Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sriyulianti Widhiarini1, Ji Hwan Park1, Bum Soo Yoon1, Kwang Joon Yoon1, Il-Hyun Paik2, Jong Heon Kim3,
Chan Yik Park3, Seung Moon Jun3, Changho Nam4
1. Department of Aerospace Engineering, Konkuk University, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, South Korea
2. Deptartment of PGM Technology, Hanwha Corp. R&D Center, Daejeon, South Korea
3. Agency for Defense Development, Daejeon, South Korea
4. Department of Engineering Technology, Arizona State University, Mesa, Arizona
Abstract
A micro air vehicle with a bird-mimetic up-down and twisting wing drive system was developed in this study. The Flap-
ping-wing Micro Air Vehicle (FMAV), with a 50 cm wingspan and a double-crank drive system, performed successful flights of
up to 23 min. The performance and capabilities of the FMAV were enhanced by adapting a number of unique features, such as a
bird-mimetic wing shape with a span-wise camber and an up-down and twisting wing drive mechanism with double-crank
linkages. This lift-enhancing design by mimicking the flapping mechanism of a bird’s wing enabled the 210 g FMAV to fly
autonomously in an outdoor field under wind speeds of less than 5 m·s−1. Autonomous flight was enabled by installing a flight
control computer with a micro-electro-mechanical gyroscope and accelerometers, along with a micro video camera and an
ultralight wireless communication system inside the fuselage. A comprehensive wind tunnel test shows that the FMAV with a
high-camber wing and double-crank mechanism generates more lift and less net thrust than the FMAV with a flat wing and
single-crank mechanism, which confirms the improved performance of the developed FMAV, as well as the superior slow flying
or hovering capabilities of the FMAV with a high-camber wing and double-crank wing drive system.
Keywords: flapping-wing MAV, autonomous flight, biomimetic wing, double crank wing
Copyright © 2016, Jilin University. Published by Elsevier Limited and Science Press. All rights reserved.
doi: 10.1016/S1672-6529(16)60319-0
U
J= , (2) 500 mm
2Φ fb
where Φ, f, and b are stroke angle, flapping frequency,
137 mm
U = 4.77m1/6 , (3)
170 mm
where U is the flight speed in m·s−1 and m is the mass in Area = 0.075 m2
25% less than the calculated speed[26], or 25% slower Fig. 2 Wing designs of the single-crank and double-crank drive
than the real birds. Thus, Eq. (3) becomes Eq. (4): systems.
Widhiarini et al.: Bird-mimetic Wing System of Flapping-wing Micro Air Vehicle with
Autonomous Flight Control Capability 461
According to our analysis results, the FMAV is in Table 3 Parameters of the developed FMAV
the quasi-steady flow regime (i.e., J > 1). Most birds, Single crank Double crank
