Experimental Mechanics (2013) 53:1561–1571
DOI 10.1007/s11340-013-9779-5
Characterization of the Mechanics of Compliant Wing
Designs for Flapping-Wing Miniature Air Vehicles
J.W. Gerdes & K.C. Cellon & H.A. Bruck & S.K. Gupta
Received: 10 September 2012 / Accepted: 24 June 2013 / Published online: 9 July 2013
# Society for Experimental Mechanics 2013
Abstract Flapping-wing miniature air vehicles (MAVs) of-
fer multiple performance benefits relative to fixed-wing and
rotary-wing MAVs. This investigation focused on the prob-
lem of designing compliant wings for a flapping-wing MAV
where only the spar configuration was varied to achieve
improved performance. Because the computational tools
needed for identifying the optimal spar configuration for
highly compliant wing designs have yet to be developed, a
new experimental methodology was developed to explore
the effects of spar configuration on the wing performance.
This technique optically characterized the wing deforma-
tions associated with a given spar configuration and used a
customized test stand for measuring lift and thrust loads on
the wings during flapping. This revealed that spar configu-
rations achieving large and stable deformed volume during
the flapping cycle provided the best combination of lift and
thrust. The approach also included a sensitivity and repro-
ducibility analysis on potential spar configurations. Results
indicated that the wing shape and corresponding lift and
thrust performance were very sensitive to slight changes in
volume and 3-D shape associated with slight variations in the
spar locations.
Keywords Miniature air vehicles . Shape characterization .
Compliant wings . Lift and thrust measurement . Spar
location
Introduction
Currently, miniature air vehicles (MAVs) are being developed
with variations on three different wing configurations: fixed-
J.W. Gerdes : K.C. Cellon : H.A. Bruck (*) : S.K. Gupta
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maryland,
College Park, MD 20742, USA
e-mail: bruck@umd.edu
wing, rotary-wing, and flapping-wing designs [1–9]. The large
variety of applications for MAVs reveals both advantages and
disadvantages to each type of wing design. However, the
versatile flapping-wing design, which is biologically inspired,
offers potential in a wide range of missions overlapping with
the capabilities of both fixed-wing and rotary-wing designs.
The field of flapping-wing miniature air vehicles is rela-
tively new, and is constantly growing and expanding. There
are many designs currently being explored, with each one
emphasizing a different aspect of the vehicle’s construction
[10]. Because the size range of unmanned flapping-wing air
vehicles is so large, “miniature” with respect to unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAVs) constitutes any flier weighing be-
tween 10 and 100 g. Flapping-wing MAVs can be divided
into three major categories that are critical in determining an
MAV’s flight envelope: directional control scheme, mecha-
nism design, and wing design [10].
Flapping wings are often constructed using stiff, lightweight
rods as structural materials and a thin polymer film as the wing
surface [11–14]. The wings of two types of birds designed at
the University of Maryland, a ‘Small Bird’ weighing approx-
imately 12 g and a ‘Big Bird’ weighing approximately 30 g, as
well as the ornithopter developed at the University of Dela-
ware, are all constructed by hand using this technique. The spar
and film construction style is advantageous because of the
ability to adjust the wing properties easily. Adjustment to the
stiffness distribution across the wing surface is accomplished
by changing the size and location of the stiffening spars.
However, because these wings are man-made, repeatability in
manufacturing is a challenge, as small differences are present
between each set of wings. Commercial MAVs, such as the I-
fly Vamp and Wasp within the toy market, also employ thin
films stretched across front and rear spars in their flapping
wings.
An understanding of current wing design is an important
focus of MAV development because it influences how the
wings are modified to optimize performance and informs the
1562
approach to experimental wing characterization. Without a
thorough understanding of current wing construction tech-
niques, an applicable wing characterization method would be
difficult to develop.
One of the greatest difficulties in developing compliant
wings for flapping MAVs lies in the lack of knowledge
available to accurately predict aerodynamic loads, and
thus flight patterns and behavior, for small-scale aerial
vehicles that operate at low Reynolds numbers [15–21].
Because reliable predictive analytical and computational
models do not yet exist for highly compliant wings, another
method must be developed to characterize aerodynamic
loads and their effects on compliant wings. One such meth-
od is 3-D Digital Image Correlation (DIC) which tracks the
position and deformation of the wing during the flapping
cycle . The DIC method characterizes the displacement
field of an object by tracking the deformations of a random
speckle pattern applied to the surface. At the University of
Florida, this method was applied to a flexible-material
fixed-wing MAV [22, 23]. The setup uses a wind tunnel
equipped with two ceiling-mounted synchronized cameras
and two lamps to increase the exposure of the images
captured. Through this method, it was possible to obtain
high resolution deformation fields of the flexible wings at
different angles of attack, allowing for experimental deter-
mination of the best angles of attack for different types of
flight conditions. Thus, optical characterization of wing
shape has proven extremely beneficial in understanding
the aeroelastic behavior in flexible fixed-wing MAV
platforms.
The focus of this investigation was to characterize the
relationship between the deformation behavior of compliant
wings and the corresponding lift and thrust performance.
First, the differences in lift and thrust measurements due
to different wing spar configurations were investigated.
Through high-speed imaging from multiple angles, the
leading-edge spar displacement of each wing design was
investigated, and a grid was then applied to each wing to
measure the 3-D shape during the flapping cycle associated
with the way air will “blowback”. The grid enabled calcula-
tion of the change in volume over the course of the flapping
cycle to quantify the blowback characteristics. By interpreting
the quantitative results of the leading-edge spar displacements
and volume calculations, and the qualitative results of 3-D
shape measurements, it was possible to differentiate between
wing designs with various spar configurations to determine
what characteristics generated the best combination of lift and
thrust loading as measured on a customized test frame. This
approach also enabled, for the first time, a sensitivity and
reproducibility analysis to be conducted on one of the spar
configurations.
Exp Mech (2013) 53:1561–1571
Experimental Procedures
Flapping Wing MAV Platform
For this investigation we used the ‘Jumbo Bird’ flapping-
wing MAV (Fig. 1) that was designed and manufactured in
the Advanced Manufacturing Lab at the University of Mary-
land; its predecessors include the ‘Small Bird’ and the ‘Big
Bird’ [12, 24–26]. A key component for flapping-wing
MAVs is the drive mechanism. The platform chosen uses a
crank-rocker design to translate the rotary motion of the
motor to the flapping motion of the wings. A functional
schematic of the drive mechanism is shown in Fig. 2. The
wings must achieve the required flapping range and rate for a
successful flight of the MAVand maintain synchronization to
ensure stability. Based on previous findings, the necessary
flapping range to sustain flight was determined to be 65° at a
flapping frequency of 4 to 6 Hz [12, 25]. Therefore, all
testing was conducted in this frequency range.
Experimental Characterization of Lift and Thrust Loading
Since existing computational models are inadequate for de-
termining the aerodynamic loading on compliant flapping
wings, the direct measurement of these loads acting on the
wings during the flapping cycle was used to gain insight into
the wing design parameters. Lift and thrust measurements for
compliant flapping wings were obtained with a 3′×3′ wind
tunnel, a custom-built test stand, and post-processing soft-
ware [26, 27]. In all tests, the wind speed was 5 m/s which
gave rise to a dynamic pressure of 12.5 kPa, and the relative
angle of attack was 20°. This angle of attack was previously
found to be the angle of attack achieved during flight condi-
tions using the best wing design. Equilibrium between the
aerodynamic lift forces and the weight of the bird determines
the angle of attack in flight. In our design the in-flight angle
of attack can be changed by changing the center of mass and
Fig. 1 Jumbo Bird MAV designed and built at the University of
Maryland
Exp Mech (2013) 53:1561–1571
Prismatic Joint Wing supports
Rigid links
Compliant joints Rocker
Rigid body
Crank
Revolute joints
Fig. 2 Functional schematic diagram of drive mechanism used for
flapping wings
adjusting the tail angle. The batteries can be translated along
the body to change the center of mass and the angle of attack
where force equilibrium is achieved. The tail mount can also
be rotated to adjust the tail angle and the drag force vector
that also contributes to equilibrium. Therefore, the angle of
attack was quickly and easily determined under real flight
conditions by moving the batteries and rotating the tail
mount in small increments.
