NOMENCLATURE
-
${a_0}$
-
dimensionless bending amplitude
-
${A_w}$
-
projected area of the wing
-
$c$
-
chord length
-
${\mathbf{c}_i}$
-
discrete velocity of mesoscopic particle along the i-th direction
-
${c_s}$
-
speed of sound
-
${C_L}, {C_T}$ ,
${\bar C_T}$ ,
${C_P}$ ,
${\bar C_P}$
-
lift coefficient, thrust coefficient, average thrust coefficient, energy dissipation coefficient and average energy dissipation coefficient, respectively
-
$f$
-
flapping/bending frequency
-
${f_i}(\mathbf{x},t),\,f_i^{eq}$
-
discrete-velocity distribution function and local equilibrium distribution function, respectively
-
$\mathbf{F}(t)$
-
total force on wing
-
$\mathbf{g}(\mathbf{x},t)$ ,
$\mathbf{g}(\mathbf{X},t + \Delta t)$
-
external body force in Eulerian and Lagrangian coordinates, respectively
-
$h(t), {h_0}$
-
heaving motion and its amplitude, respectively
-
$p$
-
dimensionless chord length where the wing starts to bend
-
$P(t)$
-
energy dissipation
-
$s$
-
span width
-
${\mathbf{S}_r}$
-
strain rate tensor
-
${S_w}$
-
total surface of wing
-
$t, T$
-
time and period time of flapping, respectively
-
$\mathbf{T}(t)$
-
total torque on wing
-
$\mathbf{u}, {\mathbf{u}_{local}}(t)$
-
fluid velocity and local velocity of wing at time
$t$ , respectively
-
${\mathbf{u}^*}(\mathbf{x},t + \Delta t)$
-
fluid velocity at Eulerian points
$\textbf{x}$
-
$U$
-
air speed
-
${\mathbf{U}_k}({\mathbf{X}_k},t + \Delta t)$
-
fluid velocity at Lagrangian points
${\textbf{X}_k}$
-
$\bar{\mathbf{U}}$
-
average velocity
-
${w_i}$
-
weight factor
-
$\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{X}$
-
position in Eulerian and Lagrangian coordinates, respectively
-
${\mathbf{X}_C}(t)$
-
center of rotation
-
${\mathbf{X}_k}$
-
k-th Lagrangian points
Greek symbols
-
$\delta ({x,y,z})$
-
kernel interpolation function between Eulerian and Lagrangian coordinates
-
$\Delta t$ ,
$\Delta x$
-
time step and lattice space, respectively
-
${\eta _T}$
-
propulsive efficiency
-
$\theta (t)$ ,
${\theta _0}$
-
pitching motion and its amplitude, respectively
-
$\nu, \rho $
-
kinematic viscosity and density of fluid, respectively
-
$\boldsymbol{\sigma} (t)$
-
stress on local surface at time
$t$
-
$\tau$
-
dimensionless relaxation time
-
$\psi $
-
phase lag between flapping and bending
-
${\boldsymbol{\omega}^*}$
-
vorticity
-
$\boldsymbol{\Omega} $
-
rotation of fluid
1.0 INTRODUCTION
With the rapid progress in structural and material technologies, MAVs have experienced fast development and have potential applications in surveillance, reconnaissance, targeting and biochemical sensing at remote or hazardous locations. The flapping wing MAV is one of the most advanced concepts, showing enhanced manoeuvrability at relatively low Reynolds number. However, compared with natural flyers such as birds and insects, man-made flapping wing MAVs are far more rigid. This lack of flexibility limits the performance enhancement of flapping wings. It is hard to mimic the bending and twisting of bird or insect wings. The complexities arise from the active or passive deformation, and the fluid–structure interaction(Reference Walker, Thomas and Taylor1–Reference Bomphrey and Godoy-Diana4). One of the solutions lies in the simplification of the flapping motion. By investigating the effects of deformation on the performance of flapping wings, optimised performance can be achieved by introducing specific chordwise or spanwise motions into the flapping wings(Reference Shyy, Aono, Chimakurthi, Trizila, Kang, Cesnik and Liu5–Reference Combes7). The specific motion of wings can then be actuated by the use of recent morphing wing technology.
