See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308270874

Vortex structure on twist-morphing micro air vehicle wings

Article  in  International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles · September 2016

DOI: 10.1177/1756829316660321

CITATIONS READS

5 761

5 authors, including:

Noor Iswadi Ismail Abdul Halim Zulkifli

Universiti Teknologi MARA Universiti Teknologi MARA (Pulau Pinang), Malaysia
56 PUBLICATIONS   97 CITATIONS    15 PUBLICATIONS   80 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Talib Ria Jaafar Mir Tasin

Universiti Teknologi Mara (Pulau Pinang) Manarat International University
97 PUBLICATIONS   422 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   118 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

presention View project

Morphing MAV View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mir Tasin on 18 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article
International Journal of Micro Air
Vehicles
2016, Vol. 8(3) 194–205
Vortex structure on twist-morphing ! The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
micro air vehicle wings sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1756829316660321
mav.sagepub.com

NI Ismail, AH Zulkifli, RJ Talib, H Yusoff and M Asyraf Tasin

Abstract
Vortex formation has numerous influences on the aerodynamic characteristics of fixed-wing micro air vehicle wings.
Despite the mature understanding of vortices on fixed-wing and flapping micro air vehicle wings, the behavior of vortices
over the morphing micro air vehicle wing has not been fully explored. Thus, the current work is conducted to investigate
the influence of vortex structure over a series of twist-morphing micro air vehicle wings. Twist morphing micro air
vehicle and baseline wings are simulated through fluid–structure interaction analysis. The validation results for each wing
exhibited good correlation in the overall lift coefficient distribution trend. The vortex formation results show that vortex
formations are significantly altered throughout angle of attack changes. For a given angle of attack cases below the stall
angle, each morphing wing exhibited higher intensities of tip vortex structure formations and leading edge vortex–tip
vortex interactions compared to the baseline wings. Stronger leading edge vortex–tip vortex interactions improved the
low-pressure region over the morphing wing surface and further induce better lift performance. In fact, the morphing
wing with higher morphing force induces better lift performance.

Keywords
Lift coefficient, Micro air vehicle, Morphing wing, Twist morphing, Vortices

Date received: 20 May 2016; accepted: 7 April 2016

Wing morphing also has a huge potential in reducing

Introduction
In recent years, aviation progress has focused on infor-
mation gathering missions such as border patrol, envir-
onmental monitoring, military operations, and search
and rescue.1 Most of these missions require the rapid
deployment of aircraft with stealth mode flight. Hence,
small-scale aircraft such as a micro air vehicles (MAVs)
or unmanned aerial vehicle are preferred for these oper-
ations because of their stealthy characteristics,2 lower
production costs, lower safety and certification require-
ments, and lower aerodynamic loads.3 However, LAR
aircrafts suffer from low aerodynamic efficiency.4
Traditional high-lift devices such as flaps and slats are
not efficient on LAR wings because the mechanisms
create surface discontinuities and contribute to
unnecessary complex airflow.3 Moreover, their conven-
tional hinged mechanisms are too complex, bulky, and
heavy to be applied on such a small wing area.
Therefore, wing morphing was identified as a promising
solution to replace conventional control surfaces and
increase the overall aerodynamic performance.5
flutter phenomenon, which directly improves aircraft
comfort, safety, and fatigue problems.6,7 Furthermore,
morphing improves overall MAV wing aerodynamics8
and maneuverability.9–11
Vortex occurrence has numerous influences on the
aerodynamic characteristics of fixed-wing MAV wings.
The vortex strength on a fixed-wing MAV wing varies
throughout the angle of attack (AOA) changes.12,13 The
occurrence of leading edge vortex (LEV) generates
higher lift force on a fixed-wing MAV,14,15 and tends
to interact with the wing tip vortex (TV), creating a
complex flow couple. During vortex interaction, TV
circulation pushes the LEV downwards and maintains
its attachment on the wing surface area longer.
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA (Pulau
Pinang), Penang, Malaysia
Corresponding author:
NI Ismail, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA
(Pulau Pinang), Seberang Jaya, Penang 13500, Malaysia.
Email: iswadi558@ppinang.uitm.edu.my

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC-BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction
and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
Ismail et al.
The vortex attachment results in improved low-pressure
distribution (over the wing surface), which enhances lift
generation over the fixed-wing MAV.16–18 The LEV
attachment in a flapping MAV wing improves during
the down stroke motion of the wing, which enhances
the lift performance of the MAV wing type.19 By con-
trast, the wing TV influences the fixed MAV wing by
creating a low-pressure core region near the wingtip
and by interacting with the LEV.16,17,20,21 The intensity
of the low-pressure core region (within the wingtip
vortex) highly contributes to the induced drag pen-
alty.17,22 The wingtip vortex in a flapping MAV wing
interacts with the root vortex to generate the wake
structure, which in turn affects the wing lift and drag
performance.23 Despite the mature understanding of
vortices on fixed-wing and flapping MAV wings, the
formation and vortices behavior over the morphing
MAV wings have not been fully explored. Thus, the
current work is conducted to elucidate the formation
of vortices over a morphing MAV wing based on the
fluid–structure interaction (FSI) results. A series of
simulations works involving morphing MAV wings
with twist mobility (and baseline wings, namely, mem-
brane and rigid MAV wings) are simulated through the
Figure 1. FSI simulation framework.
195
FSI analysis. A validation of lift coefficient (CL) on
each wing was conducted in the initial analysis to justify
the FSI simulation model. A detailed simulation study
on vortex formation and its pressure distribution
resumed over the twist-morphing (TM) and base-
line wing to elucidate the influence of vortices on the
wings.
Methodology
FSI frameworks
The FSI problems of morphing wings are solved in 3D,
quasi-static, and linear structural models coupled with
steady state, incompressible, and turbulent flow
domains. The 3D turbulent flow is defined based on
Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) equations
and the shear stress turbulence (SST) model. All simu-
lation methods found in this work is set up based on the
FSI ANSYS-Workbench framework, coupled with
static structural analyses (ANSYS-Mechanical), and
the flow solver module (ANSYS-CFX). The details of
the FSI simulation method is found in Ismail et al.8 The
FSI simulation framework is given in Figure 1.
196 International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles 8(3)

MAV wing model
Three levels of the TM wing (TM 5N, TM 3N, and TM
1N) are used to create comparisons with the baseline
wing models (membrane wing and rigid wing). The TM
wing and baseline wing models are developed based
on previous research found at the Universiti
Teknologi MARA, Malaysia8,24 and University of
Florida (UF).25,26 Generally, all wings have almost
identical characteristics in terms of planform shape
and dimension. The distinctive parts among the wings
are the morphing force and flexible membrane skin
components. A summary of TM (TM 5N, TM 3N,
and TM 1N), membrane, and rigid wings configur-
ations is given in Table 1. Each wing has 1 mm thick-
ness (including the membrane skin component). The
following coordinate system is adopted for all wing
models: x is the chordwise direction, z is the spanwise
direction, and y is the directed normal to the wing
upper surface, where the origin is located at the outer-
most wing leading edge point.
MAV wing model
The objective function of the morphing force (found
on the TM wing) is to produce significant wing
deformations that consequently alter the wing twist
characteristics on the TM wing. The morphing force
imposed at an optimized morphing point location for
morphing mobility is shown in Figure 2. The optimized
morphing point location is positioned near the wing
edge to ensure efficient morphing mobility. The wing
deformation (y-direction) and geometric twist (e) results
for all wings are presented in Figures 3 and 4, respect-
ively. The initial results concluded that higher morph-
ing force configuration could produce greater wing
deformations and larger positive twist (washed-in)
magnitudes.
Flow domains and mesh generation
The computational flow domain (CFD), which is built
around each MAV wing with a symmetrical condition
was applied. The 3D CFD is created in the root chord
unit (c), as shown in Figure 5. The grid-independent
test results show that the optimized grid is achieved at
1,000,000 elements, wherein the first cell above the wing
surface is set at yþ  1. The inlet and outlet are marked
by flow vectors (Figure 6). The magnitudes of velocity
are set at 9.5 m/s (equivalent to the maximum MAV
wing condition at Re ¼ 100,000). Inlet velocity was

Table 1. Summary of twist morphing (TM) and baseline wing configurations.

TM 5N TM 3N TM 1N Membrane wing Rigid wing

Wingspan, b 150 mm 150 mm 150 mm 150 mm 150 mm

Root chord, c 150 mm 150 mm 150 mm 150 mm 150 mm
Aspect ratio, A 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25
Maximum camber at the root 6.7% of c 6.7% of c 6.7% of c 6.7% of c 6.7% of c
(at x/c ¼ 0.3) (at x/c ¼ 0.3) (at x/c ¼ 0.3) (at x/c ¼ 0.3) (at x/c ¼ 0.3)
Maximum reflex at the root 1.4% of c 1.4% of c 1.4% of c 1.4% of c 1.4% of c
(at x/c ¼ 0.86) (at x/c ¼ 0.86) (at x/c ¼ 0.86) (at x/c ¼ 0.86) (at x/c ¼ 0.86)
Built-in geometric twist 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55
Force component F¼5N F¼3N F¼1N Excluded Excluded
Membrane skin component Included Included Included Included Excluded

Symmetrical wing geometry

Ismail et al. 197

Figure 2. Morphing force applied on TM wing.

Figure 3. The wing deformation (y-direction) results for all wings.

TM: twist morphing.

specified at the inlet, and a zero pressure boundary con-

dition is implemented at the outlet. The AOA varies
from 10 to 35 . The symmetrical wall (as shown in
Figure 6) and side walls are defined as symmetrical and
slip surface boundary conditions, respectively. The
wing surface is defined as a no-slip boundary surface
and assigned as the boundary interaction for FSI inves-
tigation. Automatic wall function is fully employed to
solve the flow viscous effect.

Figure 4. The geometric twist characteristics on all wings.
TM: twist morphing.
Results
Validation of the CL performances
Before the vortex formation study was conducted, a
validation of the CL performances of each MAV wing
was conducted. Figure 7 presents the CL performances
198
Figure 5. 3D CFD domain size.
Figure 6. The boundary condition applied on CFD domain.
for all wings based on the simulation and experimental
results at U ¼ 9.5 m/s. The experimental results were
obtained from a wind tunnel testing provided in
Ismail.27 The validation results are presented as the pre-
liminary justification and reliability of the simulation
results.
The simulation slightly under predicted the CL dis-
tribution for every wing and U case. Based on the ana-
lysis taken at AOA between 5 and 15 (pre-stall
angle), the simulation results is slightly below the
experimental CL result (5%)for every wing case.
International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles 8(3)
However, the discrepancy between the simulation and
experimental CL increased (between 7% and 20%) as
the AOA increased beyond 15 . Rojratsirikul et al.28
suggested that the discrepancy in CL magnitude is con-
tributed by the self-induced vibrations on the mem-
brane component because the occurrence of
membrane vibration increased with the incremental
increase of AOA. Therefore, rather than comparing
the CL magnitude, the following validation work is con-
ducted mostly by comparing the common CL trend
found in the simulation and experimental results.
Ismail et al.
Figure 7. The simulation (left) and experimental (right) lift coefficient results for all wings.
By comparing the major CL distribution trend found
in the experimental and simulation results, the CL
slopes (taken at AOA ¼ 0 to 15 ) for every wing
(both experimental and simulation results) were found
at 0.033. The experimental and simulation results also
exhibited similar CL distribution trends (taken at
AOA ¼ 0 to 15 ) in which, the TM 5N wing had pro-
duced the highest CL magnitude among the wings, fol-
lowed by the TM 3N and TM 1N wing. The membrane
and rigid wing produced lower CL distributions com-
pared with the TM wings.
The experimental and simulation results also showed
that the TM 5N wing produced the lowest AOAstall at
an AOA range of 15 –20 . TM 3N and TM 1N were
predicted to stall at AOAstall ¼ 18 and 21 respectively,
which was very close to its actual AOAstall between 20
and 25 . The similarities continue to the baseline wings
cases, where both methods agreed in delaying the
AOAstall incidence. The membrane and rigid wings
were predicted to stall at AOAstall ¼ 22 and
AOAstall ¼ 24 , respectively. These results were parallel
to the experimental results, in which both baseline
wings stalled at an AOA range between 25 and 30 .
Based on these AOAstall characteristics, the overall
trend of AOAstall characteristics for both methods
was almost similar. Both results agreed in the overall
AOAstall characteristics. Based on this CL distribution,
the experimental and simulation results exhibited a
good correlation in the CL distribution trend. Despite
the slight differences found in CL magnitude, the simu-
lation satisfactorily predicted the CL slope, AOAstall
characteristics, and the CL distribution. The differences
in the CL and AOAstall magnitudes are contributed by
the suspicion of self-induced membrane vibrations,29
time-average solution, and the selected turbulence
model.27
199
Vortex formation
Three-dimensional vortices are visualized based on the
vortex core region by using limited Q criterion magni-
tude at Q ¼ 0.03 as shown in Figure 8.24 The results are
viewed from the wing top view angle (y-direction) to
capture the details of the LEV and TV formations.
Based on the results, the LEV and TV formations are
visually recognized through their positions on the wing
surface area. The LEV structures normally occur on the
wing leading edge area because the LEV is generated by
the roll up of the separated shear layer flow produced at
the wing leading edge.16 In contrast, TV structures are
normally found near the wing tip area because TV
structures are visibly recognized as a circulatory 3D
flow motion that trails downstream from the wing tip
area. TV structures are produced from the flow that
