Experiments in Fluids

, 60:39 | Cite as

Data-driven modeling of pitching and plunging tandem wings in hovering flight

  • Victor TroshinEmail author
  • Avi Seifert
Research Article


The current paper addresses the challenges related to low-order modeling of a domain with moving boundaries from experimentally obtained flow data. In particular, a modeling methodology is implemented on measured flow field data of pitching and plunging wings in a tandem configuration. The applied method uses a Eulerian–Lagrangian method to map a deforming domain to a domain with stationary boundaries. This mapping allows the use of modeling approaches based on the proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) or dynamic mode decomposition. In this paper, the velocity field associated with the wings’ flapping motion was mapped and modeled using POD-based approach. The flow field dynamics was approximated by a linear model based on four POD modes. Since the state of the low-order model is physically impossible to measure directly, a Kalman filter was implemented. The Kalman filter used the signals from two low-profile strain gauge sensors located at the root of the hindwing to evaluate the reduced-order state of the system. Then, the full state of the system was estimated using the POD approximation. Therefore, using only two strain sensors’ signals, the vortex dynamics associated with the tandem wings motion was successfully modeled.

Graphical abstract



  1. Alexander DE (1984) Unusual phase relationships between the forewings and hindwings in flying dragonflies. Exp Biol 109:379–383Google Scholar
  2. Azuma A, Watanabe T (1988) Flight performance of a dragonfly. J Exp Biol 137:221–252Google Scholar
  3. Azuma A, Azuma S, Watanabe I, Furuta T (1985) Flight mechanics of a dragonfly. J Exp Biol 116:79–107Google Scholar
  4. Brunton SL, Proctor JL, Kutz JN (2016) Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:3932–3937. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Donea J, Huerta A, Ponthot JP, Rodríguez-Ferran A (2004) Arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian methods. In: Encyclopedia of computational mechanics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Gordon WJ, Thiel LC (1982) Transfinite mappings and their application to grid generation. Appl Math Comput 10:171–233. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Haj-Hariri H, Murphy PC, Lewin GC (2005) Reduced-order modeling of a heaving airfoil. In: 2005 AIAA guidance, navigation, and control conference and exhibit, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  8. Hemati MS, Dawson STM, Rowley CW (2017) Parameter-varying aerodynamics models for aggressive pitching-response prediction. AIAA J 55:693–701. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Holmes P, Lumley JL, Berkooz G (1998) Turbulence, coherent structures, dynamical systems and symmetry. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Hu Z, McCauley R, Schaeffer S, Deng X (2009) Aerodynamics of dragonfly flight and robotic design. In: Robotics and automation, 2009. ICRA’09. IEEE international conference on IEEE, pp 3061–3066Google Scholar
  11. Kalman RE (1960) A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. J Basic Eng 82:35. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lan SL, Sun M (2001) Aerodynamic interactions of two airfoils in unsteady motion. Acta Mech 150:39–51. CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Lehmann F-OO (2009) Wing–wake interaction reduces power consumption in insect tandem wings. Exp Fluids 46:765–775. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ma Z, Ahuja S, Rowley CW (2011) Reduced-order models for control of fluids using the eigensystem realization algorithm. Theor Comput Fluid Dyn 25:233–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Maybury WJ, Lehmann FO (2004) The fluid dynamics of flight control by kinematic phase lag variation between two robotic insect wings. J Exp Biol 207:4707–4726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Noack BR, Afanasiev K, Morzyński M et al (2003) A hierarchy of low-dimensional models for the transient and post-transient cylinder wake. J Fluid Mech 497:335–363. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Noack BR, Morzynski M, Tadmor G (2011) Reduced-order modelling for flow control. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Norberg RA (1975) Hovering flight of the dragonfly Aeschna juncea L., kinematics and aerodynamics. Swim Fly Nat 2:763–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Queipo NV, Haftka RT, Shyy W et al (2005) Surrogate-based analysis and optimization. Prog Aerosp Sci 41:1–28. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rival D, Schönweitz D, Tropea C (2011) Vortex interaction of tandem pitching and plunging plates: a two-dimensional model of hovering dragonfly-like flight. Bioinspir Biomim 6:016008. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rowley CW (2005) Model reduction for fluids, using balanced proper orthogonal decomposition. Int J Bifurc Chaos 15:997–1013MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rowley CW, Colonius T, Murray RM (2004) Model reduction for compressible flows using POD and Galerkin projection. Phys D Nonlinear Phenom 189:115–129MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schmid PJ, Greenbaum A, Lasota A et al (2010) Dynamic mode decomposition of numerical and experimental data. J Fluid Mech 656:5–28. doiMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shyy W, Aono H, Kang C, Liu H (2013) An introduction to flapping wing aerodynamics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sirovich L (1987) Turbulence and the dynamics of coherent structures. I-Coherent structures. II-Symmetries and transformations. III-Dynamics and scaling. Q Appl Math 45:561–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tadmor G, Lehmann O, Noack BR, Morzyński M (2011) Galerkin models enhancements for flow control. In: Reduced-order model flow control, pp 151–252Google Scholar
  27. Thomas ALR, Taylor GK, Srygley RB et al (2004) Dragonfly flight: free-flight and tethered flow visualizations reveal a diverse array of unsteady lift-generating mechanisms, controlled primarily via angle of attack. J Exp Biol 207:4299–4323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Troshin V, Seifert A (2018) Modeling of a pitching and plunging airfoil using experimental flow field and load measurements. Exp Fluids 59:6. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Troshin V, Seifert A, Sidilkover D, Tadmor G (2016) Proper orthogonal decomposition of flow-field in non-stationary geometry. J Comput Phys 311:329–337. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Usherwood JR, Lehmann F-OO (2008) Phasing of dragonfly wings can improve aerodynamic efficiency by removing swirl. J R Soc Interface 5:1303–1307. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wakeling JM, Ellington CP (1997a) Dragonfly flight. II. Velocities, accelerations and kinematics of flapping flight. J Exp Biol 200:557–582Google Scholar
  32. Wakeling JM, Ellington CP (1997b) Dragonfly flight. I. Gliding flight and steady-state aerodynamic forces. J Exp Biol 556:543–556Google Scholar
  33. Wang ZJ, Russell D (2007) Effect of forewing and hindwing interactions on aerodynamic forces and power in hovering dragonfly flight. Phys Rev Lett 99:148101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wang JK, Sun M (2005) A computational study of the aerodynamics and forewing-hindwing interaction of a model dragonfly in forward flight. J Exp Biol 208:3785–3804. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringTel-Aviv UniversityTel-AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations