Zero-carbon-dioxide-emitting hydrogen-powered aircraft have, in recent decades, come back on the stage as promising protagonists in the fight against global warming. Nevertheless, most recent studies agree that hydrogen aircraft would underperform their kerosene counterparts in t
...
Zero-carbon-dioxide-emitting hydrogen-powered aircraft have, in recent decades, come back on the stage as promising protagonists in the fight against global warming. Nevertheless, most recent studies agree that hydrogen aircraft would underperform their kerosene counterparts in terms of operative empty mass and specific energy consumption. The main cause for the drop in performance lays in the fuel storage, as not only the liquid hydrogen has to be kept in cryogenic conditions and pressurised, but for the same energy content, it has four times the volume of kerosene. The inevitable consequences are an increase in fuselage size, which adds mass and drag to the aircraft, and the addition of an heavy fuel storage and distribution system. On the other side, hydrogen has 2.8 times higher specific energy, and the consequent reduction in fuel mass could balance the previously mentioned drawbacks. Literature on the topic shows that the optimal fuel storage solution depends on the aircraft mission, but most studies disagree on what solutions are optimal for each aircraft range category.The objective of this research was to identify and compare possible solutions to the integration of the hydrogen fuel containment system on short, medium and long-range airliners. The capabilities of an automated synthesis program for CS-25 aircraft have been expanded with validated structural and thermodynamic physics-based tank design models, to allow for the design and analysis of liquid hydrogen aircraft. Studies were performed on several design options. The effect of using an integral tank structure was found to be negligible for short-range aircraft, but increasingly more beneficial for medium and long-range aircraft. The effect of increasing the fuselage diameter was found to be favourable, especially when seats abreast could be added without the addition of one aisle. The effect of using a combination of an aft and a forward tank was found to be detrimental in terms of operational empty mass, beneficial in terms of specific energy consumption and negligible in terms of maximum take-off mass. The use of spherical tanks was found to be slightly beneficial, but only when compared to a non-spherical tank version using the same tank layout, non-integral tank structure, and same cabin layout. The study on the venting pressure revealed that with increasing aircraft size the optimal venting pressure in terms of main aircraft performance decreases whereas the sensitivity to those same parameters to the choice of venting pressure increases. The use of direct gas venting as a means to contain the pressure rise did not appear to provide significant performance improvements. The optimal designs, in terms of operational empty mass, maximum take-off mass and specific energy consumption, feature increased fuselage diameters, the use of the aft & forward tank layout, non-spherical tanks and no direct venting. The short-range aircraft uses non-integral tanks and high venting pressure, while the medium and the long-range aircraft benefit from an integral tank structure and a lower venting pressure. Nevertheless, the sensitivity to these design choices is not significant, meaning that with a different set of assumptions and/or requirements different design choices may become optimal. The overall best performing LH2 aircraft for the short, medium and long-range categories were found to have respectively 8%, 24% and 22% higher operative empty mass, -2%, 1% and -5% higher maximum take-off mass and 5%, 13% and 5% higher specific energy consumption than their kerosene versions.