such as the dove prion and the Cape pigeon, operate in Wing span (cm) 50
this regime[24]. The lift coefficient decreases exponen- m (g) 100 210
tially with an increasing advance ratio for the FMAV U (m·s−1) 7.707 8.722
Φ (deg) 25 55
with a single-crank mechanism, while the vehicle with a
f (Hz) 8–16 8–11
double-crank mechanism experiences only a slight de-
crease with an increasing advance ratio value. This
0.80
tendency complies with the typical behavior of the lift
coefficient as a function of advance ratio[14,20]. 0.60
4.1 Test setup Fig. 4 Wind tunnel test setup for FMAV.
The experimental setup for the vehicle was pre-
pared by building a test rig and a high-speed camera fully assembled configuration as was used by Hu et
video capture system. The test rig shown in Fig. 4 was al.[22], the analysis of the vehicle performance included
made by connecting the vehicle to a vertical rod with an the contributions of all components of the ornithopter:
aerodynamic shape, which was then fixed to the middle wings, fuselage, and tail. Six test FMAVs with different
of the wind tunnel and connected to a load cell at its base. wing cambers and drive mechanisms were prepared for
The wind tunnel was a subsonic, closed return-type wind the experiment, as shown in Table 2. During the ex-
tunnel located in the aerodynamic analysis laboratory at periment, the flapping frequency of the mechanism was
Konkuk University. adjusted by changing the output voltage of the DC power
The flapping test specimen was placed in the mid- supply. The aerodynamic forces (i.e., lift and net thrust)
dle of the tunnel’s test section, which had dimensions of acting on the experimental wings were measured by a
1 m × 1 m × 3 m (height × width × length). By using a 3-axis force-moment load cell (CMAS121-5L, Curiosity
462 Journal of Bionic Engineering (2016) Vol.13 No.3
angle of the body with respect to the incoming flow, for t = 120 s
t=0s Signal Signal
vehicles in which the wing roots were assembled in 120 s 30 s
20 s 20 s
30 s
Flow 10 s
Idle Flow idle
parallel with the body of the vehicle. The BA was as- start Settling time Data
Freq adjustment Collection
Stop
Wind tunnel on Wind tunnel off
sumed to be similar to the orientation angle[26], which is
the angle of the inclined body with respect to incoming
flow that is parallel to the horizontal. The Angle of At-
tack (AoA) of the wing constantly changed during the
flight. The wing was always set to a neutral position,
Net thrust (Fx)
such that AoA = BA before every test run. The BA was
set using a regulator connected to the test rig. The shape
of the wing changed as the change of inflow speed and
the BA.
Lift (Fz)
4.2 Data acquisition
The data-collecting procedure was a combination
of load cell data acquisition and high-speed camera
image capturing. The timeline in Fig. 6 defines one batch Fig. 6 Data capture procedure and Graphic User Interface (GUI)
measurement in the experiment. The idle condition be- of measurement data.
fore and after the measurement is that there was no load
and the vehicle was turned off. The idle at constant wind data. Then, five data acquisition points per experimental
speed condition is that the wind tunnel was turned on variation were processed by taking their average and
and incoming flow was started, but the flapping drive standard deviation. The sampling rate was 1000 Hz.
system was still off. To adjust the wing flapping fre- Although the captured data was taken for 20 s, only
quency, a settling time was chosen. An example of the 10 flapping cycles (within 60 s) were used as represen-
signal from LabVIEW, taken from the load cell data, is tative data. A FFT was applied to the measured raw
also shown in Fig. 6. The horizontal force was the raw signal in LabVIEW. Five batch measurements were
data used to calculate thrust and drag, while the vertical taken for each experimental variation, which included
force was the raw data used to calculate lift. A Fast the following flight parameters: flapping frequency, BA,
Fourier Transform (FFT) was applied to the raw meas- and incoming flow velocity. Then, the average of the set
ured signal in LabVIEW. Ten cycles of the flapping was calculated. The calculation of the time-averaged
period (within 60 s) were analyzed from the captured aerodynamic forces from the raw data is shown in Fig. 7.
Widhiarini et al.: Bird-mimetic Wing System of Flapping-wing Micro Air Vehicle with
Autonomous Flight Control Capability 463
The total force is the force generated by the vehicle the experiments were 8 Hz, 10 Hz, 12 Hz, 14 Hz, and
during flight, which also accounts for the influence of 16 Hz. In order to quantify the aerodynamic perform-
wing, body, tail, and test rig. The effect of the test rig ance of the FMAV, the lift and the net thrust (Fx = thrust
was deducted early in the calculation process, from the – drag) were measured in the flow direction produced by
force generated at the idle in the constant flow condi- the FMAV during flapping motion at a designated BA.
tions. To obtain the time-averaged thrust, the in- FMAVs with three different wing types, flat, low-camber,
flow-generated drag was deducted from the total hori- and high-camber, were tested at different flapping fre-
zontal force. On the other hand, the time-averaged lift quencies.
