637

2016,28(4):637-647
DOI: 10.1016/S1001-6058(16)60668-6

Effect of head swing motion on hydrodynamic performance of fishlike robot

propulsion*

Dan XIA (夏丹)1, Wei-shan CHEN (陈维山)2, Jun-kao LIU (刘军考)2, Ze WU (吴泽)1
1. School of Mechanical Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, China, E-mail: dxia@seu.edu.cn
2. State Key Laboratory of Robotics and System, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001, China

(Received April 6, 2015, Revised July 18, 2015)

Abstract: This paper studies the effect of the head swing motion on the fishlike robot swimming performance numerically. Two
critical parameters are employed in describing the kinematics of the head swing: the leading edge amplitude of the head and the
trailing edge amplitude of the head. Three-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations are used to compute the viscous flow over the robot.
The user-defined functions and the dynamic mesh technology are used to simulate the fishlike swimming with the head swing motion.
The results reveal that it is of great benefit for the fish to improve the thrust and also the propulsive efficiency by increasing the two
amplitudes properly. Superior hydrodynamic performance can be achieved at the leading edge amplitudes of 0.05L ( L is the fish
length) and the trailing edge amplitudes of 0.08L . The unsteady flow fields clearly indicate the evolution process of the flow
structures along the swimming fish. Thrust-indicative flow structures with two pairs of pressure cores in a uniform mode are
generated in the superior performance case with an appropriate head swing, rather than with one pair of pressure cores in the case of
no head swing. The findings suggest that the swimming biological device design may improve its hydrodynamic performance
through the head swing motion.

Key words: fishlike swimming, head swing motion, hydrodynamic performance, biological device design

Introduction pectoral fins, were widely reported in literature[5-10].

