Design Methodology of a UAV Propeller Implemented in

Monitoring Activities
Cruzatty C1, Sarmiento E1, Valencia E1, Cando E1
1 Escuela Politécnica Nacional, Quito, 17-01-2759, Ecuador

cristian.cruzatty@epn.edu.ec, edgar.sarmiento@epn.edu.ec,
esteban.valencia@epn.edu.ec, edgar.cando@epn.edu.ec

Abstract. The widespread use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) has gained
significant importance given their low cost and range of possible applications.
Nevertheless, design methodologies integrating aerodynamic and structural eval-
uations for UAV propellers have not been widely explored. A proper design of
UAV propellers provides compelling energy savings, and the selection of struc-
turally adequate blades ensures UAV integrity. This work presents a methodol-
ogy for the aerodynamic design of propellers using parametric and high-fidelity
tools coupled with a structural evaluation scheme using FEM. For this aim, dif-
ferent propeller configurations were determined using BEMT and MIL ap-
proaches. Furthermore, a baseline airframe and usual operating conditions for
monitoring tasks were selected and evaluated throughout several optimized pro-
peller configurations. The design obtained through the two-dimensional aforesaid
approach is evaluated using numerical simulation, coupling the aerodynamic
loads with the structural design through FSI in ANSYS 18. Subsequent aerody-
namic evaluation revealed congruence between BEMT and CFD results, with a
9% maximum percentage error between results. Moreover, the findings of the
studied case scenarios showed an improvement in thrust generation capabilities
for a 1.48 m diameter 3 bladed propeller, with an 80% efficiency. Results for the
structural assessment indicated acceptable stress concentrations for all configu-
rations at the design point and an overall better structural performance for a 0.99
m diameter 3 bladed propeller. To summarize, the main contribution of this work
is a design methodology tailored for UAV propellers able to predict their perfor-
mance and optimal configurations using a fast and accurate enough calculation
scheme for preliminary design stage.

Keywords: Unmanned Aerial Vehicle; Propulsion; Propeller; Finite Element

Method; Fluid-Structure Interaction.

1 Introduction

In the last decade, with the growing availability of UAV technology, the roles and ap-
plications in which UAVs can be employed have become more numerous, in some
cases replacing the use of conventional aircraft specially on account of the economic
savings that this transition might represent. The overall cost of using UAVs can be
equivalent to as low as 20% of the cost of conventional light aircraft [1].
2

As the commercial interest in the development of UAVs for civil applications has
grown, so has the interest in the research and design of this type of aircraft. Research
has mainly focused on UAV fuselage, communications and control systems [2]-[4].
Other researchers have made significant contributions focusing in alternative propul-
sion systems, such as fuel cell technologies and distributed propulsion [5]-[7]. The de-
velopment of efficient propulsion is crucial for the future of UAVs. However, despite
the fact that proper propeller design can have a great impact in overall performance and
efficiency, propellers are usually selected directly from manufacturer catalogues or us-
ing other semi-empirical approaches.
The aerodynamic sizing and optimization of UAV propellers has been previously
studied obtaining highly efficient blades for low Reynolds applications. Dumitrache [8]
implemented a BEMT propeller design approach for low Reynolds flows during pre-
liminary design stage, obtaining moderately efficient configurations for small UAVs.
Capitao [9] developed a MATLAB routine capable of sizing propeller configurations
under four different design approaches based on vortex methods obtaining efficiencies
of up to 79%. Wall [10] presented a design methodology based on hybrid BEMT theory
coupled with propeller and airfoil optimizers, obtaining a considerable increase in effi-
ciency for optimized propellers.
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) has also been widely used as a tool for deter-
mining the performance of propeller designs. Kutty and Rajendran [11] used Fluent to
obtain performance data of a commercial propeller and compare it with experimental
values, obtaining satisfactory agreement between results. A similar study was carried
out in [12], where several low Reynolds propeller configurations were simulated using
CFD and the results compared to experimental data, obtaining low approximation er-
rors.
Nevertheless, the structural evaluation of propellers during the design phase is often
disregarded and a very limited number of sources consider structural reliability of UAV
propellers as a design constraint. Rutkay [13] defined a design methodology for elec-
trically powered small UAVs with a maximum take-off weight of 35kg using a code
based on Theodorsen’s [14] propeller design approach coupled with structural consid-
erations. Stoll [15] described a methodology for the design of quiet electric small UAV
propellers through the assessment of harmonic and broadband noises and included a
structural evaluation during the design phase.
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) has been used as a tool for the structural assessment
of propellers. Seeni [16] used a fluid-structure interaction (FSI) coupling to analyze the
structural behaviour of a commercially available small UAV propeller. Kong et al. [17]
used commercial codes MSC. NASTRAN and PASTRAN to perform a structural anal-
ysis of an aerodynamically designed composite propeller obtaining good agreement be-
tween calculated data and experimental results.
Nonetheless, most of these approaches require a large number of calculations that
are not suitable for preliminary design. Furthermore, aerodynamic and structural design
methodologies for medium sized UAV propellers operating at higher Reynolds num-
bers have not been extensively developed. In this context, this work seeks to provide a
general outline for preliminary aerodynamic and structural design of medium sized
UAV propellers using FEA as a means to ensure precise results. To achieve this objec-
tive, a MATLAB code was written using version R2015b. This code is capable of gen-
erating efficient geometries and estimating their ability to withstand aerodynamic and
 3

centrifugal loads under design operating conditions or other user input operating speed
paramenters. These results were contrasted with simulated data obtained using FEA to
determine the reliability of the calculated results.

2 Methodology

This section describes the procedure followed in order to carry out the project. Fig. 1
shows an outline of the methodology used, which is divided into three main phases.
During the prior analysis, the geometric and aerodynamic characteristics of a Blended
Wing Body (BWB) UAV are estimated as a way of obtaining its operational require-
ments.
The thrust requirements of the UAV are considered as design constraints for the
propulsion system and used during the parametric study so as to appropriately size and
design propeller blades with a variety of diameters and operating rotational speeds.
Thrust generation capabilities and efficiency are also obtained in the parametric phase
using BEM theory. During the third phase of the study, FEA and CFD are used to de-
termine the aerodynamic and structural behaviour of the designed propeller blades
through an FSI scheme.

Fig. 1. Methodology outline

4

2.1 UAV Geometry and Thrust Requirements

Aerodynamic parameters of the BAT 12 BWB UAV were obtained from the geometric
characteristics of the aircraft. Fig. 2 shows the dimensions of the UAV. The half-span
of the fuselage was divided into an external and an internal section. Two different ap-
propriate airfoils were considered for each of these segments. A NACA 23021 airfoil
was considered for the inner section of the aircraft, whilst a HS522 airfoil was consid-
ered for the external portions of the wing. These airfoils adjust geometrically to the
dimensions of the UAV and possess adecquate characteristics for a BWB aircraft, since
their corresponding pitching moments are almost negligible. Further analysis of the
aerodynamic parameters of the fuselage airfoils was disregarded as it is not the scope
of this work.

Fig. 2. BAT 12 geometry. Source: Adapted from [18].

The aerodynamic parameters of the UAV necessary to determine its required thrust and
power were obtained using the equations and relations described in [20] for crank-
winged aircraft and through the use of Athena Vortex Lattice (AVL) [21], an open-
source software for the aerodynamic analysis of rigid aircraft.
The required thrust was determined as a function of the flight speed as shown in
Equation 1, assuming steady cruise flight [19]. Table 1 shows some of the calculated
geometric and aerodynamic parameters of the UAV.
1 2𝐾𝑊 2
𝑇 = 𝜌𝑉 2 𝑆𝐶𝐷 0 + (1)
2 𝜌𝑉 2 𝑆

Where:

ρ Fluid density kgm-3

V Freestream velocity ms-1
S Wet surface m2
CDo Zero-lift drag coefficient
K Aircraft aerodynamic parameter
W Aircraft weight kg
 5

Table 1. Geometric, aerodynamic, and operational parameters of the UAV.