The influence of chordwise deformation on the aerodynamic performance of flapping wings has been studied in recent years. Heathcote et al.(Reference Heathcote, Martin and Gursul8,Reference Heathcote and Gursul9) studied the effects of chordwise flexible deformation on the propulsive performance under different kinematics parameters through a series of hydrofoil experiments. Hu et al.(Reference Hu, Kumar, Abate and Albertani10) studied the aerodynamic performance of flexible flapping wings. The latex wing was proved to be a good flexible flapping wing with high thrust performance. Kancharala et al.(Reference Kancharala and Philen11) used a joint to connect two rigid wings and investigated the effects of the fin and joint stiffness on the propulsive performance. Sunghyuk et al.(Reference Im, Park, Cho and Sung12) studied the schooling behaviour in both rigid and flexible heaving aerofoils. The propulsive performance of the flexible aerofoil was better than that of the rigid one. Fernandez et al.(Reference Fernandez-Prats13) studied the effects of the chordwise flexural stiffness on the propulsive performance of a rectangular aerofoil, finding that an increase of up to 69% in the propulsive performance can be achieved at a given chordwise stiffness.
Both active and passive deformation of flapping wings can be studied using numerical simulation. In active deformation, the law of motion is predefined. The flapping motion obeys empirical equations or statistics obtained from a biological deformation pattern. In passive deformation, the flexibility of the wing is considered and the deformation is simulated using fluid–solid interaction (FSI) approaches. The passive deformation in a FSI simulation is determined by the pressure forces applied on the wing, as well as the structural characteristics including the material properties, material distribution and supporting conditions. Vanella et al.(Reference Vanella, Fitzgerald, Preidikman, Balaras and Balachandran14) connected two rigid wings using a torsion spring and studied the effect of the flexibility on the aerodynamic performance. Mathieu et al.(Reference Olivier and Dumas15) investigated the effects of chordwise deformation on foils at low Reynolds number (Re), finding that wing deformation improved the propulsive performance. Lee et al.(Reference Lee, Lee, Cho and Shin16) simulated the thrust performance of flapping wings with passive deformation. Their results showed that the thrust increases with increasing flapping frequency, while the thrust decreases with increasing advance ratio. Suzuki et al.(Reference Suzuki, Aoki and Yoshino17) used a butterfly model to investigate the effects of chordwise deformation on flight performance.
Simultaneously, with the emergence of smart materials such as shape memory alloys, magnetically active materials and thermoelectric active materials, active deformation can be controlled to a morphing state that is optimal for a given flow field. Using two-dimensional (2D) simulations, Miao et al.(Reference Miao and Ho18) studied the effects of active deformation on the propulsive performance of a flapping wing, presenting an active deformable flapping scheme (including the amplitude, frequency and phase lag) to achieve good propulsive performance. Tay and Lim(Reference Tay and Lim19) analysed the effects of the flexible centre, one-side deformation and two-sided deformation on the aerodynamic performance of three aerofoil profiles. Zhang et al.(Reference Zhang and Zhou20) explored the aerodynamic mechanism of a chordwise flexible wing when hovering at low Re, finding that the flexibility improved the aerodynamic performance. Su et al.(Reference Su, Yin, Cao and Zhao21) used three models to study the aerodynamic performance of a flapping wing, viz. a full deformation model, a partial deformation model and a two-rigid-wing model with hinge connection. In the full deformation model, the optimised deformation amplitude was 0.1 multiples of the chord. In the partial deformation model, the aerodynamic force decreased with increasing deformation amplitude. In the hinged model, the deformation changed the Leading-Edge Vortices (LEVs) and Trailing-Edge Vortices (TEVs), and had a great influence on the lift of the wing. Many researchers have investigated three-dimensional (3D) effects(Reference Dong, Mittal and Najjar22,Reference Liu, Li, Zhao and Su23) . Tay et al.(Reference Tay24) investigated the effects of different forms of 3D wing deformation on the aerodynamic performance, showing that the thrust and efficiency of deformable wings could be improved to 111% and 125%, respectively, with optimal motion parameters. Medina et al.(Reference Medina, Eldredge, Kweon and Choi25) studied the effects of deformation on the aerodynamic performance in hovering, finding that an enhancement of 19.0% in efficiency was achieved with wing root deformation, while a 19.5% enhancement in efficiency was achieved with wing tip deformation.
In the current work, to identify an effective flapping motion, active chordwise deformation is introduced into the three-dimensional flapping wing model in forward flight. The lattice Boltzmann method with immersed boundary (IB-LBM) is adopted to simulate the unsteady flow around the flapping wing. Parallel computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations are carried out on a high-performance computing cluster with 144 cores. The propulsive performance of the flapping wing is then calculated from the force and torque distribution results. The effects of the bending amplitude and frequency, as well as the phase lag between flapping and bending, on the propulsive performance are studied.