Aquatic animals have evolved with very excelle-
nt propulsive performance through water. Recently,
the bio-inspired propulsion system imitating the way
of fish swimming has been widely applied in the auto-
nomous underwater vehicle (AUV) design[1-3]. The
rapid development of the AUV, such as the fishlike
robot, has inspired the hydrodynamics study on the
swimming mechanism for fish. In recent years, nume-
rous simulations and experiments have provided a
wealth of data in terms of both the swimming mecha-
nics and the wake flow structure[4-10]. In addition to
the mechanisms of the swinging head, the other
various swimming mechanisms, such as the flapping
foil, the oscillating caudal fin and the undulating
* Project supported by the National Natural Science Foun-
dation of China (Grant Nos. 51205060, 51405080).
Biography: Dan XIA (1982-), Male, Ph. D.,
Associate Professor
The inspiration for the present study comes from the
phenomenon of the dolphin swimming with a head
swing behavior of large amplitude[11,12]. As compared
with the previous studies of other swimming mechani-
sms, the head swing problem for the fishlike propul-
sion is still unclear. And the hydrodynamics behind
the head swing motion is far from being well under-
stood.
A great deal of experimental studies for the fish-
like swimming were carried out. Review papers[13-16]
presented a summary of recent developments in visua-
lization experiments. Read et al.[13] performed experi-
ments on an oscillating foil to assess its performance
in producing a large thrust. Hover and Triantafyllou[14]
compared the swimming performance of four foils and
confirmed that the saw tooth foil produces the highest
thrust. The recent studies of the hydrodynamics of
oscillating foils[15,16] also help to gain an understanding
of the fishlike swimming mechanisms. Floch et al.[15],
Lauder and Drucker[16] indicated that the fish produces
the thrust by accelerating the water through the move-
ment of their body and appendages, and the power loss
638
can be reduced through the morphological design, the
phased kinematics and behaviors. Although some insi-
ghts into the fish swimming mechanisms are obtained
from these studies, further investigations of this theme
are needed, such as the swimming mechanism in the
head swing problem, which has not been fully studied
by previous researchers.
Numerical simulations of the fishlike swimming
were also carried out[17-20]. Zhu et al.[17] highlighted
the flow structures around the fishlike swimming and
presented a vortex control method to improve the effi-
ciency. Liao et al.[18] revealed a thrust jet by studying
the rainbow trout swimming. Tang and Lu[19] carried
out a numerical study on the self-propulsion of the
3-D flapping flexible plate. The recent studies of the
hydrodynamics around the foils[20] also help to gain an
understanding of the swimming mechanisms. To some
extent, these studies produced some important results
and shed new light into the hydrodynamics of the fish-
like swimming. However, most of these studies focu-
sed on simulating a number of different swimming
modes or their flow regimes, but a specific investiga-
tion of the effect of the head swing motion on the
hydrodynamics for the fishlike swimming is not seen
in the literature.
The objective of this work is to provide some
insights into the hydrodynamics of the fishlike robot
swimming with the head swing motion and to explore
the flow features of different head swing laws. The
head swing motion cannot be realized by purely expe-
