Propeller Balancing to Enhance UAV Performance - White Paper

By Lauren Nagel

Executive Summary

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) rely on well-balanced propellers to achieve optimal performance, efficiency, and longevity. However, even minor propeller imbalances can trigger a positive feedback loop of mechanical stress, leading to increased vibration, reduced thrust efficiency, higher power consumption, and accelerated wear on critical components. Over time, these effects degrade the UAV’s propulsion system, bearings, flight controller performance, and structural integrity, ultimately shortening its Mean Time to Failure (MTTF) and increasing operational costs.

This white paper explores the causes, consequences, and solutions for UAV propeller imbalance. It examines industry standards such as ISO 21940-11:2016, which provides guidelines for permissible residual imbalance.

To mitigate the risks associated with imbalanced propellers, the white paper evaluates static vs. dynamic balancing techniques. While static balancing offers a simple, low-cost method to correct mass distribution, it lacks the precision needed for professional UAV applications. In contrast, dynamic balancing provides corrections based on readings taken while the propeller is rotating, ensuring a higher level of accuracy, compliance with industry standards, and extended component lifespan. The adoption of dynamic balancing solutions allows UAV manufacturers and operators to reduce wear, improve flight efficiency, and enhance overall UAV reliability.

By addressing propeller imbalance at its source, UAV professionals can reduce downtime, lower maintenance costs, and ensure stable, efficient flights in diverse operational environments.

Part 1: Background

Well-balanced propellers are a crucial component of top-performing UAVs. Just as balanced propellers are key to success, imbalanced propellers can lead to failures in the form of degraded performance, stress on components, and reduced competitiveness on the market.

In small UAVs, propellers are often cheap and easy to replace. Costs begin to accumulate when a propeller-based failure leads to damage to the UAV as a whole, or when a failure occurs in larger drones with sizable propellers that are more costly to replace.

This white paper delves into the intricacies of propeller balancing, highlighting its importance in maintaining UAV functionality, reliability, and longevity.

1.1 What is Propeller Balancing?

In broad terms, propeller balancing describes the act of achieving balance across the blades and axes of a propeller, with a focus on size, mass, and force generation.

Propellers are typically balanced in one of three ways: statically, dynamically, and aerodynamically. Static and dynamic balancing consist of adding weights to the propeller to achieve equal mass across the prop when at rest (static balancing) or at operating RPM (dynamic balancing). These types of imbalance repair misalignments between the center of mass and the center of rotation.

In contrast, aerodynamic balancing focuses on achieving equal thrust generation, by adjusting the physical properties of the blades such as blade shape and pitch angle. It is often called tracking. Aerodynamic balancing can be detected by measuring the pitch and roll torque on the motor, or by tracking each blade during a rotation to ensure that they both follow the same track. 

This article will discuss static and dynamic balancing, which should be done before aerodynamic balancing.

In ISO 21940-11:2016, propeller balancing is defined as “a procedure by which the mass distribution of a rotor is examined and, if necessary, adjusted to ensure that the residual imbalance or vibration in service is within specified limits” (ISO, 2016). A more visual definition of propeller balancing would describe it as the addition or removal of weight from a propeller to achieve a near-equal distribution of mass around the center.

Figure 1: Adding weights to the blades of a propeller to achieve equal mass distribution

1.2 Propeller Balancing Standards

Currently, the most referenced standard for propeller balancing is ISO 21940-11:2016, “Procedures and tolerances for rotors with rigid behaviour”.

It replaces the previous standard, ISO 1940-1:2003, with updated definitions and wider applications.

The new standard, established in 2016, follows a simple premise: the level of imbalance (U) in a rotor is considered acceptable when the residual imbalance, U_res, is less than or equal to a pre-defined permissible residual imbalance, U_per.

U_per is defined as the total tolerance in the plane of the centre of mass and is proportional to the mass of the rotor:

U_per ∝ m

It is measured in kg·m (kilogram metres), g·mm (gram millimetres), kg·mm (kilogram millimetres) or mg·mm (milligram millimetres).

