journal article·2014-03-03

Numerical simulation of X-wing type biplane flapping wings in 3D using the immersed boundary method

W B Tay, B W van Oudheusden, H Bijl

Bioinspiration & Biomimetics· Volume 9· Issue 3
Publisher page

Abstract

The numerical simulation of an insect-sized 'X-wing' type biplane flapping wing configuration is performed in 3D using an immersed boundary method solver at Reynolds numbers equal to 1000 (1 k) and 5 k, based on the wing's root chord length. This X-wing type flapping configuration draws its inspiration from Delfly, a bio-inspired ornithopter MAV which has two pairs of wings flapping in anti-phase in a biplane configuration. The objective of the present investigation is to assess the aerodynamic performance when the original Delfly flapping wing micro-aerial vehicle (FMAV) is reduced to the size of an insect. Results show that the X-wing configuration gives more than twice the average thrust compared with only flapping the upper pair of wings of the X-wing. However, the X-wing's average thrust is only 40% that of the upper wing flapping at twice the stroke angle. Despite this, the increased stability which results from the smaller lift and moment variation of the X-wing configuration makes it more suited for sharp image capture and recognition. These advantages make the X-wing configuration an attractive alternative design for insect-sized FMAVS compared to the single wing configuration. In the Reynolds number comparison, the vorticity iso-surface plot at a Reynolds number of 5 k revealed smaller, finer vortical structures compared to the simulation at 1 k, due to vortices' breakup. In comparison, the force output difference is much smaller between Re = 1 k and 5 k. Increasing the body inclination angle generates a uniform leading edge vortex instead of a conical one along the wingspan, giving higher lift. Understanding the force variation as the body inclination angle increases will allow FMAV designers to optimize the thrust and lift ratio for higher efficiency under different operational requirements. Lastly, increasing the spanwise flexibility of the wings increases the thrust slightly but decreases the efficiency. The thrust result is similar to one of the spanwise studies, but the efficiency result contradicts it, indicating that other flapping parameters are involved as well. Results from this study provide a deeper understanding of the underlying aerodynamics of the X-wing type, which will help to improve the performance of insect-sized FMAVs using this unique configuration.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Biomimetic flight and propulsion mechanisms · Fluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows · Lattice Boltzmann Simulation Studies

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (46)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.paerosci.2003.04.00110.1016/j.paerosci.2003.04.001 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.00110.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001 ↗
3. Ellington C P · J. Exp. Biol. · 1999 · 202 · 343910.1242/jeb.202.23.3439 ↗
4. Weis-fogh T · J. Exp. Biol. · 1973 · 59 · 16910.1242/jeb.59.1.169 ↗
5. 10.1098/rstb.1984.005110.1098/rstb.1984.0051 ↗
6. 10.1242/jeb.0066310.1242/jeb.00663 ↗
7. 10.2514/1.2856510.2514/1.28565 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2007.08.00310.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2007.08.003 ↗
9. 10.2514/6.2009-127010.2514/6.2009-1270 ↗
10. 10.2514/2.312410.2514/2.3124 ↗
11. 10.2514/6.2012-296810.2514/6.2012-2968 ↗
12. 10.1146/annurev.fluid.37.061903.17574310.1146/annurev.fluid.37.061903.175743 ↗
13. 10.1177/1045389X1037877610.1177/1045389X10378776 ↗
14. 10.3970/cmc.2010.019.10510.3970/cmc.2010.019.105 ↗
15. 10.1115/1.189969010.1115/1.1899690 ↗
16. 10.1016/S0924-4247(00)00527-610.1016/S0924-4247(00)00527-6 ↗
17. Pérez-Arancibia N O · Bioinspir. Biomim. · 2011 · 610.1088/1748-3182/6/3/036009 ↗
18. 10.2514/6.2003-654910.2514/6.2003-6549 ↗
19. Festo · 2013
20. 10.1260/17568290978949828810.1260/175682909789498288 ↗
21. 10.1260/17568290979029146510.1260/175682909790291465 ↗
22. Groen M · Int. Micro Air Vehicle Conf. and Competitions · 2010 · 1
23. Nakata T · Bioinspir. Biomim. · 2011 · 610.1088/1748-3182/6/4/045002 ↗
24. Eisma J · 2012
25. 10.1242/jeb.0084810.1242/jeb.00848 ↗
26. 10.1242/jeb.02225110.1242/jeb.022251 ↗
27. 10.2514/6.2012-327710.2514/6.2012-3277 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.jcp.2005.10.03510.1016/j.jcp.2005.10.035 ↗
29. 10.1006/jcph.2001.677810.1006/jcph.2001.6778 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.compfluid.2009.07.01110.1016/j.compfluid.2009.07.011 ↗
31. Tay W B · Int. Micro Air Vehicle Conf. and Flight Competition · 2012 · 1
32. 10.1006/jcph.2000.654610.1006/jcph.2000.6546 ↗
33. 10.1016/0045-7825(79)90034-310.1016/0045-7825(79)90034-3 ↗
34. 10.1016/0017-9310(72)90054-310.1016/0017-9310(72)90054-3 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.jcp.2011.01.00410.1016/j.jcp.2011.01.004 ↗
36. 10.2514/6.2010-38610.2514/6.2010-386 ↗
37. Bruggeman B · 2010
38. Groen M A · MSc Thesis · 2010
39. 10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2005.11.00410.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2005.11.004 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2009.10.00510.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2009.10.005 ↗
41. Hunt J C R · Proc. Summer Program · 1988 · 193
42. 10.2514/1.3754010.2514/1.37540 ↗
43. 10.1242/jeb.0174410.1242/jeb.01744 ↗
44. 10.1242/jeb.0274610.1242/jeb.02746 ↗
45. 10.1038/nature0200010.1038/nature02000 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.paerosci.2013.08.00110.1016/j.paerosci.2013.08.001 ↗