ARTICLE IN PRESS

Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465

Membrane wing aerodynamics for micro air vehicles

Yongsheng Lian, Wei Shyy*, Dragos Viieru, Baoning Zhang
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Florida, 231 Aerospace Building P.O. Box 116250,
Gainesville, FL 32611-6250, USA

Abstract

The aerodynamic performance of a wing deteriorates considerably as the Reynolds number decreases from 106 to 104 :
In particular, flow separation can result in substantial change in effective airfoil shape and cause reduced aerodynamic
performance. Lately, there has been growing interest in developing suitable techniques for sustained and robust flight of
micro air vehicles (MAVs) with a wingspan of 15 cm or smaller, flight speed around 10 m=s; and a corresponding
Reynolds number of 104 –105 : This paper reviews the aerodynamics of membrane and corresponding rigid wings under
the MAV flight conditions. The membrane wing is observed to yield desirable characteristics in delaying stall as well as
adapting to the unsteady flight environment, which is intrinsic to the designated flight speed. Flow structures associated
with the low Reynolds number and low aspect ratio wing, such as pressure distribution, separation bubble and tip
vortex are reviewed. Structural dynamics in response to the surrounding flow field is presented to highlight the multiple
time-scale phenomena. Based on the computational capabilities for treating moving boundary problems, wing shape
optimization can be conducted in automated manners. To enhance the lift, the effect of endplates is evaluated. The
proper orthogonal decomposition method is also discussed as an economic tool to describe the flow structure around
a wing and to facilitate flow and vehicle control.
r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426
2. Theoretical and computational models for coupled fluid–structure interactions . . . . . . . . 429
2.1. Fluid solver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
2.1.1. Governing equations for fluid flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
2.1.2. Fluid flow solvers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430
2.1.3. The geometric conservation law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430
2.1.4. Laminar–turbulent transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431
2.2. Moving grid technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431
2.2.1. Perturbation and transfinite interpolation methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431
2.2.2. Master/slave concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432
2.3. Membrane structural solver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434
2.3.1. Mooney–Rivlin model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435
2.3.2. Principle of virtual work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435
2.3.3. Solution of the dynamic equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-352-392-0961; fax: +1-352-392-7303.

E-mail addresses: wei-shyy@ufl.edu (W. Shyy).

0376-0421/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0376-0421(03)00076-9
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
426 Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465

Nomenclature DF skin friction drag

DP form drag
a angle of attack e span efficiency factor
AR aspect ratio I1 ; I2 ; I3 first, second, and third invariants of the Green
c chord length deformation tensor
C Green deformation tensor L lift force
c1 ; c2 membrane material property parameters S second Piola–Kirchhoff stress tensor
CL lift coefficient u chordwise velocity
CD drag coefficient U freestream velocity
CD;F skin friction drag coefficient v vertical velocity
CD;P form drag coefficient, or pressure drag coeffi- w spanwise velocity
cient x chordwise distance from the leading edge
cp pressure coefficient z distance from the root
D drag force Z half wing span

2.4. Coupling between fluid solver and structural solver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436

3. MAV wing: aerodynamics and structural response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437
3.1. Computational background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437
3.2. Rigid wing aerodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438
3.2.1. Vortical flow structure of the rigid wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438
3.2.2. Laminar boundary layer separation on rigid wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439
3.2.3. Unsteady phenomena at high angle of attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442
3.3. Membrane wing dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444
3.3.1. Time synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444
3.3.2. The geometric conservation law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444
3.3.3. Self-initiated membrane vibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445
3.3.4. Comparison between membrane and rigid wings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446
4. Wing shape optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448
4.1. Optimization and computational framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449
4.2. Rigid wing optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450
4.3. Flexible wing optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450
5. Endplate effects on MAV aerodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450
6. Reduced-order representation using proper orthogonal decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . 454
7. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462

1. Introduction conventional flight vehicles, MAV gains certain favor-

Micro air vehicles (MAVs) with a maximal dimension
of 15 cm or less and a flight speed of 10 m=s are of
interests to both military and civilian applications.
Equipped with a video camera or a sensor, these vehicles
can perform surveillance and reconnaissance, targeting,
and bio-chemical sensing at a remote or otherwise
hazardous location [85]. With the rapid progress made
in structural and material technologies, miniaturization
of power plants, communication, visualization, and
control devices, several groups, e.g., Grasmeyer and
Keennon [26], and Ifju et al. [36] have developed
successful MAVs. As its size is reduced from the
able scaling characteristics, including low inertia and
reduced stalling speed [85] (defined as the minimum
speed at which the wing can produce sufficient lift force
for the flight). However, in terms of aerodynamics,
control, range and maneuverability, many outstanding
issues are still present. First, due to its low flight speed
and small dimensions, MAV flies in a low Reynolds
number regime (104 –105 ), which is often accompanied
by laminar boundary layer separation, transition, and
low lift-to-drag ratio [85]. Second, the low aspect ratio
wing creates strong vortical flow structures, such as tip
vortices [53,52], which have twofold impacts on the lift
force. On the one hand, tip vortices lower the lift force
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465
by reducing the effective angle of attack [2,85]; on the
other hand, tip vortices provide additional lift force by
creating a low-pressure zone [52,68]. Third, the low
aspect ratio wing is quite susceptible to rolling instabil-
ities, which becomes even serious because of the
existence of tip vortices. Fourth, the fluctuations in
wind speed, which can be comparable to MAV’s flight
speed, make both the instantaneous flight Reynolds
number and angle of attack vary substantially [85].
In the development of MAVs, there exist two
approaches, one utilizing flapping wings and the other
employing fixed wings. In the flapping wing area,
pioneering work has been done by Weis-Fogh [111],
and Lighthill [57]. Recent works, both in experiments
and simulations, are documented by Chasman and
Chakravarthy [10], DeLaurier [14], Smith [91],
Dickenson et al. [15], Ellington [19], Jones and Platzer
[43–45], Katz [48], Kamakoti et al. [47], Liu and
Kawachi [60], Vest [105], Vest and Katz [106], and
Wang [109]. A recent review of the characteristics
of both flapping wings and MAVs has been given by
Shyy et al. [85]. The spectrum of animal flight with
flapping wing is presented in an interesting article by
Templin [97].
This review will focus on the three-dimensional
aerodynamics associated with fixed wing MAVs. More
specifically, we focus on the recent progress made in
employing flexible membrane wings for MAV applica-
tions. Earlier reviews on this topic, largely on the two-
dimensional flow, can be found in Refs. [85,88].
Fig. 1 shows a 15 cm MAV with a flexible wing
designed by Ifju and coworkers [36]. The vehicle is
powered by an electric motor. It has a total mass of 40 g
and a flight speed between 20 and 40 km=h for about
15 min while carrying a video camera and transmitter.
The membrane wing consists of unidirectional carbon
fiber prepreg laminate forming a leading edge spar and
Fig. 1. 15 cm MAV with membrane wing.
427
chordwise battens [35]. A membrane material is bonded
to the spar and battens. The membrane wing has a span
of 15:2 cm; a root chord of 13:7 cm; a mean chord of
9:4 cm; and a wing area of 160 cm2 : The wing has a
7.5% camber at the root which decreases to 2% at the
tip. In this configuration, the maximum camber is
located at 27% chord at the root.
One advantage for the membrane wing is that it can
facilitate passive shape adaptation, which results in
delayed stall [85,110]. Fig. 2, adopted from Waszak et al.
[110], compares the lift curves versus angles of attack for
rigid and membrane wings with configurations similar to
that shown in Fig. 1. Under modest angles of attack,
both rigid and membrane wings demonstrate similar lift
characteristics with the stiffer wings having slightly
higher lift coefficient. However, it is clear that the
membrane wings stall at higher angles of attack than
the rigid wing. This aspect is a key element in enhancing
the stability and agility of MAVs. Some aspects of low
aspect ratio, low Reynolds number rigid wing aero-
dynamics have been presented by Torres and Mueller
[102]. However, there are important differences between
rigid and membrane wings. At low angles of attack the
aeroelastic wings behave like rigid wings with similar
aspect ratio. The lift curve slope in Fig. 2 is approxi-
mately 2.9 with the prop pinned. The lift curve slopes of
similar rigid wings studied in [102] at comparable
Reynolds number and aspect ratio (Re ¼ 7  104 ;
AR ¼ 2) are approximately 2.9 as well. However, these
wings have stall angles between 12 and 15 : The stall
angles of the flexible wings are between 30 and 45 and
are similar to that of much lower aspect ratio rigid wings
(AR ¼ 0:5–1.0). However, the very low aspect wings
exhibit lower lift curve slopes of 1.3 to 1.7. Hence, the
flexible wings appear to combine the desirable perfor-
mance of rigid wings with higher and lower aspect
ratios, by exhibiting the stall behavior similar to rigid
wings with aspect ratio 0.5–1.0, and the lift generating
capability of rigid wings with aspect ratio 2.0 [110].
Fig. 2. Lift coefficient versus angle of attack (from Waszak
et al. [110]).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
428 Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465
Another advantage of a flexible membrane wing is that
a flexible wing can adapt to the wind gust and provide
a smoother flight platform. This last aspect has been
verified by wind tunnel experiments [86].
The low Reynolds number condition presents numer-
ous challenges on MAVs because of the concomitant
susceptibility of their lift surfaces to flow separation and
low lift-to-drag ratio. In the range of Reynolds number
of 104 –106 ; complex flow phenomena often take place on
the upper wing surface, such as laminar boundary layer
separation, transition, and reattachment. Valuable
information in these regards is reviewed by Lissaman
[58] and Tani [96], as well as addressed in several
proceedings [66,67]. Active control approaches with
microelectronicsmechanical systems (MEMS) for MAVs
are discussed by Gad-el-Hak [22]. Lian and Shyy [52]
have studied the flow separation on the MAV wing and
its impacts on aerodynamic performance.
The low aspect ratio wing exhibits clear vortical
structures. Consequently, it has a higher angle of attack
because tip vortices provide additional lift force by
creating low-pressure zones, which is similar to delta
wings. However, the low aspect ratio also increases the
induced drag. More importantly, the vortical flow causes
rolling instability of the small vehicle, especially when
the vortex strength is not equal on the two sides. In this
aspect, relevant experimental work is done by Pelletier
and Mueller [74], and numerical investigations are
reported by Lian and Shyy [52] and Viieru et al. [107].
Unlike a rigid wing, a membrane wing exhibits self-
initiated unsteady response even under a steady state
freestream. Such vibrations and associated shape
changes impact the wing aerodynamics, which, in turn,
affects the membrane dynamics. For example, Waszak
et al. [110] have conducted wing tunnel experiments and
found that the membrane wings exhibit vibration at
Oð102 Þ Hz under a steady free stream. Similar observa-
tion has also been reported numerically by Lian and
Shyy [52]. Such reciprocal action results in a fluid and
structure interaction problem.
Other effects have also been conducted toward
understanding the MAV performance. The reduced-
order representation of the three-dimensional, time
dependent flow solutions based on the proper orthogo-
nal decomposition (POD) approach for the membrane
aerodynamics is analyzed by Schmit et al. [81] and
Zhang et al. [114]. Such techniques can be extremely
valuable to offer an economic description of the salient
features of the MAV aerodynamics as well as to
facilitate the development of flow and vehicle control
strategies.
To optimize the vehicle performance, it is critical to
understand the interplay between the structural- and
aero-dynamics. Experiments have shed light on the
interaction mechanics between fluid and structure;
however, a numerical capability for treating the intrinsic
interactions between the fluid and structure is desirable
to provide more detailed insight into the underlying
physics. Aeroelastic analysis methods coupling compu-
tational fluid dynamics (CFD) solvers with computa-
tional structural dynamics (CSD) solvers provide an
effective tool for the membrane wing study. Although
both CFD and CSD have achieved great success
individually, a coupled computation involving both is
still a challenging task [82]. To date, the study of
membrane and fluid flow interactions is limited. Jackson
and Christie [38] adopt a three-dimensional potential
flow-based solver and a membrane wing model to
analyze the aeroelastic behavior of marine sails. Smith
and Shyy [93] and Shyy et al. [89] present a computa-
tional approach to model the interaction between a two-
dimensional flexible membrane wing and surrounding
viscous flows. A combined numerical and experimental
analysis of flow over a two-dimensional flexible sail is
conducted by Lorillu and Hureau [62]. Recently, Lian
et al. [54] have proposed a dynamic membrane model to
perform coupled fluid and structure computations
between a three-dimensional membrane wing and a
viscous fluid flow. In their work, the flow equations are
the full Navier–Stokes equations for the incompressible
fluid flow, the structural equations consider the large
strain of the structure and therefore nonlinear. A further
improved computational capability is developed later by
Lian and Shyy [52] by adopting a more efficient time
marching flow solver to compare the membrane and
rigid wings performance.
This paper reviews the recent progress in aerody-
namics of MAVs with a special interest in membrane
wings. We will examine the following topics:
* Computational strategy for fluid and membrane wing
interaction. In low Reynolds number condition.
* Aerodynamics of a membrane and corresponding
rigid wings.
* Optimization of a membrane wing.
* Endplate effects on the low aspect ratio MAV wing.
* POD analysis of MAV aerodynamics.
Each of these areas will be discussed in detail with
examples. The rest of the paper is organized as follows:
In Section 2, a summary of the computational strategy
for the coupled fluid and structure interactions is given,
which includes the governing equations for the structure
and fluid flow, a moving grid technique, and a coupling
strategy between the two field equation solvers.
Section 3 focuses on the recent investigation on MAV
wing aerodynamics. The rigid wing performance is
evaluated first for the comparative purpose, with a
focus on aerodynamic characteristics associated with
the low aspect ratio and low Reynolds number wing,
including tip vortex, leading edge separation, and the
resulting unsteady phenomenon. Issues associated with
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465
computations of the fluid and structure interaction, such
as time synchronization and geometric conservation law
[100] are assessed. The pressure distribution, shape
change, and the resulting effective angle of attack of
the membrane wing are assessed in comparison to those
of the rigid wing.
Section 4 reviews shape optimization of a flexible
membrane wing with the gradient-based method. Since a
direct optimization of a membrane wing requires
substantial computational resource and time, a rigid
wing is used as a surrogate. The membrane wing
performance is then evaluated based on the surrogate
model.
Section 5 assesses the impact of an endplate, with the
goal of enhancing the lift by reducing the vortex effect.
In Section 6, a POD analysis is applied to investigate
the aerodynamics of a flexible membrane wing. This
method has the potential to provide an efficient
description of the dynamics of the fluid and structure
interaction problems.
2. Theoretical and computational models for coupled
fluid–structure interactions
In this section, the elements of developing a computa-
tional capability to handle fluid and membrane interac-
tions are discussed. First, the fluid flow solver and
physical models of the fluid dynamics are presented. The
Navier–Stokes equations for the incompressible flow on
curvilinear coordinates are employed. A brief introduc-
tion is also given to the geometric conservation law [100]
in the context of fluid and structure interaction
problems. Under low Reynolds number conditions, the
flow is prone to separate which is usually accompanied
by a quick transition from laminar flow to turbulent
flow. A transition model for general practical applica-
tions is not yet available, a brief of current used
laminar–turbulent transition models is offered. We will
review the moving grid techniques used for both the
coupled fluid–structure problem and the shape optimi-
zation process. We then discuss the structural solver,
with a special attention to a hyperelastic nonlinear
dynamic membrane model.
2.1. Fluid solver
During flight, the membrane wing undergoes shape
change under the external forces; meanwhile, its shape
variation affects the pattern and structure of its
surrounding fluid flow. The membrane wing vibration
is observed both experimentally [110] and numerically
[54]. To understand the membrane wing dynamics, it is
desirable to have computational capabilities to accu-
rately capture the transient behavior of fluid flow and
structural dynamics.
429
Steady flow computations have achieved significant
success in their development and applications, however,
little attention has been given to the systematic analysis
of unsteady computations [80,82]. Several factors are
responsible for this situation. First, steady CFD is still
the mainstream aerodynamic analysis, and the techni-
ques used to enhance the performance of steady CFD
computations may not be suitable to unsteady computa-
tions. For example, in steady computations, a variety of
techniques have been proposed to eliminate the low
frequency transients to accelerate the convergence to
steady state; however, low frequency phenomena are
intrinsic to many fluid and structure problems, and such
techniques will be inappropriate to the unsteady analysis
[82]. Furthermore, the applicability of the turbulence
model to unsteady flows is not well understood [80].
However, there are numerous approaches that can be
adopted for unsteady flow computations. Pulliam [75]
has incorporated subiteration to improve time accuracy
of conventional implicit schemes. Jameson [39] and
Rumsey et al. [80] have developed a dual time stepping
technique in the context of multigrid methodology to
enhance the efficiency and accuracy of traditional
factored schemes. Issa [37], and Oliveira and Issa [72]
propose the Pressure-Implicit with Splitting of Opera-
tors (PISO) method to improve the convergence.
For relevant information of these and some of the
most frequently adopted approaches, see Shyy and
Mittal [87].
Two of the most popular three-dimensional Navier–
Stokes equations for incompressible flows in curvilinear
coordinates employ the so-called SIMPLE method
[73,84] and the PISO method [37,72,98]. Both belong
to the pressure-based approach [84] which devises an
artificially derived pressure (correction) equation by
manipulating the mass continuity and momentum
equations.
2.1.1. Governing equations for fluid flows
The three-dimensional Navier–Stokes equations for
incompressible flow in curvilinear coordinates [84] in
strong conservative form can be written
@U @V @W
þ þ ¼ 0; ð1Þ
@x @Z @z
@ð JruÞ @ðrUuÞ @ðrVuÞ @ðrWuÞ
þ þ þ
@t @x @Z @z
@hm i
¼ ðq11 ux þ q12 uZ þ q13 uz Þ
@x J
@hm i
þ ðq21 ux þ q22 uZ þ q23 uz Þ
@Z J
@hm i
þ ðq31 ux þ q32 uZ þ q33 uz Þ
@z J
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
430 Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465

  they are defined as the following:

@ @ @
 ð f11 pÞ þ ð f21 pÞ þ ð f31 pÞ
@x @Z @z ’ þ f12 ðv  yÞ
U ¼ f11 ðu  xÞ ’ þ f13 ðw  z’Þ;
þ G1 ðx; Z; zÞ:J; ð2Þ ’ þ f22 ðv  yÞ
V ¼ f21 ðu  xÞ ’ þ f23 ðw  z’Þ;
’ þ f32 ðv  yÞ
W ¼ f31 ðu  xÞ ’ þ f33 ðw  z’Þ; ð7Þ
@ð JrvÞ @ðrUvÞ @ðrVvÞ @ðrWvÞ where, for example, x’ is the grid velocity component in
þ þ þ
@t @x @Z @z the x-direction which can be approximated by the first-
h
@ m i order Euler method,
¼ ðq11 vx þ q12 vZ þ q13 vz Þ
@x J x  x0
@hm i x’ ¼
Dt
; ð8Þ
þ ðq21 vx þ q22 vZ þ q23 vz Þ
@Z J
where Dt is the time step and the superscript 0 refers to
@hm i
the previous time level. Similarly, the values of the other
þ ðq31 vx þ q32 vZ þ q33 vz Þ
@z J two components y; ’ and z’ can be estimated.
 
@ @ @
 ð f12 pÞ þ ð f22 pÞ þ ð f32 pÞ
@x @Z @z 2.1.2. Fluid flow solvers
þ G2 ðx; Z; zÞ:J; ð3Þ The SIMPLEC method [103] is a variant of the
SIMPLE method originally proposed by Patankar [73]
in Cartesian coordinates, and its extension to curvilinear
@ð JrwÞ @ðrUwÞ @ðrVwÞ @ðrWwÞ coordinates is discussed by Shyy [84] to accommodate
þ þ þ
@t @x @Z @z the complex geometry computation. The SIMPLEC
h
@ m i
¼ ðq11 wx þ q12 wZ þ q13 wz Þ method uses coordinated under-relaxations for the
@x J momentum and pressure corrections to improve the
@hm i
convergence which is intrinsically slow in the original
þ ðq21 wx þ q22 wZ þ q23 wz Þ
@Z J SIMPLE method. The SIMPLEC method has also been
@hm i used to solve the moving boundary problems [51,89].
þ ðq31 wx þ q32 wZ þ q33 wz Þ The PISO method is a non-iterative method to handle
@z J
  the pressure–velocity coupling which splits the process
@ @ @
 ð f13 pÞ þ ð f23 pÞ þ ð f33 pÞ of solution into a series of predictor and corrector steps.
@x @Z @z
The PISO method is generally more efficient for
þ G3 ðx; Z; gÞ:J; ð4Þ transient flow computations [37,98].
To solve the Navier–Stokes equations, proper bound-
where u; v; and w are the velocity components in the
ary conditions are required. At the interface between
x-, y-, and z-directions, respectively, m is the viscosity,
fluid and solid structure, the no-slip condition is applied,
G1 ; G2 ; and G3 are the body force components in the x-,
which requires that the fluid velocity at the membrane
y-, and z-directions per unit volume. The coefficients
surface match the surface velocity of the structure. These
appearing in the equations are expressed as follows:
velocity boundary conditions are provided by comput-
2
q11 ¼ f11 2
þ f12 2
þ f13 ; ing the displacement of the solid structure.
q12 ¼ q21 ¼ f11 f21 þ f12 f22 þ f13 f23 ;
2.1.3. The geometric conservation law
2 2 2
q22 ¼ f21 þ f22 þ f23 ; When body-fitted curvilinear coordinates are used in
q13 ¼ q31 ¼ f11 f31 þ f12 f32 þ f13 f33 ; the computation, a transformation maps a physical flow
2 2 2 region ðx; y; zÞ onto a computational space ðx; Z; zÞ where
q33 ¼ f31 þ f32 þ f33 ;
the conservation laws are carried out. To facilitate the
q23 ¼ q32 ¼ f31 f21 þ f32 f22 þ f13 f23 : ð5Þ coordinate transformation, the Jacobian matrix J is
introduced. The Jacobian matrix is defined as in Eq. (6).
The Jacobian transformational matrix is defined as the
The determinant of J represented a volume element in
follows:
the transformed coordinates. In moving grid problems,
@ðx; y; zÞ the computational grid needs to be updated with time;
J¼ : ð6Þ meanwhile, the Jacobian J needs to be updated
@ðx; Z; zÞ
simultaneously. Specific procedures are required to
In the governing equations, U is the flux through the compute the effective value of J; otherwise, errors arise
control surface whose normal direction is x; V and W due to the inconsistency in evaluating geometric
are the fluxes through Z and z control surfaces. When the quantities and the adding of non-physical quantities.
governing equations are considered under a moving grid As pointed by Thomas and Lombard [100], in this
framework, the grid velocities should be considered; Jacobian updating process, the following geometric
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465
conservation law (GCL) needs to be satisfied,
Z Z
d
J dx dZ dz ¼ ðr Ws Þ dx dZ dz; ð9Þ
dt V V
where V is the volume bounded by a close surface S; Ws
denotes the local velocity of the boundary surface S:
Thomas and Lombard [100] propose to evaluate J while
maintaining the geometric conservation law by setting
r ¼ 1; V ¼ 0 from the continuity equation, i.e.,
Jt þ ð Jxt Þx þ ð JZt ÞZ þ ð Jzt Þz ¼ 0: ð10Þ
Implication of the GCL with fluid-structure interaction
problems has been discussed by Shyy et al. [89].
2.1.4. Laminar–turbulent transition
A reliable computation of the boundary layer transi-
tion remains one of the most challenging demands in
aerodynamics. Since the transitional separation bubbles
and their losses play an important role in the pressure
and drag distributions, an accurate representation of
both laminar and turbulent separated flow is critical
when drag prediction needs to be accurately predicted.
However, the fundamental fluid-dynamics problem of
transition to turbulence has resisted simple phenomen-
ological description. There is still no comprehensive
theory of transition.
The range of existing transition prediction methods
extends from simple empirical relationships through
those based on parallel and linear stability, like the eN
methods [18,76], or linear or nonlinear parabolized
stability equations (PSE) [33], or the low-dimensional
models [77] to direct numerical simulation like large-
eddy simulation techniques.
2.2. Moving grid technique
For problems involving interactions between fluid
flows and moving structures, the geometry of the solid
object is not known a priori. It is necessary to track in
the course of computation, the geometry, the field
equations, and the interfacial condition to ensure that all
requirements are met. To facilitate the solution of such
moving boundary problems, the moving grid technique
(or dynamic grid technique) is employed to adjust the
grid dynamically along with the geometric updates. It is
desirable but difficult to develop an automated regrid-
ding procedure to ensure that the new grid not only
matches the geometric changes but also maintains
satisfactory characteristics such as non-overlapping,
smooth and not excessively skewed. The moving grid
technique can also be used by shape optimization [53].
For moving grid computations, several alternative
approaches have been suggested to treat grid redistribu-
tions. Schuster et al. [83] use an algebraic shearing
process in their static aeroelastic analysis of a fighter
aircraft; the basic idea is to assume that the displacement
431
of the subject will be redistributed along the grid line,
which connects aeroelastic surface to the outer bound-
ary. This simple method works quite well for single
block and modest deflection; however, when applied to
multiblock grid arrangements, extensive intervention is
often needed. The spring analogy method is first
proposed for unstructured grid [4], and later extended
to structured grid by Robinson et al. [79]. This method
regards all grids as connected by springs, each with the
stiffness inversely proportional to the spacing between
target vertex and its neighbors. Compared with other
currently used grid regeneration method, the spring
analogy method needs more memory and CPU time.
Direct transfinite interpolation by Eriksson [21] is a
popular method because of its better efficiency for
structured grid. Hartwich and Agrawal [32] also propose
the Master/Slave concept to expedite the grid regenera-
tion process and minimize the user intervention.
2.2.1. Perturbation and transfinite interpolation methods
For small amplitude displacement of the moving
boundary, change of shape occurs only on one face of
the computational block. For such a case, a simple but
efficient one-dimensional perturbation method [55,78]
can efficiently regenerate the grid. The one-dimensional
perturbation method obeys the following formula:
xnew
i ¼ xold
i þ Siold ðxnew
s  xold
s Þ; ð11Þ
where xi represents the location of interior grid point, xs
represents the location of grid point on a boundary, and
S represents the normalized arc length along the radial
mesh line measured from the outer domain, which is
given by
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Sil¼1 ðxlþ1  xl Þ2 þ ð ylþ1  yl Þ2 þ ðzlþ1  zl Þ2
Si ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi:
Snl¼1 ðxlþ1  xl Þ2 þ ð ylþ1  yl Þ2 þ ðzlþ1  zl Þ2
ð12Þ
To use this one-dimensional perturbation method, one
needs to know the displacements of the two ending
points. The positions of the interim points are solely
determined by the displacements of these ending points.
Such displacement can be considered as the source of a
perturbation. Intuitively, a perturbation will spread
throughout the whole domain while exerting more effect
on nearer points. Based on Eq. (11), a more complicated
3-stage perturbation method, analogous to the transfi-
nite interpolation (TFI) method [21], is proposed for
three-dimensional problems treated by the single-block
approach. Unlike the original TFI method, these
perturbation methods consider the original grid dis-
tribution, and hence can preserve the grid quality.
Take a two-dimensional case as an example. In Fig. 3,
a rectangle undergoes a shape change. To regenerate the
grid, the perturbation method proceeds as a 2-stage
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
432 Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465
Fig. 3. Schematic of the perturbation method for moving grid:
(a) ABCD changes to A0 B0 C0 D0 ; (b) matching corner points;
(c) matching edge points.
process. The first stage is to match corner points; that is,
to move the corner point A to its new position A0 ; and B
to B0 ; etc. [See Fig. 3(b)]. Once the corner points match
their new positions, interim edges are generated based
on Eq. (11). To adjust the position of an internal point
O; effects from the four corner points need to be
accounted for in a coordinated manner. In this
approach, P0 ; Q0 ; S 0 ; and T 0 ; which connect O0 to its
boundary, will be first adjusted. The displacements
of the four edge points in, e.g., x-direction
ðDP; DQ; DS; DTÞ can be calculated with Eq. (11), and
the movement of O0 is evaluated as a combination of
these displacements. Specifically, one can adopt the
following expression:
absðDIÞDI þ absðDJÞDJ
DO0 ¼ ; ð13Þ
maxðabsðDIÞ þ absðDJÞ; 106 Þ
where DI ¼ ð1  Si ÞDP þ Si DQ; DJ ¼ ð1  Sj ÞDS þ
Sj DT; Si and Sj are the normalized arc length along
mesh lines PQ and ST; respectively. Displacements in
the other direction can be computed similarly.
After the first stage, the four corner points have
matched their new locations; however, the interim edges
do not necessarily match their final positions. The
second stage is to match the interim edges to their final
edge locations. The difference between the interim and
final edge locations are taken to be the source of
perturbation. In this case, since the perturbations in
both directions are dependent, the contributions from all
individual directions are added [See Fig. 3(c)]. For three-
dimensional problem, the 3-stage process is adopted by
Lian et al. [55].
2.2.2. Master/slave concepts
The aforementioned perturbation method can be
implemented efficiently for single block and small
displacement problems. However, when a multi-block,
structured grid or large interface displacement is
involved, this method needs to be enhanced by other
techniques. The Master/Slave concept acts as a useful
approach to maintain grid quality and to prevent
potential grid cross-over.
Although unstructured grid has been used to solve
fluid dynamics problems by different researchers [4,28],
here, our attention is limited to structured grid only. For
a multi-block structured grid, for simplicity, CFD
software often requires point-matched grid block inter-
faces. A basic requirement for regenerating grid in the
moving boundary problems is to maintain the point-
matched interface. While this updating process is easily
satisfied by those block surfaces that coincide with the
body surface, the remaining block surfaces need to be
handled with due care. In order to use the perturbation
method, one needs to specify the new positions of the
off-body surface points, or, at least, the vertices of such
block surfaces.
When an object changes its shape/position, the master
points, which are located at the body surface, move first,
and then affect the distribution of the slave points, i.e.,
the off-body points. While the task of redistributing
interior grid can be challenging, in practice, it is more
difficult to move the vertices of each block if a point-to-
point match between two abutting blocks without
overlap is required. If two abutting blocks have
congruent interfaces, such as the interface of block 2
and block 3 in Fig. 4(a), once the corner vertices are
determined, the edge points and the interior points can
be uniquely settled based on Eq. (11). However, when
the two neighboring grid blocks do not share identical
interfaces, such as that of block 1 and block 2 shown in
Fig. 4(a), this procedure can cause discontinuity at the
interface, because the regriding procedures at the inter-
face are based on different stencils for different blocks.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465 433

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)
Fig. 4. Illustration of moving grid scheme: (a) initial geometry; (b) side view of the grid; (c) new shape; (d) distribution of the new grid;
(e) same test but with high stiffness.

