Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:18:48.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Flexible flapping systems: computational investigations into fluid-structure interactions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

T. Fitzgerald ,
M. Valdez ,
M. Vanella ,
E. Balaras  and
B. Balachandran
T. Fitzgerald
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maryland, Maryland, USA
M. Valdez
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maryland, Maryland, USA
M. Vanella
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maryland, Maryland, USA
E. Balaras
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maryland, Maryland, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the present work, the authors examine two computational approaches that can be used to study flexible flapping systems. For illustration, a fully coupled interaction of a fluid system with a flapping profile performing harmonic flapping kinematics is studied. In one approach, the fluid model is based on the Navier-Stokes equations for viscous incompressible flow, where all spatio-temporal scales are directly resolved by means of Direct Numerical Simulations (DNS). In the other approach, the fluid model is an inviscid, potential flow model, based on the unsteady vortex lattice method (UVLM). In the UVLM model, the focus is on vortex structures and the fluid dynamics is treated as a vortex kinematics problem, whereas with the DNS model, one is able to form a more detailed picture of the flapping physics. The UVLM based approach, although coarse from a modeling standpoint, is computationally inexpensive compared to the DNS based approach. This comparative study is motivated by the hypothesis that flapping related phenomena are primarily determined by vortex interactions and viscous effects play a secondary role, which could mean that a UVLM based approach could be suitable for design purposes and/or used as a predictive tool. In most of the cases studied, the UVLM based approach produces a good approximation. Apart from aerodynamic load comparisons, features of the system dynamics generated by using the two computational approaches are also compared. The authors also discuss limitations of both approaches.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 115 , Issue 1172 , October 2011 , pp. 593 - 604
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2011 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Weis-Fogh, T. Biology and physics of locust flight. II. Flight performance of the desert locust (Schistocerca gregaria), Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 1965, 239, pp 459–510.Google Scholar
2. Shyy, W., Aono, H., Chimakurthi, S.K., Trizila, P., Kang, C.-K., Cesnick, C.E.S. and Liu, H. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2010, 46, pp 284–327.Google Scholar
3. Smith, M., Wilkin, P. and Williams, M. The advantages of an unsteady panel method in modelling the aerodynamic forces on rigid flapping wings. J Experimental Biology, 1996, 199, pp 1073–1083.Google Scholar
4. Ellington, C.P. The aerodynamics of hovering insect flight. Part V: A vortex theory. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 1984, 305, pp 115–144.Google Scholar
5. Jensen, M. Biology and physics of locust flight. III. The aerodynamics of locust flight. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 1956, 239, pp 511–552.Google Scholar
6. Spedding, G.R. The Aerodynamics of Flight. In Advances in Comparative and Environmental Physiology, 11, Mechanics of Animal Locomotion, Alexander, R.M. (Ed), Springer, London, 1992, pp 51–111.Google Scholar
7. DeLaurier, J.D. An aerodynamic model for flapping-wing flight, Aeronaut J, 1993, 97, pp 125–130.Google Scholar
8. Betteridge, D.S. and Archer, R.D. A study of the mechanics of flapping flight, Aeronaut Q, 1974, 25, pp 129–142.Google Scholar
9. Wang, Z.J. Two dimensional mechanism for insect hovering, Physical Review Letters, 2000, 85, pp 2216–2219.Google Scholar
10. Wang, Z.J., Birch, J.M. and Dickinson, M.H. Unsteady forces and flows in low Reynolds number hovering flight: two-dimensional computations vs robotic wing experiments, J Experimental Biology, 2004, 207, pp 449–460.Google Scholar
11. Miller, L. and Peskin, C. When vortices stick: an aerodynamic transition in tiny insect flight, J Experimental Biology, 2004, 207, pp 3073–3088.Google Scholar
12. Miller, L. and Peskin, C. A computational fluid dynamics of ‘clap and fling’ in the smallest insects, J Experimental Biology, 2005, 208, pp 195–212.Google Scholar
13. Liu, H., Ellington, C.P., Kawachi, K., Van Den Berg, C. and Willmott, A.P. A computational fluid dynamic study of hawkmoth hovering, J Experimental Biology, 1998, 201, pp 461–477.Google Scholar
14. Sun, M. and Tang, J. Unsteady aerodynamic force generation by a model fruit fly wing in flapping motion, J Experimental Biology, 2002, 205, pp 55–70.Google Scholar
15. Ramamurti, R. and Sandberg, W.C. A three-dimensional computational study of the aerodynamic mechanisms of insect flight, J Experimental Biology, 2002, 205, pp 1507–1518.Google Scholar
16. Żbikowski, R. On aerodynamic modelling of an insect-like flapping wing in hover for micro air vehicles, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 2002, 360, pp 273–290.Google Scholar
17. Ansari, S., Żbikowski, R. and Knowles, K. Aerodynamic modelling of insect-like flapping flight for micro air vehicles, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2006, 42, pp 129–172.Google Scholar
18. Yu, Y., Tong, B. and Ma, H. An analytic approach to theoretical modeling of highly unsteady viscous flow excited by wing flapping in small insects, Acta Mechanica Sinica, 2003, 19, pp 508–516.Google Scholar
19. Katz, J. and Plotkin, A. Low-Speed Aerodynamics, (2nd Ed), Cambridge University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
20. Preidikman, S. Numerical Simulations of Interactions among Aerodynamics, Structural Dynamics and Control Systems. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics, Virginia Tech, Virginia, USA, 1998.Google Scholar
21. Valdez, M.F., Preidikman, S., Massa, J.C., Balachandran, B. and Mook, D.T. Aerodynamics of 2D Unsteady Vorticity Dominated Flows. 10th Pan American Congress of Applied Mechanics, 2008, 12, pp 280–283.Google Scholar
22. Valdez, M.F., Preidikman, S. and Massa, J. Aerodynamics of two-dimensional and unsteady flows dominated by vorticity, Computational Mechanics, 2006, 24, pp 2333–2357. (in Spanish).Google Scholar
23. Valdez, M.F., Preidikman, S. and Balachandran, B. Two-dimensional Flapping wing aerodynamics: unsteady mechanisms, vorticity dominated flows and flight mechanisms. In preparation.Google Scholar
24. Kransy, R. Computation of vortex sheet roll-up in the Trefftz plane, J Fluid Mechanics, 1987, 184, pp 123–155.Google Scholar
25. Vanella, M. and Balaras, E. A moving-least-squares reconstruction for embedded-boundary formulations, J Comput Physics, 2009, 228, pp 6617–6628.Google Scholar
26. Vanella, M., Fitzgerald, T., Preidikman, S., Balaras, E. and Balachandran, B. Influence of flexibility on the aerodynamic performance of a hovering wing, J Experimental Biology, 2009, 212, pp 95–105.Google Scholar
27. Nayfeh, A.H. and Balachandran, B. Applied Nonlinear Dynamics: Analytical, Computational and Experimental Methods, Wiley, 1995.Google Scholar
28. Preidikman, S. and Mook, D.T. On the development of a passive-damping system for wind-excited oscillations of long-span bridges, J Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 1998, 77-78, pp 443–456.Google Scholar
29. Yang, J., Preidikman, S. and Balaras, E. A strongly-coupled, embedded-boundary method for fluid-structure Interactions of elastically mounted rigid bodies. J Fluids and Structures, 2008, 24, (2), pp 167–182.Google Scholar
30. Dagum, L. and Menon, R. OpenMP: an industry standard API for shared-memory programming, IEEE Comptational Science and Engineering, 1998, 5, pp 46–55.Google Scholar
31. Ting, S.-C. and Yang, J.-T. Extracting energetically dominant flow features in a complicated fish wake using singular-value decomposition, Physics of Fluids, 2009, 21, 041901.Google Scholar
32. O’Donnell, B.J. and Helenbrook, B.T. Proper orthogonal decomposition and incompressible flow: An application to particle modeling, Computers and Fluids, 2007, 36, pp 1174–1186.Google Scholar
33. Holmes, P., Lumley, J.L. and Berkooz, G. Turbulence, Coherent Structures, Dynamical Systems and Symmetry. Cambridge University Press, UK, 1996.Google Scholar
34. Sirovich, L. Turbulence and the dynamics of coherent structures. Part I: Coherent Structures, Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, 1987, 45, pp 561–571.Google Scholar
35. Fitzgerald, T., Valdez, M. and Balachandran, B. Flexible hovering wing motions: Proper orthogonal decomposition analysis. In 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, Paper no. 2010-1027, Orlando, Florida, USA, 4–7 January, 2010.Google Scholar
36. Fitzgerald, T., Valdez, M. and Balachandran, B. A comparison of computational models for fluid-structure interaction of flexible flapping wing systems. In 49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Orlando, Florida, USA, 4–7 January, 2011.Google Scholar