The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Unsteady forces and flows in low Reynolds number hovering flight:two-dimensional computations vs robotic wing experiments
Abstract
SUMMARY: We compare computational, experimental and quasi-steady forces in a generic hovering wing undergoing sinusoidal motion along a horizontal stroke plane. In particular, we investigate unsteady effects and compare two-dimensional (2D)computations and three-dimensional (3D) experiments in several qualitatively different kinematic patterns. In all cases, the computed drag compares well with the experiments. The computed lift agrees in the cases in which the sinusoidal changes in angle of attack are symmetrical or advanced with respect to stroke positions, but lags behind the measured 3D lift in the delayed case. In the range of amplitudes studied here, 3–5 chords, the force coefficients have a weak dependence on stroke amplitude. As expected, the forces are sensitive to the phase between stroke angle and angle of attack, a result that can be explained by the orientation of the wing at reversal. This dependence on amplitude and phase suggests a simple maneuver strategy that could be used by a flapping wing device. In all cases the unsteady forces quickly reach an almost periodic state with continuous flapping. The fluid forces are dominated by the pressure contribution. The force component directly proportional to the linear acceleration is smaller by a factor proportional to the ratio of wing thickness and stroke amplitude; its net contribution is zero in hovering. The ratio of wing inertia and fluid force is proportional to the product of the ratio of wing and fluid density and the ratio of wing thickness and stroke amplitude; it is negligible in the robotic wing experiment, but need not be in insect flight. To identify unsteady effects associated with wing acceleration, and coupling between rotation and translation, as well as wake capture, we examine the difference between the unsteady forces and the estimates based on translational velocities, and compare them against the estimate of the coupling between rotation and translation, which have simple analytic forms for sinusoidal motions. The agreement and disagreement between the computed forces and experiments offer further insight into when the 3D effects are important. A main difference between a 3D revolving wing and a 2D translating wing is the absence of vortex shedding by a revolving wing over a distance much longer than the typical stroke length of insects. No doubt such a difference in shedding dynamics is responsible in part for the differences in steady state force coefficients measured in 2D and 3D. On the other hand, it is unclear whether such differences would have a significant effect on transient force coefficients before the onset of shedding. While the 2D steady state force coefficients underpredict 3D forces, the transient 2D forces measured prior to shedding are much closer to the 3D forces. In the cases studied here,the chord is moving between 3 to 5 chords, typical of hovering insect stroke length, and the flow does not appear to separate during each stroke in the cases of advanced and symmetrical rotation. In these cases, the wing reverses before the leading edge vortex would have time to separate even in 2D. This suggests that the time scale for flow separation in these strokes is dictated by the flapping frequency, which is dimensionally independent. In such cases,the 2D unsteady forces turn out to be good approximations of 3D experiments.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The aerodynamics of revolving wings II. Propeller force coefficients from mayfly to quail
Usherwood, J. R., & Ellington, C. P. (2002) · Journal of Experimental Biology · doi:10.1242/jeb.205.11.1565 · Cited by 230
Cited by
Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity
Shyy, W., Aono, H., Chimakurthi, S. K., Trizila, P., Kang, C.-K., Cesnik, C. E. S., & Liu, H. (2010) · Progress in Aerospace Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001 · Cited by 986
Thomas, A. L. R., Taylor, G. K., Srygley, R. B., Nudds, R. L., & Bomphrey, R. J. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Biology · doi:10.1242/jeb.01262 · Cited by 314
Aeromechanics of passive rotation in flapping flight
WHITNEY, J. P., & WOOD, R. J. (2010) · Journal of Fluid Mechanics · doi:10.1017/s002211201000265x · Cited by 268
Influence of flexibility on the aerodynamic performance of a hovering wing
Vanella, M., Fitzgerald, T., Preidikman, S., Balaras, E., & Balachandran, B. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Biology · doi:10.1242/jeb.016428 · Cited by 261
A computational fluid dynamics of `clap and fling' in the smallest insects
Miller, L. A., & Peskin, C. S. (2005) · Journal of Experimental Biology · doi:10.1242/jeb.01376 · Cited by 224
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, Z. J., Birch, J. M., & Dickinson, M. H.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Biology
- Publisher
- The Company of Biologists
- Published
- 2004-01-22
- Volume
- 207
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 449-460
- ISSN
- 0022-0949 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-9145
- OpenAlex
- W2113042984
- Cited by
- 509
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 22.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Unsteady forces and flows in low Reynolds number hovering flight:two-dimensional computations vs robotic wing experiments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1242/jeb.00739
- The paper
- Wang, Z. J., Birch, J. M., & Dickinson, M. H. (2004). Unsteady forces and flows in low Reynolds number hovering flight:two-dimensional computations vs robotic wing experiments. Journal of Experimental Biology. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.00739
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.