Parameter Symbol Value

Maximum Takeoff Weight MTOW 98 kg
Wingspan b 3.65 m
Sweep Angle (External) ΛE 13°
Sweep Angle (Internal) ΛI 37°
Wet Area S 4.315 m2
Aspect Ratio AR 3.105
Oswald’s Factor e 0.894
Aircraft Aerodynamic Param- K 0.1146
eter
Zero-Lift Drag Coefficient CDo 0.05129
Cruise Speed V 37.9 ms-1
Stall Speed Vstall 19.68 ms-1
Stall Angle of Attack αstall 13°

Once the drag force produced by the UAV was calculated as a function of flight speed
(see Fig. 3), cruise speed was selected as a function of the freestream velocity at which
generated drag is minimum [22]. Similarly, power required was calculated and plotted
as a function of freestream velocity (see Fig. 3). The power required at cruise speed is
a necessary input for the propeller sizing methodology. A preliminary value for the
efficiency of the propeller is determined using the procedure described in [23] to obtain
an accurate value for the propeller power input.

Fig. 3. Thrust and power required vs flight speed.

2.2 Parametric Sizing and Aerostructural Evaluation

Five different propeller diameters were selected, each of them assigned to a different
operating rotational speed. A semi-empirical approach was used to select the propeller
6

diameters, following the methodology detailed in TN 212 [24]. Table 2 shows the cal-
culated diameters and their corresponding rotational speeds.

Table 2. Selected propeller diameters

RPM Diameter (m) J

1500 1.48 1.02
2000 1.30 0.87
2500 1.17 0.77
3000 1.08 0.7
3500 0.99 0.65

A MATLAB code was written in order to determine the chord and blade angle distri-
butions of each propeller. This code is based on the iterative process described by Ad-
kins and Liebeck [25]. This code integrates XFOIL 6.99 interface in each iteration to
perform the calculations of lift and drag coefficients for each station. Sizing was done
for 3, 4 and 5 blades on each of the diameters presented in Table II, resulting in all
different propeller configurations. The code is also able to calculate the propellers’ per-
formance parameters, such as efficiency and generated thrust and torque through
BEMT equations.
Adkins’ methodology incorporates vortex theory, Betz minimum energy losses con-
ditions and Actuator Disk Theory. Thrust calculations and sizing iterations include ax-
ial and rotational interference factors a and a’, respectively. The validity of the aerody-
namic portion of the code was tested comparing calculated thrust and power coeffi-
cients and the experimental values reported in [25]. Results are shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4. Validation of aerodynamic code.

The structural part of the code was based on the calculation method provided in [15],
which estimates the principal stresses in each section and evaluates if the maximum
shear stress and maximum normal stress exceed the design stresses, which are a func-
tion of the yield strength of the material. The validity of this section of the code was
 7

assessed calculating the maximum normal and shear stresses of each section using an
FSI coupling in ANSYS 18 and comparing them with the calculated values. Results are
shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5. Validation of structural code.

2.3 Aerodynamic Numerical Simulation

The resulting propeller blade configurations were modelled using commercial CAD
software Autodesk Inventor LT 2020. Each of these models was imported to ANSYS
18 Design Modeler, where their respective fluid domains were set up. The fluid domain
is divided into a static domain containing the free airstream and a rotating domain con-
taining the propeller blade walls. The dimensions of these domains are shown in Fig.
6.

Fig. 6. Dimensions of fluid domain.

A mesh independence study was previously carried out to define an adecquate mesh
size for CFD simulations. The convergence of the results of thrust and drag coefficients
was evaluated as shown in Fig. 7, determining appropriate convergence with a mesh
with more than 2.2 million elements.
8

Generated global mesh parameters are shown in Table 3. Additionally, mesh refinement
was done in all faces of the rotating domain and ten layers of mesh inflation were gen-
erated in the boundaries of the propeller blade estimating the appropriate first cell
height in order to solve the viscous sublayer [26]. Aspect Ratio and Ortogonal Quality
metrics were used to evaluate the generated mesh.

