This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

### Categories

### Publishers

Scribd Selects Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

P. 1

Paper 75|Views: 19|Likes: 0

Published by Sparrow-hawk

See more

See less

https://www.scribd.com/doc/45516795/Paper-75

12/17/2010

text

original

**ﬂapping wing micro-air vehicle
**

C. Orlowski

∗

, A. Girard, and W. Shyy

University of Michigan, Department of Aerospace Engineering, 1320 Beal Ave, Ann Arbor, MI USA 48109

ABSTRACT

The paper presents a derivation of the equations

of motion for a ﬂapping wing micro-air vehi-

cle. The equations of motion are derived using

D’Alembert’s Principle extended to rigid bod-

ies. The micro-air vehicle is modeled as a a sys-

tem of three rigid bodies with rigidly attached

wings. Each wing has three separate degrees

of freedom: ﬂapping, lagging, and feathering.

The MAV is assumed to be operating in an envi-

ronment with a ﬂat Earth, constant gravity, zero

wind, and the MAV has constant mass. The

model is simulated using time-averaged aerody-

namic force and moment data in a normal hover-

ing mode.

1 NOMENCLATURE

X, Y , Z: components of the position vector of the central

body in an inertial frame

ψ, θ, φ: 3-2-1 Euler Angles for the orientation of the central

body with respect to a inertial frame

α

R

, α

L

: angle of attack of the right and left wings, respec-

tively (rotation about

¯

b

y

axis)

δ

R

, δ

L

: ﬂapping angle of the right and left wings, respec-

tively (rotation about

¯

b

x

axis, up and down ﬂapping motion)

ζ

R

, ζ

L

: lagging angle of the right and left wings respectively

(rotation about

¯

b

z

axis, forward and back ﬂapping motion)

u, v, w: components of the translational velocity vector of

the central body

p, q, r: components of the angular velocity vector of the

central body

˙ α

R

, ˙ α

L

: time rate of change of the angle of attack

˙

δ

R

,

˙

δ

L

: time rate of change of the ﬂapping angle

˙

ζ

R

,

˙

ζ

L

: time rate of change of the lagging angle

m

1

, m

2

, m

3

: mass of the central body, mass of the right wing

and mass of the left wing

¯ ρ

c2

, ¯ ρ

c3

: position vectors from the hinge to the respective

wing’s center of mass

¯

R,

¯

L: position vectors of the hinge from the central body

center of mass in the B frame

¯

b

x

,

¯

b

y

,

¯

b

z

: unit vectors of the central body-ﬁxed frame, the B

frame

Q

j

: generalized forces for each generalized coordinate

∗

Email address(es): contact cptorlo@umich.edu

¯ γ

ij

: velocity coefﬁcient of the ith body with respect to the

jth generalized speed

¯

β

ij

: angular velocity coefﬁcient of the ith body with respect

to the jth generalized speed

[F

x

, F

y

, F

z

]: aerodynamics forces in body-ﬁxed coordinates

[L, M, N]: aerodynamics moments in body-ﬁxed coordinates

B: body-ﬁxed frame for the central body

H

R

: body-ﬁxed frame for the central body, origin at right

wing hinge

H

L

: body-ﬁxed frame for the central body, origin at left

wing hinge

W

R

: body-ﬁxed frame for the right wing

W

L

: body-ﬁxed frame for the left wing

I

1

: inertia tensor for the central body in the B frame

I

2

: inertia tensor for the right wing in the W

R

frame

I

3

: inertia tensor for the left wing in the W

L

frame

I

2

, I

3

: inertia tensors for the right wing and left wing in the

H

R

and H

L

frames

R

B

: rotation matrix from inertial frame to B frame using

3-2-1 Euler Angles

R

R

: rotation matrix from W

R

frame to H

R

frame

R

L

: rotation matrix from W

L

frame to H

L

frame

R

ζ

R

, R

α

R

, R

δ

R

: individual rotation matrices for W

R

frame

to H

R

frame

R

ζ

L

, R

α

L

, R

δ

L

: individual rotation matrices for W

L

frame

to H

L

frame

2 INTRODUCTION

The goal of the presented research, as well as future work,

is to further the knowledge of the dynamic behavior of a ﬂap-

ping wing vehicle and to develop effective control schemes

for the operation of a ﬂapping wing vehicle in a relevant envi-

ronment. The research in the ﬂapping wing ﬁeld has greatly

increased over the past 10 years, especially in aerodynam-

ics [1]. Complex models of ﬂapping wing aerodynamics, to

include 3-D effects, have been successfully developed, eval-

uated and implemented [2, 3]. The next step is to take the

knowledge of the complex and unstable aerodynamics and

incorporate that knowledge into a successful control scheme,

either by nonlinear methods, linear methods, or a combina-

tion of both.

In order to successfully implement the control scheme,

the development and thorough understanding of the nonlin-

ear dynamics and kinematics is paramount. The paper out-

lines the development of a dynamic model for a ﬂapping-wing

1

MAV. The preliminary goal for vehicle size is a total mass

of 30 grams and a total wingspan of approximately 15 cen-

timeters. The method used to derive the equations of motion

is D’Alembert’s Principle for Multiple Rigid Bodies, which

is a hybrid of LaGrangian and Eulerian techniques [4]. The

ﬂapping wing MAV is modeled as three rigid bodies (central

body, right wing, left wing) with a rigid airframe and rigidly

attached wings. The nonlinear dynamics will be incorporated

with lift, drag and aerodynamic moment data from models

developed in reference [5]. The combination of the nonlinear

dynamics and aerodynamics should allow for accurate study

of the motion of the vehicle. It will enable the discovery of

steady-state ﬂight conﬁgurations and the eventual develop-

ment of effective control schemes.

The paper is organized in the following manner. Section

3 is a brief literature review focusing on the dynamic models

and control schemes for a ﬂapping wing micro-air vehicle.

Section 4 presents a detailed development of the model with

relevant reference frames and the derivation of the nonlinear

equations of motion. Section 5 presents the simulation efforts

and results, accompanied by the dynamic and aerodynamic

models used in the simulation. Section 6 presents Conclu-

sions and Future Work.

3 LITERATURE REVIEW

The majority of the previous work in regards to ﬂapping

wing vehicles focuses on the aerodynamics and the interac-

tions of the ﬂapping wings with the ﬂuid ﬂow around the

wings. A limited amount of work has been completed in

regards to the development of dynamic models and control

schemes to successfully operate a ﬂapping wing micro-air ve-

hicle.

Sun and Wang [1] acknowledge that the ﬁeld of aerody-

namics, in regards to insect ﬂight, is highly studied. The main

purpose of reference [1] is to produce a quantitative analy-

sis of the stability of hovering ﬂight for a model insect. The

authors chose a dynamics model previously given in [6, 7].

The dynamics model chosen is the standard, linearized air-

craft dynamics that can be found in [8]. In contrast to the

Taylor and Thomas model [7], Sun and Wang use stability

and control derivatives calculated by CFD methods. Taylor

and Thomas used time average aerodynamics force and mo-

ment calculations for a wing beat cycle. The Sun and Wang

model limits the model to have six degrees of freedom, but en-

hances the linearization and simpliﬁcation of the model with

improved accuracy of the aerodynamics, versus the models

used by Taylor and Thomas.

The authors choose the equilibrium point for their anal-

ysis to be motionless hovering, with no translational or rota-

tional accelerations. The wings need to accelerate to maintain

the ﬂight condition. Sun and Wang make further simpliﬁca-

tions, given the ﬂight conditions, by only accounting for the

x and z translational motion of the model, in addition to the

pitching motion and pitch angle, q and θ, respectively. The

equilibrium point is determined by balancing the force and

moment equations. The stability derivatives are calculated

by only taking into account the motion of the wings, for at

hovering the aerodynamics of the central body are neglected

due to the absence of translational motion. Sun and Wang

concluded that the hovering motion can be stabilized using a

combination of two of the four available controls (δΦ, change

in position, δφ, change in mean position, α

1

, equal change in

angle of attack, and α

2

, differential change in the angle of

attack).

In reference [9], the authors derived the equations of mo-

tion for a ﬂapping wing vehicle using Eulerian methods. The

central body is modeled as a point mass without mass mo-

ments of inertia. The hinge point for both wings is the same

and is positioned at the central body. The goal of the paper

is to study trajectory guidance, and not exactly implement a

control scheme, so the assumptions and model simpliﬁcations

seem justiﬁed. Modeling the central body as a point mass ef-

fectively eliminates the rotational considerations of the cen-

tral body and the coupling effects between the ﬂapping mo-

tion of the wings and rotation of the central body. The authors

use two body-ﬁxed reference frames, one for each wing. The

wings are modeled with three degrees of freedom: plunge

(up and down ﬂapping), pitch (angle of attack), and sweep

(forward and back ﬂapping). The disadvantage of the two

frames, and no central body frame, requires the tracking of

the absolute translational and rotational velocity of not only

the central body, but both wings as well. Furthermore, ve-

locities calculated in each of the wings’ frames will need to

be transformed back into the inertial frame, due to the lack

of a body-ﬁxed frame at the central body point mass. Ad-

ditionally, the method chosen requires the calculation of the

reaction forces between the wings and the hinges.