The ratio of U_per to rotor mass is called e_per, defined as the permissible residual specific imbalance:

e_per = U_per m

It is measured in kg·m/kg (kilogram metres per kilogram), m (metres), g·mm/kg (gram millimetres per kilogram), or μm (micrometres), which is often the preferred unit as many e_per values fall between 0.1 μm and 10 μm.

For a rotor with only a resultant imbalance (and a negligible moment imbalance), e_per is the distance between the rotor’s centre of mass and the shaft axis.

It has been observed that e_per typically varies inversely with the service speed, n, of the rotor:

e_per ∝ 1 n

For UAV rotor balancing, one could swap ‘service speed’ with ‘cruise rotation speed’, or the RPM at which the propeller operates during cruise flight.

This relationship can also be expressed as:

e_per = c Ω

where

Ω = the angular velocity of the cruise speed, in rad/s

c is a constant

Differently put,

Ω = 2πn 60

where n = cruise rotation speed in revolutions/minute.

ISO 21940-11:2016 specifies five methods that can be used to determine the magnitude of permissible residual imbalance: 

1. Balance quality grades, derived from long-term practical experience with a large number of different rotors
2. Experimental evaluation of permissible residual imbalances
3. Limited bearing forces due to imbalance
4. Limited vibrations due to imbalance
5. Established experience with imbalance tolerances

For methods 3 and 4, the objectives are, respectively, to limit bearing forces and vibration. Balance quality tolerances are set by the corresponding bearing force and vibration limits.

Methods 2 and 5 are most commonly employed by organisations that have amassed a significant amount of balancing data for their specific rotors, sufficient to internally set balance quality tolerances.

Method 1 employs a global standard based on “worldwide experience and similarity considerations” to set balance quality requirements for typical machinery types.

The unit for balance quality grade according to method 1 is “G”, equivalent to the magnitude of e_perΩ expressed in mm/s (millimetres per second). I.e. if e_perΩ = 6.3 mm/s, then the balance quality grade = G 6.3, which happens to be the grade most commonly referenced for UAV rotor balancing.

Below is a summary table of balance quality grades for common machinery types:

1.3 Causes of Propeller Imbalance

There are many variables that can create imbalance in a propeller. 

Cumulative stress is a common cause of propeller imbalance during regular operations. Minuscule imperfections during manufacturing can be exacerbated over time, especially after many hours of high RPM operations. An imbalanced propeller leads to increased vibration, which can lead to loosening of components, misalignments, cracks, and other harmful effects, working in a positive feedback loop to further degrade the propeller’s balancing.

Damage to propellers during impacts or terrain strikes can also lead to losses of material that result in an imbalanced prop. For smaller UAVs with inexpensive propellers, it is often more economical to simply replace the propeller. For larger UAVs with more expensive propellers, it may be worthwhile to re-balance the propeller rather than replacing it. That said, for aircraft of any size, one must also consider the broader effects of the damage on the system, as the motor or other components may have also sustained damage.

Temperature stress can also cause deformations to certain kinds of propellers, such as nylon and other plastic props.

Figure 2: A damaged UAV propeller blade (Bayne, 2022)

Part 2: Consequences of Imbalanced Propellers

2.0 Background

Imbalanced propellers create a ripple effect that impacts many UAV systems. Regardless of the cause of the imbalance, the high-speed rotation results in asymmetry that is exploited again and again, thousands of times per minute. It therefore doesn’t take long for the effects of a small imbalance to affect the broader propulsion system, sensors, and stability of the aircraft.

Below is a summary of some of the most critical consequences of imbalanced propellers in a UAV.

2.1 Vibration

Vibration, resulting from the high speed rotation of an imbalanced propeller, is the root cause of many of the downstream issues discussed in this section. Several previous studies have demonstrated how propeller imbalance can cause destabilizing vibrations across various types of aircraft (Best, 1945; Loeffler, 1987; Fu, 2018). This vibration leads to performance degradation across systems resulting in thrust loss, increased noise, accelerated degradation, and reduced flight efficiency.

