X-48B was a prototype developed to assess the suitability of BWB configurations in civil aviation7
and hence, there are a large amount of research regarding the benefits of this alternative airframe configuration. This has been developed to operate at high Reynolds and Mach numbers (Re > 2 106 and M > 0.5).
These operating conditions made it difficult to utilize it for the current study, where the Mach number
oscillates between 0.1 to 0.3. Another interesting study due to the extensive experimental and simulations
results for BWB configurations is the one presented by Choi.6 In this study, a multidisciplinary study of
a Combat Air Vehicle System is carried out and development of methods in a multidisciplinary framework
are assessed. The different applications of the aircraft concepts made the previous study not suitable for
this work. Although both of the aforementioned works are implemented in different aviation sectors, the
suitability and performance benefits of BWB in terms of volumetric efficiency and aerodynamic performance
predicted by Liebeck16 are highlighted.
One of the most compatible studies for sUAS is the one developed in the University of Sao Paulo.9
In this work, different configurations have been documented using wingtip devices on non-conventional
configuration BWB. This study highlights the benefits of their implementation in sUAS. Another interesting
work regarding sUAS is the one developed by UiTM,30 where an experimental analysis of two BWB baseline
concepts running at 0.1 Mach number were carried out. Since the information regarding both concepts
was extensive and available in the open domain, the baseline I concept was selected as baseline airframe
configuration in this work. This was done because of the similar operating conditions to our study case
(M = 0.1, V = 35m/s). In figure 2 the baseline I configuration can be observed.
B.

Propulsion System

Alternative propulsion features have been assessed for the BWB airframe with distributed propulsion. This
was done with the goal of improving the payload and endurance for its implementation in the agricultural
sector. Regarding these features, this work focuses mainly on distributed propulsion, BLI and thrust split.
These three features have been explored extensively for civil aviation.15, 17, 26 However, in the case of sUAS

3 of 17
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 2. The Baseline-I airframe.30

which mainly use electrical power systems and its size is constrained by their application, the suitability of
these features have not been analyzed.
1.

Distributed Propulsion

Distributed propulsion (DP) systems with boundary layer ingestion (BLI) have been explored and documented extensively because of its potential benefits in terms of propulsive efficiency and energy consumption.5, 11, 26 Distributed propulsion has been defined by H. Kim14 as the spanwise distribution of the propulsive thrust stream in order to maximize the overall vehicle benefits in terms of aerodynamic,propulsive,
structural, and/or other efficiencies. From the performance perspective, replacing the fans from the main
engines by a propulsor arrangement enables to achieve very high by pass ratios, without the fan size limitation.14 Analogously to turbofan engines, the increment in by pass ratio and hence larger amount of by pass
air in the distributed propulsors contributes to improve the propulsive efficiency.29
The aforementioned distributed propulsion aspects have been studied for gas turbines driven by distributed fans. However, in the current study case, the electrical power system drives electric ducted fans
and hence the performance benefits expected will arise from: the aerodynamic characteristics due to reduction in drag installation losses, structural benefits due to better load distribution along the airframe,
safety/reliability due to a large number of independent propulsors, enabling the incorporation of thrust split
and finally, make more attractive the implementation of BLI. The latter will be further explained in the
results section regarding BLI assessment.
The present work analyses the performance of a distributed propulsion system for a BWB configuration
with a parametric method developed by Valencia E..28 This work investigated the effect of aerodynamic
integration effects in highly coupled configurations as distributed propulsion with BLI. In this context, intake
pressure losses and detrimental performance of the fans were assessed to define optimal configurations in
terms of power consumption. For the study case, the operating conditions are based on the implementation of
sUAS in the agricultural sector suitable for the Andean region (3000 m). Based on this optimal configurations
a conceptual design was developed based o electric ducted fans available in the market. It is important to
mention that because of availability the ducted fan and electrical engine combined set-up were selected for
each of the optimal configurations.
2.

Boundary layer ingestion (BLI) assessment

The implementation of BLI in sUAS has been observed due to the high synergies with distributed propulsion
and BWB airframe, as the propulsor array can be embedded into the airframe to suck large part of the
airframe boundary layer, as indicated in figure 3.