was not deducted from any other force, as the vertical
5 Wind tunnel test results and discussion
component was equal to the total lift produced by the
vehicle. We measured the lift and the net thrust at 6 m·s−1
FMAVs with different wing shapes were tested with wind speed and calculated the lift coefficient (CL) and
a forward flight speed (i.e., incoming flow velocity) of the net thrust coefficient (CT) using Eq. (1) for each type
6 m·s−1 at a BA of 14˚. The flapping frequencies used in of wing and crank mechanism (Fig. 8). The lift of the
high-camber wing was more than 30% higher than that
of the flat wing, and the net thrust of the high-camber
wing was more than 20% higher than that of the flat
wing, which partially coincides with the results by
Hu et al.[22] and Krashanitsa et al.[30]. The wind tunnel
flapping test for the FMAV with the high-camber wing
and double-crank mechanism beyond the 10 Hz flapping
frequency range was not possible because of insufficient
electric power supply of the required equipment.
In the case of the FMAV with a single-crank system
(Fig. 8a), the lift coefficient increases almost linearly
within the range of 0.5–1.0 when the flapping frequency
increases from 8 Hz to 16 Hz. The increasing trend and
the range of the lift coefficient of our measured data are
quite similar to those of the lift coefficients obtained
from the wind tunnel test of the FMAV with a sin-
gle-crank system with a wing span of 74 cm, freestream
velocity of 7.2 m·s−1, and flapping frequency ranging
from 6 Hz to 12 Hz, which was reported by Krashanitsa
et al.[30]. However, in the case of the FMAV with the
double-crank system (Fig. 8c), the lift coefficient in-
creases a little when the flapping frequency increases
from 8 Hz to 11 Hz. Comparing the lift data and gravi-
tational force (0.98 N, 100 g) of the single-crank-system
FMAV, the single-crank-system FMAV with any cam-
bered wing can generate sufficient lift for flying over a
flapping frequency of 8 Hz. Meanwhile, comparing the
lift data and gravitational force (2.06 N, 210 g) of the
double-crank-system FMAV, the double-crank-system
FMAV with any cambered wing should flap with more
than 11 Hz flapping frequency. From the data of the
positive net thrust for the six types of FMAV, all FMAVs
Fig. 7 Diagram for calculation of the time-averaged lift and thrust. can fly forward with a speed greater than 6 m·s−1.
464 Journal of Bionic Engineering (2016) Vol.13 No.3
2.0 3.0 35
2.4
2.5
30
1.5
2.2
2.0
25
Lift (N)
CL
20
1.0 1.8
0.5
1.6 15
0.5
Lift-flat Lift-High CL-low
Lift-low CL-flat CL-high 10
0.0 0.0 1.4
8 10 12 14 16
Flapping frequency (Hz) Lift: Single crank
(a) 1.2 Lift: Double crank 5
Lift/Wing-area: Single crank
0.25 0.30 Lift/Wing-area: Double crank
1.0 0
8 10 12 14 16
0.25
0.20 Flapping frequency (Hz)
0.20 (a)
Thrust (N)
0.15
0.15
CT
0.40 4.0
0.10
0.10 3.5
0.35
0.05 0.05 3.0
Thrust-flat Thrust-high CT-low 0.30
Thrust-low CT-flat CT-high 0.00
0.00 2.5
8 10 12 14 16
Flapping frequency (Hz)
(b) 0.25 2.0
0.10 0.0
1.0 8 10 12 14 16
Flapping frequency (Hz)
0.5 (b)
0.5
Lift-flat Lift-high CL-low
Lift-low CL-flat CL-high
0.0
Fig. 9 Lift and net thrust for wind speed = 6 m·s−1 and BA = 14˚. (a)
0.0
7 8 9 10 11 12 Measured lift of high-camber wing for single- and double-crank
Flapping frequency (Hz) systems; (b) measured net thrust of high-camber wing for single-
(c) and double-crank systems.
0.30 0.50
Thrust-flat Thrust-high CT-low
Thrust-low CT-flat CT-high
0.25 Fig. 9 shows that the system with the high-camber
0.40
wing and double-crank mechanism generates more than
0.20
20% more lift and 10% less net thrust than the system
Thrust (N)
0.30
0.15 with the high-camber wing and single-crank system.
