ARTICLE IN PRESS

Mechanical Systems
and
Signal Processing
Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 22 (2008) 1304–1315
www.elsevier.com/locate/jnlabr/ymssp

Development of a small flapping robot

Motion analysis during takeoff by numerical
simulation and experiment
Taro Fujikawaa,, Kazuaki Hirakawaa, Shinnosuke Okumaa,
Takamasa Udagawab, Satoru Nakanoa, Koki Kikuchia
a
Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering, Chiba Institute of Technology, 2-17-1 Tsudanuma, Narashino, Chiba 275-0016, Japan
b
SEGA Co., Ltd., 1-2-12 Haneda, Ota-ku, Tokyo 144-8531, Japan
Received 7 January 2007; received in revised form 2 December 2007; accepted 21 January 2008
Available online 2 February 2008

Abstract

We present the development of a small flapping robot for use as an observation system in hazardous environments. An
isometric physical model was constructed based on the observations of body and wing motions during takeoff of a
butterfly, and we compared the flapping motion of the model with that of a butterfly. A computational model based on the
finite-element method is used to analyze the vortex around the wing of the model during takeoff of the constructed robot.
Computation results clarify the takeoff mechanism of the model and show the feasibility of a small flying device employing
a flapping mechanism.
r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Flapping robot; Butterfly; Takeoff; CFD; FEM

1. Introduction

In this study, we first investigated the structural mechanism of a butterfly and the body and wing motions
during takeoff using a three-dimensional high-speed camera system. Based on the results, we then constructed
an isometric model using the same flapping mechanism and compared the flapping motion with that of a
butterfly. Finally, we formulated a method for computing the body motion, the elastic deformation of the
wing and the flow field around the wing and analyzed the motion of the constructed model and the vortex
around the wing.
Flying robots offer great promise as observation systems in hazardous environments because they are not
affected by ground conditions [1,2]. Although several flying vehicles with different methods of lift and
propulsion exist, such as jet planes and helicopters, ‘‘flapping’’, as performed by living creatures, offers many
advantages for the important abilities of being able to turn at nearly right angles and to accelerate to over

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: fujikawa.gf0@gs.it-chiba.ac.jp (T. Fujikawa).

0888-3270/$ - see front matter r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2008.01.008
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. Fujikawa et al. / Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 22 (2008) 1304–1315 1305

several Gs at the moment of takeoff. The flapping mechanism used by insects is particularly attractive for
maneuvering through a narrow space such as a gap between debris. It is generally conceived that flying insects
acquire lift through interaction with the vortex around the wing boundary generated by flapping and,
therefore, many researchers have recently been studying this mechanism [3–6]. However, this structure–fluid
coupled problem becomes even more difficult and highly complex when the deformation of elastic wings by
the fluid is introduced and the flow field varies with the wing motion and has not yet been fully solved.
Meanwhile, the ability of insects to control their flight is very high, despite the fact that the number of
neurons in an insect brain is barely of the order of 105. Hence, they must use the characteristics of their body
structure very effectively, implying that a control system can be simplified by employing the dynamics of the
structural system. The design concept of this study is to adopt the scheme of flying insects where they do not
require a complicated control system, but instead have structural characteristics with which lift is generated
through simple body vibrations, i.e., flapping. In other words, our control system takes full advantage of the
structural characteristics of the robot body. Hence, the essence of the design principle is that the control
system and the structural system are in balance. This design principle may be particularly significant for
micromachines where high-end CPUs, sensors and actuators are difficult to use.
From the above standpoint, the balanced design and control methods of living creatures have recently
drawn attention, particularly ‘‘flapping’’ for use in small flying devices [7–10]. Sudo and Tsuyuki [11] have
analyzed the wing structure and aerodynamic characteristics of dragonflies. Fry et al. [12] have investigated
the wing and body kinematics of free-flying fruit flies using three-dimensional infrared high-speed video. These
studies have shown the importance of the fluid around the wings. However, it is difficult to develop flying
devices based on a dragonfly, which moves four wings independently and has many degrees of freedom
(DOF), or a fly with an mm-order-sized body and a high flapping frequency of around 100 Hz. Dickinson et al.
[13,14] have constructed model wings of a fly and have clarified the mechanism of lift generation. However,
this model cannot be used to analyze the structural characteristics of the wing or the motion properties of the
whole body, because, while the Reynolds number corresponds to that of a fly, the size does not. Similarly,
although some researchers [15–17] have developed tiny sensors and actuators for realizing a fly-like flapping
robot, it is extremely difficult to mount actuators of more than 102 Hz frequencies on a weight of only 102 mg,
as well as plural sensors for flight stabilization. In addition, although several large-bird-size robots have been
produced [18], flapping of these robots is not very efficient and gliding is far more often employed.
From this starting point, we developed a small flapping robot that utilizes the dynamics of its own structural
system and a simplified control system. Here we focus on a butterfly with only a few DOF and a low flapping
frequency as a flapping model.

2. Motion analysis of a butterfly

2.1. Experimental setup and specimen

In this study, we use a butterfly as a flapping model and analyze its flight mechanism. Butterfly-style flight
requires a simple control system with effective use of the dynamics of the structural system: the flapping
frequency is low (approximately 10 Hz) and the DOF is also low because phases of flapping of the fore- and
hind-wings are the same. Here, the following parameters were investigated as defined in Fig. 1: the position
and acceleration of the thorax, the flapping frequency, the stroke of flapping, the stroke of abdomen swing and
the stroke of the pitch angle. A three-dimensional high-speed camera system with a resolution of 640  480
pixels and 200 fps was used for this experiment. The space for the butterfly flight was 900 mm  900 mm 
900 mm.
In this experiment, we photographed takeoff motions of 16 swallowtail butterflies, Papilio xuthus (with an
average wing span of 125 mm, an average forewing length of 69 mm and an average mass of 550 mg).

2.2. Results and discussion

Fig. 2 shows an example of stroboscopic photographs taken during takeoff of a butterfly using a three-
dimensional high-speed camera system. As shown in this figure, the butterfly moved upward during
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1306 T. Fujikawa et al. / Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 22 (2008) 1304–1315

z z
Forewing

Hind wing

Stroke of Flapping angle

flapping Head
x
.
y Pitch angle Abdomen angle
Thorax
Stroke of
Abdomen abdomen swing

Fig. 1. Parameter definitions for a butterfly: (a) front view and (b) side view.

Fig. 2. Stroboscopic photographs taken during takeoff of a butterfly.

90
Flapping angle
75 Abdomen angle
60 Pitch angle

45
30
Angle (deg)

15
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
-15
-30
-45
-60
-75
-90
Time (ms)

Fig. 3. An example of relationship among flapping angle, abdomen angle, and pitch angle of a butterfly during takeoff.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. Fujikawa et al. / Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 22 (2008) 1304–1315 1307

a downstroke and then moved forward during an upstroke. Additionally, the butterfly controlled the pitch
angle by swinging its abdomen up during a downstroke, and by swinging it down during an upstroke. Fig. 3
shows a typical example of the relationships among the flapping angle, the abdomen angle and the pitch angle
during the first stroke. As shown in this figure, the angles of flapping and abdomen had the same frequency
but were in antiphase. Unlike a dragonfly, a butterfly cannot control its fore- and hind-wings independently,
and hence it controls its pitch angle by swinging its abdomen. Fig. 4 displays the trajectory of the thorax center
corresponding to the same first stroke. This trajectory matches the observation that a butterfly flies upward
(z-direction) during the downstroke and flies forward (x-direction) during the upstroke. Fig. 5 shows
the acceleration trajectory of the thorax center during the same first stroke. Here vertical and horizontal
axes mean the accelerations for z and x directions, and ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ correspond to those in Fig. 4. We
found that there are two points where the acceleration is maximum: the first point (‘‘A’’ in Figs. 4 and 5)
is in the z-direction and the second (‘‘B’’ in Figs. 4 and 5) is in the x-direction. Note that the maximum
acceleration in this experiment was 5.8 G. Then, the average initial angle of flapping was 72.01 (standard
deviation was 12.11) in this experiment, though it is generally shown that the flapping of a butterfly starts from
nearly 901.

80

B
60

40
Z (mm)

20
A
0
-10 -5 0 5 10 15

-20
X (mm)

Fig. 4. Trajectory of the thorax center of a butterfly during a stroke. ‘‘A’’ is the point of the maximum acceleration during downstroke and
‘‘B’’ is the point of the maximum acceleration during upstroke.

4.0
A
2.0
B
0.0
-10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
-2.0

-4.0
z’’ (G)

-6.0

-8.0

-10.0

-12.0

-14.0
x’’ (G)

Fig. 5. Acceleration of the thorax center of a butterfly during a stroke. ‘‘A’’ is the point of the maximum acceleration during downstroke
and ‘‘B’’ is the point of the maximum acceleration during upstroke.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1308 T. Fujikawa et al. / Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 22 (2008) 1304–1315

3. Design of a small flapping robot

3.1. Design of hardware

We designed isometric hardware based on the following values obtained in Section 2: wing span of 120 mm,
stroke of flapping from 601 to 301, stroke of abdomen swing from 101 to 101 (note that flapping frequency
depends on actuator torque and flapping strokes depend on the frequency), mass of 720 mg, and flapping and
abdomen angles of the same frequency and in antiphase. Also, the leading edge and the anal vein were
designed to be highly rigid using stiff frames. This hardware employed a rubber motor as an actuator and the
posture control was passive. Generally, there are many mechanisms for flapping, for example, J. Yan et al. [19]
developed a four-bar mechanism. However, such a mechanism cannot realize the large flapping angle and
simple abdomen swing. Thus, in this study, we employed a slider-clank mechanism for flapping of 1001 and
abdomen swing by 1 DOF. As shown in Fig. 6, the crank mechanism translates the rotation of the actuator
into the flapping of the wing and the up-and-down motion of a connection rod through a slider swings the
abdomen. Note that the body part including the crank, the abdomen and the frame of the wings is made of
bamboo, which has high comparable rigidity compared with metals. The wings are made of a thin clear film
(a commercial plastic kitchen wrap). Also, the fore- and hind-wings are connected into a single wing and the
shape of the trailing edge is simplified compared with that of a real butterfly. Fig. 7 shows the constructed
hardware.

3.2. Motion analysis and discussion

To clarify the relationships among flapping angle, abdomen angle and pitch angle during takeoff, we
photographed the flight motion of the constructed hardware during takeoff using the same three-dimensional
high-speed camera system, but with 400 fps, and analyzed the obtained images. Fig. 8 shows stroboscopic
photographs of the front view and side view taken every 5 ms during takeoff. Here, the origin of coordinates
illustrates the initial position of the center of mass. Fig. 9 shows a typical example of the relationships among
the flapping angle, the abdomen angle and the pitch angle during takeoff. As shown in this figure, we
qualitatively realized the same relationship between flapping angle and abdomen angle during a single stroke
of a butterfly. However, quantitative values of flapping and abdomen angles were not realized. Additionally,
we could not realize the phase reversal relationship between the abdomen angle and the pitch angle. This is
why the constructed hardware started to fall from the head, since it could not maintain the required lift during
an upstroke. It is considered that the center of mass was located further forward in the constructed hardware
than in a butterfly. Figs. 10 and 11 display the thorax trajectory during takeoff and the acceleration trajectory
of the center of mass of the constructed hardware. As shown in these figures, the constructed hardware
generated the force necessary to lift its own weight during a downstroke (‘‘A’’ in Figs. 10 and 11), and could fly

Wing

z z
Stroke of Flapping angle Abdomen
flapping
y x

Stroke of
abdomen swing

Abdomen angle
Crank Slider
Connecting rod

Fig. 6. Mechanism of constructed hardware: (a) flapping mechanism of the wing and (b) abdomen swinging mechanism.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. Fujikawa et al. / Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 22 (2008) 1304–1315 1309

Fig. 7. The pictures of the constructed hardware: (a) front view of the constructed hardware; (b) side view of the constructed hardware;
and (c) comparison of a butterfly (left) and the constructed hardware (right).

Fig. 8. Stroboscopic photographs taken during takeoff of the constructed hardware: (a) front view and (b) side view.

upward during the downstroke. In this experiment, the maximum height and z-direction acceleration were
7.9 mm and 3.2 G, respectively.

4. Numerical analysis

4.1. Modeling of the constructed hardware

In this study, we numerically analyzed the motion of the constructed hardware and the flow field
around it. A butterfly achieves lift through the interaction with the effective vortex generated by wing
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1310 T. Fujikawa et al. / Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 22 (2008) 1304–1315

Flapping angle
Abdomen angle
Pitch angle

Angle [deg]

Time [ms]

Fig. 9. An example of the relationship among flapping angle, abdomen angle, and pitch angle of the constructed hardware during takeoff.
Z [mm]

X [mm]

Fig. 10. Trajectory of the center of mass of the constructed hardware during downstroke.

deformation during flapping. Based on this observation, we developed a computational model for analyzing
body motion including the abdomen, the deformation of the wing, and the flow field around it. These are
solved using a weak coupling method that allows the use of different space resolution and different sampling
times.
The body consists of three mass points, the head, thorax, and abdomen, which are connected by springs and
dampers. The shape of the wing is defined as a single convex rectangle because the fore- and hind-wings move
synchronously. The wing is divided into rectangular segments, Nx1 of them along the x-axis and Ny1
along the y-axis. A mass proportional to the area of the segment is assigned to each segment. Mass points on
the wing are also connected by a spring and a damper to each other, with the spring constant representing the
rigidity of the vein. Like the mass points on the wing, the thorax of the body and the vertices of the wings are
also connected by springs and dampers. Fig. 12 shows the robot model used for numerical simulation.
Note that two actuators are employed, one for flapping (A1 in Fig. 12) and one for abdomen swing (A2).
They move synchronously as described in Section 3.1. The wings are made symmetrical for simplicity in
this study.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. Fujikawa et al. / Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 22 (2008) 1304–1315 1311

z” [G]

x” [G]

Fig. 11. Acceleration of the center of mass of the constructed hardware during a stroke.

Head
Left wing
x x
Actuator A1
Ny-1 j
z y
Thorax

Actuator A2

i
Abdomen

Nx-1

Translational springs and dampers Rotational springs and dampers

Fig. 12. Models for numerical simulation: (a) side view; (b) top view; and (c) back view.

The equation of motion of each mass point is given by

y y
mi;j x€ i;j ¼ f X X x x X x x Y Y
i;j þ T i;j cos ji;j cos yi;j  T i1;j cos ji1;j cos yi1;j þ T i;j cos j0;j cos y0;j  T i;j1

 cos jy0;j1 cos yy0;j1

y y
mi;j y€ i;j ¼ f Y X x x X x x Y Y
i;j þ T i;j cos ji;j sin yi;j  T i1;j cos ji1;j sin yi1;j þ T i;j cos j0;j sin y0;j  T i;j1

 cos jy0;j1 sin yy0;j1

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1312 T. Fujikawa et al. / Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 22 (2008) 1304–1315

y y
mi;j z€i;j ¼ f Z X x X x Y Y
i;j þ T i;j sin ji;j  T i1;j sin ji1;j þ T i;j sin j0;j  T i;j1 sin j0;j1

TY
i;j ¼ 0 ðia0Þ (1)
where i is an integer in the range from 0 to Nx1 and j is an integer in the range from 0 to Ny1, as shown in
Fig. 12, yxi;j is the angle from the x– z plane and yyi;j is the angle from the y– z plane of the mass point (i, j), fxi;j
and fyi;j are the angles from the x– y plane on the left side of Fig. 13, Rxi;j and Ryi;j are the link lengths in the
directions of the x and y axes, mi,j is the mass, f is the net force of the two actuators, the flow field, the gravity,
the spring, and the damper, and T is the tension. The difference between the upper and lower pressures of the
flow field is added to the mass point as a force proportional to the area, as shown on the right side of Fig. 13.
Using these equations, the global equation, ½M½X€  ¼ ½F , is formulated and then the body motion and wing
deformation are solved by a fourth-order Runge Kutta method. Here, [M] is a global mass matrix, ½X€  is a
global acceleration vector, and [F] is a global force vector.
The flow field around the wing is solved using the following Navier–Stokes equations and the equation of
continuity based on three-dimensional, incompressible, viscous and unsteady flow:
qv 1 m
þ n  rn ¼  rP þ r2 n (2)
qt r r

rn¼0 (3)
Here, v is the velocity, P is the pressure, r is the density of air and m is the viscosity. To treat the large
deformation of the wing over time, we used FEM, which offers both geometric flexibility, by allowing the use
of unstructured grids, and high spatial accuracy, by using a hexahedron with eight nodes as an element. The
arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian (ALE) method was used for the movement of the boundary of the wing. The
simplified marker and cell (SMAC) method, which separates pressure and velocity, was adopted for fast
computation. The streamline upwind Pedrov–Galerkin (SUPG) method was employed to stabilize the
computation. In addition, the Galerkin method of using the shape function as a weight function was
employed. Meshing in the computational space was performed at each sampling time. In this method, each
node is connected by virtual springs and moves according to kinematics during wing deformation.
Our proposed computational scheme consists of the following main processes: (a) motion and structure
computation by the Runge Kutta method, (b1) mesh generation for the flow field, (b2) matrix creation, and
(b3) inverse matrix calculation. By this method, the computation is performed as follows: (step 1) the body
motion and the wing deformations are calculated while the flow field is fixed; (step 2) the flow field is
calculated while the boundary conditions on the body and wing are fixed. Steps 1 and 2 are then iterated by the
weak coupling method. Thus, the position and velocity of each mass point calculated in step 1 are used as
boundary conditions in step 2 and the pressure on the wing calculated in step 2 is converted into the force on
the wing in the next step 1 (see Ref. [20] for details).
Motion analysis during takeoff was performed using the structural parameters corresponding to those of
the constructed hardware. Spring and damper constants were determined by pilot experiments and those of
the leading edge (i ¼ 0) were set to be 10 times larger, to express the high rigidity of the bamboo frame. The
parameters for the computational scheme were as follows: wing divided into Nx ¼ 10 and Ny ¼ 16, actuator
torques proportional to the flapping angle, sampling times for the computation of the body motion/wing

z y
X 1,j +1
X 0 ,j +1 x ΔP 2 ΔP1
ϕ x 0, j X 2 ,j dS 1
ΔP 3 dS 2
y
R 0, j
ϕ x 0, j
dS 3 i, j dS 4 ΔP
4

X 1,j θ 0, j
x
R x 0, j
θ x 0, j
X 0, j

Fig. 13. (a) Definition of mass points and (b) assigned pressure on wing.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. Fujikawa et al. / Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 22 (2008) 1304–1315 1313

deformation and of the flow field of 0.01 and 0.1 ms, respectively, and FEM node number of about 500,000.
The computational space for the left side of the manufactured hardware was set to be 770 mm 
393 mm  660 mm, which is almost six times the wing length in both upstream and downstream directions.

4.2. Results and discussion

Fig. 14 shows stroboscopic images of the pressure contours in the plane including leading edges during a
downstroke corresponding to Fig. 8(a). As shown in Fig. 14, we found that the negative vortices created at the
tip of the leading edge grow and spread over the whole of the wing. Additionally, the forewings bended up like
a camber and the hind-wings rolled up. This result shows that a butterfly with elastic membrane wings
generates effective separation vortices using such mechanical properties and gets large lift. Note that although
an airplane with fixed and high aspect ratio wings generates steady and 2D vortices, a butterfly with elastic and
low aspect ratio wings generates unsteady and 3D vortices.
The process requiring the most calculation cost was the mesh generation, particularly when the wing
deformation or flapping angle was large. The computational scheme could stably generate a mesh up to 801 of
the flapping angle, for which the maximum distortion angle of the element was less than 401. It was difficult to
generate a mesh with little distortion in the neighborhood of the flapping angle of 901, as the right and left

Fig. 14. Pressure contours in the plane including leading edge during downstroke.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1314 T. Fujikawa et al. / Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 22 (2008) 1304–1315

wings overlapped. However, since most butterflies acquire great lift by flying under this condition, mesh
control at this critical angle is important.

5. Conclusions

In order to develop a small flapping robot, we investigated the flight mechanism of a butterfly using a three-
dimensional high-speed camera system. We also constructed an isometric hardware model based on the
structure and mechanism determined from the analysis of butterfly flight and compared the motions of the
body and wing with that of a butterfly. We then proposed a new computational scheme of FEM, for solving
the body motion, including abdomen swing, wing deformation and flow field around the wing, and analyzed
the vortex around the wing of the constructed hardware during takeoff.
By investigating the flight motion of a butterfly during takeoff, we showed that a butterfly flies upward by
moving its abdomen up during the downstroke and flies forward by moving its abdomen down during the
upstroke. Also, the flapping and abdomen angles changed at the same frequency but were in antiphase.
The constructed hardware realized the same relationship between flapping and abdomen angles during both
the upstroke and the downstroke as that of a butterfly. In addition, it generated the force necessary to lift its
own weight during a downstroke. However, the quantitative values of the angles of the constructed hardware
and a butterfly did not correspond to each other, since hardware constraints did not allow the center of mass
of the constructed hardware to match that of the butterfly. The relationship between the abdomen angle and
the pitch angle was not fully realized.
By numerical simulation, we showed that the negative vortices created at the tip of the leading edge grow
and spread over the whole wing. These unsteady and 3D vortices were the main factor in generating lift.
In future work, we aim to realize butterfly-like takeoff by establishing the control method of the pitch angle
and constructing hardware that can generate the force necessary to lift its own weight during the upstroke as
well as the downstroke. Additionally, we aim to visualize the flow around the wing of the constructed
hardware. Furthermore, we intend to investigate the reliability of calculations and to stably control mesh
generation for numerical computation in the neighborhood of a flapping angle of 901.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), Grant-in-Aid
for Young Scientist (A), 17686022, 2005. The authors would like to express their deep gratitude to all
those involved in the research project, particularly, Prof. M. Yamamoto of Tokyo University of Science and
Prof. K. Toda of Chiba Institute of Science for advice on fluid analysis.

References

[1] K. Hazawa, K. Nonami, et al., Autonomous flight control of hobby-class small unmanned helicopter—Trajectory following control
by using preview control considering heading direction, in: Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent
Robotics and Systems: IROSS2004, 2004 (CD-ROM).
[2] E. William Green, Paul Y. Oh, Autonomous hovering of a fixed-wing micro air vehicle, in: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE
International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2006, pp. 2164–2169.
[3] M. Rast, Simultaneous solution of the Navier–Stokes and elastic membrane equations by a finite element method, International
Journal of Numerical Methods in Fluids 19 (1994) 1115–1135.
[4] Q. Zang, T. Hisada, Analysis of fluid–structure interaction problem with structural buckling and large domain changes by ALE finite
element method, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 190 (48) (2001) 6341–6357.
[5] H. Liu, K. Kawauchi, Leading-edge vortices of flapping and rotary insect wing at low Reynolds number; flapping, fixed and rotary
wing vehicles at low Reynolds number, AIAA, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics 195 (2001) 88–96.
[6] L. Zhu, C.S. Peskin, Simulation of a flapping filament in a flowing soap film by the immersed boundary method, Journal of
Computational Physics 179 (2002) 452–468.
[7] R.J. Wootton, The mechanical design of insect wings, Science American (1990) 66–72.
[8] X. Deng, L. Schenato, W. Chung, S.S. Sastry, Flapping flight for biomimetic robotic insects: part II—flight control design, IEEE
Transactions on Robotics 22 (4) (2006) 789–803.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. Fujikawa et al. / Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 22 (2008) 1304–1315 1315

[9] Fritz-Olaf Lehmann, Aerial locomotion in flies and robots: kinematic control and aerodynamics of oscillating wings, Arthropod
Structure & Development 33 (3) (2004) 331–345.
[10] M.H. Dickinson, M.S. Tu, The function of dipteran flight muscle, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 116 (3) (1997) 223–238.
[11] S. Sudo, K. Tsuyuki, A study on the wing structure and flapping behavior of a dragonfly, JSME International Journal, Series C 42 (3)
(1999) 721–729.
[12] S.N. Fry, R. Sayaman, M.H. Dickinson, The aerodynamics of free-flight maneuvers in Drosophila, Science 300 (2003) 495–498.
[13] M.H. Dickinson, F. Lehmann, S.P. Sane, Wing rotation and the aerodynamic basis of insect flight, Science 284 (1999) 1954–1960.
[14] S.N. Fry, R. Sayaman, M.H. Dickinson, The aerodynamics of free-flight maneuvers in Drosophila, Science 300 (2003) 495–498.
[15] R.S. Fearing, K.H. Chiang, M.H. Dickinson, D.L. Pick, M. Sitti, J. Yan, Wing transmission for a micromechanical flying insect, in:
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2000, pp. 1509–1516.
[16] M. Sitti et al., Development of PZT and PZN-PT based Unimorph actuators for micromechanical flapping mechanisms, in:
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2001, pp. 3839–3846.
[17] X. Deng, L. Schenato, W. Chung, S.S. Sastry, Flapping flight for biomimetic robotic insects: part I—system modeling, IEEE
Transactions on Robotics 22 (4) (2006) 776–788.
[18] http://www.ornithopter.org/.
[19] J. Yan, R.J. Wood, S. Avadhanula, M. Sitti, R.S. Fearing, Towards flapping wing control for a micromechanical flying insect, in:
Proceedings of the ICRA 2001 IEEE Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2001, pp. 3901–3908.
[20] T. Udagawa, T. Fujikawa, X. Gao, K. Kikuchi, Development of a small-sized flapping robot, ICDES 2005 Japan Society for Design
Engineering (2005) 283–288.