See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/385312858

The optimal spanwise effective angle of attack in flapping-wing propulsion

Conference Paper · December 2024

CITATIONS READS

0 122

5 authors, including:

Bruce Ruishu Jin John Young

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation UNSW Sydney
4 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS 144 PUBLICATIONS 4,180 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Fang-Bao Tian
UNSW Sydney
167 PUBLICATIONS 3,837 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Fang-Bao Tian on 28 October 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

24th Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference - AFMC2024
Canberra, Australia Paper No: AFMC2024-999
1-5 December 2024

The optimal spanwise effective angle of attack in flapping-wing propulsion

2∗
Bruce Ruishu Jin1, , Gerald Pereira2 , Sridhar Ravi1 , John Young1 and Fang-Bao Tian1
1
School of Engineering and Technology, The University of New South Wales, Canberra ACT 2600, Australia
2
CSIRO Data61, Private Bag 10, Clayton South, VIC 3169, Australia
∗
mailto: Ruishu.jin@data61.csiro.au

Abstract
The effects of the twisting-induced variation in the effective angle of attack, αe f f , on the aerodynamics and the
leading edge vortex (LEV) of a flapping wing are investigated using the lattice Boltzmann method (LBM) and
an immersed boundary method (IBM). If the wing is rigid during the flapping flight, αe f f of the outer portion
of the wing would exceed a reasonable range. Wing deformation has been known to be able to improve flight
efficiency, which adjusts αe f f along the wing span to maintain it within a reasonable range during flapping
◦ ◦ ◦
flight. In the simulations, the maximum αe f f at the wing tip is set from 9 to 54 in steps of 9 in this work.
It is found that the wing achieves the highest propulsive efficiency by reallocating the force production in the
streamwise and spanwise directions when the maximum αe f f at the wing tip is 27◦ .
1 Introduction
It is known that large flying creatures adopt gliding and flapping, while small animals, like small birds and
insects, fly by beating their wings powerfully with high frequency (Azuma, 2012; Shyy et al., 2008). Wing
deformation is typical for insects and birds, and it has been known to improve flying efficiency (Young et al.,
2014; Shyy et al., 2010; Tian et al., 2013; Dai et al., 2012). Birds and insects adopt both passive and active
wing deformation to interact with the flow to achieve both high flying efficiency and high manoeuvrability.
Meanwhile, the wing deformation also tunes αe f f along the wing span to maintain it within a reasonable range
during flapping flight to avoid stall.
Usually, the active wing deformation is considered to be the wing deformation controlled by the muscle and
skeleton. It is typical for birds to twist their wings from the wing root to the wing tip to maintain a reasonable
αe f f profile along the wing span. Compared to passive wing twisting, the flying efficiency of a robotic bird with
active twisting could be improved further (Mackenzie, 2012) because it precisely tunes αe f f along the wing
span. A proper effective angle of attack is essential for producing lift or thrust in flapping flight. Anderson et
al. (1998) and Read et al. (2003) found that a two-dimensional aerofoil generates the thrust with high efficiency
at optimal Strouhal number and αe f f . Therefore, it is plausible to question whether there is an optimal αe f f
along the wing span during the flapping flight for three-dimensional flapping wings (Thielicke & Stamhuis,
2018). Many previous studies suggested that spanwise twisting enables birds to fly at their optimal, favorable,
or most efficient αe f f (Thomas & Hedenström, 1998; Alexander, 2002; Azuma, 2012).
However, the optimal twisting angle during flapping flight is not determined, and the value is also not
confirmed (Usherwood & Ellington, 2002). Thielicke & Stamhuis (2018) adopt indirect force measurements on
the wing with the twisting effects, but the effects of the wing twisting on the LEV development are unexplored.
Zurman et al. (2021) studied the aspect ratio (AR) effect on a rolling and twisting three-dimensional aerofoil.
However, the effects of the twisting on the propulsive performance and the LEV evolution are not detailed. A
systematic parameter study on the effects of twisting angle is desired. The objective of this work is to study the
spanwise twisting effects on aerodynamic performance, focusing on propulsive force generation, propulsive
efficiency, and the LEV evolution.