CT
0.20
0.10 However, there is no significant difference between the
0.10 lifts per wing area for the single-crank and double-crank
0.05
systems. This implies that FMAVs with a high-camber
0.00 0.00
7 8 9 10 11 12 wing and double-crank mechanism have better slow
Flapping frequency (Hz) flying or hovering capabilities. The higher lift and slow
(d)
moving or hovering capability of the double-crank drive
Fig. 8 Lift and net thrust (i.e., T – D: difference between thrust and system are thought to be derived from the larger flapping
drag) for different spar cambers when wind speed = 6 m·s−1 and BA
= 14˚, for the single- and double-crank systems. (a) Measured lift angle and wing twisting angle shown in Fig. 10. The
of the single-crank system for various cambers; (b) measured photographs include front views of the FMAV wing
thrust of the single-crank system for various cambers; (c) measured
lift of the double-crank system for various cambers; (d) measured
flapping captured by a high-speed camera for both the
thrust of the double-crank system for various cambers. single- and the double-crank drive systems.
Widhiarini et al.: Bird-mimetic Wing System of Flapping-wing Micro Air Vehicle with
Autonomous Flight Control Capability 465
as the Flight Control Computer (FCC), Attitude and Fig. 10 Front view of two FMAV wing-flapping shapes for wind
Heading Reference System (AHRS), Global Positioning speed = 6 m·s−1 and BA = 14˚, captured by high speed camera.
System (GPS), modem, micro camera, video transmitter,
motor, etc. All of these components, along with a battery,
were integrated into the fuselage of the vehicle, as
shown in Fig. 11a. Traditional stand-alone AHRSs,
based on MEMS sensors, are embedded with an accel-
erometer, a gyroscope, and a magnetometer. Attitude
and heading are estimated by data fusion from these
three different types of sensors. However, a traditional
AHRS cannot estimate the vehicle’s attitude accurately
if it is exposed to a long acceleration flight, as occurs in
(a) Compact FCC devices fully integrated into fuselage
small-radius circular turning.
The FMAV can experience even greater accelera-
tion flight conditions from the environmental effects of
even a mild breeze. Thus, the GPS velocity information
of this study was coupled with the AHRS to measure
pure gravity, after eliminating the acceleration flight
effect. An extended Kalman filter was also implemented
for data fusion from various kinds of sensors, such as a (b) Ground Data Terminal (GDT)
barometer and a GPS. A digital signal processor was
used for the FCC data. The AHRS, GPS, and modem
(data up and down link) were integrated on the FCC
mainboard to minimize the weight. To transmit the video
wirelessly, a Micro 5.8 GHz video transmitter RF mod-
ule was also developed, by applying a highly efficient
frequency-shift keying modulation scheme to the RF
module. The front of the fuselage was equipped with a
forward-looking pinhole micro camera, based on a 1/4”
CMOS sensor (Fig. 11b). (c) Ground Control System (GCS)
A series of flight tests were conducted at an outdoor Fig. 11 FCC devices integrated into fuselage structure, ground
field in order to validate the capabilities of the developed data terminal, and ground control system.
466 Journal of Bionic Engineering (2016) Vol.13 No.3
FMAV. Fig. 11c shows the ground control station with a A series of wind tunnel tests indicated that the
typical vehicle test setup. For a fully integrated FMAV aerodynamic performance had significant enhancement.
with flat wings, a double-crank system, and a wireless The revised FMAV has a unique configuration similar to
communication micro video camera system, the FMAV that of a bird, a better performance than the first proto-
flew up to 23 min (including automatic take-off and type, and fully autonomous flight capability with a GPS
landing) in an outdoor field (Fig. 12) when the wind waypoint navigation system, a take-off and landing
speed was less than 5 m·s−1. During the flight, the GCS wheel system, and video surveillance. Further studies on
was able to control the FMAV and receive the video increasing the aerodynamic performance of the FMAV,
signals in real time without interruption. It was also such as modifying the crank drive mechanism and add-
capable of changing the waypoints in real time, when ing a camber to the carbon-fiber wing spar are still
necessary. needed to further the understanding of autonomous
FMAVs having a flexible wing design.
