Numerical Validation of Flapping Airfoil Experiments

P. Bilgi 1 and J. Soria 2

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Monash University (Clayton Campus), Melbourne, VIC, AUSTRALIA

The advantages offered by flapping wing aerodynamic design are readily seen in the flight
of insects and to a lesser extent, birds. Tight maneuvering and hovering are examples of flight
behavior that fixed wing aircraft are incapable of which makes study in flapping wing
aerodynamics attractive to Micro Air Vehicle designers. Due to the complexity of flapping wing
kinematics, CFD has become an effective method of investigation into this problem. A limitation
in this method however is accurately assessing the reliability of results obtained under different
conditions. This paper presents the results of comparisons made between 2D flow simulations
and PIV experiments of a pitching quasi-elliptical wing section in forward motion. Numerical
solutions were obtained using the OpenFOAM CFD toolbox. Specifically, a Finite Volume
solver of the Incompressible Navier-Stokes equations using the PISO algorithm was used, with a
General Grid Interface used to handle the rotation and an inertial reference frame to handle
translation. Comparisons are made for Reynolds numbers of 500 to 1500 thus negating the
necessity for turbulence models. The solutions were compared to experimental results of planar
Digital PIV flow measurements in the Monash University Water channel for a solely pitching
case. Good agreement is observed in all cases, some more so than others. Further study using
this numerical method is certainly warranted.

Nomenclature

𝑓𝑓 Frequency (Hz) 𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡ℎ master patch face

𝐿𝐿 Reference length (m) 𝑆𝑆𝑗𝑗 𝑗𝑗 𝑡𝑡ℎ slave patch face
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 Strouhal number 𝑛𝑛 Number of master patch faces
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 Reynolds number 𝑚𝑚 Number of slave patch faces
𝜃𝜃𝑎𝑎 Pitch angle amplitude (deg)
𝑊𝑊𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖 𝑆𝑆𝑗𝑗 Weight factor of master patch
𝑐𝑐 Chord length (m)
face to slave patch face
𝑇𝑇 Period of pitching motion (s)
𝜃𝜃(𝑡𝑡) Pitch angle function (rad) Intersection areas of master
𝑆𝑆∩𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀
𝑆𝑆 Surface area (𝑚𝑚2 ) patch face and slave patch face

I. Introduction

I NSECT flight has stifled the efforts of conventional aerodynamic wing theory as developed by Lanchester (1907)
and Prandtl (1914-1918) for quite some time now. This is because according to this theory the wing of the insect
cannot generate enough lifting force to allow an insect of any size to stay aloft, let alone perform complex
maneuvers like hovering and rapid trajectory alteration. However, recent efforts in visualizing flow over insect
wings have revealed a complex interaction of different aerodynamic flow phenomena which, if understood more
thoroughly will reveal the principles of insect flight – these can be used in engineering applications such as Micro
Air Vehicles (MAVs) (Sane, 2003).

The mystery of insect flight and flapping wings in particular persisted until the discovery of the unsteady vortical
flow field and especially the generation of the leading edge vortex. The potential benefit of vortices attached the
wing has been discussed previously (Maxworthy, 1979) (Dickinson & Gotz, 1993). The significance of the presence

1
Student, School of Aerospace, Mechanical Engineering, Monash University Clayton campus, pavan.bilgi@gmail.com,
StudAIAA
2
Professor, School of Aerospace, Mechanical Engineering, Monash University Clayton campus, julio.soria@eng.monash.edu.au,
SMAIAA
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
of the leading-edge vortex (LEV) which is generated over the top surface of the moving wing was only noted
relatively recently, however (Ellington, van den Berg, Willmott, & Thomas, 1996). It is this vortex that affects the
pressure distribution over the surface of the wing, thus increasing the lift force to values much higher than predicted
by wing theory. This vortex is known to be three-dimensional however and its stability is not yet fully understood
and does appear to heavily depend on the movement characteristics of the wing and the Reynolds number.