The main advantage to the method of deriving the equa-

tions of motion chosen in [9] is that it reduces the non-

linearities of the system. There is still rotational motion of

the wing, so the nonlinearities associated with Euler’s Equa-

tions of Motion are still present in the equations of motion.

However, the coupling between p, q, and r is non-existent

and there is no need to track the Euler Angles of the cen-

tral body. Furthermore, as undertaken in the paper, the 3-2-1

Euler Angles tracking the orientation of each wing can be di-

rectly used as the time rate of change of the pitch, plunge

and sweep angles. The dynamics model does not require ad-

ditional variables to track and transform the motions of the

wing into an inertial frame.

In reference [10], Buler, et al., derive the nonlinear equa-

tions of motion using the Gibbs-Appel Equations by using ten

generalized coordinates, q, and ten quasi-velocities, w, listed

below:

q = [x, y, z, Φ, Θ, Ψ, β

L

, β

R

, θ

L

, θ

R

]

w = [U, V, W, P, Q, R,

˙

β

L

,

˙

β

R

,

˙

θ

L

,

˙

θ

R

].

The above equations use standard aircraft notation, except in

the case of β (used to denote the ﬂapping angle - motion about

the longitudinal axis of the central body) and θ (used to de-

note the angle of attack of the wings). Buler, et al., limit the

ﬂapping kinematics of their model and do not account, or al-

low for, forward and back (lagging) translation of the wings.

Strictly speaking, their model restricts the stroke-plane of the

wing beat to a single plane. The model results in a ten de-

gree of freedom, 2nd-order system (or, alternatively, a twenty

degree of freedom, 1st-order system). The method of deriv-

ing the equations of motion results in the preservation of the

numerous, inherent non-linearities present in a ﬂapping wing

micro-air vehicle.

The second half of the paper, after outlining the deriva-

tion of the equations of model and the aerodynamic model,

presents an outline of Linear Control Theory. The authors

continue with an analysis of the control of the linearized sys-

tem previously derived, but do not provide an analytical so-

lution for the linearization. A desired trajectory is assumed

and a linearization, and associated Jacobian matrix, is numer-

ically calculated based on the said trajectory. The paper pro-

vides coverage of the various control methods at the authors’

disposal and their respective shortcomings. The authors use

a linear quadratic regulator problem to determine a nominal

control input for the ﬂapping wings of the vehicle. In the end,

the authors produce simulations of the dynamics of a ﬂapping

vehicle/animal, based on the solution of a Newton-Raphson

solver to produce the necessary control input vector for the

desired output vector.

In reference [11], Bolender derives the nonlinear equa-

tions of motion for a ﬂapping wing MAV utilizing Kane’s

Equations. The main difference from the derivation in refer-

ence [11], from other models, is the modeling of the central

body as two separate rigid bodies. The central body has a

main body, B, and a tail section, T. The tail section is lim-

ited to one degree of freedom about the hinge point between

body B and body T. The tail section is used for pitch control

of the ﬂapping wing MAV. Bolender treats the wings in two

separate manners. One treatment ignores the combined mass

of the wing. The other treatment accounts for the mass of the

wing in the dynamics of the central body. However, in either

case, the wings are not treated as having separate degrees of

freedom and are considered to be holonomically constrained

to the central body. The wings’ motion is treated as a pre-

scribed motion. The motion of the wings is a function of time

and a control input.

4 DERIVATION OF THE NONLINEAR EQUATIONS OF

MOTION

4.1 D’Alembert’s Principle for Multiple Rigid Bodies

The method chosen to derive the equations of motion is

D’Alembert’s Principle Extended to Multiple Rigid Bodies.

A detailed description of the method can be found in [12, 13].

The chosen method is also brieﬂy covered in [4]. The Gibbs-

Appell Equations, presented in [10], and Kane’s Equations,

presented in [11], are both extensions of D’Alembert’s Prin-

ciple [4] and have their own strengths and weaknesses [11].

The statement of D’Alembert’s Principle, in [12], is

n

i=1

[m

i

(

˙

¯ v

i

+

¨

¯ ρ

ci

)·¯γ

ij

+(I

i

·

˙

¯ ω

i

+¯ ω

i

×I

i

·¯ ω

i

+m

i

¯ ρ

ci

×

˙

¯ v

i

)·

¯

β

ij

] = Q

j

,

(1)

where i is the number of rigid bodies and j is the number of

generalized coordinates. The ﬂapping wing vehicle is mod-

eled as a system of three rigid bodies (n = 3): a central

fuselage with two rigid wings attached at ideal hinges. The

wings and central body are modeled as rigid airframes. A

body-ﬁxed frame, frame B, is attached to the central body

at its center of mass; the frame is aligned with the

¯

b

x

vector

through the nose of the micro-air vehicle,

¯

b

y

is perpendicular

to

¯

b

x

and pointed out of the right side of the central body, and

¯

b

z

pointed downward out of of the bottom of the micro-air

vehicle. The body-ﬁxed frame is the same as for ﬁxed-wing

aircraft and is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Vehicle Model

The vectors

¯

R and

¯

L denote position vectors from the

central body center of mass to the hinge/attachment points of

the wings. At the hinge points, two central body-ﬁxed frames

are attached, with directions parallel to the central body B

frame. The H

R

frame is ﬁxed with origin at the right wing

hinge point. The H

L

frame is ﬁxed with origin at the left wing

hinge point. Since the central body is modeled as a rigid body,

the magnitude and components of

¯

R and

¯

L are constant. We

deﬁne the individual components of

¯

R and

¯

L as

¯

R =

R

x

R

y

R

z

(2)

and

¯

L =

L

x

L

y

L

z

. (3)

The vectors ¯ ρ

c2

and ¯ ρ

c3

denote the vectors from the hinge

points on the central body to the respective centers of mass for

each wing (¯ ρ

c2

for the right wing and ¯ ρ

c3

for the left wing).

The magnitude of the ¯ ρ

ci

vectors is constant, based on the as-

sumption of rigid bodies and rigidly attached wings. A wing-

ﬁxed frame is attached to each wing at the hinge point. The

origin of the winged ﬁxed frames is the hinge point and when

the wings at are their respective initial positions, the axes of

the wing-ﬁxed frames, W

R

and W

L

, are parallel with the cen-

tral body-ﬁxed frame B, and are identical to the hinge frames,

H

R

and H

L

. The frames W

R

and W

L

and the vectors

¯

R,

¯

L,

¯ ρ

c2

, and ¯ ρ

c3

are presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Wing Frames

The motion of the center of mass of the wings is tracked

similar to a mass moving in spherical coordinates, with a con-

stant radius, ﬁxed at the origin of the system. In this case, the

origin of the respective motion is the hinge point, which is co-

incident with the origin of the W

R

, H

R

, H

L

and W

L

frames.

The constant radius is the magnitude of the vectors, ¯ ρ

c2

and

¯ ρ

c3

. The center of mass of the wing is assumed to be along

the y-axis of the hinge frames when the wing angles are iden-

tically zero. The position of the centers of mass of each wing

are expressed by the following vectors:

¯ ρ

c2

= ρ

c2

[cosδ

R

sinζ

R

¯

b

x

+ cosδ

R

cosζ

R

¯

b

y

+ sinδ

R

¯

b

z

] (4)

¯ ρ

c3

= ρ

c3

[cosδ

L

sinζ

L

¯

b

x

−cosδ

L

cosζ

L

¯

b

y

+ sinδ

L

¯

b

z

]. (5)

Developing equations of motion using D’Alembert’s

Principle for Rigid Bodies requires the selection of reference

points for each rigid body. The reference point for the cen-

tral body, rigid body 1, is it’s respective center of mass. The

reference points for the right and left wing are chosen to be

the hinge attachment points, located on the central body. The

vectors tracking the center of mass of the wings in the hinged-

ﬁxed frames are the vectors ¯ ρ

c2

and ¯ ρ

c3

. The required ac-

celeration vectors of

¨

¯ ρ

c2

and

¨

¯ ρ

c3

are derived using diligent

application of the chain rule.

There are three main advantages to selecting

D’Alembert’s Principle. First, by taking the hinge points as

reference points, the requirement to calculate the reaction

forces between the wings and the central body is eliminated.

Second, the mass moments of inertia of the wings need to

be initially calculated about the reference points. The mass

moments of inertia will remain constant in the wing-ﬁxed

frames and do not need to be translated into the B frame [12].

Third, by choosing reference points on the central body, the

absolute velocity of the wings does not need to be tracked.