36.3980 PNG
NPFG
Acknowledgment
Way point 3
36.3978 This paper was supported by Konkuk University in
36.3976
2014.
Latitude (deg)
36.3974
References
Way point 4
36.3972 Way point 2 [1] Viieru D, Tang J, Lian Y, Liu H, Shyy W. Flapping and
flexible wing aerodynamics of low Reynolds number flight
36.3970 vehicles. 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Ex-
hibit, Reno, Nevada, USA, 2006.
36.3968 Way point 1
[2] Ellington C P, van den Berg C, Willmott A P, Thomas A L R.
36.3966 Leading-edge vortices in insect flight. Nature, 1996, 384,
127.3194 127.3198 127.3202 127.3206 127.3210
626–630.
Longitude (deg)
[3] Dickinson M H, Lehmann F, Sane S P. Wing rotation and the
Fig. 12 Autonomous flight trajectory with Proportional Naviga- aerodynamic basis of insect flight. Science, 1999, 284,
tion Guidance (PNG) and Nonlinear Path Flight Guidance
(NPFG). 1954–1960.
[4] Muijres F T, Johansson L C, Barfield R, Wolf M, Spedding
G R, Hedenstom A. Leading-edge vortex improves lift in
7 Conclusion slow-flying bats. Science, 2008, 319, 1250–1253.
[5] Warrick D R, Tobalske B W, Powers D. Aerodynamics of the
This study considered the design of an FMAV with
hovering hummingbird. Nature, 2005, 435, 1094–1097.
a bird-mimetic up-down and twisting wing flapping
[6] Tobalske, B W. Hovering and intermittent flight in birds.
system, as well as the construction and performance
Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, 2010, 5, 045004.
evaluation of an FMAV capable of fully autonomous
[7] Siochi E J, Anders J B, Cox D E, Jegley D C, Fox R L,
flight. The single-crank mechanism of the FMAV was
Katzberg S J. Biomimetics for NASA langley research cen-
designed to produce a wing-flapping angle up to 25˚,
ter. NASA Technical Memorandum, 2002, 211445.
while the double-crank driving mechanism was able to [8] Benyus, J M. Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature,
create a phase angle difference, resulting in a larger 1st ed., Harper Perennial, New York, 1998.
flapping angle (up to 55˚) with wing twisting. We found [9] Ma K Y, Chirarattananon P, Fuller S B, Wood R J. Controlled
that the FMAV with a high-camber wing and dou- flight of biologically inspired, insect-scale robot. Science,
ble-crank mechanism generates more lift but less net 2013, 340, 603–607.
thrust when using the same driving brushless motor and [10] Phan H V, Nguyen Q V, Truong Q T, Van Truong T, Park H C,
different batteries, which demonstrates its superior slow Goo N S, Byun D, Kim M J. Stable vertical takeoff of an
flying or hovering capabilities. The higher lift and better insect-mimicking flapping-wing system without guide im-
hovering capacity was found to be a result of the larger plementing inherent pitching stability. Journal of Bionic
flapping angle and the wing-twisting angle. Engineering, 2012, 9, 391–401.
Widhiarini et al.: Bird-mimetic Wing System of Flapping-wing Micro Air Vehicle with
Autonomous Flight Control Capability 467
[11] Phan H V, Truong Q T, Park H C. Implementation of initial [21] Kim J H, Park C Y, Jun S M, Chung D K, Kim J R, Hwang H
passive stability in insect-mimicking flapping-wing micro C, Stanford B, Beran P, Parker G, Mrozinski D. Flight test
air vehicle. International Journal of Intelligent Unmanned measurement and assessment of a flapping micro air vehicle.
Systems, 2015, 3, 18–38. International Journal of Aeronautical and Space Sciences,
[12] De Croon G C H E., De Clercq K M E., Ruijsink, Remes, De 2012, 13, 238–249.
Wagter C. Design, aerodynamics, and vision-based control [22] Hu H, Kumar A G, Abate G, Albertani R. An experimental
of the DelFly. International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles, investigation on the aerodynamic performances of flexible
2009, 1, 71–97. membrane wings in flapping flight. Aerospace Science and
[13] Shyy W, Aono H, Chimakurthi S K, Trizila P, Kang C K, Technology, 2010, 14, 575–586.
Cesnik C E, Liu H. Recent progress in flapping wing aero- [23] Kim D K, Han J H, Kwon K J. Wind tunnel tests for a flap-
dynamics and aeroelasticity. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, ping wing model with a changeable camber using
2010, 46, 284–327. macro-fiber composite actuators. Smart Materials and
[14] Ho S, Nassef H, Pornsin-sirirak N, Tai Y C, Ho C M. Un- Structures, 2009, 18, 024008.
steady aerodynamics and flow control for flapping wing [24] Bejgerowski W, Ananthanarayanan A, Mueller D, Gupta, S
flyers. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2003, 39, 635–681. K. Integrated product and process design for a flapping wing
[15] Van Truong T, Byun D, Kim M J, Yoon K J, Park H C. drive mechanism. Journal of Mechanical Design, 2009, 131,
Aerodynamic forces and flow structures of the leading edge 061006.
vortex on a flapping wing considering ground effect. Bio- [25] Mazaheri K, Ebrahimi A. Experimental investigation on
inspiration & Biomimetics, 2013, 8, 036007. aerodynamic performance of a flapping wing vehicle in
[16] Phan H V, Truong Q T, Loan T K, Park H C. Effect of wing forward flight. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 2011, 27,
kinematics modulation on aerodynamic force generation in 586–595.
hovering insect-mimicking flapping-wing micro air vehicle. [26] Park J H, Yoon K J. Designing a biomimetic ornithopter
Journal of Bionic Engineering, 2015, 12, 539–554. capable of sustained and controlled flight. Journal of Bionic
[17] Ha N S, Truong Q T, Phan H V, Goo N S, Park H C. Engineering, 2008, 5, 39–47.
Structural characteristics of allomyrina dichotoma beetle's [27] Gerdes, J W, Gupta S K, Wilkerson, S A. A review of
hind wings for flapping wing micro air vehicle. Journal of bird-inspired flapping wing miniature air vehicle designs.
Bionic Engineering, 2014, 11, 226–235. Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics, 2012, 4, 021003.
[18] Yoon K J, Park J H, Widhiarini S. MAV-motivated structure [28] Shyy W, Berg M, Ljungqvist D. Flapping and flexible wings
and materials. Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering, 1st for biological and micro air vehicles. Progress in Aerospace
ed, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2010, 3550–3555. Sciences, 1999, 35, 455–505.
[19] Nguyen V Q, Syaifuddin M, Park H C, Byun D Y, Goo N S, [29] Pornsin-Sirirak T N, Lee S W, Nassef H, Grasmeyer J, Tai Y
Yoon K J. Characteristics of an insect-mimicking flapping C, Ho C M, Keennon M. MEMS technology for a bat-
system actuated by a unimorph piezoceramic actuator. tery-powered ornithopter. The 13th IEEE Annual Interna-
Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, 2008, tional Conference on Micro Electro Mechanical Systems,
19, 1185–1193. Miyazaki, Japan, 2000, 799–804.
[20] Kim J H, Park C Y, Jun S M, Parker G, Yoon K J, Chung D [30] Krashanitsa R, Silin D, Shkarayev S, Abate G. Flight dy-
K, Paik I H, Kim J R. Instrumented flight test of flapping namics of a flapping-wing air vehicle. International Journal
micro air vehicle. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace of Micro Air Vehicles, 2009, 1, 35–49.
Technology, 2013, 85, 326–339.