2 Governing equations and the physical model

The incompressible Navier-Stokes equations, equations (1), are the governing equations for the hydrody-
namics of the system,
∇ · u = 0, (1a)
∂u 1
+ u · ∇u = −∇p + ∇2 u + f, (1b)
∂t Re

Copyright is held by the author(s) through the Creative Commons BY-NC 4.0 License
 where u, p, f, and Re are the dimensionless velocity, pressure, body force density, and Reynolds number,
respectively. A three-dimensional rectangular thin flat-plate flapping wing undergoing flapping and twisting is

Figure 1. A rectangular flat-plate flapping wing making a flapping motion about the x axis and a twisting
motion from the root to the tip about the z axis.

shown in figure 1, where U∞ is the freestream velocity, c is the wing chord length, b is the spanwise length,
XY Z is the orientation of the inertial reference frame, and xyz coloured in red is the reference frame attached
to the wing root. In the simulations, c and b are set to be 1 and 3, respectively, resulting in the AR of 3, within
the range of the AR of insects and small birds Azuma (2012). The Reynolds number in equation (1) is defined
as Re = cU∞ /ν, where ν is the kinematic viscosity, fixed at 1500 in this work. The wing is making a flapping
motion defined by φ(t) about the x axis and a twisting motion from the root to the tip about the z axis, where
the twisting angle reaches the maximum value at the wing tip. The flapping angle and the prescribed effective
angle of attack along the wing span are described as follows:
φ(t) = φ0 cos(2π f t), (2a)
αe f f (t, z) = αe f f ,max /b(z − zroot ) cos(2π f t − π/2), (2b)
where φ0 is the amplitude of the flapping angle, f is the flapping frequency, αe f f (t, z) is the estimated instan-
taneous effective angle of attack at a spanwise location, z, and αe f f ,max is the prescribed maximum effective
angle of attack at the wing tip. To achieve the prescribed αe f f along the wing span, the twisting angle from the
root to the tip is evaluated as follows:
Θ(t, z) = −(αe f f (t, z) − arctan(φ̇(t)(z − zroot ))). (3)
◦
In the simulations, the peak-to-peak flapping amplitude, 2φ0 , is set to be 64 according to the flapping angle
 of
small birds during cruise (Rosén et al., 2004). f varies according to the Strouhal number, StA = f (π2φ0 b) U∞ ,
varying from 0.4 to 1.0 with an increment of 0.1 in the simulations covering the efficient StA range for swim-
ming and flying (Taylor el al., 2003) during the cruise.

3 Numerical methods and simulation setups

3.1 Lattice Boltzmann method
LBM is an alternative method to solve Navier-Stokes equations, equation (1), at a low Mach number (M <
0.1) with the advantage of simplicity and intrinsic parallel calculation (Chen & Doolen, 1998; Krüger et al.,
2017). The discrete lattice Boltzmann equation solves the flow dynamics:
fi (x + ei ∆t,t + ∆t) − fi (x,t) = Ωi (x,t) + ∆tGi , (4a)
1
Ωi (x,t) = (1 − ) fineq , (4b)
τ