Slaving the vertices of a grid block to their master points
can avoid creating undesirable grid discontinuities.
The Master/Slave coupling is based on the distance
between an off-body point and a surface point (Master
point). The distance is given by
rj ¼ ½ðxv  xb Þ2 þ ð yv  yb Þ2 þ ðzv  zb Þ2
0:5 ;
j~
where the subscript v represents off-body vertex, and, b;
the body surface point. For each off-body vertex, the
nearest body surface point is defined as its master point.
To simplify the connection between the master and slave
points, one can convert the three-dimensional parameter
space ði; j; kÞ into a one-dimensional data structure, for
each grid point it has an identification number l defined
by
l ¼ boffðbnÞ þ i þ imax  ð j  1Þ þ imax  jmax  ðk  1Þ;
ð15Þ
ð14Þ
where boffðbnÞ is the identification number of the first
point in block bn in the one-dimensional array, imax ; jmax ;
are dimensions in i and j direction, respectively. In this
way a slave point is associated with its master point by
storing its master’s identification number into its
address.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
434 Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465
Once the relation between a master point and a slave
point is established, the next step is to determine how the
slave point moves according to the influences from its
master point. Intuitively, the nearer vertex will have
more effect (displacement) than those far away. Also, to
avoid causing a lower surface to cross over its opposite
face when the movement is relatively large, one needs to
scale the movement. A simple but effective formula is
expressed as follows:
x* s ¼ ~
~ x* m  ~
xs þ yð~ xm Þ: ð16Þ
Subscripts m and s represent master and slave,
respectively, and the tilde ðBÞ indicates the new
position. y is the decay function; here, the Gaussian
distribution function is used, given by
y ¼ expfb min½500; dv=ðe þ dmÞ
g; ð17Þ equation’’ by Newman [70], completely defines the
where
dv ¼ ðxv  xm Þ2 þ ð yv  ym Þ2 þ ðzv  zm Þ2 ; ð18Þ
dm ¼ ðx* m  xm Þ2 þ ðy* m  ym Þ2 þ ð*zm  zm Þ2 : ð19Þ
Coefficient b affects the stiffness. A larger b causes the
block to behave more like a rigid body (See Fig. 4(e)).
More details about master and slave concept can be
found in Refs. [32,55].
2.3. Membrane structural solver
The deformations of membrane structures are often
large and thus inherently nonlinear. Qualitative descrip-
tions of behavior of thin membranes are often more
complex than those of three-dimensional bodies. Until
recently, their analysis has primarily relied on trial and
error. Green and Adkins [27] are the first to derive a
general non-linear theory for membranes. The mem-
brane theory has two fundamental assumptions because
of their thinness [41]. First, the membrane tension
stiffness is much larger than its bending stiffness, so the
stress couple effect can often be neglected. Second, the
ratio of thickness to radius of the curvature is small,
which effectively decouples the strain-displacement
relation from the curvature tensor. Practically speaking,
there exist two approaches to model the response of a
membrane structure. The first approach is to idealize a
plate or shell structure as a membrane away from its
boundaries, in which the stress couples are neglected in
its interior region. By formally equating the plate
stiffness to zero, this membrane model can be described
.
by the Foppl–von K!arm!an theory [36,41]. In the second
approach, the structure cannot sustain stress couples
anywhere. The second approach is adopted by Lian et al.
[54] because it is appropriate for MAV computations.
In the following, further comment on membranes
will be given with an emphasis on their aerodynamic
applications.
The studies of a two-dimensional membrane with
fixed leading and trailing edges were originally con-
ducted by Voelz [108], Thwaites [101], and Nelsen [69].
These works consider inextensible membranes sur-
rounded by steady, two-dimensional, irrotational flows.
As a consequence of the inextensible assumption, when
the camber and the incidence angle are small, this
problem is linearized and expressed compactly in a non-
dimensional integral form
Z
CT 1 d2 ð y=aÞ=dx2 dð y=aÞ
1 dx ¼ ; ð20Þ
2 0 2pðx  xÞ dx
where yðxÞ defines the membrane profile as a function of
x coordinate, a is the incidence angle, and CT is the
tension coefficient. This equation, referred to as the ‘‘sail
linearized theory of inextensible membrane wings in
steady, inviscid flow fields. Based on the work of Voelz
[108], the sail equation has been successfully solved
analytically and numerically. Newman [70] has given a
comprehensive review of the earlier works related to
membrane wing aerodynamics.
The development of a three-dimensional membrane
model introduces several complicating factors not
encountered in a two-dimensional analysis. First, unlike
the ‘‘sail equation’’, the tension in a three-dimensional
membrane is no longer a single constant value but is best
described by a state of biaxial tension along the lines of
principal stresses [38]. Second, the geometric and
material properties vary along the spanwise direction,
which have to be described in details. Third, if one of the
principal tensions vanishes, the membrane will be
compressed and wrinkled, which further complicates
the analysis. Considering the complexity of the three-
dimensional problem, simplifications are made in the
early works in this area.
Oden and Sato [71] have presented a finite element
method for the analysis of large displacements and finite
strains in elastic membranes of general shape. In their
work the static equilibrium of an inflated membrane is
considered. A static analysis can be considered as a
special case of a dynamic analysis in which the inertia
effect is included. Works on the dynamic analysis of
membranes before 1991 are reviewed by Jenkins and
Leonard [41]; most recent works are reviewed by Jenkins
[40]. Verron et al. [104] have performed a combined
numerical and experimental study of the dynamic
inflation of rubber-like membrane. Under compression,
the flexible membrane experiences wrinkle, this topic is
studied in the work of Ding et al. [16] in which they
perform a numerical study of partial wrinkled mem-
branes. The stability of fluid flow past a membrane is
reported by Thaokar and Kumaran [99].
Motivated by their interests in MAVs, Lian et al. [54]
propose a three-dimensional membrane model to
account for the membrane dynamics. The membrane
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465 435

material considered obeys the hyperelastic Mooney– respectively, have the following forms
Rivlin model [65]. They use the Green–Lagrange strain 2 3
C11 ðtÞ C12 ðtÞ 0
tensor for the description of large strains. The dynamic 6 7
response of such a membrane is described by a system of CðtÞ ¼ 4 C12 ðtÞ C22 ðtÞ 0 5;
second-order time dependent equations. A finite element 0 0 C33 ðtÞ
2 3
method with triangular element for spatial discretization S11 ðtÞ S12 ðtÞ 0
is utilized by them. For time integration, they adopt the 6 7
SðtÞ ¼ 4 S12 ðtÞ S22 ðtÞ 0 5: ð25Þ
implicit Wilson-y method. In the following a brief review
of their membrane model is given. 0 0 0
Therefore, the hydrostatic pressure is determined by the
condition that S33 ¼ 0;
2.3.1. Mooney–Rivlin model
For an initially isotropic membrane, Green and p ¼ 2ðc1 þ c2 I1  c2 l23 Þl23 ; ð26Þ
Adkins [27] show that there exits a strain energy
where l3 is defined by
function W which can be expressed as the following
form pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi hðtÞ
l3 ¼ C33 ðtÞ ¼ ; ð27Þ
h0
W ¼ W ðI1 ; I2 ; I3 Þ; ð21Þ in which hðtÞ and h0 are the membrane thickness in the
deformed and undeformed configurations, respectively.
where I1 ; I2 ; and I3 are the first, second, and third
invariants of the Green deformation tensor C. If the 2.3.2. Principle of virtual work
material is incompressible, namely, I3 =1, then the strain Consider an elastic membrane, which in its initial state
energy is a function of I1 and I2 only. The following occupies a finite region in space. The position of the
linear form is useful in the study of a membrane region can be specified by an orthogonal coordinate
system XYZ which is referred to as global coordinates.
W ¼ c1 ðI1  3Þ þ c2 ðI2  3Þ; ð22Þ In global coordinates, the general form of the principle
of virtual work in the Lagrangian description is given by
Z Z
where c1 and c2 are the two material parameters. A . dV þ
dUT ðtÞr0 UðtÞ dE : S dV
material that obeys Eq. (22) is known as the Mooney– V0
Z
V0
Rivlin material [65], and the model is the Mooney–
 dUT ðtÞPðtÞ dS ¼ 0; 8@U; ð28Þ
Rivlin model. The Mooney–Rivlin model is one @V0
of the most frequently employed hyperelastic models
because of its mathematical simplicity and relatively where V0 and @V0 are, respectively, the volume and the
good accuracy for reasonably large strains (less than boundary surface of the undeformed membrane, r0 is
150%) [65]. the membrane density, UðtÞ is the displacement vector in
For an initially isotropic membrane, the general global coordinates, dUðtÞ is the virtual of vector U, the
stress–strain relationship is written as superscript T refers to the transverse of a vector or a
.
tensor, UðtÞ is the acceleration vector, P(t) is the
generalized external surface force, E is the Green–
@W
S ¼ pC1 þ 2 ; ð23Þ Lagrange strain tensor, S is the second Piola–Kirchhoff
@C
stress tensor, and dE : S is the scalar product of two
tensors. In a rectangular Cartesian coordinates, the
where S is the second Piola–Kirchhoff stress tensor, p is scalar product is defined by
the hydrostatic pressure. If the membrane is incompres-
sible, then the stress–strain relation can be further dE : S ¼ dEij Sji ; ð29Þ
simplified as follows: with summation on the repeated indices.

S ¼ pC1 þ 2½ðc1 þ c2 I1 ÞI  c2 C ; ð24Þ 2.3.3. Solution of the dynamic equations

The governing equation for the membrane response
where I is 3-by-3 identity matrix. In the membrane under external load is
theory the stress field is essentially treated as two- . þ Fint ¼ Fext ;
MDðtÞ ð30Þ
dimensional, and the stress normal to the deformed
membrane surface is negligible in comparison with the where M is a positive definite mass matrix, which
stresses in the tangent plane [71]. With this considera- remains constant, DðtÞ represents the nodal displace-
tion, the deformation and stress matrices, CðtÞ and SðtÞ; .
ment vector, DðtÞ is the nodal acceleration vector, Fint is
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
436 Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465
the internal force due to the membrane deformation,
and Fext is the external load.
Either an implicit or an explicit scheme can be
adopted to follow the time history of the system of
equations. The explicit scheme is computationally
economic for each time step and requires less storage.
In some cases, its efficiency can be further improved by
special techniques, such as lumping technique of the
mass matrix [3,115]. However, its time step needs to be
small in order to satisfy the stability requirement. As far
as the implicit scheme is concerned, a matrix system is
updated more than once per time step to account for the
nonlinear effect, which requires more computations per
time step and more storage. Generally speaking, implicit
algorithms are effective for many structural dynamics
problems in which the response is controlled by a small
number of low frequency modes, which explicit algo-
rithms are efficient for wave propagation problems in
which the contribution of intermediate and high
frequency structural modes to the response is important
[95]. Among the available techniques, the implicit,
unconditionally stable Wilson-y method [112] is used
by Lian et al. [54,52]. The Wilson-y method has
controllable algorithmic numerical dissipation; it is a
one-step method, and it yields second-order accuracy,
which makes it easier to code and behaves well in fluid/
structure interaction system. Since the Wilson-y method
is dissipative, the used time step is smaller than that
required by the overall accuracy criterion to avoid
excessive dissipation. For y > 1:37; the method is
unconditionally stable, usually y ¼ 1:4 is employed.
For details and illustration of this model and its
computations, we refer to Lian et al. [51,54].
2.4. Coupling between fluid solver and structural solver
When a fluid flow passes a flexible structure, the
structure changes its shape due to the external forces
from the fluid flow; meanwhile, the shape change affects
the fluid flow around the structure. This leads to a fluid
and structure interaction problem. Usually, the fluid
problem and the structural problem have different
mathematical and numerical properties. Depending on
the problem complexity (linear problem or nonlinear
problem, simple or complex geometry, small-scale or
large scale problem), available software, and computing
platform, numerous techniques have been developed to
provide coupled CFD and CSD methods. One approach
is to treat the flow and structural equations as one
monolithic system of equations [5] and solve the system
of equations simultaneously on a ‘‘monolithic’’ grid.
However, there are multiple time scales present in the
fluid and structure systems, and a unified treatment may
not be efficient to handle the computational stiffness.
Liu et al. [59] have solved the flow filed and the
structural field simultaneously by a fully implicit method
but their CFD solver and CSD solver are solved on
different grid systems. The fluid and the structural
governing equations are regarded as one single system of
time-dependent equations in a pseudo-time.
To better handle different characteristics of the flow
and structural domains, most of the researchers solve
the fluid and structural equations separately and then
couple them through a synchronization process. Smith
and Shyy [94] have adopted a combined simulations
treating the membrane using the finite element ap-
proach, and the potential fluid flow using the moving
grid approach. Smith and Shyy [94], Gordnier and
Fithen [24], Kalro and Tezduyar [46], Zwaan and
Prananta [116], and Lian et al. [52,54] have coupled
the fluid and structural solvers with a subiteration
approach. The fluid solver and the structural solver
function independently on their own computational grid
with their own time step, subiteration between these two
solvers is employed at each time step to avoid phase lag.
Alternatively, Farhat et al. [30,28] formulate the fluid
and structure interaction problem as a three-field
problem: the fluid, the structure, and the dynamic mesh
that is represented by a pseudo-structural system. In
their work, the arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian (ALE)
finite volume schemes are employed for the fluid
dynamics equations, finite element method is applied
for the structure dynamics equations. Partitioned
procedures and staggered algorithms are adopted for
the solution of coupled fluid and structure interaction
problems in the time domain.
In fluid-structure interaction computations, the mov-
ing grid technique can be fruitfully employed to
automatically regenerate the new CFD grid after the
shape change. In addition, since the grid distributions
between the fluid and structure domains are often
different, interpolations are needed to allow the in-
formation to be exchanged. Smith et al. [92] have
evaluated suitable methods to transfer information
between CFD and CSD grids. For example, a thin plate
interpolation method is adopted by Lian et al. [54,52]
as the interface to exchange information between the
fluid solver and structure solver. The thin plate spline
interpolation is a global interpolation method which is
invariant with respect to rotation and translation, and
hence is suitable for the interpolation on moving
surfaces. A one-dimensional version of the function is
X
N
HðxÞ ¼ ai jx  xi j2 log jx  xi j; ð31Þ
i¼1
where HðxÞ is the displacement, ai is the undetermined
coefficient, N is the number of structural nodes on the
interface being monitored, and xi ’s are their locations. It
can be seen from Eq. (31) that the interpolated function
HðxÞ has continuous first-order derivative. Once these
coefficients ai are determined based on the structural
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465 437

grid locations, the displacement vector defined on the

computational structure dynamics (CSD) grid D is
mapped to the CFD grid via a matrix G
dX ¼ GD; ð32Þ
where dX is the corresponding displacement on the CFD
grid. Similarly the surface forces can also be mapped
from the CFD grid to the CSD grid. z
Root
Upon updating the aerodynamic forces in the
structural equations and providing the new boundary
conditions to the fluid solver, the temporal development
between the aerodynamic and structural equations can
be coordinated. In order to conduct time-accurate x Batten 3
solutions for the fluid-membrane dynamics, iteration
should be done at each time instant. A step-by-step Batten 2
coupled algorithm is described by Lian [51].
Batten 1