2.0 FLAPPING WING MODEL WITH CHORDWISE DEFORMATION
2.1 Wing kinematics
A flapping wing with chord length
$c$
and span width
$s$
is depicted in Fig. 1. A global space-fixed coordinate system OXYZ and a local body-fixed coordinate system
$o{x_0}{y_0}{z_0}$
are adopted for a more concise description of the motion. Assuming that the wing is in forward flight with air speed of
$U$
, and that the incoming flow direction is along the X-axis, the propulsive performance of the wing is studied considering the flapping, as well as the chordwise deformation. The flapping is described by the heaving
$h(t)$
in the Z-axis direction and the pitching
$\theta (t)$
around the
${y_0}$
-axis.
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_fig1.png?pub-status=live)
Figure 1. Flapping wing model and its coordinates.
An efficient flapping motion(Reference Liu, Li, Zhao and Su23) is adopted in the present study. The heaving
$h(t)$
and pitching
$\theta (t)$
are described as follows:
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn1.png?pub-status=live)
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn2.png?pub-status=live)
where
${h_0}$
and
${\theta _0}$
denote the amplitude of heaving and pitching, respectively.
$f$
denotes the flapping frequency, and
$t$
denotes the time.
The bending of the wing has a significant influence on its aerodynamic characteristics, so chordwise deformation that varies with time is introduced into the flapping. Assuming that the bending motion has the same frequency as the flapping, the bending of the chordwise deformable wing is then expressed as
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn3.png?pub-status=live)
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn4.png?pub-status=live)
where
$f$
is the bending frequency,
$p$
denotes the dimensionless chord length where the wing starts to bend,
${a_0}$
denotes the dimensionless bending amplitude and
$\psi $
denotes the phase lag between the flapping and bending.
2.2 Immersed-boundary lattice Boltzmann method
Instead of solving the Navier–Stokes equations, the lattice Boltzmann method (LBM) solves the discrete Boltzmann equation to simulate the airflow using a collision model. The fundamental quantity in the LBM is the discrete-velocity distribution function
${f_i}({\mathbf{x},t})$
, where
${f_i}$
is also known as the particle population. The LBM makes use of
${f_i}({\mathbf{x},t})$
to solve the lattice Boltzmann equation. The macroscopic flow density
$\rho $
and momentum
$\boldsymbol{\rho} \textbf{u}$
at position
$\mathbf{x}$
and time
$t$
are replaced with the following forms:
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn5.png?pub-status=live)
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn6.png?pub-status=live)
where
${\mathbf{c}_i}$
is the discrete velocity of a mesoscopic particle along the i-th direction. For a given lattice space
$\Delta x$
and time step
$\Delta t$
, the discrete velocity vectors are depicted as follows:
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn7.png?pub-status=live)
In the present study, a model consisting of a three-dimensional lattice with 19 velocity vectors (known as the D3Q19 model) is adopted. The 19 velocity vectors in the D3Q19 model are depicted in Table 1. The lattice Boltzmann equation is then
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn8.png?pub-status=live)
where
$f_i^{eq}$
denotes the local equilibrium distribution function and
$\tau $
is the dimensionless relaxation time. The equilibrium distribution function is expressed as
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn9.png?pub-status=live)
where
$\mathbf{u}$
is the fluid velocity,
${w_i}$
is the weight factor and
${c_s}$
is the speed of sound. The speed of sound
${c_s}$
in LBM(Reference Chen and Doolen26) is expressed as
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn10.png?pub-status=live)
The weight factors in the D3Q19 model are also presented in Table 1.
The dimensionless relaxation time is calculated from the kinematic viscosity
$\nu $
of the incompressible viscous fluid(Reference KrÜger, Kusumaatmaja and Kuzmin27):
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn11.png?pub-status=live)
When considering the force applied on the wing, the external body force is applied to Equation (8). The relation between the external body force
$\mathbf{g}(\mathbf{x},t)$
and the discrete-velocity distribution
${f_i}$
in LBM is depicted as follows:
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn12.png?pub-status=live)
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn13.png?pub-status=live)
The LBM is coupled with the immersed boundary to make full use of the Eulerian coordinate and Lagrangian coordinate, which are suitable for the moving surface. In the present study, the LBM with a multi-direct forcing immersed boundary(Reference Wang, Fan and Luo28,Reference Suzuki and Inamuro29) is adopted. The position is then depicted by
$\mathbf{x}$
in Eulerian coordinates, and by
$\mathbf{X}$
in Lagrangian coordinates. The fluid velocity at the k-th Lagrangian points
${\mathbf{X}_k}$
is then determined by
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn14.png?pub-status=live)
where
${\mathbf{u}^*}({\mathbf{x},t + \Delta t})$
denotes the fluid velocity at Eulerian points x, which is determined by Equations (6) and (12).
