Journal of Bionic Engineering 11 (2014) 3651

Pitching Moment Generation in an Insect-Mimicking Flapping-Wing System

Tri Quang Truong1,2, Vu Hoang Phan1,2, Sanjay P. Sane3, Hoon Cheol Park1,2
1. Biomimetics and Intelligent Microsystem Laboratory & Artificial Muscle Research Center, Konkuk University, Seoul 143-701, Korea
2. Department of Advanced Technology Fusion, Konkuk University, Seoul 143-701, Korea
3. National Centre for Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bangalore, India

Abstract
Unlike birds, insects lack control surfaces at the tail and hence most insects modify their wing kinematics to produce
control forces or moments while flapping their wings. Change of the flapping angle range is one of the ways to modify wing
kinematics, resulting in relocation of the mean Aerodynamic force Center (mean AC) and finally creating control moments. In
an attempt to mimic this feature, we developed a flapping-wing system that generates a desired pitching moment during flapping-wing motion. The system comprises a flapping mechanism that creates a large and symmetric flapping motion in a pair of
wings, a flapping angle change mechanism that modifies the flapping angle range, artificial wings, and a power source. From the
measured wing kinematics, we have found that the flapping-wing system can properly modify the flapping angle ranges. The
measured pitching moments show that the flapping-wing system generates a pitching moment in a desired direction by shifting
the flapping angle range. We also demonstrated that the system can in practice change the longitudinal attitude by generating a
nonzero pitching moment.
Keywords: flapping-wing system, pitching moment, flapping angle, unsteady blade element theory, mean aerodynamic center,
center of gravity
Copyright 2014, Jilin University. Published by Elsevier Limited and Science Press. All rights reserved.
doi: 10.1016/S1672-6529(14)60018-4

1 Introduction
Flying insects generate the aerodynamic forces
necessary for control flight entirely by modulating their
wing kinematics because, unlike birds, most insects have
no control surfaces at the tail. Recent studies have uncovered previously unknown unsteady aerodynamic
mechanisms of flapping flight in insects. These include
the clap and fling[1], leading edge vortex generation[2,3],
rotational lift[2,4], and wing-wing interaction[5] mechanisms, which help explain the basic principles of unsteady force generation in insect flight. Armed with a
clearer picture of the mechanisms of flight force generation, it is possible to focus on mechanisms underlying
the stability and dynamics of insect flight.
Among the many approaches used to study this
problem include the use of blade element theory and
quasi-steady aerodynamics on insects that were tethered[6], the use of inverse methods on flapping wings in
freely flying or virtual models[7]. In addition to these,
Corresponding author: Hoon Cheol Park
E-mail: hcpark@konkuk.ac.kr

there has been substantial progress in predicting the

unsteady force generated by flapping wings.
Three-dimensional Computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD) has been successfully applied to solve the NavierStokes equations for flapping wings in low Reynolds number regimes[8,9]. However, the CFD modeling
suffers from strong mesh dependency and requires large
computational resources and computational time. As a
more effective approach, Unsteady Blade Element
Theory (UBET) has been developed to estimate the
unsteady flight force with reasonable accuracy[10,11]. In
UBET, unsteady forces such as rotational force and
added mass force are incorporated with the translational
force that is estimated based on quasi-steady aerodynamics. UBET could also be used to make accurate force
estimation on three-dimensional wing kinematics[10],
and estimate the mean aerodynamic force center[12],
which is crucial in assessing the flight stability of a
flapping-wing system. Thus, the mathematical tools
developed to predict the unsteady force generated by

Truong et al.: Pitching Moment Generation in an Insect-Mimicking Flapping-Wing System

flapping wings offer an easy means for rapid estimation

of aerodynamic forces and torques.
However, designing mechanisms for control force
and moment generation, which should be integrated to a
flapping-wing mechanism, remains a nontrivial job.
Therefore, it is beneficial to first learn the methods that
insects use to generate control forces, and then simplify
these methods to design a control mechanism. Across
the range of insect taxa, several parameters have been
observed to contribute to the generation of control force
in typical insect flight[13]. These include the stroke amplitude (or amplitude of the flapping angle)[14], wing beat
frequency (or flapping frequency)[15,16], and the change
in posture[17,18], as well as changes in wing stroke
plane[19,20]. Mostly, stroke amplitude is regarded as the
main control parameter of aerodynamic force generation
in fruit flies[13]. Change in the stroke amplitude causes
relocation of the mean Aerodynamic force Center (AC).
Wing beat frequency is another important parameter in
flight force and control force generation, and greatly
affects force generation and flight speed. In flies and
locusts, the change in body posture, via abdominal
flexion[17,18] or changes in wing stroke position[19,20],
modifies the location of the Center of Gravity (CG)
thereby modifies the relative distance between the mean
AC and CG to generate a control moment around the
body.
On the robotic front, the above findings provide
useful clues for developing control mechanisms in
flapping-wing systems that mimic insects and lack tail
control surfaces. In Ref. [21], two piezoceramic actuators were used for a tiny flapping-wing system: a larger
actuator for exciting the wings, and another smaller
actuator for stroke amplitude modification. With this
design, the stroke amplitudes of the left-hand and
right-hand wings could be made approximately 20%
different, which may generate a control force. Another
design described in the literature is a movable thoracic
structure that can create asymmetric flapping angles in a
pair of wings[22]. The mechanism can create a difference
of 15% to 20% in the stroke amplitudes of the left-hand
and right-hand wings. These control devices adopt the
basic principles of insect flight, although the inclusion of
extra actuators and linkages adds weight to the flapper. A
recently demonstrated hummingbird-mimicking flapping micro air vehicle displayed steady control of its
attitude in flight demonstration[23], using a mechanism

37

that appears to actively control wing kinematic parameters such as wing rotation, in each half stroke of
flight control[24]. This flapping-wing micro air vehicle is
a unique system that was able to demonstrate varied
controlled flight without the need for control surfaces at
the tail.
In a previous paper[12], we showed that the generation of pitch moment can be prevented by adjusting the
flapping angle range in our flapping-wing system designed to mimic the wing motion of the beetle, Allomyrina dichotoma[25]. In this case, the system could
safely take off from the ground even in absence of control[12]. The observation suggested that alteration in the
range of flapping angle relocates the mean AC of the
flapping wings, even when the amplitudes of flapping
angles of the left-hand and right-hand wings were the
same. Thus, changes in the flapping angel range, which
cause relocation of the mean AC, may enable a flapping-wing system to generate zero or non-zero pitch-up
or -down moment.
Here, we test this hypothesis by proposing a simple
rack-rocker mechanism to change the flapping angle
range in a flapping-wing system. We combined the
flapping angle change mechanism with the flapping-wing system described in Refs. [12,25,26]. The
mechanism is able to shift the flapping angle range while
maintaining almost the same amplitude of flapping angle.
In the following sections, we explain the design, fabrication, and evaluation of the flapping-wing system with
the mechanism for pitching moment generation.