Fig. 7. Results of CFD mesh independence study.

Table 3. Global CFD mesh parameters.

Parameter Selection
Type Structured
Method CutCell
Advanced Size Function Curvature
Relevance Center Fine
Curvature Normal Angle 36°
Min Size 1x10-4 m
Max Tet Size 1.024 m
Growth Rate 1.2

The mesh was imported to Fluent solver, where a steady state simulation was performed
using frame motion. Table 4 shows the selected simulation parameters.

Table 4. Fluent Simulation parameters.

Parameter Selection
Model Realizable k-ε
Method Simple
Gradient Least Square Cells Based
Scheme Second Order Upwind
Residual 1x10-5
 9

2.4 Structural Numerical Simulation

The pressure distributions acting over the surface of the propeller blades obtained dur-
ing the aerodynamic numerical assessment were imported to static structural modules
in ANSYS 18 to perform an FSI coupling.
In a similar way to the procedure followed to determine mesh size for the CFD anal-
ysis, a mesh independence study was executed to establish suitable mesh parameters
for the structural analysis. The convergence of normal stresses and directional defor-
mations was evaluated as shown in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9, obtaining sufficient convergence
using meshes with more than 46000 elements.
A structured mesh was generated for all models using Multizone method available
in ANSYS 18 static structural mesher. Mesh refinement was done in the root and tip
of each blade. The quality of the generated mesh was evaluated using Ortogonal Quality
and Element Quality.

Fig. 8. Structural mesh independence study (Deformations)

Fig. 9. Structural mesh independence study (Normal stress)

10

2.5 Verification of Simulation Parameters

In order to test the accuracy of the selected domains, mesh and solver parameters, ex-
perimental studies were replicated under the selected conditions and the results com-
pared.
One of the studies executed in NACA TN 1834 [27] was reproduced as a means of
verifying the reliability of the simulation parameters used in the CFD analysis. A 0.85m
diameter propeller operating at 1470 RPM and a range of freestream velocities from 15
to 37 ms-1 was tested. Fig. 10 shows the geometry of the tested propeller.

Fig. 10. NACA TN 1834 model 5 propeller.

After replicating the experimental tests under the simulation parameters used in this
project, satisfactory agreement between results was obtained, with approximation er-
rors ranging between 2% and 17%. The comparison of efficiency, power coefficient
and thrust coefficient results is shown in Fig. 11.

Fig. 11. Verification of CFD simulation parameters.

To verify the simulation parameters of the structural analysis, the study performed in
[16] was replicated, where the commercial propeller APC SF10x7 was tested through
 11

FSI simulations and comparison with experimental data. The geometry of the APC SF
10x7 is shown in Fig. 12.

Fig. 12. APC Slow Flyer 10x7 propeller.

Maximum equivalent stress, percentage deformation and total deformation were com-
pared for the structural analysis. Results are shown in Table 5. Fig. 13 shows the simi-
larity in stress concentration distribution obtained in this study and the ones presented
in [16].

Table 5. Structural verification results

Parameter CFD Seeni [16] Error (%)

Von Mises Stress 151.92 181.3 16.2
(MPa)
Percentage De- 0.78 0.93 16.12
formation
Total Defor- 0.0202 0.0245 17.65
mation

Fig. 13. Stress concentration in Seeni [16] (left) and present study (right).

3 Results

3.1 Parametric Sizing and Aero-structural Evaluation

Propeller performance data obtained for the evaluated configurations is shown in Fig.
14. As expected, larger propellers modelled with lower rotational speeds present higher
efficiencies, as do propellers with fewer blades. However, from a structural standpoint,
larger propellers could be structurally less reliable. Fig. 15 shows chord distributions
for 4 bladed propellers modelled with different diameters and rotational speeds.
12

Fig. 14. Parametric performance data.

Fig. 15. Chord distribution for four-bladed propellers

Fig. 16. Structural evaluation results

 13

The maximum normal and shear stresses were extracted from the parametric structural
evaluation of the models. Results shown in Fig. 16 indicate lower stresses for propellers
with fewer blades operating at lower advance ratios (higher rotational speeds).