Table 1 Parameters of the D3Q19 model
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_tab1.png?pub-status=live)
The kernel interpolation function
$\delta ({x,y,z})$
between the Eulerian and Lagrangian coordinates is expressed as(Reference Peskin30)
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn15.png?pub-status=live)
where
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn16.png?pub-status=live)
The body force
$\mathbf{g}({{\mathbf{X}_k},t + \Delta t})$
at the k-th Lagrangian points
${\mathbf{X}_k}$
is then determined by
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn17.png?pub-status=live)
where
${\mathbf{U}_k}({{\mathbf{X}_k},t + \Delta t})$
denotes the fluid velocity at Lagrangian points
${\mathbf{X}_k}$
.
The relation between the body force
$\mathbf{g}({\mathbf{x},t + \Delta t})$
in Eulerian coordinates and the body force
$\mathbf{g}({{\mathbf{X}_k},t + \Delta t})$
in Lagrangian coordinates is
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn18.png?pub-status=live)
where
${S_k}$
is the correlative surface area at Lagrangian points
${\mathbf{X}_k}$
.
The body force is calculated by an iterative approach(Reference Suzuki and Inamuro29,Reference Kotsalos, Latt and Chopard31) . With the body force, the total force on the wing is then obtained as
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn19.png?pub-status=live)
The total torque on the wing is
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn20.png?pub-status=live)
where
${\mathbf{X}_C}(t)$
is the centre of rotation.
For the whole flapping process, the velocities, total forces and total torques at every time step are obtained by the IB-LBM simulation. In the present study, we use the open-source LBM-solver Palabos(Reference Latt, Malaspinas, Kontaxakis, Parmigiani, Lagrava, Brogi, Belgacem, Thorimbert, Leclaire, Li, Marson, Lemus, Kotsalos, Conradin, Coreixas, Petkantchin, Raynaud, Beny and Chopard32) for the simulation.
2.3 Propulsive performance
The propulsive performance of a flapping wing includes the thrust, energy dissipation and efficiency. The thrust coefficient is defined as
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn21.png?pub-status=live)
where
${A_w}$
denotes the projected area of the wing and
${A_w} = c \cdot s$
.
The average thrust coefficient is then determined as
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn22.png?pub-status=live)
where
$T$
is the period time of flapping.
The energy dissipation for the deformable flapping wing is defined as
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn23.png?pub-status=live)
where
$\boldsymbol{\sigma} (t)$
is the stress on the local surface at time
$t$
,
${\mathbf{u}_{local}}(t)$
is the local velocity of wing at time
$t$
and
${S_w}$
is the total surface of the wing.
The energy dissipation coefficient for the deformable flapping wing is defined as
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn24.png?pub-status=live)
The average energy dissipation coefficient is
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn25.png?pub-status=live)
With the average thrust coefficient and the average energy dissipation coefficient, the propulsive efficiency can be defined as
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn26.png?pub-status=live)
Besides the propulsive performance, there are some other parameters that are important for the flapping wing. These include the lift coefficient, average velocity, vorticity and Q-criteria. The lift coefficient
${C_L}$
, average velocity
$\bar{\mathbf{U}}$
and vorticity
${\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\rm{*}}}$
are defined as follows:
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn27.png?pub-status=live)
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn28.png?pub-status=live)
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn29.png?pub-status=live)
The Q-criteria(Reference Chakraborty, Balachandar and Adrian33) is used to identify the three-dimensional vortex structure(Reference Guerrero34,Reference Cheng, Roll, Liu, Troolin and Deng35) , where Q is defined in incompressible flows as
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_eqn30.png?pub-status=live)
where
${\mathbf{S}_r} = {1 \over 2}\left[ {\nabla \mathbf{u} + {{( {\nabla \mathbf{u}} )}^T}} \right]$
is the strain rate tensor and
$\boldsymbol{\Omega} = {1 \over 2}\left[ {\nabla \mathbf{u} - {{( {\nabla \mathbf{u}} )}^T}} \right]$
denotes the rotation of the fluid.
3.0 NUMERICAL MODEL AND MESH CONVERGENCE
3.1 Three-dimensional numerical model
A three-dimensional flapping wing with NACA0012 aerofoil is studied. The chord and aspect ratio of the wing are chosen as
$c = 1\text{m}$
and
$s/c = 2$
. The wing is in forward flight with speed of
$U = 1{\rm{m/s}}$
. The Reynolds number is
$\text{Re} = {{Uc} \over \nu } = 200$
. The Strouhal number is
$St = {{2{h_0}cf} \over U} = 0.5~1.0$
when the flapping frequency
$f$
ranges from 0.5Hz to 1.0Hz. The length scale of the flow field in the simulation is set to be
$13.5c \times 9c \times 9c$
to avoid wall effects. The inlet and outlet of the flow field are assumed to have a constant flow velocity
$U$
. Periodic boundary conditions are adopted for the flow field. A heaving amplitude of 0.5 and a pitching amplitude of 30° are chosen in the simulation. The flapping wing model and the simulated flow field are shown in Fig. 2. The simulation is carried out on a 144-core parallel high-performance computer provided by Xi’an Jiaotong University.
3.2 Mesh convergence
Mesh convergence is studied by comparing the propulsive results for the rigid flapping wing model with different mesh densities. Parameters such as the flapping frequency
$f$
, heaving amplitude
${h_0}$
, pitching amplitude
${\theta _0}$
, Reynolds numbers, and bending amplitude of the model are presented in Table 2.
The flow field is meshed with uniform grid distance. The number of grids in a chord length can be used to quantify the mesh density. Eight flapping wing models with grid numbers of n = 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50 and 55 are established to study the mesh convergence. The results of these simulation are shown in Fig. 3. The convergence of the average thrust coefficient and the propulsive efficiency is obvious. Considering that the errors in both the average thrust coefficient and propulsive efficiency for the models with n = 45, n = 50 and n = 55 are less than 2%, the mesh density with n = 45 is adopted for further simulations.
3.3 Verification
The present IB-LBM simulation is further verified by comparing the simulation results with data published by Dong et al.(Reference Dong, Mittal and Najjar22). The aspect ratio of the rigid flapping wing is
$s/c = 1$
. The thickness of the wing is 0.12
$c$
. Other parameters include
${\theta _0} = {30^ \circ }$
,
$St = 0.6$
,
$\text{Re} = 200$
and
${h_0} = 0.5$
.
Table 2 The parameters of the rigid flapping wing
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_tab2.png?pub-status=live)
Figure 4 shows the variation of the lift and thrust coefficients with time. The results from Dong et al.(Reference Dong, Mittal and Najjar22) are also depicted in Fig. 4. It is seen that both the lift and thrust coefficients from the present simulation agree with Dong’s data very well. The difference between the present results and Dong’s data is less than 3.7% for the lift coefficient and less than 4% for the thrust coefficient.
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_fig2.png?pub-status=live)
Figure 2. CFD model for the chordwise-deformable flapping wing.
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_fig3.png?pub-status=live)
Figure 3. The result convergence with grid numbers: (a) average thrust coefficient and (b) propulsive efficiency.
Table 3 Chordwise deformation parameters and simulating cases
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_tab3.png?pub-status=live)
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_fig4.png?pub-status=live)
Figure 4. The numerical results for a rigid flapping wing: (a) lift coefficient and (b) thrust coefficient.
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The effects of chordwise bending on the propulsion performance of a flapping wing are studied. In the present work, the deformable wing is assumed to bend from the leading edge (
$p = 0$
), and three different cases presented in Table 3 are simulated to discuss the effects of the bending amplitude, bending frequency and phase lag between bending and flapping.
4.1 Effects of bending amplitude
Figure 5(a) shows the thrust coefficient responses of the flapping wing with dimensionless bending amplitude of 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4. It is seen that the thrust coefficient decreases with increasing bending amplitude. The difference of the thrust responses between the rigid wing (
${a_0} = 0$
) and deformable wing (
${a_0} \ne 0$
) is clearly shown in Fig. 5(a). The frequency characteristics of the thrust response of the deformable flapping wings are more complex than for the rigid wing. Figure 5(b) shows the response of the energy dissipation coefficient for the flapping wing with dimensionless bending amplitude of 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4. It is seen that the energy dissipation coefficient decreases with increasing bending amplitude.