4 of 17
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

The ingestion of boundary layer, which presents a lower momentum drag represents benefits in terms of
propulsive efficiency and energy consumption. Furthermore, an embedded installation offers the opportunity
to swallow a substantial part of the centerbody boundary layer (15 % of the bare airframe drag) and allows
for a reduction in wetted area and structural weight because of the disappearance of pylons.19 Nevertheless,
BLI also brings some challenges, specifically aerodynamic integration aspects, which are related to the intake
pressure losses and fan performance detriment due to distortion.27 The intake pressure losses are linked to the
complex duct design that embedded installations require. On the other hand, the fan performance detriment
is related to the combined radial and circumferential distortion caused by BLI. Distributed propulsion systems
with BLI could bring a 15 % fuel burn saving relative to todays aircraft.4, 10 Lynch18 predicted a 3 %
improvement in propulsive efficiency accompanied by a 6-10 % decrease in maximum engine thrust.22
The present work intends to assess using a parametric model the suitability of implementing BLI in
sUAS. In this work the implementation of these two technologies has been studied. Since the performance
benefits of these technologies are related with the levels of flow distortion (detriment in fan performance)
and intake pressure losses, these aspects are included in the analysis. For this, the method utilized Valencia
E.28 is adapted for sUAS.
3.

Thrust Split

Thrust split is defined as the ratio of propulsor array thrust over the intrinsic net thrust.28 Therefore, it
includes another design parameter, which enables the searching of novel propulsion architectures. In this
context, thrust split could bring benefits in different areas such as: structural design, control system, stability
and reliability. Similarly to distributed propulsion thrust split could benefit the UAS design by reducing
the size of the distributed propulsor array and hence improve loading distribution in the structural design.
For instance, to avoid excessive weight loads at the wing tips, thrust split could be used to define a main
electric ducted fan at the body centerline, which produces a large part of the thrust, which could be useful
in one engine off scenarios. An illustrative conceptual configuration for thrust split configurations is shown
in Figure 3. In the results section a conceptual configuration with 75% thrust split is analyzed.

Figure 3. Thrust split diagram

C.

Electrical System

For sUAS usually electrical power systems are implemented and in this cases energy source are batteries.
The battery distributes the energy in: motors (80%), microcontroller (5%), and Communication (15%).12 In
figure 4 a schematic representation of these system is presented. Since the electrical system is fundamental in
UAS, their selection must to be coupled with the propulsion system design. In order to select the electrical
system architecture, the optimal propulsion configuration based on the propulsion performance is used as
baseline. Over this propulsion system the electric motor, electronic speed control, and power supply are
determined. For this aim, the propellers and electrical motor are selected based on the requirement for
the propulsion design, and the electronic speed control and the power supply of the system is determined
by the power consumption of the motor and the average time of operation. In this work, the operating
requirements have been considered to define a conceptual design, where the electrical system components
are selected based on their availability.

5 of 17
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

80%

100%

Battery

ESC

PWESC

Brushless
Motor

PWM

TQ

Propeller

5%

GPS/ IMU

Microcontroller
PWuC

PW COM

15%

Communication

Figure 4. Electrical System Methodology12

II.

Methodology

In this section the method utilized to assess the propulsion and aerodynamic performance of the sUAS
for precision agriculture is explained. In figure 5 a schematic representation of the calculation process
is presented and as indicated, the process can be summarized by the following calculation modules: i)
aerodynamic characteristics and operating conditions, ii) drag polars and aerodynamic forces at design point
(cruise or loitering phases), and iii) propulsion system performance.

Figure 5. Methodology for propulsion system performance assessment

A.

Operating conditions

The operating conditions for this study are shown in table 1. The low Mach number enables the use of
incompressible equations for the air calculations and the Reynolds number shows that the propulsor array
will be working with turbulent flow.
Table 1. Operating conditions

H (m)
3000

M
0.1

Re
1.8 106

The flight altitude for design point was selected considering that many cities in the Andean Region are
about 3000 meters above the sea level. Additionally, according to Ecuadorian drones policies, mobile devices
for monitoring must fly up to an altitude of 122 [m] above the ground level.8 It is important to mention
6 of 17
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

that in the specific case of Ecuador the capital Quito is at a height of 2800 m above sea level and fields on
the outskirts of the city are located at similar height, therefore the assumption of 3000 m is good enough for
this preliminary analysis.
B.