rimental means, mainly because it is very difficult to
carry out controlled experiments in which the gove-
rning parameters can be systematically varied. How-
ever, such insights can be obtained by combining the
numerical simulation and the controlled numerical ex-
periments. This paper employs the 3-D Navier Stokes
equations to solve the flow over the fishlike robot with
the head swing motion. Two aspects will be studied:
(1) the effects of the head swing motion on the thrust
and the propulsive efficiency, and (2) the effects of
the head swing motion on evolving the flow structure
near the robot.
Fig.1 Physical model of the fishlike robot
1. Physical model and kinematics
1.1 Physical model
In this paper, we use a fishlike robot prototype
developed by the State Key Laboratory of Robotics
and System as the virtual swimmer. The physical
model and the kinematics of the swimmer is an imita-
tion of the shape and the movement of a small tuna.
However, the true shape of the biological tuna has still
not been described accurately to be used as a direct
input to the physical model. Therefore, we use the
curve fitting method to describe the shape of the fish-
like robot, whose physical model is shown in Fig.1.
We define the coordinate system in the frame ( x, y, z )
where x - axis, y - axis, and z - axis are along the
longitudinal, transverse and spanwise directions respe-
ctively. The fishlike robot has symmetrical xy and
xz planes over the profile, which is composed of head,
body and caudal fin. The 3-D size of the robot x × y ×
z is 0.20 m×0.025 m×0.05 m.
Fig.2 Physical model of the swimming domain
Figure 2 shows the physical model of the swi-
mming domain, which is a 2 m×0.5 m×0.5 m cubic
tank filled with water. The fishlike robot is placed
0.2 m from the outlet plane in the x - axis direction and
centered in the y - axis and the z - axis directions. The
domain width of 0.5 m and the height of 0.5 m are
large enough for the robot realizing the swimming
motion. A uniform grid with constant spacing of
0.01L is used to discretize the swimming domain en-
closing the fish, including 5×106 cells.
1.2 Kinematics
The kinematics of the fishlike robot is selected to
resemble the tuna motion observed in a live tuna, but
variations are also introduced to investigate the effect
of the head swing motion. In general, the kinematics
of the robot has two basic components: the head and
body, represented by a 2-D flexible spline curve and
the caudal fin described by an oscillating foil[4,20]. The
origin of the spline curve coincides with the mass cen-
ter of the robot. In this sense, the spline head and body
is responsible for the caudal fin’s heave and the caudal
 639

fin’s own rotation is responsible for its pitch. The θ (t ) are given as
spline head and body are treated as a traveling wave
expressed as yc f (t ) = Ab sin(ω t − kLb ) ,

yb ( x, t ) = A( x)sin(ω t − kx) (1)

where yb ( x, t ) is the instant transverse displacement
of the head and body, A( x) is the amplitude function,
ω is the wave frequency, k is the wave number,
denoted as k = 2π / λ , and λ is the wave length.
Here we assume that the robot length is uncha-
nged during the traveling wavy motion. To model the
head swing and the body undulation, the amplitude
A( x) is approximated by a quadratic polynomial
θ (t ) = θ max sin(ω t − kLb − ϕ ) (4)
where Ab is the heave amplitude of the caudal pedun-
cular joint, Lb is the length of the body segments,
θ max is the pitch amplitude of the caudal fin, and ϕ
is the phase angle, by which the heave leads to the
pitch.

