See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/380068369

A Computational Analysis of Toroid Propellers

Article in AIAA student journal. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics · March 2024

CITATIONS READS
0 923

1 author:

Vaibhav Rau
Valley Christian High School
2 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Vaibhav Rau on 24 April 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

In the quest for sustainability, the aviation industry is focusing on novel propulsion
methods. One such invention, the toroid propeller, has succeeded in the aquatic sphere due to
its drag reduction benefits. Recently, a groundbreaking paper from the MIT Lincoln
Laboratory highlighted the promise of the propeller regarding noise and efficiency. The toroid
draws inspiration from the torus shape, or a curved, continuous ring. Due to this shape, toroid
propellers have less powerful vortices on the edges, which reduces induced drag. This study
analyzes two distinct types of blades: symmetrical and elongated toroids. Additionally,
configurations of two, three, and four blades will be tested. These designs have been compared
to traditional aircraft propellers in cruise conditions to assess aerodynamic benefits. In
addition to aerodynamic improvements, toroid propellers display dramatic noise reductions
at medium to high frequencies. In traditional propellers, vacuum cavitation at the tips causes
most of the noise. As mentioned before, the torus shape allows the toroid propeller to have
reductions in vortices. Therefore, aircraft that use the toroid propeller will produce
significantly less noise. This technology can drastically improve commercial aviation by
eliminating the need for policies that force airports to close at night due to noise pollution.

I. Nomenclature

A = swept area

Cd = coefficient of drag

D = drag

MNL = maximum aircraft noise limits

PS = passenger seats

V = velocity

ρ = air density

II. Introduction
Propellers have been the backbone of aviation since the dawn of flight. From the times of the Wright Flyer, there
has been extraordinary change in almost every aspect of aeronautics. However, the basic structure of the propeller—
a twisted oval airfoil— has remained relatively constant for more than a century [1]. In the aviation world pushing for
sustainable practices, both to ensure higher profit margins and to meet carbon emissions standards, the propeller has
undergone deep redesign. Recently, a paper by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Lincoln Laboratory
(MITLL) brought to light the advantages of torus-shaped propellers in drone propulsion [2].
________________________________
1Vaibhav Rau, Student, 100 Skyway Drive, San José, CA 95111, AIAA High School Member

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 This study analyzes the aerodynamic benefits of the toroidal propeller, specifically in horizontal flight. Using both
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis and calculations, the paper details the efficacy and feasibility of a torus-
based blade in commercial aviation. Basic drag calculations were completed to attain a rapid assessment of both blade
types and counts. To determine the exact values for induced and parasitic drag, the CFD application simulated a
rotating propeller fan at 0.3 Mach. The study also considered the impacts of sound pollution using simulation data.
The intended benefit of this study is to promote the use of the toroid propeller throughout the aeronautical industry.
The results indicated that, although currently more expensive to operate, the toroid propeller’s efficiency benefits
could redefine the short-haul commercial market.

III. Mathematical Analysis of Drag

A. Traditional Blade Data

To determine a benchmark for drag calculations, a standard blade will be used. The following calculations were
based on a blade that is spherical at its axis and tapers out to a standard airfoil at its tip.

To calculate drag of the shape, the study utilizes the drag equation:

D = 0.5⋅Cd⋅ρ⋅V2⋅A

To make the calculations comparable, the study assumes that the drag coefficient is equal to 0.5. The following is
a table of drag results based on different blade configurations at 1,000 meters altitude.

Figure 1: Estimated Drag from Traditional Blade Configurations

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
B. Toroid Blade Data

The following calculations for the toroid blade were based on a blade that incorporates an elongated taurus.

To calculate drag of the shape, the study utilizes the same drag equation as the toroid propeller. Again, the study
assumes that the drag coefficient is equal to 0.5 and the altitude is 1,000 meters (about 3,281 ft):

Figure 2: Estimated Drag for Toroid Blade Configuration

The reason the drag is staggeringly lower is due to the reduction in wingtip vortices. Although the larger toroid
blades have more parasitic drag, the induced drag is drastically reduced. Thus, the coefficient of drag would be
drastically reduced.

C. Marine Data

Past literature has shown that air behaves similarly to water at subsonic speeds [3]. Thus, this graph from
Sharrow Marine provides a reasonable benchmark for expected efficiency increases even at higher altitudes.

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 3: Water-based Performance of a Toroid and a Traditional Propeller (Ref. 4)

Increases at up to 106% efficiency have been shown from the Sharrow Marine prop at 3,000 rpm.
Translated to propeller aircraft such as the Beechcraft King Air 260, the energy savings would be about 150 liters
(about 39.63 gal) per hour.

D. Conclusions

The study found that toroid propellers had significantly reduced drag from the standard propellers. The
study assumed that induced drag must have decreased drastically in the torus blades because parasitic drag was
expected to increase.

Using the data above, the total cost reductions of switching to the toroidal propeller was estimated at $83.25 per
hour [5]. Over a hundred cycles, an airline could save approximately 75,000 kilograms (about 165,347 lb) of carbon
dioxide from being released [6].

However, given its complex shape, maintenance costs of toroid propellers would increase. Unfortunately, the
study was not able to devise a proper method of estimating this metric.