Figure 6(a) shows the variations of the average thrust coefficient and average energy dissipation coefficient with the bending amplitude. Both the average thrust and the average energy dissipation decrease with increasing chordwise deformation. The maximum average thrust and energy dissipation coefficients are 1.82 and 9.046, respectively. Figure 6(b) shows the variation of the propulsive efficiency with the bending amplitude. The maximum propulsive efficiency is 22.09%, with a dimensionless bending amplitude of 0.2.
The chordwise distributions of the average flow velocity around the flapping wing with dimensionless bending amplitude of 0.0 and 0.4 are shown in Fig. 7. It is clearly seen that the flow field influenced by the flapping is greatly reduced when chordwise bending is introduced into the flapping wing.
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_fig5.png?pub-status=live)
Figure 5. The effects of bending amplitude on the time histories of aerodynamic coefficients: (a) thrust coefficient and (b) energy dissipation coefficient.
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_fig6.png?pub-status=live)
Figure 6. The effects of bending amplitude on aerodynamic performance: (a) average thrust and energy dissipation coefficient and (b) propulsive efficiency.
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_fig7.png?pub-status=live)
Figure 7. The average velocity contour in the mid-span plane for (a) a 0 = 0 and (b) a 0 = 0.4.
The chordwise distributions of the vorticity intensity at t/T = 10.3 around the flapping wing with dimensionless bending amplitude of 0.0 and 0.4 are shown in Fig. 8. The peak thrust is reached at dimensionless time of t/T = 10.3, as depicted in Fig. 5, so the vorticity intensity at this time is analysed. It is seen that there are LEVs on the upper wing surface, TEVs on the trailing edge and a pLEV on the lower wing surface. Both the vortexes on the upper and lower wing surfaces shed off in the downstream and form two slant Karman vortex streets. With increasing bending amplitude, the LEV vorticity intensity reduces, while the TEV and pLEV vorticity intensity decrease and the pLEV is farther away from the lower surface of the wing. The evolution of all these vorticities reduces the thrust of the flapping wing. Thus vortices at the leading edge and tailing edge all induce weaker thrust with larger bending amplitude, in agreement with the behaviour of the thrust coefficient variation in Fig. 6.
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_fig8.png?pub-status=live)
Figure 8. The contour of vorticity in the mid-span plane at dimensionless time of 10.3 for (a) a 0 = 0 and (b) a 0 = 0.4.
The chordwise vortex shedding at t/T = 10.3 for the flapping wing with dimensionless bending amplitude of 0, 0.2 and 0.4 is shown in Fig. 9. The vortex shedding is visualised by the Q-criterion value. It is seen that the divergence between the upper and the lower vortex street reduces with increasing bending amplitude. Among the two branches of the vortex streets, there are many vortex tangles that connect upper vortex rings with lower vortex rings. It is seen that there are less vortex tangles at
${a_0} = 0.2$
. Because the energy dissipation of the fluid kinetics can be represented by the intensity of such tangles, the wing with a dimensionless bending amplitude of 0.2 dissipates less energy and exhibits higher propulsive efficiency.
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_fig9.png?pub-status=live)
Figure 9. The lateral view of the vortex structure for the flapping wing recognised by Q-criterion (Q = 0.01) at dimensionless time of 10.3 for (a) a 0 = 0, (b) a 0 = 0.2 and (c) a 0 = 0.4.
4.2 Effects of bending frequency
Figure 10(a) shows the thrust coefficient responses of the flapping wing with a bending frequency of 0.5Hz, 0.6Hz, 0.7Hz, 0.8Hz, 0.9Hz and 1.0Hz. It is seen that the thrust coefficient increases with increasing chordwise bending frequency. The energy dissipation coefficient responses of the flapping wing are shown in Fig. 10(b). The energy dissipation coefficient also increases rapidly with increasing bending frequency. Both the peak thrust and the peak energy dissipation coefficients occur at about t/T = 10.3. Figure 11(a) shows the variations of the average thrust coefficient and the average energy dissipation coefficient with the bending frequency. Both the average thrust and the average energy dissipation increase with increasing frequency. It is reasoned that the local fluid speed increases to generate more thrust and consume more energy. Figure 11(b) shows the variation of the propulsive efficiency with the bending frequency. The maximum propulsive efficiency is 22.28%, with a bending frequency of 0.7Hz.