3.2 Aerodynamic Numerical Simulation

CutCell method generates highly structured meshes as shown in Fig. 17. The quality
of the generated mesh is evaluated using Ortogonal Quality and Aspect Ratio.

Fig. 17. Mesh near domain boundaries.

The obtained pressure distributions (see Fig. 18) are later exported to a static structural
component to act as aerodynamic loads. The obtained performance data is shown in
Table 6. The tendency of the results is the same as that obtained in the parametric study,
showing higher efficiencies for larger propellers with fewer blades.

Table 6. CFD Performance data

RPM No. of Blades (B) Thrust (N) Efficiency

1500 3 189.36 0.793
4 187.18 0.785
5 185.50 0.777
2500 3 189.02 0.792
4 187.08 0.784
5 184.46 0.773
3000 3 184.33 0.772
4 183.40 0.768
5 181.53 0.760
3500 3 182.12 0.763
4 182.07 0.763
5 179.17 0.751
14

Fig. 18. Pressure distribution over propeller blades.

3.3 Structural Numerical Simulation

Fig. 19 shows the structured mesh generated on one of the propeller models evaluated
in the static structural component. After importing the aerodynamic loads, gravitational
and inertial loads were set in the structural solver. Equivalent Von Mises stresses and
total deformations were evaluated in each of the models obtaining the results shown in
Table 7.

Fig. 19. Structural mesh.

In all the evaluated cases, the maximum equivalent Von Mises stress was located in
the leading edge of the blade root as shown in Fig. 20. Fig. 21 shows a summary of the
results obtained from the aerodynamic and structural numerical analyses.
 15

Table 7. Structural assessment results

RPM No. of Equivalent Total Deformation

Blades (B) Stress (MPa) (mm)
1500 3 178.02 2.205
4 218.22 3.417
5 222.11 6.394
2500 3 162.20 2.114
4 173.98 3.557
5 183.29 5.831
3000 3 143.27 2.299
4 165.47 4.082
5 173.65 6.083
3500 3 136.61 2.179
4 147.87 3.537
5 163.01 5.446

Fig. 20. Maximum equivalent stress location.

Fig. 21. Summary of results.

16

4 Conclusions

A methodology for rapid propeller design considering aerodynamic efficiency and

structural integrity of the blades was developed. The obtained results were contrasted
with simulated models achieving satisfactory agreement. The validity of the parametric
model was proven using numerical tools. Among the evaluated models, it was con-
cluded that larger propellers operating at lower speeds with a higher number of blades
are subject to higher stresses and operate at slightly higher efficiencies. This is due to
the fact that this sizing methodology generates bigger root areas when a fewer number
of blades is input into the code. Since centrifugal forces usually represent the highest
stresses in propeller blades, lower weight of smaller propellers operating at higher
speeds generates lower maximum stresses in the blade root. The aerostructural assess-
ment code accurately predicts this behaviour as well as the tendency in aerodynamic
parameters such as efficiency and generated thrust.

5 Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the team behind Multidisciplinary Project PIMI 18-01 and ATA
research group for their financial and technical support during the development of this
project.

References
1. Austin, R.: Unmanned Aircraft Systems - UAVs Design, Development and Deployment. 1st
edn. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., West Sussex, UK (2010)
2. Baek, H., Lim, J.: Design of Future UAV-Relay Tactical Data Link for Reliable UAV Con-
trol and Situational Awareness. IEEE Communications Magazine 56(10), 144-150 (2018)
3. Xu, J., Zeng, Y., Zhang, R.: UAV-Enabled Wireless Power Transfer: Trajectory Design and
Energy Optimization. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications 17(8), 5092-5106,
(2018)
4. Panagiotou, P., Fotiadis-Karras S., Yakinthos, K.: Conceptual design of a Blended Wing
Body MALE UAV. Aerospace Science and Technology 73, 32-47 (2018)
5. Baris, E., Landman, D.: An Investigation into the Potential Benefits of Distributed Electric
Propulsion on Small UAVs at Low Reynolds Numbers. In: 35th AIAA Applied Aerody-
namics Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Denver, Colorado
(2017)
6. Wang, B., et al.: Current technologies and challenges of applying fuel cell hybrid propulsion
systems in unmanned aerial vehicles. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 116, 100620 (2020)
7. Lieh, J., Spahr, E., Behbahani, A.and Hoying, J.: Design of Hybrid Propulsion Systems for
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. In: 47th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Confer-
ence, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, San Diego, California (2011)
8. Dumitrache, A., Pricop, M., Niculescu, M., Cojocaru, M., Ionescu, T.: Design and Analysis
Methods for UAV Rotor Blades. Scientific Research and Education in the Air Force 19(1),
115-126 (2017)
 17