In order to successfully develop the equations of motion, the

generalized coordinates and quasi-velocities need to be spec-

iﬁed. In this formulation, the twelve generalized coordinates

are chosen to be the following: X, Y , Z (inertial position of

central body), ψ, θ, φ (3-2-1 Euler Angles of central body),

δ

R

, α

R

, ζ

R

, δ

L

, α

L

, ζ

L

. The twelve quasi-velocities are the

following: u, v, w, p, q, r,

˙

δ

R

, ˙ α

R

,

˙

ζ

R

,

˙

δ

L

, ˙ α

L

, and

˙

ζ

L

. To

summarize, the generalized coordinates, q, are

q

j

= [X, Y, Z, ψ, θ, φ, δ

R

, α

R

, ζ

R

, δ

L

, α

L

, ζ

L

] (6)

and the quasi-velocites, u

j

, are

u

j

= [u, v, w, p, q, r,

˙

δ

R

, ˙ α

R

,

˙

ζ

R

,

˙

δ

L

, ˙ α

L

,

˙

ζ

L

]. (7)

The importance of ﬂapping and lagging angles, and the asso-

ciated degrees of freedom, is important when biological ﬂy-

ers transition from hovering to forward ﬂight [2]. Figures 3,

4, and 5 show the vehicle model from different view points

and the relationship of the wing frames, W

R

and W

L

, and the

central body frame B. The left side of the vehicle, and α

L

,

is not depicted, but is simply the mirror image of Figure 4.

Dashed lines represent a negative direction in the respective

reference frame. The ﬂapping angles, δ

R

and δ

L

, are posi-

tive in a downward motion (positive

¯

b

z

). The lagging angles,

ζ

R

and ζ

L

are positive in a forward ﬂapping motion (positive

¯

b

x

). The hinge frames, H

R

and H

L

, are not depicted, but are

parallel to the B frame.

Figure 3: Front View - δ

R

and δ

L

4.2 Velocity and Angular Velocity Coefﬁcients

The ﬁrst step in the derivation is to determine the velocity

coefﬁcients, ¯ γ

ij

=

∂¯ vi

∂uj

, and the angular velocity coefﬁcients,

¯

β

ij

=

∂¯ ωi

∂uj

, where i denotes the rigid body and j denotes the

generalized speeds. The translational and rotational velocities

of each of the rigid bodies are

¯ v

1

= u

¯

b

x

+v

¯

b

y

+w

¯

b

z

¯ v

2

= ¯ v

1

+ ¯ ω

1

×

¯

R

¯ v

3

= ¯ v

1

+ ¯ ω

1

×

¯

L

(8)

Figure 4: Right Side View - α

R

Figure 5: Top View - ζ

R

and ζ

L

and

¯ ω

1

= p

¯

b

x

+q

¯

b

y

+r

¯

b

z

¯ ω

2

= (p +

˙

δ

R

)

¯

b

x

+ (q + ˙ α

R

)

¯

b

y

+ (r −

˙

ζ

R

)

¯

b

z

¯ ω

3

= (p −

˙

δ

L

)

¯

b

x

+ (q + ˙ α

L

)

¯

b

y

+ (r +

˙

ζ

L

)

¯

b

z

. (9)

The velocity and angular velocity coefﬁcients are ob-

tained by taking the partial derivatives of ¯ v

i

and ¯ ω

i

with re-

spect to the generalized speeds. The velocity coefﬁcients,

¯ γ

1j

, and the angular velocity coefﬁcients,

¯

β

1j

for generalized

speeds j = 1 . . . 6 of the central body are

¯ γ

1j

=

¯

b

x

¯

b

y

¯

b

z

0 0 0

(10)

and

¯

β

1j

=

0 0 0

¯

b

x

¯

b

y

¯

b

z

. (11)

The velocity and angular velocity coefﬁcients of the cen-

tral body for coordinates j = 7 . . . 12 are identically zero. The

velocity coefﬁcients for the right wing, ¯ γ

2j

, and the left wing,

¯ γ

3j

, for j = 1 . . . 6 are

¯ γ

2j

= [

¯

b

x

¯

b

y

¯

b

z

. . .

−R

z

¯

b

y

+R

y

¯

b

z

R

z

¯

b

x

−R

x

¯

b

z

−R

y

¯

b

x

+R

x

¯

b

y

] (12)

γ

3j

= [

¯

b

x

¯

b

y

¯

b

z

. . .

−L

z

¯

b

y

+L

y

¯

b

z

L

z

¯

b

x

−L

x

¯

b

z

−L

y

¯

b

x

+L

x

¯

b

y

]. (13)

The velocity coefﬁcients for the left and right wing, for

j = 7 . . . 12 are identically zero. The angular velocity co-

efﬁcients of the right and left wings,

¯

β

2j

and

¯

β

3j

, respec-

tively, are identically zero for j = 1 . . . 3. For the right wing,

¯

β

2j

is identically zero for j = 10 . . . 12. For the left wing,

¯

β

3j

is identically zero for j = 7 . . . 9. For quasi-velocities

j = 4 . . . 6, the angular velocity coefﬁcients are

¯

β

2j

=

¯

b

x

¯

b

y

¯

b

z

(14)

¯

β

3j

=

¯

b

x

¯

b

y

¯

b

z

. (15)

For the right wing, with respect to coordinates j = 7 . . . 9,

the angular velocity coefﬁcients are

¯

β

2j

=

¯

b

x

¯

b

y

−

¯

b

z

. (16)

In regards to the left wing, the angular velocity coefﬁcients

for j = 10 . . . 12 are

¯

β

3j

=

−

¯

b

x

¯

b

y

¯

b

z

. (17)

The accelerations of the three rigid bodies are obtained by

differentiating the translational and rotational velocities and

making proper use of the transport theorem [4]. For exam-

ple, the acceleration of the right wing,

˙

¯ v

2

in the central body

frame, is

˙

¯ v

2

=

˙

¯ v

1

+

˙

¯ ω

1

×

¯

R+ ¯ ω

1

× ¯ v

1

+ ¯ ω

1

×(¯ ω

1

×

¯

R). (18)

4.3 Inertia Tensors

For the central body, an x −z plane of mass symmetry is

assumed. No planes of mass symmetry are assumed for either

wing during the model development. As a result, the resulting

mass moments of inertia matrices for each rigid body are the

following:

I

1

=

I

xx,1

0 −I

xz,1

0 I

yy,1

0

−I

xz,1

0 I

zz,1

(19)

I

2

=

I

xx,2

−I

xy,2

−I

xz,2

−I

xy,2

I

yy,2

−I

yz,2

−I

xz,2

−I

yz,2

I

zz,2

(20)

I

3

=

I

xx,3

−I

xy,3

−I

xz,3

−I

xy,3

I

yy,3

−I

yz,3

−I

xz,3

−I

yz,3

I

zz,3

. (21)

4.4 Rotation Matrices

Although it is not necessary to continuously calculate the

mass moments of inertia for the wings in the B frame, it may

be necessary in the use of the model to rotate aerodynamic

forces generated by the ﬂapping of the wings from the W

R

and W

L

frames into the B frame. R

R

is the rotation matrix

of the W

R

frame into the H

R

frame. Treating the angles de-

scribing the orientation of the right wing, ζ

R

, α

R

, and δ

R

, as

3-2-1 Euler Angles results in the calculation of R

R

.

R

ζ

R

=

cosζ

R

sinζ

R

0

−sinζ

R

cosζ

R

0

0 0 1

R

α

R

=

cosα

R

0 −sinα

R

0 1 0

sinα

R

0 cosα

R

R

δ

R

=

1 0 0

0 cosδ

R

sinδ

R

0 −sinδ

R

cosδ

R

R

R

= R

δ

R

R

α

R

R

ζ

R

. (22)

A similar procedure can be utilized to obtain the rota-

tion of aerodynamic forces and moments generated by the

left wing into the B frame. The rotation matrix for the left

wing is

R

L

= R

δ

L

R

α

L

R

ζ

L

. (23)

The rotation matrix R

α

L

has the same structure as it’s coun-

terpart on the right wing, R

α

R

. The rotation matrices R

ζ

L

and R

δ

L

are different and are deﬁned as

R

ζ

L

=

cos(π −ζ

L

) sin(π −ζ

L

) 0

−sin(π −ζ

L

) cos(π −ζ

L

) 0

0 0 1

(24)

R

δ

L

=

1 0 0

0 cos(π + δ

L

) sin(π + δ

L

)

0 −sin(π + δ

L

) cos(π + δ

L

)

. (25)

By using the trigonometric rules for sine and cosine, the

rotation matrices R

ζ

L

and R

δ

L

simplify to

R

ζ

L

=

−cosζ

L

−sinζ

L

0

sinζ

L

−cosζ

L

0

0 0 1

(26)

and

R

δ

L

=

1 0 0

0 −cosδ

L

−sinδ

L

0 sinδ

L

−cosδ

L

. (27)

4.5 Force Description

The aerodynamics forces and moments produced by the

wings are assumed to act over the three bodies as a whole.

The aerodynamic forces,F

aero

, are deﬁned as

F

aero

= F

x

¯

b

x

+F

y

¯

b

y

+F

z

¯

b

z

. (28)

The aerodynamic moments, M

aero

, are deﬁned as

M

aero

= L

¯

b

x

+M

¯

b

y

+N

¯

b

z

. (29)

The generalized forces, Q

i

, are determined using the prin-

ciple of virtual work. Constraint forces do not perform virtual

work, therefore they are not considered in the formulations.