Still more recent studies have revealed that flapping foil aerodynamics involves vortical shedding that can form
either a periodic or chaotic wake pattern depending on the kinematics of the movement. The most significant
parameters have been shown to be the Reynolds number and the flapping amplitude (Thaweewat & Bos, 2009). It
has been seen that the origin of the vortex developed on the leading edge is the roll-up of shear layers created in
highly viscous flows. Indeed these flows are found in the low Reynolds number flight regime in which insects (and
hence MAVs) operate in, due to the scale of their wings. It is hypothesized that the wing kinematics influences the
development of the shear layer direction and flow accelerations which in turn will influence the evolution of the
leading edge vortex. Expanding this area of study is part of this study’s objective.

Figure 1. Aircraft mass vs. Flight regime

The problem of flow over insect wings has been investigated both numerically and experimentally through various
methods and techniques (Sane, 2003). On the experimental side there is the ubiquitous Particle Image Velocimetry
(Ching, Lim, & Soria, 2004), hotwire anemometry (Chang & Eun, 2003) and dye flow visualizations. On the
numerical side, various techniques have been employed in a large body of literature such as DNS, RANS, LES,
Vortex method and so on in various flow regimes (Wang, 2008). Additionally, while differences have been observed
to exist between three and two dimensional studies (Wang Z. J., 2000), two dimensional simulations still garner
interest from researchers due to the vast array of similarities they share with their three dimensional counterparts. On
this basis and the relatively large computational expense of 3D simulations, the present study focuses on 2D
simulations.

This paper presents the results of a Finite Volume solver of the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations found in an
open-source software known as OpenFOAM (Weller, Greenshields, & Janssens, 2004). The degree of accuracy or
relevance that the results of any numerical method have to offer is always a question that appears at the fore of any
such study. Thus, this study aims to address this issue by presenting the consistency between the numerical results
and experimental results. OpenFOAM is an open-source developed suite of finite volume solvers and utilities which
for obvious reasons is an attractive alternative to commercial codes. Furthermore it provides one with an object
oriented programming environment allowing the user far more flexibility than commercial codes do. OpenFOAM
has been validated in several PhD and MSc theses around the world and has been adapted for purposes such as free
surface flow, multi-phase flow, Direct Numerical Simulation, Large Eddy Simulation, turbulence modeling and
fluid-structure interaction (Jasak, 2010). Thus by demonstrating the capability of OpenFOAM in the capacity of
simulating moving boundary problems like flapping wings the present study aims to open the doors to further work
in this area using this tool.

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 II. Flow equations and Numerical Method
The equations to be solved in the present study are a simplification of the Navier-Stokes equations (Anderson,
1991). The basis of simplification is the assumption of incompressibility of the flow which is the case for the flight
regime of insect flight (Williamson, 1995). This is when the velocity of the flow is nowhere greater than 0.3 times
the speed of sound and we can neglect thermal expansion effects. These equations then become,

Mass cons. 𝛁𝛁 ⋅ 𝐮𝐮∗ = 0 (1)

Momentum 𝜕𝜕𝐮𝐮∗ 1 2 ∗
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 + 𝛁𝛁 ⋅ (𝐮𝐮∗ 𝐮𝐮∗ ) = −𝛁𝛁𝑝𝑝∗ + 𝛁𝛁 𝐮𝐮 (2)
Cons. 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅

Here, the, the main variables, 𝐮𝐮, 𝑡𝑡, 𝐱𝐱, 𝑝𝑝 and 𝜌𝜌 have been scaled with their reference values as follows:

𝑢𝑢∗ = 𝑢𝑢 ∕ 𝑈𝑈∞ , 𝑡𝑡 ∗ = 𝑡𝑡 ⋅ 𝑓𝑓𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 , 𝑥𝑥 ∗ = 𝑥𝑥 ⁄𝐿𝐿, 𝑝𝑝∗ = 𝑝𝑝⁄𝑈𝑈∞

2
(3)

Furthermore the variables 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 and 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 in equations (1) and (2) are two extra dimensionless variables known as the
Strouhal and Reynolds numbers defined as, 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 𝑓𝑓𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝐿𝐿𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 ⁄𝑈𝑈𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 and 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 𝑈𝑈∞ 𝐿𝐿𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 ⁄𝜈𝜈. These two variables represent
the ratio of time scales from that of the convective transport to the motion of the body (𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆), and that of the viscous
transport to the convective transport respectively (𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅).