Within the world of multirotors, several studies have confirmed that the causal relationship between propeller imbalance and vibration extends to UAVs, using methods including on-board accelerometers (Ghalamchi, 2018) and on-rotor sensing (Lin, 2023). Other research has aimed to deduce vibration and imbalance using non-contact methods such as noise profile analysis (Rangel-Magdaleno, 2018), and laser vibrometry (Kuantama, 2019).

Such studies have helped us better understand the relationship between propeller imbalance and vibration, including when it becomes cause for concern.

In Kuantama (2019), a laser Doppler vibrometer was used to measure vibration in balanced and imbalanced UAV propellers. In the study, a laser beam was focused on three areas of the propeller, the tip, the center of the blade, and the hub, where it monitored dynamic propeller movement in order to derive vibration velocity. Prior to the experiments, the authors used a static balancing system to balance the propeller in two areas: the center of the blades and the hub. The propeller was then mounted on a rotor and spun at rotation speeds up to 7,000 RPM.

Figure 3: Kuantama’s (2019) laser vibrometer test setup

Interestingly, at higher RPMs, the 14” propeller demonstrated a much wider split in vibration velocity between the balanced and imbalanced models compared to the 13” propeller. At 5,000 RPM, the imbalanced 13” propeller exhibited a 12% or 0.4 m/s higher vibration velocity compared to the balanced propeller. In comparison, this split reached 33% or a 2.3 m/s increase in vibration velocity between the 14” imbalanced and balanced propellers. The authors noted that “a dramatic increase in vibration velocity occurred over 4000 RPM”. 

Figure 4: Vibration velocity of a 13” propeller (left) and 14” propeller (right) (Kuantama, 2019)

These results support previous findings that vibrations from propeller imbalance have a greater impact at higher RPM and may be more consequential on UAVs with larger propellers.

A more recent study by Salem et al. (2025) aimed to address the challenges associated with detecting rotor imbalance in dynamic environments, such as those involving wind turbulence and environmental noise.

Imbalance was introduced in the system by loosening one of the blade screws on a propeller. The vibration patterns were recorded using a micro-electromechanical system (MEMS) sensor mounted on the body of the UAV, and the recorded data was used to train their Multi-Layer Perceptron MLP neural network model, which would later be applied to a test dataset.

In their results, they noted that the vibration profile of the imbalanced rotor showed significantly more vibration in all three axes (X, Y, Z) compared to the balanced rotor. The deviation was most pronounced in the X axis, with peaks exceeding 2 g, but irregular patterns observed in the Y and Z axes suggest that the imbalance induced secondary vibrations throughout the system. 

The author notes that  “These fluctuations could not only compromise the UAV’s stability but also increase the risk of mechanical failure if left unaddressed.”

Figure 5: Vibration acceleration for a) balanced and b) imbalanced propellers (Salem, 2025)

Their neural network was able to achieve a correlation coefficient of 0.9224 on test datasets, suggesting that the model may be used to identify specific imbalances in other propulsion systems with similar data.

It is essential that vibration is precisely characterized in UAV systems, as it contributes to the factors discussed in the following sections.

2.2 Thrust Loss

It can be inferred mathematically and demonstrated experimentally that propeller thrust generation is negatively affected by imbalanced blades.

Mathematically speaking, one of the key variables contributing to hover thrust (T) is the thrust coefficient (C_T), for which blade geometry is a key contributor (Rangel-Magdaleno, 2018):

T = C_T ρ A_r r² n²

C_T = T ρ n² D⁴

Where C_T is the thrust coefficient, ρ is the density of air, A_r is the rotor disk area, r is the radius of the propeller, n is the angular velocity, and D is the diameter of the propeller.

Research completed in Sedek (2018) and Mizui (2012), have confirmed this phenomenon experimentally.

In Sedek (2018), it is demonstrated that an imbalance representing 5% of the total mass of the propeller can result in up to 50% reduced thrust. It is highly unlikely that a new commercial propeller would have such a high fault, but it is feasible that a damaged propeller could sustain a material loss resulting in such an imbalance.

Figure 6: Thrust vs. RPM for balanced and imbalanced propellers (Sedek, 2018)

A more realistic scenario is captured in Mizui (2012), where the imbalance of the propeller represents just over 1% of the total propeller mass. This imbalance resulted in a reduction of thrust in the range of 2 to 8% at operating speeds ranging from 2800 to 5600 RPM.

Figure 7: Thrust vs. RPM for balanced and imbalanced propellers (Mizui, 2012)

The operator thus experiences reduced thrust or increased power consumption, as evidenced in Rangel-Magdaleno et al. (2018), which demonstrated that power consumption increased with imbalance in a test propeller. The team used sound signals to demonstrate that the frequencies associated with imbalance corresponded to RPMs where power consumption was highest.

Figure 8: Median, mean and standard deviation for the power consumption of balanced and imbalanced propellers (Rangel-Magdaleno)

2.3 Noise

Intuitively, one assumes that imbalanced propellers produce a greater amount of noise than balanced propellers. However, for small imbalances not significantly impeding the flight of the UAV, the results are mixed.

For example, in Pechan (2015), the authors observed the opposite effect. Propellers with various imperfections such as protuberances, notched blades, and mass imbalances were tested for noise production and rotated at various RPMs from 3000 to 5500 RPM.

In the majority of their experiments, the propellers with protuberances or notches showed, on average, equal or higher noise production (LZmax) compared to the undamaged propeller.

Figure 9: The highest detected noise level (LZmax) of damaged (B1 - B5), imbalanced (B6), and smooth propellers

In the case of the imbalanced propeller, which had material removed from one blade via sanding, the results showed that the balanced propeller actually produced more noise at higher frequencies at 5000 RPM. 

Figure 10: Noise spectra of smooth and imbalanced propellers at 3000 (left) and 5000 RPM (right)

The authors do not specify how much material was removed from the blade, nor do they indicate whether the balancing of the propeller was characterized before the test, so it is difficult to decide how to interpret these findings. The propellers that were damaged by addition or removal of material were also not characterized in detail, and likely represent an imbalanced state themselves.

The authors do discuss the difference between tonal and broadband noise, which they differentiate as follows: “Tonal noise is related to the aerodynamics and kinematics of the blade in uniform flow, [...] thickness, loading and quadrupole noise. Broadband noise is more complex and is generated by the interaction between the flow and various components of the blade”. The tonal noise levels represent most of the contribution to the total noise, while the broadband noise represents only a small portion. They note that a major contributor to tonal noise is thickness noise, determined by the thickness of the propeller blade.

It may be hypothesized that by reducing the thickness of the imbalanced propeller’s blade through sanding, they may have contributed to less thickness noise and lower tonal noise production.

In another study by Iannace (2019), measurements of propeller noise were taken in an anechoic chamber using a quadcopter UAV with four 2-blade propellers. The noise was compared in three conditions: 1) unmodified propellers, 2) paper tape added to one blade of one of the propellers, 3) paper tape added to both blades of one of the propellers. The mass of the UAV, propellers, and paper tape were not indicated.

Four microphones were placed at different positions around the drone and linear sound pressure level was measured in dB. Interestingly, there were no significant differences in the sound measured in the three different conditions. The average sound level of the UAV with four balanced propellers was actually slightly higher (1.4 dB Lin) than the two imbalanced conditions.

Figure 11: Sound pressure level in dB Lin for each of the three conditions

Despite having very similar total noise levels, each of the conditions had a unique noise signature that the author’s neural network was able to differentiate with a success rate of over 97%.

A third study performed by Semke (2020), sought to characterize how damage influences the acceleration, acoustic levels and flight performance of UAVs. Testing was performed using a DJI Phantom 4 Pro with four unique sets of propellers, two of the sets had a low-noise design and the other two sets had a standard design. In each set, a centimeter of material was removed from the tip of one of the propellers to introduce an imbalance, while the other was unmodified.

The results demonstrated that for two of the standard blades, the imbalanced propellers showed a 4 dB noise level increase compared to the unmodified propellers, 78 dB vs. 74 dB, or a 5% increase. In contrast, the low-noise propellers showed little to no difference between the damaged and undamaged conditions.

Figure 12: Sound pressure level in dB of UAVs with undamaged and damaged propellers

They similarly compared the vibration of the aircraft using an on-board accelerometer. The results parallel the acoustic measurements. All aircraft exhibited increased vibration, but the increase was less pronounced in UAVs with the low-noise propellers.

Figure 13: Acceleration increase between UAVs with undamaged and damaged propellers

Each of these studies take for granted that the UAV’s propellers and motors were well balanced prior to the experiments. It would be interesting to see further studies of these effects with the following additions: 1) known propeller mass, 2) known mass or magnitude of the imbalance, 3) a measurement of the propeller’s balance against an established standard prior to the experiment. 

It would also be interesting to conduct these studies in larger UAVs. While Pechan (2015) tested a 22” Xoar prop, the two other studies used small quadcopters.

The takeaway from these studies is that small imbalances in UAV propellers are unlikely to significantly increase noise production, though large imbalances may result in more noise, especially as propeller size and RPM increases.

2.4 Degraded Flight Controller Performance

One of the impacts of imbalanced propellers is reduced flight stability, which requires corrective actions from the on-board flight controller. This may take the form of compensatory torque inputs to counteract perturbations (Pose, 2024) or constant rapid adjustments to maintain stability (Vertiq, n.d.). These corrections increase the flight controller’s power requirements and thus decrease the UAV’s efficiency and flight time.

A key example is the impact of imbalance on the Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU), responsible for measuring key parameters such as attitude, acceleration and angular velocity. IMUs are highly sensitive to vibrations, and excessive vibration loads can lead to fatigue and fractures, resulting in failures in microbeams and metal leads in micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) (Xu, 2024). It was found that this can be caused by a synchronization of the external acceleration frequency with the natural frequency of wiring, resulting in resonance and stress concentration (He, 2019). Another study demonstrated that such cracks in microbeams can degrade the performance of the gyroscope and thus the MEMS sensor readings (Larkin, 2020).

Degradation of on-board sensor readings often precedes catastrophic failure of the UAV. In Pose (2024), vibration due to propeller imbalance led to extreme noise in inertial measurements, causing imprecise attitude estimations that ultimately resulted in several crashes.

2.5 Accelerated Wear on Bearings

The relationship between propeller imbalance and vibration has been well defined, as has the relationship between vibration and bearing degradation, especially in older industries, such as industrial manufacturing. In Li (2023), a test rig was designed to study the behaviour of roller bearings under vibration excitation. The research demonstrated that this excitation can significantly increase the acceleration and axis trajectory of the bearing and reduce bearing stiffness, thus accelerating degradation.

The majority of the work on the relationship between vibration and bearing life in UAVs focuses on how bearing degradation leads to increased vibration.

In Banerjee (2023), researchers at the NASA Langley Research Center used a DJI S1000 UAV to experimentally detect vibration anomalies in an aircraft with damaged bearings. They developed a normalized health diagnostic feature called the “Vibrational Anomaly Indicator (VAI)”, to identify vibration signatures unique to flights with faulty bearings. The indicator employed a ratio of unique vibration events to non-unique events to score each system.

The diagnostic allowed them to differentiate between intact and damaged systems, which showed VAI values of 0.04 (a) and 0.08 (b) for intact systems, and 0.65 (c) and 0.84 (d) for damaged systems.

Figure 14: Power spectral density (PSD), as an indicator of vibration in systems with intact (a, b) and damaged (c, d) bearings

Summary

An imbalanced propeller sets off a positive feedback loop of degraded performance, shortening a UAV’s mean time to failure (MTTF). The high-speed rotation of an imbalanced propeller generates excessive vibration, which reduces thrust efficiency, increases noise production, and drives up power consumption. These vibrations propagate through the airframe, leading to accelerated wear on bearings, structural fatigue, and sensor inaccuracies that can lead to reduced flight stability.

If left unaddressed, this self-reinforcing loop can lead to premature failure of critical UAV components.

Part 3: Propeller Balancing Techniques

3.0 Background

To mitigate the performance degradations described in the previous section, one must address the root cause: imbalanced propellers.

Many off-the-shelf UAVs come with pre-balanced rotors that would achieve a passing grade according to ISO standards. The smaller versions of these drones are relatively inexpensive to acquire with fairly low-cost replacement parts. When it comes to imbalance in these models, the operator is likely to simply replace the propellers.

There are three principal scenarios where it is advisable to balance propellers:
The propellers are large and expensive to replace.
The UAV is built in-house.
A propeller is paired with a new model of motor.

The first scenario is fairly self-explanatory - if a UAV’s propellers cost hundreds or thousands of dollars to replace, it is worthwhile to try to balance and repair them.

In the second scenario, UAV manufacturers are not relying on supplier balancing and need to conduct in-house balancing as part of the production or quality assurance process.

The third scenario reflects the fact that motors and propellers should ideally be balanced together, as a perfectly balanced propeller on an imbalanced motor will still result in higher vibration and downstream degradation.

In this white paper we cover two ways to balance a UAV propeller – statically and dynamically. Static balancing is performed on a stationary propeller, while dynamic balancing addresses a rotating propeller. Each technique has its advantages and limitations, discussed below.

3.1 Static Balancing

Static balancing typically consists of mounting a propeller on an immobile stand and making adjustments to the propeller blades or hub until it is visibly balanced. Magnetic balancers are a popular option within static balancers, utilizing opposite magnets to create a low-friction pivot point around which the propeller can rotate.

Once the propeller is mounted, the user can manipulate the propeller to identify imbalances in both the blades and the hub, and material can be added or removed to minimize the imbalance. 

Common methods for reducing a propeller's mass include sanding, trimming, or drilling small holes. To add mass, common materials include clear paint, glue, nail polish, adhesive tape, or small screws.

Figure 15: A magnetic static propeller balancer

3.1.1 Advantages

There are several advantages to static balancing, and it can be preferable in situations where the UAV is not used commercially.

For example, static balancing equipment tends to be less expensive than dynamic balancing equipment, so there is an economic advantage. It is also very easy to learn, requiring virtually no technical expertise, and it can be performed fairly quickly once the set up is configured.

3.1.2 Limitations

For commercial UAV developers and operators, the limitations of static balancing are significant.

First, the work is done manually, so measurements are much less precise than a digital system. There is also no way to compare the balancing to a standard such as ISO 21940-11:2016, as no G value is generated. Additionally, certain types of propellers, such as foldable propellers or propellers with >2 blades, are more challenging to balance with a static balancer.

3.2 Dynamic Balancing

Dynamic balancing systems require at minimum: 1) a sensor to measure the propeller’s rotation speed and 2) an accelerometer to measure vibration. Some systems use high frequency position measurement instead of acceleration.

There are several commercial dynamic balancing solutions available on the manned aviation market, but none specifically designed for UAV characterization.

Seeing this need, Tyto Robotics developed a dynamic propeller balancing system, which includes hardware for mounting the propeller, sensors for recording measurements, and software for controlling the drivetrain and processing data to derive the necessary corrections.

Here’s an illustrated example of the balancing process:

Step 1: Mount the propeller on the thrust stand hardware and connect the RPM sensor to the force measurement unit.

Figure 16: The Flight Stand dynamic balancing test stand with propeller and RPM sensor

Step 2: Enter the rotor’s properties in the software. This includes operating (cruise) RPM, correction distance where correction weight will be added, and desired balancing quality grade.

Figure 17: Parameter input screen of dynamic balancer software

Step 3: Perform an initial trial spin, increasing the throttle until the propeller reaches the indicated operating RPM. Capture a reading and allow the propeller to come to rest.

Step 4: Add the calibration weight, in the form of tape, clear nail polish, etc., as indicated by the software. The software will provide the necessary mass and blade number where the weight should be added at the correction distance.