The generalized forces affecting the translation of the central

body are

Q

1

Q

2

Q

3

=

F

x

F

y

F

z

+ (m

1

+m

2

+m

3

)R

B

0

0

g

. (30)

The generalized forces/moments affecting the rotation of

the central body are

Q

4

Q

5

Q

6

=

L

M

N

+ (

¯

R+ ¯ ρ

c2

) ×(m

2

)R

B

0

0

g

+

. . . + (

¯

L + ¯ ρ

c3

) ×(m

3

)R

B

0

0

g

. (31)

The generalized forces Q

7

, Q

8

, and Q

9

are the control mo-

ments for the right wing, Q

10

, Q

11

, Q

12

are the control mo-

ments for the left wing. Q

8

and Q

11

control the angle of

attack of the wings, right and left wing respectively. Q

7

and

Q

10

control the ﬂapping motion of the wings, while Q

9

and

Q

12

control the lagging angle of the wings.

4.6 Final Equations of Motion

The derived equations of motion, with all of the individual

pieces put together, are presented in vector/matrix notation.

The ﬁrst three equations describe the translational velocity of

the central body.

m

1

˙

¯ v

1

+m

2

(

˙

¯ v

2

+

¨

¯ ρ

c2

) +m

3

(

˙

¯ v

3

+

¨

¯ ρ

c3

) =

Q

1

Q

2

Q

3

. (32)

Due to the continuous ﬂapping of the wings, the rotational

dynamics of the central body are the most complex.

I

1

˙

¯ ω

1

+¯ ω

1

×I

1

¯ ω

1

+m

2

¯

R×(

˙

¯ v

2

+

¨

¯ ρ

c2

)+m

3

¯

L×(

˙

¯ v

3

+

¨

¯ ρ

c3

)+...

I

2

˙

¯ ω

2

+ ¯ ω

2

×I

2

¯ ω

2

+m

2

¯ ρ

c2

×

˙

¯ v

2

+...

I

3

˙

¯ ω

3

+ ¯ ω

3

×I

3

¯ ω

3

+m

3

¯ ρ

c3

×

˙

¯ v

3

=

Q

4

Q

5

Q

6

. (33)

The rotations of the right wing and and the left wing are de-

scribed by Equation 34 and Equation 35, respectively.

I

2

˙

¯ ω

2

+ ¯ ω

2

×I

2

¯ ω

2

+m

2

¯ ρ

c2

×

˙

¯ v

2

=

Q

7

Q

8

Q

9

(34)

I

3

˙

¯ ω

3

+ ¯ ω

3

×I

3

¯ ω

3

+m

3

¯ ρ

c3

×

˙

¯ v

3

=

Q

10

Q

11

Q

12

. (35)

5 SIMULATIONS AND RESULTS

5.1 Model

Through the derivations of the equations of motion, we

determined simplications could be made to the model in or-

der to reduce the coupling of the rotations of the wings with

the translational and rotational motion of the central body .

One of the simplications is to place the hinge points co-linear

with the y-axis of the central body. With the hinge points

along the y-axis, the x and z components of the

¯

R and

¯

L

vectors are identically zero.

5.2 Aerodynamic Data

The aerodynamic data is obtained by surrogate modeling

of two dimensional ﬂow [5]. The model of the wings used to

obtained the time-averaged aerodynamics data is a ﬂat plate,

with a prescribed chord length, c, and a span of 2c(for each

wing). The plate has a thickness of 2%. To model the mass

moments of inertia of the wings, all cross products of inertia

are assumed to be zero in the wing frame (when the δ and ζ

angles are identically zero). The resulting inertia tensor for

the right wing, with zero ﬂapping motion, at the center of

mass of the wing in the wing-ﬁxed frame, is

I

2

=

1

12

m

2

b

2

0 0

0

1

12

m

2

c

2

0

0 0

1

12

m

2

(b

2

+c

2

)

, (36)

where b is the span of the wing and c is the chord length.

The aerodynamic data [2, 5] prescribes the plunging am-

plitude as

ζ

R

(t) = h

a

sin(2πft)

ζ

L

(t) = h

a

sin(2πft)

. (37)

As previously stated, the wings motion is deﬁned as positive

when the lagging motion is in the positive x direction in the

body frame. The angle of attack (or rotation of the wing) is

described as

α(t) = α

o

−α

a

sin(2πft + φ

α

). (38)

The phase lag between the translation and rotation of the wing

is denoted by φ

α

. In Equation 38, α

o

is the initial angle of

attack at the start of the ﬂapping motion and α

a

is the time-

average angle of attack. For the aerodynamic model, the pa-

rameters h

a

, α

a

, and φ

α

are variable. For a given Reynolds

number, the frequency of the ﬂapping can be calculated based

on the relationship, from reference [5, 2]

Re

hovering

=

(2πfh

a

)c

ν

. (39)

The current aerodynamic data is only for a normal hovering

mode, the wing translation is purely horizontal with the re-

spect to the B frame [2]. In the normal hovering mode, the

ﬂapping angle (δ

R

, δ

L

) is identically zero for all time, t.

The control moments for each wing are calculated based

on the required accelerations, based on the ﬂapping kinemat-

ics, and the inertia tensor in the B frame. They are related by

the relationship

Q

7

Q

8

Q

9

= I

2

¯ α

wing

+ ¯ ω

2

×I

2

¯ ω

2

(40)

where

¯ α

wing

=

0

α

a

(2πf)

2

sin(2πft + φ

α

)

−h

a

(2πf)

2

sin(2πft)

. (41)

SImilarly, the control moments for the left wing are

Q

10

Q

11

Q

12

= I

3

¯ α

wing

+ ¯ ω

3

×I

3

¯ ω

3

. (42)

5.3 Model Parameters

The initial simulations are conducted based off of the cur-

rent aerodynamic data and do not speciﬁcally replicate, or

model, any living organism. Based on the aerodynamic data

available in [5], a given set of wing kinematics is chosen. For

the purpose of the simulations, Case 11 from [5] is used. The

C

L

is 0.46 fromCase 11 and the plunging amplitude is related

to the chord length by the ratio [5]

2h

a

c

= 4.0. (43)

The chosen phase angle,φ

α

, is 90 degrees and the average

angle of attack, α

a

, is 62.5 degrees φ

α

and α

a

. The Reynolds

number for Case 11 is 100. The chord length is calculated

by choosing a frequency and utilizing Equation 39. Choos-

ing a frequency of 30 Hz, with a Reynolds number of 100,

results in a chord length, c, of 2 mm. The simulations are

intended to model a normal hovering mode. Based on the this

assumption, the time-averaged aerodynamic moments are as-

sumed to be identically zero. Additionally, the time-averaged

coefﬁcient of drag, C

D

, is also zero, based on [5]. The lift

forces are assumed to counteract the gravity forces acting on

the central body.

5.4 Results

Figures 6 and 7 shows the position of the center of mass of

the MAV in the B frame. The simulations of the model pro-

duce symmetrical ﬂapping. With ﬂapping motion that con-

sists only of lagging and pitching motions, the center of mass

of the system symmetrically fore and aft in the B frame. The

shift of the center of mass is small. It is on the order of 10

−7

,

which is approximately four orders of magnitude smaller than

the vehicle scale.

The Euler angles of the central body are presented in Fig-

ures 8, 9 and 10. The results show that the central body

pitches up and down about the

¯

b

y

axis with each wing beat.

As the wings go forward, the nose pitches down. The hover

is unstable, as the angular velocity of the MAV continues to

increase. The bank angle, φ, and yaw angle, ψ, are effec-

tively zero. The values produced by the simulation are on the

order of 10

−17

and the error from zero is attributed to sim-

ulation error. The pitch angle change is approximately 0.01

radians per ﬂapping cycle. The small effects on the body of

each wingbeat, coupled with unstable hover, are consistent

with the results in Reference [14].

!3 !2 !1 0 1 2 3

x 10

!7

!1

!0.8

!0.6

!0.4

!0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

x(m)

z

(

m

)

Figure 6: MAV Center of Mass in B Frame - x v. z

!1 !0.8 !0.6 !0.4 !0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

!3

!2

!1

0

1

2

3

x 10

!7

y(m)

x

(

m

)

Figure 7: MAV Center of Mass in B Frame - y v. x

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

!10

!8

!6

!4

!2

0

2

x 10

!17

t/T

!

(

r

a

d

ia

n

s

)

Figure 8: Yaw angle, ψ, of central body

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

!0.018

!0.016

!0.014

!0.012

!0.01

!0.008

!0.006

!0.004

!0.002

0

t/T

!

(

r

a

d

ia

n

s

)

Figure 9: Pitch angle, θ, of central body

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

!0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

x 10

!17

t/T

!

(

r

a

d

ia

n

s

)

Figure 10: Roll angle, φ, of central body

6 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK

The paper presented the derivation of the nonlinear, mul-

tiple body equations of motion for a ﬂapping wing micro air

vehicle using D’Alembert’s Principle for Multiple Rigid Bod-

ies. The equations were derived using 12 generalized coordi-

nates and 12 quasi-velocities. Simulations were conducted

using time-averaged data for the aerodynamic forces and mo-

ments. Future Work will investigate the difference in perfor-

mance and simulation results between time-averaged data and

instantaneous lift and drag data. Previous work has shown in

[3, 15] that ﬂexible wings produce more thrust. Humming-

birds control part of their ﬂapping motion [16] by changing

the chord length, along the span of the wing, during ﬂapping.

