Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Avian Wings
Tianshu Liu, K. Kuykendoll, R. Rhew, S. Jones
For permission to copy or republish, contact the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500, Reston, VA 20191
AIAA Paper 2004-2 186 Liu et al.
Avian Wings
Tianshu Liut, K. Kuykendoll*, R. Rhew and S . Jones**
NASA Langley Research Center
Hampton, VA 23681
2
AIAA Paper 2004-2 186 Liu et al.
coefficients for the planform of the Seagull, Merganser, Teal planform of the Seagull wing. The distribution of the wing
and Owl wings. The maximum camber line and thickness chord, as shown in Fig. 9, can be described by Eq. (3) that is
coordinates zfC,- and z , ~ , - can be described by the Oehme and Kitzler's correlation F o K ( 5 ) plus a b
5
appropriate empirical functions of 5 = 2 y / b . Similarly, the tn+'- t X
correction function F,,, ( 5)= E, ( for local
relative position and kinematics of the 1/4-chord line of a n=l
3
AIAA Papcr 2004-2 186 Liu et al.
distribution are A, = -23. I743 , A, = 58.3057, location 5 =2 y / b along with the empirical expressions
A, = 4 . 3 6 7 4 and A, =25.7629. Figure 14 shows the ~,,,,,/c=O.Il/(l+45'.~) and
normalized camber line and thickness distribution for the z(,,- / ~ = 0 . 0 5 / ( 1 + 4 5 ').. ~ Figure 24 shows the
Merganser wing generared by using the above averaged planform of the Teal wing. The distribution of the wing
coefficients. The wing thickness is very small (considered chord is shown in Fig. 25 along with the results given by Eq.
to be zero) near the trailing edge ( d c > 0.9). The least-
(3) where the coefficients in Fco,(5) are E, =-66.1,
squares estimation residuals in fitting local airfoils z{,,/c
E, = 435.6, E, = -1203, E4 = 1664.1 and E, = -1130.2.
and z(,, / c at different spanwise locations are shown in Fig. The ratio between the root chord and semi-span is
z, / q t , -
15(a). The deviations of the averaged z(c, / Z,
from the local profiles at different spanwise
locations are shown in Fig. 15(b).
)IMI and c,, /( b / 2 ) = 0.545 . The wing twist is less than 2 degrees
along the span. Figure 26 shows the surface of the Teal
wing generated using the above relations.
Figure 16 shows the maximum camber and thickness
z( ,- +
/ c = 0.14 /( 1 1.333 5 ) and S , =3.9733, S, =-0.8497 and S , =-2.723. The
z,, Jmru / c = 0.05/ ( I + 4 1. Figwe 17 shows the averaged coefficients A, for the thickness distribution are
planform of the Merganser wing. The distribution of the A, =-47.683, A, =124.5329, A, =-127.0874 and
wing chord is shown in Fig. 18 along with the results given = 45.876 . Figure 28 shows the normalized camber line
by Eq. (3) where the coefficients in Fcor( 5 ) are E, = 39.1,
and thickness distribution for the Owl wing generated by
4
AIAA Paper 2004-2 186 Liu et al.
using the above averaged coefficients. The least-squares thin wing with a thickness distribution concentrated mainly
estimation residual in fitting local airfoils z , , / c and near the leading edge. Unlike other wings, the cI
z , ~/ c is less than 0.006. The deviations of the averaged .distribution for the Owl wing has an increasing behavior as
the wing span because the maximum camber coordinate ,
z,, / z , ~ and z, ,)/ z,, Jnuu from the local profiles are zfC)- increases. As a result, the normalized circulation
less than 0.1 and 0.2, respectively. Interestingly, the Owl
distribution has a special shape as indicated in Fig. 40. We
wing is very thin over x / c = 0.3- 1.0 (it is a single layer of do not know whether the thin Owl wing and the associated
the primary feathers) and the thickness distribution is mainly aerodynamic properties are related to quiet flight of an owl
concentrated in the front portion of the airfoil. The wing [9]. Clearly, the aerodynamic and aeroacoustic implications
thickness is considered to be zero near the trailing edge ( d c of the thin Owl wing are worthwhile to be investigated
> 0.9). further.