3. MAV wing: aerodynamics and structural response Fig. 5. Schematic wing with six battens.

As shown in Fig. 1 the membrane wing consists of a

leading edge spar and six chordwise battens which are
made of unidirectional carbon fiber prepreg laminate.
A membrane material is bonded to the spar and battens.
While the membrane is flexible which does not sustain
bending moment, the carbon fiber is rigid which
provides support for the membrane and can sustain
bending moment. To fully model the membrane wing,
ideally, one needs to model both the rigid battens and
the flexible membrane. Two principal difficulties arise by
doing that. First, since the membrane does not bear
bending moment, it has three degree of freedoms at each
node, while the batten, if modeled as a beam, has five
degree of freedoms at each node. Special treatment is
required to treat the interface point which belongs to
different regimes and has different degree of freedoms.
Second, the membrane is much thinner than the batten, Fig. 6. Computational set-up and boundary conditions.
the mass matrix associated with these two different
materials makes the assembled mass matrix ill-condi-
tioned. Given these factors, Lian et al. [54,52] treat the Shyy [52] to assess the sensitivity of the computed results
batten as a special membrane material with larger to the wing location and the type of boundary
density; the density ratio between the batten and the conditions imposed to the outer flow boundary. The
membrane is three. basic requirement for the wing location is to make the
outer boundaries sufficiently far away from the mem-
3.1. Computational background brane so that they do not have much impact on the
computed results. The relative position of the wing is
In the study of Lian and coauthors [54,52,51] and shown in Fig. 6, in which c represents the chord length at
Viieru et al. [107], only the membrane wing is considered the root. At the surface ABCD a zero gradient boundary
while ignoring the fuselage and propellers. A schematic condition is imposed for the velocity components; all the
geometry of the wing is shown in Fig. 5; the shaded area other boundaries are assigned a Dirichlet type boundary
shown is according to the fuselage area which does not condition. Since the freestream velocity is parallel to the
change the shape during the flight. The physical problem chord direction and no propeller is modeled, only half of
under consideration is the flow over a wing in an the domain is computed, and a symmetric mapping can
unbounded domain. Based on the free stream velocity of be applied to the other half domain.
10 m=s; the root chord Reynolds number is 9  104 : A grid sensitivity test is done by Lian and Shyy [52]
Numerous computations are performed by Lian and where three grid systems have been systematically
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
438 Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465
chosen, ranging from 1:8  105 nodes at the coarse level
and 2:3  106 nodes at the fine level. The coarse grid has
41 points in the chord direction and 31 points in the
spanwise direction. The grid distribution at the coarse
level around the wing is shown in Fig. 7. Following Lian
and Shyy [52], the results from the fine grid are used as
the reference. The comparisons among these three grid
systems are summarized in Table 1. The coarse grid
solution under-predicts the lift-to-drag ratio ðCL =CD Þ by
0.5%, and the difference in the form drag force is less
than 0.7%. A similar conclusion can be drawn for the
lift force, L: As expected, the skin friction drag, DF ; is
sensitive to the grid density; the coarse mesh over-
estimates DF by almost 10%. An intermediate grid,
which has 6:7  105 nodes and more than doubles the
surface points on the wing comparing to the coarse grid,
gives an improved prediction on the skin friction drag.
From Table 1 it can be seen that the contribution of the
friction drag to the total drag is much smaller than the
form drag. This is also valid at higher angle of attack
where the form drag is the dominant factor in the total
drag. Since truly grid independent results are difficult to
attain at such low Reynolds number condition, the
intermediate grid is utilized by Lian et al. [51,52] for the
rigid wing simulation while use the coarse grid to
Fig. 7. Computational grid distribution near the wing. Coarse
grid with 1:8  105 points.
Table 1
Grid refinement on computed aerodynamic performance
GRID DP ðNÞ
5
Coarse 1:8  10 6:24E  2
Intermediate 6:7  105 6:16E  2
Fine 2:3  106 6:20E  2
illustrate the key issues in the fluid and flexible structure
interaction problem.
3.2. Rigid wing aerodynamics
3.2.1. Vortical flow structure of the rigid wing
Tip vortices exist on a finite wing due to the pressure
difference between the upper and lower wing surface.
The tip vortex establishes a circulatory motion which
presents over the wing surface and exerts great influence
on the wing aerodynamics. Specifically, tip vortex
increases the drag force. The total drag coefficients for
a finite wing at subsonic speeds can be written as [2]
CL2
CD ¼ CD;P þ CD;F þ ; ð33Þ
peAR
where CD;P is the drag coefficient due to pressure, CD;F is
the drag coefficient due to skin friction, e is the span
efficiency factor which is less than one, AR is the aspect
ratio, and CD;i ¼ CL2 =peAR is the induced drag coeffi-
cient due to the existence of tip vortices. Eq. (33)
demonstrates that the induced drag varies as the square
of the lift coefficient; at high angles of attack, the
induced drag can be a substantial portion of the total
drag. Furthermore, Eq. (33) illustrates that as AR is
decreased, the induced drag increases. The MAV wing
presented by Ifju et al. [36,35] has a low aspect ratio of
1.4; therefore, it is important to investigate the tip vortex
effects on the wing aerodynamics. In general, the tip
vortex effects are two-folded:
* Tip vortex causes downwash which decreases
the effective angle of attack and increases the drag
force [2].
* Tip vortex forms low-pressure region on the top
surface of the wing, which provides additional lift
force [68].
Fig. 8 shows tip vortices around the wing surface
together with the streamlines at an angle of attack of 39
[52]. The vortical flow is usually associated with a low-
pressure zone as shown in Fig. 9. The pressure drop
further strengthens the swirl by attracting more fluids
toward the vortex core; meanwhile, the pressure
decreases correspondingly in the vortex core. The
low-pressure region created by the vortex generates
LðNÞ DF ðNÞ CL =CD
5:10E  1 9:70E  3 7.06
5:08E  1 9:22E  3 7.16
5:04E  1 8:80E  3 7.10
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465
Fig. 8. Streamlines and vortices for rigid wing at a ¼ 39 : The
vortical structures are shown on selected planes.
Fig. 9. Pressure distribution around the rigid wing in the cross
sections with streamlines at angle of attack of 39 :
additional lift. Toward downstream, the pressure re-
covers to its ambient value, the swirling weakens, the
diameter of the vortex core increases, and the vortex
core losses its coherent structure.
In Fig. 10 evolution of the vortical structure with
increasing angle of attack is visualized. The pressure
distribution on the upper surface is also presented in the
same figure. At a ¼ 6 ; the tip vortices are clearly visible
439
even though they cover a small area and are of modest
strength. The flow is attached to the upper surface and
follows the chord direction. A low-pressure region near
the tip, caused by the vortical structure there, is
observed. This pressure drop can be seen from
Fig. 11(a) where the spanwise pressure coefficient on
the upper wing surface at x=c ¼ 0:4 is plotted. At a ¼ 6
the spanwise pressure is almost uniform on the upper
wing surface, and the tip vortex causes the pressure drop
to occur at approximate 90% of the half span from the
root. Fig. 11 is illustrative in regard to pressure
distributions versus the vortical structures. They are
not indicative of the total level of the pressure force.
Vortices strengthen with the increase of angle of
attack. At a ¼ 27 ; as shown in Fig. 10, tip vortices
develop a strong swirl motion while entraining the
surrounding flow. The low-pressure area increases as
the angle of attack becomes higher. In Fig. 11(a), the
pressure drop moves along the spanwise direction
towards the root, and now occurs at 75% from the
root. At lower angles of attack, the vortex core position
shows a linear relation with the incidence. This relation
disappears at higher angles of attack when the flow is
separated on the upper surface. For example, at a ¼ 45 ;
the flow is separated at the leading edge, and the low-
pressure zone covers more than 40% of the wing surface,
which helps to maintain the increase in lift force. At
a ¼ 51 ; considerable spanwise velocity component is
seen and the flow is separated from most of the upper
surface (Fig. 10). The lift force by the vortices is not
enough to maintain the increase of the lift coefficient
with the angle of attack, and stall occurs. Tip vortices
also affect the pressure distribution at the lower surface;
however, the effected region is mainly located at the tip.
Most regions on the lower surface are not affected by the
tip vortices. From Fig. 11(b) it can be seen that the
pressure is almost uniform in the spanwise direction
even at high angles of attack. One should also note that
Fig. 11 indicates that the moment experiences substan-
tial variations as the angle of attack changes.
3.2.2. Laminar boundary layer separation on rigid wing
The laminar boundary layer, especially under low
Reynolds number conditions, is prone to separate under
an adverse pressure gradient. This separation is usually
followed by a quick transition from laminar to turbulent
flow. If the adverse pressure gradient is not strong, the
resulting turbulent flow, by obtaining energy through
entrainment, may reattach to the surface and form an
attached turbulent boundary layer. Such a phenomenon
is known as a laminar separation bubble.
Ever since its first observation by Jones [42], many
experimental investigations on laminar separation bub-
ble have been conducted, as reviewed by Young and
Horton [113]. Typically, a separation bubble has
the following characteristics. Just downstream of the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
440 Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465
Fig. 10. Evolution of flow pattern for rigid wing versus angles of attack (from left to right, top to bottom, 6 ; 15 ; 27 ; and 51 Þ:
separation point, there is a ‘‘dead-air’’ region, where the
recalculating velocity is significantly less than the free-
stream velocity and the flow is virtually stationary. The
separated flow forms a free-shear layer, which is highly
unstable. As suggested by Young and Horton [113], the
separated shear layer quickly undergoes transition from
laminar to turbulent flow; the turbulent flow may
reattach to the surface behind a vortical structure and
form a turbulent boundary layer. Hence, a separation
bubble forms. The dynamics of a laminar separation
bubble depends on the Reynolds number, the pressure
distribution, the geometry, the surface roughness, and
the freestream turbulence. A rough rule given by
Carmichael [8] is that the Reynolds number based on
the freestream velocity and the distance from the
separation point to the reattachment point is approxi-
mately 5  104 : On the one hand, if the Reynolds
number is less than 5  104 ; an airfoil will experience
separation without reattachment; on the other hand, a
long separation bubble will occur if the Reynolds
number is slightly higher than 5  104 : In the following,
detailed flow structures around a rigid wing reported by
Lian and Shyy [52] are presented. This information is
helpful to gain more insight into the MAV aerody-
namics. By contrasting the detailed fluid flow around the
rigid and membrane wings, one can better evaluate the
MAV technologies. The bubble structures for different
angles of attack are demonstrated in Fig. 12. Repre-
sentative instantaneous streamlines at the root section
on the rigid wing are plotted. At this moment, the
spanwise velocity component is ignored to make a clear
representation of these separated structures. At a low
angle of attack of 6 ; the flow primarily attaches to the
surface and a tiny separation bubble is observed at the
lower surface near the leading edge. Beginning at 45%
chord from the leading edge, a weak recirculation zone
is seen on the upper surface, which produces a
reattachment length of x=c ¼ 0:5: The maximum reverse
velocity is less than 0.5% of the freestream velocity. The
normalized chordwise velocity contours at different
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465 441

-1

-2
cp

-3

α=51
-4 α=45
o
o
α=27
α=15o
-5 α=6o

-6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(a) z/Z

0.5

-0.5

-1
cp

-1.5 α=51o Fig. 12. Streamlines at different angles of attack for rigid wing.
α=45
α=27o
From top to bottom 6 ; 15 ; 27 ; and 51 : Shown are single
-2
α=15o span shorts of the individual time dependent flows.
o
-2.5 α=6

-3
-3.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
(b) z/Z
Fig. 11. Spanwise pressure coefficient distributions at x=c ¼ 0:4
for rigid wing at different angles of attack: (a) cp at upper
surface; (b) cp at lower surface.
angles of attack are demonstrated in Fig. 13. Under the
present circumstance, a considerable portion of the
shear layer remains laminar [23].
With the increase of incidence, the separation point
moves forward toward the leading edge; by gaining
energy from the shear layer, the maximal reverse velocity
becomes larger. At the angle of attack of 15 ; as shown
in Fig. 12, the separation occurs at 39% of the chord
from the leading edge, which is followed by a long ‘dead-
air’ zone before it reaches a maximal reverse velocity of
0:26U: In the ‘dead-air’ zone, the stationary reverse flow
does not have much effect on the pressure distribution,
which is primary determined by the wing curvature. The
shear layer reattachment happens at 89% of the chord.
Based on the freestream velocity and the distance
between the separation and reattachment points, the
Reynolds number is approximately 4:5  104 which is
slightly smaller than the Reynolds number suggested by
Carmichael. The reattachment point corresponds to a
1 rapid increase in the surface pressure. The reattachment
point is highly unstable, which moves back and forth.
At a ¼ 27 ; the reverse flow component of the
separation bubble reaches a maximum mean velocity
of 0:49U: Under such a situation, Crompton and Barrett
[11] have shown that the shear layer is particularly
energetic since most of the shear layer is turbulent. Even
though the flow on the upper surface near the root has
separated from a large portion of the surface; however,
the lift force still increases with the angle of attack. Two
reasons might lie behind this phenomenon. First, tip
vortices generate suction near the tip area (Fig. 11)
which provides additional lift. Second, even though flow
separates near the root, it still attaches to the surface in
the other region. When the angle of attack is increased
further, at a ¼ 51 ; massive separation occurs on most
of the upper surface; vortex shedding is observed near
the root (Fig. 14).
For low aspect ratio wings, tip vortices have
considerable contributions to the lift force. This scenario
is quite similar to that for the delta wings [25]. In his
numerical study, Lian [51] has observed that the low
aspect ratio wing suffered less from separation. As seen
from Fig. 15, the lift coefficient keeps a linear relation-
ship with the angle of attack even at very high angles of
attack. Experiments by Torres and Mueller [102] on low
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
442 Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465

Fig. 13. Normalized chordwise velocity u=U contours at root

for rigid wing. From top to bottom the angles of attack are 6 ;
15 ; 27 ; and 51 Þ:

Fig. 14. Vortex shedding at a ¼ 51 :

aspect ratio wing have similar findings. However, neither

fuselage nor propeller is included in the analysis by
Lian [51].
2.2
3.2.3. Unsteady phenomena at high angle of attack
2
Vortex shedding and boundary layer separation occur
at large angle of attack, which introduce unsteadiness to 1.8
the aerodynamic performance. Cummings et al. [12] 1.6
have reported that the unsteady computations predict
1.4
much lower lift coefficients than the steady computa-
L

tions at large angle of attack. Lian and Shyy [52] 1.2

C

perform steady computations when the incidence is less 1

than 15 while conducting both steady and unsteady Coarse Grid
0.8 Intermediate Grid
computations when the angle of attack is larger than
that. Interestingly, the difference between the steady 0.6
state computations and the time-averaged unsteady 0.4
computations are small even at large angle of attack in
0.2
which unsteady phenomenon such as vortex shedding 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Angle of Attack
are prominent. The differences in lift coefficient and lift-
to-drag ratio are found to be less than 1%. Fig. 16 shows Fig. 15. Lift coefficient versus angle of attack for rigid wing.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465 443

2.5 The pressure distributions at the root section are also

Time Averaged
Steady compared, where separation usually appears first due to
the large camber in the present MAV wing design [36].
2 Fig. 17 shows that at a=6 the time averaged pressure
coefficient matches closely with the steady state result.
This finding is consistent with Figs. 12 and 13 where a
very weak recirculation is seen at this angle of attack.
CL

1.5
However, at a ¼ 15 ; clear difference is shown after
x=c ¼ 0:6 which approximately corresponds to the
location of the maximal reverse velocity (Fig. 13). The
1 time averaged value yields a smooth pressure distribu-
tion; the variation in the steady result is apparent from
the recirculation zone. The difference between steady
0.5 and unsteady computations is also shown from velocity
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Angle of Attack (degree) distribution. At a ¼ 6 ; as seen from Fig. 18, there is
almost no difference in the chordwise velocity distribu-
Fig. 16. Comparison of rigid wing CL for steady and unsteady
tion. While at a ¼ 15 ; there is little difference in the
computations.
leading edge region, clear difference appears after the
0.8
separation bubble (Fig. 19).
Time Averaged
Steady
0.6
Boundary layer profile at x/c=0.14 for α=6o
0.4 0.022
Time Averaged
Steady
0.2 0.0215

