PERBANDINGAN PERFORMA PROPELER UAV JENIS TOROIDAL DAN KONVENSIONAL MENGGUNAKAN METODE UJI STATIS

Perkembangan penggunaan Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), khususnya
jenis multirotor, mendorong kebutuhan terhadap sistem propulsi yang mampu
menghasilkan gaya dorong secara optimal dengan karakteristik operasi yang sesuai.
Propeler merupakan salah satu komponen utama sistem propulsi UAV yang
berfungsi mengubah energi putar motor menjadi gaya dorong (thrust). Perbedaan
geometri propeler dapat memengaruhi karakteristik aliran udara, kemampuan
menghasilkan gaya dorong, serta tingkat kebisingan yang dihasilkan. Salah satu
inovasi geometri propeler adalah propeler toroidal dengan bentuk closed-loop yang
menghubungkan ujung bilah sehingga secara teoritis dapat mengurangi
pembentukan tip vortex dan meningkatkan karakteristik aerodinamika serta
akustiknya. Namun, penerapan propeler toroidal komersial pada kondisi pengujian
tertentu masih memerlukan pembuktian secara eksperimental. Oleh karena itu,
penelitian ini dilakukan untuk mengetahui dan membandingkan performa propeler
toroidal dan propeler konvensional melalui metode uji statis.
Penelitian ini menggunakan propeler konvensional Gemfan 5×4.5 dan
propeler toroidal Foxeer 5.1×4.5. Kedua propeler diuji menggunakan konfigurasi
sistem propulsi yang sama, yaitu motor BLDC Outrunner 2212 2200 kV, Electronic
Speed Controller (ESC) 30 A, baterai Li-Po 2200 mAh, serta perangkat Brushless
Motor Analyzer dan thrust test bench. Pengukuran gaya dorong dilakukan
menggunakan load cell, sedangkan kecepatan putar propeler diukur menggunakan
sensor RPM. Selain parameter gaya dorong, penelitian juga melakukan pengukuran
tingkat kebisingan untuk memperoleh gambaran karakteristik akustik kedua propeler. Metode pengujian yang digunakan adalah uji statis, yaitu pengujian
propeler tanpa adanya pengaruh aliran udara bebas (free stream). Pengujian
dilakukan melalui beberapa variasi kecepatan putar motor dan masing-masing
pengujian dilakukan secara berulang untuk memperoleh nilai rata-rata yang lebih
representatif. Data hasil pengujian selanjutnya dianalisis secara deskriptif melalui
perbandingan nilai RPM, gaya dorong, dan tingkat kebisingan. Analisis statistik
juga dilakukan pada kondisi RPM maksimum menggunakan Independent Samples
t-Test untuk mengetahui apakah terdapat perbedaan yang signifikan antara
performa kedua propeler.
Hasil pengujian menunjukkan bahwa peningkatan RPM pada kedua jenis
propeler diikuti oleh peningkatan gaya dorong. Propeler konvensional Gemfan
5×4.5 menghasilkan gaya dorong rata-rata sebesar 34,50 gf pada 5.147 RPM dan
meningkat hingga 122,25 gf pada 9.326 RPM. Sementara itu, propeler toroidal
Foxeer 5.1×4.5 menghasilkan gaya dorong rata-rata sebesar 28,75 gf pada 5.042
RPM dan mencapai 113,00 gf pada 9.498 RPM. Pada seluruh titik pengujian, gaya
dorong propeler toroidal lebih rendah dibandingkan propeler konvensional, dengan
persentase perbedaan sebesar 16,67% pada kisaran 5.000 RPM dan semakin
mengecil hingga 7,57% pada kisaran 9.500 RPM. Hasil uji statistik gaya dorong
menunjukkan nilai Sig. (2-tailed) sebesar 0,039, lebih kecil dari taraf signifikansi
0,05, sehingga terdapat perbedaan gaya dorong yang signifikan secara statistik
antara kedua jenis propeler pada kondisi RPM maksimum. Nilai Mean Difference
sebesar 9,25 gf menunjukkan bahwa gaya dorong rata-rata propeler konvensional
lebih tinggi dibandingkan propeler toroidal.
Pada pengukuran kebisingan, tingkat kebisingan kedua propeler berada
pada rentang yang relatif berdekatan. Propeler toroidal cenderung menghasilkan
tingkat kebisingan sedikit lebih tinggi pada sebagian besar variasi RPM, dengan
perbedaan rata-rata sebesar 0,41% dibandingkan propeler konvensional. Pada
kondisi RPM maksimum, propeler toroidal menghasilkan tingkat kebisingan
sebesar 85,75 dB, sedangkan propeler konvensional berada pada kisaran 84,75
85,50 dB. Hasil Independent Samples t-Test tingkat kebisingan menghasilkan nilai
Sig. (2-tailed) sebesar 0,564, lebih besar dari 0,05, sehingga tidak terdapat perbedaan tingkat kebisingan yang signifikan secara statistik antara kedua jenis
propeler pada kondisi RPM maksimum.