As stated earlier, a solver using the second order Finite Volume discretisation method (FVM) was used. The
advantage of this method is that it may be used effectively on an arbitrary arrangement of polyhedral cells and it is
the basis of many widely used CFD packages. Once the discretisation is performed on equations (1) and (2), an
iterative solving algorithm was implemented known as the PISO algorithm (Ferziger & Peric, 2002) which is
purportedly much more efficient than the SIMPLE algorithm which is still widely used in many solvers.
Furthermore, since the flow is assumed laminar for the Reynolds numbers considered (on the order of 200 to 2000)
thus negating the necessity for turbulence models, the method may be considered as a Direct Numerical Simulation
where all scales of motion of the fluid are considered to be resolved by the solution.

III. Problem definition

In the summer of 2005, two dimensional Digital PIV (DPIV) visualizations were carried out on the flow over a
symmetric aerofoil pitching about the mid-chord in the context of insect aerodynamics (Green, Parker, & Soria,
2005). This was performed in a water tunnel at the Laboratory of Turbulence Research for Aerospace and
Combustion (LTRA&C). The working section of the water tunnel measures 1m long with a 0.25m2 cross section.
Furthermore, turbulence intensity levels in the core region are purportedly less than 0.35%. Measurements were
taken of flow visualized in a single 2D plane at the mid-span of the wing. While the flow is intrinsically 3D, for
reasons outlined in section 1.2 these flow features were not pursued.Thus, just one Pixelfly CCD camera with an
array size of 1280 by 1024 pixels was required for the experiment with 11𝜇𝜇m hollow glass spheres to be used as
seeding particles. A Nd-Yag laser was responsible for illumination, providing a 3mm thick laser sheet shone on the
mid-span section of the wing.

Figure 2. Schematic of problem setup

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Since the present study aims to corroborate these experimental results, 2D simulations of the aforementioned
problem were performed. A schematic is shown in figure 2 while the pitching displacement profile may be described
by equation 4 in terms of the relevant non-dimensional parameters and constants. Three aspects of the kinematic
parameters were varied, namely the Reynolds number, Strouhal number and pitch angle amplitude, 𝜃𝜃𝑎𝑎 .

𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 ⋅ 𝜈𝜈 ⋅ 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆
𝜃𝜃(𝑡𝑡) = 𝜃𝜃𝑎𝑎 sin �2𝜋𝜋 ⋅ ⋅ 𝑡𝑡� radian (4)
𝑐𝑐 2 tan 𝜃𝜃𝑎𝑎

IV. Dynamic Mesh method

Since the problem is one of a moving boundary, this presents challenges in the way of discretising (meshing) the
solution domain since this must evolve in time. Various methods have been adopted in the past and the key criteria
to a dynamic mesh method are accuracy and efficiency, both equally important. In this study rotation of the airfoil is
treated using a sliding interface method known as the General Grid Interface (GGI) in OpenFOAM. The GGI
algorithm is very efficient and fully parallelized meaning the 3D extension of the problem is certainly permissible
using this method (Beaudoin & Jasak, 2000).

Figure 3. Example GGI configuration

In the GGI method, it is the interface between two meshes which is treated at the matrix level in order to balance
the mass flow through the interface. A GGI is represented by a meeting of a master and shadow patch. The master
patch is composed of 𝑛𝑛 faces while the shadow patch is composed of 𝑚𝑚 faces. During rotation, these patches do not
meet seamlessly and may intersect each other. Thus the field variables on a particular patch are to be calculated
using the values on the corresponding patch as necessary.

𝜙𝜙𝑆𝑆𝑖𝑖 = � 𝑊𝑊𝑀𝑀𝑛𝑛 𝑆𝑆𝑖𝑖 ⋅ 𝜙𝜙𝑀𝑀𝑛𝑛 (5)

𝑛𝑛

𝜙𝜙𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗 = � 𝑊𝑊𝑆𝑆𝑚𝑚 𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗 ⋅ 𝜙𝜙𝑆𝑆𝑚𝑚 (6)

𝑚𝑚

Equations 5 and 6 dictate that a field variable value on a particular face of a patch is calculated as a weighted
sum of the values on neighboring faces. These weighting factors are calculated through a geometric consideration of
4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
the ratio of intersection of areas of a patch face with each of its neighboring patches. Using the GGI method, a
circular interface was required at the meeting between the rotating part of the mesh and the outer static part. A
conventional OH type grid is adopted with a high density structured conformal grid used in the vicinity of the wing
and wake region and tetrahedral mesh elements to inflate the grid to the outer boundaries. Figure 4 shows a
schematic of the mesh used to solve the problem.