0.021
cp

0.0205
-0.2

0.02
y

-0.4

0.0195
-0.6

0.019
-0.8
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(a) x/c 0.0185

0 0.018
Time Averaged 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Steady u/U
-0.2 Boundary layer profile at x/c=0.80 for α=6
o

0.022
Time Averaged
-0.4 Steady
0.021

-0.6 0.02
cp

-0.8 0.019

0.018
y

-1

0.017
-1.2
0.016
-1.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(b) 0.015
x/c

Fig. 17. Comparisons of cp on rigid wing at the root for steady 0.014
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
and unsteady computations: (a) a ¼ 6 ; (b) a ¼ 15 : u/U

Fig. 18. Comparisons of chordwise velocity profiles on rigid

the results with steady and unsteady computations. wing for steady and time-averaged unsteady computations,
Noticeable difference appears only when the angle of at angle of attack of 6 ; at two chordwise locations, both at
attack becomes sufficiently high. the root.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
444 Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465

Boundary layer profile at x/c=0.19 for α=15o 0.14

0.022
Time Averaged
Steady 0.12
0.0215
0.1
0.021

Displacement (cm)
0.08
0.0205
0.06
0.02
y

0.04
With Synchronization
0.0195
Without Synchronization
0.02
0.019
0
0.0185
-0.02
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
0.018
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 Time (Second)
u/U
Boundary layer profile at x/c=0.80 for α=15o Fig. 20. Effects of time synchronization on the displacement of
0.022
Time Averaged
a trailing edge point for membrane wing at a ¼ 6 :
Steady
0.021

0.02 40

0.019 30
With Synchronization
Without Synchronization
0.018
y

20
Vertical velocity (cm/s)

0.017
10
0.016
0
0.015
-10
0.014
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
u/U -20
Fig. 19. Comparisons of chordwise velocity profile on rigid
wing for steady and time-averaged unsteady computations, -30
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
at angle of attack of 15 ; at two chordwise locations, both at Time (Second)
the root.
Fig. 21. Effects of time synchronization on vertical velocity of
a trailing edge point for membrane wing at a ¼ 6 :

3.3. Membrane wing dynamics

3.3.1. Time synchronization
Before presenting the membrane wing results, some
key issues in coupled membrane–fluid interactions are
first addressed. Specifically, time synchronization be-
tween fluid and structure computations, and the
geometric conservation law in regard to the moving
grid method are stressed.
According to the design of Ifju and coworkers [35,36],
the membrane has a uniform thickness of 0:2 mm; and
with a density of 1200 kg=m3 : Lian et al. [54,52] have
simulated the fluid and structure interaction by integrat-
ing the fluid solver and the structure solver. To
demonstrate the importance of the synchronization
between fluid and structural solvers, Fig. 20 depicts the
displacement history of a trailing edge node. The
computation without synchronization fails to continue.
The displacement history without synchronization
matches well with that with synchronization at the very
early stage. However, the lagging errors accumulate with
time which eventually result in much larger displacement
than that with synchronization. Gordnier and Visbal
[25] also report the importance of subiteration. The
velocity and pressure histories of the same node are
shown in Figs. 21 and 22, respectively. Before the
computation diverges, the velocity without synchroniza-
tion is more than two times higher than that with
synchronization. The high velocity is believed to be
associated with the sudden pressure drop shown in
Fig. 22, which causes the wrinkle of the membrane and
the failure of the structural solver.
3.3.2. The geometric conservation law
The geometric conservation law [100] is critical when
the moving grid technique is employed. Fig. 23(a) shows
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465 445

1 the time history of L=D for the membrane wing at

0
a ¼ 6 : Without satisfying the geometric conservation
law, spikes are observed in the course of computation.
-1
With Synchronization
However, the computations are better regulated once the
-2
Without Synchronization geometric conservation law is enforced as in Fig. 23(b).
Farhat et al. [29] argue that the geometric conservation
-3 law is a necessary condition to maintain the stability of a
cp

-4
scheme utilized in moving boundary problems. Lian and
Shyy [52] do not come across instability issues in their
-5 study. Nevertheless, the computations behave erratically
-6
when the geometric conservation law is not enforced.

-7
3.3.3. Self-initiated membrane vibration
-8
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 Earlier works in membrane wing [86,93] are based on
Time (Second) the consideration that the membrane is assumed
Fig. 22. Effects of time synchronization on pressure distribu-
massless and there is no time dependent movement in
tion on a trailing edge point for membrane wing at a ¼ 6 : the steady freestream. Experiments [110] have shown
that the membrane experiences high frequency vibra-
tion, on the order of 100 Hz: By adopting a dynamic
membrane model, computations by Lian et al. [54,52]
show that the membrane wing also exerts high frequency
vibration in the steady freestream. Fig. 24 demonstrates
the displacement of the trailing edge with time. The
maximal displacement during that period occurs near
the tip. The displacement is normalized by the maximal
camber which is about 0:9 cm: To investigate the
vibration frequency, Lian and Shyy [52] choose a point
between batten 1 and batten 2 on the trailing edge as an
example. Its deflection history is shown in Fig. 20, and
the estimated dominated frequency is around 120 Hz
(Fig. 25). Analyses at other points also show the
frequencies around 120 Hz which is comparable to the
experimental frequency of 140 Hz: [110] The experi-
mental conditions and the detailed wing configuration
(a) between the study by Lian and Shyy [52] and those
reported by Waszak et al. [110] are not identical. Hence,
9
Membrane Wing
8.5 Time Averaged
0.14
8 t=0
-3
0.12 t=3 × 10
-3
7.5 t=7 × 10
0.1 t=10 × 10-3
7
Normalized displacement

t=13 × 10-3
D

0.08 -3
C /C

6.5 t=18 × 10
L

6 0.06

5.5 0.04

5 0.02
4.5 0
4
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 -0.02
(b) Time (sec)
-0.04
Fig. 23. Effect of the geometric conservation law on CL =CD for 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
z/Z
membrane wing computation at a ¼ 6 : (a) not satisfying the
geometric conservation law; (b) satisfying the geometric Fig. 24. Time history of trailing edge displacement for
conservation law. membrane wing at a ¼ 6 : The camber at the root is 0:90 cm:
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
446 Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465

-3
x 10 v/U contour at t=3.0 × 10 -3
8
0

7 0.000746

2 -0.00284
0.000746
6
0.0115
4
Power Spectum

Chordwise (cm)
0.0115

4 6
0.0366

3 8

2 0.000746
10
0.0223
1
12 0.0223

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Frequency (Hz) -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Spanwise (cm)
Fig. 25. Spectrum analysis of the trailing edge point vibration -3
v/U contour at t=7.0 × 10
for membrane wing at a ¼ 6 : 0
-0.000772
-0.000772
2
the qualitative agreement between computation and 0.00438
-0.000772
experiment in this regard is deemed satisfactory. Liu [61] 4
has reported that, under a typical wing gust situation,
Chordwise (cm)

the energy is mainly located in the low frequency range 6 0.00696 -0.000772

of several Hz or lower. The membrane fluctuates in a 0.00696

time scale much faster than either the vehicle control 8 -0.0137
scale or the expected wing gust time scale; hence, the 0.0121 -0.000772
membrane fluctuation is not expected to cause sensitive
10
response to the vehicle. -0.0111

When the membrane surface vibrates, the velocity on -0.0137 -0.0085

12 -0.00592
the surface is no longer zero. A considerable velocity
component is observed at the surface. The vertical -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
velocity contour at two different time instants are Spanwise (cm)
plotted in Fig. 26. Fig. 26(a) corresponds to the early Fig. 26. Normalized vertical velocity contour at two different
stage when the membrane wing moves up under the time instants for membrane wing at a ¼ 6 on the upper
aerodynamic forces. At the trailing edge, the vertical surface.
velocity is about 2% of the freestream velocity. A
negative velocity component is also observed near the
leading edge, because at the leading edge the pressure at Table 2
the upper wing surface is higher than that at the lower Aerodynamic coefficients comparison between membrane wing
wing surface of the same point. Fig. 26(b) corresponds and rigid wing
to the time of maximal displacement. A negative velocity Membrane wing Rigid wing
near the root indicates that the membrane goes down.
6 CL =CD 7.05 7.06
CL 0.530 0.532
3.3.4. Comparison between membrane and rigid wings
With the same freestream condition, as shown in
15 CL =CD 3.94 3.88
Table 2, the flexible wing exhibits slightly less lift CL 0.920 0.954
coefficient than the rigid one at a ¼ 6 : The difference
in CL =CD is also small. At higher angle of attack of 15 ;
the membrane wing generates a lift coefficient about 2%
less than the rigid wing; however, its CL =CD is 1.5% decreases the lift force by reducing the effective angle of
larger than the rigid one. These differences lie behind the attack of the membrane wing; on the other hand,
high frequency of the membrane vibration. Under the it increases the lift force by increasing the camber.
external force, the membrane wing changes its shape. The numerical finding of Lian and Shyy [52] shows
This shape change has two effects. On the one hand, it that membrane and rigid wings exhibit comparable
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465 447

aerodynamic performance before stall limit, which is 10

Rigid Wing
also experimentally observed by Waszak et al. [110]. Membrane Wing
9.5
Fig. 27 shows the time averaged vertical displacement
of the trailing edge. The displacement is normalized by 9
the maximal camber of the wing. Due to the membrane

Angle of Attack
deformation, the effective angle of attack of the 8.5
membrane wing is less than the rigid wing. The spanwise
8
angles of attack between rigid and membrane wings
under the same flow condition and with identical 7.5
geometric configurations are shown in Fig. 28. In
Fig. 28(a), the rigid wing has an incidence of 6 at the 7

root and monotonically increases to 9:5 at the tip; the 6.5

membrane wing shares the same angles of attack with
the rigid wing in 36% of the inner wing; however, the 6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
effective angle of attack toward the tip is less than that (a) Spanwise z/Z
of the rigid wing. At the tip, the angle of attack of the
membrane wing lowers by about 0:8 : Fig. 28(b) 19
Rigid Wing
compares the angle of attack at a ¼ 15 ; which shows Membrane Wing
18.5
that the effective angle of attack of the membrane wing
is about 1 less than that of the rigid wing at the tip. The 18
Angle of attack (degree)
17.5

17
0.15
Normalized displacement by maximal camber

16.5

16

0.1 15.5

15
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(b) Spanwise z/Z

0.05 Fig. 28. Time averaged spanwise angle of attack for membrane
wing: (a) a ¼ 6 ; (b) a ¼ 15 :

Rigid part
reduced effective angle of attack causes the decrease in
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 the lift force.
(a) z/Z The shape change of the membrane wing has another
effect; the pressure difference between upper and lower
0.25
wing surfaces inflates the membrane wing’s camber,
which is shown in Fig. 29. Two airfoil shapes at different
Normalized time averaged displacement

0.2 spanwise positions are plotted together with the

corresponding rigid wing shape. The camber increase
is more visible in the outer wing than the inner wing.
0.15 This is consistent with Fig. 27 where the maximal
trailing edge displacement occurs near the tip. As
expected, the increase is larger at a ¼ 15 than that at
0.1
a ¼ 6 :
The movement of the wing surface affects the overall
0.05 pressure distribution. A comparison of time averaged
Rigid part pressure contours for rigid and membrane wings is
shown in Fig. 30. As expected, the differences are mostly
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 located at the trailing edge where large movement is
(b) z/Z
observed. In the spanwise direction, as shown in Fig. 31,
Fig. 27. Averaged displacement of the membrane wing trailing the time averaged membrane wing has little difference
edge: (a) a ¼ 6 ; (b) a ¼ 15 : between two wings.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
448 Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465

Spanwise z/Z=0.40 z/Z=0

2 0.8
o
α=6 Time Averaged Membrane
Rigid Wing
1.8 α=15o 0.6
Rigid wing
1.6
0.4
1.4
Airfoil shape (cm)

0.2
1.2

cp
0
1

0.8 -0.2

0.6 -0.4

0.4 -0.6

0.2
-0.8
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 x/c
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/c z/Z=0.37
0.6
Spanwise z/Z=0.60 Time Averaged Membrane
2.4 Rigid Wing
α=6o 0.4
2.2 α=15o
Rigid wing 0.2
2

1.8 0
Airfoil shape (cm)

cp

1.6
-0.2
1.4

1.2 -0.4

1 -0.6
0.8
-0.8
0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/c
0.4 z/Z=0.69
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/c 0.1
Time Averaged Membrane
Rigid Wing
Fig. 29. Time averaged airfoil shapes at different spanwise 0
positions for membrane wing at a ¼ 6 :
-0.1

-0.2
cp

Pressure Coefficient Contour

0 -0.3
0.0363
-0.5 -0.4
2 -0.299 -0.5
-0.567 -0.567 -0.5

-1.24
-0.5
-0.634
4 -0.567
-1.1
Chordwise (cm)

-1.17
-0.433 -0.433 -0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
6 -0.0308 x/c
-0.299
-0.299
Fig. 31. Chordwise cp comparison at different spanwise
8 locations between time averaged membrane wing and steady
-0.232 -0.232
rigid wing at a ¼ 6 :
10

-0.165 -0.165
12 -0.165 4. Wing shape optimization
-0.165
-0.165

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 It is desirable not only to understand the pertinent

Spanwise (cm)
physical phenomena of the membrane wing dynamics,
Fig. 30. Time averaged cp contours for membrane wing (left) but to improve its performance based on improved
and cp contours for steady rigid wing (right) at a ¼ 6 : understanding. The optimization of a membrane wing
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465 449

introduces multiple challenges. First, coupled, time 2 o

(x1,y1)
dependent simulations of viscous fluid flow and flexible o (x2,y2)
structure are very expensive. Second, an efficient and
1.5
automatic grid regeneration based on the perturbed o
shape is essential. Adopting the rigid wing as a surrogate (x0,y0)

model for membrane wing optimization, Lian et al. [53] 1

optimize the rigid wing under a given flow condition, (x3,y3)

y(cm)
and evaluate the performance of a flexible wing with the o

optimized shape. The surrogate approach has also been 0.5

employed in [7,34,49,64].

0
4.1. Optimization and computational framework

The objective in Lian et al. [53] is to improve the lift- -0.5

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
to-drag ratio of a membrane wing. The baseline (a) x/C
membrane wing shape selected is an existing design
[36] devised from solutions provided by XFOIL [18] and 2 O
O
empirical modification based on flight tests [36]. XFOIL O 2
provides two-dimensional fluid flow solutions based on 1
1.5
coupled thin layer and inviscid flow models. A schematic
baseline wing shape is shown in Fig. 5. The three Design point 3
carbon-fiber-made battens are labeled. The shading area 1
O

corresponds to the fuselage. The fuselage is made of

y(cm)

rigid carbon fiber prepreg cloth which does not deform

during the flight. A flexible latex membrane covers
the top surface which changes its shape under aero-
dynamic forces. Only the wing shape is considered by
Lian et al. [53].
The baseline wing has a variable spanwise camber.
The nominal camber of the baseline design is 7.5% at
the root, and 2% at the tip. The wing has a maximal
chord length of 13:7 cm; a mean chord of 9:4 cm; and a
span of 15:2 cm: C is used to indicate the chord length at
different span stations, and B for the half span. The
angle of attack is defined in reference to the root
geometry. At the design point, the MAV flies with a
speed of 10 m=s and an angle of attack of 6 : The
objective is to maximize the lift-to-drag ratio at such a
flight condition. At such a condition the root chord
Reynolds number is 9  104 :
The six design variables chosen by Lian et al. [53] are
the y-coordinates at six points on the surface. Three are
located at the root whose positions are approximately at
10%, 27%, and 77% of the chord, as seen in Fig. 32.
The other three are located at Batten 2 with the same
relative chord positions.
The optimization problem investigated by Lian et al.
[53] can be formulated as follows:
Maximize CL =CD
Subject to
1 : CL XCL baseline ;
ð34Þ
Y1 þ y1  y0 Y2 þ y2
2 : Convexity constraint : X ;
x1  x0 x2  x0
3 : YiL pYi pYiU ; i ¼ 1; 6:
0.5
Baseline Shape
Perturbd Shape
0
-0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(b) x/C
Fig. 32. A cross section of membrane wing along a batten:
(a) straight lines indicating how convexity constraint is applied;
(b) effect of y coordinate perturbation at a point. The design
points are located at 10%, 27%, and 77% of the chord.
Constraint 1 requires that the lift coefficient be no less
than that of the baseline wing. Constraint 2 maintains
the convexity of the airfoil (see Fig. 32(a)) so to
eliminate obviously inappropriate shapes, only one of
the six constraints is shown for illustration purpose.
Constraint 3 gives the lower and upper bound of the
design variables whose values are listed in Table 3.
In the work of Lian et al. [53] the optimization
procedure begins with the baseline design by calling the
Navier–Stokes equations solver. The optimizer then
perturbs one or more design variables for a potential
declining direction. After the perturbation, a new
computational grid is generated with the moving grid
technique discussed. Based on the design variables
values, a thin plate spline (TPS) interpolation is used
to calculate the y coordinate at other points. With TPS,
the interpolated surface has a second-order continuity
of the geometry, and, as shown in Fig. 32(b), the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
450 Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465

Table 3
Design variables bounds and their optimal values at 6

Parameter Initial Lower Upper Optimal values with Optimal values with
design bound bound 600 analysis iteration 1000 analysis iteration

X1 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.258 0.259

X2 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.400 0.400
X3 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.152 0.139
X4 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.100 0.095
X5 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.082 0.068
X6 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.135 0.121
Analysis 97 108
Cycle 6 6
CL 0.530 0.529 0.529 0.529
CL =CD 7.06 7.55 7.55

Number of analyses
with convexity violations 13 22

interpolated surface passes through all the control
points.
4.2. Rigid wing optimization
The baseline shape chosen by Lian et al. [53] has the
largest camber at the root, about 7.5% of the chord
length; it decreases to 2% at the tip. The analysis of the
baseline wing shows that the large camber near the root
can cause flow recirculation near the root. The
optimization reduces the camber near the root while
increasing the camber near the tip, as seen in Fig. 33.
The optimized shape has a more uniform camber,
gradually decreasing from 4.8% at root to 4% at tip.
This modification results in the elimination of the
recirculation in the root region. Fig. 34 shows the
streamwise velocity profiles of both baseline and
optimized rigid wings, in a location near the root on
the pressure side. It demonstrates that the reverse flow
associated with the baseline wing shape has now been
eliminated in the optimized shape. Fig. 35 illustrates the
spanwise pressure distributions of both wings. At the
root, the baseline wing yields a cross-over pressure
distribution at the leading edge, which decreases the
total lift force. The optimized shape eliminates the cross-
over. In addition, the adverse pressure gradient on
the lower surface is smoother for the optimized shape
than for the baseline; this helps explain why the
optimized wing does not experience flow separation in
that region.
The spanwise L=D distribution is depicted in Fig. 36.
The aerodynamic improvement is largely realized in the
70% of the inner wing. With a reduced camber in the
root region, the optimized shape has the largest impact
there. With a reduced camber in the root region, the
drag coefficient decreases noticeably there, which leads
to higher overall lift-to-drag ratio.
The optimization is set at the angle of attack of 6 : To
probe the performance of the optimized shape at other
angles of attack, the aerodynamic characteristics for
different angles of attack are shown in Fig. 37. Overall,
the improvement is more substantial at the modest
angles. The spanwise L=D distributions at different
angles are shown in Fig. 38. Consistently, the improve-
ment is largely realized from lowering the form drag.
4.3. Flexible wing optimization
With the surrogate optimization output, the mem-
brane wing performance is evaluated based on the
coupled fluid-structure interaction model [54]. To
investigate the spanwise force distribution at different
time instants, The overall aerodynamics of the mem-
brane wings, for both baseline and optimized shapes, is
summarized in Fig. 39. Consistent with the rigid wing
case, shown in Fig. 37, the optimized shape improves
L=D consistently with more substantial improvement at
modest angles of attack. Furthermore, between the rigid
and membrane wings, the membrane wing varies less in
L=D versus the angle of attack, indicating that it can
offer a more steady flight behavior than the rigid wing.
This final finding is consistent with that observed in
flight test [36].
5. Endplate effects on MAV aerodynamics
Tip vortex induces downwash movement that reduces
the effective angle of attack. When a wing has a
relatively low aspect ratio, such as that employed by
the MAV, the induced drag by the tip vortex is relatively
large and therefore the aerodynamic performance of the
vehicle is deteriorated. Viieru et al. [107] have reviewed
the use of the endplate to help probe the tip vortex
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465 451

Span station z/B=0 0.6

2
Baseline Baseline
Optimized 0.8 Optimized
1.5
1

1 1.2

y(cm)
y(cm)

1.4
0.5

1.6
0
1.8

-0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 2
x/C -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Streamwise velocity (m/s)
Span station z/B=0.40
2 Fig. 34. Comparison of streamwise velocity profile at the root
Baseline
1.8 Optimized between baseline and optimized shape.
1.6

1.4
inner wing by reducing the camber near the root and
1.2 increasing the camber around the tip. There is no
y(cm)

1 significant improvement near the tip. As illustrated in

0.8 Fig. 36, the lift to drag ratio drops substantially in the
tip region, apparently due to the tip vortex. Tip vortex
0.6
causes a circular movement that modifies the pressure
0.4 distribution on the wing surface. If the wing aspect ratio
0.2 is low, it can affect a large portion of the surface area.
0
Based on the lift-to-drag ratio profile, it is estimated that
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 the tip vortex affects 30% of the wing surface. Fig. 8 also
x/C
graphically illustrates tip vortex around the wing tip.
Span station z/B=0.80
2 Methods to reduce the induced drag by reducing the
Baseline tip vortex effects are described in literature and
Optimized
1.8 confirmed by actual applications of them to aircraft
wing design [50]. Viieru et al. [107] investigate the effect
1.6 of the endplate on wing aerodynamic performances as a
method to assess the induced drag. In their work, the
1.4
flow over a rigid wing at angles of attack of 6 ; 15 ; and
y(cm)

27 ; with and without the endplate, is studied. For all

1.2
the cases the endplate geometry is the same. Also for an
1 angle of attack of 6 a higher endplate is attached to the
wing tip in order to study the influence of endplate
0.8 geometry on the overall aerodynamic performance. The
endplate geometry studies by Viieru et al. [107] is shown
0.6 in Fig. 40. Two endplates with different height but
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/C otherwise identical shape, are investigated by Viieru et al.
[107]. The length of both endplates is 3:96 cm represent-
Fig. 33. Comparison between optimized shape and baseline
shape at different span positions. The camber decreases from ing 29.8% of the root chord. The height of the shorter
4.8% at the root to 4% at the tip. endplate is 1 cm while the height of the higher one is
2:4 cm:
Wing tip vortices are caused by the pressure difference
effects. The investigation is facilitated by solving the between the high-pressure region below the wing surface
Navier–Stokes equations around a rigid wing with a and the low-pressure region above the wing. This
root chord Reynolds number of 9  104 : induces a circulatory motion over the wing tip, which
As reviewed above, shape optimization shows that the affects the wing aerodynamics. The tip vortices down-
improvement is obtained largely within the 70% of the stream of the wing induce a small secondary downward
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
452 Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465

Span station z/B=0 8.5

-0.4 Optimized
Optimized Baseline
Baseline 8
-0.3
7.5
-0.2
7

cl /cd
-0.1
Cp

6.5
0
6
0.1
5.5
0.2
5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0.3 z/B
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/C 0.7
Optimized
Span station z/B=0.40 0.65 Baseline
-0.4
Optimized 0.6
Baseline
-0.3 0.55

0.5
-0.2 l
0.45
c

-0.1 0.4
Cp

0.35
0
0.3

0.1 0.25

0.2
0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
z/B
0.1
0.3 Optimized
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Baseline
x/C 0.09
Span station z/B=0.80
-0.3 0.08
Optimized
-0.25 Baseline
0.07
-0.2
d
c

-0.15 0.06

-0.1
0.05
Cp

-0.05

0 0.04

0.05
0.03
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0.1 z/B

0.15
Fig. 36. Comparisons of spanwise aerodynamic coefficients
0.2 distribution between the baseline and optimized wings at
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/C a ¼ 6 :

Fig. 35. Comparisons of pressure coefficients on baseline and

optimized wing at different spanwise locations at a ¼ 6 :
movement that drags the surrounding air around them.
The rotational energy is shed as vorticity into the wake
of a finite-span lifting wing.
The endplate deters the flow from the high-pressure
region on the lower wing surface to reach the low-
pressure region on the upper wing surface. The effective
local angle of attack in those regions is increased
compared with the same region of the wing without
endplate and as a result the lift increases.
The endplate leads to a reduction of the downwash
component in the region on the wing surface affected by
the endplate. The increase in lift near the wing tip when
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465 453

Rigid Wing Performance 10.5

9 Optimized
Baseline Baseline
Optimized 10

8.5
9.5

8 9

d
c /c
8.5
D

l
C /C

7.5
L

7 7.5

7
6.5
6.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
6 (a) z/B
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
αo
7
Rigid Wing Performance Optimized
0.36 Baseline
Baseline
Optimized
6.5
0.34

0.32 6

0.3
d
c /c

5.5
l

0.28
CL

0.26 5
0.24
4.5
0.22

0.2
4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0.18 (b) z/B
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
o
α
Fig. 38. Comparisons of spanwise lift-to-drag ratio between the
Rigid Wing Performance baseline and optimized rigid wings at different angles of attack:
0.06
Baseline (a) a ¼ 3 ; (b) a ¼ 9 :
Optimized
0.055
tion [52]. The low-pressure region associated with the
0.05
vortex core can be better visualized in Fig. 41.
0.045 The circulatory motion can be estimated by inspecting
the tangential velocity intensity pinffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Fig. ffi 42. The
D

0.04 tangential velocity is defined as: v2 þ w2 ; where v

C

0.035
and w are the vertical and lateral velocity components.
In the case of the wing without endplate an increase in
0.03 tangential velocity can be observed near the wing tip
indicating a stronger circulatory motion than in the case
0.025
of the wing with the endplate. This observation is
0.02 supported by the low-pressure vortex core region. The
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
αo tangential velocity increases in the region between the
two tip vortices where the induced velocities are summed
Fig. 37. Comparisons of the baseline and optimized rigid wings up. The presence of the endplate increases the vortex
at different angles of attack.
radius as can be seen in Fig. 42. In the case of the wing
without the endplate the vortex is more intense and the
the endplate is present is also linked with an increase in low-pressure core can be observed even further away
pressure on the lower surface of the wing behind the form the wing.
endplate. The tip vortex generates a strong circulatory Fig. 43 visualizes the pressure coefficient in the
motion at the wing tip, which is usually associated with a spanwise direction at x=C ¼ 0:44 for an angle of attack
low-pressure zone reflected in pressure coefficient varia- of 6 and with different endplate geometries. One can
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
454 Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465

Membrane Wing Performance Y

8.5
Baseline
Optimized

8 Z X

7.5
CL /CD

6.5

6
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
αo
Endplate
Membrane Wing Performance
0.34 Fig. 40. Schematic of endplate geometry and location.
Baseline
Optimized
0.32
created by the presence of the endplate affects more than
0.3 50% of the wingspan.
As the angle of attack is increased to 15 the tip
0.28
vortices strength increases and so does the low-pressure
region on the upper wing surface generated by the tip
L

0.26
C

vortex as shown in Fig. 44. The impact of the endplate

0.24 seem more confined to the immediate neighborhood.
The overall increase in lift for the wing with endplate is
0.22
diminished.
0.2 In Fig. 45 the spanwise pressure coefficients with and
without endplate at an angle of attack of 27 are plotted.
0.18
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The wing tip vortex strength increases further compar-
αo ing with the previous cases and the area affected by the
Membrane Wing Performance vortex also increases and moves closer to the wing root.
0.055
Baseline
The high-pressure region on the lower wing surface
Optimized generated by the presence of the endplate decreases as
0.05 the tip vortex radius and strength increases. Conse-
quently, more fluid is driven from the area affected by
0.045
the endplate. Due to the same effect, the low-pressure
0.04
zone associated with vortex core increases and over-
comes the effect of the endplate.
D
C

0.035 The endplate can reduce the downwash, and therefore

increases the effective angle of attack and the lift.
0.03 However, as the angle of attack becomes substantial, the
wing tip vortex is of higher strength and can no longer
0.025 clearly affect the vortex structure to improve lift.
Furthermore, drag also increases along with the end-
0.02 plate.
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
o
α

Fig. 39. The optimized membrane wing performance at

different angles of attack.
observe that on the upper surface of the wing the
influence of the endplate is limited to a region near the
tip; the rest of the wing remains unaffected. Meanwhile,
on the lower surface of the wing, the high-pressure area
6. Reduced-order representation using proper orthogonal
decomposition
POD captures intrinsic structures of a three-dimen-
sional, time dependent field via a statistical analysis of
the ensemble of data. By extracting a set of basis
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465 455

Fig. 41. Pressure contours on rigid wing at different cross sections for a ¼ 6 with and without endplate, streamlines are also plotted:
(a) without endplate; (b) with higher endplates.

functions of the spatial variables that have maximum the research of turbulence [63]. Because it can handle a
energy content, POD effectively captures the principal large amount of data and highlight the main character-
structures and also greatly reduces the data storage. In istics, this technique has been widely investigated in
fluid dynamics, POD was first employed by Lumley in numerous flow regimes and geometries. For example,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
456 Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465

Fig. 42. Tangential velocity contours on rigid wing at different cross sections for a ¼ 6 with and without endplate, streamlines are
also plotted: (a) without endplate; (b) with higher endplates.