2 Design of a flapping-wing system

2.1 Design of a flapping mechanism integrated with
a rack-rocker mechanism
We used the combination of the Scotch yoke and
slider-crank mechanisms to design a flapping mechanism that converts the rotational motion (I) of the crank
Rc into the flapping motion (E) of wings attached to the
output link l2, as shown in Fig. 1[25,26]. The flapping
mechanism is symmetric about the vertical column, and
only the right-hand side of the flapping mechanism is
shown in Fig. 1a for analyzing the relationship between
the input motion (I) and the output angle (E). The Scotch
yoke mechanism converts the rotational motion (I) of
the crank Rc, which is driven by an electromagnetic
motor, into linear up and down motions of the horizontal
slider. The linear motion of the horizontal slider drives

Rack

Rack

Journal of Bionic Engineering (2014) Vol.11 No.1

38

Fig. 1 Schematics and CAD model of the flapping mechanism. (a) Schematic drawing of the right-hand side of the mechanism; (b)
definitions of angles for = 0; (c) front view of the CAD model and flapping angle range for various positions (up or down motion of
the rack rotates the pinion rocker, which modifies the position of the output link, where the wings are attached; this changes the flapping
angle range, maintaining almost the same amplitude of flapping angle.

the slider-crank mechanism to create a flapping motion

of the output link l2 around the hinge O3 through the
coupler l1. The location of O3 can be shifted by moving
the rack up or down, as shown in Fig. 1c. Shifting the
rack triggers rotation of the pinion rocker about the fixed
hinge O4, which results in rotation of O3. The rotation of
O3 about O4 is defined by the rocker angle , as shown in
Fig. 1. The relocation of O3 changes the flapping angle
range of the output link l2, which is described in detail at
the end of this section.
Based on Fig. 1a, the output angle E can be found as
follows using the law of cosines
l2 l2 [l 2 (1cosF )2 (h R sinI l sin F )2 ]
2
3
c
3
J , (1)
2
2
2
2l2 l3 (1cosF ) (h Rc sinI l3 sin F )

E cos1 1

where

l3 (1 cos F )
.
h  Rc sinI  l3 sin F

J tan 1

(2)

Based on Fig. 1b, the flapping angle can be expressed as

\ = 90.

(3)

Fig. 1b shows the normal case of = 0. When the

crank Rc rotates from /2 to /2, the leading edge of a
wing, which is attached to the output link l2, sweeps
from \max to \min. These last values represent the end of
the upstroke and the end of the downstroke, respectively.
The flapping angle range can be expressed as [\min,\max],

and the amplitude of the flapping angle can be expressed

as \max \min. For the normal case, we expect that the
attached wing flaps symmetrically about the x-axis and
the output amplitude of the flapping angle is 100, which
means that \min = 50 and \max = 50. Once the distance
h and the length l2 are chosen, we can find the length l1
and the required length Rc of the crank using

l1

(h  Rc )2  l22  4l2 h
Rc

(h  l2 sin\ min )sin\ min

, (4)
2h  l2 (sin\ max  sin\ min )

l2 h(sin\ max sin\ min )

.
2h  l2 (sin\ max  sin\ min )

(5)

Table 1 lists the dimensions used for the present

integrated flapping mechanism. By substituting the
known values in Eqs. (4) and (5), we can find l1 and Rc.
To change the flapping angle range, we relocate the
moving hinge point O3 by shifting the rack up or down
as described above and shown in Fig. 1c. For the dimensions listed in Table 1, we are able to make the
rocker l3 tilt down for an angle of = 10 or tilt up for a
rocker angle of = 20, as shown in Fig. 1c. Because of
Table 1 Dimensions of the parts and linkages in the flapping
mechanism
Crank, Rc
(mm)

h
(mm)

Coupler, l1
(mm)

Output link, l2
(mm)

Rocker, l3
(mm)

3.1

8.0

8.4

4.0

2.0

Truong et al.: Pitching Moment Generation in an Insect-Mimicking Flapping-Wing System

39

Flapping angle (degree)

produce positive or negative pitching moments, which

the tilt of the rocker l3, the flapping angle changes and a
will be explained in the following sections.
pitching moment are generated. Thus, tilting down and
Based on this design, we first produced virtual parts
tilting up the output link triggers pitch-up and -down
and then virtually assembled them using commercially
motions of the flapping-wing system, respectively. These
available three-dimensional CAD software, as shown in
are explained in more detail in the following sections.
Fig. 3. The CAD design was used to guarantee sucBy substituting the values of into Eq. (1), we can
cessful assembly after making actual parts. The parts
find the variation of the flapping angle range over a
were built according to the CAD design using CAM
flapping cycle for the three cases of normal, pitch-up,
system (MM-300S, resolution 10 m, MANIX, Korea).
and pitch-down, as shown in Fig. 2. In Fig. 2, the solid
We purchased reduction gears, hinges, motor from
line denotes the normal case, the solid line with hollow
markets, and constructed an actual assembly of the incircles denotes the pitch-up case, and the dashed line
tegrated flapping mechanism.
with filled squares denotes the pitch-down case.
The plots show time histories of perfectly symmetric flapping angles for upstroke and downstroke,
60
Upstroke
Downstroke
because the flapping angles were calculated for a con40
stant rotating speed of the motor. If the rotational speed
20
of the motor is not constant, the time histories of the
flapping angle shown in Fig. 2 can be altered.
0
From Fig. 2, we can compare the flapping angle
20
ranges ([\min,\max]) for the three cases, which are
( = 0)
40
( = 10)
summarized in Table 2. The table shows that we can
( = 20)
60
modify the flapping angle range by changing the rocker
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
angle . The change in the flapping angle range causes
Cycles (t/T)
relocation of the mean AC, which modifies the relative Fig. 2 Variation in the designed flapping angle over a flapping cycle.
location between the mean AC and CG. The mean AC is
Table 2 Effect of the rocker angle on the flapping angle range
expected to be located at about the mid-stroke[12]. For the
Amplitude of the Flapping angle range Mid stroke angle
normal case, the pitching moment generation can be

flapping angle
(\max + \min)/2
\min
\max
prevented by adjusting relative location between the
0
mean AC and CG. Based on the Table 2, we expected
50
50
0
(Normal)
that the location of the mean AC is shifted down when
the flapping angle range is shifted down, which corre10
sponds to the case of = 10. As a result, a pitching
66
45
11
(Pitch-up)
moment is generated to make the flapping-wing system
pitch up. Conversely, when the flapping angle range is
20
30
63
17
shifted up, which corresponds to the case of = 20, the
(Pitch-down)
location of the AC is now shifted up. Consequently, a
pitch-down moment is generated. Therefore, by changing the flapping angle range, we can manipulate the
pitching moment generation in the flapping-wing system.
Even though the mechanism was designed such that
change in the magnitude of flapping angle by shifting the
rack can be minimized, the flapping angles of the three
cases were not exactly the same. They became about
10% increased or decreased from the flapping angle of
the normal case. Despite of the difference in the magnitudes of flapping angles, the tree cases could demonFig. 3 Virtual parts and assembly of the integrated flapping
mechanism.
strate the relocation of the mean aerodynamic center to

