Development of a roll and yaw moment generation mechanism
with flapping amplitude control
Motoki TAKAGI, Toshiya NISHIMURA, Tasuku MIYOSHI*
Iwate University, Japan
Abstract— Many kinds of flapping small insects are
able to fly stably and hover. Many researchers have
studied the mechanism of complex flapping flight
ability.
In this paper, an experimental device with a flapping
mechanism, which was allowed to generate both roll
and yaw moments simultaneously, was developed and
evaluated. The results indicated the possibilities of
controlling the roll moment, yaw moment, and lift.
Therefore, we assumed that the flapping mechanism
with the proposed mechanism had the possibility of
achieving postural control with the fewest actuators.
Index Terms— Asymmetry flapping, roll and yaw
moments, flapping amplitude, asymmetric flapping.
I. INTRODUCTION
Many kinds of flapping small insects are able to fly
stably and hover [1]. Many researchers have studied the
mechanism of complex flapping flight ability.
Some researchers have been studying flapping flight
model simulation [2]–[5]. However, there have been
few related works about the postural control of flapping
flight [6]–[8].
To control flight orientation and posture, three
moments (roll, pitch, and yaw) are required. As
indicated in [7], the pitch moment was generated by
moving the mechanism’s center of gravity. Moths
control their pitch rotation with abdominal responses
[9]. On the other hand, the yaw moment was difficult to
generate by moving the center of gravity. According to
classical observations, stroke amplitude was thought to
be the only kinematic parameter consistently correlated
with roll and yaw responses in flies [10][11]. In these
respects, the insects control the yaw moment as well as
the roll moment with a steering muscle [12]. We have
Left wing
Stroke plane
Right wing
Flapping angle α
Y
Up stroke Down stroke
X Flapping amplitude Φ
Z
Fig.1 Coordinate system of the flapping model
– 56 –
concentrated on the mechanism of the steering muscle
that was seen in insects for controlling the amplitude of
flapping wings to generate the roll moment [13].
As reported in this paper, we have developed a new
flapping device, which was allowed to control the
flapping amplitude to produce roll and yaw moments.
Additionally, the device was evaluated experimentally.
II. DEVELOPING THE DEVICE
We have been developing a flapping mechanism that
was allowed to generate roll and yaw moments. The
device was equipped with 3 DOF, including flapping,
and both left and right flapping amplitude adjustment
mechanisms. The proposed device was a principle
model for evaluating moments generated by flapping
motions.
A. A method of a motion generation
The coordinate system of our flapping mechanism is
indicated in Fig.1. The X-axis indicates the front
direction of the body; the Z-axis indicates the direction
of gravity and the stroke plane of the flapping in our
system, which was always parallel to the X-Y plane.
The flapping phases of the left and right wings were
always equal. Additionally, we defined the movement
to the positive X direction of the wing as downstroke
and the movement to the negative X direction of the
A Lift B Lift
Y Y
Flapping angular velocity
Flapping angular velocity
X Roll X Roll
X
C D
X
Yaw Yaw
Y
Drag Dra
Flapping angular velocity Flapping angular velocity
Fig.2 Overview of the proposed mechanisms
(A) Generating a roll moment during a downstroke
(B) Generating a roll moment during an upstroke
(C) Generating a yaw moment during a downstroke
(D) Generating a yaw moment during an upstroke
 JOURNAL OF AERO AQUA BIO-MECHANISMS, VOL.4, NO.1
wing as upstroke in one period of flapping. i
indicates the flapping amplitude, f [Hz] indicates the
flapping frequency, U [m] indicates the representative
length of the rotational center of the oscillating
movement to the tip of the wing, and Vi [m/s] indicates
the average velocity of a flapping wing in one flapping
cycle, which was represented in the following equation:
Vi  2 i fU , (1)
where i (i=left, right) indicates left or right of the wings.
The difference of the lift generated by the flapping
motion L and the difference of the drag force were
derived in equations (2) and (3):
L 
1
2