Deane and Mavriplis [13] have used it to study the
dynamics in separated flow past thick airfoils and shown
that the vortex shedding past the airfoil can be under-
stood in terms of the interaction of pairs of modes, and
the gross features of the weakly turbulent flow past the
separated airfoil can be captured by a small set of
ordinary differential equations. Hall et al. [31] have
reported an application of their POD formulation to a
two-dimensional aeroelastic configuration. Silva and
Bartels [90] have also reported their application of this
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465 457

0.75 1.5

AoA = 6 deg AoA = 15 deg

0.7 1.4

0.65 1.3

0.6 1.2
without endplate
with shorter endplate
0.55 1.1
with higher endplate
-Cp

-Cp
without endplate
0.5 1 with shorter endplate

0.45 0.9

0.4 0.8

0.35 0.7

0.3 0.6
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
(a) z/Z (a) z/Z

0.2
0.5

AoA = 6 deg AoA = 15 deg

0.1 0.4

0.3
0
without endplate
0.2
with shorter endplate
-0.1 with higher endplate
0.1
without endplate
-Cp

-0.2
-Cp

0 with shorter endplate

-0.3 -0.1

-0.2
-0.4

-0.3
-0.5
-0.4

-0.6
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 -0.5
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
(b) z/Z (b) z/Z
Fig. 43. Spanwise pressure distribution at x=c ¼ 0:44 and
a ¼ 6 : (a) upper wing surface; (b) lower wing surface. Fig. 44. Spanwise pressure distribution at x=c ¼ 0:44 and
a ¼ 15 : (a) upper wing surface; (b) low wing surface.

technique to model the transonic flutter of the AGARD
445.6 wing. Epureanu et al. [20] have applied it in the
frequency domain to obtain a reduced-order model of
the flow in a turbomachinery cascade and shown that
the reduced-order model with only 25-degrees of free-
dom can accurately predict the unsteady response of the
full system with approximately 1  105 degrees of
freedom. Liberzon et al. [56] have used it to study the
turbulent boundary layer and demonstrated that the first
modes accurately recover the instantaneous velocity
fields. Linear combination of the first three POD modes
of the vorticity fluctuations can reproduce the coherent
patterns of vorticity in the near-wall region. Cazemier [9]
and Ahlman et al. [1] have successfully used POD to
investigate the flow structures in cavity flow. These
studies show that POD can efficiently identify the
systematic structure hidden in random fluctuations.
The recent development of this new technique has been
reviewed by Beran and Silva [6], and by Dowell and
Hall [17].
In a recent effort by Zhang et al. [114], POD is
extended to investigate a moving boundary problem.
Their investigation focuses on both velocity and
pressure fields around the wings at angles of attack of
6 and 27 : Overall, three-dimensional, time dependent
solutions for both membrane and rigid wings at 95 time
steps are collected for the POD calculations.
Zhang et al. [114] have chosen a maximal of 95
snapshot in their study. Their goal is not to get correct
time averaged values, but to check how consistent can
POD reproduce time dependent CFD results with
moving boundaries. Though only a few snapshots are
needed for the first several eigenmodes, more snapshots
are needed to ensure an accurate computation of higher
order, lower energy eigenmodes. Although the POD
analysis based on the 95 time steps solution is
insufficient for producing a correct time averaged value,
it is capable of reproducing the CFD data base used. We
summarize the results reported by Zhang et al. [114] in
the following.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
458 Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465

2.8
For POD analysis on the membrane wing, the flow
AoA = 27 deg
2.6
quantities are first interpolated from non-stationary grid
to a fixed, uniformed grid. Fig. 46 shows the comparison
2.4 of streamlines based on the interpolated velocities and
the original CFD results. Based on the interpolated
2.2
results, the POD analysis is calculated and the capability
of capturing the main structures of the flow field is
-Cp

2
demonstrated. The first three eigenmodes for 3D at
1.8
without endplate different spanwise locations are shown in Fig. 47. For
with shorter endplate
this case, Zhang et al. [114] have found that the first
1.6 eigenmode captures more than 99.8% of the total kinetic
energy. The second eigenmode, capturing the most
1.4
fluctuation energies, presents a large vortex structure
1.2
above the membrane wing and a small vortex structure
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
below it. This means that the largest velocity fluctua-
(a) z/Z
tions take place in those areas. The third eigenmode is
1.2 orthogonal to the first two, and it captures smaller
AoA = 27 deg vortices with less energy. Fig. 47 shows the first three
1
eigenmodes at two different spanwise locations. Due to
0.8 the membrane shape and the low aspect ratio of the
wing, the eigenmodes are quite different at different
0.6
locations.
0.4 without endplate To expand the investigation, the first three eigen-
modes for the flow fields with a ¼ 27 at various
-Cp

with shorter endplate

0.2
spanwise locations are shown in Fig. 48. It can be seen
0 that except for the first eigenmode, all others are
different from those for a ¼ 6 : This indicates, as
-0.2
expected, that the flow structures changes substantially
-0.4
when the angle of attack increases from 6 to 27 : Also,
the energy fractions for the first eigenmode is about
-0.6
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 99.56%, which implies the fluctuating energy at a ¼ 27
(b) z/Z is larger than that at a ¼ 6 :
Fig. 45. Spanwise pressure distribution at x=c ¼ 0:44 and
In order to better understand the POD representation
a ¼ 27 : (a) upper wing surface; (b) lower wing surface. for the membrane wing, Zhang et al. [114] also employ
the POD procedure for the rigid wing, which has the
same shape as the undeformed membrane wing. The
corresponding eigenmodes and eigenvalues for the rigid
wing flow fields are shown in Fig. 49. For both angles of
attack of 6 and 27 ; the first eigenmode shows no
vortex structures. Compared to the membrane wing
cases, the second eigenmode for the rigid wing has
different characteristics, indicating higher-order modes
exhibiting bigger differences.
Figs. 50 and 51 show how lift and drag vary when
(a) more eigenmodes are used for the reconstruction. Due to
the errors in the lift and drag, the ratio of lift over drag
also shows fluctuations. Since the viscous drag results
from the membrane wing are not easy to compute from
the fixed uniform grid, and since the main part of the
drag comes from the form drag, the L=D data in Zhang
et al. [114], excludes the consideration of the viscous
drag. Despite oscillations, the lift, drag and their ratio
(b) are close to the original values for the rigid wing when 28
Fig. 46. Streamlines on a cross surface of the membrane wing, eigenmodes are adopted for the reconstruction, despite
at the 25th time step, z=Z ¼ 0:23; and a ¼ 6 : (a) interpolated some oscillations (Fig. 52). For the membrane wing, the
streamlines; (b) original CFD results. relative error for L=D is larger (Fig. 53). This means that
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465 459

(a)

(b)

(c)
Fig. 47. Eigenmodes for 3D membrane wing at different spanwise positions and a ¼ 6 : (a) the first eigenmode: left, z=Z ¼ 48:7%;
right, z=Z ¼ 66:8%. (b) the second eigenmode: left: z=Z ¼ 48:7%; right, z=Z ¼ 66:8%. (c) the third eigenmode: left: z=Z ¼ 48:7%;
right: z=Z ¼ 66:8%.

(a)

(b)

(c)
Fig. 48. Eigenmodes for 3D membrane wing at different spanwise positions and a ¼ 27 : (a) The first eigenmode: left: z=Z ¼ 48:7%;
right: z=Z ¼ 66:8%. (b) The second eigenmode: left: z=Z ¼ 48:7%; right: z=Z ¼ 66:8%. (c) The third eigenmode: left: z=Z ¼ 48:7%;
right: z=Z ¼ 66:8%:

the moving boundary makes the POD representation of
aerodynamics less accurate. Although Zhang et al. [114]
have used 16 eigenmodes to reconstruct the L=D shown
in Fig. 53, there are still some noticeable deviations.
7. Conclusions
Recent research in MAV wing aerodynamics, shape
optimization, and reduced-order representation is re-
viewed. The membrane wing exhibits self-
initiated vibration even in the steady freestream. To
accurately simulate the mutual interaction between
the flexible membrane structure and its surrounding
viscous flow, coupled fluid and structure computations
are performed. In terms of the computational require-
ments for the coupled fluid and structure interactions,
time synchronization between the fluid solver and
structural solver significantly reduces the error caused
by phase lag, and the geometric conservation law helps
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
460 Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465

Timestep 25
0.227

0.226

0.225
(a)

L
0.224

0.223

0.222
(b) 0 20 40 60 80 100
Used POD modes
(a) Lift.

Timestep 25
0.0252

0.025

(c)
0.0248
Fig. 49. Streamline plots of the first three POD eigenmodes for
3D rigid wing flow fields at 48.7% spanwise for a ¼ 27 : (a) the
D

first eigenmode; (b) the second eigenmode; (c) the third 0.0246
eigenmode.

0.0244

maintain consistency in the context of the moving grid 0.0242

technique.
In regard to the MAV aerodynamics, it seems clear
that tip vortices play an important role for the low
aspect ratio wing. They reduce the effective angle while
bringing low-pressure regions which provide additional
lift force. The low Reynolds number flow on the upper
wing surface is prone to separate due to the adverse
pressure gradient. The separation first occurs near the
root section because of the larger camber there. Tip
vortices and separated flow cause unsteady effects on the
wing. However, the aerodynamic coefficient differences
in the aerodynamic coefficients are small for the nominal
large angles of attack considered here.
The membrane wing vibrates even in a steady
freestream; this vibration lowers the effective angle of
the membrane wing compared to the rigid wing.
Typically, the membrane wing maintains lower effective
angles of attack than the rigid wing of the same baseline
configuration. However, the shape inflation causes the
membrane wing to exhibit a larger camber than the rigid
one. Before reaching the stall limit, the time-averaged lift
and drag of the membrane wing seem to be comparable
to that of the rigid wing. Both computational and
experimental studies indicate that under steady state
freestream, the membrane vibrates with Oð100Þ Hz:
0 20 40 60 80 100
Used POD modes
(b) Drag.
Fig. 50. Lift and drag versus numbers of eigenmodes for rigid
wing at a ¼ 6 : Solid line: POD results; Dotted line: CFD
results.
It is shown that the CFD-based optimization can be
conducted in a methodical manner by using the rigid
wing as the surrogate model for the membrane wing.
Compared to the baseline, the optimization leads to
lower camber near the root and higher camber near the
tip, while still leaving the camber slightly higher at the
root than the tip. The lift-to-drag ratio improves over a
range of angles of attack. However, at large angles of
attack, the improvement with the optimized shape
diminishes, the L=D of the membrane wing varies less
with changes in the angle of attack, indicating that it can
offer a more steady flight behavior than the rigid wing.
The improvement is mostly seen within 70% of the inner
wing. The lift of the optimized wing remains the same as
the baseline wing, even though its camber is reduced
at the root. The improvement in aerodynamics of the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465 461

Timestep 25 Timestep 25
0.25 9.18

0.2
9.16

9.14
0.15
9.12
0.1
9.1

L/D
L

0.05 9.08

9.06
0
9.04
-0.05
9.02
-0.1
0 20 40 60 80 100 9
0 20 40 60 80 100
Used POD modes
(a) Used POD modes
(a) Lift .
Timestep 25 Timestep 50
0.025 10.5

0.02

0.015
10
0.01
L/D
D

0.005

0
9.5
-0.005

-0.01

-0.015
0 20 40 60 80 100 9
0 20 40 60 80 100
Used POD modes
(b) Used POD modes
(b) Drag.
Fig. 52. L=D versus numbers of eigenmodes at different time
Fig. 51. Lift and drag versus numbers of eigenmodes at the steps for rigid wing at a ¼ 6 : (a) at 25th time step; (b) at 50th
25th time step for membrane wing at a ¼ 6 : Solid line: POD time step.
results; Dotted line: CFD results.

optimized wing is largely realized via reduced form drag,
recirculation, and better pressure distributions.
The endplate increases lift by preventing the flow from
leading from the lower wing surface to the upper wing
surface. The endplate effectively reduces the downwash,
increases the effective angle of attack and consequently
increases the lift. The effectiveness of the endplate
diminishes as the angle of attack increases due to
stronger wing tip vortex. However, a higher endplate
can improve its performance. The endplate behaves as a
vertically placed airfoil, and the generated additional
force increases the drag.
POD can be employed to represent the detailed
computational results for both membrane and rigid
wings. By analyzing the energy fractions and the L2
norms between the original CFD and the POD-
reconstructed results, the convergence of the projection
of an arbitrary flow field on a number of eigenmodes is
verified. Furthermore, the first several eigenmodes can
clearly elucidate the main flow features, such as vortex
structures. Compared with the rigid wing, POD for
membrane wing has a slower convergence rate, and
needs more eigenmodes for an accurate reconstruction.
One needs substantial number of eigenmodes to
adequately reproduce the aerodynamic data, lift and
drag, for the membrane wing.
Much progress has been made in this exciting research
area. With the continuous improvement in simulation,
materials, fabrication, and measurement techniques, as
well as the fast development in micro-systems, signifi-
cant potential exists to further advance the micro air
vehicle as a vehicle platform for performing numerous
missions, and as a technology platform for evaluating
system.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
462 Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465

Timestep 25 [4] Batina J. Unsteady Euler airfoil solutions using unstruc-

9.7
tured dynamic meshes. AIAA Paper 1989-0115.
9.6 [5] Bendiksen OO. A new approach to computational
aeroelasticity. AIAA Paper 91-0939-CP, 1991.
9.5
[6] Beran PS, Silva WA. Reduced-order modeling: new
9.4 approaches for computational physics. AIAA Paper
2001-0853.
9.3
[7] Burgee S, Giunta AA, Narducci R, Watson LT,
L/D

9.2 Grossman B, Haftka RT. A coarse grained parallel

9.1
variable-complexity multidisciplinary optimization para-
digm. Int J Supercomput Appl High Performance
9 Comput 1996;10:269–99.
8.9 [8] Carmichael BH. Low Reynolds number airfoil survey.
NASA CR-165803, 1981.
8.8 [9] Cazemier W. Proper orthogonal decomposition and low
8.7 dimensional models for turbulent flows. University
0 20 40 60 80 100
Library Groningen, Groningen, 1997.
(a) Used POD modes [10] Chasman D, Chakravarthy S. Computational and
experimental studies of asymmetric pitch/plunge flap-
Timestep 50
9.4 ping—the secret of biological flyers. AIAA Paper 2001-
0859.
9.3 [11] Crompton MJ, Barrett RV. Investigation of the separa-
tion bubble formed behind the sharp leading edge of a flat
9.2
plate at incidence. J Aerospace Eng 2000;214:157–76.
[12] Cummings RM, Morton SA, Siegel SG, Bosscher S.
Numerical prediction and wind tunnel experiment for a
9.1
pitching unmanned combat air vehicle. AIAA Paper
L/D

2003-0417.
9
[13] Deane AE, Mavriplis C. Low-dimensional description of
the dynamics in separated flow past thick airfoils. AIAA J
8.9
1994;32:1222–7.
[14] DeLaurier JD. An aerodynamic model for flapping wing
8.8
flight. Aeronautical Journal 1993;97:125–30.
[15] Dickinson MH, Lehmann F, Sane SP. Wing rotation
8.7 and the aerodynamic basis of insect flight. Science
0 20 40 60 80 100
(b) Used POD modes 1999;284:1954–60.
[16] Ding H, Yang B, Lou M, Fang H. New numerical
Fig. 53. L=D versus numbers of eigenmodes at different time method for two-dimensional partially wrinkled mem-
steps for membrane wing at a ¼ 6 : (a) at 25th time step; (b) at branes. AIAA J 2003;41:125–32.
50th time step. [17] Dowell EH, Hall KC. Modeling of fluid-structure
interaction. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 2001;33:445–90.
[18] Drela M, Giles MB. Viscous-inviscid analysis of transonic
and low Reynolds number airfoils. AIAA J 1987;25:
Acknowledgements
1347–55.
[19] Ellington CP. The aerodynamics of hovering insect flight,
The present work is supported by US Air Force. We I. The quasi-steady analysis. Philos Trans R Soc London
have benefited from interacting with Dr. Peter Ifju and Ser A 1984;35:1–15.
his students, and Dr. Raphael Haftka. [20] Epureanu B, Hall K, Dowell E. Reduced-order models of
unsteady viscous flows in turbomachinery using viscous-
inviscid coupling. J Fluids Struct 2001;15:255–73.
[21] Eriksson LE. Generation of boundary-confirming grids
References around wing-body configurations using transfinite inter-
polation. AIAA J 1982;20:1313–20.
.
[1] Ahlman D, Soderlund F, Jackson J, Kurdila A, Shyy W. [22] Gad-el-Hak M. Micro-air-vehicles: can they be controlled
Proper orthogonal decomposition for time-dependent lid- better. J Aircraft 2001;38:419–29.
driven cavity flows. Numer. Heat Transfer Part B: [23] Gault DE. An investigation at low speed of the flow over
Fundam 2002;42:285–306. a simulated flat plate at small angles of attack using pitot
[2] Anderson Jr. JD. Introduction to flight, 3rd ed. New static and hot-wire probes. 1957, NACA TN-3876.
York: McGraw-Hill; 1989. [24] Gordnier RE, Fithen R. Coupling of a nonlinear finite
[3] Bathe KJ. Finite element procedures. Englewood, NJ: element structural method with a Navier–Stokes solver.
Prentice-Hall; 1996. Comput Struct 2003;81:75–89.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465
[25] Gordnier RE, Visbal MR. Development of a three-
dimensional viscous aeroelastic solver for nonlinear panel
flutter. J Fluids Struct 2002;16:497–527.
[26] Grasmeyer JM, Keennon MT. Development of the black
widow micro air vehicle. AIAA Paper 2001-0127.
[27] Green AE, Adkins JE. Large elastic deformations.
Oxford: The Clarendon Press; 1960.
[28] Farhat C, Geuzaine P, Brown G. Application of a three-
field nonlinear fluid–structure formulation to the predic-
tion of the aeroelastic parameters of an F-16 fighter.
Comput Fluids 2003;32:3–29.
[29] Farhat C, Geuzaine P, Grandmont C. The discrete
geometric conservation law and the nonlinear stability
of ALE schemes for the solution of flow problems on
moving grids. J Comput Phys 2001;174:669–94.
[30] Farhat C, Lesoinne M. Two efficient staggered algo-
rithms for the serial and parallel solution of three-
dimensional nonlinear transient aeroelastic problems.
Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2000;182:499–515.
[31] Hall KC, Thomas JP, Dowell EH. Proper orthogonal
decomposition technique for transonic unsteady aero-
dynamic flow. AIAA J 2000;38:1853–62.
[32] Hartwich PM, Agrawal S. Method for perturbing multi-
block patched grids in aeroelastic and design optimiza-
tion applications. AIAA Paper 1997-2038.
[33] Herbert T. Parabolized stability equations. Annu Rev
Fluid Mech 1997;29:245–83.
[34] Hutchison MG, Unger ER, Mason WH, Grossman B,
Haftka RT. Variable-complexity aerodynamic optimiza-
tion of a high-speed civil transport wing. J Aircraft
1994;31:110–6.
[35] Ifju PG, Ettinger S, Jenkins D, Martinez L. Composite
materials for micro air vehicles. SAMPE J 2001;37:7–12.
[36] Ifju P, Jenkins D, Ettinger S, Lian Y, Shyy W, Waszak
RM. Flexible-wing-based micro air vehicles. AIAA Paper
2002-0705.
[37] Issa RI. Solution of the implicitly discretised fluid flow
equations by operator-splitting. J Comput Phys
1985;62:40–65.
[38] Jackson PS, Christie GW. Numerical analysis of three-
dimensional elastic membrane wings. AIAA J
1987;25:676–82.
[39] Jameson A. Time dependent calculations using multigrid,
with applications to unsteady flows past airfoils and
wings. AIAA Paper 1991-1596.
[40] Jenkins CH. Nonlinear dynamic response of membranes:
state of the art–update. Appl Mech Rev 1996;49:S41–8.
[41] Jenkins CH, Leonard JW. Nonlinear dynamic response of
membranes: state of the art. Appl Mech Rev
1991;44:319–28.
[42] Jones BM, Stalling JR. Aeronaut Soc 1938;38:747–70.
[43] Jones KD, Platzer MF. An experimental and numerical
investigation of flapping-wing propulsion. AIAA Paper
1999-0995.
[44] Jones KD, Platzer MF. Flapping-wing propulsion for a
micro air vehicle. AIAA Paper 2000-0897.
[45] Jones KD, Platzer MF. Experimental investigation of the
aerodynamic characteristics of flapping-wing micro air
vehicles. AIAA Paper 2003-0418.
[46] Kalro V, Tezduyar TE. A parallel 3D computational
method for fluid-structure interactions in parachute
463
systems. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
2000;190:321–32.
[47] Kamakoti R, Berg M, Ljungqvist D, Shyy W. A
computational study for biological flapping wing flight.
Trans Aeronaut Astronaut Soc Republic China
2000;32:265–79 [Keynote Paper].
[48] Katz J. Low-speed aerodynamics: from wing theory to
panel methods. San Francisco, CA: Mc-Graw-Hill; 1979.
[49] Knill DL, Giunta AA, Baker CA, Grossman B, Mason
WH, Haftka RT, Watson LT. Response surface methods
combining linear and euler aerodynamics for supersonic
transport design. J Aircraft 1999;36:75–86.
[50] La Roche U, Palffy S. Wing grid, a novel device for
reduction of induced drag on wings. ICAS 1996,
Sorrento, Italy.
[51] Lian Y. Membrane and adaptively-shaped wings for
micro air vehicles. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Florida, Gainesville, FL, 2003.
[52] Lian Y, Shyy W. Three-dimensional fluid-structure
interactions of a membrane wing for micro air vehicle
applications. AIAA Paper 2003-1726.
[53] Lian Y, Shyy W, Haftka R. shape optimization
of a membrane wing for micro air vehicles. AIAA Paper
2003-0106.
[54] Lian Y, Shyy W, Ifju P, Verron E. A computational
model for coupled membrane-fluid dynamics. AIAA
Paper 2002-2972.
[55] Lian Y, Steen J, Trygg-Wilander M, Shyy W. Low
Reynolds number turbulent flows around a dynamically
shaped airfoil. Comput Fluids 2003;32:287–303.
[56] Liberzon A, Gurka R, Hetsroni G. Vorticity character-
ization in a turbulent boundary layer using PIV and POD
analysis. 4th International Symposium on Particle Image
Velocimetry, Germany, September 17–19, 2001.
[57] Lighthill MJ. Hydromechanics of aquatic animal propul-
sion. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 1969;1:413–45.
[58] Lissaman PBS. Low-Reynolds-number airfoils. Annu
Rev Fluid Mech 1983;15:223–39.
[59] Liu F, Zhu Y, Tsai HM, Wong ASF. Calculation of wing
flutter by a coupled fluid-structure method. J Aircraft
2001;38:334–42.
[60] Liu H, Kawachi K. A numerical study of insect flight.
J Comput Phys 1998;146:124–56.
[61] Liu HT. Unsteady aerodynamics of a wortmann wing at
low Reynolds number. J Aircraft 1992;29:532–9.
[62] Lorillu O, Hureau J. Numerical and experimental
analysis of two-dimensional separated flows over a
flexible sail. J Fluid Mech 2002;466:319–41.
[63] Lumley JL. The structure of inhomogeneous turbulent
flows. In: Yaglom AM, Tararsky VI, editors. Atmo-
spheric turbulence and radio wave propagation. Moscow:
Nauka; 1967. p. 166–78.
[64] Mason BH, Haftka RT, Johnson ER, Farley GL.
Variable complexity design of composite fuselage frames
by response surface techniques. Thin Wall Struct
1998;32:235–61.
[65] Mooney M. A theory of large elastic deformation. J Appl
Phys 1940;11:582–92.
[66] Mueller TJ, editor. Proceedings of the Conference on
Low Reynolds Number Aerodynamics. University of
Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, 1989.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
464 Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465
[67] Mueller TJ, editor. Proceedings of the Conference on
Fixed, Flapping and Rotary Wing Vehicles at Very Low
Reynolds Numbers. University of Notre Dame, Notre
Dame, IN, 2000.
[68] Mueller TJ, DeLaurier JD. Aerodynamics of small
vehicles. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 2003;35:89–111.
[69] Nelsen JN. Theory of flexible aerodynamics surfaces.
J Appl Mech 1963;30:435–42.
[70] Newman BG. Aerodynamics theory for membrane and
sails. Progress Aerospace Sci 1987;24:1–27.
[71] Oden JT, Sato T. Finite strains and displacements of
elastic membranes by the finite element method. Int J
Solids Struct 1967;3:471–88.
[72] Oliveira PJ, Issa RI. An implicit PISO algorithm for the
computation of buoyancy-driven flows. Numer Heat
Transfer Part B 2001;40:473–93.
[73] Patankar SV, Spalding DB. A calculation procedure for
heat, mass and momentum transfer in three-dimensional
parabolic flows. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 1972;15:
1787–806.
[74] Pelletier A, Mueller TJ. Low Reynolds number aero-
dynamics of low-aspect-ratio, thin/flat/cambered-plate
wings. J Aircraft 2000;37:825–32.
[75] Pulliam T. Time accuracy and the use of implicit
methods. AIAA Paper 93-3360-CP, 1993.
[76] Reed HL, Saric WS. Linear stability theory applied
to boundary layers. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 1996;28:
389–428.
[77] Rempfer D. Low-dimensional modeling and numerical
simulation of transition in simple shear flows. Annu Rev
Fluid Mech 2003;35:229–65.
[78] Reuther J, Alonso JJ, Rimlinger MJ, Jameson A.
Aerodynamic shape optimization of supersonic aircraft
configuration via an adjoint formulation on distributed
memory parallel computers. Comput Fluids 1999;28:
675–700.
[79] Robinson BA, Batina JT, Yang HTY. Aeroelastic
analysis of wings using the Euler equations with a
deforming mesh. J Aircraft 1991;28:781–8.
[80] Rumsey CL, Sanetrik MD, Biedron RT, Melson ND,
Parlette EB. Efficiency and accuracy of time-accurate
turbulent Navier–Stokes computations. Comput Fluids
1996;25:217–36.
[81] Schmit R, Glauser M, Gorton S. Low dimensional tools
for flow-structure interaction problems: application to
micro air vehicles. AIAA Paper 2003-0626.
[82] Schuster DM, Liu DD, Huttsell LJ. Computational
aeroelasticity: success, progress, challenge. AIAA Paper
2003-1725.
[83] Schuster D, Vadyak J, Atta E. Static aeroelastic analysis
of fighter aircraft using a three-dimensional Navier–
Stokes algorithm. J Aircraft 1990;27:820–5.
[84] Shyy W. Computational modeling for fluid flow and
interfacial transport. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
Elsevier; 1994.
[85] Shyy W, Berg M, Ljungqvist D. Flapping and flexible
wings for biological and micro vehicles. Process Aero-
space Sci 1999;35:455–506.
[86] Shyy W, Jenkins DA, Smith RW. Study of adaptive shape
airfoils at low Reynolds number in oscillatory flow.
AIAA J 1997;35:1545–8.
[87] Shyy W, Mittal R. Solution methods for the incompres-
sible Navier–Stokes equations. In: Johnson R, editor.
Handbook of fluid dynamics. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press; 1998. p. 31-1 to 31-33.
[88] Shyy W, Smith RW. Computation of Laminar Flow and
Flexible Structure Interaction. In: Hafez M, Oshima K,
editors. Computational fluid dynamics review. New
York: Wiley; 1995. p. 777–96.
[89] Shyy W, Udaykumar HS, Rao MM, Smith RW.
Computational fluid dynamics with moving boundaries.
Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis; 1996.
[90] Silva WA, Bartels RE. Development of reduced-order
models for aeroelastic analysis and flutter prediction using
the CFL3DV6.0 Code. AIAA Paper 2002-1596, 2002.
[91] Smith MJ. Computational considerations of an Euler/
Navier–Stokes aeroelastic method for a hovering rotor.
J Aircraft 1996;33:429–34.
[92] Smith MJ, Hodges DH, Cesnik CES. Evaluation of
computational algorithms suitable for fluid–structure
interactions. J Aircraft 2000;37:282–94.
[93] Smith RW, Shyy W. Computational model of flexible
membrane wings in steady laminar flow. AIAA J
1995;33:1769–77.
[94] Smith RW, Shyy W. Incremental potential flow based
membrane wing element. AIAA J 1997;35:782–8.
[95] Subbaraj K, Dokainish MA. A survey of direct time-
integration methods in computational structural dy-
namics—II. Implicit methods. Comput Struct 1989;32:
1387–401.
[96] Tani I. Low-speed flows involving bubble separations.
.
In: Kuchemann D, l. Sterne HG, editors. Progress in
aeronautical science, vol. 5. New York: Pergamon; 1964,
p. 70–103.
[97] Templin RJ. The spectrum of animal flight: insects to
pterosaurs. Progress Aerospace Sci 2000;36:393–436.
[98] Thakur S, Wright J, Shyy W. STREAM: a computational
fluid dynamics and heat transfer Navier–Stokes solver.
Theory and applications. Streamline Numerics, Inc., and
Computational Thermo-Fluids Laboratory, Department
of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Technical
Report, Gainesville, Florida, 2002.
[99] Thaokar RM, Kumaran V. Stability of fluid flow past a
membrane. J Fluid Mech 2002;472:29–50.
[100] Thomas PD, Lombard CK. Geometric conservation law
and its application to flow computations on moving grids.
AIAA J 1979;17:1030–7.
[101] Thwaites B. Aerodynamics theory of sails—Part I. Proc R
Soc 1961;A261:402–42.
[102] Torres GE, Mueller TJ. Aerodynamic characteristics of
low aspect ratio wings at low Reynolds number. In:
Mueller TJ, editor. Fixed and flapping wing aerody-
namics for micro air vehicle applications, vol. 195.
Reston, VA: AIAA; 2001. p. 191–213.
[103] Van Doormaal JP, Raithby GD. Enhancements of the
SIMPLE method for predicting incompressible fluid
flows. Numer Heat Transfer 1985;67:147–63.
[104] Verron E, Marckmann G, Peseux B. Dynamic inflation of
non-linear elastic and viscoelastic rubber-like membranes.
Int J Numer Mech Eng 2001;50:1233–51.
[105] Vest NS. Unsteady aerodynamic model of flapping wings.
AIAA J 1996;34:1435–40.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Lian et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 39 (2003) 425–465
[106] Vest MS, Katz J. Aerodynamic study of a flapping wing,
micro-UAV. AIAA 1999-0994.
[107] Viieru D, Lian Y, Shyy W. Investigation of tip vortex on
aerodynamic performance of a micro air vehicle. AIAA
Paper 2003-3597.
[108] Voelz K. Profil und Luftriebeines Segels. ZAMM
1950;30:301–17.
[109] Wang ZJ. Vortex shedding and frequency selection in
flapping flight. J Fluid Mech 2000;410:323–41.
[110] Waszak RM, Jenkins NL, Ifju P. Stability and control
properties of an aeroelastic fixed wing micro aerial
vehicle. AIAA Paper 2001-4005.
[111] Weis-Fogh T. Quick estimates of flight fitness in hovering
animals, including novel mechanisms for lift production.
J Exp Biol 1973;59:169–230.
465
[112] Wilson EL, Farhoomand I, Bathe KJ. Nonlinear
dynamic analysis of complex structures. Earthquake
Eng Struct Dyn 1973;1:241–52.
[113] Young AD, Horton HP. Some results of investigation of
separation bubbles. AGARD CP 1966;4:779–811.
[114] Zhang BN, Lian Y, Shyy W. Proper orthogonal
decomposition for three-dimensional membrane wing
aerodynamics. AIAA Paper 2003-3917.
[115] Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL. The finite element
method: solid and fluid mechanics dynamics and
non-linearity, vol. II. New York: MacGraw-Hill;
1989.
[116] Zwaan RJ, Prananta BB. Fluid/structure interaction in
numerical aeroelastic simulation. Int J Non-Linear Mech
2002;37:987–1002.