Figure 4. Solution domain (left) and inner rotating mesh around the wing (right)

V. Results and Discussion

A. Qualitative comparison

Two representative cases from the experiment were taken for simulation. This section gives a comparative analysis
of the results. In all cases, 𝑐𝑐 = 0.0315m while the contour colors range from red to blue and the non-dimensional
vorticity from −15 to 15.

Figure 5 shows the comparison of in-plane vorticity distributions for computations and experiment for representative
test case 1 where 𝑈𝑈∞ = 0.16667 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 and 𝑇𝑇 = 2.18 seconds (𝑓𝑓 = 0.46 Hz). The comparisons are made in intervals
of 10 degrees of pitching motion starting from 𝜃𝜃(𝑡𝑡) = 0°. The spatial dimensions are scaled by the reciprocal of the
chord length, 1⁄𝑐𝑐 , the velocity is scaled by the reciprocal of the free-stream velocity, 1⁄𝑈𝑈∞ and the vorticity is
scaled by the chord length divided by the velocity scale, 𝑐𝑐 ⁄𝑈𝑈∞ .

The comparisons indicate good accuracy for the numerical simulations and most of the features of the flow present
in the PIV visualizations are also present in the simulations. In figure 5 (a) we can clearly see the roll up of the LEV
in the early stages of the pitching motion and at or around -10 degrees displacement the LEV detaches from the
leading edge. Shortly after this, the TEV also detaches from the trailing edge and begins to convect downstream.
Meanwhile the shear layer created at the trailing edge during the birth of the TEV begins to move up the surface of
the wing as indicated in figure 5 (d).

Figure 5 (e) then shows the LEV being absorbed into the advancing shear layer as the wing then begins to pitch
upward and move into the LEV. Since the shear layer and the LEV are of the same sign vorticity, they are able to
merge constructively. Subsequently, as seen in figure 5 (g) at 20 degrees positive displacement of the wing, the
shear layer has reached the leading edge of the wing which is about to pitch down. This shear layer contributes to
the roll-up development of the next LEV (with vorticity of direction into the page) which explains why the LEV is
created stronger than the TEV. It should be noted that since we are dealing with symmetrical motion, the flow is
symmetrical about the 𝑦𝑦 = 0 line. Thus although the flow on the bottom of the wing is not captured in the
experimental visualizations due to the laser shadow cast by the wing, this region of the flow is simply the reflection
of the top side about 𝑦𝑦 = 0 with a phase lag of half a period of motion, or 𝑇𝑇/2.

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 (a) (b) (c) (d)

(e) (f) (g) (h)

Figure 5. Vorticity contour solution comparisons for 𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹 = 𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓, 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟑𝟑, 𝜽𝜽𝒂𝒂 = 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐° at 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏° intervals of motion with computation above and PIV below.
6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 (a) (b) (c) (d)

(e) (f) (g) (h)

Figure 6. Vorticity contour solution comparisons for 𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹 = 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏, 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟐𝟐, 𝜽𝜽𝒂𝒂 = 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐° at 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏° intervals of motion with numerics above and PIV below.
7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Figure 6 depicts comparisons of vorticity distributions for representative test case 2. The velocity in this case was
𝑈𝑈∞ = 0.05 m/s and the period, 𝑇𝑇 = 1.09 seconds which corresponds to a pitch frequency of 𝑓𝑓 = 0.92 Hz. Scaling
was done as before. Once again the comparisons show that the simulations are quite agreeable to the experimental
PIV results with all the flow features observed in the experimental results being present in the simulations.

We can see in figure 6 (a) that the LEV has already been created in the first half of the pitch stroke while the TEV is
only beginning to form. Then, in figure 6 (c) we see that at 𝜃𝜃 = −20° the TEV has formed and detached while the
LEV is proceeding down-stream across the wing surface. As before in test number 1, we see that the shear layer is
advancing across the top surface of the wing – however we also see that while it comes into contact with the LEV,
they do not merge and the LEV proceeds down-stream and absorbs the rear of the shear layer. Also worth noting is
that in figure 6 (e) we can see that the LEV on the upper surface of the wing is paired with a counter rotating vortex
of much smaller proportions which is evident in the experimental results also.