40

Journal of Bionic Engineering (2014) Vol.11 No.1

2.2 Passive wing rotation mechanism

Passive wing rotation mechanisms have been used
for flapping-wing systems by some researchers[12,2832].
In Refs. [12,2830], the wings were passively rotated
around a flexible hinge attached to the leading edges
without any constraints at the trailing edges, which led to
mostly constant wing rotation angle throughout the
wingspan during the flapping motion. In another type of
passive wing rotation mechanism, the trailing edges near
the wing roots were constrained while the wings
flapped[31,32]. This type of passive wing rotation mechanism creates a negative wing twist along the wingspan
such that all the wing sections flap with a positive angle
of attack for both downstroke and upstroke motion. In
one study[31], a flapping-wing system with wing twist
generated a higher thrust (force in the body axis direction), and consumed less power than a system without
wing twist. Therefore, we incorporated wing twist into
the flapping-wing system described in this study. The
actual assembly of the integrated flapping mechanism
with artificial wings is shown in Fig. 4. The wing length
(Rw), mean chord length ( c ) and wing Aspect Ratio (AR)
of one wing are shown in Fig. 4. Details of the fabrication of the artificial wings and the constraints of the
trailing edge near the wing roots can be found in
Refs. [31,32].

3 Estimation of forces and pitching moment

using UBET
3.1 Estimation of forces
We used a UBET model presented in Refs.
[10,12,31] to estimate the forces generated by the flapping-wing system. In the UBET model, the motion of the
wing is decomposed into two motions: flapping around
the flapping axis (the z-axis) and rotation around the
feather axis (the -axis), as shown in Fig. 5a. The feather
axis, which corresponds to the leading edge vein in the
present flapping-wing system as shown in Fig. 4, flaps in
the x-y plane or the stroke plane. The location of the
feather axis is determined by the flapping angle \. The
wing rotation angle of a wing section, which is the angle
between the K-axis and the wing section, at a distance r
from the wing root, is Tr as shown in Fig. 5b. In Fig. 5b,
the wing section moves to the right-hand side (upstroke),
and thus the geometric angle of attack of the wing section is T, which can be determined based on the rotation

angle Tr[10]. The time histories of the flapping angle and

wing rotation were acquired by analyzing images taken
by two high-speed cameras. Details of the measurement
of the wing kinematics are given in section 4.1.

20 mm

AR

2.75

Fig. 4 Actual assembly of the flapping-wing system with artificial wings.

z Flapping axis

r
Stroke plane

A wing section
(a)

Feather axis

dL
dFT
Feather axis

Leading edge (LE)

dFT

xf

dD

Leading edge
(TE)

V
Vi

VT

c(r)

(b)

Fig. 5 (a) Definitions of the wing section[10]; (b) force components for UBET analysis[10,12,31].

Truong et al.: Pitching Moment Generation in an Insect-Mimicking Flapping-Wing System

The force generated by a wing section has four

components: the translational force, the added mass force,
the rotational force, and the inertial force[10,11]. Because
the flapping-wing system has two wings flapping symmetrically through the plane of symmetry (the Y-Z plane
in Fig. 6), only the nonzero force components in the y and
z directions and the pitching moment about the x-axis
were of interest in this study. Because more details on the
mathematical expression of each force component can be
found in Ref. [10], we briefly summarize the equations
used for the force components below.
3.1.1 Translational force
The translational force is decomposed into components in the y direction dFTy(t) and in the z direction
dFTz(t) at an instantaneous time t, which are determined
as[10]
dFTy (t ) dFTK cos\ and dFTz (t ) dFT] ,
where

dL

1
U CLV 2 dS , dD
2

(6)

1
U CDV 2 dS ,
2

dFTK dLsinM dDcosM , and dFT] dLcosM dDsinM .

41

z Flapping axis

r
Stroke plane
dFTz

RCG

dFUz

T dFTy
dFUy

c/2
r
Feather axis

CG

Y
dFUj = dFAj + dFRj , j = y, z
T(xT, yT, zT), U(xU, yU, zU), CG(xCG, yCG, zCG),

Fig. 6 Force components acting on a wing section for estimation

of pitching moment.

3.1.3 Rotational force

The rotational forces in the y direction dFRy(t) and
in the z direction dFRz(t) at an instantaneous time t are
respectively expressed as
dFRy (t ) dFrot sinTr cos\ and dFRz (t ) dFrot cosTr , (8)

The symbols , CL, CD, dS, and denote the air density,
lift coefficient, drag coefficient, wing section area, and
induced angle, respectively. Here, CL and CD were taken
from Ref. [5], in which they were verified to be applicable for a Reynolds number of the order of 104[10].

where dFrot UVT crotTr c 2 dr , which is the force normal

to the surface of the wing section[11], and crot is the rotational force coefficient, which is a function of
non-dimensional rotational velocity and the position of
the feather axis xf[11].

3.1.2 Added mass force

The added mass force is decomposed into components in the y direction dFAy(t) and in the z direction
dFAz(t) at an instantaneous time t, which are calculated
as[10]

3.1.4 Inertial force

The inertial force of a wing section in the y direction dFIy(t) and in the z direction dFIz(t) at an instantaneous time t are respectively calculated as

dFAy (t ) 4 U c an cos T r cos\ dr

,

dF (t )  U c 2 a sin T dr
n
r
Az
4

dFIy (t )
(7)

where c is the wing chord length; and

an r\ sinTr  (c /2  xf )\ 2 cosTr sinTr  (c /2  xf )Tr ,
which is the acceleration of the center of the wing section at an instantaneous time; and xf is the distance between the feather axis and the leading edge[10,12,31]. If the
leading edge is collocated with the feather axis as in the
present system, then xf = 0.

LE

TE

(dmw ) 
y and dFIz (t )

LE

TE

(dmw ),

(9)

y , 
z are
where dmw is the mass of a wing section, and 
the accelerations at an instantaneous time of the mass
dmw in the y and z directions, respectively[10,12,11].
Finally, the forces in the y and z directions generated by the two wings at an instantaneous time can be
obtained by integrating the forces generated by all the
wing sections over the wing length Rw and then multiplying by

Fy (t ) 2

Fz (t ) 2

Rw

0
Rw

(dFTy  dFAy  dFRy  dFIy )

(dFTz  dFAz  dFRz  dFIz )

(10)

Journal of Bionic Engineering (2014) Vol.11 No.1

42

The average forces in the y and z directions generated by the flapping-wing system over a flapping cycle
can be estimated as

Fy ,ave

F
z ,ave

1
T
1
T

Fy (t )dt

stroke and downstroke. Based on these assumptions, the

pitching moment around the X-axis generated by a wing
section at an instantaneous time t is calculated as
dM X (t ) [( yT  yCG )dFTz  ( yU  yCG )(dFAz  dFRz ) 

(11)

Fz (t )dt

where T is the flapping period of the wings. Because the

forces generated by the flapping system keep changing
during the flapping motion, the average forces for a
flapping cycle were used as apparent forces generated by
the flapping system when we analyzed the flight stability
of the flapping-wing system[6,33].
3.2 Estimation of pitching moment and mean aerodynamic force center
To theoretically investigate the effect of change in
the flapping angle range on the pitching moment generation in the flapping-wing system, we have estimated
the pitching moment generated by the flapping wings
about the CG. Therefore, in addition to the force estimation conducted in Ref. [12,31], in the present paper
we describe a method to estimate the pitching moment
generated by a flapping-wing system about the CG.
Let us consider a wing section shown in Fig. 6. The
XYZ coordinate system originates at the CG of the flapping-wing system. The XYZ coordinate system can be
formed by translating the xyz coordinate system by the
G
vector RCG , as shown in Fig. 6. As described in section
3.1, there are four force components acting on the wing
section: the translational force, the added mass force, the
rotational force, and the inertial force. To estimate the
pitching moment about the X-axis generated by the wing
section, we assume that the translational force acts at
point T located at 25% chord length behind the leading
edge as for a symmetric airfoil in steady aerodynamics[34], the added mass force and the rotational force are
acting at point U located at 50% chord length[10,11,35], and
the inertial force is acting at the center of mass I of the
wing section, which is approximately located at 10%
chord length behind the leading edge according to the
mass distribution of the fabricated wings. The moment
coefficient of the wing is assumed to be zero because its
contribution to the average pitching moment is mainly
zero when the flapping motion is symmetric during up-

( yI  yCG )dFIz ][( zT  yCG )dFTy 

( zU  zCG )(dFAy  dFRy )  ( zI  zCG )dFIy ],

(12)

where yT and zT are the y and z coordinates of point T, yU

and zU are the y and z coordinates of point U, yI and zI are
the y and z coordinates of point I, and yCG and zCG are the
y and z coordinates of the CG, respectively. In Eq. (12),
the component in the first bracket is the moment generated by the vertical force in the z-axis, and the component in the second bracket is the moment generated by
the horizontal force in the y-axis. By integrating Eq. (12)
over the wingspan and then multiplying by two, we can
obtain the pitching moment generated by the two wings
about the X-axis at an instantaneous time t as follows
after rearrangement
M X (t ) M x (t ) [ yCG Fz (t )  zCG Fy (t )],

(13)

where Fy(t) and Fz(t) are determined by Eq. (10) and

Mx(t) is the pitching moment about the x-axis generated
by the wings at an instantaneous time t, which can be
expressed as

M x (t ) 2

Rw

0
Rw

> yT dFTz  yU (dFAz  dFRz )  yI dFIz @

zT dFTy  zU (dFAy  dFRy )  zI dFIy .

(14)

Similar to Eq. (12), in Eq. (14), the first and second

terms are the pitching moment about the x-axis due to
the vertical force Fz and the horizontal force Fy, respectively. Eq. (13) is regarded as the transformation of the
pitching moment between the two coordinate systems.
Based on Eqs. (13) and (14), the average pitching moment about the CG generated by the flapping-wing system can be calculated as
M X ,ave ( yFz  yCG ) Fz ,ave  ( zFy  zCG ) Fy ,ave , (15)
where the average vertical force Fz,ave and the average
horizontal force Fy,ave are determined by Eq. (11) and yFz
and zFy are the mean AC of the vertical force and the
horizontal force (or the apparent centers of the average
vertical force and the average horizontal force), respectively. These can be expressed as

Truong et al.: Pitching Moment Generation in an Insect-Mimicking Flapping-Wing System

yFz

2
T

Rw

> yT dFTz  yU (dFAz  dFRz )  yI dFIz @dt / Fz ,ave ,

(16)

yFy

2
T

Rw

zT dFTy  zU (dFAy dFRy ) zI dFIy dt / Fy ,ave .

(17)

The results of estimation of the forces and pitching

moment about the CG and the location of the AC for the
three cases of the rocker angle are presented in section
5.2.

4 Measurement of wing kinematics, force, and

pitching moment
4.1 Measurement of wing kinematics
To confirm that the flapping angle range was actually modified as designed in the flapping-wing system,
we captured the wing kinematics for three values of the
rocker angle F. In addition, the measured wing kinematics was used for estimation of forces and pitching
moment by the UBET. The wing kinematics of the
flapping wing was determined by tracking marked
points placed at three sections of 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75 of
the wingspan (Rw) on the wing. The points are shown on
the surfaces of the wings in Fig. 4. To track the marked
points, we examined sequential images captured by two
synchronized high-speed cameras at 2000 frames1 and
analyzed them based on the Direct Linear Transformation (DLT) method[27]. The DLT method allows us to
reconstruct a three-dimensional coordinate of a point
based on two or more two-dimensional-views of that
point. The DLT method has been implemented in
MATLAB code provided by Hendrik[27].G More details
on how to obtain the wing kinematics are described in
Ref. [10].
Based on the tracked coordinates of the marked
points during the flapping motions, we could obtain the
time histories of the flapping angle and the rotation angle
of the wing at the three locations in the spanwise direction. Then, we acquired the mean time histories of the
two angles by averaging the measured wing kinematics
for three cycles. Finally, they were fitted to a summation
of sine and cosine functions based on the least-squares
method[36,37]. The function used for the least square fit is
given as

a0 

>a

k 1

cos(2kft )  bk sin(2kf ) @, (18)

43

where is either the flapping angle or the rotation angle,

f is the flapping frequency of the wing, and a0, ak, and bk
are the coefficients determined based on the leastsquares method[37]. The fitted wing kinematics was used
for assessing the shift in flapping angle range relative to
the change in the rocker angle , and they were used as
the input data for estimating the force via UBET. The
processed wing kinematics is presented in section 5.1.
4.2 Measurement of force and pitching moment
We used a multi-axis load cell (Nano 17, Stainless
steel, ATI Industrial Automation, USA, force resolution
of 0.3 gf, moment resolution of 1.6 gfmm) to measure
the forces and pitching moment generated by the flapping-wing system. The load cell was vertically installed
in the assembly of the flapping-wing system through an
adapter made of carbon rod with a diameter of 7 mm and
acrylic panels as shown in Fig. 7a. The adapter is divided

0.36c

c
d

Connected to the
flapping-wing system

20 mm
50 mm

Adapter
(upper part)

Slider slot

Adapter
(lower part)
(b)

Bolts and nuts

Connected to the load cell

Fig. 7 Test setup for force and pitching moment measurement.

(a) Test setup; (b) zoom in at the slider slot connector.