Figure 18: Software instructions for adding weight to the propeller for the calibration run

Step 5: Perform the calibration spin, increase the throttle to reach operating RPM.

Figure 19: Propeller throttle control system in the dynamic balancing software

Step 6: Add the final correction weight to the propeller, as indicated by the software. The correction weight added at this step will likely be sufficient to achieve the target balancing grade.

Figure 20: Final screen indicating the Final quality grade is in tolerance with the set standard

Step 7: If the propeller did not reach the target balancing grade, add the additional correction weight recommended by the software and spin the propeller again to verify the balance.

3.2.1 Advantages

For professional UAV use cases, dynamic balancing is almost always the preferred method for several reasons.

First, it is highly accurate. When the consequences of imbalanced propellers are so high, having accurate data on balancing is absolutely necessary. Dynamic systems also provide a G value and adhere to published standards, which can be crucial for UAV developers wanting to demonstrate compliance to customers or stakeholders.

Additionally, with automated balancing systems, dynamic balancing is easy to perform and completed relatively quickly, in just 5 minutes or less per propeller.

Finally, dynamic balancing systems are not limited by blade number or propeller type and can balance propellers with any number of blades, including one blade or a disc such as the motor.

3.2.2 Limitations

Some technical knowledge is required to balance a propeller dynamically. For example, most dynamic balancing softwares require the user to enter variables like cruise rotation speed and target G balancing grade. The more important piece of knowledge is how to safely mount and modify the propeller, ensuring safety while dealing with live power systems and spinning propellers.

Additionally, the equipment used for dynamic balancing tends to be more expensive than static equipment, so a greater investment is required.

Conclusion

The effects of propeller imbalance in UAVs are far-reaching, impacting flight stability, efficiency, sensor accuracy, and component longevity. Excessive vibration, resulting from even minor imbalances, can lead to thrust loss, increased power consumption, accelerated wear on bearings, structural fatigue, and degraded flight controller performance. Left unaddressed, these issues contribute to a shortened mean time to failure (MTTF), reduced reliability and increased operational costs.

Dynamic propeller balancing provides a practical and highly effective solution to mitigate these risks. Unlike static balancing, which offers only a basic mass correction, dynamic balancing precisely detects and corrects imbalances while the propeller is rotating, ensuring a high degree of accuracy and compliance with industry standards like ISO 21940-11:2016. This process reduces vibrations at the source, leading to smoother flights, improved efficiency, and longer component lifespans.

For UAV manufacturers and operators striving for optimal performance, reduced maintenance costs, and enhanced safety, implementing dynamic balancing as a standard practice is a crucial step forward. By adopting this approach, UAV systems can operate at peak efficiency, ensuring greater reliability, lower noise emissions, and an extended service life.

References

• Abdullah Salem BTS, Abdullah MN, Mustapha F, Kanirai NSA, Mustapha M. Vibration Analysis Using Multi-Layer Perceptron Neural Networks for Rotor Imbalance Detection in Quadrotor UAV. Drones. 2025; 9(2):102. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones9020102
• Banerjee, P., Okolo, W. A., & Moore, A. J. (2020). In-flight detection of vibration anomalies in unmanned aerial vehicles. Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation, Diagnostics and Prognostics of Engineering Systems, 3(4), 041105. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20205001055/downloads/JNDE_PB_WO_AM_VibrationAnomaly.pdf
• Bayne, D. (2022, May 28). When to change drone props? [https://www.droneblog.com/when-to-change-drone-props/].
• Best, S. G. (1945). Propeller Balancing Problems. SAE Transactions, 53, 648–659. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44467824
• Capriglione D, Carratù M, Catelani M, et al. Experimental analysis of IMU under vibration. In: Proceedings of the 16th IMEKO TC10 Conference: Testing, Diagnostics & Inspection as a Comprehensive Value Chain for Quality & Safety; September 3-4, 2019; Berlin, Germany. https://www.imeko.org/publications/tc10-2019/IMEKO-TC10-2019-002.pdf
• Fu P, Qiu B, Ding C, Shi B, Zhang Y. Experimental Study of Unbalanced Multiple Propeller Shaft. SAE Technical Paper 2018-01-1398. 2018. https://doi:10.4271/2018-01-1398
• Ghalamchi, B., & Mueller, M. (2018). Vibration-based propeller fault diagnosis for multicopters. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2369–2374. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2018.8460660
• Iannace, G., Ciaburro, G., & Trematerra, A. (2019). Fault diagnosis for UAV blades using artificial neural network. Robotics, 8(3), 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics8030059
• International Organization for Standardization. (2016). Mechanical vibration — Rotor balancing — Part 11: Procedures and tolerances for rotors with rigid behaviour (ISO 21940-11:2016). ISO. https://www.iso.org/standard/64908.html
• Kuantama, E., Moldovan, O. G., Ţarcă, I., Vesselényi, T., & Ţarcă, R. (2019). Analysis of quadcopter propeller vibration based on laser vibrometer. Journal of Low Frequency Noise Vibration and Active Control, 40(1), 239-251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461348419866292
• Larkin K, Ghommem M, Hunter A, Abdelkefi A. Nonlinear modeling and performance analysis of cracked beam microgyroscopes. Int J Mech Sci. 2020;188:105965. https://doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2020.105965
• Li, N., Zhang, J., & Wang, Y. (2023). Dynamic response and failure analysis of bearing under the impact of vibration excitation. Engineering Failure Analysis, 154, 107640. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1350630723005940
• Lin, Y., Li, C., Huang, S., Shi, D., Deng, R., Feng, G., & Gu, F. (2023). Experimental investigation on the propeller imbalance detection via on-rotor sensing vibration for industrial drone. In Proceedings of TEPEN 2022 (pp. 1079–1087). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26193-0_94
• Loeffler, I. J. (1987). Structureborne noise control in advanced turboprop aircraft (NASA Technical Memorandum 88947). National Aeronautics and Space Administration. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19870007154/downloads/19870007154.pdf
• Mizui, M., Yamamoto, I., & Ohsawa, R. (2012). Effects of propeller-balance on sensors in small–scale unmanned aerial vehicle. IOSR Journal of Engineering, 2(8), 23–27. https://iosrjen.org/Papers/vol2_issue8%20%28part-6%29/E0282327.pdf
• Pechan, T., & Sescu, A. (2015). Experimental study of noise emitted by propeller's surface imperfections. Applied Acoustics, 92, 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.12.011
• Pose, C., Giribet, J., & Torre, G. (2024). Propeller damage detection, classification and estimation in multirotor vehicles. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.05447
• Rangel-Magdaleno, J. J., Ureña-Ureña, J., Hernández, A., & Pérez-Rubio, C. (2018). Detection of unbalanced blade on UAV by means of audio signal. In 2018 IEEE International Autumn Meeting on Power, Electronics and Computing (ROPEC) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROPEC.2018.8661459
• Sedek, Z. B. (2018). Measurement of dynamic thrust produced by imbalance propeller (Bachelor's project report). School of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. https://people.utm.my/mnazri/wp-content/uploads/sites/932/2020/02/Draft-report-zunur-1.pdf
• Semke, W. H., Zahui, D.-K., & Schwalb, J. (2021). The vibration and acoustic effects of prop design and unbalance on small unmanned aircraft. In Sensors and Instrumentation, Aircraft/Aerospace, Energy Harvesting & Dynamic Environments Testing, Volume 7 (pp. 9–16). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47713-4_2
• Vertiq. (n.d.). Understanding and addressing flight controller and motor vibrations. In Vertiq API and Usage 0.12.0 documentation. Retrieved from https://iqmotion.readthedocs.io/en/latest/tutorials/vibration_and_jittering.html
• Xu Y, Liu S, He C, et al. Reliability of MEMS inertial devices in mechanical and thermal environments: A review. Heliyon. 2024;10(5):e27481. https://doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e27481