Figure 29 shows the maximum camber and thickness The Seagull and Merganser airfoils are similar to the
coordinates z,,~- and z ~ , , , , , as
~ a function of the spanwise high-lift low Reynolds number airfoil S1223 described by
location 6 =2y /b along with the empirical expressions Selig et al. [lo]. Figure 41 shows the S1223 airfoil along
z, ,- / c = 0.04[ 1+ tanh( 1.85 - 0.5 )I and with the Seagull and Merganser airfoils with the same the
maximum camber line and thickness coordinates
zf )- / c = 0.04 /( 1+ 1.78 5 .4 ) . In contrast to other wings ,-
( z , ~ / c = 0.0852 and z,, ,- / c = 0.0579 ). Figures 42
described before, the maximum chamber coordinate for the and 43 shows a comparison of the pressure coefficient
Owl wing increase along the span. Figure 30 shows the distributions between the S1223, Seagull and Merganser
planform of the Owl wing. The distribution of the wing airfoils. These pressure distributions are similar, but the
chord is shown in Fig. 31 along with the results given by Eq. S1223 airfoil has lower pressure on the upper surface near
(3) where the coefficients in F , , , ( { ) are E, =6.3421, d c = 0.2 and trailing edge. The sectional lift coefficient as a
E, = -7.51 78, E, = -70.9649, E, = 188.0651 and function of AoA for these airfoils is shown in Fig. 44. When
AoA increases beyond a certain value (about 10 degrees),
E, =-160.1678. The ratio between the root chord and
laminar flow separation will take place near the leading edge
semi-span is co / ( b / 2)=0.677. The wing twist is less in a Reynolds number range for birds (4x104 to 7 ~ 1 0 ~ )
than 2 degrees along the span. Figure 32 shows the surface [11,12]. The separated flow may be reattached due to
of the Owl wing generated using the above relations. transition to turbulence that can be facilitated by using
artificial boundary layer tripping. Detailed calculation of the
5. Aerodynamic Characteristics of Avian Airfoils in separatedheattached flow on these airfoils requires a Navier-
Steady Inviscid Flows Stokes (N-S) solver with accurate transition and turbulence
Figure 33 shows typical wing sections of the Seagull, models; computation based on the N-S equation especially
Merganser, Teal and Owl at 2y / b = 0.4 . These airfoils are for the unsteady flow field around a flapping wing is a topic
highly cambered. The inviscid pressure coefficient C, in further study. Here, we do not intend to conduct such
computation without reliable experimental data for
distributions at four angles of attack are shown in Figs. 34, comparison. Nevertheless, experimental data for the S 1223
35, 36 and 37. Figure 38 shows the sectional lift coefficient airfoil [ 101 provide a good reference (in a qualitative sense)
based on unit chord as a function the angle of attack (AoA) for the behavior of the Seagull and Merganser airfoils at
for the Seagull, Merganser, Teal and Owl wings. These high angles of attack.
results are obtained by using the inviscidhiscous flow
analysis code XFOIL for airfoil design [8], which roughly 6. Avian Wing Kinematics
indicate the aerodynamic characteristics of these airfoils. 6.1. Front-Projected 1/4-Chord Line
The pressure distributions on the upper surfaces of the For simplicity, we consider the kinematics of a
Seagull and Merganser wings are relatively flat when AoA is flapping wing as a superposition of the motion of the 1/4-
less than 5 degrees. The sectional lift coefficients of at zero chord line of the wing and relative rotation of local airfoil
AoA for both are larger than one. Figure 39 shows the sections around the 1/4-chord line. From videos of a level-
sectional lift coefficient distributions along the wing span for flying bird taken by a camera viewing directly the front of
these wings at AoA = 0 degree. Based on the sectional life the bird, we are able to approximately recover the front- I
coefficient C , , we can estimate the normalized circulation projected profiles of the ll4-chord line of the wing at a
distribution r(y ) / ro= [c( y ) / c0 I [ c1( y ) / c , ]~ shown sequence of times. Figure 45 shows a typical image of a
in Fig. 40, where the subscript 0denotes the value at the
wing root ( 2y / b = 0 ). The Seagull and Merganser wings
level-flying crane viewed directly from the front and a local
coordinate system used for describing the profiles. A front-
.
projected wing in images is a line with a finite thickness that
have the almost same normalized circulation distributions.
is approximately considered as the front-projected 1/4-chord
The Owl airfoil is particularly interesting, that is basically a
line. The profile of the front-projected 1/4-chord line of a
5
AIAA Paper 2004-2 186 Liu et al.
flapping wing can be reasonably described by a second- ut = 0 , the position of the wing is at the beginning of the
order polynomial down-stroke. The wing is approximately parallel to the
2
horizontal plane at at = 2 and bR reaches the maximal
--
bz I // 42 - A , ( u t ) ( ~ ) + A , ( u r ) ( ~,) (4) value. The minimal value of bR is at ut = 3.9 . The down-
where the coefficients and the semi-span are given by the stroke spans about 62% of a flapping cycle while the up-
Fourier series as a function of the non-dimensional time ut stroke takes 38% of a cycle. The variation of b/2 with time
depends on not only the orthographic projection, but also a
( u is the circular frequency of flapping) change of the wing planform due to wing extension and
2
folding during flapping. We calculate the arc length of the
A, ( ut ) = C,, + [C,, sin( nwt )+ B,, cos( nwt )],
n=l
front-projected 1/4-chord line as a function of time by using
2 Eqs. (4) and (5). In fact, a change in the arc length of the
A,( U t ) = C,, +E[C, sin( n o t
n=l
)+ B,, cos( n u t )I, front-projected 1/4-chord line represents a change of the
wing planform due to wing extension and folding. Figure 49
b(ur)/2 2 shows the arc length of the projected 1/4-chord line as a
= C,, + [Cbnsin( n u t )+ B, cos( n u t )] function of time for the flapping crane, seagull and goose
mar(b/2) n=l wings. For a crane, its wing is most extended at ut = 2.1
(5) while it is most folded at ut = 4 . The normalized arc
Here, bR is defined as the semi-span of an orthographically
length of the front-projected 1/4-chord line is described by
projected flapping wing on the horizontal plane. Therefore,
the Fourier series
bR is a time-dependent function in a flapping cycle. The
maximum vaiue of 612 is achieved roughly at the moment
when a flapping wing is parallel to the horizontal plane. We
assume that u t = 0 corresponds to the position of a wing at
(6)
the beginning of the down-stroke (or the end of the up- For the flapping crane wing, the coefficients in Eq.(6) are
stroke) (see Fig. 45). C,, =0.9310, C,, =0.03.59, B,, = O . O I l l ,
C,, = -0.0675, B,, = -0.0093.
6.1.1. Crane
A time sequence of images of a level-flying crane This result will be used later to re-construct the wing
taken by a camera directly from the front of the bird are kinematics based on a two-jointed arm model.
obtained by digitizing a clip of the video The Life of Birds
produced by BBC. The profiles of the front-projected wing 6.1.2. Seagull
(or 1/4-chord line) are obtained by manually tracing the Similarly, a time sequence of images of a flying
wing in digitized images. Eq. (4) is used to fit data of the seagull (acquired from 0ceanfootage.com) is processed and
successive profiles and the coefficients in Eq. ( 5 ) are the profiles of the front-projected 1/4-chord line are
determined. Figure 46 shows the measured profiles of the recovered. The coefficients in Eq. ( 5 ) extracted from
front-projected 1/4-chord line of a flapping wing of a flying measurements for a flapping wing of a seagull are
crane and the corresponding polynomial fits at six instants C,, =0.37.56, C,, =-0.3242, B,, =0.1920,
(an interval of 27r / 5 ) in a flapping cycle w t E /0,2a]. C,, = 0.0412, B,, = -0.1095 ;
The profiles can be reasonably described by a second-order C,, = -0.4674, C,, = 0.3631, B,, =0.2884,
polynomial Eq. (4) with the time-dependent coefficients.
C,, = -0.0661, B,, = 0.0553 ;
Figures 47 and 48 show data of the coefficients in Eq. ( 5 )
and the orthographically projected semi-span bn that are fit C , = 0.7978 , C,, = 0.17.51, B,, = 0.0461 , C,, = 0.0042 ,
by the Fourier series, respectively. The Coefficients in Eq. B,, = -0.0218.
( 5 ) extracted from measurements for a flapping wing of a Figure 50 shows the measured profiles of the front-projected
crane are 1/4-chord line of a flapping wing of a flying seagull and the
C,, =0.3639, C,, = -0-2938, B,, =0.4050, corresponding polynomial fits at six instants (an interval of
C,, = -0.0465, B,, = -0.0331 ; 27c / 9 ) in a flapping cycle. Figures 5 1 and 52 show data of
C,, =-0.4294, C,, = 0.4469, B,, =0.1442, the coefficients in Eq.( 5 ) and the orthographically projected
semi-span bR that are fit by the Fourier series, respectively.
C , = 0.0135, B,, = 0.0691 ; For the normalized arc length of the front-projected
C,, = 0.839, C,, = 0.0885, B,, =0.0301, C,, = -0.0888, 1/4-chord line of the flapping seagull wing, the coefficients
B,, = -0.0407. in Eq. (6) are
Figure 48 shows that the orthographically projected C,, = 0.8718, C,, = 0.1420, B,, =-0.0111,
semi-span bR on the horizontal plane varies with time. At C,, =0.0190, B,, =0.0113.
6
AIAA Paper 2004-21 86 Liu et al.
As shown in Fig. 49, the flapping seagull wing is most determines the flapping magnitude of Rod 2 relative to Rod
extended at w t = 1.3 while it is most folded at w t = 5 . 1. The angle 4, is the angle between Rod 2 and the line
0,T , which describes the extension and folding of a wing
6.1.3. Goose (the outer portion of a wing). Figure 58 shows the projected
A time sequence of images of a flying bar-headed views of a two-jointed arm system. In Fig. 58(c), the angle
goose from the documentary Winged Migration is #21 = 9, / cos( y , - w, ) is the orthographic projection of
processed and the profiles of the front-projected 1/4-chord
line are recovered. The coefficients in Eq. (5) extracted the angle 9, on the horizontal plane X 0 , Y . The simple
from measurements for a flapping wing of a level-flying two-jointed arm model allows the recovery of 3D kinematics
goose are of a flapping wing from measurements of the front-projected
C,, = 0.4511, C,, = -0.2819 , B,, =0.3008, 1/4-chord line. In addition, it is a straightforward model for
designing a mechanical flapping wing.
C,, = 0.0254 , B,, = -0.0835 ;
The coordinates of the end point 0, of Rod 1 are
C,, = -0.4605, C,, =0.4516, B,, =0.1912,
X,, = 0, Yo, = L, cos(wI ), Zo2 = L, sin(w, ) , (7)
C,, = -0.0845, B,, = 0.1154 ;
where L, is the length of Rod 1. The position of Rod 1 is
C,, =0.8999, C, =0.0666 , B,, =0.0126,
described by
C,, = -0.0505 , B,, = -0.0095. x =o
Figure 53 shows the measured profiles of the front-projected Z=Ytan(ry, ) (8)
1/4-chord line of a flapping wing of a flying goose and the
corresponding polynomial fits at six instants (an interval of where Y E [0, L, cos( y, )] . The position of Rod 2 is given
n / 5 ) in a flapping cycle. Figures 54 and 55 show data of by
the coefficients in Eq. (5) and the orthographically semi-
span bL? that are fit by the Fourier series, respectively.
For the normalized arc length of the front-projected
1/4-chord line of the flapping goose wing, the coefficients in z=zo2+(Y-Yo2 ) t a n ( v , - w 2 )
Eq. (6) are where Y E [ L , cos(tyl ) , b / 2 ] . Note that b / 2 is the
C,, = 0.9948, C,, = 0.0013, B,, =-0.0013,
orthographically projected semi-span on the horizontal plane
C,, =-0.0083, B,, =0.0122. X 0 , Y . Therefore, we know that the projected semi-span is
As shown Fig. 49, the normalized arc length of the front- b / 2 = L 1 c o s ( t y , ) + L , c o s ( ( b z ) c o s ( ~ I -).~ 2 In a two-
projected 1/4-chord line of the flapping goose wing does not
jointed arm system, the normalized arc length of the front-
vary much compared with the flapping crane and seagull
pro-jected 1/4-chord line is
wings. This means that relatively speaking the goose wing
does not extend and fold much during flapping.
6.2. Two-Jointed Arm Model where r, = L, / max( L,, ) and r, = L, / max( L , , ) are
In general, the skeleton structure is described as a
three-jointed arm system. Figure 56 is an X-ray image the relative lengths of Rod 1 and Rod 2.
showing the skeleton structure of a seagull wing. However,
for level flapping flight, the wing kinematics can be 6.3. Recovery of the Angles v/, , w2 and 4,
simplified. In this case, to describe the 1/4-chord line of a A two-jointed arm model uses two pieces of straight
flapping wing, we use a two-jointed arm model that consists line to approximate the profile of the 1/4-chord line of a
of two rigid jointed rods. As shown in Fig. 57, Rod 1 rotates wing. Since the flapping angles ty, and yf2 are on the plane
around the point 0, in a body coordinate system where the Y0,Z , they can be estimated directly from the measured
origin 0, is located at the wing root and the plane YO,Z is profile of the front-projected 1/4-chord line, Eq (4), when
defined as the rotational plane of Rod 1. Thus, the motion of r, = L, / m a ( L,, ) and r2 = L, / m a (L,, ) are given.
Rod 1 has only one degree of freedom and the position of
The angle @, can be extracted from the measured arc length
Rod 1 is given by the flapping angle w, . In contrast, the
of the front-projected 1/4-chord line using Eqs. (10) and (6).
motion of Rod 2 has two degrees of freedom, which is given
Figures 59, 60 and 61 shows the recovered angles w , , w2
by the angles w2 and q + ~ ~In. Fig. 57, the line 0 , T is the
and 9, as a function of time for the flapping crane, seagull
orthographic projection of the Rod 2 (or the line 0 , T ) on
and goose wings, respectively.
the plane Y 0 , Z . The angle v2is the angle between Rod 1 The angles w,, w, and @2 are expressed as the
and the line 0 2 T on the plane YO,Z, which basically Fourier series
7
AIAA Paper 2004-2 186 Liu et al.
8
AIAA Paper 2004-2 186 Liu et al.
References:
[l] Lilienthal, O., Birdflight as the Basis of Aviation,
Markowski International Publishers, Hummestown, PA,
200 1.
[2] Magnan, A., Bird Flight and Airplane Flight, NASA TM-
75777, 1980.
[3] Nachtigall, W. and Wieser, J., Profilmessungen am
Taubenflugel, Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Physiologies
52, pp. 333-346, 1966.
[4] Oehme, H. and Kitzler, U., On the Geometry of the
Avian Wing (Studies on the Biophysics and Physiology
of Avian Flight 11), NASA-TT-F-16901, 1975.
[5] Riegels, F. W., Aerofoil Sections, Butterworths, London,
1961, Chapters 1 and 7.
[6] Asada, H. and Slotine, J.-J. E., Robot Analysis and
Control, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1986,
Chapters 2 and 3.
[7] Zinkovsky, A. V., Shaluha, V. A. and Ivanov, A. A.,
Mathematical Modeling and Computer Simulation of
Biomechanical Systems, World Scientific, Singapore,
1996, Chapters 1 and 2.
[8] Drela, M., XFOIL: An Analysis of and Design System
for Low Reynolds Number Airfoils, Conference on Low
Reynolds Number Airfoil Aerodynamics, University of
Notre Dame, June 1989.
[9] Lilley, G. M., A Study of the Silent Flight of the Owl,
AIAA Paper 98-2340, Toulouse, France, June 2-4,
1998.
[lo] Selig, M. S., Guglielmo, J. J., Broeren, A. P. and
Giguere, P., Summary of Low-Speed Airfoil Data,
Volume 1., SoarTech Publications, Virginia Beach,
Virginia, 1995, Chapter 4.
[ I l l Carmicheal, B. H., Low Reynolds Number Airfoil
Survey, NASA CR 165803,1981.
[ 121 Lissaman, P. B. S., Low-Reynolds-Number Airfoils,
Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech., 15, 1983, pp. 223-239.
AIAA Paper 2004-2186 Liu et al.
ic lstcoefficient
E
100 1
r+ tstcoefficlent
-
-? 2nd coeffkient
4 3rdcoefficient
-100 A$. 1 . 4th coefficient
0 02 04 06 08
2Yb
- v (b)
Figure 2. Data cloud of the surface of a seagull wing. Figure 4. (a) The coefficients for the camber line, (b) The
coefficients for the thickness distribution for the Seagull
wing.
10
AIAA Paper 2004-2 186 Liu et al.
.-
.-
3
Averaged over 2y/b = 0.166 to 0.772
e +
a
D
1.21
Camber Line Normalized
N MaximumThickness Coordinate
*
1 Value Z
4
E 04
0
I/ ;
/,
Thickness DistnbutionNomalizid
by Its MaxlmumValue
'
,
- "0 0.2 04
X/C
0.6 0.8
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Figure 5 . The camber line and thickness distribution of the 2Yb
Seagull wing. Figure 7. The maximum camber and thickness coordinates
as a function of the spanwise location for the Seagull wing.
1 t Thickness
Y -0.1
o.6
0.7
1 Seagull Wing Planform
0.8
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Normalized Spanwise Coordinate, 2yh
I
0
Figure 8. The planform of the Seagull wing.
0
-
s
= 0
11
AIAA Paper 2004-2 186 Liu et al.
0.5 -~ ~
* . . b.
I -.
1 . ._ . .. . . ,
\
Figure 12. The Merganser wing.
I
0 -.L
- 3rd coefficient
4th coefficient
/O 5
12
AIAA Paper 2004-2 186 Liu et al.
.-
1 $ 0.3
n
a Averaged over 2yh = 0 to 0.95
Camber Line Normalized
I 0 Maximum Camber Coordinate I
% 1.2- by Its Maximum Value
+ Maximum Thickness Coordinate
E - Fit
I
x 0'
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
f 0 2Yb
Figure 16. The maximum camber and thickness coordinates
5cn as a function of the spanwise location for the Merganser
Thickness wing.
;0.012 -
1
-o
c
Y
.4
e 0.01
G
-0.1
t
O I
$$ 10.3
O.'t
0.8
0
' 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
I
1
Normalized Spanwise Coordinate,2yh
(b)
Figure 15. (a) Least-squares residuals of fitting the airfoil
sections, (b) Deviation of local profiles from the averaged
profile for the Merganser wing.
13
AIAA Paper 2004-2 186 Liu et ai.
'0
- /'
:=-.;
W 504-
F15 - V
-
6
??
210-
0 02 04 06 08 1
XlC
5 0-
1
.
14
AIAA Paper 2004-2186 Liu et al.
-o
-0.1
-O i 0.6 04 o 44
0.70
0.8 ~ 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
O
0.6 ' ' I
-s
._
e-
3
CJ Teal
1.2 - Thickness Distribution Normalizedby
- Correlation given by Oehme and Kitzler ._ its Maxlrnurn Value
--- Generalized Correlation
"0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
NormalizedSpanwise Coordinate, 2yh
1 1
Figure 25. The chord distribution of the Teal wing.
z
0
I ,/' Averaged over 2yh = 0 25 to 0 8 \. -1
' \
0 02 04 06 08 1
x/C
Owl wing.
15
AlAA Paper 2004-21 86 Liu et al.
0
a0 14
D
(u
i - MaxlmurnCamberCoordinate
:012i ._ Fit -1 ?
E i .' .
c
g 0.08 1 I
._
D
V
In
r
2 0.06I '2.i
.-
E
D
t
0.04
I <-I
t L
0.02
- - Correlation given by Oehme and )<rtzler
5
-- - Generalized Correlation
u
0.2 0.4 0.6 08 1
2Yb
Figure 29. The maximum camber and thickness coordinates
as a function of the spanwise location for the Owl wing.
u.2 ~
s o
,
v
-0.5
1
6 -0.4
-0.8
0
' 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Normalized Spanwise Coordinate, 2yh
16
AIAA Paper 2004-2 186 Liu et al.
' 1 . 2 ~
0"
0.8-
Teal
0.6
e
N Merganser
2 1 I
X/C
Figure 35. The pressure coefficient distributions of the
0.2
1 Seagull
Merganser wing at different angles of attack.
-6
1\
UI
Teal Airfoil -AoA = 0 deg
I'
-K
2 y h = 0.4 -. AoA = 5 deg
AoA = 10 deg
-0.2 1 I I I -4 AoA = 15 deg
0 0.2 0.4
XfC
0.6 0.8 1
-3 1,' '.\
2 !
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.o
X/C
Figure 36. The pressure coefficient distributions of the Teal
wing at different angles of attack.
X/C
Figure 34. The pressure coefficient distributions of the
Seagull wing at different angles of attack.
17
AIAA Paper 2004-2186 Liu et al.
-6 rn I
3.0
AoA = 0 deg
AoA = 5 deg 2.5
AoA = 10 deg
AoA = 15 deg c
c
-3il
\\
-al
.-
.-0 2.0
al
u"
E 1.5
-
-I
m
c
.-
0
1.0
$
0.5
0.0 I
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.o
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.o
2Yh
x/C
Figure 37. The pressure coefficient distributions of the Owl Figure 39. The sectional lift coefficient distributions along
wing at different angles of attack. the wing span for the Seagull, Merganser, Teal and Owl
wings 21 P , C A n degee.
4.0
+Seagull
-
.-0
3.5
-A- Merganser
-I- Teal
-
3
g
.-u)
3.0
2.5
0
.-
4-
m
3 2.0
.-e
:al
N
1.5
-
.-
1.0
E
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.o
2Yh
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Figure 40. The normalized circulation distributionsalong the
AoA (deg) wing span for the Seagull, Merganser, Teal and Owl wings.
Figure 38. The sectional lift coefficient as a function of the
angles of attack.
18
AIAA Paper 2004-2 186 Liu et al.
-4
I
S I 223
-3
-2
I AoA = 5 deg
S1223
Seagull
Merganser
0"
0.6 - Merganser -1
eN
0.4 / 0
0.2 - SeaguII I I I I
X/c
Figure 43. The pressure coefficient distributions for the
Seagull and Merganser airfoils along with that for S1223 at
-0.2 '
0
I
0.2 0.4
1 I
0.6
I
0.8 1
AoA = 5 degrees.
3
XlC
1
c
Seagull 'c
-I
Merganser -
-2 2
.-0
5
a,
1
(0
0"
-A- Merganser
0 I I I I I I I I
- 6 - 4 - 2 0 2 4 6 8 1 0
AoA (deg)
Figure 44. The sectional lift coefficient as a function of AoA
for the S1223, Seagull and Merganser airfoils.
l ! I I I I
X/C
Figure 42. The pressure coefficient distributions for the
Seagull and Merganser airfoils along with that for S1223 at
AoA = 0 degree.
AIAA Paper 2004-2 186 Liu et al.
1.2
1 cl Data
1.1 1-
i Fourier series fitting
c
m 1
n
.-?
Em 0.9
U
e,
2 0.8
Eb
z 0.7
0.6
Crane
0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Nowdimensional time (rad)
1.1,
+ 1.05
>
-" c '
Q,
0.65 I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Norrdimensional time (rad)
-1.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
I
Non-dimensional time (rad)
20
AIAA Paper 2004-2186 Liu et al.
o Data
Fourier series fitting
0
-0.6- 0 Profiles of the 1/4-chord line of a seagull wing
in a flapping cycle with an interval of 2piB -.-
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-0.8 Non-dimensional time (rad)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Normalized spanwise location
Figure 52. The orthographically projected semi-span b/2
Figure 50. The profiles of the front-projected 1/4-chord line normalized by max(b/2) for the flapping seagull wing as a
of the flapping seagull wing at different instants. function of time.
1.5 0.8
0 Linear term
a 2nd-order term 0.6 i
g 0.4
.-
d
Q
4- 0.2
E
e
a 0
>
73
e,
N
E -o'2
-0.4
21
AIAA Paper 2004-2 186 Liu et al.
-5
$-05-
5 -
V
A\
', /
/
-1 5
/
t'
1.1
1 0 Data
l.05 - Fourier series fitting ]
JI
Y
0.8 1
I
0.75
j Goose
0.7
0
' 1 2 3 4 5 6
Non-dimensionaltime (rad)
22
AIAA Paper 2004-2 186 Liu et al.
Rod 2
70 1
Y
>
Rod 1
CX
(a) Top View
0 1 2
Nowdimensional
3 time4(rad) 5 6
40 1
-30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Nowdimensionaltime (rad)
Figure 59. The angles y, , y2 and as a function of time
for the crane wing.
23
AIAA Paper 2004-2186 Liu et ai.
05-
04-
03-
I
024
01-
0,
2 0-1
EN - 0 1 4
-02 Y
-0 3 -
-
-0 4 - / 05
/-
24