leaks around the wing tips because of finite wing pres-
sure difference.30
The visualization of LEVs and TV structures cannot
be separated into two components because of the limi-
tation in the simulation post processing module. Thus,
the TV and LEV–TV interactions area were determined
based on approximate location as shown in Figure 8(a).
In order to quantify the TV and LEV–TV structures, a
digital image measuring software is used to estimate the
maximum diameter and length of TV. The software is
also used to measure the approximate LEV–TV diam-
eter. The approximate size of maximum TV diameter
(DTV), TV length (LTV), and LEV–TV diameter
(DLEV-TV) were measured based on chord length (c)
wing at certain location as shown in Figure 8(b).
In the following section, the discussion on vortices for-
mation is based on the magnitude of DTV, LTV, and
DLEV-TV. The physical enlargement of LEV–TV con-
nections and TV structure formations were quantify
200
Figure 8. (a) LEV–TV interaction area, (b) the location and measurement of DTV, LTV, and DLEV-TV.
(based on DTV, LTV, and DLEV-TV magnitude) and rela-
tively compared (between the AOA cases) to indicate
the vortices intensities and also its relative influence
towards the CL generation shown in Figure 7 (simula-
tion results). The approximate LEV coverage area over
the wing surface is used to indicate the dominancy of
the LEV attachment. The following discussion on the
study of vortices is concentrated on the comparative
TV sizes and the proportional size of the LEV–TV con-
nection found on every MAV wing.
Figure 9 presents the 3D vortex formations on the
MAV wings at U ¼ 9.5 m/s (equivalent to Re ¼ 100,000).
The results show that each wing had produced a
variation of vortex formation in every AOA cases
(started from 0 to 20 ). At low AOA (AOA ¼ 0 ),
each wing produced a dominant LEV attachment
over the wing surface. LEV domination is justified
based on the LEV attachment that covered nearly
half (x/c & 0.45) of the wing surfaces. At this AOA
stage, each wing managed to produce almost similar
LEV dominances on the wing surface. Despite the dom-
inance in the LEV attachment, the existence of TV
structures showed some diminutive variations on each
MAV wing.
Based on the comparative TV sizes (at AOA ¼ 0 ),
the TM 5N wing relatively produced the largest TV
structure (DTV ¼ 0.09c and LTV ¼ 0.6c) among the
MAV wings, followed by TM 3N (DTV ¼ 0.07c and
LTV ¼ 0.53c) and TM 1N (DTV ¼ 0.05c and
LTV ¼ 0.4c) wings. The membrane and rigid wings
produced relatively similar TV structure sizes
(DTV ¼ 0.035c–0.04c and LTV ¼ 0.24c–0.27c). At this
International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles 8(3)
AOA stage, the LEV–TV interactions for each MAV
wing had slightly varied among the wings. The morph-
ing wings (TM 5N, TM 3N, and TM 1N) managed to
produce DLEV-TV ¼ 0.05c–0.035c, in which about more
than 14% larger than the baseline (membrane and
rigid) wings produced. In order to relate this vortices
formation towards the CL performance, a detailed
study on the low-pressure distribution over the wing
upper surface was conducted as shown in Figure 10.
Therefore, the low-pressure coefficient found over the
wing upper surface is used to indicate or induce better
lift distribution. Thus, based on pressure distribution
results (Figure 10 at AOA ¼ 0 ), the low-pressure
region found over the morphing wings is highly
concentrated at similar LEV–TV interactions region
(1.0 < 2z/b < 0.8). The magnitude of CPmin is used and
define as on the lowest pressure coefficient found at
LEV–TV interactions area (1.0 < 2z/b < 0.8). Based on
Figure 10 (at AOA ¼ 0 ), TM 5N wing exhibited
the lowest CPmin magnitude among the wings
with CPmin ¼ 1.773. The intensity of CPmin found on
TM 3N and TM 1N wings were approximately 85%
(TM 3N) and 98% (TM 1N) higher than the TM 5N
wing. The baseline wing produced higher CPmin
at 0.053. The low CPmin magnitude found in every
morphing wings have translated into higher CL magni-
tude (simulation results shown in Figure 7), in which
the CL magnitude for TM 5N, TM3N, and TM 1N are
0.47, 0.33, and 0.19, respectively. The CL for baseline
wing is almost similar at 0.12–0.13.
As the AOA increased to 5 , the LEV dominance
over the wing surface area gradually reduced with the
Ismail et al. 201

Figure 9. 3D vortex formations over the MAV wings.

TM: twist morphing; LEV: leading edge vortex; TV: tip vortex.
202 International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles 8(3)

Figure 10. Pressure distribution and magnitude of CPmin over the wing upper surface.
Ismail et al.
incremental increase of AOA. Despite the lower LEV
dominance, the TV structures simultaneously grew
larger than the previous AOA case (AOA ¼ 0 ). The
TV structure formations for every wing increased
based on DTV, LTV, and DLEV-TV magnitudes. Again,
TM 5N wing produced the largest TV structure
(DTV ¼ 0.1c and LTV ¼ 0.62c) among the MAV wings,
followed by the TM 3N (DTV ¼ 0.07c and LTV ¼ 0.6c)
and TM 1N (DTV ¼ 0.06c and LTV ¼ 0.5c) wings. The
LEV–TV interactions for each morphing wing also con-
tinues to enlarge with DLEV-TV ¼ 0.09c–0.04c and main-
tain at least 14% greater than the baseline wings
produced. Due to larger TV and LEV–TV interactions
structure, TM 5N wing again produced the lowest
CPmin (Figure 10) at 2.265. The intensity of CPmin
found on TM 3N and TM 1N also continues to
improve with 50% (TM 3N) and 60% (TM 1N)
higher than the TM 5N wing produced. As a result,
the CL magnitude (Figure 7) for TM 5N, TM3N, and
TM 1N are significantly improved at 0.71, 0.62, and
0.47, respectively. However, the CL magnitude for base-
line wings are slightly increased at 0.4 due to low DTV
(0.05c), LTV (0.47–0.42), DLEV-TV (0.035c), and CPmin
(0.35) magnitudes.
The intensity of DTV, LTV, and DLEV-TV increased
progressively with the incremental increase of AOA. At
AOA ¼ 10 , TM 5N wing induced the largest DTV mag-
nitude at 0.13c but it started to show a depletion in LTV
length at 0.46c (compared to AOA ¼ 5 case). However,
TM 3N (DTV ¼ 0.12c, LTV ¼ 0.6c) and TM 1N
(DTV ¼ 0.1c, LTV ¼ 0.5c) wings continue to increase in
DTV and LTV intensity. The membrane (DTV ¼ 0.09c
and LTV ¼ 0.55c) and rigid (DTV ¼ 0.08c and
LTV ¼ 0.5c) wings also exhibited a slight increment in
TV structures. Despite the more obvious TV structures
found on the baseline wings, the LEV–TV interactions
on morphing wings continue to enlarge at DLEV-TV ¼
0.13c–0.1c and maintain at least 10% larger than the
baseline wings produced. Thus, the CPmin and
CL magnitude exhibited by TM 5N (CPmin ¼ 3:267,
CL ¼ 0.98), TM 3N (CPmin ¼ 1:971, CL ¼ 0.83),
and TM 1N (CPmin ¼ 1:632, CL ¼ 0.67) wing are
better than the baseline wings (CPmin ¼ 0:750,
CL ¼ 0.59–0.52) as shown in Figures 7 and 10
(AOA ¼ 10 case).
The intensity of the TV structure formations and
LEV–TV connections on every wing varies significantly
as the AOA increase at 15 . Surprisingly, the TV struc-
ture and LEV–TV interactions on TM 5N wing has
drastically started to deteriorate and detached from
the wing surface. Thus, DTV, LTV, and DLEV-TV data
for TM 5N are not available to be measured at this
AOA stage. As a result, the CPmin and CL magnitude
for TM 5N wing depleted at CPmin ¼ 1:253 and
CL ¼ 1.0 (shown in Figures 7 and 10). This situation
203
is expected since the stall angle (AOAstall) for TM 5N
wing occurred at relatively low angle 15 .
TM 3N (DTV ¼ 0.13c, LTV ¼ 0.42c, and DLEV-TV ¼
0.2c), TM 1N (DTV ¼ 0.12c, LTV ¼ 0.5c, and
DLEV-TV ¼ 0.14c) and membrane (DTV ¼ 0.1c, LTV ¼
0.54c, and DLEV-TV ¼ 0.11c) wings also suffer from a
slight decrement in LTV length. Despite the slight LTV
depletion found on morphing and membrane wings, the
rigid (DTV ¼ 0.09c, LTV ¼ 0.55c, and DLEV-TV ¼ 0.07c)
wing continue to increase in DTV, LTV, and DLEV-TV
intensities. However, due to higher DLEV-TV intensities
found on TM 3N (CPmin ¼ 2:251, CL ¼ 1.06) and TM
1N (CPmin ¼ 1:821, CL ¼ 0.96), the morphing wings
(except TM 5N) managed to produce better CPmin and
CL magnitude than the baseline (CPmin ¼ 1:783,
CL ¼ 0.88–0.85) wings.
At AOA ¼ 20 , the vortex deterioration and LEV
detachment occurrences continued to intensify for the
TM 5N wing. In fact, the TM 3N wing also demon-
strate the deterioration of TV and LEV–TV structure
which is similar to the stall vortex formations found on
TM 5N wing at AOA ¼ 15 . This situation is expected
for TM 3N wing since the AOAstall for the TM 3N wing
occurred at & 19 (Figure 7). Thus, the magnitude of
DTV, LTV, and DLEV-TV for TM 5N and TM 3N wings
are not available to be measured. However, the inten-
sity of the TV structure formations and the LEV–TV
connections continued to increase for the TM 1N and