Simulations will be conducted with varying positions of the

hinge points, the conjecture is that stability may be improved

by ensuring that the time-variant system center of mass is for-

ward of the time-variant aerodynamic center. Investigation

of nonlinear and linear control schemes will be conducted.

Based on the work presented in [10], analytical equilibrium

solutions may not exist. Numerical solvers may be required

to obtain equilibrium solutions for desired maneuvers and tra-

jectories and to develop control schemes based on the numer-

ical solutions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks to Professor Donald T. Greenwood for assistance

with the development of the dynamical model. Thanks go

to Pat Trizila for assistance with the aerodynamic modeling

and integration of the data into the dynamic and kinematic

model.

REFERENCES

[1] M. Sun and J.K. Wang. Flight stabilization control of

a hovering model insect. The Journal of Experimental

Biology, 210:2714–2722, 2007.

[2] W. Shyy, Y. Lian, J. Tang, D. Viieru, and H. Liu. Aero-

dynamics of low Reynolds number ﬂyers. Cambridge

University Press, New York, NY, 2008.

[3] W. Shyy, Y. Lian, J. Tang, H. Liu, P. Trizilia, B. Stan-

ford, L. Bernal, C. Cesnik, P. Friedmann, and P. Ifju.

Computational aerodynamics of low reynolds number,

plunging, pitching and ﬂexible wings for mav applica-

tions. Acta Mechanica Sin, 24:351–373, 2008.

[4] H. Baruh. Analytical Dynamics. WCB McGraw-Hill,

Boston, MA, 2006.

[5] P. Trizilia, C. Kang, M. Visbal, and W. Shyy. Low

reynolds number hovering wing aeroydynamics: per-

formance, tip vortices, and induced jet. Submitted to

Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 2009.

[6] M. Sun and Y. Xiong. Dynamic ﬂight stability of a hov-

ering bumblebee. The Journal of Experimental Biology,

208:447–459, 2005.

[7] G. Taylor and A. Thomas. Dynamic ﬂight stability in

the desert locus Schistocerca gregaria. The Journal of

Experimental Biology, 206:2803–2829, 2003.

[8] B. Etkin and L.D. Reid. Dynamics of ﬂight. John Wiley

and Sons, New York, NY, 1996.

[9] J. Jackson, R. Bhattacharya, and T. Strganac. Mod-

elling and suboptimal trajectory generation for a sym-

metric ﬂapping wing vehicle. In Proceedings of the

AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference

and Exhibit, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 18-21 August

2008. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronau-

tics, 2008.

[10] W. Buler, L. Loroch, K. Sibilski, and A. Zyluk. Model-

ing and simulation of the nonlinear dynamic behavior of

a ﬂapping wings micro-aerial-vehicle. In Proceedings

of the 42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Ex-

hibit, Reno, Nevada, USA, 5-8 November 2004. Ameri-

can Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2004.

[11] M. A. Bolender. Rigid multi-body equations-of-motion

for ﬂapping wing mavs using kane’s equations. In

Accepted for AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control

Conference, 10-13 August 2009, Chicago, IL. American

Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2009.

[12] D. T. Greenwood. Principles of dynamics. Prentice

Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1988.

[13] D. T. Greenwood. Advanced dynamics. Cambridge Uni-

versity Press, 2006.

[14] M. Sun, P. Liu, and K.Wang. Dynamic ﬂight stability of

a hovering hoverﬂy. In Proceedings of the Fifth Inter-

national Conference on Fluid Mechanics, Aug. 15-19,

2007, Shanghai, China. Tsinghua University Press and

Springer, 2007.

[15] H. Aono, S. Chimakurthi, C. Cesnik, H. Liu, and

W. Shyy. Computational modeling of spanwise ﬂexi-

bility effects on ﬂapping wing aerodynamics. In Pro-

ceedings of the 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting

including the The New Horizons Forum and Aerospace

Exposition, Orlando, Florida, Jan 5-8, 2009, volume

2009-1270. American Institute of Aeronautics and As-

tronautics, 2009.

[16] B. Tobalske, D. Warrick, C. Clark, D. Powers,

T. Hedrick, G. Hyder, and A. Biewener. Three-

dimensional kinematics of hummingbird ﬂight. The

Journal of Experimental Biology, 210:2368–2382,

2007.

as undertaken in the paper. 7]. It will enable the discovery of steady-state ﬂight conﬁgurations and the eventual development of effective control schemes. is highly studied. The hinge point for both wings is the same and is positioned at the central body. Furthermore. and sweep (forward and back ﬂapping). The dynamics model chosen is the standard. The ﬂapping wing MAV is modeled as three rigid bodies (central body. equal change in angle of attack. the 3-2-1 Euler Angles tracking the orientation of each wing can be directly used as the time rate of change of the pitch. due to the lack of a body-ﬁxed frame at the central body point mass. for at hovering the aerodynamics of the central body are neglected due to the absence of translational motion. β˙L . and not exactly implement a control scheme. in regards to insect ﬂight. θ˙ ]. The central body is modeled as a point mass without mass moments of inertia. w. one for each wing. pitch (angle of attack).MAV. the method chosen requires the calculation of the reaction forces between the wings and the hinges. q and θ. However. The preliminary goal for vehicle size is a total mass of 30 grams and a total wingspan of approximately 15 centimeters. L R The above equations use standard aircraft notation. P. In contrast to the Taylor and Thomas model [7]. Buler. which is a hybrid of LaGrangian and Eulerian techniques [4]. listed below: q = [x. linearized aircraft dynamics that can be found in [8]. The method used to derive the equations of motion is D’Alembert’s Principle for Multiple Rigid Bodies. and α2 . and no central body frame. differential change in the angle of attack). Additionally. Sun and Wang concluded that the hovering motion can be stabilized using a combination of two of the four available controls (δΦ. The disadvantage of the two frames. The nonlinear dynamics will be incorporated with lift. Sun and Wang use stability and control derivatives calculated by CFD methods. The authors choose the equilibrium point for their analysis to be motionless hovering. The authors chose a dynamics model previously given in [6. In reference [10]. z. plunge and sweep angles. V. the coupling between p. Sun and Wang make further simpliﬁcations. derive the nonlinear equations of motion using the Gibbs-Appel Equations by using ten generalized coordinates. right wing. The wings need to accelerate to maintain the ﬂight condition. 3 L ITERATURE R EVIEW The majority of the previous work in regards to ﬂapping wing vehicles focuses on the aerodynamics and the interactions of the ﬂapping wings with the ﬂuid ﬂow around the wings. left wing) with a rigid airframe and rigidly attached wings. R. q. The equilibrium point is determined by balancing the force and moment equations. A limited amount of work has been completed in regards to the development of dynamic models and control schemes to successfully operate a ﬂapping wing micro-air vehicle. Sun and Wang [1] acknowledge that the ﬁeld of aerodynamics. βL . Φ. Section 4 presents a detailed development of the model with relevant reference frames and the derivation of the nonlinear equations of motion. θR ] w = [U. respectively. so the assumptions and model simpliﬁcations seem justiﬁed. Section 5 presents the simulation efforts and results. but enhances the linearization and simpliﬁcation of the model with improved accuracy of the aerodynamics. with no translational or rotational accelerations. Furthermore. Θ. versus the models used by Taylor and Thomas. βR . In reference [9]. Modeling the central body as a point mass effectively eliminates the rotational considerations of the central body and the coupling effects between the ﬂapping motion of the wings and rotation of the central body. The paper is organized in the following manner. q. requires the tracking of the absolute translational and rotational velocity of not only the central body. The wings are modeled with three degrees of freedom: plunge (up and down ﬂapping). and ten quasi-velocities. Section 3 is a brief literature review focusing on the dynamic models and control schemes for a ﬂapping wing micro-air vehicle. y. by only accounting for the x and z translational motion of the model. and r is non-existent and there is no need to track the Euler Angles of the central body. The stability derivatives are calculated by only taking into account the motion of the wings. in addition to the pitching motion and pitch angle. but both wings as well. θ˙ . The authors use two body-ﬁxed reference frames. Q. W. The combination of the nonlinear dynamics and aerodynamics should allow for accurate study of the motion of the vehicle. α1 . There is still rotational motion of the wing. δφ. et al. except in . The goal of the paper is to study trajectory guidance. The dynamics model does not require additional variables to track and transform the motions of the wing into an inertial frame. The main advantage to the method of deriving the equations of motion chosen in [9] is that it reduces the nonlinearities of the system. β˙R . so the nonlinearities associated with Euler’s Equations of Motion are still present in the equations of motion. drag and aerodynamic moment data from models developed in reference [5]. The main purpose of reference [1] is to produce a quantitative analysis of the stability of hovering ﬂight for a model insect. change in mean position.. accompanied by the dynamic and aerodynamic models used in the simulation. given the ﬂight conditions. The Sun and Wang model limits the model to have six degrees of freedom. Section 6 presents Conclusions and Future Work. Ψ. velocities calculated in each of the wings’ frames will need to be transformed back into the inertial frame. Taylor and Thomas used time average aerodynamics force and moment calculations for a wing beat cycle. the authors derived the equations of motion for a ﬂapping wing vehicle using Eulerian methods. θL . change in position.