2
where fi (x,t) is the probability distribution function of the moving particles with velocity ei , and τ is the
dimensionless relaxation time, √defined as τ = ν/(c2s ∆t) + 1/2, where cs is the ideal sound speed in the LBM
model, defined as cs = ∆x/(∆t 3). fineq is the non-equilibrium part of the probability distribution function
used in the collision model, equation (4b). The equilibrium distribution function, fieq is evaluated as follows:
 ei · u uu : (ei ei − c2s I) 
fieq = ωi ρ 1 + 2 + , (5)
cs 2c4s
The collision model used in this work is the recursive regularised (RR) collision model, which improves the
numerical stability and accuracy (Latt & Chopard, 2006; Coreixas et al, 2017). To avoid being verbose, the
equations for evaluating fieq in the RR collision model can be found in Coreixas et al (2017). Gi is the source
term used to model the body force. The source scheme adopted here is proposed by Guo et al. (2002):
1 ei − u ei · u
Gi = (1 − )ωi ( 2 + 4 ei ) · f. (6)
2τ cs cs
where ωi is the weight coefficient determined by the specific lattice model. In this work, the D3Q19 lattice
model is adopted because of the good balance of its accuracy and computational cost. The fluid density,
pressure, and velocity can be evaluated according to the following equations:
!,
1
ρ = ∑ fi , p = ρc2s , and u = ∑ ei fi + f∆t ρ. (7)
i i 2

3.2 Feedback immersed boundary method

The immersed boundary method was initially developed to investigate blood flow in a heart by Peskin
(2002). Due to its ability to handle complex geometries and fluid-structure interactions involving significant
deformations, the method has been effectively utilised in diverse applications (Mittal & Iaccarino, 2005; Huang
& Tian, 2019; Griffith & Patankar, 2020). In the present work, a feedback immersed boundary method (Gold-
stein et al., 1993), Equation (8), is adopted due to its efficiency and simplicity. In a feedback IBM, a body
force, f, is applied near the solid boundary to achieve the no-slip boundary condition:
Z
f=− F(s,t)δ(x − X(s,t),t)dA, (8a)

F = βρ(x,t)(Uib (s,t) − U(s,t)), (8b)

Z
Uib (s,t) = u(x,t)δ(x − X(s,t),t)dx, (8c)

where F is the Lagrangian force on the structure element at X(s,t), dA is the surface area of the structure
element, δ(x,t) is the Dirac delta function, β = 2.6 is the feedback coefficient (Huang et al., 2022), Uib (s,t)
is the velocity on the structure element interpolated from the velocity field of fluid, and U(s,t) is the moving
velocity of the structure element. In the simulations, the smooth Dirac delta function is replaced by the discrete
delta function, δh , proposed by Peskin (2002):
1  x   y   z 
δh (x) = φ φ φ , (9a)
∆x∆y∆z ∆x ∆y ∆z
 
1 p
2


 3 − 2|r| + 1 + 4|r| − 4r 0 ≤ |r| < 1,
8


φ(r) = 1 (9b)
 p 
5 − 2|r| − −7 + 12|r| − 4r 2 1 ≤ |r| < 2,
8




0 |r| ≥ 2.


3.3 Simulation setup and Mesh dependency studies

As shown in figure 2, a multi-block mesh is employed to increase the computational efficiency and accu-
racy, where the finer mesh is applied near the wing to resolve the small scales, and the coarse blocks with a
coarsening ratio of 2 are applied away from the wing to reduce the computational expense. The computational
domain spans from (−15c, −15c, −15c) to (30c, 15c, 15c) in the streamwise, vertical, and spanwise directions.

3
 Figure 2. A top-port view of the finest three mesh blocks.

The velocity boundary condition, u = (U∞ , 0, 0), and the zero gradient pressure boundary condition, ∇p = 0,
are applied on the boundaries of the domain except for the outlet surface, on which the zero gradient velocity
boundary condition and the constant pressure boundary condition are applied. The simulations are run for five
flapping cycles to achieve a steady state, and the results in the last flapping cycle are used to conduct analy-
sis. To measure the aerodynamic force of the flapping wing, the thrust, the lift, the side force, and the power
consumption coefficients are defined as follows:
−Fx Fy Fz F·U
CD = −CT = 2
, CL = 2
, CZ = 2
, CP = (10)
1/2ρ0 AU∞ 1/2ρ0 AU∞ 1/2ρ0 AU∞ 1/2ρ0 AU∞3
where Fx , and Fz are the force components on the flapping wing in the +X, and +Z directions, respectively.
The propulsive efficiency is defined as:
CT U∞
η= , (11)
CP
where CT is the average thrust coefficient during a flapping cycle.
To study the effects of the grid resolution on the computational results, simulations with three mesh res-
◦
olutions are conducted at Rec = 4500 for StA = 0.6, α0 = 36 , and Φ = 0. ∆x = c/64 is the grid resolution
in the finest block for the coarse mesh setup, ∆x = c/128 is the grid size in the finest block for the medium
mesh setup, and ∆x = c/256 is the grid size in the finest block for the fine mesh setup. The time histories of the
thrust, lift, and side force coefficients are shown in figure 3. With increasing the mesh resolution, the difference
in the CD decreases, where the viscous friction on the wing is resolved well by using medium and fine grids.
CL and CZ are dominated by the pressure-induced force, which are less sensitive to the grid resolution. It can
be seen that the simulation results at Re = 4500 are accurate enough using the medium mesh setup. Therefore,
simulation results at Re = 1500 using the medium mesh setup must be converged.

4 Results and discussions

The average thrust and side force coefficients normalised by the resultant force coefficient, CF = F/(1/2ρ0 AU∞2 ),
are shown in figure 4 to demonstrate the effects of spanwise twisting. As shown in figures 4(a) and 4(b), with
increasing twisting angle (decreasing αe f f ,max ), the thrust decreases, and the side force increases. Regardless
of the flapping frequency, all the lines at each αe f f ,max collapse onto each other except for that with StA = 0.4,
which deviates from others, especially for CZ /CF . It can be seen that the functions of wing twisting in terms of
force production are similar for the high-speed cruise (low StA ) and the low-speed cruise (high StA ). As shown
in figure 4(c), CF is plotted in a polar coordinate system, where the azimuthal angle measures the angle between
the leading edge (+z) and the resultant force vector, and the radius is the magnitude of CF . With increasing
αe f f ,max , the resultant force on the wing rotates toward the propulsion direction for each StA . At a low StA , the
magnitude of the resultant force decreases, similar to the stall observed on a fixed-wing aircraft. The contour

4
 2.6
0 1.8
1
-0.5 0.2
-0.6
-1 -1.4
-2.2
-1.5 -3
4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5

(a) (b)
1

0.5

-0.5
4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2

(c)

Figure 3. Effects of grid resolution on the (a) drag, (b) lift, and (c) side force coefficients at Rec = 4500.

of the propulsive efficiency, η, on the StA − αmax plane is shown in figure 5. It can be seen that there is an
optimal effective angle of attack along the span for the flapping wing at each StA , where the highest propulsive
◦
efficiency can be achieved around StA = 0.6 and αe f f = 27 . The optimal StA for the propulsion in this work is
within the range found by Taylor el al. (2003) if the StA is calculated based on the average heaving amplitude
◦
along the wing span. Moreover, the average optimal αe f f ,max along the span is 13.5 , which is also close to
that found for a two-dimensional flapping foil (Schouveiler et al., 2005). It can be found that the spanwise
twisting in a proper range could increase the propulsive efficiency by reallocating resultant force production in
the streamwise and spanwise directions and decreasing the power consumption of the flapping motion due to
the smaller wing projection area to the XZ plane.
The three-dimensional flow structures identified by the iso-surface of Q-Criterion coloured by the pressure
◦ ◦ ◦
coefficient at StA = 0.6 and αe f f ,max = 9 , 27 , 45 are shown in figure 6. At t/T = 1/8, the beginning of
the downstroke, the shear layer rolls up into the LEV at the outer region of the wing for all cases. The LEV
◦
formation for αe f f ,max = 9 is not obvious as those with a higher αe f f ,max , where the LEV seems does not pinch
◦
off from its downstream boundary layer. Regarding the tip vortex (TV), it can be observed for αe f f ,max = 9
◦
at this time instant. At αe f f ,max = 45 , the pressure in the LEV and the TV is much lower than that at a lower
αe f f ,max . Later, at t/T = 2/8, a LEV tube with low pressure oriented in the wing spanwise direction (+z)
◦ ◦
can be observed for αe f f ,max = 27 and 45 , where the LEV tilted into +x direction. The vortex burst occurs
at the outer portion of the wing, where the cross-section area of the LEV suddenly increases from a certain
spanwise location, about z/b = 0.7. After the vortex burst, the cores of the LEV cannot maintain low pressure.
◦
At αe f f ,max = 45 , more substructures develop surrounding the TV due to the higher local Re for the shear layer
◦
feeding into those vortical structures. Regarding αe f f ,max = 9 , the LEV is small on the outer region of the
wing, and the LEV tube mentioned at a higher αe f f ,max does not occur. At t/T = 3/8, the LEV on the outer
◦ ◦
portion of the wing loses its coherent shape and detached from the wing surface for αe f f ,max = 27 and 45 .
However, the low-pressure LEV tube remains attached to the wing, which indicates that the LEV from the
root to the mid-span of the wing continues to provide suction force to the wing. At the end of the downstroke
motion, at t/T = 4/8, the LEV fully detaches from the wing due to the wing rotation at the beginning of the
upstroke motion.