Thus, since the LEV is not absorbed, it is released at the trailing edge to join the TEV formed at time 𝑡𝑡 = 𝑇𝑇⁄2 from
when the LEV was formed. This produces an oblique wake in which counter rotating vortex pairs travel down-
stream. The bottom part of the wake consists of pairs where a clockwise rotating vortex leads the pair while the top
part of the wake consists of pairs where the anti-clockwise cortex leads the pairs. These pairs produce jets of fluid
moving away from the wing in either direction (up and down).

Some differences arise between the simulations and experiment however, most notably in the distribution of
vorticity around each vortex. It seems that the vortices generated in simulation are markedly more coherent and
diffuse less when convecting down-stream. This is evident in figure 6 (a) where the right most TEV is very diffuse
in the experiment while still retaining coherence in the simulation. These differences are better seen in the
quantitative comparisons in the next section.

B. Quantitative comparison

We first consider the position of the LEV and TEV over time from the time of birth for representative test 1 (the
flow solution is pictured in figure 5). Figure 7 shows a favorable comparison of the movement of the LEV and TEV
over time – the simulations accurately predict the time of detachment of the vortices and their speed as they travel
downstream.

Furthermore, in figure 7, the variation of the peak vorticity of the LEV and TEV are shown as compared to that of
the experiment. Again, the comparison is quite favorable with the initial rapid decay of both vortices being correctly
predicted and a slowing of the decay being observed later on. The quicker decay of the LEV can be understood to be
due to the interaction with the shear layer on the surface of the wing which is of oppositely signed vorticity as seen
in figure 5 (c).

Vortex position vs Time

2.5
35
Vortex intensity vs Position
x-coordinate (position)

2 30
LEV
Peak vorticity (1/s)

25 TEV
1.5
LEV 20 ExpLEV
TEV ExpTEV
1 15
ExpLEV
ExpTEV 10
0.5
5
0 0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
Time (s) x-coordinate

Figure 7. Comparison of vortex advection (left) and decay (right) for 𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹 = 𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓, 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟑𝟑, 𝜽𝜽𝒂𝒂 = 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Figure 8 shows the peak vorticity comparisons for the second test case. Naturally since a greater amount of activity
is present in these test conditions (due to a much higher Reynolds number) the comparisons are not as favorable as
for test number 1. Nonetheless patent agreement is found between simulation and experiment in the behavior of the
vortices.

Figure 8 clearly shows the accurate prediction of the vortex speed over time. The speed-up of the TEV is evident in
both simulation and experiment and is due to the separation of the vortex from the shear layer. This can also be
observed in visualizations of figure 6 (g) where the TEV is about to detach from the trailing edge. The LEV on the
other hand can be seen to be speeding up at around 0.5 seconds which corresponds approximately to figure 6 (e)
where the LEV is halfway across the upper surface of the wing. This is where the LEV splits the advancing shear
layer into two parts and consumes the rear of the shear layer while proceeding down the remainder of the wing.
Finally, when the LEV departs from the trailing edge the speed of the vortex begins to drop again. All of the above
mentioned phenomena are observed in the computations and the experimental results are a good indication.

3
Vortex position vs Time 45 Vortex intensity vs position
2.5 40
Position (x-coordinate)

35 LEV

Peak vorticity (1/s)

2
30 TEV
1.5 25 ExpLEV
20
1 LEV ExpTEV
TEV 15
ExpLEV 10
0.5
ExpTEV 5
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 1 2 3
Time (s) Vortex position (x-coordinate)

Figure 8. Comparison of vortex advection (left) and decay (right) for 𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹 = 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏, 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟐𝟐, 𝜽𝜽𝒂𝒂 = 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐

As before in figure 7, figure 8 shows the variation of vortex intensity with vortex position for the second test. We
can see that while the large changes in the rate of decay of the vortex are correctly modeled by the simulations,
smaller changes effected by complex phenomena are seemingly not represented. The LEV begins a strong rate of
decay from birth but then slows almost simultaneously with the increase in velocity observed in figure 8 (left). This
indicates a possible correlation between the vortex velocity and the rate of decay of the strength of the vortex.

According to the experiment however, the TEV is still building up strength where the simulations indicate that it is
decaying. Thus, differences arise concerning the formation and detaching of the TEV but agreement resumes once
the TEV is released from the wing at around 1.6 seconds corresponding to figure 6 (e).

VI. Conclusions and Further work

The preliminary results presented in this paper demonstrate the applicability of the incompressible fluid solvers
in OpenFOAM and the GGI dynamic mesh method to low Reynolds number flapping wing flows. This has been
done by comparing pitching wing simulations with DPIV experimental results. While only airfoil pitching has been
considered thus far, full insect wing kinematics can easily be simulated by introducing translation via the application
of a non-inertial reference frame (which simply involves the introduction of an extra term into the momentum
equation). With these satisfactory validation test results, one may also confidently extend the study into considering
three-dimensional flow as well as three-dimensional wing kinematics which are closer to that of insect flight. This is
due to the efficiency and robustness of the dynamic mesh method used.

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Acknowledgments
The author would like to acknowledge the guidance and supervision of Prof. Julio Soria and Brendon Anderson and
the ongoing advice and support from fellow students and friends. In particular, the efforts of Dr. Melissa Green
(currently working at the Department of Energy in the USA) in recovering and explaining the experimental data of
the companion PIV experiments are to be recognized as a major contribution to the present work. The author would
also like to thank the able assistance of a certain hard working postgraduate researching the cold spray technology in
proof reading this paper. His name is Shuo Li and is in the 5th year of his PhD candidature. Finally the author also
acknowledges the computational facility provided by the National Computing Infrastructure without which the
present work would not have been possible.

References
2D DPIV of a Pitching Aerofoil. Green, M, Parker, K and Soria, J. 2005. 2005, Fourth Australian Conference on
Laser Diagnostics in Fluid Mechanics and Combustion.

Aerodynamic efficiency of flapping flight: analysis of a two-stroke model. Wang, Z. J. 2008. Journal of
Experimental Biology, pp. 234-238.
Anderson, J.D. 1991. Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, second edn. s.l. : McGraw-Hill Inc., 1991.
Beaudoin, Martin and Jasak, Hrvoje. 2000. Turbomachinery section. University of Zagreb, Power Engineering
Department. [Online] 2000. http://powerlab.fsb.hr/ped/kturbo/OpenFOAM/Berlin2008/SessionIV/.
Ferziger, J.H. and Peric, M. 2002. Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics, 3rd ed. Berlin : Springer-Verlag,
2002.
Flow past an impulsively started oscillating Elliptical Cylinder. Ching, T.L., Lim, T.T. and Soria, J. 2004. 2004,
15th Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference, pp. 13-17 December.
Jasak, Hrvoje. 2010. List of Papers: Hrvoje Jasak. Hrv's Homepage. [Online] 2010. [Cited: July 1st, 2010.]
http://www.h.jasak.dial.pipex.com/.
Leading-edge vortices in insect flight. Ellington, C. P., et al. 1996. 1996, Nature, pp. 626-630.
Numerical study of vortex-wake interactions and performance of a two-dimensional flapping foil. Thaweewat, N.
and Bos, F.M. 2009. 2009, 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Orlando.
reduced Frequency Effects on the Near-Wake of an Oscillating Elliptic Airfoil. Chang, Jo Won and Eun, Hee-
Bong. 2003. 2003, KSME International Journal, pp. 1234-1245.
The aerodynamics of insect flight. Sane, Sanjay P. 2003. 2003, The Journal of Experimental Biology, pp. 4191-
4208.
Vortex shedding and frequency selection in flapping flight. Wang, Z. Jane. 2000. 2000, Journal of Fluid Mech., pp.
323-341.
Weller, H, Greenshields, C and Janssens, A. 2004. OpenFOAM: The Open Source CFD Toolbox. OpenCFD.
[Online] 2004. www. opencfd. co. uk/openfoam.
Williamson, C.H.K. 1995. Fluid Vortices. s.l. : Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995. Vol. 30.

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics