E3S Web of Conferences 391, 01032 (2023) https://doi.org/10.

1051/e3sconf/202339101032
ICMED-ICMPC 2023

Design and analysis of drone propeller by using

aluminium and nylon materials

H. Sai Teja1, Gnanendar Chawan1, Sree Nilay1, D. Eswaraiah1 ,and U.S. Jyothi1
1Department of Mechanical Engineering, Gokaraju Rangaraju Institute of Engineering and Technology,
Hyderabad, Telangana 500090, India.


Abstract: It is undeniable fact that the importance of drones has increased in

every aspect of the daily life such as Defence, agriculture, film shooting,
disaster management, transportation etc. In the view to increasing the efficiency
of a drone, Using Solid works it is proposed to design the Drone Propellers and
analyse the output parameters such as thrust produced, pressure and velocity of
the propeller. The objective of this research work is to design thrust optimized
blade of length 134mm and 167mm with a density of air 1.204 kg/m3 and
perform thrust, velocity and pressure analysis with respect to change in
material, RPM, angle, and length of the blade. The property of aluminium 1060
H12 and Nylon 101 being lightweight is chosen for designing and analysing of
blades. The modal analysis shows the first natural frequency occurs at around
5000 RPM which is safe for operating the blade. So, it had been considered as
2500rpm and 3500rpm to calculate thrust and other parameters as mentioned.
The CFD analysis of the model was performed in solid works and required
parameters has been obtained.

1. Introduction:

Drones have become an age that no longer like toys or playing flies for those interested and
enthusiasts. A drone can be considered an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). Quadro copter is
short for a quadrotor helicopter, which is also commonly known as a quadrotor and drone.
This mechanism uses a multi-rotor for lifting and propulsion against gravity with four rotors
widely used for many purposes these days. A pair of diagonal propellers will rotate clockwise
and another pair counter clockwise. This motor rotation speed is used to control the direction
and achieve the movement of the drone. Propellers are one of the fundamental elements of
aircraft propulsion and construction, they function as a rotating wing that creates lift in the
same direction as the axis of rotation.

_______________________________________
Corresponding
*Correspondingauthor:
author:[email protected]
[email protected]

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
E3S Web of Conferences 391, 01032 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202339101032
ICMED-ICMPC 2023

A propeller is a rotating air foil that is mounted on the motor crankshaft and has at least two
sharp edges attached to it. A propeller can convert mechanical energy into useful thrust. The
cutting edges of a propeller have a leading edge, the following edge, a tip, a shank, a face,
and a back. Propellers convert rotating motion from electric motors, turboprop engines, or
cylinder motors into propulsion power. They could have a fixed pitch or fluctuate. A cylinder
motor's crankshaft typically has a propeller attached to it, either directly or indirectly through
a reducing unit. Although large motors and turboprop airliners typically do not require
multifaceted quality of adapting, light airship motors frequently don't require this quality of
adapting.

2. Propeller material:
Aluminium 1060 Alloy:
Fig.2.1 Aluminium 1060 Alloy

Propeller Design:

Pitch angle, flow angle, chord distribution at the blade span, and twist distribution are only a
few of the numerous factors that have an impact on the building of propellers. The propeller
will be built using the theory of blade elements. If vibration could be tolerated, a single-blade
propeller would be the most effective. Therefore, a two-bladed propeller is the best in terms
of practicality for achieving a reasonable level of balance with far less vibration.

2
E3S Web of Conferences 391, 01032 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202339101032
ICMED-ICMPC 2023

Fig.2.2 Propeller design

Table 2.1 Propeller dimensions:

S.No. Specifications Dimensions

1. Length of blade
150mm.

2. Angle of cut
15deg.

3. Thickness of blade
2mm.

4. Mid blade length

75mm.

Table 2.2 Simulation results of standard data:

LENGTH OF RPM OF THRUST OBTAINED(N)

PROPELLER (mm) PROPELLER
150 mm 2500 1.57
150 mm 3500 2.61

3
E3S Web of Conferences 391, 01032 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202339101032
ICMED-ICMPC 2023

3. Analysis data:

Table 3.1 Simulation results of propeller at 2500rpm

Name Unit Value Criteria Delta

Total Pa 100806.42 1227.91829 626.370411

Pressure

Velocity m/s -11.465 4.8665587 3.29658106

Force N 0.343 5.64076708 1.14475515

(thrust)


Fig 3.1 Velocity, pressure and thrust combined graph

4
E3S Web of Conferences 391, 01032 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202339101032
ICMED-ICMPC 2023

Table 3.2 Simulation results of propeller at 3500rpm

Name Unit Value Criteria Delta

Total Pa 100027.52 1453.38644 520.10

Pressure

GG m/s -4.034 9.34657763 9.01

Minimum
Velocity

Force N 2.780 95.2721132 3.44

(thrust)

Fig 3.2 Velocity pressure and thrust a combined graph:

Table 3.3 Result comparison of standard data v/s analysis data:

RPM Standard Thrust(N) Analysis Thrust(N) Difference(N)

2500 1.57 0.685688 0.884312
3500 2.61 2.99947 0.38947

At 2500 rpm the Analysis Thrust is less than standard thrust, and error parameters is obtained.
And at 3500 the Analysis Thrust is higher than Standard thrust.

So, by comparing both the rpms, 3500 rpm looks more efficient compared to standard data.

4. Change in parameters of propeller:

Changing the parameters of Propeller like Length, Angle of Cut, RPM, Material, and the
analysis is performed to get the results.

5
E3S Web of Conferences 391, 01032 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202339101032
ICMED-ICMPC 2023

Material used and its properties:

Fig 4.1 Aluminium 1060 Alloy

6
E3S Web of Conferences 391, 01032 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202339101032
ICMED-ICMPC 2023

Fig 4.2 Nylon 101

7
E3S Web of Conferences 391, 01032 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202339101032
ICMED-ICMPC 2023

4(a) 2500rpm:

Table 4.1 Simulation result of propeller length 134 mm & angle 10deg for 2500rpm:

MATERIAL LENGTH ANGLE THRUST(N) PRESSURE(Pa) VELOCITY(m/s)

(mm) (deg)
Aluminium 134 10 0.467 101318.84 4.966
Nylon 134 10 6.072 101454.92 20.052

Table 4.2 Comparing propellers of aluminium and nylon at 10deg for 134mm length
and 2500rpm:

ALUMINIUM NYLON DIFFERENCE

THRUST(N) 0.467 6.072 5.605
PRESSURE(Pa) 101318.84 101454.92 136.08
VELOCITY(m/s) 4.966 20.052 15.086

Based on the angle & rpm of propeller, the thrust, pressure, and velocity vary. Thrust
production is mainly considered in Propeller design. The simulated values are calculated and
errors are noted above. As the thrust of nylon blade of angle 10deg is higher and better than
aluminium of angle 10deg. So, in the case above nylon is efficient and better to be used.

Table 4.3 Simulation result of propeller length 134 mm & angle 15deg for 2500rpm:

MATERIA LENGT ANGL THRUST(N PRESSURE(Pa VELOCITY(m/s

L H (mm) E (deg) ) ) )
Aluminium 134 15 1.778 101318.90 0.066
Nylon 134 15 3.425 101572.40 17.660

Table 4.4 Comparing propellers of aluminium and nylon at 15deg for 134mm length
and 2500rpm:

ALUMINIUM NYLON DIFFERENCE

THRUST(N) 1.778 3.425 1.647
PRESSURE(Pa) 101318.90 101572.40 253.5
VELOCITY(m/s) 0.066 17.660 17.594

Based on the angle & rpm of propeller, the thrust, pressure, and velocity vary. Thrust
production is mainly considered in Propeller design. The simulated values are calculated and
errors are noted above. As the thrust of nylon blade of angle 15deg is higher and better than
aluminium of angle 15deg. So, in the case above nylon is efficient and better to be used.