forward and back (lagging) translation of the wings.motion about the longitudinal axis of the central body) and θ (used to denote the angle of attack of the wings). the frame is aligned with the ¯x vector b through the nose of the micro-air vehicle. The method of deriving the equations of motion results in the preservation of the numerous. alternatively. The motion of the wings is a function of time and a control input. ¯ ¯ the magnitude and components of R and L are constant. is the modeling of the central body as two separate rigid bodies. B. A detailed description of the method can be found in [12. with directions parallel to the central body B frame. ¯y is perpendicular b to ¯x and pointed out of the right side of the central body. The body-ﬁxed frame is the same as for ﬁxed-wing aircraft and is presented in Figure 1.the case of β (used to denote the ﬂapping angle . The main difference from the derivation in reference [11]. limit the ﬂapping kinematics of their model and do not account. Bolender treats the wings in two separate manners. The chosen method is also brieﬂy covered in [4]. after outlining the derivation of the equations of model and the aerodynamic model. The vectors ρc2 and ρc3 denote the vectors from the hinge ¯ ¯ points on the central body to the respective centers of mass for each wing (¯c2 for the right wing and ρc3 for the left wing). 2nd-order system (or. based on the as¯ sumption of rigid bodies and rigidly attached wings. and b ¯z pointed downward out of of the bottom of the micro-air b vehicle. The tail section is limited to one degree of freedom about the hinge point between body B and body T .. The authors use a linear quadratic regulator problem to determine a nominal control input for the ﬂapping wings of the vehicle. The GibbsAppell Equations. The central body has a main body. is n i=1 ˙ ¯ ˙ ˙ [mi (vi +¨ci )·¯ij +(Ii ·ω i +¯i ×Ii ·¯i +mi ρci ×vi )·βij ] = Qj . A wingﬁxed frame is attached to each wing at the hinge point. The statement of D’Alembert’s Principle. but do not provide an analytical solution for the linearization. 4 D ERIVATION OF THE N ONLINEAR E QUATIONS OF M OTION presented in [11]. The ﬂapping wing vehicle is modeled as a system of three rigid bodies (n = 3): a central fuselage with two rigid wings attached at ideal hinges. in [12]. the wings are not treated as having separate degrees of freedom and are considered to be holonomically constrained to the central body. The authors continue with an analysis of the control of the linearized system previously derived. a twenty degree of freedom. At the hinge points. and a tail section. A desired trajectory is assumed and a linearization. A body-ﬁxed frame.1 D’Alembert’s Principle for Multiple Rigid Bodies The method chosen to derive the equations of motion is D’Alembert’s Principle Extended to Multiple Rigid Bodies. Since the central body is modeled as a rigid body. In reference [11]. Buler. frame B. ρ ¯ The magnitude of the ρci vectors is constant. Figure 1: Vehicle Model ¯ ¯ The vectors R and L denote position vectors from the central body center of mass to the hinge/attachment points of the wings. We ¯ and L as ¯ deﬁne the individual components of R ¯ R= and ¯ L= Rx Lx Ry Ly Rz Lz . two central body-ﬁxed frames are attached. presented in [10]. and associated Jacobian matrix. and Kane’s Equations. In the end. is numerically calculated based on the said trajectory. However. based on the solution of a Newton-Raphson solver to produce the necessary control input vector for the desired output vector. The other treatment accounts for the mass of the wing in the dynamics of the central body. Bolender derives the nonlinear equations of motion for a ﬂapping wing MAV utilizing Kane’s Equations. T . or allow for. the authors produce simulations of the dynamics of a ﬂapping vehicle/animal. et al. are both extensions of D’Alembert’s Principle [4] and have their own strengths and weaknesses [11]. The HR frame is ﬁxed with origin at the right wing hinge point. The . ¯ ρ γ ¯ ω ω ¯ ¯ ¯ (1) where i is the number of rigid bodies and j is the number of generalized coordinates. The paper provides coverage of the various control methods at the authors’ disposal and their respective shortcomings. their model restricts the stroke-plane of the wing beat to a single plane. One treatment ignores the combined mass of the wing. 13]. The model results in a ten degree of freedom. is attached to the central body at its center of mass. The wings and central body are modeled as rigid airframes. The HL frame is ﬁxed with origin at the left wing hinge point. Strictly speaking. in either case. The wings’ motion is treated as a prescribed motion. (2) (3) 4. inherent non-linearities present in a ﬂapping wing micro-air vehicle. The second half of the paper. 1st-order system). presents an outline of Linear Control Theory. The tail section is used for pitch control of the ﬂapping wing MAV. from other models.

αL . p. Second. δ˙ . The frames WR and WL and the vectors R. ζL ] and the quasi-velocites. are not depicted. p. ζR .δR and δL 4. w. q. Figures 3. b ζR and ζL are positive in a forward ﬂapping motion (positive ¯x ). the requirement to calculate the reaction forces between the wings and the central body is eliminated. ψ. αL . ﬁxed at the origin of the system. θ. The reference points for the right and left wing are chosen to be the hinge attachment points. The translational and rotational velocities of each of the rigid bodies are ¯ v1 = u¯x + v¯y + w¯z b b b ¯ v2 = v1 + ω1 × R ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ v3 = v1 + ω1 × L ¯ ¯ ¯ ∂uj (8) . WR and WL . δL . ζL . α˙L . ρc2 . ζR . with a constant radius. The hinge frames. but is simply the mirror image of Figure 4. The position of the centers of mass of each wing are expressed by the following vectors: ρc2 = ρc2 [cosδR sinζR¯x + cosδR cosζR¯y + sinδR¯z ] (4) ¯ b b b Developing equations of motion using D’Alembert’s Principle for Rigid Bodies requires the selection of reference points for each rigid body. by taking the hinge points as reference points. The constant radius is the magnitude of the vectors. and 5 show the vehicle model from different view points and the relationship of the wing frames. are positive in a downward motion (positive ¯z ). Dashed lines represent a negative direction in the respective reference frame. the mass moments of inertia of the wings need to be initially calculated about the reference points. Third. r. The left side of the vehicle. In this formulation. θ. To R R L L summarize. WR and WL . ¯ ¯ HR and HL . q. First. 4. αR . γij = ∂ui . L. is important when biological ﬂyers transition from hovering to forward ﬂight [2]. ¯ j ¯ ¯ βij = ∂ ωi . ζR . located on the central body. (7) (6) Figure 2: Wing Frames The motion of the center of mass of the wings is tracked similar to a mass moving in spherical coordinates. v. which is coincident with the origin of the WR . δL . and the central body frame B. are ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ uj = [u. ¯ ¯ In order to successfully develop the equations of motion. the axes of the wing-ﬁxed frames. v. δR . φ (3-2-1 Euler Angles of central body). (5) ¯ b b b The importance of ﬂapping and lagging angles. is not depicted. rigid body 1. and ρc3 are presented in Figure 2. ρc3 = ρc3 [cosδL sinζL¯x − cosδL cosζL¯y + sinδL¯z ]. αR . αR . δR . Y . ρc2 and ¯ ρc3 .origin of the winged ﬁxed frames is the hinge point and when the wings at are their respective initial positions. The mass moments of inertia will remain constant in the wing-ﬁxed frames and do not need to be translated into the B frame [12]. HL and WL frames. The twelve quasi-velocities are the following: u. where i denotes the rigid body and j denotes the generalized speeds. are parallel with the central body-ﬁxed frame B. HR and HL . δL . HR . q. The center of mass of the wing is assumed to be along ¯ the y-axis of the hinge frames when the wing angles are identically zero. and ζ˙ . and are identical to the hinge frames. Y. Z. αL . the absolute velocity of the wings does not need to be tracked. δR . are qj = [X. the origin of the respective motion is the hinge point. Figure 3: Front View . α˙R . ζL ]. and αL . is it’s respective center of mass. The ﬂapping angles. δ˙ . and the associated degrees of freedom. The reference point for the central body. the twelve generalized coordinates are chosen to be the following: X. There are three main advantages to selecting D’Alembert’s Principle. The vectors tracking the center of mass of the wings in the hingedﬁxed frames are the vectors ρc2 and ρc3 . r. ψ. and the angular velocity coefﬁcients. but are b parallel to the B frame. uj . Z (inertial position of central body). the generalized coordinates and quasi-velocities need to be speciﬁed. w. The required ac¯ ¯ ¨ ¨ celeration vectors of ρc2 and ρc3 are derived using diligent ¯ ¯ application of the chain rule. the generalized coordinates. ζ˙ . φ. The lagging angles.2 Velocity and Angular Velocity Coefﬁcients The ﬁrst step in the derivation is to determine the velocity ∂v ¯ coefﬁcients. δR and δL . In this case. by choosing reference points on the central body.