baseline wing. TM 1N (DTV ¼ 0.15c, LTV ¼ 0.35c,
DLEV-TV ¼ 0.22c), membrane (DTV ¼ 0.14c, LTV ¼
0.45c, DLEV-TV ¼ 0.17c) and rigid (DTV ¼ 0.12c, LTV ¼
0.5c, DLEV-TV ¼ 0.13c) wings exhibited enlargement in
DTV and DLEV-TV magnitude but also suffer from a
slight decrement in LTV length. Despite the slight
depletion in LTV length, TM 1N (CPmin ¼ 2:121,
CL ¼ 1.13) wing still managed to produce better CL
than the baseline (CPmin ¼ 2:231  1:74, CL ¼
1.06–1.04) wings. This is due larger low-pressure area
found on the TM 1N wing surface (Figure 10).
However, stall vortex formations (similar to TM 5N
and TM 3N) is expected to occur on the TM 1N and
baseline wings once the angle increased to AOAstall inci-
dences (AOAstall ¼ 21 (TM 1N), 22 (membrane), and
24 (rigid).
Based on the vortex formation results, it shows that
the overall vortex formations on the current MAV
wings are significantly altered throughout AOA
changes. The intensity of TV structure formations
and LEV–TV interactions which are measured through
the DTV, LTV and DLEV-TV magnitude increased with
the incremental increase of AOA. Larger DLEV-TV mag-
nitude signifies stronger LEV–TV interactions which
subsequently improve the low-pressure region over
the wing surface (denoted by CPmin ) and induce better
lift performance (CL). However, as the AOA reached
204
the stall angle, the TV structure and LEV–TV inter-
actions drastically deteriorate and detach from the
wing surfaces and, thus, creates a depletion on
low-pressure creation over the wing surface. LEV dom-
inance over the wing surface area has also reduced
gradually with the incremental increase of AOA.
However, the LEV formation also drastically deterio-
rated and detached from the wing surface as the AOA
approached wing AOAstall.
Based on DTV, LTV, and DLEV-TV results, it shows
that for a given AOA cases below the stall angle, each
morphing wing demonstrated higher intensities of TV
structure formations and LEV–TV interactions com-
pared to the baseline wings. Despite the slight depletion
in LTV magnitude (as AOA increase near the wing’s
stall angle), each morphing wing still managed to pro-
duce larger DTV and DLEV-TV magnitude compared to
the baseline wings. Theoretically, the twist morphing
mobility (washed-in twist) has encouraged higher inten-
sity of TV structure and LEV–TV interactions on
morphing wing. In fact, the morphing wings with
greater morphing force (5 N or 3 N) induced the
higher intensity of TV structure and LEV–TV inter-
actions on the wings. The twist morphing mobility
improves the low-pressure region over the wing surface
and further induces better lift performance for morph-
ing wings. Despite the better lift performance, the
morphing wings also suffered from earlier stall vortex
formations than the baseline wings. The twist morphing
mobility induced earlier vortices deterioration and
detachment on the MAV wing. Therefore, the morph-
ing wing with higher morphing force promotes earlier
stall condition on MAV wing.
Conclusion
The vortex formation results show that vortex forma-
tions are significantly altered throughout AOA
changes. The intensity of TV structure formations
and LEV–TV interactions, which are measured through
the DTV, LTV, and DLEV-TV magnitude increased with
the incremental increase of AOA. The results shows
that for a given AOA cases below the stall angle, each
morphing wings demonstrated higher intensities of TV
structure formations and LEV–TV interactions com-
pared to the baseline wings. Stronger LEV–TV inter-
action improves the low-pressure region over the
morphing wing surfaces and further induces better lift
performance. In fact, the morphing wing configuration
with higher morphing force produce better lift perform-
ance. However, the morphing wings also suffered from
earlier stall vortex formations compared to the mem-
brane or rigid wings. The morphing mobility induced
earlier vortices deterioration and detachment on the
MAV wing.
International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles 8(3)
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: The authors acknowledge the technical and financial
support from Universiti Teknologi MARA (Pulau Pinang)
and the financial supports from the Government
of Malaysia via Malaysia Ministry of Higher Education’s
Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS) (No. 600-
RMI/FRGS 5/3 (152/2014)).
References
1. Durai DT, Viswamurthy SR, Chaplod S, et al.
Development of a blended wing configuration MAV.
In: Symposium on applied aerodynamics and design of
aerospace vehicle (SAROD 2011), Bangalore, India,
2011.
2. Petricca L, Ohlckers P and Grinde C. Micro- and nano-
air vehicles: State of the art. Int J Aerosp Eng 2011; 2011:
1–17.
3. Barbarino S, Bilgen O, Ajaj RM, et al. A review of
morphing aircraft. J Intell Mater Syst Struct 2011; 22:
823–877.
4. McCormik BW. Aerodynamics, aeronautics and flight
mechanics, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1995.
5. Vasista S, Tong L and Wong KC. Realization of morph-
ing wings: A multidisciplinary challenge. J Aircraft 2012;
49: 11–28.
6. Thill C, Etches J, Bond I, et al. Morphing skins. Aeronaut J
2008; 3216: 1–23.
7. Gomez JC and Garcia E. Morphing unmanned aerial
vehicles. Smart Mater Struct 2011; 20: 1–16.
8. Ismail NI, Zulkifl AH, Abdullah MZ, et al.
Computational aerodynamic analysis on perimeter rein-
forced (PR)-compliant wing. Chin J Aeronaut 2013; 26:
1093–1105.
9. Abdulrahim M. Flight performance characteristics of a
biologically-inspired morphing aircraft. In: 43rd AIAA
aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, Reno, NV, USA,
2005.
10. Shang JK, Combes SA, Finio BM, et al. Artificial insect
wings of diverse morphology for flapping-wing micro air
vehicles. Bioinsp Biomim 2009; 4: 1–6.
11. Bachmann RJ, Vaidyanathan R, Boria FJ, et al. Flying
insects and robots: A miniature vehicle with extended aerial
and terrestrial mobility. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2009,
pp.247–269.
12. Mueller TJ and DeLaurier JD. Aerodynamics of small
vehicles. Ann Rev Fluid Mech 2003; 35: 89–111.
13. Mueller TJ and Torres GE. Aerodynamics of low aspect
ratio wings at low reynolds numbers with applications to
micro air vehicle design and optimization. Naval
Research Laboratory Report, University of Notre
Dame, USA, 2001.
 Ismail et al.
14. Srygley RB and Thomas ALR. Unconventional lift-gen-
erating mechanisms in free-flying butterflies. Nature
2002; 420: 660–664.
15. Sane SP. The aerodynamics of insect flight. J Exp Biol
2003; 206: 4191–4208.
16. Shields M and Mohseni K. Effects of sideslip on the aero-
dynamics of low-aspect-ratio. AIAA J 2012; 50: 85–99.
17. Taira K and Colonius T. Effect of tip vortices in low-
Reynolds-number poststall flow control. AIAA J 2009;
47: 749–756.
18. Ringuette MJ, Milano M and Gharib M. Role of the tip
vortex in the force generation of low-aspect-ratio normal
flat plates. J Fluid Mech 2007; 581: 453–468.
19. Koekkoek G, Muijres FT, Johansson LC, et al. Stroke
plane angle controls leading edge vortex in a bat-inspired
flapper. Comptes Rendus Me´canique 2012; 340: 95–106.
20. Colonius TIM and Taira K. Three-dimensional flows
around low-aspect-ratio flat-plate wings at low
Reynolds numbers. J Fluid Mech 2009; 623: 187–207.
21. Albertani R, Stanford BK, Hubner JP, et al.
Aerodynamic coefficients and deformation measurements
on flexible micro air vehicle wings. Exp Mech 2007; 47:
625–635.
22. Stanford BK and Ifju P. Membrane micro air vehicles
with adaptive aerodynamic twist: Numerical modeling.
J Aerosp Eng 2009; 22: 173–184.
View publication stats
205
23. Nakata T, Liu H, Tanaka Y, et al. Aerodynamics of a
bio-inspired flexible flapping-wing micro air vehicle.
Bioinsp Biomim 2011; 6: 1–11.
24. Ismail NI, Zulkifli AH, Abdullah MZ, et al. Optimization
of aerodynamic efficiency for twist morphing MAV wing.
Chin J Aeronaut 2014; 27: 475–487.
25. Stanford BK. Aeroelastic analysis and optimization of
membrane micro air vehicle wings. PhD Thesis
Dissertation, University of Florida, USA, 2008.
26. Stanford BK, Ifju P, Albertani R, et al. Fixed membrane
wings for micro air vehicles: Experimental characteriza-
tion, numerical modeling, and tailoring. Prog Aerosp Sci
2008; 44: 258–294.
27. Ismail NI. Aerodynamic performances of twist morphing
MAV wing. PhD Thesis, Universiti Teknologi MARA,
Malaysia, 2015.
28. Rojratsirikul P, Genc MS, Wang Z, et al. Flow-induced
vibrations of low aspect ratio rectangular membrane
wings. J Fluids Struct 2011; 27: 1296–1309.
29. Bleischwitz R, de Kat R and Ganapathisubramani B.
Aspect-ratio effects on aeromechanics of membrane
wings at moderate Reynolds numbers. AIAA J 2015;
53: 780–788.
30. Sohn MH and Chang JW. Visualization and PIV study of
wing-tip vortices for three different tip configurations.
Aerosp Sci Technol 2011; 16: 40–46.