 C L S V left2  V right
2
 (2)
 D   C D S V right  V left2  ,
1 2
(3)
2 to be greater than the yaw moment generated during the
where  [kg/m3] is the density of the fluid, C L [-] is
the lift coefficient, C D [-] is the drag coefficient, and S
[m2] is area of the wing. In this work, we only
considered the average lift and drag force; therefore, we
assumed that C L and C D were constant values that
were the averaged values in one flapping cycle. In such
a case, the flapping frequency f was the same;
however, the flapping amplitudes i of the left and
right wings were different, and then the representative
velocities Vi were different, as indicated in equation
(1). Additionally, different lift and drag forces were
also generated, as indicated in equations (2) and (3).
Therefore, we can assume that two directional moments
including roll (Fig.2 A–B) and yaw (Fig.2 C–D) were
generated by the mechanism.
Hui [14] mentioned that a vortex was generated at
the location of 75% of the wing length in the flapping
mechanism. Therefore, we defined that location of 75%
of the wing length from the base as the point of action
and averaged it in one flapping cycle on the Y-axis as r
[m].
Next, we proposed equation (4) to represent the roll
moment, Mx [Nm], and yaw moment, Mz [Nm],
generated by the flapping motion.
X
Center line of amplitude
Φi
Y crank mechanism
ω αi
xi
Up stroke
Down stroke
Flapping shaft
(A) Oscillating block slider crank mechanism (B) Slider crank mechanism (C) Spatial relation of the mechanism
Fig. 3 Mechanism of the main flapping
[rad] M X  rL (4)
M Z  rD
In one flapping cycle, lift, Li, was generated in the
direction of the negative Z-axis, which was always
perpendicular to the flapping plane. Therefore, if the
flapping amplitude of the left and right wings differed,
the roll moment, Mx, was generated in one constant
direction. The drag force, Di, was always generated in
the opposite direction of the representative velocity of
the wing, Vi . If the flapping angle was a symmetric
shape—for example, the sine shape—then the yaw
moments, Mz, generated during the downstroke phase
and the upstroke phase were always in opposite
directions and eliminated in one flapping cycle (Fig.2
C–D). Therefore, the yaw moment, which was
generated by the drag force during the downstroke, had
upstroke of one flapping cycle. We introduced the
mechanism that was allowed to generate a greater
representative velocity of the wing in the downstroke
than in the upstroke.
B. The mechanism of the device
To generate roll and yaw moment by the device, we
introduced two mechanisms. The first one was to
generate a main flapping, and the second one was to
control the flapping amplitude adjustment mechanism
with a steering angle model.
In the main flapping mechanism, the same flapping
frequency was generated in both the left and right
wings. An oscillating block slider crank mechanism
was introduced in the main flapping mechanism to
obtain a greater difference of the representative velocity
in the downstroke than in the upstroke (Fig.3 (A)). In
the system, r in the upstroke and downstroke were not
changed, while the wing was attached to the flapping
shaft. However, as the amplitude changed, r changed
from 300 mm to 320 mm. This difference from the total
length was less than 5% from the middle length.
Therefore, we could assume that r was constant, and the
yaw moment, Mz, was not eliminated in one flapping
cycle.
In the steering angle adjustment mechanism, both the
X
Y
X
Z
d
Oscillating block slider
θi
Y Wing
xi -d
Flapping shaft Slider crank mechanism
– 57 –
 JOURNAL OF AERO AQUA BIO-MECHANISMS, VOL.4, NO.1

left and right flapping amplitudes were allowed to be as described in Fig.3 (A) and Fig.3 (B). Figure 3 (C)
adjusted independently. As indicated in [13], by indicates the spatial relation of these two mechanisms.
generating different flapping amplitudes, the roll The rotational centers of two cranks were located in the
moment could be generated. Y-axis, and its distance was d [mm]. The flapping
Regardless of the flapping amplitude, the center line angle,  i [rad], can be represented as follows:
of the amplitude was always parallel to the Y-axis
 xi 2  b 2  ci 2  ,
 i  k t   cos 
(Fig.3 (B)). Therefore, the shaft of the oscillating block 1
 (7)
slider crank mechanism was necessary for straight 2 x c 
movement. To fulfill these conditions, the slider crank  i i 
mechanism was introduced (Fig.3 (B)). where k (t ) is a sign function as represented in
equation (8).
C. Simulation
1 : 0  t   ,
The flapping angle  i and the amplitude i of the k t    (8)

device were derived from the geometric constraint. The

 1 :   t  2
flapping amplitudes of the left and right wings, i [º], where  [rad/s] is the angular velocity of the crank
in Fig.3 (A) are represented by the distance, xi [mm], arm in the oscillating block slider crank mechanism, t
between the rotational centers of the crank arm and the [s] is the time from the moment the downstroke from
spindle as follows:
the center line was started. Then, ci was the length of
 i  2 sin b xi  1
, (5) the slider parts in the oscillating block slider crank
mechanism, represented as follows:
where b [mm] is the length of crank arm in Fig.3 (A).
ci  b 2  xi  2bxi cost 
2
Then, xi was derived from the steering angle,  i , (9)
[rad], with a steering angle adjustment mechanism.
From the equations described earlier, the flapping

xi  a1 cosi  a1 cosi  2

 2
 a2  a1  d ,
2
 (6)
angle of 1 cycle in 1.0 Hz was estimated and is
indicated in Fig.4. The flapping angle, αmax, was
observed when the flapping amplitude was set at the
where d [mm] is the distance between the crank arms maximum. The flapping angle, αmin, was observed when
the flapping amplitude was set at the minimum. Fig.5
: Downstroke.
Asymmetric Wave αi [deg]

30
20  max
Φmax
Flapping angle

 min
Φmin
10
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
-10
-20
-30
Time [-]
Y X
Fig. 4 Flapping angle of one flapping cycle Z
Fig. 6 Overview of the flapping device
: Downstroke.
100000
αmax^2
sign ( )  max
2
[deg2/s2]

80000
sign ( )  min
αmin^2 2

60000 sign ( )  max

Ave.max 2

40000 sign ( )  min

Ave.min 2

Markers
20000

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
-20000 Y
Time [-] X
VENUS3D-250
Fixed
Controlled amplitude
Fig. 5 Squared angular velocity of one flapping cycle Z amplitude
Fig. 7 Experimental setup for the evaluation of flapping
motions

– 58 –
 JOURNAL OF AERO AQUA BIO-MECHANISMS, VOL.4, NO.1

indicates the sign ( )  max

2
and sign ( )  min
2
and their made of vinyl chloride and PPC paper. The leading
average sign ( )  max and sign ( )  min of one
2
  2
edge of the wing was vinyl chloride, and PPC paper of
flapping cycle. Figures 4 and 5 indicate that the 0.5 mm thickness was glued to the edge of the wing.
maximum percentage of the downstroke phase in one Many researchers have studied two-winged insects:
flapping cycle was 35% with the maximum amplitude Drosophila virilis, the hawk moth, the bumblebee, the
and 40% with the minimum amplitude. However, fruit fly, etc. The aspect ratio of these insects was close
sign ( )  2 , as indicated in Fig.5, was allowed to to 3.0 [5]. Therefore, we introduced this value to our
change to arbitrary values related to the change in wings. The length of wing was 300 mm. Additionally,
flapping amplitudes. Therefore, the change of the the minimum flapping amplitude was 34º, and the
percentage of the downstroke phase in one flapping maximum amplitude was 54º.
cycle did not affect the average  i2 value.
If the flapping amplitude was increased, the increase
III. EVALUATION OF THE FLAPPING
of the velocity of the downstroke became relatively
AMPLITUDE
greater than that of the velocity of the upstroke.
Therefore, we supposed that the effect mentioned A. Method
earlier worked well to generate the yaw moment. The relationship of steering angle i and flapping

D. Implementation
amplitude i was examined to evaluate the
effectiveness of the device. The flapping amplitude,
The newly developed device is shown in Fig.6. The
device was 72x170x120 mm, and its weight was 348 g,  i , was set 21 steps from the minimum value to the
except for the wings. The frame of the device was maximum value in these experiments. The flapping
mainly made of aluminum, the shafts were made of frequency, f, was set at 1.0 Hz, and the wings were not
brass, and the crank parts were made of polyacetal. A attached in these experiments.
rectangular-shaped wing was used as a first step; it was We defined the outward way as the phase of the
flapping amplitude angle that was changing from the
40 maximum to the minimum angle and the return pass as
5 periods average(maximum) the phase of the flapping amplitude angle as it changed
30
Theory (maximum) from the minimum to the maximum value. The
5 periods average (minimum)
Theory (minimum) flapping amplitude angle, i , was then measured
20

i
Flapping angle α [deg]

during , which was controlled and evaluated to

10
determine whether hysteresis existed.
The experimental setup is indicated in Fig.7. The 3D
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 motion capture system (VENUS3D-N250, Nobby
-10
Tech.) was used in the experiments to measure the
flapping amplitude angle. Reflection markers were
-20
attached to a shaft of the oscillating block slider crank
mechanism and wing. The flapping motion was
-30
Time [%] measured in 125 fps for 5 cycles in a no-wind
condition.
Fig. 8 Comparison of flapping angle trajectories

60 B. Results and discussion

55
Flapping amplitude φ [deg]

50

45 Theoretical value
Measured(outward)
40 Measured(return)

35

30
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210
Steering angle θ i [deg]

Fig. 9 Experimental results of hysteresis

measurements

Fig. 10 Experimental setup for moment measurement

– 59 –
 JOURNAL OF AERO AQUA BIO-MECHANISMS, VOL.4, NO.1
Figure 8 indicates the ensemble-averaged flapping
angle, i , of five cycles. The theoretical simulation
results of flapping angle were observed and compared;
they seemed similar. Figure 9 indicates the
experimental results of the flapping amplitude of the
right wing.
The steering angle,  i , was estimated from 0 to 180º,
which was based on equations (5) and (6), to realize a
flapping amplitude of 34 to 54º with every 1º.
The coefficient correlation of the outward way and the
return pass of the flapping amplitude,  i , was
observed to evaluate whether hysteresis existed.
Furthermore, the coefficient correlation of simulation
results and the observed flapping amplitude,  i , was
estimated as R2=0.99 in each experiment.
From these experiments, a newly developed flapping
mechanism was allowed to perform similarly to the
flapping amplitude that was theoretically expected.
Also, a high coefficient correlation was observed in the
expected and observed flapping angles. Therefore, we
could assume that there was no hysteresis in the
flapping angle. However, part of our flapping angle
observation differed from the expected value. We
supposed that these differences were from mechanical
constraint error. However, the coefficient correlation
between the expected value and the observed value was
R2=0.99, which was large enough to ignore the
measurement error. Therefore, we could assume that
the asymmetric flapping device worked properly.
IV. EVALUATION OF GENERATED MOMENTS
A. Methods
Experiments were conducted to evaluate whether the
device was able to produce the proposed moment as
indicated in equation (4). Both roll and yaw moments
were measured with a six-axis load cell (OPFT-50N-B
M X  g left
MX
 left
2
 g right
MX
 right
2
 d MX
R 2  0.852
Fig. 11 Regression plane of MX
– 60 –
Minebea). A 3D motion capture system was used in the
experiments to measure the flapping motion. The
experimental setup is indicated in Fig.10.
Three flapping amplitude conditions—maximum 54º,
middle 44º, and minimum 34º—were used for both left
and right wings in the experiments. Therefore, nine
cases of experiments were conducted. The flapping
frequency was set as 1.0 Hz, and 15 periods of flapping
were observed. We supposed that flapping after the 5th
cycle would be stable. Therefore, the 6th flapping and
beyond were used to obtain stable observations.
A sampling rate of the load cell was 1,000 Hz.
Additionally, flapping motions were observed at 250
Hz. Experiments were conducted with and without the
wings attached. This was to evaluate the moment that
was produced only by the wing. From equation (4), we
expected Mx to increase as the flapping amplitude of the
left wing increased and to decrease as the right flapping
amplitude increased.
B. Experimental results and discussion
A fourth order Butterworth filter with a cutoff
frequency 10.0 Hz was applied to the experimental
results of the measured moments to eliminate the noise.
Additionally, an offset of the value before the flapping
started was applied. The difference between
experiments with and without wings was estimated.
Measurements of 5 cycles were ensemble-averaged to
estimate the moment value.
From equations (1)–(4), we expected that the
magnitude of the moment generated by flapping would
be proportional to the square of the flapping amplitude.
Therefore, regression analysis was applied to the square
of flapping amplitude  i2 [deg 2 ] and to each moment
Mx and Mz [µNm]. Equations obtained from the
regression analysis and the regression plane and
moment values are indicated in Fig.11 and Fig.12. The
coefficients from regression analyses gleft
MX
, gright
MX
, gleft
MZ
,
M Z  g left
MZ
 left
2
 g right
MZ
 right
2
 d MZ
R 2  0.735
Fig. 12 Regression plane of MZ
 JOURNAL OF AERO AQUA BIO-MECHANISMS, VOL.4, NO.1

and gright
MZ
were 0.561, -1.270, -0.365, and 0.140, we could assume that the mechanism produced roll and
yaw moments by generating different flapping
respectively. A t-test was applied to the experimental
results of the regression analysis. The p values of all amplitudes.
coefficient related to the regression planes of Mx and In the current mechanism, two-directional moments
were always generated. Therefore, a mechanism
MZ were smaller than 0.05.
capable of generating roll and yaw moments
As predicted, M x increased as the flapping
independently is the next step.
amplitude of the left wing increased and decreased as
the right flapping amplitude increased. Mz was
decreased as the flapping amplitude of the left wing REFERENCES
increased and increased as the right flapping amplitude
[1] Hao Liu, “Biological Flight Simulation and Micro
increased. Therefore, the proposed method was allowed
Air Vehicle”, Japan Society of Computational Fluid
to generate both roll and yaw moments by amplitude
Dynamics vol.12, No.3 pp 129-142, 2005.
control of the left and right flapping angle controls.
[2] Iida A., Ogisu H., Fukawa M., “Relationship
Flying insects usually produce much less thrust than
between unsteady flow around flapping wings and
lift [18]. According to the classical interpretation, the
resultant aerodynamic forces”, JAXA special
resulting torque around the yaw axis was expected to be
publication: Proceedings of the 41st and 42nd JAXA
correspondingly small as compared to those of the roll
Workshops on Investigation and Control of Bounder-
[19]. The measured results of the roll and yaw moments
Layer Transition JAXA-SP-08-006, pp57-60, 2009.
were similar to the predicted results. Therefore, we
[3] Yamazaki Y., Nomura T., et.al, “Effects of vortices
supposed that the proposed mechanism was able to
around a flapping wing on wing performances”, Proc.
generate both roll and yaw moments only by controlling
23rd CFD Symp., 2009.
the flapping amplitude of the left and right wings.
[4] Huaihui Ren et.al, “Effects of Dragonfly Wing
However, we expected that if the flapping amplitudes
Structure on the Dynamic Performances”, Journal of
of the left and right wings were the same, then each
Bionic Engineering 10, pp28-38, 2013
moment would be eliminated, as indicated in equation
[5] Haithem E. Taha et.al, “State-space representation
(4). However, the experimental results did not support
of the unsteady aerodynamics of flapping flight”,
this.
Aerospace Science and Technology 34, pp1-11, 2014.
The regression coefficients of the left and right
[6] Perez-Arancibia N.O. et.al, “Lift Force Control of a
flapping amplitudes were different for generating the
Flapping-Wing Microrobot”, American Control
moments. We supposed that these results were because
Conference (ACC), San Francisco, CA, USA, Jul.
of mechanical error in assembling and measuring noise.
2011, pp.4761-4768, 2011.
The coefficient related to Mx was smaller than that of
[7] Perez-Arancibia N.O. et.al, “Pitch-Angle Feedback
Mz. We supposed that the vibrations of the up and
Control of a Biologically Inspired Flapping-Wing
down directions were generated by lift from flapping
Microrobot”, Proc. Robotics and Biomimetics
and that it generated the noise of Mx.
(ROBIO), pp.1495-1502, 2011.
The Reynolds numbers, Re, and the nondimensional
[8] Lindsey L. Hines et.al, “Free Flight Simulations and
frequencies, k, of the system and insects must be equal
Pitch and Roll Control Experiments of a Sub-gram
to ensure dynamic similarity [15–17]. Andrei mentioned
0 Flapping-Flight Micro Aerial Vehicle”, Robotics and
that the Reynolds numbers of insects were from 10 to
4 Automation (ICRA), pp.1-7, 2011.
10 [17]. The Reynolds numbers observed in our
[9] Dickerson BH et al, “Control of moth flight posture
experiments were from 2800 to 4600. However,
is mediated by wing mechanosensory feedback”, The
nondimensional frequency of flapping frequency k in
Journal of Experimental Biology 217, pp.2301-2308,
the experiments was different from that of actual
2014.
insects. Therefore, the dynamic similarity of the insects
[10] Nalbach, G., “The gear change mechanism of the
to the system was not ensured, and consideration of the
blowfly (Calliphora erythrocephala) in tethered flight”,
nondimensional frequency in the experimental setup
Journal of Comparative Physiology A 165, pp.321-331,
was required for further experiments.
1989.
We suppose that implementing the proposed method
[11] Nalbach, G. & Hengstenberg, R., “The halteres of
with a small MAV, which is lightweight and allows
the blowfly Calliphora. II. Three-dimensional
high frequency flapping, is the next step in evaluating
organization of compensatory reactions to real and
posture control ability with consideration of the
simulated rotations”, Journal of Comparative
nondimensional frequency.
Physiology A 175, pp.695-708, 1994.
[12] F.O. Lehmann et.al, “Activation phase ensures
kinematic efficacy in flight-steering muscles of
V. CONCLUSION
Drosophila melanogaster”, J Comp Physiol A, 179:311-
As reported in this paper, the mechanism that was 322, 1996.
able to produce roll and yaw moments by generating [13] Takagi M., et.al, “Asymmetry Control of Wing
different flapping amplitude angles of both left and Stroke Amplitudes for Rotational Torque Generation”,
right wings has been developed. From our experiments,

– 61 –
 JOURNAL OF AERO AQUA BIO-MECHANISMS, VOL.4, NO.1

Journal of Aero Aqua Bio-mechanisms, pp.97-102,

2012.
[14] Hui H. et.al., “An experimental study of the
unsteady vortex structures in the wake of a root-fixed
flapping wing”, Exp Fluids, pp.347-359, 2011.
[15] W. Shyy, Y.S. Lian, J. Tang, D. Viieru, and H.
Liu, “Aerodynamics of low Reynolds Number Flyers.
Cambridge University Press, 2007.
[16] H. Liu, “Integrated modeling of insect flight: from
morphology, kinematics to aerodynamics”, Journal of
Computational Physics, 228(2), 439-459, 2009.
[17] Andrei K. Brodsky, “The Evoulution of Insect Flight”,
Tsukiji Shokan, pp.39-43, 1997.
[18] Vogel, S., “Flight in Drosophila. I. Flight
performance of tethered flies”, Journal of Experimental
Biology 44, pp.567-578, 1966.
[19] Taylor GK, “Mechanics and aerodynamics of
insect flight control”, Biological Review, 76, pp.449-
471, 2001.

– 62 –