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_fig10.png?pub-status=live)
Figure 10. The effects of bending frequency on the time histories of aerodynamic coefficients: (a) thrust coefficient and (b) energy dissipation coefficient.
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_fig11.png?pub-status=live)
Figure 11. The effects of bending frequency on aerodynamic performance: (a) average thrust and energy dissipation coefficient and (b) propulsive efficiency.
The chordwise distributions of the average flow velocity around the flapping wing with bending frequency of 0.5Hz and 0.7Hz are shown in Fig. 12. It is seen that the flow field influenced by the flapping is enlarged with increasing chordwise bending frequency.
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_fig12.png?pub-status=live)
Figure 12. The average velocity contour in the mid-span plane for (a) f = 0.5Hz and (b) f = 0.7Hz.
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_fig13.png?pub-status=live)
Figure 13. The contour of vorticity in the mid-span plane at dimensionless time of 10.3 for (a) f = 0.5Hz and (b) f = 0.7Hz.
The chordwise distributions of the vorticity intensity around the flapping wing with bending frequency of 0.5Hz and 1.0Hz are shown in Fig. 13. It is seen that the vorticity is stronger for a flapping wing with high bending/flapping frequency. The LEV, TEV as well as pLEV of the flapping wing with a bending frequency of 1.0Hz are much stronger than the vortexes at 0.5Hz. It is also seen that the pLEV at 1.0Hz moves forward, facilitating capture of the pLEV. The evolution of all these vorticities increases the thrust of the flapping wing with a bending frequency of 1.0Hz.
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_fig14.png?pub-status=live)
Figure 14. Lateral view of vortex structure for the flapping wing recognised by Q-criterion (Q = 0.01) at dimensionless time of 10.3 for (a) f = 0.5Hz, (b) f = 0.7Hz and (c) f = 1.0Hz.
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_fig15.png?pub-status=live)
Figure 15. Vertical view of vortex structure for the flapping wing recognised by Q-criterion (Q = 0.01) at dimensionless time of 10.3 for (a) f = 0.7Hz and (b) f = 1.0Hz.
The chordwise vortex shedding at t/T = 10.3 for the flapping wing with a bending frequency of 0.5Hz, 0.7Hz and 1.0Hz is shown in Fig. 14. It is seen that the divergence between the upper and the lower vortex street increases with increasing bending frequency. However, there are less vortex tangles at
$f$
= 0.7Hz. This explains why the wing with a bending frequency of 0.7Hz dissipates less fluid kinetics and exhibits high propulsive efficiency.
Figure 15 shows the spanwise vortex shedding at t/T = 10.3 for the flapping wing with bending frequency of 0.7Hz and 1.0Hz. The different vortex structures between the wings with flapping frequency of 0.7Hz and 1.0Hz are also clearly seen in Fig. 18. The violent tangles among the tip vortices at
$f$
= 1.0Hz reveal the strong energy dissipation and low propulsive efficiency.
4.3 Effects of phase lag between flapping and bending
Figure 16(a) shows the lift coefficient responses of the flapping wing with a phase lag of 0°, 45°, 90°, 135°, 180° and 270°. It is seen that the flapping wing reaches its maximum lift coefficient when the flapping and the bending are in opposite phase (
$\psi = {180^ \circ }$
). Figure 16(b) shows the thrust coefficient responses of the flapping wing with phase lag of 0°, 45°, 90°, 135°, 180° and 270°. The flapping wing also reaches its maximum thrust coefficient near the opposite phase angle.
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_fig16.png?pub-status=live)
Figure 16. Effects of phase lag on the time histories of aerodynamic coefficients: (a) lift coefficient and (b) thrust coefficient.
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_fig17.png?pub-status=live)
Figure 17. Effects of phase lag on aerodynamic properties: (a) average thrust and energy dissipation coefficient and (b) propulsive efficiency.
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_fig18.png?pub-status=live)
Figure 18. Average velocity contour in the mid-span plane for (a)
$\psi = {\text{0}^ \circ }$
and (b)
$\psi = {\text{180}^ \circ }$
.
Figure 17(a) shows the variations of the average thrust coefficient and average energy dissipation coefficient with the phase lag. Both the average thrust and the average energy dissipation reach their maximum values when the flapping and bending are in opposite phase (
$\psi = {180^ \circ }$
). The maximum thrust coefficient is 2.26, and the maximum energy dissipation coefficient is 12.54. Figure 17(b) shows the variation of the propulsive efficiency with the phase lag. The maximum propulsive efficiency is 21.42% when the flapping and bending are in phase (
$\psi = {0^ \circ }$
). The minimum propulsive efficiency is 17.83%, near the opposite phase angle (
$\psi = {\rm{18}}{{\rm{0}}^ \circ }$
).
The chordwise distributions of the average flow velocity around the flapping wing with phase lag of 0° and 180° are shown in Fig. 18. It is seen that the flow field influenced by the flapping is enlarged when the flapping and bending are in opposite phase (
$\psi ={\rm{18}}{{\rm{0}}^ \circ }$
).
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_fig19.png?pub-status=live)
Figure 19. Contour of vorticity in the mid-span plane at dimensionless time of 10.3 for (a)
$\psi = {\text{0}^ \circ }$
and (b)
$\psi = {\text{180}^ \circ }$
.
The chordwise distributions of the vorticity intensity around the flapping wing with phase lag of 0° and 180° are shown in Fig. 19. It is seen that the vorticity intensity of opposite-phase flapping (
$\psi = {\rm{18}}{{\rm{0}}^ \circ }$
) is much higher than the vorticity intensity of in-phase flapping (
$\psi = {0^ \circ }$
).
The chordwise vortex shedding at t/T = 10.3 for the flapping wing with phase lag of 0°, 135° and 270° is shown in Fig. 20. It is seen that the vortex tangle gradually dissipates downstream and finally disappears, due to the increasing distance between the upper vortex ring and lower vortex ring. The vortex tangles at different phase lags are different, and this phenomenon is related to the propulsive efficiency. When the phase lag is less than 135°, the intensity of the vortex tangles becomes strong, resulting in reduced propulsive efficiency. Meanwhile, when the phase lag is larger than 135°, the intensity of the vortex tangles decreases, resulting in an enhanced propulsive efficiency. The vortex tangles interact with each other, resulting in large extra loss of fluid kinetic energy and thus a decrease in the propulsive efficiency.
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20210107142637174-0432:S000192402000072X:S000192402000072X_fig20.png?pub-status=live)
Figure 20. Lateral view of vortex structure for the flapping wing recognised by Q-criterion (Q = 0.01) at dimensionless time of 10.3 for (a)
$\psi = {\text{0}^ \circ }$
, (b)
$\psi = {\text{135}^ \circ }$
and (c)
$\psi = {\text{270}^ \circ }$
.
5.0 CONCLUSION
A chordwise-deformable three-dimensional flapping wing model in forward flight is established using the lattice Boltzmann method with immersed boundary. Numerical simulations are carried out for the flapping wing with active deformation at low Reynolds number of 200. The effects of the bending amplitude, bending frequency and phase lag between bending and flapping on the propulsive performance are analysed. The aerodynamic mechanism is discussed by comparing the wake vortices among deformable wings with different bending parameters. The numerical results show that:
-
(1) The bending amplitude has a great influence on the flapping propulsion. Because the flow field influenced by flapping is greatly reduced when chordwise bending is introduced into the flapping wing and the intensity of LEV and TEV decreases with increasing bending amplitude, both the thrust coefficient and the energy dissipation coefficient decrease with increasing bending amplitude. On the other hand, the highest propulsive efficiency is reached when the dimensionless bending amplitude is equal to 0.2, because the vortex tangle is weak.
-
(2) Both the thrust coefficient and the energy dissipation coefficient increase with increasing bending frequency. This can be partly attributed to the expansion of the influenced flow field with increasing bending/flapping frequency. The other reason arises from the increase of the vorticity intensity with increasing frequency. The LEV, TEV as well as pLEV of the flapping wing increase with increasing bending frequency, and the pLEV moves forward, facilitating capture of the vortex for the wing with high bending frequency. The highest propulsive efficiency is achieved when the bending frequency is equal to 0.7Hz because of the weak vortex tangle.
-
(3) The propulsive performance can be improved by adjusting the phase lag between flapping and bending. The highest thrust coefficient and highest energy dissipation coefficient occur at a phase lag of 180°. This can be attributed to the expansion of the influenced flow field and the high vorticity intensity. On the contrary, the highest propulsive efficiency is achieved when the phase lag is equal to 0° due to the weak vortex tangle.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos. 11632014, 11372238 and 11072184), the “111” Program (B18040), the Chang Jiang Scholar program and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (XJJ2018028). The calculations were performed by using the HPC Platform in Xi’an Jiaotong University.