ARTICLE IN PRESS

Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Progress in Aerospace Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paerosci

Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity

W. Shyy a,n, H. Aono a, S.K. Chimakurthi a, P. Trizila a, C.-K. Kang a, C.E.S. Cesnik a, H. Liu b
a
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Michigan, FXB 1320 Beal Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
b
Graduate School of Engineering, Chiba University, 1-33 Yayoi-cho, Chiba, Chiba 263-8522, Japan

abstract

Micro air vehicles (MAVs) have the potential to revolutionize our sensing and information gathering
capabilities in areas such as environmental monitoring and homeland security. Flapping wings with
suitable wing kinematics, wing shapes, and flexible structures can enhance lift as well as thrust by
exploiting large-scale vortical flow structures under various conditions. However, the scaling invariance
of both fluid dynamics and structural dynamics as the size changes is fundamentally difficult. The focus
of this review is to assess the recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. It is
realized that a variation of the Reynolds number (wing sizing, flapping frequency, etc.) leads to a change
in the leading edge vortex (LEV) and spanwise flow structures, which impacts the aerodynamic force
generation. While in classical stationary wing theory, the tip vortices (TiVs) are seen as wasted energy,
in flapping flight, they can interact with the LEV to enhance lift without increasing the power
requirements. Surrogate modeling techniques can assess the aerodynamic outcomes between two- and
three-dimensional wing. The combined effect of the TiVs, the LEV, and jet can improve the
aerodynamics of a flapping wing. Regarding aeroelasticity, chordwise flexibility in the forward flight
can substantially adjust the projected area normal to the flight trajectory via shape deformation, hence
redistributing thrust and lift. Spanwise flexibility in the forward flight creates shape deformation from
the wing root to the wing tip resulting in varied phase shift and effective angle of attack distribution
along the wing span. Numerous open issues in flapping wing aerodynamics are highlighted.
& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Equations and parameters of flapping wing dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Kinematics of flapping flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Governing equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Scaling laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Key attribute of unsteady flapping wing aerodynamics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Clap and fling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Rapid pitch rotation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Wake capture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Delayed stall of leading edge vortex (LEV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5. Tip vortex (TiV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.6. Passive pitching mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Kinematics, wing geometry, Re, and rigid flapping wing aerodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. Single wing in forward flight condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Single wing in hovering flight condition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.3. Tandem wing in forward/hovering flight condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.4. Implications of wing geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.5. Implications of wing kinematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.6. Surrogate modeling for hovering wing aerodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.7. Unsteady flow structures around hawkmoth-like model in hover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Abbreviations: AoA, angle of attack; LEV, leading edge vortex; MAV, micro air vehicle; MTV, molecular tagging velocimetry
n
Corresponding author. Tel: + 1 734 936 0102.
E-mail address: weishyy@umich.edu (W. Shyy).

0376-0421/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001

Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

4.7.1. Vortex dynamics of hovering hawkmoth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

4.8. Effect of the Reynolds number on the LEV structure and spanwise flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5. Flapping wing aeroelasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.1. Chordwise-flexible wing structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.2. Spanwise-flexible wing structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.3. Combined chordwise-and-spanwise flexible wing structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

1. Introduction
Micro air vehicles (MAVs) have the potential to revolutionize
our sensing and information gathering capabilities in areas such
as environmental monitoring and homeland security. Numerous
vehicle concepts, including fixed wing, rotary wing, and flapping
wing, have been proposed [1–8]. As the size of a vehicle becomes
smaller than a few centimeters, fixed wing designs encounter
fundamental challenges in lift generation and flight control. There
are merits and challenges associated with rotary and flapping
wing designs. Fundamentally, due to the Reynolds number effect,
the aerodynamic characteristics such as the lift, drag and thrust of
a flight vehicle change considerably between MAVs and conven-
tional manned air vehicles [1–8]. And, since MAVs are of light
weight and fly at low speeds, they are sensitive to wind gust
[1–9]. Furthermore, their wing structures are often flexible and
tend to deform during flight. Consequently, the fluid and
structural dynamics of these flyers are closely linked to each
other. Because of the common characteristics shared by MAVs and
biological flyers, the aerospace and biological science commu-
nities are now actively communicating and collaborating. Much
can be shared between researchers with different training and
background including biological insight, mathematical models,
physical interpretation, experimental techniques, and design
concepts.
In order to handle wind gust, object avoidance, or station
keeping, highly deformed wing shapes and coordinated wing–tail
movement in the biological flight are often observed. Under-
standing the aerodynamic, structural, and control implications of
these modes is essential for the development of high performance
and robust flapping wing MAVs for accomplishing desirable
missions. Moreover, the large flexibility of the wings leads to
complex fluid–structure interactions, while the kinematics of
flapping and the spectacular maneuvers performed by natural
flyers result in highly coupled nonlinearities in fluid dynamics,
aeroelasticity, flight dynamics, and control systems.
Insect wing structures are inherently anisotropic due to their
membrane–vein configurations, with the spanwise bending
stiffness being approximately 1–2 orders of magnitude larger
than the chordwise bending stiffness in a majority of insect
species [10,11]. In general, the spanwise flexural stiffness scales
with the third power of the wing chord, while the chordwise
stiffness scales with the second power of the wing chord [10,11].
Insect wings exhibit substantial variations in aspect ratio and
configuration but share a common feature of a reinforced leading
edge. A dragonfly wing has more local variations in its structural
composition and is more corrugated than the wing of a cicada or a
wasp [1,12]. It has been shown in the literature [1–3,12] that wing
corrugation increases both warping rigidity and flexibility.
Furthermore, specific characteristic features have been observed
in the wing structure of a dragonfly which help prevent fatigue
fracture [1,12]. The thin nature of the insect wing skin structure
makes it unsuitable for taking compressive loads, which may
result in skin wrinkling and/or buckling, i.e., large local deforma-
tions that will interact with the flow. On the aerodynamics side, in
a fixed wing set-up, wind tunnel measurements show that
corrugated wings are aerodynamically insensitive to the Reynolds
number variations, which is quite different from a typical low
Reynolds number airfoil [1,4,6,7,12].
As highlighted above, biological flyers showcase desirable
flight characteristics and performance objectives [1,12–23]. The
strategies exhibited in nature have the potential to be utilized in
the design of flapping wing MAVs [1–8,24–27]. In particular, wing
flexibility is likely to have a significant influence on the resulting
aerodynamics. Based on a literature survey, it was found that
several questions in flexible wing aerodynamics have not been
adequately addressed in existing literature, among which, the key
ones include: (i) How do geometrically nonlinear effects and the
anisotropy of the structure impact the aerodynamics character-
istics of the flapping wing? (ii) How can flapping flight be
stabilized passively via flexible structures?
Furthermore, even though the rigid wing aerodynamics
have been explored in more detail than the flexible wing
aerodynamics, several questions still remain, among which, the
key ones include: (i) How can the unsteady flow features be
manipulated to enhance performance? As the sizing, flapping
kinematics, flapping frequency, and flight speed vary, which fluid
physics mechanisms are important? (ii) How can the observations
from high fidelity simulations or experimental studies be distilled
into reduced order models so that they are fast enough to execute
for MAV control development? Since all of the above are not
necessarily independent topics, a comprehensive understanding
of the role of flapping wing kinematics, aerodynamics, and
flexibility is central to the success of future flapping wing MAV
designs.
As evidenced in the references cited, a number of publications
exist to address numerous aspects of these issues. Furthermore,
recently, many researchers have taken serious efforts in investigating
these topics. There seems to be a need to consolidate the fast
developing information to help update and benefit the community.
The purpose of this paper is to complement the recent work
presented by Shyy et al. [1] to review the recent progress in flapping
wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity at low Reynolds numbers,
namely, (O(101)–O(104)). In addition to present established informa-
tion, open issues in both aerodynamics/aeroelasticity are highlighted
so as to encourage future community-wide efforts.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows:
Flapping wing kinematics, governing equations, and scaling
laws are presented in Section 2. Unsteady flight mechanisms
associated with flapping wings and frequently encountered in the
literature are described in Section 3. A literature survey focusing
on flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity is presented in
Sections 4 and 5 while emphasizing computational efforts of the
authors to highlight selected flapping wing physics. Finally,
concluding remarks and areas warranting further study are made
in Section 6.

Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 3

Nomenclature U V W axial, lateral, and vertical velocity

u0 v0 w0 displacement of a point on the mid-surface of a
AR aspect ratio, b2/S plate considered in the xs–ys plane
As extensional stiffness coefficient of an isotropic plate, Vwing wing velocity vector
Ehs/(1  n2) x y z wingroot-based coordinate system
b span xs ys zs global coordinate system for structure
Cf 2
total aerodynamic force coefficient, jFaero j=ð0:5rf Uref SÞ X Y Z global coordinate system
CL 2
lift coefficient, FZ =ð0:5rf Uref SÞ a geometric angle of attack
cm mean chord length aa pitch amplitude
CT thrust coefficient, FX =ð0:5rf Uref2
SÞ ae effective angle of attack
Ds bending stiffness coefficient of an isotropic plate, b stroke plane angle
Eh3s =½12ð1n2 Þ y elevation/deviation angle
E Young’s modulus of material m dynamic viscosity of fluid
f flapping frequency n Poisson’s ratio
fp distributed transverse load on a plate P1 effective stiffness, Eh3s =½12ð1n2 Þrf Uref
2 3
cm 
5
Faero aerodynamic force vector acting on a wing P2 effective rotational inertia, IB =ðrf Uref Þ
h_ resultant velocity due to plunging motion including r density ratio, rf/rs
rigid-body and wing deformation rf density of fluid
ha plunge amplitude rs density of structure
hs thickness of a plate f positional/stroke angle (in 3-D flapping wing) [deg.];
2ha/cm normalized stroke amplitude phase lag between translation and rotation of wing
IB moment of inertia motion (in 2-D and 3-D simplified wing kinematics)
k reduced frequency, pfcm/Uref F full positional/stroke amplitude
M mass of a flyer w body angle
Mm mass of flight muscle of a flyer /S time averaged value
O origin of coordinate system A dimensionless variable
Paero muscle-mass-specific aerodynamic power
Q second invariant of the velocity gradient tensor,  0.5 Subscripts
R semi-span
Re Reynolds number, rUrefLref/m max maximum value
S wing planform area min minimum value
St Strouhal number, fLrefUref L.E. variable with reference to leading edge point
t time T.E. variable with reference to trailing edge point
T period of flapping motion tip variable with reference to wing tip
UN forward flight velocity/freestream velocity rg variable with reference to a point of radius of gyration
Utip mean wing tip velocity for second moment of the wing
U velocity vector of fluid

2. Equations and parameters of flapping wing dynamics
Aerodynamics associated with flapping wings can be modeled
using the unsteady Navier–Strokes (NS) equations. Nonlinear
physics with multiple variables (velocity, pressure) and moving
geometries are among the aspects of primary interest. Numerous
flapping wing kinematics and scaling parameters related to the
fluid dynamics and fluid–structure interactions exist. The flight
regime of each flyer is characterized by these parameters.
2.1. Kinematics of flapping flight
The kinematics of flapping flight is composed of body and wing
movements. As shown in Fig. 1, assuming that the wing and body
are rigid, the body kinematics can be represented by the body
angle (w) (inclination of the body), relative to the horizontal plane
(e.g. the ground). The flapping wing kinematics can be described
by three basic positional angles of the wing with the stroke plane
(b): (i) flapping about the x-axis in the wing root-fixed coordinate
system described by the positional or stroke angle (f), (ii)
rotation of the wing about the z-axis in the wing root-fixed
coordinate system described by the elevation or deviation angle
(y), and (iii) rotation of the wing about the y-axis in the wing root-
fixed coordinate system described by the angle of attack (a). The
stroke plane is defined by the wing base and the wing tip of the
maximum and the minimum sweep positions. Examples of the
time histories of three insects are shown in Fig. 2. The time
histories of positional angle show approximately first-order
sinusoidal curves. The time histories of elevation angle show
small amplitude and have twice frequency of main flapping
frequency. On the other hand, the time histories of angle of attack
include high frequency component of the flapping frequency and
some of insects show asymmetric patterns per stroke. Moreover,
the body angle and the stroke plane angle vary in accordance with
the flight speed and flapping wing kinematics of biological flyers
[1,28,29].
Due to the complexity of the aerodynamics associated with
bio-mimicking kinematics (as shown in Figs. 1 and 2), building a
description of the fundamental factors involved can benefit from
simplified models. The simplified models referred to later (Section
4) in the paper remove the rotational (centripetal and Coriolis)
aspects while retaining vortex dynamics important in flapping
wing flight. While the combination of pitching and translation
(versus flapping about a pivot point) (see Fig. 3) of the entire wing
are not found in a biological flyer, the motions used provide a
basis for more complex analysis and are feasible mechanical
designs.
The motions of the wing can be described by sinusoidal
translation (along the X-axis) and pitching (about the Y-axis) with

Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

the case of simple harmonic motion. It is given by the following

Yaw
expression [30,31]:
Stroke plane
Wing !
Z h_
ae ¼ tan1 a ð1Þ
U1

where the effective angle of attack ae is measured at reference

points of the airfoil, a is the angle of attack, UN is freestream velocity
z  or flight velocity, and h is the velocity due to plunge motion,
Roll respectively. It may be noted that in the unsteady motion of flexible
wing structures, the velocities (h) _ not only include the rigid body
X  O plunge and pitch motions, respectively but also those due to bending
and twist deformations. In such a case, the angle of attack (a) can be
defined simply as the angle between the line joining the leading and
trailing edges of an airfoil section and the direction of freestream. If
the structure behaves as a beam, the effective angle of attack will
Y remain the same at each point along the chord (the angle of attack
still varies along the chord due to chordwise variation of induced
Body x Pitch
flow). It is clearly not the case if the structure behaves like a plate or
a shell. Effective angles of attack vary through the chord due to
 plate-like deformations. The angle at three-quarter chord then may
become a representative sectional effective angle of attack [30].
Fig. 4 illustrates the effective angle of attack due to prescribed
Stroke plane plunge motion (reference point is three-quarter chord from the
trailing edge [31]), and prescribed plunge motion (reference point is
the leading edge) with chordwise deformation [32].

2.2. Governing equations

z
The governing equations of fluid are the unsteady, incompres-
sible 3-D NS equations and the continuity equation, which are
expressed in vector form as follows:
 1 m 2
y O @U
þ UUrU ¼  rp þ r U;
@t rf rf ð2Þ
rUU ¼ 0
where rf is the fluid density, m is the dynamic viscosity coefficient,
U ¼ ð U V W Þ is the velocity vector of the fluid, t is the time,
X ¼ ð X Y Z Þ is the position vector of the fluid based on the
Fig. 1. Schematic diagrams of coordinate systems and kinematics of flapping wing inertial frame, r is the gradient operator with respect to X, and p
and body movement. The local wingroot-fixed and the global space-fixed is the pressure, respectively.
coordinate systems are shown. The local wingroot-fixed coordinate system
(x,y,z) is fixed at the center of the stroke plane (origin O at the wing root) with x
Assuming an isotropic plate-like flapping wing structure that is
direction normal to the stroke plane, the y direction vertical to the body axis, and loaded in the transverse direction, the governing equations of
the z direction parallel to the stroke plane. Definitions of the positional or stroke motion can be written as
angle (f), the angle of attack (a), the elevation or deviation angle (y), the body
angle (w), and the stroke plane angle (b) are indicated in the figure. @2 u0 @2 v0 @2 u0
As 2
þAs þ ð1nÞAs ¼0 ð3aÞ
@xs @xs @ys @y2s

the same frequency but not necessarily in phase. Three indepen-

@ 2 u0 @2 v0 @2 v0
dent design variables are introduced: the normalized stroke As þ ð1nÞAs þ As ¼0 ð3bÞ
@xs @ys @x2s @y2s
amplitude with reference to a point of radius of gyration for
second moment of the wing (2ha =cmrg ) dictating the magnitude of
@4 w0 @4 w0 @4 w0 @2 w0
the translation, the pitching amplitude (aa) which then defines Ds þ2Ds 2 2 þDs rs hs ¼ fp ð3cÞ
@x4s @xs @ys @y4s @t2
the angle of attack (a), and the phase lag (f) which specifies the
timing of the rotation relative to the translation. In synchronized where u0, v0, and w0 are displacement in the xs, ys, and zs
rotation, the rotation takes place at the ends of translation and the direction, respectively, of a point on the mid-surface of the plate
leading edge is the same for both the forward and backstroke.  xs–ys plane.
considered in the  And, the coefficients As =Ehs/(1  n2)
Changing phase lag will cause the rotation to start early and Ds ¼ Eh3s = 12ð1n2 Þ correspond to the extensional and
(advanced rotation) or after the translation has switched direction bending stiffnesses, respectively, rs is the density of the plate
(delayed rotation). This will affect the angle of attack during material, hs is the thickness of the plate, E and n is Young’s
subsequent interactions with the wake as well when the wing has modulus of material and Poisson’s ratio, and fp is the distributed
achieved maximum translational velocity at the middle of the transverse load on the plate. The first two equations presented
stroke. above correspond to the in-plane motion and the last one
In unsteady flows, there is no single angle of attack at each corresponds to the out-of-plane motion. For the purpose of
wing section since the flow direction varies along the chord as a scaling, only the equation of the out-of-plane motion is con-
result of the induced flow. Therefore, a very useful quantity sidered in Section 2.3. More details of the plate equations are
known as effective angle of attack is defined in the literature for given in Refs. [33,34].

Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 5

Fig. 2. Time histories of the three angles associated with flapping wing motion of hovering flight for (A) a hawkmoth model [42]; (B) a honeybee model [42]; and (C) a fruit
fly model [42]. Positional/stroke angle, elevation/deviation angle, and angle of attack of the wing are indicated by solid (green), dash-dotted (blue), and dashed (orange)
lines, respectively. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

becomes important under a given condition. From the view point

of fluid–structure interaction, several dimensionless parameters
arise during the non-dimensionalization process of the fluid and
structural dynamics equations using a set of suitable reference
scales. Depending upon the problem at hand and the type of
equations used to model the physical phenomena involved, the
resultant set of scaling parameters could vary. In flapping wing
flight, three dimensionless parameters related to the fluid
dynamics, wing kinematics, and three other dimensionless
parameters relevant to the fluid–structure interaction are high-
lighted next (see Table 1):

(i) The Reynolds number (Re) represents a ratio between inertial

forces and viscous forces.
Given a reference length (Lref) and a reference velocity (Uref),
the Reynolds number (Re) is defined as
Fig. 3. Schematics diagram for simplified wing kinematics. The stroke plane angle
(b) is equal to zero. The global coordinate system (X,Y,Z) is fixed at the center of the rf Lref Uref
stroke plane with Z direction normal to the stroke plane, the Y direction
Re ¼ : ð4Þ
m
perpendicular to the wing axis, and the X direction parallel to the stroke plane.
a and 2ha =cmrg are the angle of attack and normalized stroke amplitude with In flapping wing flight, since lift and thrust are generated by
reference to a point of radius of gyration for second moment of the wing [16], flapping wings, the mean chord length of the wing (cm), is
respectively. used as the reference length (Lref) and the inverse of the
flapping frequency (1/f) is often utilized as the reference time
(Tref). On the other hand, the reference velocity needs to be
2.3. Scaling laws selected carefully considering the flight conditions and wing
kinematics.
Scaling laws are useful to reduce the number of parameters, to In hovering flight, and the mean wingtip velocity of the
clearly identify characteristic properties of the system under flapping wing can be used as the reference velocity, written
consideration, and to indicate which combination of parameters as Uref =Utip = oR, where o is the mean angular velocity of the

Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

Fig. 4. Illustrations to show effective angle of attack due to prescribed plunge motion and chordwise deformation of (A) ae is the effective angle of attack of an airfoil due to
plunge motion (extracted from Ref. [31] ) (B) aeL:E: and aL.E. are the effective angle of attack for the chordwise flexible wing case and the angle of attack due to the wing
deformation. The effective angle of attack decreases with geometric angle of attack (aL.E.) due to the wing deformation extracted from Ref. [32].

Table 1
Dimensionless parameters and scaling dependency for flapping wings.

Dimensionless parameter Based on flapping wing velocity Uref =Utip =ARcmUf Based on flight speed Uref = UN

Length Frequency Length Frequency Velocity

Reynolds number: Re = qfUrefcm/l 2

cm f cm Independent UN
Reduced frequency: k = (pfcm)/Uref Independent Independent cm f 1
U1
Strouhal number: St = (2fha)/Uref Independent Independent cm f 1
U1
Effective stiffness: P1 ¼ Ds =ðqf U 2ref c 3m Þ 2
cm f2 Independent Independent U12

Effective rotational inertia: P2 ¼ I B =ðqf c 5m Þ Independent Independent Independent Independent Independent

Density ratio: q ¼ qs =qf Independent Independent Independent Independent Independent

Note that Ds indicates the flexural rigidity which is defined as the force couple required to bend a structure to a unit curvature. In the case of the isotropic plate,
Ds ¼ Eh3s =ð12ð1n2 ÞÞ.

wing about x-axis (o =2Ff, where F is the full stroke
amplitude, measured in radians) and R is the wing semi-
span. Therefore the Reynolds number (Re) for hovering flight
can be rewritten as
2
rf Lref Uref rf AR Ffcm
Re ¼ ¼ ;
m m
where the aspect ratio AR = b2/S, with the wing planform area
(S) being the product of the wing span (b) and the mean
chord length (cm). Note that the Reynolds number is
proportional to the flap amplitude, the flapping frequency,
square of the mean chord length, and the aspect ratio of the
wing (see Table 2).
In forward flight, there are multiple candidates for the
reference velocity, for example, the mean wing tip velocity
and the forward flight velocity (UN). If the reference velocity
is chosen as the forward flight velocity, the Reynolds number
can be represented as
rf Lref Uref rf cm U1
Re ¼ ¼ ð6Þ
m m
In comparison with the Reynolds number based on the mean
ð5Þ
wing tip velocity, the Reynolds number based on the forward
flight velocity is proportional to the mean chord length and
flight velocity, and not related to the flapping frequency and
the flapping amplitude.
(ii) The Strouhal number (St) describes the relative influence of
forward flight (UN) versus the flapping speeds [1]. The
Strouhal number (St) characterizes the vortex dynamics of
the wake and shedding behavior of vortices of a flapping
wing in forward flight [1,35]. For flapping wing flight, the
Strouhal number is defined based on the flapping frequency,

Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 7

Table 2
Morphological, flight, scaling, and non-dimensional parameters of selected biological flyers.

Parameter Chalcid Wasp Fruit fly Honeybee Hawkmoth Rufous Hummingbird

(Encarsia formosa) (Drosophila melanogaster) (Apis mellifica) (Manduca sexta) (Selasphorus rufus)

Mean chord length: cm (mm) 0.33 0.78 3.0 18.3 12

Semi-span: R (mm) 0.70 2.39 10.0 48.3 54.5
Aspect ratio: AR 4.24 6.12 6.65 5.3 9
Total mass: M (g) 2.6  10  7 0.96  10  3 0.1 1.6 3.4
Flapping frequency: f (Hz) 370 218 232.1 26.1 41
Flapping amplitude: U (rad) 2.09 2.44 1.59 2.0 2.02
Mean wing tip velocity: Urip (m/s) 1.08 2.54 7.38 5.04 8.66
Flight speed: UN (m/s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Normalized stroke amplitude: 2ha =c m tip 4.4 7.48 5.3 5.28 9.17
Normalized stroke amplitude: 2ha c m rg 4.4 4.3 3.05 3.04 5.27
Reynolds number: Re 23 126 1412 5885 6628
Reduced frequency: k 0.355 0.212 0.297 0.296 0.172

the travel distance of full flapping amplitude (RF), and the rotational inertia (P2), will be
speed of forward fight, namely, IB
P2 ¼ ; ð14Þ
fL fRF fAR cm F 5
rf cm
St ¼ ref ¼ ¼ : ð7Þ
Uref U1 2U1
where IB is the mass moment of inertia. This describes the
This definition offers a measure of propulsive efficiency of ratio between rotational inertia forces and aerodynamic (or
flapping wing flyer in forward flight. fluid dynamic) forces.
(iii) The reduced frequency (k) provides a better measure of
unsteadiness associated with a flapping wing than the
Strouhal number by comparing spatial wavelength of the As a summary, assuming that the geometric similarity is
flow disturbance with the chord length [35]. It is defined by maintained, the scaling laws for rigid and flexible flapping wing
the angular speed of the flapping wing (2pf), mean chord aerodynamics for two sets of reference velocities are listed in
length (cm), and the reference velocity (Uref), namely, Table 1.
Furthermore, in order to understand the effect of the above-
pfcm scaling parameters on the governing equations, non-dimensional
k¼ ð8Þ
Uref forms of the governing equations are presented based on the
The reduced frequency based on the mean wingtip velocity reference velocity as follows:
can be formulated as If the flapping wing velocity is chosen as the velocity scale,
pfcm p then the resulting non-dimensional form of the NS equations and
k¼ ¼ ð9Þ the equation of out-of-plane motion of the isotropic plate are
Uref FAR
Note that the reduced frequency is inversely proportional to k @U 1 2
þ UUrU ¼ rp þ r U ð15Þ
the flapping amplitude and aspect ratio of the wing and not p qt Re
related to flapping frequency.
!  2 2 0
On the other hand, the reduced frequency based on the @4 w0 @4 w0 @4 w0 k @ w
forward or cruising flight speed can be rewritten as P1 þ2 þ rhs ¼ fp ð16Þ
@x4s @x2s @y2s @y4s p @t
2

pfcm
k¼ ð10Þ where the over-bar designates the dimensionless variable. This form
U1
of the equation separates the reduced frequency, the Reynolds
The reduced frequency is proportional to flapping frequency
number, the density ratio, and the effective stiffness, making it
and the mean chord length, and inversely flight speed. The
convenient to study the effects of these parameters. For biological
relationship between the Strouhal number and the reduced
flyers, the flapping frequency ranges 10–600 Hz, and the wing length
frequency based on the forward flight speed is
varies from 0.3 to 600 mm yielding the Reynolds number from O(104)
St AR F to O(101) [1,36]. In this flight regime, unsteady effects, inertia,
¼ ð11Þ
k 2p pressure, internal, and viscous forces are all important.
(iv) The density ratio (r) describes the ratio between the
equivalent structural density and fluid density.
rs 3. Key attribute of unsteady flapping wing aerodynamics
r¼ ð12Þ
rf
(v) The effective stiffness (P1) describes the ratio between Natural flyers utilize flapping mechanisms to generate lift and
elastic bending forces and aerodynamic (or fluid dynamic) thrust. These mechanisms are related to formation and shedding of
forces. the vortices into the flow, varied wing shape, and structural flexibility.
Therefore, understanding the vortex dynamics, the vortex–wing
Eh3s
P1 ¼ 2 c3
ð13Þ interaction, and fluid–structure interaction is very important. A brief
12ð1n2 Þrf Uref m introduction to some of the key unsteady mechanisms associated
(vi) If an isotropic shear deformable plate is considered, an with flapping wings that are frequently encountered in the literature
additional dimensionless parameter [33,34], the effective is given next. Specific topics related to the interplay between the

Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

unsteady aerodynamics and kinematics, Reynolds number, and wing
geometry will be discussed in detail in Section 4.
3.1. Clap and fling
The earliest unsteady lift generation mechanism to explain how
insects fly, found by Weis-Fogh [16], was the clap-and-fling motion of
a chalcid wasp, Encarsia formosa. Based on the steady-state
approximation, the lift generated by the chalcid wasp was insufficient
to stay aloft. To explain this, he observed that a chalcid wasp claps
two wings together and then flings them open about the horizontal
line of contact to fill the gap with air. During the fling motion, the air
around each wing acquires circulation in the correct direction to
generate additional lift. A schematic of this procedure is shown in
Fig. 5. As illustrated in Fig. 6, Lehmann et al. [37] elucidated this clap-
and-fling mechanism with PIV flow visualizations and force
measurements using a dynamically scaled robotic wing model. Also
numerical investigations further demonstrated lift enhancement due
to the clap-and-fling mechanisms at low Reynolds numbers [38–42].
The relative benefit of clap-and-fling lift enhancement strongly
depended on stroke kinematics and could potentially increase the
performance by reducing the power requirements [43,44]. The clap-
and-fling mechanism is beneficial in producing a mean lift coefficient
to keep a low weight flyer aloft: numerous natural flyers, such as
hawkmoths, butterflies, fruitflies, wasps, and thrips enhance their
aerodynamic force production with the clap-and-fling mechanism
[16,45–49].
3.2. Rapid pitch rotation
At the end of each stroke, flapping wings can experience rapid
pitching rotation, which can enhance the aerodynamic force
generation [50]. The phase difference between the translation and
the rotation can be utilized as a lift controlling parameter: similar
to the Magnus effect, if the wing flips before the stroke ends, then
the wing undergoes rapid pitch-up rotation in the correct
translational direction enhancing the lift. This is called the
advanced rotation. On the other hand, in delayed rotations, if a
wing rotates back after the stroke reversal, then when the wing
starts to accelerate it pitches down resulting in reduced lift [50].
In a follow-up study Sane and Dickinson [51] related the lift peak
at the stroke ends to be proportional to the angular velocity of the
wing using the quasi-steady theory. The numerical studies [1,52]
showed an increase in the vorticity around the wing due to rapid
pitch-up rotation of the wing led to augmentation of the lift
generation.
3.3. Wake capture
The wake capture mechanism is often observed during a
wing–wake interaction. When the wings reverse their transla-
tional direction, the wings meet the wake created during the
previous stroke, by which the effective flow velocity increases and
additional aerodynamic force peak is generated. Lehmann et al.
[37], Dickinson et al. [50], and Birch and Dickinson [53] examined
the effect of wake capturing of several simplified fruit fly-like
wing kinematics using a dynamically scaled robotic fruit fly wing
model at Re =1.0–2.0  102. They compared the force measure-
ment data with the quasi-steady approximation then isolated the
aerodynamic influence of the wake. Results demonstrated that
wake capture force represented a truly unsteady phenomenon
dependent on temporal changes in the distribution and magni-
tude of vorticity during stroke reversal. The sequence of the wake
capture mechanism is illustrated in Fig. 7. Wang [54] and Shyy
et al. [1,55] further elucidated the wake capture mechanism and

Fig. 5. Sectional schematic of wings approaching each other to clap (A–C) and fling apart (D–F) adopted from Ref. [18] and originally described in Ref. [16]. Black lines show
flow lines and dark blue arrows show induced velocity. Light blue arrows show net forces acting on the airfoil. (A–C) Clap. As the wing approach each other dorsally (A),
their leading edges touch initially (B), and the wing rotates around the leading edge. As the trailing edges approach each other, vorticity shed from the trailing edge rolls up
in the form of stopping vortices (C), which dissipate into the wake. The leading edge vortices also lose strength. The closing gap between the two wings pushes fluid out,
giving and additional thrust. (D–F) Fling. The wings fling apart by rotating around the trailing edge (D). The leading edge translates away and fluid rushes in to fill the gap
between the two wing sections, giving an initial boost in circulation around the wing system (E). (F) A leading edge vortex forms anew but the trailing edge starting vortices
are mutually annihilated as they are of opposite circulation. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)

Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 9

Fig. 6. Experimental visualization of clap-and-fling mechanism by two-wings (M-T) using robotic wing models adopted from Ref. [37]. The leading edge of the dorsal wing
surface is marked by a white half circle. Fluid flow velocities are plotted in color/shades; red/light indicates large velocity magnitudes and arrows represent the velocity
vectors at each point in the fluid; longer arrows signify larger velocities. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.)

Fig. 7. Illustrations of wake capture mechanism [1,55]. (A) Supination, (B) beginning of upstroke, and (C) early of upstroke. At the end of the stroke, (A), the wake shed in
the previous stroke denoted by CWV is en route of the flat plate. As the flat plate moves into the wake (B and C) the effective flow velocity increases and additional
aerodynamic force is generated. The color of contour indicates spanwise-component of vorticity. CWV and CCWV indicate clock-wise and counter clock-wise vortex.

lift augmentation of the instantaneous lift peak using 2-D
numerical simulations. The effectiveness of the wake capture
mechanism was a function of wing kinematics and flow structures
around the flapping wings [1,37,50,53]. A different view on the
effect of wake capture existed as well. Jardin et al. [56] used a
NACA0012 airfoil under asymmetric flapping wing kinematics
such that in the downstroke the interaction of the previously shed
wake with the leading edge vortex (LEV) formation was reduced.
In the most cases they considered this reduced effect of wake
capture led to a closely attached downstroke LEVs. Compared to a
synchronized wing rotation they saw enhanced downstroke
aerodynamic loading.
3.4. Delayed stall of leading edge vortex (LEV)
Ellington et al. [57–60] suggested that the delayed stall of LEV
can significantly promote lift associated with a flapping wing. The
LEV created a region of lower pressure above the wing and hence
it would enhance lift. Multiple follow-up investigations [61–64]
were conducted for different insect models, resulting in a better
understanding on the role played by the LEV and its implications
on lift generation. When a flapping wing travels several chord
lengths, the flow separates from the leading and trailing edges, as
well as at the wing tip, and forms large organized vortices known
as a leading edge vortex (LEV), a trailing edge vortex (TEV), and a
tip vortex (TiV). In flapping wing flight, the presence of LEVs is
essential to delay stall and to augment aerodynamic force
production during the translation of the flapping wings as shown
in Fig. 8 [18]. Fundamentally, the LEV is generated and sustained
from the balance between the pressure-gradient, the centripetal
force, and the Coriolis force in the NS equations. The LEV
generates a lower pressure area in its core, which results in an
increased suction force on the upper surface. Employing 3-D NS
computations, Liu and Aono [42] and Shyy and Liu [65]
demonstrated that a LEV is a common flow feature in flapping
wing aerodynamics at Reynolds numbers O(104) and lower, which
correspond to the flight regime of insects and flapping wing
MAVs. However, main characteristics and implications of the LEV
on the lift generation varied with changes in the Reynolds
number, the reduced frequency, the Strouhal number, the wing
flexibility, and flapping wing kinematics. Milano and Gharib [66]
measured the forces generated by pitching rectangular flat plate
at approximately Re= 4.0  103 and observed the trajectories
yielding maximum average lift based on a genetic algorithm.
Results showed the optimal flapping produces LEVs of maximum
circulation and that a dynamic formation time that described the
vortex formation process of about 4 is associated with production

Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
10 W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

of a maximum-circulation vortex [67,68]. Rival et al. [69]

investigated experimentally the formation process of LEVs FNormal
FResult
associated with several combinations of pitching and plunging
SD7003 airfoils in forward flight using PIV at Re= 3.0  104. Results
suggested that by carefully tuning the airfoil kinematics, thus
gradually feeding the LEV over the downstroke, it was to some
extent possible to stabilize the LEV without the necessity of a FSuction
spanwise flow.
Tarascio et al. [70] and Ramasamy and Leishman [71]
visualized the flow fields around a biologically inspired flapping
wing at Re =1.0  104 by a mineral oil fog strobed with a laser
sheet and PIV. They presented the presence of a shed dynamic
stall vortex that spans across most of the wing span and multiple
shedding LEVs on the top surface of the wing during each wing
stroke. Also they provided several observations related to the role
of turbulence at low Reynolds numbers. Poelma et al. [72] Lift FResult = FSuction + FNormal
measured the time-dependent 3-D velocity field around a
flapping wing at Re=256 based on maximum chord. A dynami-
cally scaled fruitfly wing in mineral oil with hovering kinematics
extracted from real insect movements was used. They presented
refined 3-D structures of LEVs and suggested including the
counter-rotating TEVs to get a complete picture for production Drag
of circulation. Lu and Shen [73] highlighted the detailed
structures of LEVs for a flapping wing in hover at Re=1.6  103.
They used phase-lock-based multi-slice digital stereoscopic PIV to
show that the spanwise variation along the LEV was time-
dependent. Their results demonstrated that the observed LEV
systems were a collection of four vortical elements: one primary
vortex and three minor vortices, instead of a single conical or
tube-like vortex as reported or hypothesized in previous studies Fig. 8. Leading edge suction analogy adopted from Ref. [18]. (A) Flow around the
[50,57]. Recently, Pick and Lehmann [74] used 3-D three- blunt wing. The sharp diversion of flow around the leading edge results in a
components multiple-color-plane stereo PIV techniques to obtain leading edge suction force (dark blue arrow), causing the resultant force vector
a 3-D velocity field around a flapping wing. The need for 3-D PIV is (light blue arrow) to tilt towards the leading edge and perpendicular to free
stream. (B) Flow around a thin airfoil. The presence of a leading edge vortex causes
evident since the critical flow features in understanding flapping
a diversion of flow analogous to the flow around the blunt leading edge in (A) but
wing aerodynamics, such as LEVs and unsteady wakes behind an in a direction normal to the surface of the airfoil. This results in an enhancement of
insect body, are inherently 3-D in nature. Compared to the the force normal to the wing section. (For interpretation of the references to color
previous findings, they reported similar structure of the LEV but in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
stronger outward axial flow inside the LEV of up to 80% of the
maximum in-plane velocity. On the other hand, Liang et al. [75] 3-D separated flow and vortex dynamics for a number of low
presented results based on direct numerical simulation to aspect ratio flat plates at different angles of attacks. At Re of
investigate wake structures of hummingbird hovering flight and 3.0  102–5.0  102. They showed that the TiVs could stabilize the
associated aerodynamic performance. They reported that the flow and exhibited nonlinear interaction with the shed vortices.
amount of lift produced during downstroke is about 2.95 times of Stronger influence of downwash from the TiVs resulted in
that produced in upstroke. Two parallel vortex rings were formed reduced lift for lower aspect ratio plates.
at the end of the upstrokes. There is no obvious leading edge For flapping motion in hover, however, depending on the
vortex can be observed at the beginning of the upstroke. Although specific kinematics, the TiVs could either promote or make little
only rigid wing structures were considered, the results were impact on the aerodynamics of a low aspect ratio flapping wing.
claimed to be in good agreement with PIV measurements of Shyy et al. [55] demonstrated that for a flat plate with AR = 4 at
Warrick et al. [76] and Altshuler et al. [77]. Re=64 with delayed rotation kinematics, the TiV anchored the
vortex shed from the leading edge increasing the lift compared to
a 2-D computation under the same kinematics. On the other hand,
3.5. Tip vortex (TiV) under different kinematics with small angle of attack and
synchronized rotation, the generation of TiVs was small and the
Tip vortices (TiVs) associated with fixed finite wings are seen aerodynamic loading was well approximated by the analogous
to decrease lift and induce drag [78]. However, in unsteady flows, 2-D computation. They concluded that the TiVs could either
TiVs can influence the total force exerted on the wing in three promote or make little impact on the aerodynamics of a low
ways (see Figs. 8 and 9): (i) creating a low-pressure area near the aspect ratio flapping wing by varying the kinematic motions [55].
wing tip [55,79–81], (ii) an interaction between the LEV and the
TiV [55,79–81], and (iii) constructing wake structure by
downward and radial movement of the root vortex and TiV [71]. 3.6. Passive pitching mechanism
First two mechanisms ((i) and (ii)) also were observed for
impulsively started flat plates normal to the motion with low Wing torsional flexibility can allow for a passive pitching
aspect ratios: Riguette et al. [82] presented experimentally that motion due to the inertial forces during wing rotation at stroke
the TiVs contributed substantially to the overall plate force by reversals [84–88]. There were three modes of passive pitching
interacting with the LEVs at Re=3.0  103. Taira and Colonius [83] motions which were similar to those suggested by rigid robotic
utilized the immersed boundary method (IBM) to highlight the wing model experiments [50]; (1) delayed pitching, (2) synchro-

Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
Fig. 9. Drag coefficients of the aspect ratio 6, and 2 plates during a starting-up translation as a function of T (the number of chord lengths the plate has traveled, see
definition of Ref. [79]) adopted from Ref. [79]. (A) Overall view; (B) Detailed view of (A). Both (A) and (B) show drag coefficients for the free tip aspect ratio of 6 plate
(continuous line) and for the same plate with the tip grazing a raised bottom (dash-dotted line); the dashed line is drag coefficient for the aspect ratio of 2 plate with the tip
free. Low aspect ratio of the wing reduces the drag coefficient significantly due to interactions between a TiV and a LEV.
nized pitching, and (3) advanced pitching. It was found that the
ratio of flapping frequency and the natural frequency of the wing
were important to determine the modes of passive pitching
motions of the wing [88,89]. If the flapping frequency was less
than the natural frequency of the wing, then the wing experienced
an advanced pitching motion, which led to lift enhancement by
intercepting the stronger wake generated during the previous
stroke [89]. Moreover, it was shown for 2-D flows, the LEVs
produced by the airfoil motion with passive pitching seemed to
attach longer on the flexible airfoil than on a rigid airfoil [88].
4. Kinematics, wing geometry, Re, and rigid flapping wing
aerodynamics
This section presents a literature survey on flapping wing
aerodynamics using experimental, theoretical, and computational
approaches. Selected computational efforts of the authors are
used to highlight implications of flow structures on the perfor-
mance of rigid flapping wings. Note that the Reynolds numbers
shown for hovering studies in this literature review may differ
from those in the referenced studies as consistent definitions
(average wing velocity) are used for the sake of comparison in this
paper.
Experimentally, numerous previous efforts on flow visualiza-
tion around biological flyers have been made, including smoke
visualizations [47,49,90–92] and PIV [76,77,93–101] measure-
ments. The advance of such technologies has enabled researchers
to obtain not only 2-D but also 3-D flow structures around
biological flyers [93,98–101] and/or scaled models [72–74] with
reasonable resolution in space. At the same time, measurements
of wing and body kinematics have been conducted using high-
speed cameras [102–110], laser techniques (a scanning projected
line method [111], a reflection beam method [112], a fringe
shadow method [113], and a projected comb fringe method
[114]), and a combination of high-speed cameras and a projected
comb-fringe technique with the Landmarks procedure [115].
Advancement in measurement techniques also enabled quantifi-
cation of flapping wing and body kinematics along with the 3-D
deformation of the flapping wing. Recently, data on the instanta-
neous wing kinematics involving camber along the span, twisting,
and flapping motion have been reported (a hovering honeybee
Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
11
[116]; a hovering hover fly and a tethered locust [117,118], a
free-flying hawkmoth [119]). These efforts help in establishing
more complex and useful computational models [120,121].
Furthermore, the in-vivo measurement of aerodynamic forces
generated by biological flyers in free-flight is a very challenging
research topic.
Various models have been developed in an effort to under-
stand flapping wing phenomena where the variables are known,
controllable, and repeatable. Detailed discussion regarding the
experimental and numerical methodologies utilized to examine
flapping wing-related studies is beyond the scope of the current
effort. Suffice it to say, numerous computational techniques-
based moving meshes [122–124] or stationary meshes (cut cell or
immersed boundary) [125,126] have been developed. The physi-
cal models include NS as well as simplified treatments [127,128].
Some of the experimental methods employed are introduced in
the paragraph above.
In the following section recent progress regarding rigid
flapping wing aerodynamics is presented. First, studies for
forward flight will be described. Then studies for hovering flight
will be presented. Explorations on the implications of wing
kinematics and wing shape will be touched upon after that. This
will be followed by a highlight focusing on the unsteady
aerodynamics of 2-D and 3-D hovering flat plates, Re=O(102)
based on a surrogate modeling approach. Finally, the fluid
dynamics related to the LEV, the TEV, and the TiV will be
presented, including the authors’ computational efforts to high-
light the vortex dynamics of a hovering hawkmoth at Re=O(103)
and the effect of Reynolds number (size of flyers) on the LEV
structures and spanwise flow.
4.1. Single wing in forward flight condition
Von Ellenrieder et al. [129] studied the impact of variation of
Strouhal number (0.2 oSto0.4), pitch amplitude (01o aa o101),
and phase angle (651o f o1201) between pitching and plunging
motion on 3-D flow structures behind a plunging/pitching finite-
span NACA0012 wing using dye flow visualization at Re= 164. The
results demonstrated that the variation of these parameters had
observable effects on the wake structure. However, they observed
a representative pattern of the most commonly seen flow
structures and proposed a 3-D model of the vortex structure
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
12 W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
behind a plunging/pitching wing in forward flight. Godoy-Diana
et al. [130,131] investigated the vortex dynamics associated with
a pitching 2-D teardrop shaped airfoil (2.21o aa o16.91,
0.1 oSto0.5) in forward flight at Re=1.2  103 using PIV
measurements. Their results illustrated the transition from the
von Kármán vortex streets to the reverse von Kármán vortex
streets that characterize propulsive wakes. Furthermore, the
symmetry breaking of this reverse von Kármán vortex pattern
gave rise to an asymmetric wake which was intimately related to
the time-averaged aerodynamic force production. Lee et al. [132]
numerically investigated aerodynamic characteristics of unsteady
force generation by a 2-D pitching and plunging 5% thick elliptic
airfoil with inclined stroke plane at Re= 6.8  102. They showed
that the thrust was generated due to correct alignment of the
vortices at the end of the upstroke and there was a monotonic
decrease in thrust as the rotational center of the pitching motion
was moved from the leading edge towards the trailing edge
(0.1o Xo0.5).
Anderson et al. [133] considered harmonically oscillating
NACA0012 airfoils in a water tunnel to measure the thrust. After
a parametric study (01o aa o601, 0.25oha/cm o1.0,
301o f o1101) to find the optimum flow condition for the thrust
generation (aa =301, ha/cm =0.75, f =751) at Re=4.0  104 and
St=0.05–0.6, they proceeded to show the presence of a reverse
von Kármán vortex street formed by the vortices shed from the
leading and trailing edges for St in range of 0.3 and 0.4 at
Re=1.1  103. Triantafyllou and co-workers [134–136] performed
parametric investigations using experiments on the performance of
a pitching/plunging NACA0012 airfoil in forward flight at Re
between 2.0  104 and 4.0  104, and St between 0.1 and 0.45.
Systematic measurements of the fluid loading showed a unique
peak efficiency of more than 70% for optimal combinations of the
parameters (e.g. ha/c=0.75, aa =151, and f =901 at St=0.25 gives an
efficiency of 73%) and observed that higher thrust can be expected
when increasing the Strouhal number and/or the maximum of the
angle of attack. Then a parametric range where the efficiency and
high thrust conditions were achieved together would fall in the
parameter domain they considered. Lai and Platzer [137] used LDV
and dye injection techniques to visualize the velocity field and the
wake structures of an oscillating NACA0012 airfoil in water at Re
ranging from 5.0  102 to 2.1  104. The transition from drag to
thrust was seen to depend on the non-dimensional plunge velocity
(kha which is proportional to St), i.e. for kha 40.4 the considered
airfoil was thrust-producing. Cleaver et al. [138] performed force
and supporting PIV measurements on a plunging NACA0012 airfoil
at a Reynolds number of 1.0  104, at pre-stall, stall, and post-stall
angles of attack. The lift coefficient for pre-stall and stall angles of
attack at larger plunge amplitudes showed abrupt bifurcations
with the branch determined by initial conditions. With the
frequency gradually increasing, very high positive lift coefficients
were observed, this was termed mode A. At the same frequency
with the airfoil impulsively started, negative lift coefficients were
observed, this was termed mode B. The mode A flow field is
associated with trailing edge vortex pairing near the bottom of the
plunging motion causing an upwards deflected jet, and a resultant
strong upper surface leading edge vortex. The mode B flow field is
associated with trailing edge vortex pairing near the top of the
plunging motion causing a downwards deflected jet, and a
resultant weak upper surface leading edge vortex. The bifurcation
was not observed for plunge small amplitudes due to insufficient
trailing edge vortex strength, nor at post-stall angles of attack due
to greater asymmetry in the strength of the trailing-edge vortices,
which creates a natural preference for a downward deflected mode
B wake.
Lewin and Haj-Hariri [139] conducted 2-D numerical investiga-
tions for fluid dynamics associated with elliptic-like plunging
Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
airfoils at Re=5.0  102 and compared and contrasted the findings
with ideal flow theories. They mentioned that for high-frequency
plunging, the vorticity was shed primarily from the trailing edge,
and therefore better matched the inviscid models. Though for high
kha the LEV and its secondary vortices were occasionally shed into
the wake, which would differentiate the physics from those found
in inviscid models. The monotonic trend found in ideal fluid
models of efficiency decreasing as reduced frequency increases,
was not seen in the numerical models where the maximum
efficiency was found for an intermediate range of reduced
frequencies. Lua et al. [140] experimentally examined the wake
structure formation of a 2-D elliptic airfoil undergoing a sinusoidal
plunging motion at Re=1.0  103 and k=0.1–2.0. The results
showed the type of wake structure produced depends on not only
the reduced frequency, but also the normalized stroke amplitude.
Bohl and Koochesfahani [141] focused on quantifying, via MTV, the
vortical structures in the wakes of a sinusoidally pitching
NACA0012 airfoil with low pitching amplitude, aa =21, at
Re=1.3  104. The reduced frequency was set to a relatively high
range, between 4.1 and 11.5, to generate thrust. They found that
the transverse alignment of the vortices switched at k=5.7, i.e. the
vortices of positive circulation switched from below to above the
vortices of negative circulation. The mean streamwise velocity
profile herewith changed from velocity deficit (wake) to velocity
excess (jet). However, this switch from the vortex array orientation
could not be used to determine the crossover from drag to thrust.
Von Ellenrieder and Pothos [142] conducted PIV measurements
behind a 2-D plunging NACA0012 airfoil, operating at St between
0.17 and 0.78, and Re=2.7  104. Their results showed that for
Strouhal numbers larger than 0.43, the wake became deflected
such that the average velocity profile was asymmetric about the
mean heave position of the airfoil. Jones and Babinsky [143]
studied the fluid dynamics associated with a three-dimensional
2.5% thick waving flat plate. The spanwise velocity gradient and
wing starting and stopping acceleration that exist on an insect-like
flapping wing are generated by rotational motion of a finite span
wing. The flow development around a waving wing at Re=6.0  104
was studied using high-speed PIV to capture the unsteady velocity
field. Vorticity field computations and a vortex identification
scheme reveal the structure of the 3-D flow-field, characterized
by strong leading edge and tip vortices. A transient high lift peak
approximately 1.5 times the quasi-steady value occurred in the
first chord-length of travel, caused by the formation of a strong
attached leading edge vortex. This vortex then separated from the
leading edge resulting in a sharp drop in lift. As weaker leading
edge vortices continued to form and shed lift values recovered to
an intermediate value. They also reported that the wing kinematics
had only a small effect on the aerodynamic forces produced by the
waving wing if the acceleration is sufficiently high. Calderon et al.
[144] presented an experimental study on a plunging rectangular
wing with aspect ratio of 4, at low Reynolds numbers of 1  104–
3  104. Time-averaged force measurements were presented as a
function of non-dimensional frequency, alongside PIV measure-
ments at the mid-span plane. In particular, they focused on the
effect of oscillations at low amplitudes and various angles of attack.
The presence of multiple peaks in lift was identified for this 3-D
wing, thought to be related to the natural shedding frequency of
the stationary wing. Wing/vortex and vortex/vortex interactions
were identified which may also contribute to the selection of
optimal frequencies. Lift enhancement was observed to become
more notable with increasing plunging amplitude, to lower
reduced frequencies, with increasing angle of attack. Despite the
highly 3-D nature of the flow, lift enhancements up to 180% were
possible.
Under Research and Technology Organization (RTO) arrange-
ment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) there was
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
a community-wide effort organized, which offered a wide range
of experimental and computational data for both SD7003 airfoil
and flat plate, with kinematics promoting different degrees of
flow separation. The detailed information can be found in [145].
Here we present samples of the information collected in this
group endeavor. Ol et al. [146] compared PIV flow field
measurements of a pitching and plunging SD7003 airfoil at
Re= 6.0  104, k= 0.25, and St= 0.08 with computed result by Kang
et al. [147]. They considered two kinematic motions, a shallow-
stall case and a deep-stall case where the maximum effective
angle of attack was larger than the former case. In the shallow-
stall case where the flow was moderately attached overall, the
computed result was able to approximate the flow field measured
using PIV well. For the deep-stall case the flow separated just
before the middle of the downstroke (i.e. maximum effective
angle of attack). The numerical solution showed vortical struc-
tures similar to the PIV, but at a later phase of motion. However,
the instantaneous lift over a motion cycle obtained from both
methods compared well, indicating that the differences in details
of the flow structures do not necessarily lead to large differences
in the forces integrated over the airfoil, as long as the large-scale
flow structures remain similar.
For Re(104) and higher, turbulence influences the development
of the flow structures and forces. Ol et al. [145], Baik et al. [148]
investigated the fluid physics at Re=O(104) of a pitching and
plunging SD7003 airfoil and flat plate, experimentally using PIV
focusing on the second-order turbulence statistics. They observed
laminar boundary layer and laminar-to-turbulence transition. In a
companion paper Kang et al. [147] used RANS computations with
SST turbulence model [149] to simulate the same cases [146] to
investigate the implications of the turbulence modeling. By
limiting the production of turbulence kinetic energy they observed
that leading edge separation was dependent on the level of eddy
viscosity for the SD7003 airfoil, and hence turbulence, in the flow.
Regarding the computed lift, they concluded that the large scale
vortical structures in the flow were the contributing factors. Baik
et al. [150] conducted an experimental study of a pitching and
plunging flat plate at Re=1.0  104 constrained to motions enfor-
cing a pure sinusoidal effective angle of attack. The effect of non-
dimensional parameters governing pitching and plunging motion
including Strouhal number (St), reduced frequency (k), and the
plunge amplitude (ha) was investigated for the same effective angle
of attack kinematics. The formation phase of the LEV was found to
be dependent on k: the LEV formation is delayed for higher k value.
It was found that for cases with the same k the velocity profiles
normal to the airfoil surface closely follow each other in all cases
independent of pitch rate and pivot point effect. Of course, even
though the flow structures with constant k seemed little affected
by Strouhal number and plunging amplitude, the time history of
forces along the horizontal (thrust) and normal (lift) directions can
be substantially altered because the geometric angle-of-attack,
viewed from the ground.
Visbal et al. [151] computed the unsteady transitional flow
over a plunging 2-D and 3-D SD7003 airfoil with high reduced
frequency (k= 3.93) and low plunge amplitude (ha/cm =0.05) using
implicit large Eddy simulations at Re= 1.0  104 and 4.0  104. The
results showed that the generation of dynamic-stall-like vortices
near the leading edge was promoted due to motion-induced high
angles of attack and 3-D effects in vortex formation around the
wing. Radespiel et al. [152] compared the flow field over a SD7003
airfoil with and without plunging motion at Re=6.0  104. Using a
NS solver along with the linear stability analysis to predict
transition from laminar-to-turbulent flow, they concluded that
transition and turbulence can play an important role in the
unsteady fluid dynamics of flapping airfoils and wings at the
investigated Reynolds numbers.
Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
13
4.2. Single wing in hovering flight condition
Ellington and co-workers [57–60,62,103,104] did pioneering
research on flapping wing aerodynamics at Re= 4.0  103–
7.0  103. They built a scaled-up robotic hawkmoth wing model
and visualized the flow field of hovering hawkmoth wing
movements [57–60,62,103,104] using smoke visualization tech-
niques. They observed that the presence of the LEV at high angle
of attack during the downstroke, and suggested that ‘delayed stall’
of the LEV was responsible for high lift production by hovering
hawkmoths (see Section 3.4). Dickinson and co-workers
[21,22,37,50,51,72,153–159] made original contributions to the
understanding the flapping wing aerodynamics at lower Reynolds
number regimes (Re= 1.0  102–1.5  103). They utilized a dyna-
mically scaled robotic fruit fly model wing in an oil tank and
conducted systematic experiments to relate the prescribed
simplified fly-like kinematics to the resulting aerodynamic forces.
They categorized the aerodynamic loading into three parts: forces
due to (i) translation (delayed stall of the LEV [50,72,153–155],
(ii) rotation [50,51,156–157], and (iii) interaction with the wakes
(wake capture [50,55]). Furthermore, Fry et al. [158] investigated
the aerodynamics of hovering/tethered fruit flies using a dyna-
mically scaled robotic fruit fly wing model at Re= 1.2  102.
Altshuler et al. [159] studied the aerodynamics of a hovering
honeybee using a dynamically scaled robotic honeybee wing
model at Re= 1.0  103. Their results showed that aerodynamic
force enhancement due to wake capturing and rotational forces
were important in both fruit fly and honeybee hovering. Sunada
et al. [160] measured fluid dynamic forces generated by a bristled
wing model with four different wing kinematics using scale-up
robotic wings at Re =10. The results demonstrated that fluid
dynamic forces acting on the bristled wing were a little smaller
than those on the solid wings.
Nagai et al. [161] used a mechanical bumblebee wing model
and measured the resulting forces with strain gauges and flow
structures using PIV for a hovering and forward flight at
Re= O(103). The comparison between the experimental results
and the numerical solutions, computed using a 3-D NS code,
showed good agreement quantitatively in forces and qualitatively
in flow structures. For the forward flight the relevance of the
delayed stall mechanism depended on the advance ratio. They
observed that the LEV hardly appeared during upstroke at high
advance ratios (over 0.5).
Comparisons of 2-D computational simulations of an elliptic
airfoil in hover against 3-D experimental data of the fruit fly
model [50] were performed by Wang et al. [162]. They concluded
that 2-D computed aerodynamic forces were good approxima-
tions of 3-D experiments for the advanced and symmetrical
rotation cases considered in their study. Lua et al. [163]
experimentally investigated the aerodynamics of a plunging 2-D
elliptic airfoil at Re between 6.6  102 and 2.7  103. The results
showed that the fluid inertia and the LEVs played dominant roles
in the aerodynamic force generation, and time-resolved force
coefficients during plunging motion were found to be more
sensitive to changes in pitching angular amplitude than to
Reynolds number. Wang [164–166] carried out 2-D numerical
investigations on the vortex dynamics associated with a plunging/
pitching elliptic airfoil at Re= O(102)–O(104). The result showed a
downward jet of counter rotating vortices which were formed
from LEVs and TEVs. Bos et al. [167] performed 2-D computational
studies examining different hovering kinematics: simple harmo-
nic, experimental model [50], realistic fruit fly [158], and modified
fruit fly. The results showed that the realistic fruit fly kinematics
lead to the optimal mean lift-to-drag ratio compared to other
kinematics. Also they concluded that in the case of realistic fruit
fly wing kinematics, the angle of attack variation increases the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
14 W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
aerodynamic performance, whereas the deviation levels the forces
over the flapping cycle. Kurtulus et al. [168] obtained a flow field
over a pitching/plunging NACA0012 airfoil in hover at
Re= 1.0  103 experimentally and numerically. A 2-D computation
was compared to a pitching and plunging airfoil in water tank.
They found that the more energetic vortices which were the most
influential flow features on the resulting forces were visible.
Hong and Altman [169,170] investigated experimentally the
lift generation from spanwise flow associated with a simple
flapping wing at Re between 6.0  103 and 1.5  104. The results
suggested that the presence of streamwise vorticity in the vicinity
of the wing tip contributed to the lift on a thin flat plate flapping
with zero pitching angle in quiescent air. Isaac et al. [171] used
both experimental and numerical methods to investigate the
unsteady flow features of a flapping wing at Re between 5.1  102
and 5.1  103. They showed a feasible application of the water
treading kinematics for hovering using insect/bird-like cambered
wings.
4.3. Tandem wing in forward/hovering flight condition
Aerodynamics associated with dragonflies differs from other
two-winged insects because forewing and hindwing interactions
generate distinct flow features [12]. Sun and Lan [172] studied the
lift requirements for a hovering dragonfly using a 3-D NS solver
with overset grid methods. They showed that the interaction
between the two wings was not strong and reduced the lift
compared to single wing configuration, however, large enough to
stay aloft. Yamamoto and Isogai [173] conducted a study on the
aerodynamics of a hovering dragonfly using a mechanical flapping
apparatus with a tandem wing configuration and compared the
time history of forces obtained from a 3-D NS solver. The force
comparison showed a good agreement and the results suggested
that the phase difference between the flapping motions of the
fore- and hind-wings only had small influence on the time
averaged forces.
Lehmann [44] and Maybury and Lehmann [174] investigated
the effect of changing the fore- and hindwing stroke-phase
relationship in hover on the aerodynamic performance of each
flapping wing by using a dynamically scaled electromechanical
insect wing model at Re of approximately 1.0  102. They
measured the aerodynamic forces generated by the wings and
visualized flow fields around the wings using PIV. Their results
showed that wing phasing determined both mean force produc-
tion and power expenditures for flight, in particular, hindwing lift
production might be varied by a factor of two due to LEV
destruction and changes in the strength and the orientation of the
local flow vector. Lu et al. [175] showed physical images revealing
the flow structures, their evolution, and their interactions during
dragonfly hovering using an electromechanical model in water
based on the dye flow visualization. Their results showed a
delayed development of the LEV in the translational motion of the
wing. Furthermore, in most cases, forewing–hindwing interac-
tions were detrimental to the LEVs and were weakened with
increase of the wing–root spacing. For a dragonfly in forward
flight, the conclusions from Wang and Sun [176] were similar in
that the forewing–hindwing interaction was detrimental for the
lift, but sufficient to support its weight. They suggested that
the downward-induced velocity from each wing would decrease
the lift on other wings.
Dong and Liang [177] modeled dragonfly in slow flight by
varying the phase difference between the forewing and hindwing
and investigated the changes of aerodynamic performance of
hindwings. They found that the performance of forewings is not
affected by the existence of hindwings; however, hindwings have
Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
obvious thrust enhancement and lift reduction due to the
existence of forewings. For slow flight, by decreasing the phase
angle difference, hindwings will have larger thrust production,
slight reduction of lift production, and larger oscillation of force
production. Independently, Warkentin and DeLaurier [178] did a
series of wind-tunnel tests on an ornithopter configuration
consisting of two sets of symmetrically flapping wings of
batten-stiffened membrane structures, located one behind the
other in tandem. It was discovered that the tandem arrangement
can give thrust and efficiency increases over a single set of
flapping wings for certain relative phase angles and longitudinal
spacing between the wing sets. In particular, close spacing on the
order of 1 chord length is generally best, and phase angles of
approximately 0 7501 give the highest thrusts and propulsive
efficiencies. Again, referring to other reported studies involving
rigid and flexible wings, the aerodynamics and aeroelasticity
associated with wing–wing interactions need to be further
studied. In another study, Broering et al. [179] numerically
studied the aerodynamics of two flapping airfoils in tandem
configuration in forward flight at a Reynolds number of 104. The
relationship between the phase angle and force production was
studied over a range of Strouhal numbers and three different
phase angles, 01, 901 and 1801. In general, they found that the lift,
thrust and resultant force of the forewing increased compared to
those of the single wing. The lift and resultant force of the
hindwing was decreased, while the thrust was increased for the 0
phase hindwing and decreased for the 90 and 180 phase
hindwings. The lift, thrust and resultant force of the combined
fore and hindwings was also compared to the case of two isolated
single wings. In general, the 0 phase case did not noticeably
change the magnitude of the resultant force, but it inclined the
resultant forward due to the decreased lift and increased thrust.
The 90 and 180 phase cases significantly decreased the resultant
force as well as the lift and thrust. Clearly, more work is needed to
help unify our understanding of the wing–wing interactions as
function of the individual and relative kinematics and dimension-
less flow and structure parameters.
Wang and Russell [180] investigated the role of phase lag
between the forewing and the hindwing further by filming a
tethered dragonfly and computing the aerodynamic forces and
power. They found that the out-of-phase motion in hovering uses
almost minimal power to generate sufficient lift to stay aloft and
the in-phase motion produce additional force to accelerate in
takeoffs. Young et al. [181] investigated aerodynamics of the
flapping hindwing of Aeschana juncea dragonfly using 3-D
computations at Re between 1.0  102 and 5.0  104. The flapping
amplitude observed, 34.51, for the dragonfly maximized the ratio
of mean vertical force produced to power required. Zhang and Lu
[182] studied a dragonfly gliding and asserted that the forewing–
hindwing interaction improved the aerodynamic performance for
Re=O(102)–O(103).
4.4. Implications of wing geometry
Lentink and Gerritsma [183] considered different airfoil shapes
numerically to investigate the role of shapes in forward flight on
the aerodynamic performance. They computed flow around
plunging airfoils at Re of O(102) and concluded that the thin
airfoil with aft camber outperformed other airfoils including the
more conventional airfoil shapes with thick and blunt leading
edges. One exception was the plunging N0010 which due to its
highest frontal area had good performance. Usherwood and
Ellington [184] examined experimentally the effect of detailed
shapes of a revolving wing with planform based on hawkmoth
wings at Re=5.0  103. The results showed that detailed leading
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
edge shapes, twist, and camber did not have substantial influence
on the aerodynamic performance. In a companion paper Usher-
wood and Ellington [185] examined experimentally the effect of
aspect ratio of a revolving wing with the same hawkmoth
planform [184] adjusted to aspect ratios ranging from 4.53 to
15.84 with corresponding Re of 1.1  103–2.6  104. The results
showed the influence of the aspect ratio was relatively minor,
especially at angle of attack below 501. Luo and Sun [186]
investigated numerically the effects of corrugation and wing
planform (shape and aspect ratio) on the aerodynamic force
production of model insect wings in sweeping motion at
Re= 2.0  102 and 3.5  103 at angle of attack of 401. The results
showed that the variation of the wing shape almost unaffected
the force generation and the effect of aspect ratio was also
remarkably small. Moreover, the effects of corrugated wing
sections in forward flight were studied in numerical simulations
[187,188] and a numerical–experimental approach [189]. The
results demonstrated that the pleated airfoil produced compar-
able and at times higher lift than the profiled airfoil, with a drag
comparable to that of its profiled counterpart [187].
Altshuler et al. [190] tested experimentally the effect of
wing shape (i.e. with sharpened leading edges and with
substantial camber) of a revolving wing at Re between 5.0  103
and 2.0  104. Their results demonstrated that lift tended to
increase as wing models become more realistic as did the lift-to-
drag ratios Ansari et al. [191] used an inviscid model for hovering
flapping wings to show that increasing the aspect ratio, wing
length, and wing area enhances lift. Furthermore, they suggested
that for a flapping wing MAV, the best design configuration would
have high aspect ratio, straight leading edge, and large wing area
outboard. The pitching axis would be then located near the center
of the area in the chordwise direction to provide the best
compromise for shedding vortices from the leading and trailing
edges during the stroke reversal. Green and Smith [192] examined
experimentally the effect of aspect ratio and pitching amplitude of
a pitching flat plate in forward flight at Re between 3.5  103 and
4.3  104 and aspect ratios of 0.54 and 2.25. They measured
unsteady pressure distributions on the wing, and compared to the
PIV measurements of the same setup [193]. They concluded that
the 3-D effects increased with decreasing aspect ratio, or when
the pitching amplitude increased.
Kang et al. [147] investigated the airfoil shape effect at
Re= O(104) by comparing the flow field around pitching and
plunging SD7003 airfoil and flat plate using PIV [148], and CFD in
forward flight. It was observed that for the flat plate the flow was
not able to make turn around the sharper leading edge of the flat
plate and eventually separated at all phases of motion. The flow
separation led to larger vortical structures on the suction side of
the flat plate hence increasing the area of lower pressure
distribution on the flat plate surface. From the time history of
lift, available for the CFD, it was seen that for the flat plate these
vortical structures increased the lift generation compared to the
SD7003, which had a blunter leading edge.
4.5. Implications of wing kinematics
A primary driver of the unsteady aerodynamics in flapping
wing flight is the wing motions. Yates [194] suggested that the
choice of the position of the pitching axis may enhance
performance and control of rapid maneuvers and thus enable
the organism to more adeptly cope with turbulent environmental
conditions, to avoid danger, or to more easily capture food. The
instantaneous fluid forces, torques, and rate of work done by the
propulsive appendages were computed using 2-D unsteady
aerodynamic theories. For a prescribed motion in forward flight,
Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
15
the moment and power were further analyzed to find the axes, for
which the mean square moment was minimal, the mean power
to maintain the moment was zero, the mean square power to
maintain moment was a minimum, and the mean square power to
maintain lift equaled the mean square power. Sane and Dickinson
[51] investigated the effect of location of pitching axis on force
generation of the flapping fruit fly-like wing in the first stroke
using a scaled-up robotic wing model. They estimated the
rotational forces based on the quasi-steady treatment and blade
element theory. The results showed that rotational forces
decrease uniformly as the axis of rotation moves from the leading
edge towards the trailing edge and change sign at approximately
three-fourths of a chord length from the leading edge of the
wing [50].
Ansari et al. [195] studied the effects of wing kinematics on the
aerodynamic performances of insect-like flapping wings in hover
based on non-linear unsteady aerodynamic models. They found
that the lift and the drag increased with increasing flapping
frequency, stroke amplitude, and advanced wing rotation. How-
ever, such increases were limited by practical considerations.
Furthermore, the authors mentioned that variations in wing
kinematics were more difficult to implement mechanically than
variations in wing planform. Hsieh et al. [196] investigated the
aerodynamics associated with the advanced, delayed, and sym-
metric rotation and decomposed the lift coefficients in terms of
the lift caused by vorticity, wing velocity, and wing acceleration.
The results suggested that while the symmetric rotation had the
most lift due to vorticity on the surface of the wing and in the
flow, the maximum total lift is found with advanced rotation.
Oyama et al. [197] optimized for the mean lift, mean drag, and
mean required power generated by a pitching/plunging
NACA0012 airfoil in forward flight using a 2-D NS solver at
Re= 103. The multi-objective evolutionary algorithm was used to
find the pareto front of the objective functions (i.e. by considering
the reduced frequency, plunge amplitude, pitch amplitude, pitch
offset, and phase shift as the design variables). They found that
the pitching angle amplitude (between 351 and 451) was optimum
for high-performance flapping motion and the phase angle
between pitch and plunge of about 901. In addition, the reduced
frequency was a tradeoff parameter between minimization of
required power and maximization of lift or thrust where smaller
frequency leads to smaller required power.
4.6. Surrogate modeling for hovering wing aerodynamics
Numerous studies, including Wang et al. [162] and references
cited above, reported similarities as well as differences in
aerodynamics and flow structures between 2-D and 3-D flapping
wings. There is a need for establishing a comprehensive frame-
work to address these matters. From a vehicle development
perspective, since 3-D Navier–Stokes simulations are expensive to
run, if 2-D simplifications can adequately reproduce the main
aerodynamic features of 3-D flapping wing, naturally, the needed
data can be generated much more economically. Trizila et al.
[198,199] used surrogate modeling techniques [200–202] to
investigate a large number of hovering wing cases to develop
surrogate models for time averaged lift and thrust. They identified
regions where 2-D and 3-D results (time averaged lift and thrust)
were comparable, as well as those that were substantially
different. Furthermore, based on the guidance from the surrogate
models, they probed the fluid physics associated with 2-D and
3-D cases, and were able to highlight the roles played by the LEV
and TiVs in unsteady aerodynamics. The impact on lift from
the 2-D/3-D unsteady mechanisms is detailed further in the
subsequent sections.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
16 W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

The flapping wing scenario is simplified to better identify and
understand the competing interactions and influences. The wing
is modeled as a flat plate with 2% thickness with respect to the
chord; for the finite wing, the aspect ratio is 4. The mid-span
cross-section of the 3-D model is used for the 2-D simulation.
Simplified wing kinematics are employed (see Section 2.1) and
the mid-chord of the rigid airfoil is selected as the pitching axis. It
was shown the position of the axis about which the wing pitches
will influence the aerodynamics [50, 51, 194, 195, 197] and
Section 4.5. The results shown will not be independent of this
choice of rotation (which is beyond the scope of the study
presented), however, the understanding of the most prominent
features will be relevant to flapping flight in general. The three
kinematic parameters (or the design variables in surrogate
modeling), ha (plunge amplitude), aa (pitch amplitude), and f
(phase lag between pitching and plunging motion) can be varied
independently.
The range of the design variables is as follows. The normalized
stroke amplitude is representative of a range of flapping wing
flyers: 2:0 o 2ha =cmrg o4:0. Details on pitch amplitude and phase
lag are not as plentiful in the literature, so cases are chosen with
low angles of attack (AoAmin = 101; high pitching amplitude) and
high angles of attack (AoAmin = 451; low pitching amplitude):
451 o aa.o801. The bounds on phase lag are chosen symmetric
about the synchronized hovering: 601 o f o1201 Although de-
layed rotation is not a focus of many studies found in literature,
due to its reduced ability to generate lift compared to its normal
hovering and advanced rotation brethren in 2-D flow, it will be
shown that the interaction of a TiV with a LEV for a delayed
rotation case can exhibit prominent 3-D effects beneficial to the
wing’s lift performance.
A Navier–Stokes solver [203] is used to obtain the time-
dependent flow solution. Due to the kinematic constraints there
are only two relevant non-dimensional groups in the incompres-
sible case. The plunging amplitude to chord ratio, 2ha =cmrg , and
the Reynolds number: since Re is being held constant (for a fixed
medium) the plunging amplitude and flapping frequency are not
independent. The Reynolds number, based on the average tip
velocity, is equal to 65, which is similar to the fruit fly, Drosophila
melanogaster. The reduced frequency, k, contains the same
information as the normalized stroke amplitude (see Section 2.1).
The surrogate modeling tools [200–202], trained with CFD data
(order of days to obtain the results for one training point), are
used to efficiently evaluate off design points (in a fraction of a
second), global trends across the design space, kinematic
variables’ sensitivity, and tradeoffs between lift and power. The
quantities of interest, the objective functions in the surrogate
modeling nomenclature, are mean lift coefficient, CL, and an
approximation of the power required over the stroke cycle. For
more details on the implementation and error quantification the
reader is referred to Refs. [198,199] (Fig. 10).
Fig. 11 shows iso-surfaces of the mean lift coefficient where
each axis corresponds to one of the kinematic parameters, i.e. ha,
aa, or f. Fig. 11 (A), (B), and (C) correspond to the 2-D lift, 3-D lift,

Fig. 10. Effect of TiVs on lift generation associated with a pitching/plunging flat plate (AR =4) at the middle of stroke adopted from Ref. [54]. (A) Delayed rotation case
(2ha =cmrg ¼ 2:0, aa = 451, and f =601); (B) Synchronized rotation case (2ha =cmrg ¼ 3:0, aa = 801, and f =901). Note that solid and dashed lines in (A-2) and (B-2) indicate the
results from the three- and two-dimensional wings, respectively.

Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 17

Fig. 11. Iso-surfaces of the time averaged lift achieved over the entire design space of kinematic combinations evaluated: (A) 2-D model; (B) 3-D model; and (C) the
difference between the two models. Note the magnitude of the discrepancy being a noticeable fraction of the values of lift. The blue region in (C) denotes kinematics for
which the 2-D lift is higher than the equivalent 3-D kinematics. Likewise the yellow/red region denotes higher 3-D mean lift. (For interpretation of the references to color in
this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

and difference between the two, respectively. Observations that
are immediately apparent are that kinematic combinations with
low aa (high AoA) and advanced rotation (high f) have the
highest mean lift in 2-D and 3-D. This result qualitatively agrees
with the results of Wang et al. [162] and Sane and Dickinson [51].
Due to the non-monotonic response in phase lag found in the 2-D
lift response at high pitching amplitudes (see Fig. 11 (A)), there
are two regions where there is low, and possibly negative, mean
lift generation. The first region is defined by low plunge
amplitudes (low 2ha =cmrg ), low AoA (high aa), and advanced
rotation (high f). The second region is defined by low AoA (high
aa), and delayed rotation (low f) and is where the 3-D kinematics
also generate low mean lift values.
A variable’s sensitivity is directly related to the gradients along
the respective design variables, while a more quantitative
measure is the global sensitivity analysis; these measures are
examined in Trizila et al. [198,199]. It is seen that the gradients
along the aa and f axes are much more significant than that along
the normalized stroke amplitude (2ha =cmrg ). (Note: Lua et al. [163]
find the effect of Re is noticeably smaller than that of aa on the
mean lift.) With these observations, the trends seen as a variable
is varied are more clearly illuminated, but also the associated
limitations are just as apparent. For example, advancing the phase
lag is beneficial in 2-D except when at high aa; in 3-D there is no
such exception within the bounds studied. Comparisons with
Sane and Dickinson’s experiments [51] show qualitative agree-
ment in the trends in mean lift as a function of aa and f within the
common ranges, with the noticeable difference in setups being
the current study using pure translation to represent the plunge
whereas the experimental study flaps about a pivot point.
The difference between 2-D and 3-D lift may raise the question
about areas of the design space for which 2-D computations may
sufficiently approximate their analogous 3-D counterparts or
where there are substantial 3-D effects which would preclude
such a comparison. In order to illustrate comparable 2-D and 3-D
cases, a training point for which the full CFD solution was
simulated was chosen from the region showing similar mean lift.
Fig. 12 presents the time history of lift for a synchronized rotation

Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
18 W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
Fig. 12. The 2-D (solid: red) and 3-D (dashed: black) lift coefficients for the
kinematic parameters, 2ha =cmrg ¼ 3:0; aa ¼ 801; f ¼ 901. This case is synchronized
rotation and representative for the cases that show very good agreement between
the 2-D and the 3-D (AR = 4) calculations in the time averaged as well as the
instantaneous sense. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
case with generally low AoA (2ha =cmrg ¼ 3:0; aa ¼ 801; f ¼ 901).
The figure shows not only good agreement for this case in the
mean or time averaged sense, which can be deduced from the
surrogate models, but also instantaneously. Fig. 13 shows little
variation in the spanwise vortex dynamics encountered by each
wing cross-section. This is accomplished by way of an iso-surface
of the quantity Q, a measure of rotation which separates out the
shear and is defined in [204], colored by the spanwise vorticity. In
this configuration the LEV will be red/yellow, the TEV blue, and
the TiV green. Next to the flow field shots are plots of the
spanwise lift at the selected time instances which also show
decent agreement between 2-D and 3-D. The variation that is
present is generally confined locally to the tips, though the
magnitude is small. The TiVs are most prominent at the end of
translation, but as seen from the spanwise distribution of lift, are
limited in influence. Note that other 2-D and 3-D cases agreed in
the mean sense, but instantaneously differed and this situation is
explored further in Trizila et al. [198,199].
In contrast to the case illustrated above, another set of
kinematics chosen for which the 2-D and 3-D surrogate models
did not exhibit such agreement. Fig. 14 illustrates a delayed
rotation case with high AoA (2ha =cmrg ¼ 2:0; aa ¼ 451; f ¼ 601),
where the 2-D and 3-D cases show noticeable differences in the
instantaneous lift. The source of these differences is better
illustrated in Fig. 15. The spanwise variation in the vortex
dynamics is seen in the plots of the flow field as well as in the
lift distribution across the span of the wing. Once again the iso-
surface connected to the wing can be distinguished by the LEV
(red and yellow), the TEV (blue) and the TiV (green). The TiV has
noticeable impact on the resulting flow features and aerodynamic
loading. First, the distribution of lift due to pressure shows a local
peak at the tips which is a force enhancement over the 2-D
counterpart. There also appears to be an LEV anchoring
mechanism, which keeps the LEV attached over a portion of the
span near the wing tip thereby increasing the lift farther inboard.
The net effect of the tip vortices is a substantial increase in
performance for this set of kinematics.
Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
In Trizila et al. [198,199] the design space was more
thoroughly explored. A conclusion that is not apparent from the
steady-state aerodynamics is that TiVs can be utilized to increase
performance in the context of low Re flapping wing flight. Due to
the competing effects the TiV introduce, the role the TiV plays can
vary from case to case (i.e. its mere presence does not guarantee a
performance increase). The TiV can introduce a low-pressure
region on the upper wing surface and anchor the LEV, which
would have otherwise been shed. On the other hand, it can also
induce downwash thereby reducing the effective angle of attack
and consequent lift.
4.7. Unsteady flow structures around hawkmoth-like model in hover
There are a number of computational studies of realistic
wing configurations of a hornet [205], a bumblebee [206,207], a
hawkmoth [42,61–64,79,208], a honeybee [42], a drone fly [209],
a hover fly [210], a fruit fly [42,52,80,81,211,212], and a thrips
[42] accompanied by appropriate wing kinematics. Moreover,
references cited throughout the literature review have elucidated
aspects of the unsteady vortical flow phenomena by way of
dynamically scaled robotic wings and biological flyers. In order to
expand our knowledge about the LEV mechanisms and unsteady
3-D flow features associated with a biological flyer-like flapping
model, a numerical study on the aerodynamics and vortex
dynamics around a realistic hawkmoth model with complex
flapping wing motions is discussed and highlighted in this
subsection.
Figs. 16 and 17 show the morphological and wing kinematics
models of a realistic hawkmoth model. Computations are
performed using ‘‘a biology-inspired dynamic flight simulator
[81,213]’’. This framework is capable of simulating an insect with
realistic wing–body morphologies and flapping-wing/body
kinematics. Detailed descriptions of the computational modeling
can be referred to in Refs. [64,79,208,213].
4.7.1. Vortex dynamics of hovering hawkmoth
Iso-vorticity-magnitude surfaces around a hovering hawkmoth
at nine-time instants in a flapping cycle are shown in Fig. 18. The
contour color on the iso-vorticity-magnitude surfaces in Fig. 18
indicates the magnitude of the normalized helicity density, which
is computed by projecting the spin vector of a fluid element onto
its momentum vector, being positive (red) if these two vectors
point in the same direction and negative (blue) if they point to the
opposite direction. This quantity can be useful for illustrating
helical vortex structures. One aim of the study is to correlate the
time histories of the aerodynamic loadings with the dominant
flow features [214]. As such, the time histories of the aerodynamic
forces on the wings and body are plotted in Fig. 19: (A) vertical
(lift) force, and (B) horizontal (drag or thrust) force, respectively.
4.7.1.1. Flow structures during downstroke. In the first half of the
downstroke (see Fig. 17), Fig. 18 A-1, a horseshoe-shaped vortex is
generated by the initial wing motion of downstroke. Poelma et al.
[72] showed a similar three-dimensional flow structure around an
impulsively started dynamically scaled flapping wing using PIV.
The horseshoe-shaped vortex is composed of three vortices,
namely, a LEV, a TEV, and a TiV, and it grows in size as the
translational and angular velocity of the wing increases. In par-
ticular, the radii of the LEVs and the TEVs expand from the wing
root to the wing tip, resulting in a 3-D vortex structure. These
vortices produce a low-pressure region in their core and on the
upper surfaces of the wing (Fig. 20 (1)) when they are attached.
Lift forces shows a peak at the corresponding time instant (Fig. 19
(A) and Fig. 17 (b)). Therefore, this would imply that the LEVs, the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 19

Fig. 13. The lift per unit span (right column) and iso-Q surface (Q =0.75) (left column) colored by spanwise vorticity magnitude for flow fields over half the wing associated
with the kinematic parameters, 2ha =cmrg ¼ 3:0; aa ¼ 801; f ¼ 901 at t/T =0.05, 0.25, and 0.45. Note that solid and dashed lines indicate the results from the three- and two-
dimensional wings, respectively. The spanwise variation in forces is examined with the 2-D equivalent (redline) marked for reference. The spanwise variation is limited.
(For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

TEVs, and the TiVs enhance the lift force generation in hovering in an interaction with each other. These vortex–vortex and
flight of the hawkmoth. It is seen that the TEVs generated by the vortex–body interactions lead to more complex vortical features
right and left wings meet at the rear body (Fig. 18 A-2), resulting around the hovering hawkmoth than the 2-D flow structures seen

Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
20 W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
Fig. 14. The 2-D (solid: red) and 3-D (dashed: black) lift coefficients for the
delayed rotation and high AoA case governed by the kinematic parameters,
2ha =cmrg ¼ 2:0; aa ¼ 451; f ¼ 601. Here the difference between 2-D and 3-D (AR = 4)
calculations is significant during translational phase of the wing motion. (For
interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred
to the web version of this article.)
around pitching/plunging airfoils. During the mid-downstroke
(see Fig. 17 (c)), the TEVs are mostly shed from the wings while
the TEVs stay attached on the body. Moreover, the shed TEVs stay
connected to the TiVs (Fig. 18 A-3). Of the three vortex structures,
the LEVs produce the largest and strongest area of low pressure on
the wing surface (Fig. 20 (2)). Immediately after that, the LEVs
begin to break down at a location approximately 70–80% the span
of the wing length. The LEV, the TiV, and the shed TEV together
form a doughnut-shaped vortex ring around each wing (Fig. 18 A-
4). Recent experimental visualization studies showed similar
vortex ring structures around a hovering hummingbird [77],
during slow forward flights of a bat [99,100], and a free-flying
bumble bee [92]. Looking at the structure of the doughnut-shaped
vortex ring close to the wing tip, the vortical structure is twisted
(rolled-up) behind each wing, which results from an interaction
between the broken-down LEV and the shed TV (Fig. 18 A-4). This
helps to illustrate the rich complexity of 3-D interactions
experienced in flapping wing flight.
Continuing on, during the second half of the downstroke
(see Fig. 17 (d)), the TiVs enlarge gradually. Eventually, when the
wings approach the end of the downstroke, the LEVs and the TiVs
weaken and begin to detach from the wings. An additional vortex
is observed around the wing root and connects with the shed TEV
(Fig. 18 A-5). The doughnut-shaped vortex rings of the wing pair
break up into two circular vortex rings, eventually forming the
far-field wake below the hawkmoth. Two small vortex rings of the
wing pair near the wing root are observed to join the two circular
vortex rings (Fig. 18 A-6). The weakening of the low-pressure area
on the wing surface due to separation of the vortices leads to a
smaller aerodynamic force acting on the wing and the high angle
of attack of the wing leads to high thrust but low lift generation
(Fig. 20 (3)). During most of the downstroke, the doughnut-
shaped vortex ring pair has an intense, downward jet-flow
through the ‘‘doughnut’’ hole, which forms the downstroke
downwash.
In the first half of the supination (see Fig. 17 (e)), occurring
near the end of the downstroke, as the flapping wing slows down,
the attached vortices (the LEVs and the TiVs) are shed from the
Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
wings. At this time instant, a pair of downstroke stopping vortices
is observed wrapping around the two wings (Fig. 18 B-1). When
the flapping wings begin to pitch quickly about the spanwise axis,
a pair of upstroke starting vortices is detected around the wing tip
and the trailing edge (Fig. 18 B-2).
4.7.1.2. Flow structures during upstroke. In the second half of the
supination (Fig. 17 (f)), TEVs and TiVs associated with the be-
ginning of the upstroke are generated when the flapping wings
accelerate rapidly. The downstroke wakes of the circular vortex
rings are subsequently captured (Fig. 18 B-3), but a correlation
with the time history of lift shows a relatively minor impact. The
idea of wake capture has been documented many times
[1,36,43,44,50,55,56] and Section 3.4. The point here is that the
role it plays in the lift generation can vary depending on the
context. Dickinson et al. [50] experimented with 3-D flapping
kinematics at lower Re, i.e. O(102), which showed a significant
contribution to lift from the wake capturing. In contrast, in the
present study, the hovering hawkmoth-like wing kinematics at a
Re of 6.3  103 do not show a prominent wake capturing me-
chanism in the lift histories. Another study [81] looking at fruit fly
wing motions at Re O(102) also demonstrated a situation where
the wake capturing had little impact on the aerodynamic loading.
While still in the first half of the upstroke (Fig. 17 (g)), when the
flapping wings begin to accelerate upward, the TEVs and TiVs are
shed from the two wings (Fig. 18 C-1). The TiVs are continually
regenerated and fed while the LEV generation is initiated. To-
gether with the TEVs, the LEVs and TiVs form a horseshoe-shaped
vortex pair wrapping each wing. Similar to what is seen during
the downstroke, the horseshoe-shaped vortex grows and evolves
into a doughnut-shaped vortex ring for each wing. Root vortices
are also detected at this stage and join the vortex ring as illu-
strated in Fig. 18 C-2. The difficulty in clearly demarcating and
expressing the relevant phenomena is a direct consequence of the
3-D nature of the vortex structures and their subsequent inter-
actions. Note that due to asymmetric variation of angle of attack
between the upstroke and downstroke, the LEVs generated in the
upstrokes are smaller than those in the downstrokes. In the sec-
ond half of the upstroke (Fig. 17 (h)), the doughnut-shaped vortex
rings elongate and deform while maintaining their ring-like shape
(Fig. 18 C-3). During most of the upstroke, the downwash induced
through the hole of each vortex ring is observed to be similar to
that of the downstroke, despite the asymmetric forward and
backstroke kinematics.
During early pronation (Fig. 17 (i)) at the end of the upstroke,
the attachment points of the shed TiV move slightly (approxi-
mately 10–20% of the wing length) from the wing tip to the wing
root during the course of the upstroke due to the wing movement
(Fig. 18 D-1). Concurrently, the stopping vortices are observed
wrapping around each wing (Fig. 18 D-1). As the wings begin to
rotate quickly, the upstroke stopping vortices are shed from the
trailing edge and the downstroke starting vortices are detected at
the leading edge and wing tip. Thereafter, the upstroke doughnut-
shaped vortex rings are shed downward, breaking up into two
vortex wake rings; the root vortices are also shed, forming a single
vortex ring under the body (Fig. 18 D-2). During late pronation
(Fig. 17 (a)), at the end of the upstroke and beginning of the
downstroke, starting vortices are observed around the leading and
trailing edges and wing tip (Fig. 18 D-3).
4.7.1.3. Flight energetics. As to the aerodynamic force generation,
two peaks in the lift force are predicted during each stroke for a
hovering hawkmoth (see Fig. 19). Considering the correlation
between the aerodynamic forces and the key unsteady flow fea-
tures associated with flapping wings discussed in Section 3, the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 21

Fig. 15. The lift per unit span (right column) and iso-Q surfaces (Q= 0.75) (left column) colored by spanwise vorticity over half of the wing using the kinematic parameters,
2ha =cmrg ¼ 2:0; aa ¼ 451; f ¼ 601 at t/T= 0.05, 0.25 and 0.45. Note that solid and dashed lines in (A-2) and (B-2) indicate the results from the three- and two-dimensional
wings, respectively. The spanwise variation in forces is examined with the 2-D equivalent (redline) marked for reference. The TiV leads to increased lift in their immediate
region as well as anchor the vortex shed from the leading edge. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)

delayed stall of the LEV and contributions from the TEV and TiV
are responsible for the first lift peak. The second peak is likely to
be associated with a contribution from the rapid increase in
vorticity [1,52] as the wing experiences a fast pitching motion.
Relevant to estimates of energy consumption in natural flyers and
control applications in MAV design/construction, the computed
time histories of the aerodynamic torques are plotted in Fig. 21
(A) rolling, (B) pitching and (C) yawing, respectively. Note that the
term ‘total wing’ in Fig. 21 is the sum of the torques of the right
and left wings. Two of the aerodynamic torques are relatively
comparable, the aerodynamic rolling (ART) and yawing (AYT)
torques of the two wings (‘total wing’) are much smaller than
those of the aerodynamic pitching torque (APT). The time-varying
total ART and total AYT are mostly zero over a flapping cycle
because of the symmetrical flapping motion of the left and right
wings and therefore the averaged total ART and AYT become
approximately zero (Fig. 21 (A) and (C)). On the other hand, the
APT of the two wings varies over a range, from 0.6  10  3 to

Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001

22 W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
Leading-edge
Trailing-
A real hawkmoth A morphological hawkmoth model
Fig. 16. A morphological model of a hawkmoth, Agrius convolvuli with a
computational model superimposed on the right half. The hawkmoth has a body
length of 5.0 cm, a wing length of 5.05 cm (mean wing chord length cm = 1.83 cm),
and an aspect ratio of 5.52.
90
(a)
45
(b) (h)
Angles (degree)
(c)
0 k=0.30), honeybee (Re= 1.1  103, k= 0.24), fruitfly (Re= 1.3  102,
(d) (g)
(e) (f)
-45
Positional angle Elevation angle Fethering angle
-90
0 0.5
t/T
Fig. 17. Schematic diagrams of the computational system of a hawkmoth, Agrius
convolvuli. Instantaneous positional angle f, feathering angle a, and elevation
angle y of the hawkmoth wing over one complete flapping cycle. Solid, dotted, and
dashed lines represent the positional angle, the feathering angle, and the elevation
angle, respectively. White circles marked: (a) late pronation, (b) early downstroke,
(c) mid downstroke, (d) late downstroke, (e) early supination, (f) late supination,
(g) early upstroke, (h) late upstroke and (i) early pronation. T denotes
dimensionless period of one flapping cycle.
0.4  10  3 Nm in a flapping cycle. Note that a consequence of
negative APT pulls the body orientation of the insect nose-down
while a positive APT is associated with nose-up. The transient APT
of the two wings has four local maxima, at early/late pronation/
supination. In short, the prediction of the APT of the wings shows
that the body may experience a nose-down pitching torque
during: peak (1) late pronation during the first half of the
downstroke, peak (2) the start of supination during the late
downstroke, and peak (4) the start of pronation during the
upstroke. Based on the computed transient aerodynamic forces
and the velocity of the flapping wings, the muscle-mass-specific
aerodynamic power Paero can be calculated:
Faero UVwing
Paero ¼
Mm
where the mass of flight muscle, Mm is assumed to contribute up
to 23% of the total body mass of the hawkmoth (1.6 g), Faero is the
aerodynamic force, and Vwing is the velocity vector of the flapping
wing. The power necessary to overcome the air resistance is
denoted Paero. The time histories of Paero for the wings are plotted
in Fig. 22. The maxima of the Paero coincide with the peaks
experienced in the transient aerodynamic forces. The computed
Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
ARTICLE IN PRESS
mean Paero (87.2 W kg  1) is very close to the experimental
estimation by Willmott and Ellington [104].
Wing tip 4.8. Effect of the Reynolds number on the LEV structure and
spanwise flow
As discussed previously, the lift enhancement due to the
delayed stall of the LEV is important in flapping wing flight
[1,50,57] and Section 3.4. The formation of the LEV depends on
the wing kinematics, the details of wing geometry, and the
Reynolds number [1,42,65,155,213]. Liu and Aono [42] investi-
gated the interaction between LEV, TiV, and vortex ring
structures. Tang et al. [215] investigated numerically the effects
of Reynolds number on 2-D hovering airfoil aerodynamics at
Re=7.5  101–1.7  103. They showed that in low Reynolds
number regimes, O(102), the viscosity dissipated the vortex
structures quickly and led to essentially symmetric flow struc-
tures and aerodynamic forces between the forward and backward
stroke while at higher Reynolds numbers, the history effect was
(i) influential, resulting in distinctly asymmetric phenomena be-
tween strokes. In order to examine the Re effect on LEV structures
and spanwise flow for realistic wing body configurations with
appropriate kinematic motions, a numerical investigation is
presented next: realistic models of hawkmoth (Re= 6.3  103,
k=0.21), and thrips (Re= 1.2  101, k= 0.25) in hover considering
different representative kinematic parameters (flap amplitude,
flap frequency, and type of prescribed actuation) and dimension-
less numbers (Reynolds number, reduced frequency) in each case
[42]. The morphological and kinematical model of a hawkmoth is
shown in Figs. 16 and 17. For other insect models, similar
information and computational models can be obtained in
1.0 Refs. [42,213].
Fig. 23 shows the computed velocity vector distributions on an
end-view plane at 60% semi-span for these four insects. It may be
noted that the LEV structure and the spanwise flow in the
hawkmoth and the fruitfly cases (see Fig. 23 (A) and (C)) are in
good qualitative agreement with the corresponding experimental
results reported in Ref. [155]. For the thrips flight (Re= 1.2  101,
k=0.25), the LEV forms upstream of the leading edge and
spanwise flow is weakest among all cases. For the fruit fly case
(Re =1.3  102, k=0.21), the structure of the LEV is smaller than the
hawkmoth and the honeybee cases. The fruit fly LEV is tube-like
and ordered, and spanwise flow is observed around the upper
region of trailing edge. The hawkmoth (Re =6.3  103, k=0.30) and
honeybee (Re= 1.1  103, k= 0.24) cases yield much more
pronounced spanwise flow inside the LEV and upper surface of
the wing, which together with the LEV forms a helical flow
structure near the leading edge (see Figs. 23 (A–1) and (B–1)).
Fig. 24 shows the spanwise pressure-gradient contours on the
wing of four typical insects during the middle of the downstroke.
Compared to the hawkmoth and the honeybee, even though the
wing kinematics and the wing–body geometries are different,
fruit flies, at a Re of 1.0  102–2.5  102, cannot create as steep
pressure-gradients at the vortex core; nevertheless, they seem to
be able to maintain a stable LEV during most of the down and
ð17Þ upstroke. While the LEVs on both wings of hawkmoth and
honeybee experience a break-down near the middle of the
downstroke, the LEV on the fruit fly’s wing remains attached
during the entire each stroke, eventually breaking down during
the subsequent supination or pronation [81].
To illustrate the Reynolds number effect, ceteris paribus,
numerical results were obtained for a single wing–body geometry
and kinematics combination [65]. Qualitative similar flow
structures around the flyer were observed. This implied that even
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 23

though each flapping flyer had a unique wing and body
kinematics and morphologies, the Reynolds number was the
dominant parameter dictating the LEV structure and the spanwise
flow.
The helicopter blade model has been used to help explain the
flapping wing aerodynamics; however, spanwise axial flows are
generally considered playing a minor role in influencing the
helicopter aerodynamics [216,217]. In particular, the helicopter
blades operate at a substantially higher Reynolds number and
lower angle of attack. The much larger aspect ratio of a blade also
makes the LEV harder to anchor. These are key differences
between the helicopter blades and the typical biological wings.
Usherwood and Ellington [184] investigated the aerodynamic
performance associated with ‘propeller-like’ rotation of the
hawkmoth wing model (Re= O(103)). Their results reported that
revolving models produced high lift and drag forces because of
the presence of the LEV. Knowles et al. [218] performed
computational studies involving with translating 2-D and rotating
3-D flat plate models at Re =5.0  102. Their results presented, that
for 2-D flows, the LEV was unstable but the rotating 3-D flat plate
model at high angle of attack produced a conical LEV, as it was
observed in the results presented earlier and by others [184,219].
Moreover, they mentioned that if the Reynolds number increased
above a critical value, a Kelvin–Helmholtz instability [220]
occurred in the LEV sheet, resulting in the sheet breaking down
on outboard sections of the wing. Recently, Lentink and Dickinson
[221] revisited existing hypotheses regarding stabilizing the LEV.
They systematically investigated the effects of propeller-like
motion of a fruit fly wing model on the aerodynamic performance
and the LEV stability at Re =1.1  102–1.4  104 based on theore-
tical and experimental approaches. They stated that the LEV was
stabilized by the ‘‘quasi-steady’’ centripetal and Coriolis accelera-
tions that were present at low Rossby numbers (i.e. a half of the
aspect ratio) and resulted from the propeller-like sweep of the
wing. In addition, they suggested that the force augmentation
through a stably attached LEV could represent a convergent
solution for the generation of high fluid forces over a range of
Reynolds numbers. From the viewpoint of unsteady aerody-
namics, the LEV as a lift enhancement mechanism at higher Re
range (O(105–106)) may be questionable because a dynamic-stall

Horseshoe-shaped vortex

Interaction between
the TEVs of each wing

Roll-up

Joint of the shed TEV and the shed

TV
Doughnut-shaped vortex ring

Vortex ring (root)

Root vortex

Doughnut-
shaped vortex

Fig. 18. Visualization of flow fields around a hovering hawkmoth. Iso-vorticity-magnitude surfaces around a hovering hawkmoth during (A) the downstroke, (B) the
supination, (C) the upstroke, and (D) the pronation, respectively. The color of iso-vorticity-magnitude surfaces indicates the normalized helicity density which is defined as
the projection of a fluid’s spin vector in the direction of its momentum vector, being positive (red) if these two vectors point in the same direction and negative (blue) if
they point in the opposite direction. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
24 W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

Downstroke stopping vortex

Upstroke starting vortex

Wake capture

Root

Doughnut-shaped vortex
ring

Fig. 18. (Continued)

vortex on an oscillating airfoil is often found to break away and to
convect elsewhere as soon as the airfoil translates [222].
5. Flapping wing aeroelasticity
The topic of aeroelasticity in flapping wings has recently
increased in activity though a full picture of the basic aeroelastic
phenomena is still not clear. Analytical investigations by Daniel
and Combes [223] suggested that aerodynamic loads were
relatively unimportant in determining the bending patterns in
oscillating wings. Subsequently, experimental investigations by
Combes [224], and Combes and Daniel [225] found that the
overall bending patterns of a Hawkmoth wing were quite similar
when flapped (single degree-of-freedom flap rotation) in air and
helium, despite a 85% reduction in fluid density in the latter,
suggesting that the contribution of aerodynamic forces was
relatively small compared to the contribution of inertial–elastic
forces during flapping motion. However, they mentioned that
realistic wing kinematics might include rapid rotation at the
stroke reversal that may lead to increased aerodynamic forces due
to unsteady aerodynamic mechanisms (see Section 3). Further-
more, static bending tests by Combes and Daniel [10,11] showed
anisotropy of wing structures in a variety of insect species. More
recently, Mountcastle and Daniel [226] investigated the influence
of wing compliance on the mean advective flows (indicative of
induced flow velocity) using PIV techniques. Their results
demonstrated that flexible wings yield mean advective flows
with substantially greater magnitudes and orientations more
beneficial to lift than those of stiff wings.

Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 25

Upstroke stopping vortex

Vortex
ring (root)

Doughnut-shaped
vortex ring

Downstroke starting vortex

Fig. 18. (Continued)

While Section 4 reviewed studies in rigid flapping wing
aerodynamics, this section presents a review of some recent
efforts in flexible flapping wing aerodynamics/aeroelasticity
focusing on chordwise-only flexible, spanwise-only flexible, and
combined chordwise/spanwise flexible structures in that order.
As summary, the recent studies are listed in Tables A1–A3 with
key information.
5.1. Chordwise-flexible wing structures
Zhu [227] performed a fully coupled fluid–structure interac-
tion analyses to investigate a chordwise flexible airfoil prescribed
with pure plunge motion. To clarify the role of inertia on the
deformation, the wing was studied in both water and air. Results
showed that when the wing was immersed in air, the chordwise
flexibility reduces both the thrust and the propulsion efficiency.
However, when the wing was immersed in water, it increased the
efficiency. Refs. [32,228–231] presented studies on both rigid and
partially chordwise flexible airfoils prescribed with both pure
plunge and/or combined plunge/pitch motions in water and
showed that flexible wings may be more efficient than the rigid
ones. In particular, Pederzani and Haj-Hariri [232] suggested that
lighter plunging airfoils were capable of generating more thrust
than heavier ones and were more efficient. They performed
computational analyses on a rigid wing from which a portion was
cut out and covered with a very thin and flexible material (latex)
and showed that due to a snapping motion (i.e. non zero velocity
in the direction opposite to that of the following stroke) of the
latex at the beginning of each stroke, the strength of the vortices
that were shed was higher in lighter wing structures, leading to
the generation of more thrust. Furthermore, such structures
required less input power in order to be snapped than heavier
ones. Chaithanya and Venkatraman [233,234] investigated the
influence of inertial effects due to prescribed motion on the thrust
coefficient and propulsive efficiency of a plunging/pitching thin
plate using inviscid flow theory and beam equations. Their results
demonstrated that flexible airfoils with inertial effects yielded
more thrust than those without inertial effects. This was due to
the increase in the fluid loading in the former which subsequently
led to an increase in the deformation. Due to their shape,
deformed airfoils produced a force component along the forward
velocity direction [234].
Gopalakrishnan [235] analyzed the effects of elastic cambering
of a rectangular membrane flapping wing on aerodynamics in
the forward flight using a linear elastic membrane solver
coupled with an unsteady LES method. Different membrane
pre-stresses were investigated to give a desired camber in
response to the aerodynamic loading. The results showed that
the camber introduced by the wing flexibility increased the thrust
and lift production considerably. Analysis of flow structures
revealed that the LEV stayed attached on the top surface of the
wing, followed the camber, and covered a major part of the wing,
which resulted in high force production. On the other hand, for
rigid wings (which were also considered) the leading edge vortex
lifted off from the surface resulting in low force production. To
evaluate the role played by the LEV for a flexibly cambered airfoil,
Gulcat [236] investigated (1) a thin rigid plate in a plunging
motion; (2) a flexibly cambered airfoil whose camber was
changed periodically; and (3) the plunging motion of a flexibly
cambered airfoil. The leading edge suction force for all cases was
predicted by means of the Blasius theorem and the time-
dependent surface velocity distribution of the airfoil is deter-
mined by unsteady aerodynamic considerations. Gulcat [236]
reported that the viscous effects obtained by the unsteady
boundary-layer solution show very little alteration to the
oscillatory behavior of the net propulsive force. They only reduced
the amplitude of the leading edge suction force obtained by the
unsteady aerodynamic theory. It was found that the major
contribution to the thrust is due to heaving plunging; therefore,
it is possible to get high propulsion efficiency with limited camber
flexibility.

Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
26 W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

behind the trailing edge of the airfoil for airfoils with flexure
0.0025 amplitudes of 0.0–0.5 of the chord length. It was shown that this
Body Right wing Left wing wake structure evolved into a drag-indicative form as the flexure
amplitude of the airfoil was increased to 0.6 and 0.7 of the chord
0.002
length. Studies conducted under various combinations of Rey-
nolds number and reduced frequency showed that the propulsive
Vertical force (N)

0.0015 efficiency of a chordwise flexible airfoil in pure plunge was

influenced primarily by the value of the reduced frequency rather
0.001 than by the Reynolds number. Toomey and Eldredge [238]
performed numerical and experimental investigations to under-
stand the role of flexibility in flapping wing flight using two rigid
0.0005 elliptical sections connected by a hinge with torsion spring. The
section at the leading edge was prescribed with fruit fly-like
0 hovering wing kinematics [50], while the trailing edge section
responded passively due to the fluid dynamic and inertial/elastic
forces. It was found that the lift force and wing deflection are
-0.0005
primarily controlled by the nature of the wing rotation. Faster
0.002 wing rotation, for example, led to larger peak deflection and lift
Body Right wing Left wing generation. Advanced rotation also led to a shift in the instant of
0.0015 peak wing deflection which increased the mean lift. In contrast to
the rotational kinematics, the translational kinematics were
0.001 shown to have very little impact on spring deflection or force.
Horizontal force (N)

And, while the former was shown to be nearly independent of

0.0005 Reynolds number, the latter was shown to increase with
increasing Reynolds number. Poirel et al. [239] conducted a wind
0 tunnel experimental investigation of self-sustained oscillations of
an aeroelastic NACA0012 airfoil occurring in the transitional Re
-0.0005 regime, in particular, aeroelastic limit cycle oscillations for the
airfoil constrained to rotate in pure pitch. The structural stiffness
-0.001 as well as the position of the elastic axis were varied. Their
investigation suggested that laminar separation plays a role in the
oscillations, either in the form of trailing edge separation or due to
-0.0015
Down Up the presence of a laminar separation bubble.
Vanella et al. [89] conducted numerical investigations on a
Stroke cycle
similar structure and found that the best performance (up to
0.002 approximately 30% increase in lift) was realized when the wing
Body Right wing Left wing was excited by a non-linear resonance at 1/3rd of its natural
0.0015 frequency. For all Reynolds numbers considered, the wake capture
mechanism was enhanced due to a stronger flow around the wing
0.001 at stroke reversal, resulting from a stronger vortex at the trailing
edge. Heathcote et al. [240] investigated the effect of chordwise
Sideslip force (N)

0.0005 flexibility on aerodynamic performance of an airfoil in pure

0
-0.0005
-0.001
-0.0015
-0.002
Down Up
Stroke cycle
Fig. 19. Time courses of aerodynamic forces over a flapping cycle. (A) Vertical
force (lift). (B) Horizontal force (drag/thrust). (C) Sideslip force. Dashed, dotted,
and solid lines represent the aerodynamic forces acting on right wing, left wing,
and body, respectively.
Miao and Ho [237] prescribed a time-dependent flexible
deformation profile for an airfoil in pure plunge and investigated
the effect of flexure amplitude on the unsteady aerodynamic
characteristics for various combinations of Reynolds number and
reduced frequency. For a specific combination of Reynolds
number, reduced frequency, and plunge amplitude, the results
showed that thrust-indicative wake structures were observed
plunge under hovering conditions. Because the trailing edge was a
major source of shedding of vorticity at zero freestream velocity,
they showed that the amplitude and phase angle of the motion of
the trailing edge affected the strength and spacing of the vortices,
and the time averaged velocity of the induced jet. Direct force
measurements confirmed that at high plunge frequencies, the
thrust coefficient of the airfoil with intermediate stiffness was
highest, although the least stiff airfoil can generate larger thrust at
low frequencies. It was suggested that there was an optimum
airfoil stiffness for a given plunge frequency and amplitude.
Similar conclusions were made in another study [241] wherein,
the influence of resonance on the performance of a chordwise
flexible airfoil prescribed with pure plunge motion at its leading
edge was studied. It was shown that while the mean thrust could
increase with an increase in flexibility, below a certain threshold
the wing is too flexible to communicate momentum to the flow.
On the other hand, too much flexibility led to a net drag and
hence, only a suitable amount of flexibility was desirable for
thrust generation. Du and Sun [242] numerically investigated the
effect of prescribed time-varying twist and chordwise deforma-
tion on the aerodynamic force production of a fruitfly in hover.
The results showed that aerodynamic forces on the flapping
wing were not affected much by the twist, but by the
camber deformation. The effect of combined camber and twist

Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
(1)
L. E.
t / T =0.125
(b) in Fig. 17 Tip
T. E.
(2)
L. E.
t / T =0.25
(c) in Fig. 17 Tip
Root
T. E.
(3)
L. E.
t / T =0.375
(d) in Fig. 17 Tip
Root
T. E.
Wing surface
Fig. 20. Pressure distributions at selected time instants corresponding to Fig. 17 (b), (c), and (d) during the downstroke. Left: Upper wing surface. Middle: Mid semi-span
cross-section. Right: 75% semi-span cross-section from the wing root. Note that LEV, TEV, L.E., and T.E. indicate leading edge vortex, trailing edge vortex, leading edge, and
trailing edge, respectively. Note that the pressure coefficient in the LEV is negative in all sub-figures.
deformation was found to be similar to that of camber deforma-
tion alone. With a deformation of 6% camber and 201 twist
(typical values observed for wings of many insects), the lift
increased by 10–20% compared to the case of a rigid flat plate
wing. It was therefore shown that chordwise deformation could
increase the maximum lift coefficient of a fruit fly wing model and
reduce its power requirement for flight.
While most of the recent computational and experimental
studies explored the role of wing flexibility in augmenting
aerodynamic performance while focusing on single wings at
relatively higher Reynolds numbers, Miller and Peskin [243]
numerically investigated the effect of wing flexibility on the
forces produced during clap and fling/peel motion [244] of a small
insect (ReE10) focusing on wing–wing interactions. They
prescribed both clap and fling kinematics separately to a rigid
and a chordwise flexible wing and showed that while lift
coefficients produced during the rigid and flexible clap strokes
were comparable, the peak lift forces in the flexible cases were
higher than in the corresponding rigid cases. This was due to the
peel motion which delayed the formation of the trailing edge
vortices, thereby maintaining vortical asymmetry and augment-
ing lift for longer periods [41].
Zhao et al. [245] investigated the chordwise flexibility effects
using 16 different dynamically scaled mechanical models of a
fruit fly wing. Based on the prescribed kinematics, the wing was
started impulsively from rest and moved over a 1801 arc in 1.5 s.
Each of the 16 wing models (each with a different chordwise
bending stiffness) was tested at 23 different static angles of attack
Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
27
LEV LEV
L. E. L. E.
TEV
T. E. T. E.
LEV
LEV
L. E.
L. E.
T. E. T. E.
LEV
LEV
L. E. L. E.
T. E. T. E.
Section 1 (mid semi-span) Section 2 (75% semi-span)
-1.0 0 1.0
at the leading edge from  9 to 901 in 4.51 increments. Results
from the experiments showed that the overall aerodynamic
performance (lift generation) of flapping wings deteriorated as
they became more flexible. However, it was shown that flexible
wings could generate more lift at higher static angles of attack
than rigid wings due to bending of the wing surface causing a
slight enhancement in the lift to drag ratios for such wings over
their rigid counterparts.
In another study, Heathcote and Gursul [32] performed water
tunnel studies (see Fig. 25) to examine the thrust and efficiency of
a flexible 2-D airfoil plunging in forward flight. Subsequently,
computations were done by Aono et al. [246] using a nonlinear
planar beam solver [247,248] and a NS solver [122] under the
assumption of laminar flow. The airfoil consisted of a rigid
teardrop element made out of aluminum and a thin flexible flat
plate made out of steel (see Fig. 25). Experiments were conducted
on several wing models by considering variations in the plate
thickness. The key parameters related to all the cases considered
in the experiment are included in Table 3. The computations were
done on some of the experimental wing models and for a specific
Reynolds number. The flexible flat plate was modeled as a
cantilevered beam fixed at the trailing edge of the teardrop. In
all the cases considered in both experiments and computations,
the leading edge of the teardrop was actuated by a sinusoidal
plunge displacement profile. Three different variations are
considered for the plate thickness in the computations:
3.81  10  3 m (‘‘Rigid’’), 1.27  10  4 m (‘‘Flexible’’), and
5.04  10  5 m (‘‘Very Flexible’’). The results presented here will
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
28 W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

250
Right wing Left wing
1.0E-03
Right wing Left wing Total wing
200

5.0E-04 150

Power (W/Kg)
Rolling torque (Nm)

100
0.0E+00
50

-5.0E-04 0

-50
Down Up
-1.0E-03
Stroke cycle

6.0E-04 Fig. 22. Time courses of the muscle-mass-specific aerodynamic power of wings
Right wing Left wing Total_wing over a flapping cycle. The dashed and dotted lines represent the muscle-mass-
specific aerodynamic power are produced by the right wing and by the left wing,
respectively.
3.0E-04
Pitching torque (Nm)

force coefficient (total force including both lift and thrust) for all
0.0E+00 three cases. Unlike in the case of the thrust coefficient, the
instantaneous amplitude of the resultant aerodynamic force
produced by the ‘‘Rigid’’ and ‘‘Flexible’’ wings is very close to
-3.0E-04 each other at all time instants, while being very different from
that of the ‘‘Very Flexible’’ wing. This behavior is akin to that of
the lift coefficient (not included in the figure) whose amplitude is
-6.0E-04 the largest in the ‘‘Rigid’’ case and smallest in the ‘‘Very Flexible’’
one. This is due to the redistribution of the total aerodynamic
force between the lift and the thrust directions. Fig. 27 shows the
-9.0E-04 mean thrust coefficient plotted as a function of the effective
Down Up
stiffness (P1) for all variations of chordwise flexibility including
Stroke cycle
both experimental and computational data. In the figure, each
data point corresponds to a particular value of plate thickness
8.0E-04 (which in turn corresponds to a particular P1). In general, within
Right wing Left wing Total wing the range of flexibility considered in the computations, the mean
thrust coefficient increases with increasing flexibility. However,
for the cases considered in the experiments wherein more
4.0E-04 variations in flexibility were considered, the mean thrust
Yawing torque (Nm)

initially increases with increasing flexibility but decreases in the

0.0E+00
-4.0E-04
-8.0E-04
Down Up
Stroke cycle
Fig. 21. Time courses of aerodynamic torques of wings over a flapping cycle.
(A) Rolling torque. (B) Pitching torque. (C) Yawing torque. Dashed, dotted, and
solid lines represent aerodynamic torques acting on right wing, left wing, and two
wings (‘total wing’), respectively.
focus on computations while still including the corresponding
experimental data.
Fig. 26(A) shows the thrust coefficient as a function of
normalized time (with respect to the period of plunge) for the
‘‘Rigid’’, ‘‘Flexible’’, and ‘‘Very Flexible’’ cases. As seen in the figure,
the amplitude of instantaneous thrust increases with increasing
flexibility. Fig. 26(B) shows the time history of total aerodynamic
most flexible case. Fig. 29 shows the time history of the effective
angle of attack (illustrated in Fig. 28) for the three variations of
flexibility considered in the computations. Fig. 29(A) corresponds
to the effective angle of attack considering the whole airfoil
(i.e. with reference to the leading edge point of the teardrop) and
Fig. 29(B) to the angle considering only the flexible flat plate
(i.e. with reference to the trailing edge point of the teardrop). And,
Fig. 29(C) shows the instantaneous airfoil shape for all three
flexible wings at selected time instants as illustrated under each
snapshot. As seen in the figures, in general, with increasing
chordwise flexibility, the effective angle of attack decreases.
Considering the time instant corresponding to the middle of the
downstroke (i.e. at t/T= 0.25), it is seen in the figure that the
effective angle of attack in the ‘‘Rigid’’ and ‘‘Flexible’’ cases is more
than that of the ‘‘Very Flexible’’ case. This is because, with
increasing chordwise deformation (as seen in Fig. 29(C), it is the
largest in the ‘‘Very Flexible’’ case), the angle ‘‘a’’ increases
which subsequently results in a decrease of the effective angle of
attack ‘‘ae’’.
In order to estimate the individual contribution of the teardrop
and the flexible plate to force generation, the time histories of
thrust coefficient are shown in Fig. 30 separately for each case. It
is seen in the figure that the thrust response with variation in
flexibility is different in each of the two cases: with increasing

Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 29

chordwise flexibility of the plate, the instantaneous thrust acting
on the teardrop reduces because of a decrease in the leading edge
suction peak (Fig. 31(C)). However, with increasing flexibility
from ‘‘Rigid’’ to the ‘‘Very Flexible’’ case, the instantaneous thrust
contributed by the flexible plate increases. This is because, the
chordwise deformation of the rear flexible plate in both ‘‘Flexible’’
and ‘‘Very Flexible’’ cases result in an effective projected area for
the thrust forces to develop. Streamlines and pressure contours
around the three wing configurations are shown in Fig. 31 at the
time instant t/T=0.25 that corresponds to the middle of down
stroke. Furthermore, in Fig. 31 (A–2), (B–2), and (C–2), the
pressure coefficient on the airfoil is plotted as a function of the
chordwise position. The grey vertical line in the plots represents
the boundary between the tear drop and the flexible thin plate. As
seen in these figures, the leading edge suction is more dominant
in the ‘‘Rigid’’ and ‘‘Flexible’’ cases than in the ‘‘Very Flexible’’ case.

(A-1) Streamlines (A-2) Spanwise flow

Hawkmoth model (Re= 6.3×103 , k= 0.30)

(B-1) Streamlines (B-2) Spanwise flow

Honeybee model (Re= 1.1×103 , k= 0.24)

(C-1) Streamlines (C-2) Spanwise flow

Fruit fly model (Re= 1.3×102 , k= 0.21)

Fig. 23. Comparison of near-field flow fields between a hawkmoth, a honeybee, a fruit fly, and a thrips around the middle of the downstroke. Wing-body computational
models of (A) a hawkmoth model, (B) a honeybee model, (C) a fruit fly model, and (D) a thrips model, with the LEVs visualized by instantaneous streamlines and the
corresponding velocity vectors in a plane cutting through the left wing at 60% of the semi-span.

Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
30 W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
(D-1) Streamlines
Thrips model (Re= 1.2×101 , k= 0.25)
Fig. 23. (Continued)
Fig. 24. Spanwise pressure gradient contours on flapping wings around the
middle of the downstroke: (A) a hawkmoth model (Re= 6.3  103, k= 0.30); (B) a
honeybee model (Re= 1.1  103, k=0.24); (C) a fruit fly model (Re =1.3  102,
k= 0.21), and (D) a thrips model (Re = 1.2  101, k =0.25), respectively.
Considering the outcome from the studies conducted on
chordwise flexible plunging/pitching structures discussed so far,
three factors may be identified that play a vital role in
aerodynamic force generation in hover/forward flight: (i) airfoil
plunge motion modifies the effective angle of attack and
aerodynamic forces; (ii) relative moment of leading edge and
trailing edge creates the pitch angle which dictates the direction
of the net force; and (iii) airfoil shape deformation modifies
effective geometry such as camber.
5.2. Spanwise-flexible wing structures
Numerical simulations were performed by Liu and Bose [248] for a
3-D pitching and plunging wing in forward flight. Their results
Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
(D-2) Spanwise flow
showed that the phase of the flexing motion of the wing relative to
the prescribed heave motion plays a key role in determining thrust
and efficiency characteristics of the fin. Zhu [227] performed
numerical investigations on a thin flapping foil prescribed with pure
plunge motion in forward flight in different both air and water. His
results showed that when the wing was immersed in air, the
spanwise flexibility (through equivalent plunge and pitch flexibility)
increased the thrust without an efficiency reduction and when the
same wing was immersed in water, the spanwise flexibility reduced
both the thrust and efficiency.
Heathcote et al. [250] conducted water-tunnel studies to study
the effect of spanwise flexibility on the thrust, lift, and propulsive
efficiency of a plunging flexible wing configuration in forward
flight. A schematic of the experimental setup is shown in Fig. 25.
Three wings of 0.3 m span and 0.1 m chord with varying levels of
flexibility were constructed (‘‘Inflexible’’, ‘‘Flexible’’, and ‘‘Highly
Flexible’’, see Fig. 25(C)). The leading edge at the wing root was
actuated with a prescribed sinusoidal plunge displacement
profile. Wing shape was recorded with a 50-frames-per-second,
high-shutter-speed, digital video camera. Overall wing thrust
coefficient and tip displacement response were measured. The
representations of the cross-section constructions are reproduced
in Fig. 25(C). While the ‘‘Inflexible’’ wing cross-section was built-
up from nylon and reinforced by steel rods, the ‘‘Flexible’’ and
‘‘Highly Flexible’’ cross-sections were built-up from PDMS
(rubber) and stiffened with a thin metallic sheet made out of
steel and aluminum respectively. Table 4 shows the key
parameters related to the test cases. In a subsequent effort,
computations were conducted on these wing configurations by
Chimakurthi et al. [251] and Aono et al. [252] only at the chord-
based Reynolds number of 3  104 using an aeroelastic framework
developed by coupling a 3-D NS solver [122] with a nonlinear
beam solver [253]. The flow is assumed to be laminar. It might be
noted that in the computations, the PDMS around the metallic
stiffeners was neglected. While the contribution of it to the
overall stiffness of the wings will be negligible (due to a relatively
very low Young’s modulus of the material compared to either
steel or aluminum), the effect of it on the mass properties might
be significant. Furthermore, it might also be noted that, the
bending stiffness of the Highly Flexible wing was adjusted due to
some discrepancies found by the experimentalists who conducted
static loading tests and revealed the actual stiffness data via
private communication.
Fig. 32 shows the time history of the instantaneous thrust
coefficient and that of the total aerodynamic force coefficient for
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 31

Fig. 25. Experimental set-up of for the chordwise and spanwise flexible wing studies: (A) water tunnel setup; (B) airfoil configuration for chordwise flexible wing studies
[extracted from Ref. [32]]; (C) wing cross-sections used in the experiment for spanwise flexible wing studies [extracted from Ref. [240]].

Table 3
Geometric, mechanical, flow, and dimensionless properties associated with the chordwise flexible wing cases in Ref. [32,236].

Reference velocity [m/s]: Uref = UN 1.0  10  1

Water density [kg/m3]: qt 1.0  103
Mean chord length [m]: cm 9.0  10  2
Young’s modulus of steel [Pa]: E 205  109
Density of steel; [kg/m3]: qs 7.8  103
Plunge amplitude [m]: ha 1.75  10  2
Plunge frequency [Hz]: f 9.62  10  1
Relative thickness (Experiment) 0.56  10  3, 0.84  10  3, 1.12  10  3, 1.41  10  3, 1.69  10  3, 2.25  10  3, 4.23  10  3
Relative thickness (Computation) 0.56  10  3 (Very Flexible), 1.41  10  3 (Flexible), 4.23  10  3 (Rigid)
Re 9.0  103
St 0.34
q 7.8
P1 (Experiment) 3.30  100, 1.11  101, 2.64  101, 5.26  101, 9.06  101, 2.14  102, 1.42  103
P1 (Computation) 3.30  100, 5.26  101, 1.42  103

all three wing configurations for the case of Re=3.0  104. In
the figure, the experimental data is indicated as ‘‘EXP’’ and the
computational data as ‘‘COMP’’. From Fig. 33(A), it is seen that the
‘‘Flexible’’ wing case generates the highest thrust peaks, while in
the ‘‘Very Flexible’’ wing case, the smallest. Similarly, as seen in
Fig. 32(B), the amplitude of the total aerodynamic force coefficient
is the largest in the ‘‘Flexible’’ wing and the smallest in the ‘‘Very
Flexible’’ one. Furthermore, there is also a difference in phase
among the three wing cases. Fig. 33 shows the mean thrust
coefficient for all three wings plotted as a function of the non-
dimensional parameter ‘‘effective stiffness (dimensionless
parameter P1)’’. As shown in the figure, the mean thrust
response is non-monotonic. In particular, it is observed that the
largest and smallest mean thrust coefficients are produced by the
‘‘Flexible’’ and the ‘‘Very Flexible’’ wing cases, respectively. It
might be noted that in all these cases, while there is an overall
agreement between the experiments and the computations, there
are noticeable discrepancies in the ‘‘Very Flexible’’ case due to

Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
32 W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

Fig. 26. Time response of thrust (CT) and total aerodynamic force coefficients (Cf) of the chordwise flexible wing structures at Re = 9.0  103 and St = 0.34: (A) Thrust
coefficient; (B) Total aerodynamic force coefficient.

uncertainties in both modeling (mass density of PDMS was not
accounted for in the computations) and experiments (material
properties). Interested readers might refer to Chimakurthi et al.
[251] and Aono et al. [252] for additional details about
computational results and their correlations with experimental
data.
The reasons for the diminishment of the lift/thrust forces in
the ‘‘Very Flexible’’ wing case and the enhancement of the same in
the ‘‘Flexible’’ one are as follows. Fig. 34 shows the plot of the
instantaneous angle of attack along the span position at the time
instant t/T= 0.25 (this is the time instant corresponding to the
middle of downstroke during which the maximum lift/thrust
forces are produced in the ‘‘Rigid’’ and ‘‘Flexible’’ cases) for all
three plunging wing configurations. As seen from the plot, the
area under the ‘‘Flexible’’ wing curve is the largest and the one
under the ‘‘Very Flexible’’ one, the smallest. Since it is the
cumulative effect of the angle of attack seen by the flow at all
sections through the span that is important in total force
generation on the wing, the forces in the ‘‘Flexible’’ case are the
largest and those on the ‘‘Very Flexible’’ wing, the smallest. The
decrease in the angle of attack in the case of the ‘‘Very Flexible’’
wing (at several sections through the wing) over that of the others
led to a decrease in the leading edge suction which in turn caused
a loss of total lift/thrust on the wing.
Sample pressure contours for all four wing configurations at
the mid-span section at time instant t/T=0.25 are shown in
Fig. 35. The dominance of leading edge suction in the ‘‘Flexible’’
case and the reduction of it in the ‘‘Very Flexible’’ case are visible
in that figure. The leading edge suction is obtained due to the
normal projected area contributed by the leading edge curvature
of the wing (see Fig. 35) that supports the generation of the
horizontal force. The phase lag between the prescribed motion

Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
Fig. 27. Plot of mean thrust coefficient as a function of the effective stiffness P1 for the chordwise flexible wing structures at Re =9.0  103 and St = 0.34. Experimental data
was extracted from Ref. [32].
Fig. 28. Schematics of the effective angle of attack for the chordwise flexible wing
structures: (A) effective angle of attack of the wing at the leading edge point of the
tear drop (aeL.E.) [32]; (B) effective angle of attack of the wing at the trailing edge
point of the tear drop (aeT.E.). aL.E. and aT.E. indicate the angles subtended by the
line joining the leading edge and trailing edge of the teardrop with the horizontal,
respectively.
and the deformation of the wing is another quantity that could be
used to explain the aerodynamic force generation in flexible
flapping wings [251,252]. The phase lag at the wing tip with
respect to the prescribed motion for the ‘‘Rigid’’, ‘‘Flexible’’, and
‘‘Very Flexible’’ cases are, 01,  25.71, and 126.31, where the in
phase percentages are 100%, 86%, and 24%, respectively. As seen in
the table, the ‘‘Very Flexible’’ wing has the largest phase lag and
the shortest time of in-phase motion at the wing tip in a stroke. In
contrast, the ‘‘Flexible’’ wing has the smallest phase lag and the
longest in-phase motion in a stroke. As a result of the substantial
phase lag in the ‘‘Very Flexible’’ case, the wing tip and root move
in opposite directions during most of the stroke resulting in lower
effective angles of attack and consequently lesser aerodynamic
force generation. This is seen by correlating the phase lag
Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
33
information with the mean thrust response of the ‘‘Flexible’’ and
the ‘‘Very Flexible’’ wing cases in Fig. 32(A).
The results presented so far focused on a single case of the
Reynolds number 3  104. Results related to parametric studies
are available in Heathcote et al. [250]. To summarize the same, it
was found that the mean thrust coefficient is a function of the
Strouhal number (based on the amplitude of the mid-span of the
wing), and is very weakly dependent on the Reynolds numberp
[250].
5.3. Combined chordwise-and-spanwise flexible wing structures
Watman and Furukawa [254] investigated the effects of
passive pitching motions of flapping wings on the aerodynamic
performance using robotic wing models. They considered two
types of passive flapping wing models: first model used a rigid
connection between all parts of the structure. This design was
utilized in several MAVs [1,5,6] and served as a common design
used for analysis of flapping wings. Second model was designed in
a way to allow free rotation of ribs and membrane over a limited
angle. This design was used recently in a small MAV prototype
[255]. They showed that the former passive flapping wing
(constrained) was found to have better performances compared
to latter one due to favorable variation of passive pitching angle of
the wing. Hui et al. [256] examined various flexible wing
structures to evaluate their implications on flapping wing
aerodynamics. They showed that the flexible membrane wings
were found to have better overall aerodynamic performance
(i.e., lift-to-drag ratio) over the rigid wing for soaring flight,
especially for high-speed soaring flight or at relatively high angle
of attack. The rigid wing was found to have better lift production
performance for flapping flight in general. The latex wing, which
is the most flexible among the three tested wings, was found to
have the best thrust generation performance for flapping flight.
The less flexible nylon wing, which has the best overall
aerodynamic performance for soaring flight, was found to be the
worst for flapping flight applications. Shkarayev et al. [257]
investigated the aerodynamics of cambered membrane flapping
wings. Specifically, a cambered airfoil was introduced into the
wing by shaping metal ribs attached to the membrane skin of the
25 cm-wing-span model. The thrust force generated by a 9%
camber wing was found to be 30% higher than that of the same
size flat wing. Adding a dihedral angle to the wings and keeping
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
34 W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
Fig. 29. Time histories of the effective angle of attack for the chordwise flexible
wing structures at Re= 9.0  103 and St = 0.34: (A) effective angle of attack at the
leading edge of the teardrop (aeL.E.); (B) effective angle of attack at the trailing edge
of the teardrop (aeT.E.); (C) deformed airfoil shapes at selected time instants.
the flapping amplitude constant improved the cambered wing’s
performance even further. The aerodynamic coefficients are
defined using a reference velocity as a sum of two components:
a free stream velocity and a stroke-averaged wing tip flapping
velocity. The lift, drag, and pitching moment coefficients obtained
using this procedure collapse well for studied advance ratios,
especially at lower angles of attack. Kim et al. [258] developed a
biomimetic flexible flapping wing using micro-fiber composite
actuators and experimentally investigated the aerodynamic
performance of the wing under flapping and non-flapping motion
in a wind tunnel. Results showed that the camber due to wing
flexibility could produce positive effects (i.e. stall delay, drag
reduction, and stabilization of the LEV) on flapping wing
aerodynamics in quasi-steady and unsteady region. Mueller
et al. [259] presented a new versatile experimental test for
Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
Fig. 30. Time histories of thrust coefficient contribution due to the teardrop and
the flexible plate separately at Re = 9.0  103 and St =0.34: (A) response of the
teardrop; (B) response of the flexible plate.
measuring the thrust and lift of a flapping wing MAV. They
showed increase in average thrust due to increased wing
compliance and detrimental influence of excessive compliance
on drag forces during high-frequency operation. Also they
observed the useful effect of compliance on the generation of
extra trust at the beginning and end of flapping motions.
Hamamoto et al. [260] conducted a fluid–structure interaction
analysis on a deformable dragonfly wing in hover and examined
the advantages and disadvantages of flexibility. They tested three
types of flapping flight: a flexible wing driven by dragonfly
flapping motion, a rigid wing (stiffened version of the original
flexible dragonfly wing) driven by dragonfly flapping motion, and
a rigid wing driven by modified flapping based on tip motion of
the flexible wing. They found that the flexible wing with nearly
the same average energy consumption generated almost the same
amount of lift force as the rigid wing with modified flapping
motion, which realized the same angle of attack at the
aerodynamically dominant sections of the wing. However, the
rigid wing required 19% more peak torque and 34% more peak
power, indicating the usefulness of wing flexibility. Luo et al.
[261] have simulated the interaction between a viscous, unsteady
flow and deformable thin structures to simulate a dragonfly wing.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 35

Fig. 31. Vorticity contours, streamlines, and surface pressure distribution for the chordwise flexible wing structures at the time instant t/T=0.25 at Re = 9.0  103 and
St = 0.34. Vorticity contours are in the range between  5.0 and + 5.0. The dashed and solid lines in the Cp plot correspond to the upper and lower surfaces of the airfoil,
respectively. The grey vertical line in same plot indicates the junction between the teardrop and the flexible plate. Note that CWV and CCWV in the vorticity contours
indicate clock-wise and counter clock-wise vortex.

Table 4
Flow, geometrical, and structural properties along with dimensionless parameters associated to the spanwise flexible wing cases in Refs. [240–242].

Rigid Flexible Very flexible

1 1
Reference velocity [m/s]: Uref = UN 3.0  10 3.0  10 3.0  10  1
Water density [kg/m3]: qf 1.0  103 1.0  103 1.0  103
Mean chord length [m]: cm 1.0  10  1 1.0  10  1 1.0  10  1
Semi-span [m]: R 3.0  10  3 3.0  10  3 3.0  10  3
Thickness of wing [m]: hs 1.0  10  3 1.0  10  3 1.0  10  3
Young’s modulus [Pa]: E 2.1  1011 4.0  1010
Density of structure [kg/m3]: qs 7.8  103 2.7  103
Plunge amplitude [m]: ha 1.75  10  2 1.75  10  2 1.75  10  2
Plunge frequency [Hz]: f 1.74  100 1.74  100 1.74  100
Re 3.0  104 3.0  104 3.0  104
St 0.20 0.20 0.20
q 7.8 2.7
P1 Infinite 2.14  102 4.07  101

They focused on the situations where the wing inertia is large
compared to the fluid forces, and therefore, the flow–structure
interaction is essentially unidirectional (from the structure to the
flow, and not the other way around.) However, the two-way
interaction is built in the code, and it only takes longer time to
perform the simulations. Aono et al. [262] reported a combined
computational and experimental study of a well-characterized
flapping wing structure was conducted. An aluminum wing was
prescribed with single degree-of-freedom flapping at 10 Hz
frequency and 7211 amplitude. Flow velocities and deformation
were measured using digital image correlation and digital PIV
techniques, respectively. In the most flexible flapping wing case,
the elastic twisting of the wing was shown to produce
substantially larger mean and instantaneous thrust due to shape
deformation-induced changes in effective angle of attack. Rele-
vant fluid physics were documented including the counter-
rotating vortices at the leading and the trailing edge, which
interacted with the tip vortex during the wing motion.
Singh and Chopra [263] developed an experimental apparatus
with a bio-inspired flapping mechanism to measure the thrust
generated for a number of wing designs. The key conclusions that
stemmed from this study were that the inertial loads constituted
the major portion of the total loads acting on the flapping wings
tested on the mechanism and that for all the wings tested, the

Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
36 W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

Fig. 32. Effect of spanwise flexibility on instantaneous aerodynamic force generation at Re = 3.0  104 and St = 0.2: (A) Thrust (CT). (B) Total aerodynamic force (Cf).

thrust dropped at higher frequencies. Further, the author found
that at such frequencies, the light-weight and highly flexible
wings used in the study exhibited significant aeroelastic effects.
Young et al. [121] conducted numerical investigations on a
tethered desert locust called Schistocerca gregaria [118]. Results
demonstrated that time-varying wing twist and camber were
essential for the maintenance of attached flow. The authors
emphasized that while high-lift aerodynamics was typically
associated with massive flow separation and large LEVs, when
high lift was not required, attached flow aerodynamics could
offer greater efficiency. Their results further showed that, in
designing robust lightweight wings that could support efficient
attached flow, it was important to build a wing that undergoes
appropriate aeroelastic wing deformation through the course of a
wing beat.
Agrawal and Agrawal [264] investigated the benefits of insect
wing flexibility on flapping wing aerodynamics based on experi-
ments and numerical simulations. They compared the performance
of two synthetic wings: (i) a flexible wing based on a bio-inspired
design of the hawkmoth (Manduca Sexta) wing and (ii) a rigid wing
of similar geometry. The results demonstrated that more thrust
was generated by the bio-inspired flexible wing compared to the
rigid wing in all wing kinematic patterns considered. They
emphasized that the results provided motivation for exploring
the advantages of passive deformation through wing flexibility and
that coupled fluid–structure simulations of flexible flapping wings
were required to gain a fundamental understanding of the physics
and to guide optimal flapping wing MAV designs.
As a flight vehicle exploring the merit of aeroelasticity effect,
Jones and Platzer [265] and Jones et al. [266] devised a flapping
concept which allowed the wing to flap with a constant amplitude
to produce thrust from root to tip. In a follow-up study conducted
by Kaya et al. [267], the flapping motion was optimized for
maximum thrust. Specifically, the flapping airfoils were attached
to swing arms by an elastic joint, which could be treated as a
spring-mass system. The stiffness coefficient and the mass

Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 37

Fig. 33. Plot of mean thrust coefficient as a function of the non-dimensional parameter P1 for the spanwise flexible wing structures at Re = 3.0  104 and St = 0.2. Note that
the experimental data point for the Rigid airfoil overlaps with the computational data point. Experimental data were extracted from Ref. [240].

properties produces significantly higher thrust than that of an

optimum sinusoidal pitching. The aeroelastic pitching provided
lower effective incidence angles and delayed the leading edge
vortex formation, which in turn augmented the thrust generation.
Wu et al. [268] and Sällström et al. [269] presented a multi-
disciplinary experimental endeavor correlating flapping wing
MAVs aeroelasticity and thrust production by quantifying and
comparing elasticity, dynamic responses, and air flow patterns of
six different pairs of MAV wings (in each one, the membrane skin
was reinforced with different leading edge and batten configura-
tions) of the Zimmerman planform (two ellipses meeting at the
quarter chord) with varying elastic properties. In their experi-
ment, single degree-of-freedom flapping motion was prescribed
to the wings in both air and vacuum. Amongst many conclusions,
they found that, within the range of flexibility considered, more
Fig. 34. Instantaneous angle of attack along the wing span at the time instant flexible wings are more thrust-effective at lower frequencies
t/T=0.25 corresponding to all three spanwise flexible plunging wing configurations. whereas stiffer wings are more effective at higher frequencies.
They hypothesized that flexible wings may have a certain
Rigid actuation frequency for peak thrust production and the perfor-
Pressure mance would degrade once that frequency is passed.
0.02
These studies as well as the investigations of Heathcote et al.
0 [32,250], Chimakurthi et al. [251], Aono et al. [252], and Tang et al.
Z

[230] offer consistent findings. It seems like the spanwise

-0.02
flexibility increases aerodynamic forces by creating higher
-0.04 effective angles of attack via spanwise deformation. However,
0 0.05 0.1 apart from affecting the overall aerodynamic force generation, the
X chordwise flexibility can redistribute lift versus thrust by
Flexible Very Flexible changing the projection angle of the wing with respect to the
freestream by changing airfoil via camber deformation, for
0.02 example. Of course, similar behavior may be observed in spanwise
0.02
flexible with passive twist deformation along the wing span.
0 Overall, both spanwise and chordwise flexibility need to be
Z

0
-0.02 considered together in order to optimize the aerodynamic
-0.02 performance under different flight speed and environment
-0.04 uncertainty such as wind gust.
0 0.05 0.1 0 0.05 0.1
X X

Fig. 35. Pressure contours at mid-span station at t/T= 0.25 for all three spanwise
flexible plunging wing configurations. Leading edge suction is the most dominant
in the Flexible case and the least in the Very Flexible one.
moment of inertia of the airfoil were then optimized using the
gradient-based method for maximum thrust. The optimization
results showed that the aeroelastic pitching with optimum elastic
6. Conclusions
In this article, a number of previous efforts focusing
on flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity have been
highlighted. Furthermore, important features related to the
aerodynamics associated with rigid and flexible flapping wings
have been reviewed.

Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
38 W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
For Re=O(102), corresponding to the small insect flight regime,
the aerodynamic performances associated with various wing
geometry and flapping kinematics have been with extensive
comparison between 2-D and 3-D studies, it has been observed that:
(i) There is significant variance in the spanwise distribution of
forces in the 3-D cases. Cases which suppress the TiV
generation, those with the highest pitching amplitudes and
thus low angles of attack, and small translational velocity
when vertical (e.g. near synchronized rotation), appear to
have a relatively constant response along the span. In
contrast, 3-D cases with a prominent TiV exhibit significant
variations along the span which do not have a strong
correlation to the 2-D lift values experienced.
(ii) At Reynolds number at 65, the 3-D fluid physics and TiV
effects are able to augment the lift by: (a) the presence of a
low pressure region near the tip and, (b) the anchoring of an
otherwise shed vortex (in 2-D) near the tip.
(iii) The surrogate modeling techniques reveals that the hierarchy
of variable sensitivity in the mean lift changes between 2-D
and 3-D in space. In 2-D the importance is pitching angular
amplitude, phase lag and normalized stroke amplitude. In
3-D the hierarchy switches to phase lag, pitching angular
amplitude, and normalized stroke amplitude. Regions for
which 2-D kinematics outperformed 3-D and vice versa are
identified in the design space considered.
(iv) That a 3-D low aspect ratio wing can produce higher lift than
a 2-D airfoil is not supported by the classical stationary wing
theory [78], which suggests that TiVs decrease performance.
In unsteady flow around a hovering wing, however, the TiVs
can contribute to lift generation rather than just drag
generation on the wing.
The LEV is common and important to the flapping wing
aerodynamics at the Reynolds number of O(104) or lower, which
corresponds to the hummingbird and insect flight regimes.
However, the LEV structures and distribution of spanwise flow
inside the LEV change with the variation of Reynolds number
(wing sizing, flapping frequency, etc.) and with the interactions
between LEVs and TiVs and hence influence the aerodynamic
force generation. In the hawkmoth and honeybee studies, at
higher Reynolds numbers (O(103) and O(104)), it is seen that the
LEV has a spiral structure and breaks down at the middle of the
downstroke. In the fruit fly studies, at lower Reynolds number
(O(102)), it is observed that the LEV has an ordered structure and
it connects with the TiV. A dependency on the Reynolds number is
observed in both the spanwise flow inside the LEV and the
spanwise variation of the pressure-gradient on the wing surfaces.
The LEV as a lift enhancement mechanism for flapping wing at
Reynolds number of O(105–106) seem less certain because, as
pointed out in Ref. [222], a dynamic-stall vortex on an oscillating
airfoil is often found to break away and to convect elsewhere as
soon as the airfoil translates.
The impact of structural flexibility on aerodynamics undergoing
plunging motion in forward flight is also highlighted as follows:
(i) The thrust generation consists of contributions due to both
leading edge suction and the pressure projection of the
chordwise deformed rear foil. When the rear foil’s flexibility
increases, the thrust of the teardrop element decreases, as
well as the effective angle of attack.
(ii) Within a certain range as chordwise flexibility increases,
even though the effective angle of attack and the net
aerodynamic force are reduced due to chordwise shape
deformation, both mean and instantaneous thrust are
Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
enhanced due to the increase of projected area normal to the
flight trajectory.
(iii) For the spanwise flexible case, correlations of the motion
from the root to the tip play a role. Within a suitably selected
range of spanwise flexibility, the effective angle of attack and
thrust forces of a plunging wing are enhanced due to the
wing deformations.
While airfoil shape and spanwise geometry obviously affect the
aerodynamics of a flapping wing, it seems from the growing body
of the studies that the implications of structural flexibility are
consistent with respect to different wing geometries.
Since the various scaling parameters vary with the length and time
scales in different proportionality, the scaling invariance of both fluid
dynamics and structural dynamics as the size changes is fundamen-
tally difficult and challenging. It also seems that there is a desirable
level of structural flexibility to support desirable aerodynamics.
Significant work needs to be done to better understand the
interaction between structural flexibility and aerodynamic perfor-
mance under unpredictable wind gust conditions.
In summary, there have been many efforts ongoing to increase
our understanding of the fluid physics of biology-inspired
mechanisms that simultaneously provide lift and thrust, enable
hover, and grant high flight control authority, while minimizing
power consumption. Detailed experimental efforts and first
principles-based computational modeling and analysis capabil-
ities are essential in support of the investigation of issues related
to fluid–structure interactions, unsteady freestream (wind gust),
and unsteady aerodynamics. Other issues for further research are:
(i) In order to support the broad flight characteristics such as
take-off, forward flight of varying speed, wind gust response,
hover, perch, threat avoidance, station tracking, and payload
variations, a variety of wing kinematics and body/leg
maneuvers will need to be employed. Considering the
variations in size and flapping patterns of natural flyers,
there is significant potential and need for us to further refine
our knowledge regarding the interplay between kinematics
and aerodynamics.
(ii) It is established that local flexibility can significantly affect
aerodynamics in both fixed and flapping wings. Furthermore,
as already discussed above, insects’ wing properties are
anisotropic, with the spanwise bending stiffness about 1–2
orders of magnitude larger than the chordwise bending one.
As the vehicle size changes, the scaling parameters cannot all
maintain invariance due to different scaling trends associated
with them. This means that if, for measurement precision,
instrumentation preference, etc., one cannot do laboratory
test of a flapping wing design using different sizes or flapping
frequencies. A closely coordinated computational and experi-
mental framework is needed in order to facilitate the
exploration of the vast design space (which can have O(102)
or more design variables including geometry, material
properties, kinematics, flight conditions, and environmental
parameters) while searching for optimal and robust designs.
(iii) The implications of the dynamics and stability of a flapping
vehicle [270–272], in association with flapping wing aero-
dynamics is still inadequately understood. In particular, the
vehicle stability via passive shape deformation due to flexible
structures needs to be addressed.
(iv) Bio-inspired mechanisms [273,274] need to be developed for
the flapping wing. These mechanisms include, for example,
joints and distributed actuation to enable flapping and
morphing. Most importantly, these mechanisms should be
capable of mitigating wind gust.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 39

(v) Vision-based sensing techniques will be very helpful for The work in this area has begun recently, and it is clear that
flight control as well as estimating the aeroelastic states of significant progress needs to be made before MAVs can perform
the vehicle. For example, both rigid-body and deformation real missions envisioned by the community.
states of a vehicle can be extracted by noting frequency-
varying properties by optical means.
(vi) Closed-loop active control can be used to target a desired
aerodynamic performance, to eliminate the influence of
Acknowledgements
disturbances, or to achieve both objectives. Adaptive control
techniques have the advantage of tuning the feedback gains
The work has been supported in part by the Air Force Office of
in response to the true plant dynamics and exogenous
Scientific Research’s Multidisciplinary University Research Initia-
signals. These techniques usually require additional reference
tive (MURI) and by the Michigan/AFRL (Air Force Research
models along with system identification techniques. Close
Laboratory)/Boeing Collaborative Center in Aeronautical Sciences.
coupling between aerodynamics and control is a key in MAV
Dr. Jian Tang assisted in producing some of the results related to
development. Integration of aerodynamics, structural dy-
chordwise flexibility.
namics, and control holds the key of MAV development. With
substantial uncertainty in flight environments due to wind
gusts, possible movement of targets, intrinsically unsteady
aerodynamics, and the substantial disparity in time scales
between flapping motion, fluid physics, structural dynamics, Appendix
and vehicle response, the interactions between different
components of MAVs are highly complex. See Tables A1–A3.

Table A1
Studies of chordwise-flexible wing structures.

Authors Ref no. Model Kinematics Re St or k Structural information

3
Heathcote and Gursul [32] Teardrop Plunge 9  10 0.1–0.7 E= 205 GPa, rs = 7800 kg/m3,
NACA0012 1.8  104 hs = 5  10  5–3.8  10  4 m
2.7  104
Ishihara, Horie and [88] Shell/Beam Pitch/plunge 2.0  102 0.054 Torsional stiffness: 0.8–
Denda 15.4 g cm2/(s2rad)
Vanella, Fitzgerald, [89] Beam Pitch/plunge 75 – Frequency ratio: 1/2, 1/3, 1/4,
Preidikman, Balaras 2.5  102 and 1/6
and Balachandran 103
Zhu [227] Plate Plunge 2.0  104 0.2 E= 20–2000 Gpa, rs = 7800 kg/
m3, hs = 4  10  3 m
Yamamoto, Terada, [228] Airfoils Pitch/plunge 104–105 – Elasticity of flexible part:
Nagamatu and 3.3 mm/N–40 mm/N
Imaizumi
Prempraneerach, Hover [229] NACA0014 Pitch/plunge 4.0  104 0.1–0.45 Flexible rubber: E =3.18–
and Triantafyllou 50.6 GPa
3
Tang, Viieru and Shyy [230] Teardrop plate Plunge 9.0  10 0.5 E= 205 GPa, rs =7850 kg/m3,
hs = 5  10  5–3.8  10  4 m
Chandar and Damodaran [231] Teardrop plate Plunge 9.0  103 0.5 E= 205 GPa, rs =7850 kg/m3,
hs = 5  10  5–3.8  10  4 m
Pederzani and Haj-Hariri [232] Airfoils Plunge 5.0  102 5.5 Membrane (latex): rs =0.5-
1.0 kg/m3, Fixed trailing edge
or free trailing edge
Chaithanya and [232,234] Plate Pitch/plunge Inviscid – –
Venkatraman
Gopalakrishnan [235] Rectangular Pitch/plunge 1.0  104 1.7 E= 114 GPa, rs = 4500 kg/m3,
membrane hs = 15  10  6 m
Gulcat [236] Thin airfoil Plunge 103–105 0.5–1.5 Prescribed camber
Miao and Ho [237] NACA0012 Plunge 1.0  103 1–6 Prescribed wing deformation
1.0  104
1.0  105
Toomey and Eldredge [238] Two ellipses Pitch/plunge 1.2  103– – liner spring-damper model:
6.1  103 spring stiffness
coefficient= 0.0068 kg m2/s2,
damping
coefficient= 0.0039 kg m2/s
Heathcote, Martin and [32,240] Teardrop Plunge 0.75–2.1  104 0.17–0.40 E= 205 GPa, rs =7800 kg/m3,
Gursul hs = 5  10  5–3.8  10  4 m
Michelin and Smith [241] Plate Plunge Inviscid 0.08–0.8 Euler–Bernoulli equation:
P1 = 10  2-102
Du and Sun [242] 3% flat plate fruit Pitch/flap 3.3  102 6.0  103 – Prescribed wing deformation
fly
Miller and Peskin [243] Beam Clap and fling 10 – Bending stiffness: 6.9  10  7–
1.1  10  5 Nm2
Zhao, Huang, Deng and [245] Fruitfly-like Impulsive/pitch/ 2.0  103 – EIB =8.6  10  6–5.3  10  4
Sane flap

Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
40 W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

Table A2
Studies of spanwise-flexible wing structures.

Authors Ref. no. Model Kinematics Re St or k Structural information

Zhu [227] Plate Plunge 2.0  104 0.2 E =20–2000 GPa, rs = 7800 kg/m3, hs = 4  10  3 m
Liu and Bose [249] Immature fin like Pitch/plunge Inviscid – –
Heathcote, Wang and Gursul [250] NACA0012 Plunge 1–3.0  104 0.05–0.9 (1) Inflexible,
(2) Steel (E = 210 GPa, rs = 7800 kg/m3, hs = 1  10  3 m),
(3) Aluminum (E = 70 GPa, rs = 2700 kg/m3, hs = 1  10  3 m)

Chimakurthi, Tang, Palacios, [251] NACA0012 Plunge 3.0  104 0.4–1.82 (1) Rigid
Cesnik and Shyy (2) Steel (E = 210 GPa, rs = 7800 kg/m3, hs = 1  10  3 m)

Aono, Chimakurthi, [252] NACA0012 Plunge 3.0  104 1.82 (1) Inflexible,
Cesnik, Liu and Shyy (2) Flexible (E = 210 GPa, rs = 7800 kg/m3, hs =1  10  3 m),
(3) Very flexible (E = 70 GPa, rs = 2700 kg/m3, hs = 1  10  3 m)

Table A3
Studies of combined spanwise-and-chordwise flexible wing structures.

Authors Ref. no. Model Re St or k Structural information

Zheng, Wang, Khan, Vallance, [120] Hawkmoth-like 5.0  103 0.2–0.4 –

Mittal and Hedrick
Young, Walker, Bomphrey, [121] Realist locust wings 4.0–5.0  103 – –
Taylor and Thomas
Daniel and Combes [232] Beam – – EIB =6.0  10  6 Pa m4
Mountcastle and Daniel [226] Real moth wing 4.0–7.0  103 0.2-0.3 EIB =10  6–10  5 Pa m4
Wu, Ifju, Stanford, Sällström, [268] Zimmerman 1.0–3.0  104 0.4 Composite wing: capran (E= 2.5 GPa,
Ukeiley, Love and Lind rs = 1600 kg/m3, hs =12  10  6 m) and
Sällström, Ukeiley, Wu and [269] carbon fiber robs (E= 73.4 GPa, rs = 1740 kg/
Ifju m3, hs = 100  10  6 m)
Watman and Furukawa [252] Half ellipse 5.0  105 0.83 Mylar sheet (6.25  10  6 m) and carbon
fiber robs (0.5 and 0.25  10  3 m)
Hui, Kumar, Abate and [256] Bird-like 2.0–8.0  104 0.6-3.3 Composite wings: carbon fiber rods and
Albertani wood/nylon/latex
Shkarayev, Silin, Abate and [257] Bird-like 1.6–4.8  104 0.46–1.4 Composite wings:
Albertani Membrane: 0.015 mm Mylar
Front spar: carbon rods T315-4 of diameter
0.8 mm
Ribs: steel wires of diameter 0.5 mm d
Kim, Han and Kwon [258] Bird-like 2.0—3.0  104 1-7 Composite wing (flexible PVC skin and MFC
actuators)
Muller, Bruck and Gupta [259] Bird-like 103–104 – Mylar sheet and carbon fiber rods
Hamamoto, Ohta, Hara, and [260] Dragonfly-like 103 1 Corrugation, Frame: E= 70 GPa,
Hisada hs = 9  10  6 m
Root of corrugation: : E = 70 GPa,
hs = 27  10  6 m
Film: : E =3.9 GPa, hs =5  10  6 m
Luo, Yin, Dai and Doyle [261] Plate Dragonfly-like 50 0.94 Reduced bending stiffness:5.63
250 25 Reduced bending stiffness:0.08
Aono, Chimakurthi, Wu, [262] Zimmerman 2.6  103 0.56 Aluminum (E = 70 GPa, rs = 2700 kg/m3,
Sällström, Stanford, Cesnik, hs = 4.0  10  4 m)
Ifju, Ukeiley and Shyy 1.0  103 2.35 Hypothetical wing (E= 0.1–70 GPa,
rs = 2400 kg/m3, hs =4.0  10  4 m)
Singh and Chopra [263] Fruit fly-like 1.5  104 0.31 Aluminum (E = 60 GPa, rs = 2400 kg/m3,
mechanical model hs = 5.0  10  4 m)
Mylar (E = 7 GPa, rs = 1250 kg/m3,
hs = 1.0  10  4 m)
Agrawal and Agrawal [264] Hawkmoth-like 7000 0.2 Carbon rods (E =200 GPa), nylon 6/6 rods
(E = 3 GPa), nylon strips (E = 3 GPa), rubber
(E = 1.5 MPa), latex film (E =1.7 MPa,
hs = 0.1  10  3 m)

References
[1] Shyy W, Lian Y, Tang J, Viieru D, Liu H. Aerodynamics of low Reynolds
number flyers. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2008.
[2] Shyy W, Berg M, Ljungqvist D. Flapping and flexible wings for biological and
micro air vehicles. Prog Aerosp Sci 1999;35(5):455–505.
[3] Muller TJ. Fixed and flapping wing aerodynamics for micro air vehicle
applications. AIAA Prog Astronaut Aeronaut 2001:195.
[4] Shyy W, Ifju P, Viieru D. Membrane wing-based micro air vehicles. Appl
Mech Rev 2005;58:283–301.
[5] Pines DJ, Bohorquez F. Challenges facing future micro-air-vehicle develop-
ment. J Aircraft 2006;43(2):290–305.
[6] Platzer M, Jones K, Young J, Lai J. Flapping wing aerodynamics: progress and
challenges. AIAA J 2008;46(9):2136–49.
[7] Lian Y, Shyy W, Viieru D, Zhang B. Membrane wing aerodynamics for micro
air vehicles. Prog Aerosp Sci 2003;39(6-7):425–65.
[8] Stanford BK, Ifju P, Albertani R, Shyy W. Fixed membrane wings for micro air
vehicles: experimental characterization, numerical modeling, and tailoring.
Prog Aerosp Sci 2008;44(4):258–94.
[9] Dalton S. The miracle of flight. London: Merrell; 2006.

Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
[10] Combes SA, Daniel TL. Flexural stiffness in insect wings I. Scaling and the
influence of wing venation. J Exp Biol 2003;206:2979–87.
[11] Combes SA, Daniel TL. Flexural stiffness in insect wings II. Spatial
distribution and dynamic wing bending. J Exp Biol 2003;206:2989–97.
[12] Azuma A. The biokinetics of flying and swimming. 2nd edition, Virginia:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Austronautics Inc. 2006.
[13] Norberg UM. Vertebrate flight: mechanics, physiology, morphology,
ecology, and evolution. New York: Springer; 1990.
[14] Dudley R. The biomechanics of insect flight: form, function, evolution. New
Jersey: Princeton University Press; 2002.
[15] Biewener AA. Animal locomotion. New York: Oxford University Press;
2003.
[16] Weis-Fogh T. Quick estimates of flight fitness in hovering animals, including
novel mechanism for lift production. J Exp Biol 1973;59:169–230.
[17] Maxworthy T. The fluid dynamics of insect flight. Ann Rev Fluid Mech
1981;13:329–50.
[18] Sane SP. The aerodynamics of insect flight. J Exp Biol 2003;206:4191–208.
[19] Lehmann F-O. The mechanisms of lift enhancement in insect flight.
Naturewissenschaften 2004;91:101–22.
[20] Lehmann F-O. Aerial locomotion in flies and robots: kinematic control and
aerodynamics of oscillating wings. Arthropod Struct Dev 2004;33:331–45.
[21] Dickinson MH. The ignition and control of rapid flight maneuvers in fruit
flies. Integr Comp Biol 2005;45:274–81.
[22] Dickinson MH. Insect flight. Curr Biol 2006;16(9):R309–14.
[23] Tobalske BW. Biomechanics of bird flight. J Exp Biol 2007;210:3135–46.
[24] Ho S, Nassef H, Pornsinsiriak N, Tai Y-C, Ho C-M. Unsteady aerodynamics
and flow control for flapping wing flyers. Prog Aerosp Sci 2003;39:
635–81.
[25] Żbikowski R, Ansari SA, Knowles K. On mathematical modelling of insect
flight dynamics in the context of micro air vehicles. Bioinsp Biomim
2006;1:R26–37.
[26] Shyy W, Lian Y, Tang J, Liu H, Trizila P, Stanford B, et al. Computational
aerodynamics of low Reynolds number plunging, pitching and flexible
wings for MAV applications. Acta Mech Sin 2008;24:351–73.
[27] van Breugel F, Regan W, Lipson H. From insects to machines: demonstration
of a passively stable, untethered flapping-hovering micro-air vehicle. IEEE
Robot Automat Mag 2008;Dec:68–74.
[28] Ellington CP. The aerodynamics of hovering insect flight III. Kinematics. Phil
Trans R Soc Lond B 1984;305:41–78.
[29] Tobalske BW, Warrick DR, Clarck CJ, Powers DR, Hedrick TL, Hyder GA, et al.
Three-dimensional kinematics of hummingbird flight. J Exp Biol
2007;210:2368–82.
[30] Hodges DH, Pierce GA. Introduction to structural dynamics and aeroelas-
ticity. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
[31] Jones KD, Dohring CM, Platzer MF. Experimental and computational
investigation of the Knoller–Betz effect. AIAA J 1998;36(7):1240–6.
[32] Heathcote S, Gursul I. Flexible flapping airfoil propulsion at low Reynolds
numbers. AIAA J 2007;45(5):1066–79.
[33] Christensen RM. Mechanics of composite materials, reprint ed.. New York:
Dover Publications Inc.; 2005.
[34] Reddy JN. Mechanics of laminated composite plates and shells: theory and
analysis, 2nd ed.. Florida: CRC Press LLC; 2003.
[35] Triantafyllou MS, Triantafyllou GS, Yue DKP. Hydrodynamics of fishlike
swimming. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 2000;32:33–53.
[36] Greenewalt CH. Dimensional relationships for flying animals. Smithson
Misc Collect 1962;144:1–46.
[37] Lehmann F-O, Sane SP, Dickinson MH. The aerodynamic effects of wing–
wing interaction in flapping insect wings. J Exp Biol 2005;208:3075–92.
[38] Sun M, Yu X. Flows around two airfoils performing fling and subsequent
translation and translation and subsequent clap. Acta Mech Sin
2003;19(2):103–17.
[39] Sun M, Yu X. Aerodynamic force generation in hovering flight in a tiny
insect. AIAA J 2006;44(7):1532–40.
[40] Miller LA, Peskin CS. When vortices stick: an aerodynamic transition in tiny
insect flight. J Exp Biol 2004;208:195–212.
[41] Miller LA, Peskin CS. A computational fluid dynamics of ‘clap and fling’ in
the smallest insects. J Exp Biol 2005;208:195–212.
[42] Liu H, Aono H. Size effects on insect hovering aerodynamics: an integrated
computational study. Bioinsp Biomim 2009;4:1–13.
[43] Lehmann F-O, Pick S. The aerodynamic benefit of wing–wing interaction
depends on stroke trajectory in flapping insect wings. J Exp Biol
2007;210:1362–77.
[44] Lehmann F-O. Wing–wake interaction reduces power consumption in insect
tandem wings. Exp Fluids 2009;46:765–75.
[45] Cooter RJ, Baker PS. Weis-Fogh clap and fling mechanisms in Locusta.
Nature 1977;269:53–4.
[46] Götz KG. Course-control, metabolism and wing interference during ultra-
long tethered flight in Drosophila melangaster. J Exp Biol 1987;128:35–46.
[47] Brodsky AK. Vortex formation in the tethered flight of the peacock butterfly
Inachis io L and some aspects of insect flight evolution. J Exp Biol
1991;161:77–95.
[48] Brachenbury J. Wing movements in the bush cricket Tettigonia viridissima
and the mantis Ameles spallanziana during natural leaping. J Zool Long
1990;220:593–602.
[49] Srygley RB, Thomas ALR. Unconventional lift-generating mechanisms in
free-flying butterflies. Nature 2002;420:660–4.
Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
41
[50] Dickinson MH, Lehmann F-O, Sane SP. Wing rotation and the aerodynamic
basis of insect flight. Science 1999;284(5422):1954–60.
[51] Sane SP, Dickinson MH. The aerodynamic effects of wing rotation and a
revised quasi-steady model of flapping flight. J Exp Biol 2002;205:1087–96.
[52] Sun M, Tang J. Unsteady aerodynamic force generation by a model fruit fly
wing in flapping motion. J Exp Biol 2002;205:55–70.
[53] Birch JM, Dickinson MH. The influence of wing–wake interactions on the
production of aerodynamic forces in flapping flight. J Exp Biol
2003;206:2257–72.
[54] Wang ZJ. Dissecting insect flight. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 2005;37:183–210.
[55] Shyy W, Trizila P, Kang C, Aono H. Can tip vortices enhance lift of a flapping
wing?AIAA J 2009;47(2):289–93
[56] Jardin T, David L, Farcy A. Characterization of vortical structures and loads
based on time-resolved PIV for asymmetric hovering flapping flight. Exp
Fluids 2009;46:847–57.
[57] Ellington CP, van den Berg C, Willmott AP, Thomas ALR. Leading-edge
vortices in insect flight. Nature 1996;384:626–30.
[58] van den Berg C, Ellington CP. The three-dimensional leading-edge vortex
of a ‘hovering’ model hawkmoth. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 1997;352:
329–40.
[59] van den Berg C, Ellington CP. The vortex wake of a ‘hovering’ model
hawkmoth. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 1997;352:317–28.
[60] Willmott AP, Ellington CP, Thomas ALR. Flow visualization and unsteady
aerodymamics in the flight of the hawkmoth, Manduca sexta. Phil Trans R
Soc Lond B 1997;352:303–16.
[61] Liu H, Kawachi K. A numerical study of insect flight. J Comput Phys
1997;146(1):124–56.
[62] Liu H, Ellington CP, Kawachi K, van den Berg C, Willmott AP. A
computational fluid dynamic study of hawkmoth hovering. J Exp Biol
1998;201:461–77.
[63] Liu H. Computational biological fluid dynamics: digitizing and visualizing
animal swimming and flying 2002;42(5):1050–9.
[64] Liu H. Simulation-based biological fluid dynamics in animal locomotion.
Appl Mech Rev 2005;58:269–82.
[65] Shyy W, Liu H. Flapping wings and aerodynamics lift: the role of leading-
edge vortices. AIAA J 2007;45(12):2817–9.
[66] Milano M, Gharib M. Uncovering the physics of flapping flat plates with
artificial evolution. J Fluid Mech 2005;534:403–9.
[67] Gharib M, Rambod E, Shariff K. A universal time scale for vortex ring
formation. J Fluid Mech 1998;360:121–40.
[68] Dabiri JO. Optimal vortex formation as a unifying principle in biological
propulsion. Ann Rev Fluid Mech 2009;41(1):17–33.
[69] Rival D, Prangemeier T, Tropea C. The influence of airfoil kinematics on the
formation of leading-edge vortices in bio-inspired flight. Exp Fluids
2009;46:823–33.
[70] Tarascio M, Ramasamy M, Chopra I, Leishman JG. Flow visualization of MAV
scaled insect based flapping wings in hover. J Aircraft 2005;42(2):355–60.
[71] Ramasamy M, Leishmann JG. Phase-locked particle image velocimetry
measurements of a flapping wing. J Aircraft 2006;43(6):1867–75.
[72] Poelma C, Dickinson WB, Dickinson MH. Time-resolved reconstruction of
the full velocity field around a dynamically-scaled flapping wing. Exp Fluids
2006;41:213–25.
[73] Lu Y, Shen GX. Three-dimensional flow structure and evolution of the
leading-edge vortices on a flapping wing. J Exp Biol 2008;211:1221–30.
[74] Pick S, Lehmann F-O. Stereoscopic PIV on multiple color-coded light sheets
and its application to axial flow in flapping robotic insect wings. Exp Fluids
2009, doi:, doi:10.1007/s00348-009-0687-5.
[75] Liang Z, Dong H, Wei M. Computational analysis of hovering hummingbird
flight. In: 48th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting including the new horizons
forum and aerospace exposition. 2010, AIAA 2010-555.
[76] Warrick DR, Tobalske BW, Powers DR. Aerodynamics of the hovering
hummingbird. Nature 2005;435:1094–7.
[77] Altshuler DL, Princevac M, Pan H, Lozano J. Wake patterns of the wings and
tail of hovering hummingbirds. Exp Fluids 2009;46:835–46.
[78] Anderson JD. Fundamentals of aerodynamics, 4th ed.. New York: McGraw
Hill Higher Education; 2006.
[79] Aono H, Shyy W, Liu H. Near wake vortex dynamics of a hovering
hawkmoth. Acta Mech Sin 2009;25:23–36.
[80] Ramamurti R, Sandberg WC. A computational investigation of the three-
dimensional unsteady aerodynamics of Drophila hovering and maneuver-
ing. J Exp Biol 2007;210:881–96.
[81] Aono H, Liang F, Liu H. Near- and far-field aerodynamics in insect hovering
flight: an integrated computational study. J Exp Biol 2008;211:239–57.
[82] Ringuette MJ, Milano M, Gharib M. Role of the tip vortex in the force
generation of low-aspect-ratio normal flat plates. J Fluid Mech 2007;581:
453–68.
[83] Taira K, Colonius T. Three-dimensional flows around low-aspect-ratio flat-
plate wings at low Reynolds numbers. J Fluid Mech 2009;623:187–207.
[84] Ennos AR. A comparative study of the flight mechanism of Diptera. J Exp
Biol 1987;127:355–72.
[85] Ennos AR. The importance of torsion in the design of insect wings. J. Exp Biol
1988;140:137–60.
[86] Ennos AR. The inertial cause of the wing rotation in Diptera. J Exp Biol
1988;140:161–9.
[87] Ennos AR. Inertial and aerodynamic torques on the wings of Diptera in
flight. J Exp Biol 1989;142:87–95.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
42 W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
[88] Ishihara D, Horie T, Denda M. A two-dimensional computational study on
the fluid-structure interaction cause of wing pitch changes in dipteran
flapping flight. J Exp Biol 2009;212:1–10.
[89] Vanella M, Fitzgerald T, Preidikman S, Balaras E, Balachandran B. Influence
of flexibility on the aerodynamic performance of a hovering wing. J Exp Biol
2009;212:95–105.
[90] Willmott AP, Ellington CP, Thomas ALR. Flow visualization and unsteady
aerodymamics in the flight of the hawkmoth, Manduca sexta. Phil Trans R
Soc Lond B 1997;352:303–16.
[91] Thomas ALR, Taylor GK, Srygley RB, Nudds RL, Bomphrey RJ. Dragonfly
flight: free-flight and tethered flow visualzations reveal a diverse array of
unsteady lift-generating mechanisms, controlled primarily via angle of
attack. J Exp Biol 2004;207:4299–323.
[92] Bomphrey RJ, Taylor GK, Thomas ALR. Smoke visualization of free-flying
bumblebees indicates independent leading-edge vortices on each wing pair.
Exp Fluids 2009;46:811–21.
[93] Hubel TY, Hristov NI, Swart SM, Breuer KS. Time-resolved wake structure
and kinematics of bat flight. Exp Fluids 2009;46:933–43.
[94] Tobalske BW, Hearn JWD, Warrick DR. Aerodynamics of intermittent
bounds in flying birds. Exp Fluids 2009;46:963–73.
[95] Videler JJ, Stamhuis EJ, Povel GDE. Leading-edge vortex lifts swifts. Science
2004;306:1960–2.
[96] Bomphrey RJ, Lawson NJ, Harding NJ, Taylor GK, Thomas ALR. The
aerodynamic of Manduca sexta: digital particle image velocimetry analysis
of the leading-edge vortex. J Exp Biol 2005;208:1079–94.
[97] Bomphrey RJ. Insects in flight: direct visualization and flow measurements.
Bioinsp Biomim 2006;1:1–9.
[98] Warrick DR, Tobalske BW, Powers DR. Lift production in the hovering
hummingbird. Proc R Soc Lond B 2009;276(1674):3747–52.
[99] Hedenström A, Johansson LC, Wolf M, von Busse R, Winter Y, Spedding GR.
Bat flight generates complex aerodynamic tracks. Science 2007;316:
894–7.
[100] Muijres FT, Johansson LC, Barfield R, Wolf M, Spedding GR, Hedenström A.
Leading-edge vortex improves lift in slow-flying bats. Science 2008;319:
1250–3.
[101] Hedenström A, Muijres FT, von Busse R, Johansson LC, Winter Y, Spedding
GR. High-speed stereo PIV measurement of wakes of two bat species flying
freely in a wind tunnel. Exp Fluids 2009;46:923–32.
[102] Wakeling JM, Ellington CP. Dragonfly flight II. Velocities, accelerations and
kinematics of flapping flight. J Exp Biol 1997;200:557–82.
[103] Willmott AP, Ellington CP. The mechanics of flight in the hawkmoth
Manduca sexta I. Kinematics of hovering and forward flight. J Exp Biol
1997;200:2705–22.
[104] Willmott AP, Ellington CP. The mechanics of flight in the hawkmoth
Manduca sexta II. Aerodynami consequences of kinematic and morphologi-
cal variation. J Exp Biol 1997;200:2723–45.
[105] Fry SN, Sayaman R, Dickinson MH. The aerodynamics of free-flight
maneuvers in Drosophila. J. Exp. Biol. 2003;300:495–8.
[106] Tian X, Iriate-Diaz J, Middleton K, Galvao R, Israeli E, Roemer A, et al. Direct
measurements of the kinematics and dynamics of bat flight. Bioinsp Biomim
2006;1:S10–8.
[107] Riskin DK, Willis DJ, Iriarte-Diaz J, Hedrick TL, Kostandov M, Chen J, et al.
Quantifying the complexity of bat wing kinematics. J Theor Biol
2008;254:604–15.
[108] Wallance ID, Lawson NJ, Harvey AR, Jones JDC, Moore AJ. High-speed
photogrammetry system for measuing the kinematics of insect wings. Appl
Opt 2006;45(7):4165–73.
[109] Hedrick TL. Software techniques for two- and three-dimensional kinematic
measurements of biological and biomimetic systems. Bioinsp Biomim
2008;3:1–6.
[110] Ristroph L, Berman GJ, Bergou AJ, Wang ZJ, Cohen I. Automated hull
reconstruction motion tracking (HRWT) applied to sideways maneuvers of
free-flying insects. J Exp Biol 2009;212:1324–35.
[111] Zeng L, Hao Q, Kawachi K. A scanning projected line method for measuring a
beating bumblebee wing. Opt Commun 2000;183:37–43.
[112] Zeng L, Hao Q, Kawachi K. Measuring the body vector of a free flight
bumblebee by the reflection beam method. Meas Sci Technol
2001;12:1886–90.
[113] Zeng L, Matsumoto H, Kawachi K. A fringe shadow method for measuring
flapping angle and torsional angle of a dragonfly wing. Meas Sci Technol
1996;7:776–81.
[114] Song D, Wang H, Zen L, Yin C. Measuring the camber deformation of a
dragonfly wing using projected comb fringe. Rev Sci Instrum
2001;72(5):2450–4.
[115] Wang H, Zeng L, Liu H, Yin C. Measuring wing kinematics, flight trajectory
and body attitude during forward flight and turning maneuvers in
dragonflies. J Exp Biol 2003;206:745–57.
[116] Zhang G, Sun J, Chen D, Wang Y. Flapping motion measurement of honeybee
bilateral wings using four virtual structured-light sensors. Sens Actuators A
2008;148:19–27.
[117] Walker SM, Thomas ALR, Taylor GK. Deformable wing kinematics in
free-flying hoverflies. J R Soc Interface 2009, doi:, doi:10.1098/
rsif.2009.0120.
[118] Walker SM, Thomas ALR, Taylor GK. Deformable wing kinematics in the
desert locust: how and why do camber, twist and topography vary through
the stroke? J R Soc Interface 2008;6(38):735–47.
Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
[119] Wu G, Zeng L. Measuring the kinematics of a free-flying hawkmoth
(Macroglossum stellatarum) by a comb-fringe projected method. Acta Mech
Sin 2009, doi:, doi:10.1007/s10409-009-0306-y.
[120] Zheng L, Wang X, Khan A, Vallance RR, Mittal R. A combined experimental–
numerical study of the role of wing flexibility in insect flight. In: 47th AIAA
aerospace sciences meeting including the new horizons forum and
aerospace exposition. 2009, AIAA 2009-382.
[121] Young J, Walker SM, Bomphrey RJ, Taylor GK, Thomas ALR. Details of insect
wing design and deformation enhance aerodynamic function and flight
efficiency. Science 2009;325:1549–52.
[122] Shyy W, Udaykumar HS, Rao MM, Smith RW. Computational fluid dynamics
with moving boundaries. New York: Dover Publications Inc.; 2006.
[123] Tezduyar TE, Behr M, Mittal S, Liou J. A new strategy for finite element
computations involving moving boundaries and interfaces – the deforming-
spatial-domain/space-time procedure: II. Computation of free-liquid flows,
and flows with drifting cylinders. Comput Method Appl M 1992;94:353–71.
[124] Lesoinne M, Farhat C. Geometric conservation laws for flow problems with
moving boundaries and deformable meshes, and their impact on aeroelastic
computations. Comput Method Appl M 1996;134(1-2):71–90.
[125] Shyy W. Computational modeling for fluid flow and interface transport.
Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publisher; 1994, also New York: Dover
Publications Inc.; 2006.
[126] Mittal R, Iaccarino G. Immersed boundary method. Annu Rev Fluid Mech
2005;37:239–61.
[127] Katz J, Plotkin A. Low-speed aerodynamics, 2nd ed.. New York: Cambridge
University Press; 2001.
[128] Ansari SA, Żbikowski R, Knowles K. Aerodynamic modelling of insect-like
flapping flight for micro air vehicles. Prog Aerosp Sci 2006;42(2):129–72.
[129] von Ellenrieder KD, Parker K, Soria J. Flow structures behind a heaving and
pitching finite-span wing. J Fluid Mech 2003;490:129–38.
[130] Godoy-Diana R, Aider J-L, Wesfried JE. Transitions in the wake of a flapping
foil. Phys Rev E 2008;77:016308-1-016308-5.
[131] Godoy-Diana R, Marias C, Aider J-L, Wesfried JE. A model for the symmetry
breaking of the reverse Benard-von Karman vortex street produced by a
flapping foil. J Fluid Mech 2009;622:23–32.
[132] Lee J-S, Kim J-H, Kim C. Numerical study on the unsteady-force-generation
mechanism of insect flapping motion. AIAA J 2008;46(7):1835–48.
[133] Anderson JM, Streitlin K, Barrett DS, Triantafyllou MS. Oscillating foils of
high propulsive efficiency. J Fluid Mech 1998;360:41–72.
[134] Read DA, Hover FS, Triantafyllou MS. Forces on oscillating foils for
propulsion and maneuvering. J Fluid Struct 2003;17:163–83.
[135] Hover FS, Haugsdal Ø, Triantafyllou MS. Effect of angle of attack profiles in
flapping foil propulsion. J Fluid Struct 2004;19:37–47.
[136] Schouveiler L, Hover FS, Triantafyllou MS. Performance of flapping foil
propulsion. J Fluid Struct 2005;20:949–59.
[137] Lai JCS, Platzer MF. Jet characteristics of a plunging airfoil. AIAA J
1999;37(12):1529–37.
[138] Cleaver DJ, Wang Z, Gursul I. Vortex mode bifurcation and lift force of a
plunging airfoil at low Reynolds numbers. In: 48th AIAA aerospace sciences
meeting including the new horizons forum and aerospace exposition. 2010,
AIAA 2010-390.
[139] Lewing GC, Haj-Hariri H. Modeling thrust generation of a two-dimensional
heaving airfoil in a viscous flow. J Fluid Mech 2003;492:339–62.
[140] Lua KB, Lim TT, Yeo KS, Oo GY. Wake-structure formation of a heaving two-
dimensional elliptic airfoil. AIAA J 2007;45(7):1571–83.
[141] Bohl DG, Koochesfahani MM. MTV measurements of the vortical field in the
wake of an airfoil oscillating at high reduced frequency. J Fluid Mech
2009;620:63–88.
[142] von Ellenrieder KD, Pothos SPIV. measurements of the asymmetric wake of a
two dimensional heaving hydrofoil. Exp Fluids 2008;44:733–45.
[143] Jones AR, Babinsky H. Three-dimensional effects of a waving wing. In: 48th
AIAA aerospace sciences meeting including the new horizons forum and
aerospace exposition. 2010, AIAA 2010-551.
[144] Calderon DE, Wang Z, Gursul I. Lift enhancement of a rectangular wing
undergoing a small amplitude plunging motion. In: 48th AIAA aerospace
sciences meeting including the new horizons forum and aerospace
exposition. 2010, AIAA 2010-386.
[145] Ol MV et al. Unsteady aerodynamics for micro air vehicles. RTO AVT-149
Report, 2009, p. 1–145.
[146] Ol MV, Bernal L, Kang C, Shyy W. Shallow and deep dynamic stall for
flapping low Reynolds number airfoils. Exp Fluids 2009;46:883–901.
[147] Kang C, Aono H, Trizila P, Baik YS, Rausch JM, Bernal LP, et al. Modeling of
pitching and plunging airfoils at Reynolds number between 1  104 and
6  104. In: Proceeding of 39th AIAA fluid dynamics conference. 2009, AIAA
2009-4100.
[148] Baik YS, Rausch JM, Bernal LP, Ol MV. Experimental investigation of pitching
and plunging airfoils at Reynolds number between 1  104 and 6  104. In:
39th AIAA fluid dynamics conference 2009, AIAA 2009-4030.
[149] Menter FR. Two equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering
applications. AIAA J 1993;32:269–89.
[150] Baik YS, Raush J, Bernal L, Shyy W, Ol M. Experimental Study of governing
parameters in pitching and plunging airfoil at low Reynolds number. In:
48th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting including the new horizons forum
and aerospace exposition. 2010, AIAA 2010-388.
[151] Visbal MR, Gordiner RE, Galbraith MC. High-fidelity simulations of moving
and flexible airfoils at low Reynolds numbers. Exp Fluids 2009;46:903–22.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
[152] Radespiel R, Windte J, Scholz U. Numerical and experimental flow analysis
of moving airfoils with laminar separation bubbles. AIAA J 2007;45(6):
1346–56.
[153] Sane SP, Dickinson MH. The control of flight force by a flapping wing: lift
and drag production. J Exp Biol 2001;204:2607–26.
[154] Birch JM, Dickinson MH. Spanwise flow and the attachment of the leading-
edge vortex on insect wings. Nature 2001;412:729–33.
[155] Birch JM, Dickson WB, Dickinson MH. Force production and flow structure
of the leading edge vortex on flapping wings. J Exp Biol 2004;207:
1063–72.
[156] Dickinson MH. The effects of wing rotation on unsteady aerodynamic
performance at low Reynolds numbers. JEB 1994;192:179–206.
[157] Dickson WB, Dickinson MH. The effect of advance ratio on the aerodynamics
of revolving wings. J Exp Biol 2004;207:4269–81.
[158] Fry Sayaman, Dickinson MH. The aerodynamics of hovering flight in
Drosophila. J Exp Biol 2005;208:2303–18.
[159] Altshuler DL, Dickson WB, Vance JT, Roberts SP, Dickinson MH. Short-
amplitude high-frequency wing strokes determine the aerodynamics of
honeybee flight. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2005;102(50):18213–8.
[160] Sunada S, Takahashi H, Hattori T, Yasuda K, Kawachi K. Fluid-dynamic
characteristics of a bristled wing. J Exp Biol 2002;205:2737–44.
[161] Nagai H, Isogai K, Fujimoto T, Hayase T. Experimental and numerical study
of forward flight aerodynamics of insect flapping wing. AIAA J
2009;47(3):730–42.
[162] Wang ZJ, Birch MB, Dickinson MH. Unsteady forces and flows in low
Reynolds number hovering flight: two-dimensional computations vs robotic
wing experiments. J Exp Biol 2004;207:461–74.
[163] Lua KB, Lim TT, Yeo KS. Aerodynamic forces and flow fields of a two-
dimensional hovering wing. Exp Fluids 2008;45:1047–65.
[164] Wang ZJ. Two dimensional mechanism for insect hovering. Phys Rev Lett
2000;85(10):2216–9.
[165] Wang ZJ. Vortex shedding and frequency selection in flapping flight. J Fluid
Mech 2000;410:323–41.
[166] Wang ZJ. The role of drag in insect hovering. J Exp Biol 2004;207:
4147–55.
[167] Bos FM, Lentik D, van Oudheusden BW, Bijl H. Influence of wing kinematics
on aerodynamic performance in hovering insect flight. J Fluid Mech
2008;594:341–68.
[168] Kurtulus DF, David L, Farcy A, Alemdaroglu N. Aerodynamic characteristics
of flapping motion in hover. Exp Fluids 2008;44:23–36.
[169] Hong YS, Altman A. Streamwise vorticity in simple mechanical flapping
wings. J Aircraft 2007;44(5):1588–97.
[170] Hong YS, Altman A. Lift from spanwise flow in simple flapping wings. J
Aircraft 2008;45(4):1206–16.
[171] Isaac KM, Rolwes J, Colozza A. Aerodynamic of a flapping and pitching wing
using simulations and experiments. AIAA J 2008;46(6):1505–15.
[172] Sun M, Lan SL. A computational study of the aerodynamic forces and power
requirements of dragonfly hovering. J Exp Biol 2004;207:1887–901.
[173] Yamamoto M, Isogai K. Measurement of unsteady fluid dynamic forces for a
mechanical dragonfly model. AIAA J 2005;43(12):2475–80.
[174] Maybury WJ, Lehmann F-O. The fluid dynamics of flight control by
kinematic phase lag variation between two robotic insect wings. J Exp Biol
2004;207:4707–26.
[175] Lu Y, Shen GX, Su WH. Flow visualization of dragonfly hovering via an
electromechanical model. AIAA J 2007;45(3):615–23.
[176] Wang JK, Sun M. A computational study of the aerodynamic and forewing-
hindwing interaction of a model dragonfly in forward flight. J Exp Biol
2005;208:3785–804.
[177] Dong H, Liang Z. Effects of ipsilateral wing-wing interactions on aero-
dynamic performance of flapping wings. In: Proceedings of 48th AIAA
aerospace sciences meeting including the new horizons forum and
aerospace exposition. 2010, AIAA 2010-71.
[178] Warkentin J, DeLaurier J. Experimental aerodynamic study of tandem
flapping membrane wings. J Aircraft 2007;44(5):1653–61.
[179] Broering TM, Lian Y. Numerical study of two flapping airfoils in tandem
configuration. In: 48th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting including the new
horizons forum and aerospace exposition. 2010, AIAA 2010-865.
[180] Wang ZJ, Russell D. Effect of forewing and hindwing interactions on
aerodynamic forces and power in hovering dragonfly flight. Phys Rev Lett
2007;99:14801.1–4.
[181] Young J, Lai JCS, Germain C. Simulation and parameter variation of
flapping-wing motion based on dragonfly hovering. AIAA J 2008;46(4):
918–24.
[182] Zhang J, Lu X-Y. Aerodynamic performance due to forewing and hindwing
interaction in gliding dragonfly flight. Phys Rev E 2009;80:017302.1–4.
[183] Lentink D, Gerritsma M. Influence of airfoil shape of performance in insect
flight. In: Proceeding of 33rd AIAA fluid dynamics conference and exhibit.
2003, AIAA 2003-3447.
[184] Usherwood JR, Ellington CP. The aerodynamics of revolving wings I. Model
hawkmoth wings. J Exp Biol 2002;205:1547–64.
[185] Usherwood JR, Ellington CP. The aerodynamics of revolving wings II.
Propeller force coefficients from mayfly to quail. J Exp Biol 2002;205:
1565–76.
[186] Luo G, Sun M. The effects of corrugation and wing planform on the
aerodynamic force production of sweeping model insect wings. Acta Mech
Sin 2005;21:531–41.
Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
43
[187] Vargas A, Mittal R, Don H. A computational study of the aerodynamic
performance of a dragonfly wing section in gliding flight. Bioinsp Biomim
2008;3(026004):1–13.
[188] Kim W-K, Ko JH, Park HC, Byun D. Effects of corrugation of the dragonfly
wing on gliding performance. J Theor Biol 2009;260:523–30.
[189] Levy D-E, Seifert A. Simplified dragonfly airfoil aerodynamics at Reynolds
numbers below 8000. Phys Fluids 2009;21:071901-1–17.
[190] Althsuler DL, Dudley R, Ellington CP. Aerodynamic forces of revolving
hummingbird wings and wing models. J Zool Lond 2004;264:327–32.
[191] Ansari SA, Knowles K, Zbikowski R. Insectlike flapping wings in the hover.
Part 2: Effect of wing geometry. J Aircraft 2008;45(6):1976–90.
[192] Green MA, Smith AJ. Effects of three-dimensionality on thrust production by
a pitching panel. J Fluid Mech 2008;615:211–20.
[193] Buchholz JH, Smits AJ. The wake structure and thrust performance of a rigid
low-aspect-ratio pitching panel. J Fluid Mech 2008;603:331–65.
[194] Yates GT. Optimum pitching axes in flapping wing propulsion. J Theor Biol
1985;120:255–76.
[195] Ansari SA, Knowles K, Zbikowski R. Insectlike flapping wings in the hover.
Part 1: Effect of wing kinematics. J Aircraft 2008;45(6):1945–54.
[196] Hsieh CT, Chang CC, Chu CC. Revisiting the aerodynamics of hovering flight
using simple models. J Fluid Mech 2009;623:121–48.
[197] Oyama A, Okabe Y, Shimoyama K, Fujii K. Aerodynamic multi-objective
design exploration of a flapping airfoil using a Navier–Stokes solver.
J Aerospace Comput Inf Commun 2009;6:256–70.
[198] Trizila P, Kang C, Visbal M, Shyy W. Unsteady fluid physics and surrogate
modeling of low Reynolds number, flapping airfoils. In: 38th AIAA fluid
dynamics conference and exhibit. 2008, AIAA-2008-3821.
[199] Trizila P, Kang C-K, Visbal M, Shyy W. A surrogated model approach in 2-D
versus 3-D flapping wing aerodynamic analysis. In: 12th AIAA/ISSMO
multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference. 2008. AIAA 2008-
5914.
[200] Madsen JI, Shyy W, Haftka RT. Response surface techniques for diffuser
shape optimization. AIAA J 2000;38:1512–8.
[201] Shyy W, Papila N, Vaidyanathan R, Tucker PK. Global design optimization for
aerodynamics and rocket propulsion components. Prog Aerosp Sci
2001;37:59–118.
[202] Quiepo N, Haftka RT, Shyy W, Goel T, Vaidyanathan R, Tucker PK. Surrogate-
based analysis and optimization. Prog Aerosp Sci 2005;41:1–25.
[203] Kamatoki R, Thakur S, Wright J, Shyy W. Validation of a new parallel all-
speed CFD code in a rule-based framework for multidisciplinary applica-
tions. In: 36th AIAA fluid dynamics conference an exhibit. 2006, AIAA
2006–3063.
[204] Chong MS, Perry AE, Cantwell BJ. A general classification of three-
dimensional flow fields. Phys Fluids A 1990;2:765–77.
[205] Togashi F, Ito Y, Murayama M, Nakahashi K, Kato T. Flow simulation of
flapping wings of an insect using overset unstructured grid. In: 15th AIAA
computational fluid dynamics conference. 2001, AIAA Paper 2001–2619.
[206] Zuo D, Chen W, Peng S, Zhang W. Modeling and simulation study of an
insect-like flapping-wing micro air vehicle. Adv Robotics 2006;20(7):
807–24.
[207] Zuo D, Chen W, Peng S, Zhang W. Numerical simulation of flapping-wing
insect hovering flight at unsteady flow. Int J Numer Meth Fluids
2007;53:1801–17.
[208] Aono H, Liu H. Vortical structure and aerodynamics of hawkmoth hovering.
J Biomech Sci Eng 2006;1(1):234–45.
[209] Liu YP, Sun M. Wing kinematics measurement and aerodynamics of
hovering droneflies. J Exp Biol 2008;211:2014–25.
[210] Liu YP, Sun M. Wing kinematics measurement and aerodynamic force and
moments computation of hovering hoverfly. In: Proceedings of international
conference on bioinformatics and biomedical engineering. 2007.
p.452–5.
[211] Gopalakrishnan P, Tafti DK. A parallel boundary fitted dynamic mesh solver
for applications to flapping flight. Comput Fluids 2009;38:1592–607.
[212] Yu X, Sun M. A computational study of the wing–wing and wing-body
interactions of a model insect. Acta Mech Sin 2009;25(4):421–31.
[213] Liu H. Integrated modeling of insect flight: from morphology, kinematics to
aerodynamics. J. Comput Phys 2009;228(2):439–59.
[214] Moffatt HK, Tsinober A. Helicity in laminar and turbulent flow. Annu Rev
Fluid Mech 1992;24:281–312.
[215] Tang J, Viieru D, Shyy W. Effect of Reynolds number and flapping kinematics
on hovering aerodynamics. AIAA J 2008;46(4):967–76.
[216] De Vries O. On the theory of the horizontal-axis wind turbine. Annu Rev
Fluid Mech 1983;15:77–96, doi:10.1146/annurev.fl.15.010183.000453.
[217] McCroskey WJ, Carr LW, McAlister KW. Dynamic stall experiments on
oscillating airfoils. AIAA J 1976;14(1):57–63.
[218] Knowles K, Wilkins PC, Ansari SA, Żbikowski RW. Integrated computational
and experimental studies of flapping-wing micro air vehicle aerodynamics.
In: Proceedings of 3rd international symposium on integrating CFD and
experiments in aerodynamics. 2007, p. 1–15.
[219] Liu H, Kawachi K. Leading-edge vortices of flapping and rotary wings at low
Reynolds number. In: Mueller Thomas J, editor. Fixed and flapping wing
aerodynamics for micro air vehicle applications. Vol. 195, AIAA Prog
Astronaut Aeronaut 2001. p. 275–285.
[220] Drazin PG, Reid WH. Hydrodynamic Stability. New York: Cambridge
University Press; 1981.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
44 W. Shyy et al. / Progress in Aerospace Sciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
[221] Lentink D, Dickinson MH. Rotational accelerations stabilize leading edge
vortices on revolving fly wings. J Exp Biol 2009;212:2705–19.
[222] McCroskey WJ, McAlister KW, Carr LW, Pucci. An experimental study of
dynamic stall on advanced airfoil section. NASA TM-84245 1982.
[223] Daniel TL, Combes SA. Flexible wings and fins: bending by inertial or fluid-
dynamic forces?Integr Comp Biol 2002;42:1044–9
[224] Combes SA. Wing flexibility and design for animal flight. Ph.D Dissertation,
University of Washington, 2002.
[225] Combes SA, Daniel TL. Into thin air: contributions of aerodynamic and
inertial–elastic forces to wing bending in the hawkmoth Manduca sexta.
J Exp Biol 2003;23:2999–3006.
[226] Mountcastle AM, Daniel TL. Aerodynamic and functional consequences of
wing compliance. Exp Fluids 2009;46:873–82.
[227] Zhu Q. Numerical simulation of a flapping foil with chordwise or spanwise
flexibility. AIAA J 2007;45(10):2448–57.
[228] Yamamoto I, Terada Y, Nagamatu T, Imaizumi Y. Propulsion system with
flexible/rigid oscillating fin. IEEE J Ocean Eng 1995;20(1):23–30.
[229] Prempraneerach P, Hover FS, Triantafyllou MS. The effect of chordwise
flexibility on the thrust and efficiency of a flapping foil. In: Proceedings of
13th international symposium unmanned untethered submersible technol-
ogy, 2003. p. 1–10.
[230] Tang J, Viieru D, Shyy W. A study of aerodynamics of low Reynolds number
flexible airfoils. In: AIAA 37th fluid dynamics conference and exhibit. 2007,
AIAA 2007–4212.
[231] Chandar DDJ, Damodaran M. Computational fluid-structure interaction of a
flapping wing in free flight using overlapping grids. In: 27th AIAA applied
aerodynamics conference, 2009. AIAA 2009–3849.
[232] Pederzani J, Haj-Hariri H. Numerical analysis of heaving flexible airfoils in a
viscous flow. AIAA J 2006;44(11):2773–9.
[233] Chaithanya MR, Venkatraman K. Hydrodynamic propulsion of a flexible foil.
In: 12th Asian congress of fluid mechanics, 2008.
[234] Chaithanya MR, Venkatraman K. Hydrodynamic propulsion of a flexible foil
undergoing pitching motion. In: Proceedings of the 10th annual CFD
symposium, 2008.
[235] Gopalakrishnan P. Unsteady aerodynamic and aeroelastic analysis of
flapping flight. Ph.D. Dissertation. Blacksburg, VA: Department of Mechan-
ical Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; 2008.
[236] Gulcat U. Propulsive force of a flexible flapping thin airfoil. J Aircraft
2009;46(2):465–73.
[237] Miao J-M, Ho M-H. Effect of flexure on aerodynamic propulsive efficiency of
flapping flexible airfoil. J Fluid Struct 2006;22:401–9.
[238] Toomey J, Eldredge JD. Numerical and experimental study of the fluid
dynamics of a flapping wing with low order flexibility. Phys Fluids
2008;20(073603):1–10.
[239] Poirel D, Harris Y, Benaissa A. Self-sustained aeroelastic oscillations of a
NACA0012 airfoil at low-to-moderate Reynolds numbers. J Fluid Struct
2008;24:700–19.
[240] Heathcote S, Martin D, Gursul I. Flexible flapping airfoil propulsion at zero
freestream velocity. AIAA J 2004;42(11):2196–204.
[241] Michelin S, Smith SGL. Resonance and propulsion performance of a heaving
flexible wing. Phys Fluids 2009;21:071902-1–15.
[242] Du G, Sun M. Effects of unsteady deformation of flapping wing on its
aerodynamic forces. Appl Math Mech 2008;29(6):731–43.
[243] Miller LA, Peskin CS. Flexible clap and fling in tiny insect flight. J Exp Biol
2009;212:3076–90.
[244] Ellington CP. The aerodynamics of hovering insect flight. IV. Aerodynamic
mechanics. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 1984;305:79–113.
[245] Zhao L, Huang Q, Deng X, Sane S. The effect of chord-wise flexibility on the
aerodynamic force generation of flapping wings: experimental studies.
In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on robotics and automation,
2009. p. 4207–12; also J R Soc Interface, 2009, doi:10.1098/rsif.2009.0200.
[246] Aono H, Tang J, Chimakurthi SK, Cesnik CES, Liu H, Shyy W. Spanwise and
chordwise flexibility effects on aerodynamics of plunging wings. under review.
[247] Belytschko T, Hsieh BJ. Nonlinear transient finite element analysis with
convected coordinates. Int J Numer Methods Eng 1973;7(3):255–71.
[248] Belytschko T, Schwer L, Kelin MJ. Large displacement, transient analysis of
space frame. Int J Numer Methods Eng 1977;11(1):65–84.
[249] Liu P, Bose N. Propulsive performance from oscillating propulsors with
spanwise flexibility. Philos R Soc A - Math Phys 1997;453(1963):1763–70.
[250] Heathcote S, Wang Z, Gursul I. Effect of spanwise flexibility on flapping wing
propulsion. J Fluid Struct 2008;24:183–99.
[251] Chimakurthi SK, Tang J, Palacios R, Cesnik CES, Shyy W. Computational
aeroelasticity framework for analyzing flapping wing micro air vehicles.
AIAA J 2009;47(8):1865–78.
Please cite this article as: Shyy W, et al. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog Aerospace Sci (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001
[252] Aono H, Chimakurthi SK, Cesnik CES, Liu H, Shyy W. Computational
modeling of spanwise flexibility effects on flapping wing aerodynamics.
In: 47th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting including the new horizons forum
and aerospace exposition, 2009. AIAA 2009–1270.
[253] Palacios R, Cesnik CES. A geometrically nonlinear theory of active composite
beams with deformable cross-sections. AIAA J 2008;46(2):439–50.
[254] Watman D, Furukawa T. A parametric study of flapping wing performance
using a robotic flapping wing. In: Proceedings of IEEE international
conference on robotics and automation. 2009. p. 3638–43.
[255] Wood R. Design fabrication and analysis of a 3 dof, 3 cm flapping-wing mav.
In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on proceeding in intelligent robots and
systems, 2007. p. 1576–81.
[256] Hui H, Kumar AG, Abate G, Albertani R. An experimental study of flexible
membrane wings in flapping flight. In: 47th AIAA aerospace sciences
meeting including the new horizons forum and aerospace exposition, 2009.
AIAA 2009-876.
[257] Shkarayev S, Silin D, Abate G, Albertani R. Aerodynamics of cambered
membrane flapping wing. In: 48th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting
including the new horizons forum and aerospace exposition, 2010, AIAA
2010-58.
[258] Kim D-K, Han J-H, Kwon K-J. Wind tunnel tests for a flapping wing model
with a changeable camber using macro-fiber composite actuators. Smart
Mater Struct 2009;18:024008-1–8.
[259] Mueller D, Bruck HA, Gupta SK. 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 2009:1–11, doi:10.1007/s11340-009-
9270-5.
[260] Hamamoto M, Ohta Y, Hara K, Hisada T. Application of fluid-structure
interaction analysis to flapping flight of insects with deformable wings. Adv
Robot 2007;21(1-2):1–21.
[261] Luo H, Yin B, Dai H, Doyle J. A 3D computational study of the flow-structure
interaction in flapping flight. In: 48th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting
including the new horizons forum and aerospace exposition, 2010, AIAA
2010-556.
[262] Aono H, Chimakurthi SK, Wu P, Sällström E, Stanford BK, Cesnik CES, et al.
A computational and experimental study of flexible flapping wing
aerodynamics. In: 48th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting including the
new horizons forum and aerospace exposition, 2010, AIAA 2010-554.
[263] Singh B, Chopra I. Insect-based hover-capable flapping wings for micro air
vehicles: experiments and analysis. AIAA J 2008;46(9):2115–35.
[264] Agrawal A, Agrawal SK. Design of bio-inspired flexible wings for flapping-
wing micro-sized air vehicle applications. Adv Robot 2009;23(7-8):
979–1002.
[265] Jones KD, Platzer MF. Experimental investigation of the aerodynamic
characteristics of flapping-wing micro air vehicles. In: 41st aerospace
sciences meeting & exhibit, 2003, AIAA 2003-0418.
[266] Jones KD, Bradshaw CJ, Papadopoulos J, Platzer MF. Improved performance
and control of flapping-wing propelled micro air vehicles. In: 42nd
aerospace sciences meeting, 2004, AIAA 2004-0399.
[267] Kaya M, Tuncer IH, Jones KD, Platzer MF. Optimization of flapping motion of
airfoils in biplane configuration for maximum thrust and/or efficient. In:
45th aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, 2007, AIAA 2007-484.
[268] Wu P, Ifju P, Standford BK, Sällström E, Ukeiley L, Love R, et al.
A multidisplinary experimental study of flapping wing aeroelasticity in
thrust production. In: 50th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural
dynamics, and materials conference, 2009, AIAA 2009–2413.
[269] Sällström E, Ukeiley L, Pin W, Ifju P. Three-dimensional averaged flow and
wing deformation around flexible flapping wings. In: 39th AIAA fluid
dynamics conference, 2009, AIAA 2009–3813.
[270] Orlowski C, Girard A, Shyy W. Derivation and simulation of the nonlinear
dynamics of a flapping wing micro-air vehicle. In: The European micro aerial
vehicle conference and flight competition 2009. p. 1–9.
[271] Oppenheimer MW, Doman DB, Sigthorsson DO. Dynamics and control of a
biomimetic vehicle using biased wingbeat forcing functions: part 1
aerodynamic model. In: 48th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting including
the new horizons forum and aerospace exposition, 2010, AIAA 2010–1023.
[272] Doman DB, Oppenheimer MW, Sigthorsson DO. Dynamics and control of a
biomimetic vehicle using biased wingbeat forcing functions: part 2
Controller. In: 48th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting including the new
horizons forum and aerospace exposition, 2010, AIAA 2010–1024.
[273] Katz J, Weihs D. Hydrodynamic propulsion by large amplitude oscillation of
an airfoil with chordwise flexibility. J Fluid Mech 1978;88(3):485–97.
[274] Weihs D. Stability versus maneuverability in aquatic locomotion. Integ
Comp Biol 2002;42:127–34.