IV. Noise

The following describes the noise reduction of the toroid propeller given both the calculations and rudimentary
CFD analysis. This data is coupled with figures from selected conventional propellers to achieve a comparison.

A. MITLL Data

From the studies published by the MITLL, a basic idea of torus noise reductions can be formulated. This study
was used as a benchmark for the propellers tested in this paper.

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 4: Noise at Different Rotation Speeds for Traditional and Toroid Blades (Ref. 2)

This data was compiled from drone tests conducted at ground level. This study assumes that this data can be used
to provide a reasonable metric for noise pollution reduction potential. The greatest decrease in pressure, and therefore
noise, takes place at 300 to 1,000 Hz, which is similar to the operating speed for many aircraft such as the Cessna 172
[7]. Although there are some values that dip below the toroid propeller’s average, the traditional propeller’s wide
variability and spikes make it appear louder and more susceptible to contributing to noise pollution.

B. Traditional Blade Data

The traditional blade used in the study is the McCauley 1C. Studies by the Federal Aviation Administration
concluded that the average noise of the propeller is 74.3 decibels []. Using this baseline data, the paper was able to
construct a graph estimating the perceived sound (LMX) using the following formula:

MNL=72.55+10log(PS/2)

A graph estimating sound for the traditional propeller configuration would be:

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 5: Estimated Noise Limit for Traditional Propellers

C. Toroid Data

A deeper analysis of toroid noise data was needed given the lack of research. The study used both the MITLL
report and the FAA analysis to develop an equation estimating nosie limits for toroid blades:

MNL=45.6+10.8log(PS/2)

The graph of this equation would be:

Figure 6: Estimated Noise Limit for Toroid Propellers

D. Conclusions

The equations created display a similar trend as compared to the MITLL paper. A comparison graph
was created to highlight the trend between the two propellers:

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 7: Comparison Metric for the Two Blade Types

Each point is the quotient of the toroid data point and the corresponding traditional data point. A clear noise
reduction can be inferred.

As the study worked with only smaller general aviation aircraft, the equations may not be accurate for larger
aircraft due to the dangers of extrapolation. Given the existing literature on the topic, it is likely that at higher rotation
speeds, the tip vortices, and therefore noise, become relatively constant.

V. Conclusion
Through this paper, the benefits of the toroid propeller have been revealed. Aside from significant noise reduction,
efficiency will increase from the smaller in tip vortices. The unique torus shape is neither too complex to fabricate nor
difficult to incorporate into existing systems, further establishing the toroid propeller’s potential as a plug-and-play
solution.

Some challenges to this concept will be preparing advanced facilities able to repair and manufacture these blades.
Thus, costs for these propellers will go up, and airlines may be reluctant to commit to a purchase. Another issue is
structural integrity. The torus will inevitably have more pressure and stress on certain areas than the traditional
propeller will. Therefore, a stronger material such as carbon fiber must be used.

The author calls for a larger investment in the toroid propeller. From further research with wind tunnels to test
flights, any resources spent on this novel technology would only be to the benefit of the aerospace community. While
not directly assessed by the study, the significant reduction in airfare prices would expand air travel in poorer parts of
the world. In addition, with less noise pollution, more routes will be able to operate, even in densely populated areas.

Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the faculty of Valley Christian High School. Specifically, the author wishes to
highlight the contributions of statistics teacher Mrs. Claudia Smith, calculus teacher Mrs. Diana Shak, English teacher
Mr. James Stewart, and physics teacher Ms. Melissa Seimer, whose lessons helped greatly in the making of the paper.

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 References
[1] F. Hitchens, Propeller Aerodynamics: The History, Aerodynamics & Operation of Aircraft Propellers. Wellington, N.Z.:
Aviator’s Books, 2015.
[2] “Toroidal Propeller.” Available: https://www.ll.mit.edu/sites/default/files/other/doc/2023-
02/TVO_Technology_Highlight_41_Toroidal_Propeller.pdf
[3] T. J. Matula and P. L. Marston, “Energy branching of a subsonic flexural wave on a plate at an air–water interface. I.
Observation of the wave field near the interface and near the plate,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 97, no. 3,
pp. 1389–1398, Mar. 1995, doi: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.412081.
[4] “World Cat 325 DC with Twin Yamaha 300 HP – 105% Faster at 3000 RPM,” Sharrow Marine, Dec. 20, 2022.
https://sharrowmarine.com/blogs/performance-reports/boattest-captains-report-sharrow-mx%E2%84%A2-propeller-review-
world-cat-325-dc-with-twin-yamaha-300-hp-motors (accessed Feb. 22, 2024).
[5] “Jet Fuel Price Today,” Feb. 2024. Available: https://jet-a1-fuel.com/
[6] “IATA Carbon Offset Program Frequently Asked Questions,” 2020. Available:
https://www.iata.org/contentassets/922ebc4cbcd24c4d9fd55933e7070947/icop_faq_general-for-airline-participants.pdf
[7] Pilot’s Operating Handbook: 1978 Cessna 172 Skyhawk. Cessna Aircraft Company, 1977. Available:
https://wayman.edu/files/Cessna-172N-POH.pdf
[8] “Noise Levels for Aircraft Used for Commercial Operations in Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area,” 2006.
Available: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_93-2.pdf

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

View publication stats