Journal of Bionic Engineering (2014) Vol.11 No.1

44

in to two parts: the lower part is connected to the load

cell and the upper part is connected to the flapping-wing
system. The two parts of the adapter are connected together by a slider slot and two bolts and nuts as shown in
Fig. 7b. The slider slot allows us to adjust the relative
position between the two axes of the flapping-wing
system and the load cell. In this way, the location of the
flapping-wing system was adjusted to make the zL axis
of the load cell pass through the CG of the flapping-wing
system and perpendicular to the stroke plane.
The xyz and XYZ coordinate systems in Fig. 7 are
the same coordinate systems defined in Fig. 6. The origin of the xLyLzL coordinate system locates at the center
of the top surface of the load cell. The wings symmetrically flap through the Y-Z plane in Fig. 7, which is
identical to the yL-zL plane.
The CG was located at approximately 36% of the
mean wing chord (c ) from the leading edge, which
means that the z coordinate of the CG in the xyz coordinate system (zCG) was 7.2 mm. The flapping-wing
system was excited by an external power supply
(E3646A, Agilent, Malaysia) at a flapping frequency of
approximately 38.5 Hz 0.5 Hz. Whenever we activated
the flapping-wing system, a pair of wings were placed at
the end of the upstroke or at the beginning of the downstroke (\max position in Fig. 1c), so that we were able to
determine the starting point of each flapping cycle in the
acquired signals from the load cell.
Fig. 8 shows a typical signal for the vertical force
(Fz) acquired by the load cell. Each measurement batch
dataset included approximately 100 flapping cycles. The
load cell was activated for approximately 3 s before
exciting the wings. For measuring the forces and mo150
About 100 flapping
cycles
Vertical force Fz (gf)

100

Idle 1

Idle 2

50

0
50

100
0

2000

4000

6000
Samples

8000

10000

12000

Fig. 8 Definition of one measurement batch dataset.

ment, the wings were excited for approximately 3 s.

Subsequently, the load cell was deactivated for approximately 3 s after the wings stopped flapping. The
conditions before and after exciting the wings are called
Idle 1 and Idle 2 conditions, respectively, as shown in
Fig. 8. When the difference in the average signals of the
two idle conditions was less than or equal to 0.1 gf,
which was approximately 30% of the resolution of force
measurement by the load cell, we deemed that the test
setup worked properly to acquire the signal.
The average vertical force (Fz,ave), horizontal force
(Fy,ave), and moment about the xL-axis (MxL,ave) were
calculated by taking the averages of corresponding signals for each measurement batch dataset of 100 flapping
cycles. In this way, we were able to obtain the average
forces and moments generated by the flapping-wing
system for the three values of rocker angle (): normal (
= 0), pitching up ( = 10), and pitching down ( = 20).
For each rocker angle, we obtained ten measurement
batch datasets. Because the measured moment signal
from the load cell is the moment about the xL-axis of the
load cell (MxL,ave), we needed one more step to calculate
the average pitching moment about the X-axis (moment
about the CG, MX,ave) using
M X ,ave M xL ,ave  Fy ,ave d ,

(19)

where Fy,ave is the average horizontal force and d is the

distance between the load cell to the CG, as shown in
Fig. 7. The measured forces and pitching moments
about the CG for the three cases of are presented in
section 5.2.

5 Result and discussion

5.1 Wing kinematics
The measured wing kinematics of the flapping-wing system for the three values of rocker angle
are shown in Fig. 9. Each set of wing kinematics was
acquired by averaging the time histories of three typical
flapping cycles. Fig. 9a shows the time histories of
flapping angle () for each case. The amplitudes of
flapping angles were approximately 104, 116, and 99
for the cases of = 0 (normal), = 10 (pitching up),
and = 20 (pitching down), respectively. All flapping
angle amplitudes were slightly larger than the design
values in section 2.1 because of bending of the leading
edge vein of the wing during flapping motion and
clearance introduced during fabrication. The results in

Truong et al.: Pitching Moment Generation in an Insect-Mimicking Flapping-Wing System

80
( = 0, measured)
( = 10, measured)
( = 20, measured)
( = 0, fitted)
( = 10, fitted)
( = 20, fitted)

Flapping angle (degree)

60
40
20
0
20
40
60

(a)

80
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4 0.5 0.6

Cycles (t/T)

Wing rotation angle (degree)

140

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.25Rw ( = 10, fitted)

0.50Rw ( = 10, fitted)
0.75Rw ( = 10, fitted)
0.25Rw ( = 20, fitted)
0.50Rw ( = 20, fitted)
0.75Rw ( = 20, fitted)

120
100
80
0.25Rw ( = 0, fitted)
0.50Rw ( = 0, fitted)
0.75Rw ( = 0, fitted)

60
40
0.0

(b)
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4 0.5 0.6

Cycles (t/T)

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Fig. 9 Wing kinematics at a flapping frequency of 38.5 Hz. (a)

Flapping angle; (b) wing rotation angle.

Fig. 9a show that depending on the rocker angle , the

flapping angle range can be symmetric ([52,52]),
shifted down ([68,48]), or shifted up ([33,66])
about the x axis for = 0, = 10, and = 20, respectively. This change in the flapping angle range leads
to relocation of the mean AC and modifies the relative
position between the mean AC and the CG of the flapping-wing system. Consequently, a non-zero pitching
moment about the CG will be changed. Fig. 9b shows
the time histories of the wing rotation angle Tr, defined
in section 3.1, at the three wing locations for three different cases. As shown in Fig. 9b, the wing was negatively twisted during the downstroke and reversed during the upstroke. This means that the amount of wing
rotation was larger near the wing tip (r = 0.75Rw) than
near the wing root (r = 0.25Rw). Consequently, the rotational angle was variable from wing root to wing tip.
This is qualitatively similar to the rotational angle
characteristics of a beetles hind wing[10].
Unlike in the estimated flapping angle history in
Fig. 2, the time durations of downstroke for the three
cases are slightly shorter than those of upstroke. It is

45

basically because the rotational speed of the installed

motor is not constant. Especially for the case of = 10,
since the amount of wing rotation, therefore the angle of
attack of the wing, is slightly smaller during the downstroke, as shown in Fig. 9b, than in the upstroke. Therefore, smaller aerodynamic forces are possibly generated
by the flapping wings and the burden from the wing to
the motor is relatively reduced. Finally, the motor can
rotate faster than in the upstroke. Therefore, the time
history of the flapping angle is shifted to the left.
5.2 Force and pitching moment
5.2.1 Normal case ( = 0)
In this case, we set the rocker angle = 0 and acquired the average vertical force, horizontal force, and
pitching moment about the CG for ten measurement
batch datasets. Then, we took average of the ten datasets
to obtain average forces and pitching moment generated
by the flapping-wing system. Table 3 lists the averages
and the standard deviations of the ten measurement
batch datasets, and the forces and pitching moment estimated by UBET. The location of the mean AC for each
force component is also included in Table 3.
As seen in Table 3, the average measured vertical
force (Fz,ave) and horizontal force were 5.1 gf and 0.1
gf , respectively. For the vertical force, the UBET estimation was in good agreement with the measured value
because the difference between their values was 3.9%.
The average horizontal force (Fy,ave) was only approximately 2.0% of the vertical force and was close to the
resolution of the load cell (0.3 gf). The small average
horizontal force was reasonable because of the symmetric flapping motion about the feather axis, or x-axis,
in the flapping-wing system, even though the accuracy
of the measured horizontal force was questionable. The
limited accuracy of the measured horizontal force possibly gave rise to a large difference when it was compared to that estimated by UBET.
Table 3 Average forces and moment obtained by measurement
and UBET estimation ( = 0)
Item
Average vertical force, Fz,ave (gf)

Measurement UBET Difference

5.10.16

4.9

3.9%

Average horizontal force, Fy,ave (gf)