8
E3S Web of Conferences 391, 01032 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202339101032
ICMED-ICMPC 2023

Comparing the angle of cut of propeller’s 10degree v/s 15degree:

By observing the thrust values of aluminium 10deg & 15deg and nylon 10deg & 15deg. The
thrust production of nylon is higher in both the cases, so nylon is better to be used.

Table 4.5 Simulation result of propeller length 167 mm & angle 10deg for 2500rpm:

MATERIA LENGT ANGL THRUST(N PRESSURE(Pa VELOCITY(m/s

L H (mm) E (deg) ) ) )
Aluminium 167 10 3.960 101318.56 0.034
Nylon 167 10 92.422 101948.95 47.575

Table 4.6 Comparing propellers of aluminium and nylon at 10deg for 167mm length
and 2500rpm:

ALUMINIUM NYLON DIFFERENCE

THRUST 3.960 92.422 88.462
PRESSURE(Pa) 101318.56 101948.95 630.39
VELOCITY(m/s) 0.034 47.575 47.541

Based on the angle & RPM of propeller, the thrust, pressure, and velocity vary. Thrust
production is mainly considered in Propeller design. The simulated values are calculated and
errors are noted above. As the thrust of nylon blade of angle 10deg is higher and better than
aluminium of angle 10deg. So, in the case above nylon is efficient and better to be used.

Table 4.7 Simulation result of propeller length 167 mm & angle 15deg for 2500rpm:
MATERIA LENGT ANGL THRUST(N PRESSURE(Pa VELOCITY(m/s
L H (mm) E (deg) ) ) )
Aluminium 167 15 17 102576.44 15.360
Nylon 167 15 0.839 102433.70 43.730

Table 4.8 Comparing propellers of aluminium and nylon at 15deg for 167mm length
and 2500rpm:

ALUMINIUM NYLON DIFFERENCE

THRUST(N) 17 0.839 16.161
PRESSURE(Pa) 102576.44 102433.70 142.74
VELOCITY(m/s) 15.360 43.730 28.37

9
E3S Web of Conferences 391, 01032 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202339101032
ICMED-ICMPC 2023

Based on the angle & rpm of propeller, the thrust, pressure, and velocity vary. Thrust
production is mainly considered in Propeller design. The simulated values are calculated and
errors are noted above. As the thrust of aluminium blade of angle 10deg is higher and better
than nylon of angle 10deg. So, in the case above aluminium is efficient and better to be used.

Comparing the angle of cut of propeller’s 10degree v/s 15degree:

By observing the thrust values of aluminium 10deg & 15deg and nylon 10deg & 15deg. The
thrust production of nylon is higher, so nylon is better to be used.

4(b) 3500rpm:

Table 4.9 Simulation result of propeller length 134 mm & angle 10deg for 3500rpm:

MATERIA LENGT ANGL THRUST(N PRESSURE(Pa VELOCITY(m/s

L H (mm) E (deg) ) ) )
Aluminium 134 10 20.386 101319.54 0.114
Nylon 134 10 42.665 101820.80 32.585

Table 4.10 Comparing propellers of aluminium and nylon at 10deg for 134mm length
and 3500rpm:

ALUMINIUM NYLON DIFFERENCE

THRUST(N) 20.386 42.665 22.279
PRESSURE(Pa) 101319.54 101820.80 501.26
VELOCITY(m/s) 0.114 32.585 32.471

Based on the angle & RPM of propeller, the thrust, pressure, and velocity vary. Thrust
production is mainly considered in Propeller design. The simulated values are calculated and
errors are noted above. As the thrust of nylon blade of angle 10deg is higher and better than
aluminium of angle 10deg. So, in the case above nylon is efficient and better to be used.