The test stand used to evaluate the relative lift and thrust
loads for the MAV comprised a transducer, an air bearing
system, a breadboard with four rubber mounts, and a CNC-
machined test fixture to hold the MAV in place during
testing, shown in Fig. 3. The transducer, a miniature load
cell, converted the loads generated by the wing flapping into
a voltage signal for processing. The load cell was found to
have a high resonant frequency (~240 Hz) relative to the
flapping frequency of the MAVs, which is important to
prevent contamination of the desired signals. The load cell
was mounted on a linear air bearing system to minimize
friction and stiction caused by the off-axis loads generated
Fig. 3 Test stand used for aerodynamic and static load measurement
1563
Fig. 4 MAV mounted in wind tunnel during aerodynamic thrust testing
at 0° angle of attack
during flapping. Because the mounting system aligned the
air bearing axis of motion with the axis of the load cell, the
lift and thrust loading were sufficiently isolated from any
external signals The MAV is shown mounted in the wind
tunnel in Fig. 4.
Characterization of Wing Deformations
In order to develop a better understanding of how aerodynam-
ic loading affects the deformation of the wings on flapping-
wing MAVs, high-speed imaging was used to capture the
images of the wings at different points during the flapping
cycle. In addition to lift and thrust data, high-speed imaging
was used to determine the shape of the wing at different points
throughout the flapping cycle. This optical deformation char-
acterization technique was inspired by digital image correla-
tion work conducted previously at the University of Florida
[22]. Using a high-speed camera at a fixed distance from the
MAV, images were taken both from the head-on and over-top
angles to describe the deformation of the wings. To obtain out-
of-plane as well as in-plane deformation measurements, we
employed a grid method along with a geometric analysis that
included a perspective correction obtained from static mea-
surements of the wing at different angles. We have previously
used similar approaches for shape characterization [28].
t1
1
H
t2
2
3
4
t5 t3
t4
Fig. 5 Wing configuration template [27]
1564 Exp Mech (2013) 53:1561–1571

Table 1 Wing prototype parameters [27]

Wing No. Tested t1 (mm) t2 (mm) t3 (mm) t4 (mm) t5 (mm) Θ1 Θ2 Θ3 Θ4

A 1 1.5 1.3 1.3 – – 36° 69° – –

B 1 1.5 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.3 20° 19° 32° 34°
C 1 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.3 – 19° 51° 35° –
D 1 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.3 – 34° 36° 35° –
E 1 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.3 – 69° 17° 19° –
F 4 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.3 – 17° 17° 71° –

Characterization of Mechanics of Compliant Wing
Designs
Design of Compliant Wings
The wings of any flapping-wing MAV are one of the most
crucial components governing overall performance in flight.
Wings affect the endurance, speed, maneuverability, climbing,
gliding, and other flight behaviors. The wings are also the
source of lift and thrust, providing the capability to support the
weight of the MAV and any additional desired payloads.
Flexible flapping wings deform as they are accelerated
through the flapping cycle into an airfoil shape and aerody-
namic loading produces large angles of attack to generate lift
and thrust when in a moving airstream [26, 27].
The wings used in the ‘Jumbo Bird’ MAV were constructed
in a biologically-inspired style. A stiff skeletal structure of
carbon fiber rods provided support. Desired stiffness distribu-
tions were achieved by changing the diameters and orientation
of the spar structure along the wing surface. A thin film of
Biaxially-oriented Polyethylene Terephthalate (BoPET)
provided the lifting surface. Because the film was coated
with a thermally-activated adhesive, no glues or adhesives
were necessary in the assembly of the spars and film, a small
but important detail in ensuring the smooth deformation of the
wings under loading.
The general approach to the layout of the spars is seen in
Fig. 5, with each wing being constructed with the same
BoPET-based foil pattern. The semi-span L was set to
33.0 cm and the maximum chord H was set to 15.2 cm for
every wing design, resulting in an overall surface area of
502 cm2 for each wing. Six prototypes were constructed;
their specific parameters can be seen in Table 1. As these
wings were hand-built, slight deviations inevitably occurred
during construction, but the actual effect of the deviations
had not been previously explored.
Lift and Thrust Measurements
A good combination of lift and thrust values are necessary to
achieve successful flight. The best performing wings have
large lift and thrust values; in a lift vs. thrust plot, the most
successful wings fall in the upper right quadrant. Using the
methods described in Experimental Procedures section, the
six wing configurations were tested in both lift and thrust
modes in the wind tunnel. The average lift and thrust results
obtained over a flapping cycle during wind tunnel testing are
shown in Fig. 6. Wing F performed the best, maximizing lift
and thrust, while wings A, B, D and E performed the worst,
with low values of lift and/or thrust.
In order to determine the validity of the measurements made
using the wind tunnel, outdoor flight testing was conducted.
Results can be seen in Fig. 7. The actual flight payload was
consistently on the order of 15–25 g greater than the lift
measured by the test stand because the wind tunnel was unable

Fig. 6 Average lift and thrust generated during a flapping cycle

obtained from wind tunnel tests Fig. 7 Wind tunnel verification testing
Exp Mech (2013) 53:1561–1571
Fig. 8 Lift vs. thrust data comparing the four wing F designs
to generate sufficiently high flow speeds to exactly duplicate
flight conditions. However, the trends that were observed with
the spar configuration were consistent, and design F performed
the best in tunnel tests and flight tests. Additional data and
imaging during the flapping cycle can provide a more thorough
picture of the wings performance properties. Therefore, we
pursued a more thorough method for characterizing how flex-
ible flapping wings deform throughout the flapping cycle.
Repeatability and Sensitivity Analysis
While the lift and thrust loading could be compared between
different wing designs, the repeatability of the tests for
identical wing sets and sensitivity to spar location still need-
ed to be investigated. Therefore it was necessary to conduct
an experimental sensitivity analysis to understand how a
slight variation in spar angle affect might affect wing perfor-
mance. Slight deviations occur during construction, but the
actual sensitivity of the deviations in spar placement has not
been explored in the literature.
To perform the experimental sensitivity analysis, four
additional wings were constructed: two identical wings were
manufactured using the wing F spar orientation to determine
Fig. 9 Lift profile across multi-
ple flapping cycles as a function
of wing angle
1565
the repeatability of the testing methods, while two more wings
were constructed with slight variations on the wing F design to
determine the sensitivity of the testing methods. In these two
wings, the 1 mm carbon fiber spar closest to the center spar
was moved either towards or away from the center spar by
2.5 cm. While 2.5 cm is a larger amount of deviation than
would likely be encountered during manufacturing, it is a
smaller change in spar location than the differences between
the original six wing designs. Lift and thrust testing, as well as
volume calculations and wing imaging, were done on all four
additional wing sets. Resulting lift and thrust data can be seen
in Fig. 8.
As seen in Fig. 8, the two identical F wings performed very
similarly to the original wing; the lift values were almost
exactly identical, while the thrust in the two newly constructed
wings was approximately one gram greater than the original
value. This similarity indicates that the testing and manufactur-
ing processes are repeatable and reliable. The two F wings with
variation in the 1 mm carbon fiber spar nearest the center spar
performed similarly, although significantly worse than the orig-
inal F wing design. A decrease of approximately ten grams of
lift and four grams of thrust, which is a 14 % decrease in thrust
performance and an 18 % decrease in lift performance, oc-
curred due to a 2.5 cm variation in spar location. This notice-
able decrease in performance indicates the importance of accu-
racy in spar placement.
Multi-cycle averaging was used during all tests to ensure
the effects of variability between flapping cycles were
accounted for sufficiently. Plots of the lift and thrust as a
function of the commanded flapping angle are shown in
Figs. 9 and 10, which reveals both the inter-cycle variability
and the trend toward a clear average performance over many
cycles. By running each test for many cycles, the average
performance emerged, revealing the effects of small changes
between different wing designs.
1566
Fig. 10 Thrust profile across mul-
tiple flapping cycles as a function of
wing angle
Characterization of Wing Deformations
Front Spar Motion
Throughout the wing cycle, there are a few components that
affect how the wing develops, one of which is the motion of
the front spar. Using high-speed imaging, the movement of
the front spar was tracked throughout the flapping cycle from
two orthogonal perspectives: (a) from the front (head-on)
and (b) above the MAV (over-top) (see Fig. 11). From these
two perspectives, front spar tip displacement was quantified
by comparison with a superimposed perfectly stiff wing. The
measurement was made using image analysis software on
each of the fifteen evenly spaced frames for each of the six
different wing types.
Plots comparing the front spar displacement for both the
over-top and head-on perspectives can be seen in Figs. 12
and 13, respectively. The path of the front spar from both
perspectives are consistent with models of lift and thrust
profiles presented in previous work [25] are shown in the
figures using dashed lines, as well as the lift results in Fig. 9
(correlates with head-on) and the thrust results in Fig. 10
(correlates with over-top). From the over-top perspective, the
front spar should move away from the center line towards the
rear of the wing during the up-flap, snap forward of the
Fig. 11 (left) Head-on and (right)
over-top perspectives for measur-
ing front spar motion during flap-
ping cycle using a high speed
camera
Exp Mech (2013) 53:1561–1571
center line during the transition between the up-flap
and the down-flap, and then move away from the center
line towards the rear of the wing once again during the
down-flap as the wing fills up with air and deforms,
snapping back to zero at the transition. From observing
the plot of the front spar paths, it appeared that wing F
best followed the model path which allowed the wing to
collect the most useful amount of air and expel it in the
most efficient way. Wings A and D followed the model
path the least accurately, which may have attributed to
their generation of smaller lift and thrust loads.
The model path for the front spar from the head-on per-
spective resembles a parallelogram; the leading spar trails the
model spar location during the up-flap so the displacement is
negative, crosses over the model location during the transi-
tion between up and down flaps, and then trails the model spar
location during the down-flap, resulting in positive displace-
ment. As seen in Fig. 13, all of the wing designs followed the
model front spar path in approximately the same manner; this
reflected the fact that the wings are all constructed with the
same leading spar thickness, 1.5 mm carbon fiber.
The displacement of the leading spar, from both the head-
on and over-top perspectives, indicated the direction in
which the spar moved during the up-flap and down-flap of
the flapping cycle. This improved the understanding of wing
z y
x x
Exp Mech (2013) 53:1561–1571 1567

Fig. 12 Motion of front spar mea-

sured using the over-top perspec-
tive with a model path represented
by the dashed lines that correlates
to the thrust profile in Fig. 10

shape during the cycle and how that shape affected the lift
and thrust loads generated during flight because it defined
the location of the front edge of the wing at fifteen different
points throughout the flapping cycle.
Volume Measurement
Volumes were measured at fifteen evenly spaced points
throughout the flapping cycle for all six wing configurations.
Figure 14 compares the normalized volume over the flapping
cycle for all six configurations. Ideally, the wing volume should
increase on the up-flap as the aerodynamic loads cause the wing
to billow towards the ground, come back down through the
transition between up and down-flap, and then quickly grow
again as the down-flap is initiated. The volume should increase
again as the wing moves through the down-flap and air is
collected, to be expelled once again on the transition to the
up-flap. Based on the results, it is obvious that wing F collected
significantly more volume than the other wing designs. This
reinforced the fact that wing F was the top-performing wing out
of the six; its lift and thrust data reflected the large amount of
volume displaced by the wing design.
Repeatability and Sensitivity Analysis
A sensitivity analysis for the measured volume was also
performed for the four identical wings at fifteen different
angles throughout the flapping cycle, as was done previously
for the lift and thrust measurements. Figure 15 compares the
progression of volume captured throughout the flapping

Fig. 13 Motion of front spar mea-

sured using the head-on perspec-
tive with a model path represented
by the dashed lines that correlates
to the lift profile in Fig. 9
1568
Fig.14 Normalized volume over
the flapping cycle for all wing
constructions
cycle for the four wings. As seen in this figure, the volume
captured by the four wing sets was similar; however, the two
wings in which the 1 mm spar was moved, named sensitivity
in and sensitivity out in the graph, captured less volume than
the other three wing sets. Also, the two wings identical to the
original F wing design captured slightly less volume than the
original wing, but still captured more volume than the other
two wing sets. Since the difference in volume was small, the
differences in the lift and thrust values must come from
another factor, such as the overall shape of the wing through-
out the flapping cycle.
3-D Shape Characterization
Once calculated images were created, the next step was to
construct 3-D measured shapes for the six different wing
constructions. The wings moved laterally as well as vertically,
as indicated by the tracking of the leading spar from the over-
top perspective; the calculated images neglected this lateral
motion. The out-of-plane deformations in the z-direction were
Fig. 15 Graph comparing volume
captured over the flapping cycle for
the four wings: (a) repeatability of
measurements, and (b) sensitivity
of measurements
Exp Mech (2013) 53:1561–1571
calculated from the in-plane deformations in the x-direction
and y-direction (directions relative to the wing can be seen in
Fig. 11), and then all three deformations were combined to
obtain the 3-D shape. Therefore, all of the grid points in each
wing image were tracked throughout 15 different mechanism
angles. Using image analysis software, coordinates for each
point in the wing throughout the 15 different mechanism
angles could easily be determined. Figure 16 shows the mea-
sured 3-D shapes for wing A, and Fig. 17 shows the measured
3-D shapes for wing F.
Much like the calculated images, the 3-D shapes for wing
F were generally smooth throughout the flapping cycle.
Also, the general bowl-shape again increased throughout
the up-flap, reversed direction at the peak angle, and de-
creased throughout the down-flap as the air was forced out
of the wing. The measured images, however, more accurate-
ly depict the position of the shape relative to the mechanism
attachment point and show how much the rear edge of the
wing moved to create the bowl shape. Measured imaging
was completed for the remaining five wing designs.
Exp Mech (2013) 53:1561–1571
Fig. 16 Down-flap (a) and up-flap (b) images for the wing A design
The 15 images were generated for all six different wing
constructions. All of the up-flap and down-flap images are on
the same scale; thus, the flapping cycles for each of the wing
constructions can be compared. From the images, one can
observe that wing F forms the smoothest shapes throughout
the fifteen angles, and its outer edge also reaches the highest
value in the z-axis. Wings A, D, and E all had ripples and
bubbles in their shapes and do not form the smooth bowl-
shape like the images of wing F. Also, wings A and C did not
capture large volumes like wing F. Based on these observations
and the lift and thrust values generated in Characterization of
1569
Fig. 17 Down-flap (a) and up-flap (b) images for the wing F design
Mechanics of Compliant Wing Designs section, the smoother
the shape of the wing and the more volume captured, the better
the flight performance. Thus, this appears to best represent the
general principal for associating lift and thrust results with
wing designs.
Repeatability and Sensitivity of 3-D Wing Shapes
Since the issues of repeatability and sensitivity in wing testing
and construction were previously identified for lift and thrust
measurements as well as measured volume, the sensitivity of
1570
Fig. 18 3-D shape during down-flap (a) and up-flap (b) for the wing F
design with a spar intentionally placed further out in order to test
sensitivity
3-D wing shapes were also investigated. Like the original six
wing designs, the four additional F wings were recreated using
measured imaging at 15 different mechanism angles in the
flapping cycle. Figure 18 is an example of the 3-D shapes for
one of the wing designs used to test sensitivity. All four wings
were found to have smooth, bowl-like structures, just like the
original F wing images. However, the two wings that were
made identically to the original wing F had more curvature to
their wing structures than the two wings with variations in
their 1 mm carbon fiber spars located adjacent to the center
spar. The latter two wings were slightly flatter and reached
lower maximum values than the wings constructed with the
Exp Mech (2013) 53:1561–1571
original wing F design. This difference in shape, even though
it is slight, contributed to the lower values observed in lift and
thrust testing as well. Thus, the 3-D shape measurements
again indicated the importance of precision placement of
carbon fiber spars during wing construction.