β2j and β3j . For quasi-velocities j = 4 .ζR and ζL and ω1 = p¯x + q¯y + r¯z ¯ b b b ˙ b ˙ b ω2 = (p + δR )¯x + (q + αR )¯y + (r − ζR )¯z . for j = 1 .2 Izz.3 −Ixz. The velocity coefﬁcients for the right wing. ¯ β2j is identically zero for j = 10 . it may be necessary in the use of the model to rotate aerodynamic forces generated by the ﬂapping of the wings from the WR and WL frames into the B frame.1 0 Izz.2 Iyy. . −Ixz. the angular velocity coefﬁcients are ¯ β2j = ¯ β3j = Figure 4: Right Side View . is ¯ ¯ ¯ ˙ ˙ ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ v2 = v1 + ω 1 × R + ω1 × v1 + ω1 × (¯ 1 × R). (16) In regards to the left wing.1 0 I1 = (19) −Ixz. (17) Figure 5: Top View . . .2 −Ixz. β1j for generalized ¯ speeds j = 1 . 12 are ¯ β3j = −¯x b ¯y b ¯z b .αR ¯x b ¯x b ¯y b ¯y b ¯z b ¯z b . the acceleration of the right wing. and the angular velocity coefﬁcients. (14) (15) For the right wing. the angular velocity coefﬁcients are ¯ β2j = ¯x b ¯y b −¯z b . .3 (20) The velocity and angular velocity coefﬁcients of the central body for coordinates j = 7 . . (10) (11) Inertia Tensors For the central body. ¯ ˙ b ˙L )¯x + (q + αL )¯y + (r + ζL )¯z ˙ b ω3 = (p − δ b ¯ ˙ b The accelerations of the three rigid bodies are obtained by differentiating the translational and rotational velocities and making proper use of the transport theorem [4]. ¯ γ1j . respectively. for j = 7 . . RR is the rotation matrix .3 −Ixy. ¯ ¯ ω 4. For the left wing. . an x − z plane of mass symmetry is assumed. . For exam˙ ¯ ple. .3 Izz. .2 −Ixy. 3. The velocity coefﬁcients. 12.1 0 −Ixz. .1 0 Iyy. . with respect to coordinates j = 7 .The velocity coefﬁcients for the left and right wing.1 Ixx.2 I2 = −Ixy. v2 in the central body frame. 9. 12 are identically zero. . . . γ2j . . 12 are identically zero. .3 −Iyz.2 −Iyz. and the left wing. . The angular velocity co¯ ¯ efﬁcients of the right and left wings.3 (9) (18) The velocity and angular velocity coefﬁcients are ob¯ tained by taking the partial derivatives of vi and ωi with re¯ spect to the generalized speeds.3 −Iyz. .2 −Ixz. 6 are ¯ γ2j = [¯x ¯ b −Rz ¯y + Ry ¯z b b −Lz ¯y + Ly ¯z b b γ3j = [¯x b ¯y b ¯y b ¯z . .3 I3 = −Ixy. 6 of the central body are γ1j = ¯ and ¯ β1j = ¯x b 0 0 ¯y b ¯z b 0 ¯x b 0 ¯y b 0 0 ¯z b . No planes of mass symmetry are assumed for either wing during the model development. b − Ry ¯x + Rx¯y ] (12) b b (13) 4. ¯ β3j is identically zero for j = 7 . ¯ γ3j . are identically zero for j = 1 . For the right wing.3 . b ¯z . the angular velocity coefﬁcients for j = 10 . As a result.2 −Iyz. 9. . b b Rotation Matrices Although it is not necessary to continuously calculate the mass moments of inertia for the wings in the B frame. 6.3 Iyy.4 (21) Rz ¯x − Rx¯z b b Lz ¯x − Lx¯z b b − Ly ¯x + Lx¯y ]. . . the resulting mass moments of inertia matrices for each rigid body are the following: Ixx. .2 Ixx.

¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Q4 ˙ ˙ I3 ω 3 + ω3 × I3 ω3 + m3 ρc3 × v3 = Q5 ... RαR .5 Force Description The aerodynamics forces and moments produced by the wings are assumed to act over the three bodies as a whole. (23) The rotation matrix RαL has the same structure as it’s counterpart on the right wing. Constraint forces do not perform virtual work. + (L + ρc3 ) × (m3 )RB 0 .. (22) A similar procedure can be utilized to obtain the rotation of aerodynamic forces and moments generated by the left wing into the B frame. The aerodynamic forces. while Q9 and Q12 control the lagging angle of the wings. . The rotation matrix for the left wing is RL = RδL RαL RζL . Q8 . the rotational dynamics of the central body are the most complex. 4. b b b (29) (28) The rotations of the right wing and and the left wing are described by Equation 34 and Equation 35. therefore they are not considered in the formulations. the rotation matrices RζL and RδL simplify to −cosζL −sinζL 0 −cosζL 0 RζL = sinζL (26) 0 0 1 and 1 RδL = 0 0 0 −cosδL sinδL 0 −sinδL . Q11 . ¯ ¯ ρ ¯ ¯ ρ ˙ ˙ ˙ ¯ I1 ω 1 +¯1 ×I1 ω1 +m2 R×(v2 +¨c2 )+m3 L×(v3 +¨c3 )+.. are deﬁned as Faero = Fx¯x + Fy ¯y + Fz ¯z . as 3-2-1 Euler Angles results in the calculation of RR . respectively. Q12 are the control moments for the left wing. with all of the individual pieces put together. Treating the angles describing the orientation of the right wing. Q10 . Maero . b b b The aerodynamic moments. ¯ ω ¯ ¯ ˙ ˙ I2 ω 2 + ω2 × I2 ω2 + m2 ρc2 × v2 + . αR . ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Q6 (33) 4. .6 Final Equations of Motion The derived equations of motion. are presented in vector/matrix notation. Qi . Q1 ˙ ˙ ˙ ¯ ¯ ρ ¯ ¯ ρ ¯ m1 v1 + m2 (v2 + ¨c2 ) + m3 (v3 + ¨c3 ) = Q2 . The generalized forces affecting the translation of the central body are Fx 0 Q1 Q2 = Fy + (m1 + m2 + m3 )RB 0 . are deﬁned as Maero = L¯x + M ¯y + N ¯z . Q7 and Q10 control the ﬂapping motion of the wings. (30) Fz g Q3 The generalized forces/moments affecting the rotation of the central body are L 0 Q4 ¯ ¯ Q5 = M + (R + ρc2 ) × (m2 )RB 0 + g Q6 N 0 ¯ ¯ . right and left wing respectively. ζR . −sin(π + δL ) cos(π + δL ) (25) The generalized forces. and Q9 are the control moments for the right wing.Faero . −cosδL (27) Due to the continuous ﬂapping of the wings. The ﬁrst three equations describe the translational velocity of the central body. The rotation matrices RζL and RδL are different and are deﬁned as cos(π − ζL ) sin(π − ζL ) 0 RζL = −sin(π − ζL ) cos(π − ζL ) 0 (24) 0 0 1 RδL 1 = 0 0 0 0 cos(π + δL ) sin(π + δL ) . (35) ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Q12 . cosζR sinζR 0 RζR = −sinζR cosζR 0 0 0 1 cosαR 0 −sinαR 0 1 0 RαR = sinαR 0 cosαR 1 0 0 RδR = 0 cosδR sinδR 0 −sinδR cosδR RR = RδR RαR RζR . Q8 and Q11 control the angle of attack of the wings.of the WR frame into the HR frame. (31) g The generalized forces Q7 . and δR . (32) Q3 By using the trigonometric rules for sine and cosine. Q7 ˙ ˙ I2 ω 2 + ω2 × I2 ω2 + m2 ρc2 × v2 = Q8 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ (34) Q9 Q10 ˙ ˙ I3 ω 3 + ω3 × I3 ω3 + m3 ρc3 × v3 = Q11 . are determined using the principle of virtual work.

The CL is 0. The Reynolds number for Case 11 is 100. ν (39) The chosen phase angle.5 degrees φα and αa .2 Aerodynamic Data The aerodynamic data is obtained by surrogate modeling of two dimensional ﬂow [5]. 0 0 (36) I2 = 12 m2 c 1 2 2 0 0 m2 (b + c ) 12 where b is the span of the wing and c is the chord length. δL ) is identically zero for all time. Choosing a frequency of 30 Hz. (37) ζL (t) = ha sin(2πf t) The control moments for each wing are calculated based on the required accelerations.0. the parameters ha .φα . CD . the control moments for the left wing are Q10 Q11 = I3 αwing + ω3 × I3 ω3 . To model the mass moments of inertia of the wings. based on the ﬂapping kinematics. With ﬂapping motion that consists only of lagging and pitching motions. The Euler angles of the central body are presented in Figures 8. is also zero. The results show that the central body 5. from reference [5. The model of the wings used to obtained the time-averaged aerodynamics data is a ﬂat plate.5 5. The shift of the center of mass is small. with a Reynolds number of 100. The plate has a thickness of 2%. 9 and 10. αa . The simulations are intended to model a normal hovering mode. the wing translation is purely horizontal with the respect to the B frame [2]. based on [5]. we determined simplications could be made to the model in order to reduce the coupling of the rotations of the wings with the translational and rotational motion of the central body . or model. For the aerodynamic model. The aerodynamic data [2. all cross products of inertia are assumed to be zero in the wing frame (when the δ and ζ angles are identically zero).46 from Case 11 and the plunging amplitude is related to the chord length by the ratio [5] 2ha = 4. For the purpose of the simulations. 5. In the normal hovering mode. The chord length is calculated by choosing a frequency and utilizing Equation 39. Additionally. and φα are variable. and a span of 2c(for each wing). The angle of attack (or rotation of the wing) is described as α(t) = αo − αa sin(2πf t + φα ). of 2 mm. They are related by the relationship Q7 Q8 = I2 αwing + ω2 × I2 ω2 ¯ ¯ ¯ (40) Q9 where 0 2 = αa (2πf ) sin(2πf t + φα ) . Based on the aerodynamic data available in [5]. is 1 2 0 0 12 m2 b 1 2 .1 Model S IMULATIONS AND R ESULTS Through the derivations of the equations of motion. the ﬂapping angle (δR . 2 −ha (2πf ) sin(2πf t) αwing ¯ (41) SImilarly. The resulting inertia tensor for the right wing. Case 11 from [5] is used. Results Figures 6 and 7 shows the position of the center of mass of the MAV in the B frame. For a given Reynolds number. is 90 degrees and the average angle of attack. One of the simplications is to place the hinge points co-linear with the y-axis of the central body. a given set of wing kinematics is chosen.4 The current aerodynamic data is only for a normal hovering mode. with a prescribed chord length. αa . ¯ ¯ ¯ Q12 5.3 (42) Model Parameters The initial simulations are conducted based off of the current aerodynamic data and do not speciﬁcally replicate. t. With the hinge points ¯ ¯ along the y-axis. The lift forces are assumed to counteract the gravity forces acting on the central body. the wings motion is deﬁned as positive when the lagging motion is in the positive x direction in the body frame. c. c. the x and z components of the R and L vectors are identically zero. and the inertia tensor in the B frame. is 62. which is approximately four orders of magnitude smaller than the vehicle scale. (38) The phase lag between the translation and rotation of the wing is denoted by φα . The simulations of the model produce symmetrical ﬂapping. 2] Rehovering = (2πf ha )c . at the center of mass of the wing in the wing-ﬁxed frame. c (43) As previously stated. . results in a chord length. the frequency of the ﬂapping can be calculated based on the relationship. Based on the this assumption. the time-averaged aerodynamic moments are assumed to be identically zero. any living organism. αo is the initial angle of attack at the start of the ﬂapping motion and αa is the timeaverage angle of attack. the center of mass of the system symmetrically fore and aft in the B frame. It is on the order of 10−7 . the time-averaged coefﬁcient of drag. 5] prescribes the plunging amplitude as ζR (t) = ha sin(2πf t) . In Equation 38. with zero ﬂapping motion.

# $() $(* $(+ $(" ! !!&!!$ !!&!!) !!&!!( !-.01 radians per ﬂapping cycle. the nose pitches down./ " 6 C ONCLUSION AND F UTURE W ORK !! !' !( !! !"#$ !"#% !"#& !"#' " . x $ )*#! !#+ ! !$ !( !' !& !#! ! " #! #" . as the angular velocity of the MAV continues to increase. Hummingbirds control part of their ﬂapping motion [16] by changing the chord length. The bank angle. The values produced by the simulation are on the order of 10−17 and the error from zero is attributed to simulation error. $! $" %! ( )*!" !+ Figure 10: Roll angle. φ. analytical equilibrium solutions may not exist. ψ. Simulations were conducted using time-averaged data for the aerodynamic forces and moments. Previous work has shown in [3. of central body /. are effectively zero./01/234 !$() !# !! #&" !" !# $ %. The hover is unstable. Future Work will investigate the difference in performance and simulation results between time-averaged data and instantaneous lift and drag data.-. Numerical solvers may be required to obtain equilibrium solutions for desired maneuvers and trajectories and to develop control schemes based on the numerical solutions. $! $" %! Figure 8: Yaw angle. of central body The paper presented the derivation of the nonlinear. Based on the work presented in [10]. The equations were derived using 12 generalized coordinates and 12 quasi-velocities. b As the wings go forward. !*/01231456 . and yaw angle. the conjecture is that stability may be improved by ensuring that the time-variant system center of mass is forward of the time-variant aerodynamic center.-. # " %&#$ ! !' # !&" Figure 6: MAV Center of Mass in B Frame . % $ !$(" !$(+ $ !$(* $&" '(#! !#) !(-.x v.y v. $! $" %! Figure 9: Pitch angle. multiple body equations of motion for a ﬂapping wing micro air vehicle using D’Alembert’s Principle for Multiple Rigid Bodies. during ﬂapping. are consistent with the results in Reference [14]. Simulations will be conducted with varying positions of the hinge points. along the span of the wing./0120345 !!&!!' !!&!# !!&!#$ !!&!#) !!&!#( !!&!#' ! " #! #" *+. 15] that ﬂexible wings produce more thrust. coupled with unstable hover./ "#' "#& "#% "#$ ! Figure 7: MAV Center of Mass in B Frame . The pitch angle change is approximately 0. φ. ψ. Investigation of nonlinear and linear control schemes will be conducted. The small effects on the body of each wingbeat. z ! !!&" ! " #! #" *+.-. θ. of central body ' ! )-.-.pitches up and down about the ¯y axis with each wing beat.

Wang. T. Greenwood for assistance with the development of the dynamical model.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to Professor Donald T. Trizilia. 2008. In Proceedings of the 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the The New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition. Shyy. Sun. Friedmann. Bernal. In Proceedings of the 42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. NY. Liu. [4] H. In Accepted for AIAA Guidance. 2009. Dynamic ﬂight stability in the desert locus Schistocerca gregaria. Threedimensional kinematics of hummingbird ﬂight. pitching and ﬂexible wings for mav applications. plunging. 210:2368–2382. . Dynamic ﬂight stability of a hovering hoverﬂy. 208:447–459. Visbal. Shyy. and W. Baruh. 2009. New York. 2009. Modeling and simulation of the nonlinear dynamic behavior of a ﬂapping wings micro-aerial-vehicle.Wang. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Upper Saddle River. The Journal of Experimental Biology. R EFERENCES [1] M. [9] J. [2] W. Zyluk. L. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Tsinghua University Press and Springer. 1996. 2006. Hawaii. USA. 206:2803–2829. [10] W. Aug. USA. Lian. Aono. Nevada. Tang. The Journal of Experimental Biology. MA. [15] H. H. 2007. Lian. [12] D. T. Thomas. Sibilski. Jan 5-8. Navigation and Control Conference. Ifju. Hyder. Powers. Sun and Y. NY. Xiong. J. Rigid multi-body equations-of-motion for ﬂapping wing mavs using kane’s equations. G. Biewener. 5-8 November 2004. Chimakurthi. 2007. Reno. IL. 2006. [3] W. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. C. and A. and K. Computational aerodynamics of low reynolds number. Buler. 2008. and induced jet. P. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Strganac. B. Y. 10-13 August 2009. and W. and A. Taylor and A. [6] M. Shyy. [7] G. Clark. C. D. Cesnik. Viieru. Navigation. Warrick. Cambridge University Press.K. In Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance. Dynamic ﬂight stability of a hovering bumblebee. Trizilia. Liu. and H. and T. Computational modeling of spanwise ﬂexibility effects on ﬂapping wing aerodynamics. P. tip vortices. New York. H. J. 2007. C. 2009. Kang. M. John Wiley and Sons. L. Etkin and L. Bhattacharya. D. Greenwood. Stanford. Honolulu. [16] B. The Journal of Experimental Biology. Submitted to Journal of Fluid Mechanics. Cambridge University Press. Sun and J.D. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Fluid Mechanics. Aerodynamics of low Reynolds number ﬂyers. Orlando. Boston. [11] M. [5] P. 210:2714–2722. Acta Mechanica Sin. Y. Tobalske. 24:351–373. Modelling and suboptimal trajectory generation for a symmetric ﬂapping wing vehicle. Reid. and Control Conference and Exhibit. 1988. 2004. 2007. Chicago. Hedrick. [8] B. [14] M. R. China. Principles of dynamics. Advanced dynamics. Shyy. Tang. D. 2005. The Journal of Experimental Biology. Dynamics of ﬂight. Prentice Hall. K. Liu. S. [13] D. Florida. P. 18-21 August 2008. Flight stabilization control of a hovering model insect. 2003. 15-19. C. WCB McGraw-Hill. Liu. Loroch. Analytical Dynamics. Cesnik. and P. Greenwood. Shanghai. volume 2009-1270. Jackson. NJ. Low reynolds number hovering wing aeroydynamics: performance. 2008. T. Thanks go to Pat Trizila for assistance with the aerodynamic modeling and integration of the data into the dynamic and kinematic model. A. Bolender.

Did Jesus Rise From the Dead_ — Religiousyetsane.blogspot

I'Ll Be Back, Therefore I Am — Religiousyetsane.blogspot

Did Jesus Rise From the Dead_ — Religiousyetsane.blogspot

197

Readme

The Impossible Faith

The Empty Tomb

The Moral Poverty of Evolutionary Naturalism

He is Risen Indeed - Ben Witherington

Hallucinations and The Risen Jesus

- Read and print without ads
- Download to keep your version
- Edit, email or read offline

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

CANCEL

OK

You've been reading!

NO, THANKS

OK

scribd

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->