Table 4.11 Simulation result of propeller length 134 mm & angle 15deg for 3500rpm:
MATERIA LENGT ANGL THRUST(N PRESSURE(Pa VELOCITY(m/s
L H (mm) E (deg) ) ) )
Aluminium 134 15 0.611 101319.23 0.012
Nylon 134 15 2.708 101803.79 18.705

Table 4.12 Comparing propellers of aluminium and nylon at 15deg for 134mm length
and 3500rpm:

ALUMINIUM NYLON DIFFERENCE

THRUST(N) 0.611 2.708 2.097
PRESSURE(Pa) 101319.23 101803.79 484.56
VELOCITY(m/s) 0.012 18.705 18.693

10
E3S Web of Conferences 391, 01032 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202339101032
ICMED-ICMPC 2023

Based on the angle & RPM of propeller, the thrust, pressure, and velocity vary. Thrust
production is mainly considered in Propeller design. The simulated values are calculated and
errors are noted above. As the thrust of nylon blade of angle 10deg is higher and better than
aluminium of angle 10deg. So, in the case above nylon is efficient and better to be used.

Comparing the angle of cut of propeller’s 10degree v/s 15degree:

By observing the thrust values of aluminium 10deg & 15deg and nylon 10deg & 15deg. The
thrust production of nylon is higher in both the cases, so nylon is better to be used.

Table 4.13 Simulation result of propeller of length 167 mm & angle 10deg for
3500rpm:

MATERIA LENGT ANGL THRUST(N PRESSURE(Pa VELOCITY(m/s

L H (mm) E (deg) ) ) )
Aluminium 167 10 13.542 101318.74 0.057
Nylon 167 10 102.422 101948.95 47.422

Table 4.14 Comparing propellers of aluminium and nylon at 10deg for 167mm length
at 3500rpm:

ALUMINIUM NYLON DIFFERENCE

THRUST(N) 13.542 102.422 88.88
PRESSURE(Pa) 101318.74 101948.95 630.21
VELOCITY(m/s) 0.057 47.422 47.365

Based on the angle & rpm of propeller, the thrust, pressure, and velocity vary. Thrust
production is mainly considered in Propeller design. The simulated values are calculated and
errors are noted above. As the thrust of nylon blade of angle 10deg is higher and better than
aluminium of angle 10deg. So, in the case above nylon is efficient and better to be used.

Table 4.15 Simulation result of propeller of length 167mm & angle 15deg for
3500rpm:

MATERIA LENGT ANGL THRUST(N PRESSURE(Pa VELOCITY(m/s

L H (mm) E (deg) ) ) )
Aluminium 167 15 18.485 101318.77 0.062
Nylon 167 15 0.839 102433.70 43.730

11
E3S Web of Conferences 391, 01032 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202339101032
ICMED-ICMPC 2023

Table 4.16 Comparing propellers of aluminium and nylon at 15deg for 167mm length
at 3500rpm:

ALUMINIUM NYLON DIFFERENCE

THRUST(N) 18.485 0.839 17.646
PRESSURE(Pa) 101318.77 102433.70 1114.93
VELOCITY(m/s) 0.062 43.730 43.668

Based on the angle & RPM of propeller, the thrust, pressure, and velocity vary. Thrust
production is mainly considered in Propeller design. The simulated values are calculated
and errors are noted above. As the thrust of aluminium blade of angle 10deg is higher and
better than nylon of angle 10deg. So, in the case above aluminium is efficient and
better to be used.

Comparing the angle of cut of propeller’s 10degree v/s 15degree:

By observing the thrust values of aluminium 10deg & 15deg and nylon 10deg & 15deg. The
thrust production of nylon is higher, so nylon is better to be used.