Aerodynamic modeling

The Blended-Wing-Body is the result of blending the fuselage and wing of a conventional aircraft into a sleeker
configuration that more closely resembles a flying wing with a large centerline chord. This revolutionary
design provides a significant improvement in overall performance when compared to a conventional design.21
The selected geometry, is the Baseline-I of the UiTM study,30 this design can be observed in figure 2
Table 2. Airframe data
2

S(m )
0.04652

b(m)
0.6

AR
7.74

For the Aerodynamic modeling, Xfoil was used to obtain drag polars for the centerline clean airfoil.
These were useful to characterize the boundary layer and calculate the aerodynamic characteristics. For this
preliminary analysis a two dimensional case was carried out and hence only the clean centerline airfoil was
used in the drag calculation.
For the analysis, the selected design point is at cruise condition, in this phase a quasi rectilinear non
accelerating flight was assumed and hence the thrust required can be assumed equal to the aircraft drag.
The lift was calculated based on the best endurance point and the drag was calculated based on it, as
mentioned by Gundlach13 the best endurance condition is the most recommended for these sort of aircraft.
As aforementioned, the drag calculated at this stage corresponded to the clean airframe, without considering
the drag from auxiliary components such as: wheels, cameras, antennas, compartment doors, wires, which
will be considered in future research. Several systems also were not considered at this stage of the research,
like the weight of the aircraft, the control system, materials, structure, among others. Although these are
important aspects, they are beyond the scope of the present research, where the development of tools for the
propulsion performance assessment of these alternative propulsion concepts was the aim. Part of the future
work is to increase the fidelity of the study by using the drag polars for the three dimensional airframe and
include these other systems in an overall framework. The data from table 3 were utilized to determine the
aircraft drag.
Table 3. Aerodynamic data

CDo
0.0268

CL
0.225

e
0.685

These data were obtained from the UiTM baseline I concept and with the following equations the drag
was determined.

CLE = CDo [(AR)(e)]1/2

CDE = CDo +
D = CDE

2
CLE
AR e
2
(V
)S
2

(1)
(2)
(3)

The location of the ducted fans and engines will be referential for the airframe selected, taken into account
a turbulent flow regime. The propulsor array was located close to the leading edge to increase the BL capture
height and to help with other potential features such as: thrust vectoring and stability. In figure 6 is shown
the illustrative location for the propulsor array.
7 of 17
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 6. Propulsor array location

C.

Propulsion system modeling

For the analysis of the propulsion system a parametric model based on the methodology presented by
E.Valencia26 is utilized. This method enables to define the design space for this aircraft concept and further
it enables to uncouple the assessment of the propulsion system from the airframe design. At this preliminary
design stage both systems are considered uncoupled and for the propulsion system assessment the power
consumption has been used as figure of merit.
1.

Distributed Propulsion System

For the assessment of the propulsion performance the parametric approach28 made several assumptions in
order to simplify the analysis. An inner control volume approach,22 which is shown in figure 7 was utilized
(the control volume encloses only the propulsor) for the calculation of the propulsors mass flow and power.
In this control volume the pre-compression zone was not considered and hence the inlet streamtube of the
control volume was assumed equal to the propulsor intake. Furthermore, the drag installation losses and
nacelle drag variation due to the propulsors size was not considered. Although this latter is important in
the propulsion performance assessment, at this stage of the preliminary design this effect was neglected. In
future work this feature will be implemented in the methodology, so the trends presented in this work can
be refined.

Figure 7. Inner control volume for the podded installation case

In order to calculate the fan inlet and outer diameter the present work assumed a hub to tip ratio of 0.056,
which is conventional for electric ducted fans.25 In table 4 the range of fan efficiencies and pressure losses
consedered in the analysis are shown, the minimum and maximum ranges for efficency have been defined
from catalagues, whilst for the intake pressure losses the intake studies from Rodriguez21 were utilized.
The parametric code developed calculates the different parameters for the height selected and then using
the drag calculated with the aerodynamic module based on the best endurance case. For the cruise condition
assumed drag equals to lift and hence the propulsors mass flow can be calculated.
The intake pressure losses is defined as follows

8 of 17
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Table 4. Propulsor performance variables

f
85% 95%

Pin
2% 6%

P2
(4)
P1
From the parametric propulsion module Power, Torque, Fan Diameter, and Mass Flow across the fan are
calculated.27 Then with this data the selection of fans and engines can be carried out. The mass flow is
calculated with the following expression
Pin = 1

m
f =

FN
Vj V

(5)

and the power per fan is calculated by

P Wf = Cp m
f T
2.

(6)

BLI assessment

When BLI is implemented, it is necessary to make some assumptions regarding the station where the intake
is assumed and how the drag bookeeping will be carried out. In this study to simplify the analysis the
inner control volume approach22, 26 is assumed, this approach only includes in the analysis the propulsor,
neglecting the airframe and its wake. The benefit of this method is that it uncouples the airframe and
propulsion design, as the drag ingested from the airframe is not included in the calculation. However to
include the performance benefits coming from BLI, the velocity profile of the flow ingested by the propulsor
is needed.
This velocity profile at the intake of the propulsor control volume defines the propulsors momentum drag
and hence the benefits accrued from BLI will be related to the reduction in inlet velocity. Based on this
premise, the parametric BLI assessment starts by defining the mass averaged velocity at the inlet station of
the propulsors control volume. For this aim is necessary also to define where the propulsors will be located.
For this work they are assumed to be embedded and using s-shaped ducts, such that the aircraft drag will
not be affected by the propulsor array design. Furthermore, it is assumed that the inlet of the propulsors
control volume is located at the same distance than in the podded case and only the centerline has been
assessed. Therefore the three dimensional (spanwise) variation of the boundary layer development has been
neglected. Analogously to the podded case the pre-compression zone is not considered and the intake height
is assumed equal to the height of the capture sheet (HCS ).28 In figure 8 is shown the control volume used
for the BLI case.

Figure 8. Inner control volume for the BLI configuration

For this work the boundary layer thickness () will be analyzed using the seventh power law and Xfoil,
and then will be compared with the diameter of the selected fan. If is very small compared with the
9 of 17
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

fan diameter, BLI will not represent any benefit, because the detriment in momentum drag due to BLI
will be very small and hence the improvement in performance accrued from it would be overweighted by
the aerodynamic integration effects26 . But if is comparable with the fan size, BLI benefits could be
representative and motivate its implementation in sUAS.
Based on the aforementioned assumptions the boundary layer thickness and velocity profile have been
defined using the seventh power law and Xfoil. The first approach is used to calculate the boundary layer
velocity profile assuming the airfoil as a flat plate, whilst the second approach is used to characterize the
boundary layer development over the centerline airfoil. In this context, part of the future work is the study
of the boundary layer behavior so the actual BL characteristics can be used in the propulsor performance
code.
In figure 9, the dimensionless velocity profile using the seventh power law is shown together with mass
averaged velocity value. To enhance the comparison in the y-axis, the height has been divided by the fan
diameter to make it dimensionless. As observed in this figure the reduction in mass averaged velocity at
the propulsor control volume inlet is very small compared with the capture sheet height that would be
related with the propulsor diameter. Hence using this parametric approach shows that the benefits of BLI
would be small and compared with the difficulties of its implementation (aerodynamic integration effects22 )
their suitability for these designs do not seem adequate. However, as mentioned in the results section
distributed propulsion and thrust split could make more attractive its implementation for low demanding
flight conditions.
Mass average BL profile
Seventh power law profile
BL thickness

y/Df

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

u/U

Figure 9. Velocity profile and mass averaged velocity

D.

Electrical System

In order to select an optimal configuration for the electrical systems, the propulsion configuration needs to
be determined. Therefore, the propulsion performance code feeds up the database module for the selection
of electrical components. After defining propellers power and torque, the electric motor, electronic speed
control, and the power supply are selected. The databse utilized has been based on market available components. In this project, the electric system has used a similar framework than the developed for a similar
sUAS.24 A well known problem is that electrical motors reduce their performance as altitude increases, hence
a safety margin (SM E = 1.2) has been defined for their selection.2 In addition, the number of batteries required to meet the specifications of power needed must be selected. In the results section the conceptual
electrical system configuration for the optimal propulsion case is shown.

10 of 17
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

III.

Results and discussion

In this section the results for the implementation of the methodology previously presented are shown and
discussed.
A.

Aerodynamic performance

In figure 10 is shown the drag polars for two cases: the the 2D Xfoil case shows the aerodynamic performance
predicted by Xfoil for the two dimensional centerline profile, whilst the solid line presents the drag polars
for the baseline I aircraft concept.30 These two drag polars have been run for the case of study of the UiTM
and they highlight the importance of carrying out the experimental assessment for the whole aircraft as
the difference between these two models are large enough to introduce considerable errors in the trends.
Therefore, part of the future work is to implement three dimensional flow studies for the airframe modeling.
However for the level of this study the Xfoil tool has been useful to characterize the boundary layer and
define the flow regime regions.
2D Xfoil
Experimental

0.5

2D Xfoil
Experimental

0.03

0.025
0

CD

CL

0.02

0.015

-0.5

0.01

0.005

0
-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

-1
-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

(a) Comparison CD vs

(b) Comparison CL vs
Figure 10. CD and CL comparison

For the case of study the drag polars of the centerline profile for the baseline I30 were assessed using
Xfoil. The drag polars used for the study case are shown in figure 11. These drag polars were useful for
the aerodynamic module to assess the drag and hence thrust required for the study case and evaluate the
boundary layer features. Nevertheless, as previously shown these results need to be further refined for a
three dimensional aircraft model.
B.

Propulsion performance assessment

This study has been divided in two categories: the study of aerodynamic integration effects and the propulsor
array configuration.
1.

Aerodynamic integration effects

The effect of the aerodynamic integration effects on the propulsion performance is shown in figure 12. For
this figure the number of fans for the distributed propulsor array has been assumed three. This is based
on the configuration of sUAS for similar applications and on the size of electric ducted fans available in the
open market. It is important to mention that smaller fans were available in the open market and hence the
possibility of using more fans could be achieved. The main limitation in this case could be only the weight
increment due to a large number of smaller ducted fans. In the aforementioned figure the power consumption

11 of 17
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

CD case of Study

CL Case of Study

0.022

1.5

0.02
1
0.018
0.016

0.5

CL

CD

0.014
0

0.012
0.01

-0.5

0.008
-1
0.006
0.004
-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

-1.5
-10

10

-8

-6

-4

-2

10

(a) CD for case of study

(b) CL for case of study

Figure 11. CD and CL for case of study

per fan was analyzed for different pressure losses Pin as shown in figure 12 (a). It is evident that the power
required is lower for a Pin = 2% and the trend presented is similar for Pin = 4%, but for Pin = 6% the
power required increase dramatically due to the higher pressure losses, which overweight at low fan pressure
ratios the energy delivered by the fan to the flow. For this reason, the power consumption increment was
more than 200% for a F P R = 1.15 comparing to the cases of 2% and 6% intake pressure losses, and more
than 30% for a F P R = 1.3 which is found optimal for the Pin = 6% case. This latter case would be
expected in the case of BLI implementation as duct configuration complexity is expected to enlarge these
losses. These value has been taken from the studies of Rodriguez for embedded s-shaped ducts.22
Contrary to the power consumption trends,the propulsive efficiency p increases as the pressure losses
increase. In figure 12 (b) can be observed this trend. The reason of this behavior is the reduction in jet
velocity due to the intake pressure losses. However, as observed in the power consumption diagrams the
intake pressure losses compromise in larger extent the effectiveness of the concept and hence is inadvisable
to select a high pressure loss configuration. Hence for the optimal case study the lower intake pressure loss
case is utilized. The Pin = 2% case is based on a conventional intake arrangement.
In figure 13, the total power required is plotted for different fan efficiencies f and as observed the better
configuration is obtained at higher fan efficiencies. This trend is expected as higher isentropic efficiency
means that the delivering of energy to the fluid by the fan is more efficient and hence less energy is wasted
as losses.
2.

Propulsor array configuration

In order to define the effect of the number of fans in the propulsor array the optimal case in terms of
pressure losses and fan efficiency is selected and plotted in figure 14. From this figures the previous trends
can be confirmed and furthermore the power, torque and diameter of the ducted fans can be determined. As
observed the minimum total power consumption is about 8kW and occurs at a fan pressure ratio of 1.15. In
terms of torque the 3 fans arrangement requires about 0.4N m and the fan diameter corresponds to 8mm.
The results shown above for the optimal configuration and assuming 3 fans and a thrust split ratio of
100% a conceptual design based on a selection of propulsion and electrical system is presented in figure 15.
In the parametric model, the values for the fans were corrected for the study case. In addition to consider
the electrical motor efficiency, the latter have been over sized (25%)2 and based on the power calculated they
should supply 3300 W approximately. The fans where selected for the design point (cruise). The electric
ducted fan found suitable was the assembly Wemotec Mini Fan Pro engine and HET 650-68-1500 and Lipo
batteries (8s or 10s) 67-95 A. These fans deliver up to 34 N-49 N of thrust, which would be suitable for models
weighing up to 6 kg. The aforementioned results are preliminary and have considered only the propulsion
system and how the set-up could be defined. Furthermore, the electric ducted fans are oversized for the
thrust requirement (maximum thrust required at sea level was defined based on the parametric approach
for ducted fans presented by Ruijgrok23 ) . In future work, it is necessary to refine the system analysis

12 of 17
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 P in =2%

P =2%

P in =4%

in

P in =4%

1.8

P in =6%

P in =6%

10 4

80

70

1.6

60

1.2

p %

P W/( ) [W]

1.4

50

40
0.8

30
0.6

0.4
1.15

1.2

1.25

1.3

1.35

1.4

1.45

1.5

20
1.15

1.55

1.2

1.25

1.3

1.35

1.4

1.45

1.5

1.55

FPR [-]

FPR [-]

(a) Power required for different pressure losses

(b) Propulsive efficiency for different pressure losses

Figure 12. Power and propulsive efficiency for different pressure losses

f =95%
=90%
f

f =85%

7500

7000

P W/( ) [W]

6500

6000

5500

5000

4500
1.15

1.2

1.25

1.3

1.35

1.4

1.45

1.5

1.55

FPR [-]

Figure 13. Power per different fan efficiency

by including, weight and aircraft performance modules to define the aircraft performance during the flight
envelope.
C.

BLI assessment

As mentioned in the methodology section (figure 9), the implementation of BLI for the case of study does
not seem attractive as the reduction in momentum drag is small and hence the benefits accrued from this
feature can be overweighted by the large intake losses of highly integrated systems.

13 of 17
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

NF=1
NF=3
NF=5

NF=1
NF=3
NF=5

12000

2.5

10000
2

T Qf /() [N m]

6000

1.5

4000

0.5

2000

0
1.15

1.2

1.25

1.3

1.35

1.4

1.45

1.5

0
1.15

1.55

1.2

1.25

FPR [-]

1.3

1.35

1.4

1.45

FPR [-]

(a) Power required per fan

(b) Torque required per fan

NF=1
NF=3
NF=5

0.14
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.1

D2 [m]

P Wf /( ) [W]

8000

0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
1.15

1.2

1.25

1.3

1.35

1.4

1.45

1.5

1.55

FPR [-]

(c) Power required per fan

Figure 14. Optimal configuration results

14 of 17
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

1.5

1.55

Figure 15. Propulsion system conceptual design

Nevertheless, the implementation of features such as: thrust split and distributed propulsion; can be
an option to make more attractive BLI implementation in sUAS. This because by using a large number of
distributed electric ducted fans or by reducing the thrust split (thrust delivered by the propulsor array) the
momentum drag reduction benefit from BLI can be further exploited. A propulsor array of smaller fans
sweeps a larger spanwise distance, enabling the ingestion of more airframe boundary layer. Furthermore, a
fan diameter reduction contributes to a smaller capture sheet height which enhance the effectiveness of BLI.
This because smaller capture heights enable the ingestion of a larger proportion of boundary layer flow in
comparison with the free stream flow sucked. In the system design the benefits discussed can be applied for
low demanding operating conditions, such as: cruise or loitering phases; where the propulsor array could be
designed to deliver the required thrust and since they are benefited from the lower momentum drag from
BLI, the energy consumption at these phases would be optimized.
D.

Thrust Split assessment

To highlight the effect of thrust split in the propulsion configuration, two configurations for 100 % and
75 % thrust split are shown in figure 16. As observed in this figure the benefits in thrust split can be
related specifically with the structural design, as it enables a better loading distribution along the airframe
span. This structural advantage would help to cost reduction, as cheap cost materials with lower structural
performance could be implemented. Other benefits could be higher reliability and better performance for
one engine off scenarios. Finally, for systems implementing distributed propulsion with thrust vectoring the
thrust split could be beneficial as the propulsors could be tailored for the requirements of the aircraft control
and stability.

IV.

Conclusions

The present work adapted a parametric performance method of a electric distributed propulsion system
for the case of a unmanned aerial system utilized for precision agriculture in the Andean region. In this
context, the propulsion performance tool enabled the assessment of different propulsion configurations using
as design space variables the aerodynamic integration effects and thrust split. As expected intake pressure
losses were observed to produce an important detriment in performance , which was observed as a power
consumption increment of 36% for F P R = 1.3 comparing the cases of 2% and 6% intake pressure losses
(F P R = 1.3 corresponds to the lowest power consumption case for pressure losses of 6%). The latter figure

15 of 17
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 16. Thrust split configurations for 75 % and 100 % and thrust split

was selected based on embedded s-shaped ducts, which could be used for the BLI configurations and hence
in this work was utilized to assess the potential opportunities and drawbacks of BLI installations for this sort
of aircraft. From the preliminary analysis , it was observed that the large increment in power compromises
the implementation of BLI for the concept assessed, as in the case analyzed the BL thickness was small in
comparison with the fan diameter and hence the detriment in momentum drag from BLI did not represented
appreciable benefits. However, this is based on the parametric approach utilized, which did not accounted for
three dimensional effects neither on the boundary layer development nor propulsor performance. Therefore,
part of the future work is to further analyze the BLI actual BLI benefits with a higher fidelity approach.
In the case of thrust split, was found that for small UAS this can be a useful design space variable, as it
performs as an extra design feature which gives more freedom to the propulsion design. In this case it was
observed that structural, stability and flight control benefits can be accrued from its implementation.

V.

Acknowledgement

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of Escuela Politecnica Nacional, for the development of the projects PIMI 15-03.

References
1 AUVSI.

The economic impact of unmanned aircraft systems integration in the united states. US, 2013.
Bartos. Brushless pm motors: big on power, efficiency. 2006.
3 M. Blanks. Unmanned aircraft systems, uas in agriculture. In Kansas State University, US, 2014.
4 G. Brown. Weights and efficiencies of electric components of a turboelectric aircraft propulsion system. In 49th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, page none, Orlando, Florida, 2011.
AIAA. AIAA-2011-225.
5 L. Chengyuan, E. Valencia, and et al. Design point analysis of the turbofan-driven turboelectric distributed propulsion
system with boundary layer ingesting. manuscript submitted for publication in AIAA joint propulsion conference 2015, June
2015.
6 S. Choi, N. Nguyen, W. Kim, and et a.l. Multidisciplinary unmanned combat air vehicle system design using multi-fidelity
analysis. AIAA, January 2010.
7 G. Creech. Back in the air: X-48b resumes flight tests at nasa dryden. In NASA reports, US, 2010.
8 DAC. Resoluci
on 251-2015- Direccin Genral de Aviaci
on Civil, 2015.
9 D. Diaz, J. Solarte, and H. Ceron. Aerodynamic study of wingtip devices on non-conventional configuration bwb. COBEM,
November 2013.
10 J. Felder, H. Kim, G. Brown, and et al. An examination of the effect of boundary layer ingestion on turboelectric
2 F.