Conclusions
This investigation yielded several contributions for the de-
velopment of flapping-wing MAVs by providing a new
experimental approach to characterizing the effects of wing
design on lift and thrust performance in order to optimize
their design sans numerical simulations. The contributions
are as follows:
1. An experimental methodology for characterizing wing
designs for flapping wing MAVs has been developed
consisting of measuring lift and thrust performance on
a previously developed test stand, validating through in-
flight measurements, and relating these results to optical
measurements of wing deformations.
2. The presented generalized wing characterization meth-
odology was applied to 6 different wing designs for a
flapping wing MAV developed at the University of
Maryland known as the “Jumbo Bird” to determine the
change in wing performance based on changes in com-
pliance due to spar configurations. While spar configu-
rations have the potential for improving MAV perfor-
mance, there was a noticeable difference in the shape
characteristics for a good wing design during the flap-
ping cycle that contributed to a synergistic combination
of lift and thrust. By testing a range of wing designs, a
variety of qualitative and quantitative trends have been
identified that will allow a designer to understand the
necessary properties of a wing that efficiently produce
lift and thrust.
3. The experimentally determined lift and thrust loads were
found to directly correlate to changes in the volume and 3-
D wing shape throughout the flapping cycle. In addition it
was determined that the paths of the front spar deforma-
tion correlated to previously presented models of lift (for
head-on) and thrust (for over-top) loading profiles during
flapping, as well as the measured profiles.
4. For the first time, a repeatability and sensitivity analysis
was conducted on compliant wings for flapping wing
MAVs that indicated slight variations in spar placement
can result in slight changes in the volume and 3-D shape
of the wing that cause significant changes in the lift and
thrust generated by the wings.
Acknowledgments This work was supported by Dr. Byung-Lip
“Les” Lee at AFOSR through grant FA95501210158.
Exp Mech (2013) 53:1561–1571
References
1. Pornsin-Sirirak T, Tai Y, Ho C, Keennon M (2001) Microbat: a palm-
sized electrically powered Ornithopter. Proceedings of the NASA/
JPL workshop on biomorphic robotics, Pasadena, CA, 14–17
2. Jones KD, Bradshaw CJ, Papadopoulos J, Platzer MF (2004) Im-
proved performance and control of flapping-wing propelled micro
air vehicles. Proceedings of the AIAA 42nd aerospace sciences
meeting and exhibit, AIAA-2004-0399, Reno, Nevada
3. Cox A, Monopoli D, Cveticanin D, Goldfarb M, Garcia E (2002)
The development of elastodynamic components for piezoelectrical-
ly actuated flapping micro-air vehicles. J Intell Mater Syst Struct
13(9):611–615
4. Yang L-J, Hsu C-K, Ho J-Y, Feng C-K (2007) Flapping wings with
Pvdf sensors to modify the aerodynamic forces of a micro aerial
vehicle. Sensors Actuators A Phys 139(1–2):95–103
5. Hsu C-K, Ho J-Y, Feng G-H, Shih H-M, Yang L-J (2006) A flapping
Mav with Pvdf-Parylene composite skin. Proceedings of the asia-
pacific conference of transducers and micro-nano technology
6. Yan J, Wood RJ, Avadhanula S, Sitti M, Fearing RS (2001) Towards
flapping wing control for a micromechanical flying insect. Proceed-
ings 2001 ICRA. IEEE Int Conf Robot Autom 4:3901–3908
7. Fenelon MAA, Furukawa T (2009) Design of an active flapping
wing mechanism and a micro aerial vehicle using a rotary actuator.