5
 1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50°

(a) (b)

90°
60°

30°

0°
0 1 2
(c)

Figure 4. The average (a) thrust and (b) side force coefficients normalized by the average resultant force
coefficient at Rec = 1500. (c) the polar plot of the magnitude and the direction of CF at Rec = 1500.

0.35
50°
0.3
40° 0.25
0.2
30°
0.15
20° 0.1
0.05
10°
0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5. Contour of the propulsive efficiency, η, on the StA − αmax plane at Rec = 1500

5 Conclusions
Numerical simulations are conducted to study the effects of effective angle of attack along the wing span
caused by the linear twisting from the root to the tip on the aerodynamic force and the LEV development.

6
 ◦ ◦ ◦
αe f f ,max = 9 αe f f ,max = 27 αe f f ,max = 45

t/T = 1/8

t/T = 2/8

t/T = 3/8

t/T = 4/8

Figure 6. The three-dimensional vortex structures identified by Q∗ = 50 coloured by the pressure coefficient at
◦ ◦ ◦
StA = 0.6 and αe f f ,max = 9 , 27 , 45 .

For each StA , there is an optimal maximum effective angle of attack at the wing tip regarding the propulsive
efficiency. Concerning thrust production, maintaining the highest effective angle of attack always maximises
thrust production regardless of StA . It is found that the resultant force on the wing at each StA does not vary
much as changing αe f f ,max . Changing αe f f ,max along the wing span reallocates the force in the streamwise
and spanwise directions. Due to this force reallocating mechanism, the highest propulsive efficiency can be
◦
achieved at StA = 0.6 and αe f f ,max = 27 on the StA − αe f f ,max plane.

Acknowledgments
This research was undertaken with the assistance of resources from the National Computational Infrastruc-
ture (NCI), which is supported by the Australian Government. This work was supported by the Australian
Research Council (project number DP200101500).

References
Azuma, A. 2012, The biokinetics of flying and swimming, Springer Science & Business Media.
Shyy, W., Lian, Y., Tang, J., Viieru, D. and Liu, H. 2008, Aerodynamics of Low Reynolds Number Flyers,
Cambridge University Press.