16 of 17
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

distributed propulsion systems. In 49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace
Exposition, page none, Orlando, Florida, 1 2011. AIAA. AIAA 2011-300.
11 J. Felder, M. Tong, and J. Chu. Sensitivity of mission energy consumption to turboelectric distributed propulsion design
assumptions on the N3-X hybrid wing body aircraft. In 48th AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Atlanta, Georgia,
7 2012. AIAA. AIAA 2012-3701.
12 D. L. Gabriel, J. Meyer, and F. Du Plessis. Brushless dc motor characterisation and selection for a fixed wing uav. In
IEEE Africon Conference, pages 9781, 2011.
13 J. Gundlach. Designing unmanned aircraft systems: A comprehensive approach. American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 2012.
14 H. Kim. Distributed propulsion vehicles. In 27th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, page none, Nice,
France, 9 2010. ICAS. Icas 2010-1.1.3.
15 R. Kirner. An investigation into the benefits of distributed propulsion on advanced aircraft configurations. Theses 2013.
Cranfield University, 2013. MSc theses in Cranfield University, Accessed july 2014.
16 R. Liebeck. Design of the blended wing body subsonic transport. Journal of Aircraft, 41(1):1025, 2004.
17 C. Liu, G. Doulgeris, P. Laskaridis, and R. Singh. Thermal cycle analysis of turboelectric distributed propulsion system
with boundary layer ingestion. Aerospace Science and Technology, 27:163 170, 2013.
18 F. Lynch. A theoretical investigation of the effect of ingesting boundary layer air on turbofan engine fuel consumption.
Douglas Aircraft Report SM, 23981, 1960.
19 A. Plas. Performance of a boundary layer ingesting propulsion system. 2006. by Angelique Plas.; Thesis (S.M.)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2006.; Includes bibliographical references (p.
111-114).
20 T. Risch, G. Consentino, C. Regan, M. Kisska, and N. Princen. X-48b flight- test progress overview. AIAA, January
2009.
21 D. Rodriguez. A multidisciplinary optimization method for designing boundary layer ingesting inlets. In Symposium on
Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, page none, Atlanta, 2002. AIAA/ISSMO.
22 D. L. Rodriguez. A multidisciplinary optimization method for designing boundary layer ingesting inlets. 2001. Department
of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Thesis (PhD)Stanford University, 2001.
23 G. J. J. Ruijgrok. Elements of Airplane Performance. VSSD, Leeghwaterstraat 42, 2628 CA Delft, The Netherlands,
second edition, 2009.
24 D. J. Thompson, J. Feys, M. D. Filewich, S. Abdel-Magid, D. Dalli, and F. Goto. The design and construction of a
blended wing body uav. The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics AIAA, 841, 2011.
25 R. Turbines. Edf ducted fans, 2016.
26 E. Valencia. Investigation of Propulsion Architectures for Advanced Distributed Propulsion Systems. Theses 2015.
Cranfield University, 2015. PhD thesis in Cranfield University, Under publication.
27 E. Valencia, L. Chengyuan, P. Laskaridis, and et al. An alternative configuration for distributed propulsion with boundary
layer ingestion on a hybrid wing body airframe. In 21st ISABE Conference, pages 18221829, Busan, Korea, september 2013.
ISABE.
28 E. Valencia, D. Nalianda, P. Laskaridis, and et al. Methodology to assess the performance of an aircraft concept with
distributed propulsion and boundary layer ingestion using a parametric approach. Part G:Journal of Aerospace, June 2014.
29 P. P. Walsh and P. Fletcher. Gas turbine performance. Blackwell Science, Oxford, 2 edition, 2004.
30 W. Wisnoe, F. Mohamad, R. Nasir, and Z. Ali. Expoerimental results analysis for uitm bwb baseline-i and baseline-ii
uav running at 0.1 mach number. International Journal of Mechanics, June 2014.

17 of 17
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics