Analytical Sensitivity Analysis of an Unsteady Vortex Lattice Method for Flapping Wing Optimization

Stanford, Bret; Beran, Philip S.

doi:10.2514/6.2009-2614

Cited by 24 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This method has been used extensively to determine aerodynamic loads and aeroelastic responses (Fritz and Long, 2004;Palacios et al, 2010;Stanford and Beran, 2010;Vest and Katz, 1996;Wang, 2004).…”

Section: Methods Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The lift is the force component perpendicular to the flight direction; the panel k contribution is given by (Katz and Plotkin, 2001;Stanford and Beran, 2010) …”

Section: Aerodynamic Loadsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The extensive computational resources and time associated with the use of these tools limit the ability to apply optimization and sensitivity analyses in the early stages of design. Thus, to enable a rapid and reasonably accurate exploration of a large design space, one might be able to use lower fidelity models that place much less demands on the computational resources and time, and combine them with optimization tools (Stanford and Beran, 2010). Such analyses would help in the identification of the low-impact parameters, provide a starting point for more refined designs, and thereby expedite the process.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Details of the derivation and implementation of this method for different rigid body motions are provided by Katz and Plotkin (2001). UVLM has been extensively used to simulate flapping flights and conduct further analyses (Fritz and Long, 2004;Stanford and Beran, 2010;Vest and Katz, 1996;Wang, 2004). Stanford and Beran (2010) used this method to perform a design optimization of a flapping wing in a forward flight with a gradient-based approach.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…UVLM has been extensively used to simulate flapping flights and conduct further analyses (Fritz and Long, 2004;Stanford and Beran, 2010;Vest and Katz, 1996;Wang, 2004). Stanford and Beran (2010) used this method to perform a design optimization of a flapping wing in a forward flight with a gradient-based approach. The goal of their study was to maximize the propulsive efficiency under lift and thrust constraints by dynamically changing the shape of the wing during the flapping stroke.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Global optimization of actively morphing flapping wings

Ghommem

Hajj

Mook

et al. 2012

Journal of Fluids and Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methods Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The lift is the force component perpendicular to the flight direction; the panel k contribution is given by (Katz and Plotkin, 2001;Stanford and Beran, 2010) …”

Section: Aerodynamic Loadsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Global optimization of actively morphing flapping wings

Ghommem

Hajj

Mook

et al. 2012

Journal of Fluids and Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerical simulation of flapping wings using a panel method and a high‐order Navier–Stokes solver

Persson

Willis

Peraire

2012

Numerical Meth Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYThe design of efficient flapping wings for human engineered micro aerial vehicles (MAVs) has long been an elusive goal, in part due to the large size of the design space. One strategy for overcoming this difficulty is to use a multi-fidelity simulation strategy appropriately balances computation time and accuracy. We compare two models with different geometric and physical fidelity. The low-fidelity model is an inviscid doublet lattice method with infinitely thin lifting surfaces. The high-fidelity model is a high-order accurate discontinuous Galerkin Navier-Stokes solver which uses an accurate representation of the flapping wing geometry. To compare the performance of the two methods, we consider a model flapping wing with an elliptical planform and an analytically prescribed spanwise wing twist, at size scales relevant to MAVs. Our results show that in many cases, including those with mild separation, low fidelity simulations can accurately predict integrated forces, provide insight into the flow structure, indicate regions of likely separation and shed light on design relevant quantities. But for problems with significant levels of separation, higher fidelity methods are required to capture the details of the flow-field. Inevitably high-fidelity simulations are needed to establish the limits of validity of the lower fidelity simulations.

show abstract