Mech Mach Theory 45(2):137–146
8. Zdunich P, Bilyk D, MacMaster M, Loewen D, DeLaurier J,
Kornbluh R, Low T, Stanford S, Holeman D (2007) Development
and testing of the mentor flapping-wing micro air vehicle. J Aircr
44(5):1701–1711
9. DeLuca AM, Reeder MF, Freeman J, Oi MV (2006) Flexible- and
rigid-wing micro air vehicle: lift and drag comparison. J Aircr 43:2
10. Gerdes JW, Gupta SK, Wilkerson S (2012) A review of bird-
inspired flapping-wing miniature air vehicle designs. J Mech Robot
4(2):021003.1–021003.11
11. Madangopal R, Khan Z, Agrawal S (2005) Biologically inspired
design of small flapping-wing air vehicles using four-bar mecha-
nisms and quasi-steady aerodynamics. J Mech Des 127(4):809–817
12. Bejgerowski W, Ananthanarayanan A, Mueller D, Gupta SK
(2010) Integrated product and process design for a flapping-wing
drive-mechanism. J Mech Des 50:725–735
13. Bejgerowski W, Gupta SK, Bruck HA (2010) A systematic ap-
proach for designing multifunctional thermally conducting polymer
structures with embedded actuators. J Mech Des 131(111009):1–8
1571
14. Mueller TJ (2001) Fixed and flapping-wing aerodynamics for mi-
cro air vehicle applications. American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Reston
15. Delaurier J (1993) An aerodynamic model for flapping-wing flight.
Aeronaut J 93:125–130
16. Muniappan A, Baskar V, Duriyanandhan V (2005) Lift and thrust
characteristics of flapping wing micro air vehicle (Mav). AIAA-
2005-1055, Reno, Nevada
17. Croon GCHE, de Clerq KME, Ruijsink R, Remes B, de Wagter C
(2009) Design, aerodynamics, and vision-based control of the
Delfly. Int J Micro Air Veh 1(2):71–97
18. Dickinson M, Gotz K (1993) Unsteady aerodynamic performance
of model wings at low Reynolds numbers. J Exp Biol 174:45–64
19. Sane SP, Dickinson MH (2002) The aerodynamic effects of wing
rotation and a revised quasi-steady model of flapping flight. J Biol
205:1087–1096
20. Tsai B-J, Fu Y-C (2009) Design and aerodynamic analysis of a
flapping-wing micro aerial vehicle. Aerosp Sci Technol 13(7):383–
392
21. Hsu C-K, Evans J, Vytla S, Huang P (2010) Development of
flapping wing micro air vehicles—design, CFD, Experiment and
actual flight. 48th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting, Orlando,
Florida. 1:11707–11717
22. Stanford B, Albertani R, Ifju P (2007) Static finite element valida-
tion of a flexible micro air vehicle. Exp Mech 47(2):283–294
23. Stanford B, Sytsma M, Albertani R, Viieru D, Shyy W, Ifju P
(2007) Static aeroelastic model validation of membrane micro air
vehicle wings. AIAA J 45(12):2828–2837
24. Mueller D, Gerdes JW, Gupta SK (2009) Incorporation of passive
wing folding in flapping wing miniature air vehicles. ASME Mech-
anism and Robotics Conference, San Diego
25. Mueller D, Bruck HA, Gupta SK (2010) Measurement of thrust and
lift forces associated with drag of compliant flapping wing for micro
air vehicles using a new test stand design. Exp Mech 50(6):725–735
26. Bejgerowski W, Gerdes JW, Gupta SK, Bruck HA, Wilkerson S
(2010) Design and fabrication of a multi-material compliant flap-
ping wing drive mechanism for miniature air vehicles. ASME
Mechanism and Robotics Conference, Montreal, Canada
27. Gerdes J (2010) Design, analysis, and testing of a flapping-wing
miniature air vehicle. Master’s thesis, University of Maryland,
College Park
28. Peng T, Gupta SK (2007) Model and algorithms for point cloud
construction using digital projection patterns. ASME J Comput Inf
Sci Eng 7(4):372–381