Berdasarkan keseluruhan hasil penelitian, propeler konvensional Gemfan
5×4.5 menunjukkan performa gaya dorong yang lebih tinggi dibandingkan propeler
toroidal Foxeer 5.1×4.5 pada seluruh rentang RPM yang diuji. Dari aspek
kebisingan, propeler konvensional juga cenderung menghasilkan tingkat
kebisingan yang sama atau sedikit lebih rendah dibandingkan propeler toroidal.
Dengan demikian, pada konfigurasi sistem propulsi dan kondisi uji statis yang
digunakan dalam penelitian ini, propeler toroidal belum menunjukkan peningkatan
performa gaya dorong maupun reduksi kebisingan dibandingkan propeler
konvensional. Hasil penelitian ini dapat menjadi data referensi dalam
pengembangan dan evaluasi performa propeler UAV, khususnya dalam
membandingkan karakteristik propeler dengan geometri konvensional dan closed
loop.

The increasing use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), particularly
multirotor UAVs, has created a need for propulsion systems capable of producing
adequate thrust with suitable operating characteristics. A propeller is one of the
main components of a UAV propulsion system, functioning to convert the rotational
energy of the motor into thrust. Differences in propeller geometry can affect airflow
characteristics, thrust generation capability, and the level of noise produced during
operation. One of the recent propeller geometry innovations is the toroidal
propeller, which employs a closed-loop configuration connecting the blade tips.
The geometry is theoretically capable of reducing tip vortex formation and
improving aerodynamic and acoustic characteristics. However, the performance of
commercially available toroidal propellers under specific operating conditions still
requires experimental verification. Therefore, this study was conducted to
determine and compare the performance of toroidal and conventional propellers
using a static test method.
The study used a Gemfan 5×4.5 conventional propeller and a Foxeer
5.1×4.5 toroidal propeller. Both propellers were tested using the same propulsion
system configuration, consisting of a BLDC Outrunner 2212 2200 kV motor, a 30A
Electronic Speed Controller (ESC), a 2200 mAh Li-Po battery, and a Brushless
Motor Analyzer integrated with a thrust test bench. Thrust was measured using a
load cell, while propeller rotational speed was measured using an RPM sensor. In
addition to thrust, noise measurements were conducted to evaluate the acoustic
characteristics of both propeller types. The experimental method employed was a
static test, in which the propellers were operated without the influence of freestream airflow. Testing was performed at several motor rotational speed variations,
with repeated running tests conducted to obtain representative average values. The
experimental data were subsequently analyzed descriptively by comparing RPM,
thrust, and noise levels. Statistical analysis was also performed at the maximum
RPM condition using an Independent Samples t-Test to determine whether
statistically significant differences existed between the two propellers.
The results showed that an increase in RPM was followed by an increase in
thrust for both propeller types. The Gemfan 5×4.5 conventional propeller produced
an average thrust of 34.50 gf at 5,147 RPM and increased to a maximum of 122.25
gf at 9,326 RPM. Meanwhile, the Foxeer 5.1×4.5 toroidal propeller produced an
average thrust of 28.75 gf at 5,042 RPM and reached a maximum of 113.00 gf at
9,498 RPM. At all tested points, the thrust produced by the toroidal propeller was
lower than that of the conventional propeller, with a difference of 16.67% at
approximately 5,000 RPM, decreasing to 7.57% at approximately 9,500 RPM. The
statistical analysis of thrust resulted in a Sig. (2-tailed) value of 0.039, which was
lower than the significance level of 0.05. Therefore, a statistically significant
difference in thrust was found between the two propellers at the maximum RPM
condition. The Mean Difference of 9.25 gf indicated that the conventional propeller
produced a higher average thrust than the toroidal propeller.
Regarding noise, the measured levels of both propellers were relatively
close. The toroidal propeller tended to produce slightly higher noise levels at most
tested RPM variations, with an average difference of 0.41% compared with the
conventional propeller. At the maximum RPM condition, the toroidal propeller
produced a noise level of 85.75 dB, while the conventional propeller produced a
level within the range of 84.75–85.50 dB. The Independent Samples t-Test for noise
produced a Sig. (2-tailed) value of 0.564, which was greater than 0.05. Thus, there
was no statistically significant difference in noise level between the two propellers
at the maximum RPM condition.
Based on the overall experimental results, the Gemfan 5×4.5 conventional
propeller demonstrated higher thrust performance than the Foxeer 5.1×4.5
toroidal propeller throughout the tested RPM range. In terms of noise, the
conventional propeller also tended to produce a similar or slightly lower noise level than the toroidal propeller. Therefore, under the propulsion system configuration
and static test conditions used in this study, the toroidal propeller did not
demonstrate an improvement in thrust performance or noise reduction compared
with the conventional propeller. The results of this study can serve as reference
data for the development and evaluation of UAV propeller performance,
particularly in comparing propellers with conventional and closed-loop
geometries.