9. Capitao, A.: Implementation of Blade Element Momentum/Vortex Methods for the Design
of Aero Engine Propellers. Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg (2017)
10. Wall, D. L.: Optimum Propeller Design for Electric UAVs. Master's Thesis, Auburn Uni-
versity. (2012)
11. Kutty, H. A, Rajendran, P.: 3D CFD Simulation and Experimental Validation of Small APC
Slow Flyer Propeller Blade. MDPI Aerospace 4(1), p. 10, 2017.
12. Ruiz, M. C.: CFD Simulation of Propellers: Best Practices Analysis. Master's Thesis,
Politecnico di Torino. (2019)
13. Rutkay, B.: A Process for the Design and Manufacture of Propellers for Small Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles. Master's Thesis, Carleton University (2014)
14. Crigler, J. L.: TR 924 - Application of Theodorsen's Theory to Propeller Design. National
Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, Langley Field, VA (1949)
15. Stoll, A.: Design of quiet UAV propellers. Master’s Thesis, Dep. of Aeronautics and Astro-
nautics, Stanford University (2012)
16. Seeni, A.: Aerodynamic Performance Characterization and Static Structural Analysis of
Slotted Propeller: Part A Effect of Position. IEAT Mathematical Modelling of Engineering
Problems 6(4), 611-624 (2019)
17. Kong, C., and Park, H.: A Study on Structural Design and Analysis of Composite Propeller
Blade of Turboprop for High Efficiency and Light Weight. In ECCM15 - 15th European
Conference on Composite Materials, European Society for Composite Materials. Venice
(2012)
18. Northrop Grumman Newsroom, https://news.northropgrumman.com/multimedia/photo/au-
tonomous-systems/bat-unmanned-aircraft-system-uas. Last accessed 07 Oct 2020
19. Harris, N.: Steady Aircraft Flight and Aircraft Performance. 1st edn. Princeton University
Press, Princeton, NJ. (2006)
20. Fink, R.: USAF Stability and Control DATCOM. 1st edn. McDonnell Douglas Corporation,
Long Beach, CA, 1978.
21. Drela M., Harold, Y.: AVL, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
http://web.mit.edu/drela/Public/web/avl/. Last accessed 07 Oct 2020
22. Miller, L.: Optimal Cruise Performance. AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power 30(3), 403-
405 (2012)
23. Gudmundsson, S.: General Aviation Aircraft Design. 1st edn. Butterworth-Heinemann, Ox-
ford, UK. (2014)
24. Weick, F.: Simplified Propeller Design for Low-Powered Airplanes. 1st edn. Bureau of Aer-
onautics, USN. Washington, USA (1925)
25. Adkin, C., Liebeck, R.: Design of Optimum Propellers. AIAA Journal of Propulsion and
Power 10(5), 676-682 (1994)
26. Leap Australia Computational Fluid Dynamics: Tips & Tricks: Estimating the First Cell
Height for Correct Y+ (2016). https://www.computationalfluiddynamics.com.au/tips-tricks-
cfd-estimate-first-cellheight/. Last accessed 15 Jan 2020.
27. Reid, E.: The Influence of Blade-Width Distribution on Propeller Characteristics (NACA
T.N. 1834). National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. Washington (1949)