0.10.07

0.7

800.0%

Average moment about the CG,

MX,ave (gfmm)

4.92.06

0.7

85.7%

Mean AC of Fz,ave, yFz (mm)

0.0

Mean AC of Fy,ave, zFy (mm)

8.2

46

Journal of Bionic Engineering (2014) Vol.11 No.1

The average measured pitching moment about the

CG was 4.9 gfmm , and its magnitude was close to the
moment resolution of the load cell (1.6 gfmm ). Thus,
we can consider that the flapping-wing system produced
insignificant moment for = 0, even though the accuracy was again questionable. Because of the low and
limited accuracy of the measured pitching moment, the
difference between the UBET estimation and the measured value was large.
Typical time histories of the measured vertical
force (Fz), horizontal force (Fy), and pitching moment
(MX) about the CG are plotted along with those obtained
by UBET estimation in Figs. 10a, 10b, and 10c, respectively. In these figures, the solid lines with squares represent the averages of the measured data for three flapping cycles. The error bars represent the standard deviation of the three datasets. We can see that the estimated time histories show similar tendencies to the
measured values, even though there is some difference.
5.2.2 Pitch-up case ( = 10)
For this case, we set the rocker angle to 10.
Using the same method applied to the normal case, we
were able to obtain the average measured forces and
moment for ten measurement batch datasets. Table 4
indicates that the average measured vertical force (Fz,ave)
and horizontal force (Fy,ave) were 6.2 gf and 0.5 gf,
respectively. Because the amplitude of the flapping angle in this case was approximately 10% larger than that
in the normal case, the average vertical force (Fz,ave) was
slightly larger than that in the normal case.
The vertical force estimated by UBET was in good
agreement with the measured value because the difference in their values was approximately 6.5%. The average measured horizontal force (Fy,ave) was 0.5 gf, which
was only approximately 8.0% of the vertical force. This
value was again close to the force resolution of the load
cell (0.3 gf). The small average horizontal force was
reasonable because of the symmetric flapping motion
during the downstroke and upstroke. Because of the
limited accuracy of the measured horizontal force, the
difference between the UBET estimation and the measurement for the horizontal force was large, as shown in
Table 4, as it was in the normal case, as shown in Table 3.
The average measured pitching moment was
46.4 gfmm, which was approximately ten times larger
than that in the normal case. The difference between the

30

Upstroke

Downstroke

20
10
0

10
20
0.0

Fz ( = 0, measured, 5.1 gf)

Fz ( = 0, UBET, 4.9 gf)
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4 0.5 0.6

Cycles (t/T)

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Upstroke

Downstroke

30

(a)

15
0
15
30
45
60
0.0

Fy ( = 0, measured, 0.1 gf)

Fy ( = 0, UBET, 0.7 gf)
0.1

300

0.2

0.3

0.4 0.5 0.6

Cycles (t/T)

Downstroke

(b)
0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Upstroke

200
100
0
100
200
MX ( = 0, measured, 4.9 gfmm)

300
400
0.0

MX ( = 0, UBET, 0.7 gfmm)

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4 0.5 0.6

Cycles (t/T)

(c)
0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Fig. 10 Time histories of the forces and pitching moment in

normal case ( = 0). (a) Vertical force; (b) horizontal force; (c)
pitching moment about the CG.

Table 4 Average forces and moment obtained by measurement

and UBET estimation ( = 10)
Item
Average vertical force, Fz,ave (gf)

Measurement UBET Difference

6.20.16

5.8

6.5%

Average horizontal force, Fy,ave (gf)

0.50.06

0.6

220.0%

Average moment about the CG,

MX,ave (gfmm)

46.44.36

33.2

28.4%

Mean AC of Fz,ave, yFz (mm)

5.5

Mean AC of Fy,ave, zFy (mm)

8.4

Truong et al.: Pitching Moment Generation in an Insect-Mimicking Flapping-Wing System

5.2.3 Pitch-down case ( = 20)

For the pitch-down case, we shifted the rocker angle from 0 to 20 without changing any other configuration in the setup. The forces and pitching moment
were measured following the same method described in
section 4.2. The average measured vertical force, horizontal force, and pitching moment about the CG generated by the flapping-wing system obtained from ten
measurement datasets are shown along with the values
estimated by UBET in Table 5.

Downstroke

Vertical force Fz (gf)

20

Upstroke

10
0

10
20
0.0

Fz ( = 10, measured, 6.2 gf)

Fz ( = 10, UBET, 5.8 gf)
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4 0.5 0.6

Cycles (t/T)

(a)
0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

45
Downstroke

Upstroke

Horizontal force Fy (gf)

30
15
0
15
30
45
60
0.0

Fy ( = 10, measured, 0.5 gf)

Fy ( = 10, UBET, 0.6 gf)
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4 0.5 0.6

Cycles (t/T)

(b)
0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

300
Pitching moment MX (gfmm)

UBET estimation for the pitching moment and the

measured value was 28.4%. This discrepancy was
mainly due to the inaccurate horizontal force and potential error in the measured wing kinematics of the
flapping-wing system. However, both the UBET estimation and the measurement show that the flapping-wing system created a significant magnitude of
negative pitching moment about the CG. The pitching
moment about the CG was negative because the flapping
angle range was shifted to the downstroke side, compared to that in the normal case, as indicated in Table 2
and Fig. 9a. Consequently, the mean AC of the average
vertical force shifted to the downstroke side, i.e., shifted
to the left-hand side of the CG. It should be noted that the
weight of the rack is only 0.53% the weight of the flapping-wing system and the movement of the rack is
0.7 mm in the y-direction for creating a rocker angle of
10. Thus, the movement of the CG in the y-direction
caused by the movement of the rack is 0.0037 mm,
which is only 0.07% the shifted location of the mean AC
in the y-direction (yFz = 5.5 mm) due to the change in
the corresponding flapping angle range. Therefore, the
location of the CG during the rack motion is neglected in
our further discussion.
Based on the measurement and estimation, we can
confirm that the flapping-wing system created a negative
pitching moment when the flapping angle range shifted
to the downstroke side using the pitch control mechanism
and when the rocker angle changed from 0 to 10.
Typical time histories of the measured vertical
force (Fz), horizontal force (Fy), and pitching moment
(MX) about the CG for = 10 are plotted along with
those estimated by UBET in Figs. 11a, 11b, and 11c,
respectively. Again, the estimated time histories show
similar tendencies to the measured values, even though
there is some discrepancy as explained in section 5.2.1.