7
 Young, J., Lai, J.C.S., and Platzer, Max F. 2014, A review of progress and challenges in flapping foil power
generation, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 67, 2–28.
Shyy, W., Aono, H., Chimakurthi, S.K., Trizila, P., Kang, C.-K., Cesnik, C.E.S. and Liu, H 2010, Recent
progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 46, 284–
327.
Tian, F.B., Luo, H.X., Song, J.L. and Lu, X.Y. 2013, Force production and asymmetric deformation of a
flexible flapping wing in forward flight, Journal of Fluids and Structures, 36, 149–161.
Dai, H., Luo, H.X., Doyle, J.F. 2012, Dynamic pitching of an elastic rectangular wing in hovering motion,
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 693, 473–499.
Mackenzie, D. 2012, A Flapping of Wings, Science, 335, 1430-1433.
Anderson, J. M., Streitlien, K., Barrett, D. S. and Triantafyllou, M. S. 1998, Oscillating foils of high propulsive
efficiency, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 360, 41–72.
Read, D.A., Hover, F.S. and Triantafyllou, M.S. 2003, Forces on oscillating foils for propulsion and maneu-
vering, Journal of Fluids and Structures, 17, 163–183.
Thielicke,W. and Stamhuis, E.J 2018, The effects of wing twist in slow-speed flapping flight of birds: trading
brute force against efficiency, Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, 13, 056015.
Alexander, D. E 2002, Nature’s Flyers: Birds, Insects, and the Biomechanics of Flight, JHU Press.
Thomas, A. L. R. and Hedenström, A. 1998, Journal of Avian Biology, 29, 469–477.
Usherwood, J.P. and Ellington, C.P. 2002, The aerodynamics of revolving wings I. Model hawkmoth wings,
Journal of Experimental Biology, 205, 1547–1564.
Zurman-Nasution, A.N., Ganapathisubramani, B. and Weymouth, G. D. 2021, Effects of aspect ratio on rolling
and twisting foils, Phys. Rev. Fluids 6, 013101.
Rosén, M., Spedding, G. R. and Hedenstroöm, A. 2004, The relationship between wingbeat kinematics and
vortex wake of a thrush nightingale, Journal of Experimental Biology, 203, 4255–4268.
Taylor, G.K, Nudds, R.L, Thomas, A. LR 2003, Flying and swimming animals cruise at a Strouhal number
tuned for high power efficiency, Nature, 425, 707–711.
Chen, S. and Doolen, G. D. 1998, Lattice Boltzmann method for fluid flows, Annual Review of Fluid Mechan-
ics, 30, 329–364.
Krüger, T., Kusumaatmaja, H., Kuzmin, A., Shardt, O., Silva, G. andViggen, E. M. 2017, The Lattice Boltz-
mann Method, Springer International Publishing, 10, 4–15.
Latt, J. and Chopard, B. 2006, Lattice Boltzmann method with regularized pre-collision distribution functions,
Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 72, 165-168.
Coreixas, C., Wissocq, G., Puigt, G., Boussuge, J. F. and Sagaut, P. 2017, Recursive regularization step for
high-order lattice Boltzmann methods, Physical Review E, 96, 033306.
Guo, Z., Zheng, C. and Shi, B. 2002, Discrete lattice effects on the forcing term in the lattice Boltzmann
method, Physical Review E, 65, 046308.
Peskin, C. S. 2002, The immersed boundary method, Acta Numerica, 11, 479-517.
Mittal, R. and Iaccarino, G. 2005, Immersed boundary methods, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 37, 239-
261.
Griffith, B. E. and Patankar, N. A. 2020, Immersed methods for fluid–structure interaction, Annual Review of
Fluid Mechanics, 52, 421.
Goldstein, D., Handler, R. and Sirovich, L. 1993, Modeling a no-slip flow boundary with an external force
field, Journal of Computational Physics, 105, 354-366.
Huang, W. X. and Tian, F. B. 2019, Recent trends and progress in the immersed boundary method, Proceedings
of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 233,
7617-7636.
Huang, Q. X., Liu,Z. L., Wang, L., Sridhar, R., Young, J., Lai, J. C. S., and Tian, F. B. 2022, Streamline
penetration, velocity error, and consequences of the feedback immersed boundary method, Physics of
Fluids, 34, 097101.
Schouveiler, L., Hover, F.S. and Triantafyllou, M.S. 2005, Performance of flapping foil propulsion, Journal of
Fluids and Structures 20, 949–959.

View publication stats