A( x) = (C0 + C1 x + C2 x 2 ) (2)

where C0 , C1 , C2 are the envelope amplitude coe-

fficients. To represent the kinematics in detail, we use
the amplitude of the leading edge of the head Ah , the
amplitude of the trailing edge of the head A0 , and the
amplitude of the caudal peduncular joint Ab . The
matrix connecting the envelope amplitude coefficients
and the motion amplitudes can then be given as

1 xh ( xh )2  C0   Ah 
 
1 x0 ( x0 ) 2   C1  =  A0  (3)
1 xb ( xb ) 2  C2   Ab 


where xh , x0 are the position of the leading edge and

the trailing edge of the head, as shown in Fig.1, xb is
the position of the tail peduncle. They describe in de-
tail the mathematical underpinnings of the method
chosen to control the head swing motion.
The head swing motion of a swimming robot is
not easy to describe precisely. In this work, a simplifi-
cation is made. As shown in Eq.(3), a matrix equation
based on the swing amplitudes and the envelope coe-
fficients are employed to represent the shape of the
fish profile. We employ two critical parameters in de-
scribing the head swing motion: the leading edge
amplitude Ah and the trailing edge amplitude A0 . The
effect of altering each parameter on the overall kine-
matics of the robot is best displayed in Fig.3. In these
plots, starting with a single case of no head swing,
each parameter is individually altered to highlight its
effect on the overall kinematics.
For the caudal fin, it can be simplified as an osci-
llating foil, which moves at a specific combination of
the pitch and heave motions[4,20]. The instant transve-
rse displacement yc f (t ) and the angular displacement
Fig.3 Kinematics of the fishlike robot
The present work for each case of the fishlike
robot swimming is based on the following parameters:
( f = 2 Hz , Ab = 0.08L , a max = 20o , ϕ = 90o ). The
results of the robot swimming with no head swing can
be used as a reference case for other head swing cases.
To investigate the effect of the head swing on the
hydrodynamics, two variables of Ah and A0 are
examined. After our tests, it is indicated that the effect
of the changes in the amplitude of the leading edge of
the head becomes very weak when Ah > 0.08L . There-
fore, the amplitude variables of Ah and A0 here range
from 0L to 0.08L in an interval of 0.02L .
2. Numerical method
2.1 Governing equations
The objective of this work is to investigate the
effect of the head swing motion on the thrust and the
640
propulsive efficiency of the fishlike robot swimming.
We consider a 3-D incompressible flow over the robot
undergoing a steady forward motion. The equations
governing the motion of a viscous fluid are the 3-D
Navier-Stokes equations given by
∇⋅u = 0 (5)
∂u
ρ + ρ (u ⋅ ∇) u = −∇ p + µ ∇ 2 u (6)
∂t
where u is the fluid velocity vector, ρ is the density,
p is the pressure, µ is the dynamic viscosity and
∇ is the gradient operator. To solve the equations in
a domain containing the robot, a no-slip condition is
imposed on the moving interface with the fluid velo-
city ζ and the fish velocity x as
ζ = x (7)
In our simulation, the motion of the fishlike robot
is in turn described by the Newton’s equations of
motion as
m xc = F (8)
IZ φc + I Z φc = M Z (9)
where F and M Z are the fluid force and torque
acting on the fish, m is the fish mass, xc is the swi-
mming acceleration, φ and φ are the angular velo-
c c
city and the angular acceleration, and I Z is the ine-
rtial moment about the yaw axis. The feedback of the
torque is limited to the yaw direction to simplify the
computations. The fluid force F and the torque M Z
are computed as follows:
F = ∫ σ ⋅ n d S (10)
S
M Z = ∫ [(σ ⋅ n) × ( x − xc )] ⋅ e3 d S (11)
S
where σ is the normal stress vector, n is the unit
vector along the normal direction, dS is the differe-
ntial unit area along the fish surface, e3 is the unit
vector along the z direction. For a differential unit of
the fish surface, dS can be expressed as
1/ 2
  dy 2 
d S = 1 +    dx (12)
  dx  
2.2 Numerical method
The Navier-Stokes equations here are discretized
using a finite volume method: a second-order Crank-
Nicolson scheme is applied for the unsteady term, a
second-order upwind scheme is used for the convecti-
ve term and a second-order central differencing sche-
me is used for the diffusion term. The pressure velo-
city coupling of the continuity equation is achieved
using the SIMPLE algorithm. The solution of the
Newton’s motion equation for the fish is implemented
by using the user-defined function. The coupling pro-
cedure is implemented using an improved staggered
integration algorithm[10,20]. The mesh grids are locally
refined near the fish and the wake region. To capture
the movement of the fishlike robot in the 3-D domain,
a dynamic mesh technique is used. At each updated
time instant, the grids around the robot are regenerated
and smoothed using the regridding and smoothing
methods. The tail beat period T is divided into 200
time steps, i.e., ∆t = T / 200 . To ensure the grid qua-
lity updated at each time-step, a small time-step size is
required depending on the tail-beat frequency.
2.3 Performance parameters
Several parameters are used to quantify the swi-
mming performance. The drag force acting on the
robot and the power needed for it to be propelled are
relevant in this work. The total drag force consists of a
viscous drag and a pressure drag. As shown in Fig.1,
the viscous drag and the pressure drag per unit area
can then be expressed as
 ∂u d y  ∂v ∂u   dy
f x f = µ  −2 +  +   , f xp = p (13a)
 ∂x dx  ∂x ∂y   dx
 ∂v d y  ∂v ∂u  
f yf = µ  2 −  +   , f yp = − p (13b)
 ∂y dx  ∂x ∂y  
By integrating f x f and f xp over the robot, the vis-
cous drag FF , the pressure drag FP , and the total drag
FD = FF + FP can be obtained. Therefore, the viscous
drag coefficient CDF , the pressure drag coefficient
CDP , and the total drag coefficient CD are then defi-
ned as
FF FP FD
CDF = , CDP = , CD =
1 1 1
ρU 2 L2 ρU 2 L2 ρU 2 L2
2 2 2
(14)
where U is the swimming velocity of the robot. The
input power required for the robot swimming consists

of two parts. One is the lateral power PS , required to
produce the lateral oscillation, and is defined as
dy
PS = − ∫ ( f yp + f yf ) dS (15)
dt
The other is the thrust power, needed to overcome
the drag, and is defined as PD = − FDU . Thus, the
input power PT can be obtained by PT = PS + PD .
Considering the fishlike propulsion subject to a net
thrust (i.e., CD < 0 ), we further introduce the propul-
sive efficiency defined as
PD
η= (16)
PT
Fig.4 Time history of the hydrodynamic force and its pressure
and viscous components from the present work compared
with the results of Dutsch et al.[21]
2.4 Numerical validation
To validate our numerical method in predicting
the forces and the flow structures, we simulate the
case of a cylinder starting to oscillate in the horizontal
direction in the fluid initially at rest. The resulting
flow for this case provides a stable vortex shedding
with two fixed stagnation points on the front and the
back of the cylinder. The detailed studies were repo-
rted in Dutsch et al.[21]. The translational motion of the
cylinder is given by a harmonic oscillation. We choo-
se the case for validation with the same parameters as
used in Dutsch et al.[21] where both the experimental
and numerical results were reported. The numerical
computations are found to yield sufficiently accurate
force information. Figure 4 compares the calculated
total hydrodynamic force and its pressure and viscous
components with the reported results[21]. It is clear that
they are in good agreement. Figure 5 shows the calcu-
lated instantaneous contours of the pressure and the
vorticity field at four different phase angles of the
oscillatory cylinder motion. The flow structures reflect
the vortex formation during the forward and backward
motions, which is dominated by two counter-rotating
641
vortices. The computed results agree with the Dutsch
et al.’s computational results[21], which are not shown
here but were reported clearly in their paper.
Fig.5 Contours of pressure and vorticity at four different phase
angles (please see Fig.6 in Dutsch et al.[21])
3. Results and discussions
In this section, we analyse the effect of the head
swing on the yielding fishlike swimming by varying
the amplitudes of Ah and A0 , while keeping the
amplitude of Ab unchanged. The aim is to ensure the
motion of the caudal fin unchanged during the varia-
tions of Ah and A0 .
It is noted that the fishlike robot is in a free
swimming, not fixed at a position. When the robot
swims at a steady speed, the performance parameters
defined in Section 2.3 over time are in accordance with
the sinusoidal variation. In other words, the average
values of them are always zero. Therefore, they could
not be used to explore the variation of the performance
parameters with different head swing laws of the robot.
On the other hand, the instant maximum values of
these parameters can be used to study the effect of the
head swing motion on the hydrodynamics performance
instead of the averages of them. Therefore, the follo-
wing parameters are referred to the instant maximum
642

values, not the average values. and the propulsive efficiency with larger A0 are at the
expense of the high input power PT .

3.2 Effect of leading edge amplitude of head Ah

To study the effect of the leading edge amplitude
Ah , we assume that the trailing amplitude A0 is fixed
to zero. Figure 7(a) shows the variations of the drag
coefficients CDP , CDF and CD as functions of Ah .
It is observed that the CDP and CD increase as Ah
increases, while CDF almost keeps constant. In this
regard, the swimming profile of the robot is shown in
Fig.3(c). It is important to note that it is of no benefit
for the fishlike robot to generate the thrust by only
increasing Ah while keeping A0 invariable.

Fig.6 Variations of performance parameters as functions of A0

3.1 Effect of trailing edge amplitude of head A0

To discuss the effect of the trailing edge amplitu-
de A0 more directly, we assume that the leading
amplitude Ah is fixed to zero. Figure 6(a) plots the
variations of the drag coefficients CDP , CDF and CD
as functions of A0 . It can be seen that both CDP and
CD decrease quickly with the increase of A0 , while
CDF almost keeps constant. Under this condition, the
swimming profile is shown in Fig.3(b). Comparison of
these cases with no head swing case reveals that it is
of great benefit for the fishlike robot to generate a
thrust by increasing A0 while keeping Ah invariable. Fig.7 Variations of performance parameters as functions of Ah
Both CDP and CD are always negative in these cases,
thus the thrust force is generated. Figure 7(b) plots the variation of the powers PD ,
Figure 6(b) plots the variation of the powers PD , PT and the efficiency η with respect to Ah . As Ah
PT and the efficiency η with respect to A0 . As A0 increases, PD decreases slowly, and PT decreases
increases, PD increases slowly, and PT increases somewhat first and then increases a lot. Therefore, it is
slowly first and then more quickly. The trend of η is observed that η will decrease quickly with the increa-
increasing quickly first until a turning point and then se of Ah . Comparison of these cases with no head
slowly. Comparison of these cases with no head swing swing case shows that it is unfavorable for the fishlike
case reveals that it is favorable for the fishlike robot to robot to realize a high efficiency by increasing Ah
realize a high efficiency by increasing A0 . However, while keeping A0 invariable.
closer inspection shows that the increases of the thrust

Fig.8 Variations of parameters as functions of A0 and Ah
3.3 Effect of A0 and Ah
Figures 8(a)-8(c) plot the variations of the drag
coefficients CDP , CDF and CD as functions of Ah
and A0 . It is observed that CDP , CDF and CD vary
more sensitively to A0 than to Ah . For a fixed Ah ,
as A0 increases, CDP and CD decrease rapidly while
CDF increases somewhat. But they see no obvious
changes as Ah increases. Therefore, in the first consi-
deration, A0 is better than Ah for the thrust genera-
tion. Closer inspection reveals that the minimum drag,
namely, the maximum thrust occurs at Ah = 0.06 L
and A0 = 0.08L , while the minimum thrust occurs at
643
Ah = 0.08L and A0 = 0 L . Thus, it is indicated that the
fishlike robot swimming with an appropriate amplitu-
de for the head swing is of benefit to reduce the drag
and improve the thrust.
Figures 8(d)-8(f) plot the variations of the powers
PD , PT and the efficiency η with respect to Ah and
A0 . Similarly, it can be seen that PD and PT vary
more sensitively to A0 than to Ah . For a fixed Ah , as
A0 increases, PD and PT increase significantly,
while they do not see obvious changes as Ah increases.
Closer inspection shows that the maximum thrust
power occurs at Ah = 0.06 L and A0 = 0.08L , while
the minimum input power occurs at Ah = 0.04 L and
644
A0 = 0.08L . Another common feature is that η in-
creases quickly first and then slowly as A0 increases.
The optimum efficiency occurs at Ah = 0.05L and
A0 = 0.08L . Thus, it is reasonably revealed that the
fishlike robot swimming with an appropriate amplitu-
de for the head swing is beneficial to save the input
power and increase the propulsive efficiency.
Fig.9 Evolution of pressure contours at Ah = 0 L , A0 = 0 L
3.4 3-D flow structures
The aim of this work is to explore the mechanism
of the fishlike robot swimming with the head swing
motion. The robot is specified to swim with a same
movement of the tail but a different movement of the
head. As we all know, the vorticity shedding is con-
centrated in the tail portion of the fish during the swi-
mming. In this work, in all cases, we have similar vor-
ticity contours. Since the vorticity contours are similar,
they can not be used to reflect the effects of the
different head swing motions on the flow structures
around the tail region. Therefore, we can make a hy-
pothesis that the effects of the head swing motion on
generating the thrust and the input power are related to
the pressure distribution around the fishlike robot. In
order to provide evidence for this hypothesis, it is insi-
ghtful to examine the flow structures. The pressure
contours are shown for four representative cases in
Fig.3.
Fig.10 Evolution of pressure contours at Ah = 0 L , A0 = 0.08 L
Figure 9 plots the pressure distribution contours
generated by the swimming robot with no head swing
(as shown in Fig.3(a)). It is noted that there is always
a high pressure core in front of the robot head throu-
ghout a half cycle. When the robot is on the left limit
position shown in Fig.9, a low pressure core is on the
left side of the tail, while a high pressure core is on the
right side. It can be concluded that the robot experie-
nces a drag at this time. The drag appears because the
local forward pressure differential around the tail is
smaller than the backward pressure differential on the
front of the head. As the robot travels to the mid-point,
the low pressure core on the left side gradually moves
to the tail, and a new low pressure core is formed on
the right side. The imbalances of the pressure differe-
 645