47

Downstroke

200

Upstroke

100
0
100
200
300
MX ( = 10, measured, 46.4 gfmm)
MX ( = 10, UBET, 33.2 gfmm)

400
500
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4 0.5 0.6

Cycles (t/T)

0.7

(c)
0.8

0.9

1.0

Fig. 11 Time histories of the forces and pitching moment in

pitch-up case ( = 10). (a) Vertical force; (b) horizontal force; (c)
pitching moment about the CG.
Table 5 Average forces and moment obtained by measurement
and UBET estimation ( = 20)
Item

Measurement UBET Difference

Average vertical force, Fz,ave (gf)

4.50.15

4.4

2.2%

Average horizontal force, Fy,ave (gf)

0.10.07

1.0

900.0%

Average moment about the CG,

MX,ave (gfmm)

36.82.23

39.4

7.1%

Mean AC of Fz,ave, yFz (mm)

9.4

Mean AC of Fy,ave, zFy (mm)

6.8

48

Journal of Bionic Engineering (2014) Vol.11 No.1

For this case, because the amplitude of the flapping

angle was slightly smaller than the amplitudes in the
normal and pitch-up cases, the flapping-wing system for
= 20 generated the smallest vertical force (Fz,ave) of
approximately 4.5 gf among the three cases. The average
measured horizontal force (Fy,ave) was approximately
0.1 gf, which was again close to the force resolution of
the load cell (0.3 gf). The limited accuracy of the
measured horizontal force again caused a large discrepancy between the estimated and measured values
listed in Table 5.
The average measured pitching moment about the
CG (MX,ave) was approximately 36.8 gfmm, which can
cause a pitch-down motion of the flapping-wing system.
The difference between the measured data and the
UBET estimation values for the pitching moment was
7.1%. In this case, the flapping-wing system created a
positive average pitching moment about the CG. This
was because the flapping angle range shifted up compared to that of the normal case, as indicated in Table 2.
Consequently, the mean AC of the vertical force shifted
to the upstroke side, i.e., shifted in the positive y direction compared to that of the normal case, as indicated in
Table 5 (yFz = 9.4 mm).
Typical time histories of the measured vertical
force (Fz), horizontal force (Fy), and pitching moment
(MX) about the CG for = 20 are plotted along with
those obtained by the UBET estimation in Figs. 12a, 12b
and 12c, respectively. The measured and estimated time
histories show similar tendencies, even though there is
some discrepancy as explained in section 5.2.2. One can
notice that for all the cases of three rocker angles, the
UBET tended to underestimate the measured forces. In
the UBET estimation, the wing camber in each wing
section is not considered. Instead, the camber chord is
approximated by connecting the leading edge and trailing edge. In reality, each wing section becomes a cambered wing section during flapping motion. Since a flat
wing typically produces smaller aerodynamic forces
than a camber wing[34], the current UBET typically underestimate the force generation.
In all cases explained above, the fluctuations in the
measured time histories of horizontal and vertical forces
are rather large due to vibratory forces created by flapping wings and flapping mechanism. When the system is
fixed to the load cell, the vibration is recorded as high
frequency signals in the data acquisition system. Even

30

Downstroke

Upstroke

20
10
0
10
20
0.0

Fz ( = 20, measured, 4.5 gf)

Fz ( = 20, UBET, 4.4 gf)
0.1

0.2

45

0.3

0.4 0.5 0.6

Cycles (t/T)

Downstroke

(a)
0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Upstroke

30
15
0
15
30
45
60
0.0

Fy ( = 20, measured, 0.1 gf)

Fy ( = 20, UBET, 1.0 gf)
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4 0.5 0.6

Cycles (t/T)

Downstroke

300

(b)
0.7

0.8

0.9 1.0

Upstroke

200
100
0
100
MX ( = 20, measured, 36.8 gfmm)
MX ( = 20, UBET, 39.4 gfmm)

200
300

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4 0.5 0.6

Cycles (t/T)

0.7

(c)
0.8

0.9

1.0

Fig. 12 Time histories of the forces and pitching moment in

pitch-down case ( = 20). (a) Vertical force; (b) horizontal force;
(c) pitching moment about the CG.

though we filter them out, some of them are still included and the signals are not well repeated. However,
the average forces over cycles are well reproduced with
low standard deviation and well matched with the estimated ones as we summarized in Tables 3, 4, and 5.

6 Demonstration of pitching moment generation

We set up an experiment to demonstrate that the
flapping-wing system is able to generate a reasonable
pitching moment during flapping motion when the
rocker angle is shifted from 0. As shown in Fig. 13,

Truong et al.: Pitching Moment Generation in an Insect-Mimicking Flapping-Wing System

Fig. 13 Experimental setup for demonstration of pitching moment generation.

the flapping-wing system was installed in a test jig such

that the system was able to rotate freely around the CG in
the y-z plane when nonzero pitching moment was generated. The electric power was then turned on using a

49

wireless infrared transmitter (ITX2H-V2, 38 KHz) and

receiver (IRX262, 38 KHz). The power source was a pair
of polylithium batteries (3.7 V, 20 mAh, Fullriver, China)
connected in series. More details of the integration of the
flapping-wing system are reported in Ref. [32].
Fig. 14 shows sequential images of the flapping-wing system during the test; these images were
captured by a high-speed camera at 2000 frames1. The
flapping frequency was varied from 38 Hz to 40 Hz
depending on the charge state of the installed batteries.
These frequencies are close to the flapping frequency
used in section 5 and the same as those used in the vertical takeoff test[12]. We conducted at least three tests for
each rocker angle . The video clips of the current
demonstration can be found at Ref. [38].

(a) Normal case ( = 0)

(b) Pitch-up case ( = 10)

(c) Pitch-down case ( = 20)

Fig. 14 Sequential images of experimental pitching moment demonstration.

50

Journal of Bionic Engineering (2014) Vol.11 No.1

Fig. 14a shows the test conducted in the normal

case for 3 seconds, which simulated vertical flight. From
the sequential images, we observed that the flapping-wing system oscillated slightly about the hinge but
was still able to remain in the vertical direction when the
wings were excited. This means that the average pitching moment was almost zero for = 0, as explained in
section 5.2.1.
The sequential images in Fig. 14b indicate the
pitch-up case when the rocker angle = 10. In this
case, immediately after the wings were excited, the
flapping-wing system rotated in the clockwise direction
around the hinge until it hit the fixture. This means that a
negative or pitch-up moment was generated as explained
in section 5.2.2 for the pitch-up case.
As shown in Fig. 14c, for = 20, the flapping-wing
system rotated in the counterclockwise direction immediately after the wings were excited. This means that the
flapping-wing system generated a positive or pitchdown moment as explained in section 5.2.3 for = 20.
Based on the demonstration test, we can conclude
that a desired pitching moment can be generated by
shifting the flapping angle range by changing the rocker
angle . Thus, we verified the effectiveness of the flapping mechanism integrated with the pitch control
mechanism.

nism may be used for longitudinal attitude control of an

insect-mimicking flapping-wing system.

Acknowledgement
This research was supported by Basic Science
Research Program through the National Research
Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of
Science, ICT and Future Planning (Grant number:
2013R1A2A2A01067315) and this paper was written as
part of Konkuk Universitys research support program
for its faculty on sabbatical leave in 2013.

References
[1]

animals, including novel mechanisms for lift production.

Journal of Experimental Biology, 1973, 59, 169230.
[2]

Ellington C P. The aerodynamics of hovering flight. IV.

Aerodynamic mechanisms. Philosophical Transactions of
Royal Society B, 1984, 305, 79113.

[3]

Dickinson M H, Gotz K G. Unsteady aerodynamic performance of model wings at low Reynolds numbers. Journal
of Experimental Biology, 1993,174, 4564.