Table 4.17 Simulation result of propeller length 150mm of angle 15degree at 2500rpm
and 3500rpm:

MATERIAL LENGTH RPM ANGLE THRUST PRESSURE VELOCITY

(mm) (deg) (N) (Pa) (m/s)
Aluminium 150 2500 15 0.343 100806.42 -11.465
Aluminium 150 3500 15 2.780 100027.52 -4.034

Table 4.18 Simulation results of all the propellers for different lengths and angles at
2500rpm

MATERIAL LENGTH ANGLE THRUST PRESSURE VELOCITY

(mm) (deg) (N) (Pa) (m/s)

Aluminium 134 10 0.467 101318.84 0.066

Aluminium 134 15 1.778 101318.90 0.066
Aluminium 167 10 3.960 101318.56 0.034
Aluminium 167 15 0.839 102433.70 43.730
Nylon 134 10 6.072 101454.92 20.052
Nylon 134 15 3.425 101572.40 17.660
Nylon 167 10 92.422 101948.95 47.575
Nylon 167 15 0.839 102433.70 43.730

12
E3S Web of Conferences 391, 01032 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202339101032
ICMED-ICMPC 2023

Table 4.19 Simulation results of all the propellers for different lengths and angles at
3500rpm

MATERIAL LENGTH ANGLE THRUST PRESSURE VELOCITY

(mm) (deg) (N) (Pa) (m/s)

Aluminium 134 10 20.386 101319.54 0.114

Aluminium 134 15 0.611 101319.23 0.012
Aluminium 167 10 13.542 101318.74 0.057
Aluminium 167 15 18.485 101318.77 0.062
Nylon 134 10 42.665 101820.80 32.585
Nylon 134 15 2.708 101803.79 18.705
Nylon 167 10 102.422 101948.95 47.422
Nylon 167 15 0.839 102433.70 43.730

• From the table 4.18, nylon of length 167mm and angle of 10deg has produced the
simulation thrust of 92.422N.

• From the table 4.19, nylon of length 167mm and angle of 10deg has produced the
simulation thrust of 102.422N.

Conclusion:

• The blades designed of different lengths (134mm & 167mm) and angle (10deg &
15deg) and CFD analysis performed in Solid works, and results are dragged out at
2500 and 3500rpm.
• Those results were compared to previous(standard) data...
• The CFD thrust analysis of propeller 150 mm gave a thrust of 0.343N at 2500rpm,
and thrust of 2.780N at 3500rpm, a bit more compared to the previous(standard)
data.
• Thrust production is mainly considered in propeller design & for practical usage.
• Amongst all the propeller, Nylon of length 167mm produces a thrust of 92.422N at
2500rpm and thrust of 102.422N at 3500rpm, shows up to be produced highest
thrust under simulation.
• However here, numerical analysis differs from experimental analysis.
• Thus, further experimentation/investigation suggested in order to
improve the result.

13
E3S Web of Conferences 391, 01032 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202339101032
ICMED-ICMPC 2023

References:

[1] P. L. Coronado, F. Stetina, and D. Jacob, “New technologies to support

NASA’s Mission to Planet Earth satellite remote sensing product validation: use
of an unmanned autopiloted vehicle (UAV) as a platform to conduct remote
sensing,” Robotic and Semi-Robotic Ground Vehicle Technology, vol. 3366, pp.
38–49, (1998).

[2] S. R. Herwitz, L. F. Johnson, J. C. Arvesen, R. G. Higgins, J. G. Leung, and S.

E. Dunagan, “Precision agriculture as a commercial application for solar powered
unmanned aerial vehicles,” in AIAA’s 1st Technical Conference and workshop on
Unmanned Aerospace Vehicles, p. 7, Portsmouth, Virginia, (2002).

[3] L. F. Johnson, S. Herwitz, S. Dunagan, B. Lobitz, D. Sullivan, and R. Slye,

“Collection of ultra-high spatial and spectral resolution image data over California
vineyards with a small UAV,” Proceedings of the 30th International Symposium
on Remote Sensing of Environment (ISRSE), pp. 3–5, (2003), http://www.uav-
applications.org/gallery/img/5.pdf.

[4] H. Eisenbeiss, “A mini unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV): system overview and
image acquisition,” International Archives of Photogrammetry. Remote Sensing
and Spatial Information Sciences, vol. 36, no. 5/W1, p. 7, (2004).

[5] S. Nebiker, A. Annen, M. Scherrer, and D. Oesch, “A lightweight multispectral

sensor for micro-UAV-opportunities for very high resolution airborne remote
sensing,” The international archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and
spatial information sciences, vol. 37, pp. 1193–1199, (2008).

[6] G. Romeo, G. Frulla, E. Cestino, and G. Corsino, “HELIPLAT: design,

aerodynamic, structural analysis of long-endurance solar-powered stratospheric
platform,” Journal of Aircraft, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1505–1520, (2004).

[7] S. Jashnani, T. R. Nada, M. Ishfaq, A. Khamker, and P. Shaholia, “Sizing and

preliminary hardware testing of solar powered UAV,” The Egyptian Journal of
Remote Sensing and Space Science, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 189–198, (2013).

[8] T. E. Noll, J. M. Brown, M. E. Perez-Davis, S. D. Ishmael, G. C. Tiffany, and

M. Gaier, Investigation of the Helios Prototype Aircraft Mishap, (2004),
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/ 64317main_helios.pdf.

[9] X. Zhu, Z. Guo, and Z. Hou, “Solar-powered airplanes: a historical perspective

and future challenges,” Progress in Aerospace Science, vol. 71, pp. 36–53, (2014).
International Journal of Aerospace Engineering 11.

[10] J. B. McDevitt and A. F. Okuno, Static and Dynamic Pressure Measurements

on a Naca 0012 Air foil in the Ames High Reynolds Number Facility, (1985).

14
E3S Web of Conferences 391, 01032 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202339101032
ICMED-ICMPC 2023

[11] E. Llorente, A. Gorostidi, M. Jacobs, W. A. Timmer, X. Munduate, and O.

Pires, “Wind tunnel tests of wind turbine airfoils at high Reynolds numbers,”
Journal of Physics Conference Series, vol. 524, no. 1, p. 10, (2014).

[12] P. Giguére and M. S. Selig, “New airfoils for small horizontal axis wind
turbines,” The Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, vol. 120, no. 2, pp. 108–114,
(1998).

[13] R. K. Singh, M. R. Ahmed, M. A. Zullah, and Y. H. Lee, “Design of a low

Reynolds number airfoil for small horizontal axis wind turbines,” Renewable
energy, vol. 42, pp. 66–76, (2012).

[14] P. Shin and K. Kim, “Aerodynamic performance prediction of SG6043 airfoil

for a horizontal-axis small wind turbine,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series,
vol. 1452, no. 1, p. 11, (2020).

[15] S. Sharma, “An aerodynamic comparative analysis of airfoils for low-speed

aircrafts,” International Journal of Engineering Research, vol. 5, no. 11, pp. 525–
529, (2016).

[16] S. A. Oller, L. G. Nallim, and S. Oller, “Usability of the Selig S1223 profile
airfoil as a high lift hydrofoil for hydrokinetic application,” Journal of Applied
Fluid Mechanics, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 537–542, (2016).

[17] R. R. Glassock, Design, Modelling and Measurement of Hybrid Powerplant

for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), Queensland University of Technology,
(2012).

[18] W. A. Mair and D. L. Birdsall, Aircraft Performance, Cambridge University

Press, (2009).

[19] B. A. Moffitt, T. H. Bradley, D. E. Parekh, D. Mavris, and E. Hartford,

“Validation of vortex propeller theory for UAV design with uncertainty analysis,”
in 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, pp. 1–19, (2008).

[20] M. K. Rwigema, “Propeller blade element momentum theory with vortex

wake deflection,” 27th International congress of the aeronautical sciences, vol. 1,
pp. 727–735, (2010).




15