ntial around the fishlike robot lead to either the increa-
se or the decrease of the drag. As the robot travels to
the right limit position, the drag gradually deceases as
a result of the wake formed by the shedding of the low
pressure core from the trailing edge of the robot. A
notable feature is that only one pair of pressure cores
occurs on the different sides of the robot during the
stroke. As the robot returns to its left limit position,
the flow structures mirror the pattern observed in Fig.9.
Previous studies of oscillating foils show very similar
flow pattern[10,13,17,20].
Figure 10 plots the pressure distribution contours
generated by the swimming robot in the case of Ah =
0, A0 = 0.08L as shown in Fig.3(b) over one half
edge of the caudal fin. Meanwhile, at the fore portion,
the high pressure core dissipates from the left side and
appears on the right side. During the right stroke, the
backward pressure gradient at the fore portion near the
head yields a standing drag effect, while the gradually
moving pressure core at the tail portion produces an
alternative thrust effect. A key factor is that two pairs
of the pressure cores are found to coexist in a reverse
mode around the robot. Therefore, it is determined by
a comparison of the drag effect of the head and the
thrust effect of the tail for the robot to generate a thru-
st or a drag. As the robot returns to its left limit posi-
tion, the pressure contours around the robot mirror the
pattern observed in the right stroke.

cycles. Since Ah is zero, it can be seen that a high

pressure core is always existed in front of the robot
head. This pattern is the same as the pattern observed
in the case of no head swing. When the robot is on the
right limit position, a high pressure core is on the left
side of the tail, while a low pressure core is on the
right side. It can be deduced that the robot experiences
a thrust at this time. This thrust appears because the
local forward pressure differential on the tail is larger
than the backward pressure differential on the front of
the head. As the robot travels to the mid-point, another
high pressure core is formed on the right side near the
head and then gradually moves to the central portion,
while another new low pressure core is formed on the
left side. It will lead to a forward pressure differential
to generate the thrust at the anterior portion. As the
robot travels to the left limit position, the high pressu-
re core and the low pressure core at the anterior por-
tion gradually move to the tail. Meanwhile, another
high pressure core and another low pressure core at
the tail portion gradually move to the trailing edge and
then shed off. A notable feature is that two pairs of the
pressure cores are found to coexist in a uniform mode
around the robot. These behaviors are nicely consiste-
nt with previous findings for foils[13,15].
Figure 11 plots the pressure distribution contours
generated by the swimming robot in the case of Ah =
0.08L , A0 = 0 L as shown in Fig.3(c). Since Ah is
0.08L , it can be seen that both a high pressure core
and a low pressure core are always coexisted on the
different sides in front of the head. This feature will
result in an invariable backward pressure gradient at
the fore portion and yield a standing drag. When the Fig.11 Evolution of pressure contours at Ah = 0.08 L , A0 = 0 L
robot is at its left limit position, a low pressure core is
on the left side near the tail. As the robot travels to the Figure 12 plots the pressure distribution contours
mid-point, the low pressure core gradually moves to generated by the swimming robot in the case of Ah =
the trailing edge, and another low pressure core on the
right side near the head disappears along the surface. 0.05L , A0 = 0.08L as shown in Fig.3(d). It is clearly
As the robot travels to its right limit position, the drag observed that the effect of the head swing motion on
gradually deceases as a result of the wake formed by determining the nature of the local pressure distribu-
the shedding of the low pressure core from the trailing tions along the robot surface is evident. It can be obse-
646
rved that the forward positive pressure differences
between the left and right sides of the robot achieve
the maximum in this case. An important feature is that
two pairs of pressure cores in a uniform mode coexist
around the robot over the full cycle. During the left
stroke, a negative drag, namely, a positive thrust is
always produced since the left and right sides of the
robot are analogous to the pressure and suction regio-
ns. Although the profile of the robot is inverted at the
right stroke, the signs of the drag are consistent with
those at the left stroke.
Fig.12 Evolution of pressure contours at Ah = 0.05 L , A0 =
0.08L
Compared to the robot swimming with no head
swing shown in Fig.9, it is apparent that the head
swing of the robot helps the pressure differentials
generated by the head motion to produce the positive
thrust throughout a swimming cycle. With respect to
the robot swimming with only changing either Ah or
A0 presented in Fig.10 and Fig.11, it is obvious from
Fig.12 that the head swing motion of the robot with
varying both Ah and A0 assists the vortex core in
moving more smoothly from the leading edge to the
trailing edge of the robot. Comparing the swimming
behaviors of the robot in this case, it is noted that a
similar feature is observed in dolphins, which beat
their heads in the wake of other moving bodies when
swimming.
4. Discussion
Comparing the above results, a remarkable diffe-
rence between them is that two pairs of the pressure
cores in a uniform mode coexist around the robot over
the full cycle in some cases with the head swing, rather
than only one pair of them in no head swing case. Not
only the pressure differential due to one pair of pre-
ssure cores around the tail generates a thrust, but also
the other pair of pressure cores located at the head can
produce a thrust. Thus, for the fishlike robot propul-
sion, a standing thrust effect must be realized owing to
the additive contributions of the two pressure differe-
ntials.
5. Conclusions
(1) The effect of varying A0 on the propulsive
performance is found more significant than varying
Ah . As A0 increases, the thrust increases and the input
power increases slowly first and then quickly. Thus,
the trend of η is increasing quickly first and then
slowly. And the thrust-indicative flow structures with
two pairs of pressure cores in a uniform mode are
observed coexisting around the robot.
(2) As Ah increases, the thrust decreases while
the input power increases, thus, η will decrease qui-
ckly. The drag-indicative flow structures with two
pairs of pressure cores in a reverse mode are observed
around the robot.
(3) Based on the understanding of the effect of
the variation of Ah or A0 respectively, we further deal
with the simultaneous variation of Ah and A0 . When
the thrust increases at a larger A0 , the appropriate
value of Ah will reduce the drag of the backward pre-
ssure differential further and thus decrease the input
power by weakening the adverse pressure gradient
around the head.
(4) It is revealed that the fishlike robot can be
optimized to increase the thrust, minimize the input
power and improve the propulsive efficiency by an
appropriate head swing motion. The findings of this
paper suggest that fish, dolphin, and aquatic animals
may benefit the hydrodynamic characteristic by the
head swing motion.

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the State Key Labo-
ratory of Robotics and System (HIT) (Grant No.
SKLRS 2011-ZD-03).
References
[1] DAOU H. E., SALUMAE T. and CHAMBERS L. D.
Modeling of a biologically inspired robotic fish driven by
compliant parts[J]. Bioinspiration and Biomimetics,
2014, 9(1): 1-12.
[2] BELIBASSAKIS K. A., POLITIS G. K. Hydrodynamic
performance of flapping wings for augmenting ship pro-
pulsion in waves[J]. Ocean Engineering, 2013, 40(11):
227-240.
[3] LAUDER G. V., LIM J. and SHELTON R. Robotic mode-
ls for studying undulatory locomotion in fishes[J]. Marine
Technology Society Journal, 2011, 45(4): 41-55.
[4] TRIANTAFYLLOU M. S., TECHET A. H. and HOVER
F. S. Review of experimental work in biomimetic foils[J].
IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 2004, 29(3):
585-594.
[5] NEVELN I. D., BALE R. and BHALLA A. P. S. Undu-
lating fins produce off-axis thrust and flow structures[J].
Journal of Experimental Biology, 2014, 217(2): 201-
213.
[6] IMAMURA N., MATSUUCHI K. Relationship between
vortex ring in tail fin wake and propulsive force[J]. Expe-
riments in Fluids, 2013, 54(10): 1605-1618.
[7] QUINN D. B., LAUDER G. V. and SMITS A. J. Scaling
the propulsive performance of heaving flexible panels[J].
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 2014, 738: 250-267.
[8] BANDYOPADHYAY P. R., LEINHOS H. A. and
HRUBES J. D. Turning of a short-length cable using fla-
pping fin propulsion[J]. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engi-
neering, 2011, 36(4): 571-585.
[9] LEFTWICH M. C., TYTELL E. D. and COHEN A. H.
Wake structures behind a swimming robotic lamprey with
a passively flexible tail[J]. Journal of Experimental Bio-
logy, 2012, 215(3): 416-425.
[10] SHAO Xue-ming, ZHANG Xiao-long and YU Zhao-
sheng. Numerical studies of the hysteresis in locomotion
of passively pitching foil[J]. Journal of Hydrodyanmics,
2016, 28(3): 359-368.
647
[11] FISH F. E., LEGAC P. and WILLIAMS T. M. Measure-
ment of hydrodynamic force generation by swimming
dolphins using bubble DPIV[J]. Journal of Experimental
Biology, 2014, 217(2): 252-260.
[12] FISH F. E., LAUDER G. V. Passive and active flow con-
trol by swimming fishes and mammals[J]. Annual Review
of Fluid Mechanics, 2006, 38: 193-224.
[13] READ D. A., HOVER F. S. and TRIANTAFYLLOU M.
S. Forces on oscillating foils for propulsion and maneuve-
ring[J]. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 2003, 17(1):
163-183.
[14] HOVER F. S., TRIANTAFYLLOU M. S. Effect of angle
of attack profile in flapping foil propulsion[J]. Journal of
Fluids and Structures, 2004, 19(1): 37-47.
[15] FLOCH F., SURASAK P. and LAURENS J. M. Porpoi-
sing foil as a propulsion system[J]. Ocean Engineering,
2012, 39(1): 53-61.
[16] LAUDER G. V., DRUCKER E. G. Morphology and expe-
rimental hydrodynamics of fish fin control surfaces[J].
IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 2004, 29(3):
556-571.
[17] ZHU Q., WOLFGANG M. J. and YUE D. K. P. Three-
dimensional flow structures and vorticity control in fish-
like swimming[J]. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 2002,
468: 1-28.
[18] LIAO J. C., BEAL D. N. and TRIANTAFYLLOU M. S.
The karman gait: novel body kinematics of rainbow trout
swimming in a vortex street[J]. Journal of Experimental
Biology, 2003, 206(6): 1059-1073.
[19] TANG Chao, LU Xi-yun. Self-propulsion of a three-
dimensional flapping flexible plate[J]. Journal of Hydro-
dynamics, 2016, 28(1): 1-9.
[20] XIA Dan, CHEN Wei-shan and LIU Jun-kao et al. New
method of fluid structure coupling in self-propelled swi-
mming for biomimetic robotic fish[J]. Journal of Mecha-
nical Engineering, 2014, 50(7): 15-22(in Chinese).
[21] DUTSCH H., DURST F. and ECKER S. Low-Reynolds-
number flow around an oscillating circular cylinder at low
Keulegan-Carpenter numbers[J]. Journal of Fluid Me-
chanics, 1998, 360: 249-271.