A preview of this full-text is provided by IOP Publishing.
Content available from Bioinspiration & Biomimetics
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Bioinspir. Biomim. 16 (2021) 056003 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-3190/ac0c60
RECEIVED
19 April 2021
REVISED
6 June 2021
ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION
17 June 2021
PUBLISHED
15 July 2021
PAPER
Performance of passively pitching apping wings in the
presence of vertical inows
Soudeh Mazharmanesh1,∗, Jace Stallard1, Albert Medina2, Alex Fisher3,
Noriyasu Ando4,Fang-BaoTian
1, John Young1and Sridhar Ravi1
1School of Engineering and Information Technology, University of New South Wales, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia
2U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433, United States of America
3School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, 3083, Australia
4Department of System Life Engineering, Maebashi Instituteof Technology, Maebashi, 371-0816, Japan
∗Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.
E-mail: soudeh.mazharmanesh@.adfa.edu.au
Keywor ds: flapping wings, passive-pitching, passive hinges, wind gusts, vertical inflows
Supplementary material for this article is available online
Abstract
The successful implementation of passively pitching flapping wings strongly depends on their
ability to operate efficiently in wind disturbances. In this study, we experimentally investigated the
interaction between a uniform vertical inflow perturbation and a passive-pitching flapping wing
using a Reynolds-scaled apparatus operating in water at Reynolds number ≈3600. A parametric
study was performed by systematically varying the Cauchy number (Ch)ofthewingsfrom0.09to
11.52. The overall lift and drag, and pitch angle of the wing were measured by varying the
magnitude of perturbation from JVe r t =−0.6 (downward inflow) to JVert =0.6 (upward inflow) at
each Ch,whereJVert is the ratio of the inflow velocity to the wing’s velocity. We found that the lift
and drag had remarkably different characteristics in response to both Ch and JVe r t .AcrossallCh,
while mean lift tended to increase as the inflow perturbation varied from −0.6 to 0.6, drag was
significantly less sensitive to the perturbation. However effect of the vertical inflow on drag was
dependent on Ch, where it tended to vary from an increasing to a decreasing trend as Ch was
changed from 0.09 to 11.52. The differences in the lift and drag with perturbation magnitude could
be attributed to the reorientation of the net force over the wing as a result of the interaction with
the perturbation. These results highlight the complex interactions between passively pitching
flapping wings and freestream perturbations and will guide the design of miniature flying crafts
with such architectures.
Nomenclature
CLCoefficient of lift (2FyG/ρU2
RoGS)
CDCoefficient of drag (2FxG/ρU2
RoGS)
Cnet Coefficient of net force (2Fnet/
ρU2
RoGS)
CLMean coefficient of lift
CDMean coefficient of drag
Cnet Mean coefficient of net force
CMelastic Coefficient of elastic moment
(2Melastic/ρU2
RoGSc)
CMfluid Coefficient of fluid mechanical
moment (2Mfluid/ρU2
RoGSc)
CMgravity Coefficient of gravitational moment
(2Mgravitional/ρU2
RoGSc)
CMinertia Coefficient of inertial moment
(2Minertial/ρU2
RoGSc)
Ch Cauchy number (4ρφ2
maxf2c3R2
RoG/k)
EElastic modulus (Pa)
FxLDrag force in body-fixed coordinate
system (N)
FyLLift force in body-fixed coordinate
system (N)
FxGDrag force (N)
Fnet Net force (N)
ISecond moment of area (m4)
IzyElements from wing inertia moment
matrix (kg m2)
IzzElements from wing inertia moment
matrix (kg m2)
JVer t Vertical inflow ratio (Uinflow /URoG)
© 2021 IOP Publishing Ltd