[4]

Dickinson M H. The effects of wing rotation on unsteady

aerodynamic performance at low Reynolds numbers. Journal of Experimental Biology, 1994, 192, 179206.

[5]

Dickinson M H, Lehmann F, Sane S P. Wing rotation and the

aerodynamic basis of insect flight. Science, 1999, 284,

7 Conclusion
In this work, we presented a design for a flapping
mechanism integrated with a mechanism that is able to
change the flapping angle range of the wings. A flapping-wing system composed of the integrated flapping
mechanism and artificial wings was fabricated and
tested to evaluate the design. The forces and pitching
moment about the CG generated by the flapping-wing
system were determined both by measurement and by
estimation using UBET. The measured data and UBET
estimation showed that it is possible to modify the relative position between the mean AC of the vertical force
and the CG of the flapping-wing system by changing the
flapping angle range. Consequently, pitching motion of
the flapping-wing system can be triggered by generating
a desired pitching moment. This was verified through a
demonstration using a flapping-wing system installed in
a test jig such that it was able to rotate freely about the
CG depending on the direction of pitching moment
generated by the flapping wings. The proposed mecha-

Weis-Fogh T. Quick estimates of flight fitness in hovering

19541960.
[6]

Taylor G K, Thomas A L R. Animal flight dynamics II.

Longitudinal stability in flapping flight. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 2002, 214, 351370.

[7]

Hedrick T L, Daniel T L. Flight control in the hawkmoth

Manduca sexta: The inverse problem of hovering. Journal of
Experimental Biology, 2006, 209, 31143130.

[8]

Liu H, Aono H. Size effects on insect hovering aerodynamics: An integrated computational study. Bioinspiration &
Biomimetics, 2009, 4, 015002.

[9]

Le T Q, Byun D, Saputra P, Ko J H, Park H C, Kim M J.

Numerical investigation of the aerodynamic characteristics
of a hovering Coleopteran insect. Journal of Theoretical
Biology, 2010, 266, 485495.

[10] Truong Q T, Nguyen Q V, Truong V T, Park H C, Byun D,

Goo N S. A modified blade element theory for estimation of
forces generated by a beetle-mimicking flapping wing system. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, 2011, 6, 036008.
[11] Sane S P, Dickinson M H. The aerodynamic effects of wing
rotation and a revised quasi-steady model of flapping flight.
Journal of Experimental Biology, 2002, 205, 10871096.

Truong et al.: Pitching Moment Generation in an Insect-Mimicking Flapping-Wing System

[12] Phan H V, Nguyen Q V, Truong Q T, Truong V T, Park H C,

51

Method, US Patent, Pub. No. US 2010/0308160 A1, 2010.

Byun D, Goo N S, Kim M J. Stable vertical takeoff of an

[25] Nguyen Q V, Park H C, Goo N S, Byun D. Characteristics of

insect-mimicking flapping-wing system without guide im-

beetles free flight and a flapping-wing system that mimics

plementing inherent pitching stability. Journal of Bionic

Engineering, 2012, 9, 391401.
[13] Taylor G K. Mechanics and aerodynamics of insect fight
control. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical
Society, 2001, 76, 449471.

beetle flight. Journal of Bionic Engineering, 2010, 7, 7786.

[26] Park H C, Nguyen Q V, Byun D, Goo N S. Flapping Apparatus with Large Flapping Angles, US Patent, Registration #
12/571,945, 2011.
[27] Hedrick T. Software techniques for two- and three-dimen-

[14] Dudley R. The Biomechanics of Insect Flight: Form, Func-

sional kinematic measurements of biological and biomi-

tion, Evolution, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ,

metic systems. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, 2008, 3,

USA, 1999.

034001.

[15] Horsmann U, Heinzel H G, Wendler G. The phasic influence

[28] Truong Q T, Nguyen Q V, Park H C, Goo N S, Byun D.

of self-generated air current modulations on the locust flight

Modification of a four-bar linkage system for a higher op-

motor. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 1983, 150,

timal flapping frequency. Journal of Intelligent Material

427438.

Systems and Structures, 2011, 22, 5966.

[16] Lehmann F, Dickinson M H. The control of wing kinematics

[29] Syaifuddin M, Park H C, Yoon K J, Goo N S. Design and

and flight forces in fruit flies (drosophila spp.). Journal of

evaluation of LIPCA-actuated flapping device. Smart Ma-

Experimental Biology, 1998, 201, 385401.

terials and Structures, 2006, 15, 12251230.

[17] Arbas E A. Control of hindlimb posture by wind-sensitive

[30] Whitney J P, Wood R J. Aeromechanics of passive rotation

hairs and antennae during locust flight. Journal of Com-

in flapping flight. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 2010, 660,

parative Physiology A, 1986, 159, 849857.

197220.

[18] Hinterwirth A J, Daniel T L. Antennae in the hawkmoth

[31] Truong T Q, Phan V H, Park H C, Koh J H. Effect of wing

Manduca sexta (Lepidoptera, Sphingidae) mediate ab-

twisting on aerodynamic performance of flapping wing

dominal exion in response to mechanical stimuli. Journal

of Comparative Physiology A, 2010, 196, 947956.

system. AIAA Journal, 2013, 51, 16121620.

[32] Phan V H, Truong T Q, Park H C. Assessment of initial

[19] Blondeau J. Aerodynamic capabilities of flies, as revealed

pitching moment stability for an uncontrolled free flying

by a new technique. Journal of Experimental Biology, 1981,

flapping-wing micro-air-vehicle. Journal of Aircraft, 2013

92, 155163.

(Submitted).

[20] Nachtigall W, Roth W. Correlations between stationary

[33] Sun M, Wang J K. Flight stabilization control of a hovering

measurable parameters of wing movement and aerodynamic

model insect. Journal of Experimental Biology, 2007, 210,

force production in the blow fly (Calliphora vicina R.-D.).

27142722.

Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 1983, 150, 251260.

[21] Finio B M, Wood R J. Distributed power and control actuation in the thoracic mechanics of a robotic insect. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, 2010, 5, 045006.

[34] Anderson Jr J D. Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, McGraw

Hill, New York, USA, 2001.
[35] Lock R J, Vaidyanathan R, Burgess S C, Loveless J. Development of a biologically inspired multi-modal wing

[22] Park J H, Yang E P, Zhang C, Agrawal S K. Kinematic

model for aerial-aquatic robotic vehicles through empirical

design of an asymmetric in-phase flapping mechanism for

and numerical modelling of the common guillemot, Uria

MAVs. Proceeding on IEEE International Conference on

aalge. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, 2010, 5, 046001.

Robotics and Automation, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA,

[36] Matlab Users Guide, MathWorks Inc, 2006.

2012, 1418.

[37] Bjorck A. Numerical Methods for Least Squares Problems,

[23] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuD1WKHsggs
[24] Keennon M T, Klingebiel K R, Andryukov A, Hibbs B D,
Zwaan J P. Air Vehicle Flight Mechanism and Control

SIAM, Philadelphia, USA, 1996.

[38] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUJTjQKO9M4