Numerical Study of Bio-Inspired Corrugated Airfoil Geometry in a
Forward Flight at a Low Reynolds Number
YAGYA DUTTA DWIVEDI1, SUDHIR SASTRY Y. B.2, BDY SUNIL1,
CH. V. K. N. S. N. MOORTHY3, K. VISWANATH ALLAMRAJU1
1Department of Aeronautical Engineering, Institute of Aeronautical Engineering, Dundigal,
Hyderabad, Telangana, 500043, INDIA
2Department of Aerospace Engineering, International Institute of Aerospace Engineering and
Management, Jain Deemed to be
University, Bengaluru, 562112, INDIA
3Vasavi College of Engineering, Ibrahimbagh, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500031, INDIA
Abstract: - In this study, the effects of variations in the parametric geometry on the aerodynamic efficiency and
longitudinal static stability of a bio-inspired airfoil were assessed using the computational method at a low
Reynolds number of 80000. The investigation aims to recognize the influence of corrugations on aerodynamic
forces and moments and compare them with a non-corrugated profile having similar geometry without
corrugations. Three different airfoils were chosen, the first triangular peaked corrugated is inspired from the
mid-section of a dragonfly wing, the second modified simplified corrugated is a different form of the dragonfly
wing section, which was modified to match the maximum thickness of the first airfoil, and the third is a non-
corrugated Hybrid airfoil obtained by joining the peaks of the second airfoil. These three models were
fabricated using an additive manufacturing process to undertake the experimental work in a low subsonic wind
tunnel to find aerodynamic characteristics. ANSYS FLUENT solver was applied to unravel the steady, laminar,
incompressible, two-dimensional, RANS equations. The tests were performed for 4 to +20 degrees angle of
attack at a Reynolds number of 80,000. The result revealed that the Hybrid airfoil is suitable only for up to a 4-
degree angle of attack. The modified simple corrugated airfoil produced significant aerodynamic performance
at high angles of attack than the other two tested airfoils. The flow field study also showed the same results.
Results are validated with experimental work and also with existing literature.
Key-Words: Aerodynamic performance, static stability, Bio-inspired corrugated airfoil, low Reynolds number,
computational fluid dynamics
Received: May 29, 2021. Revised: April 18, 2022. Accepted: May 15, 2022. Published: July 12, 2022.
1 Introduction
Over millions of years, Nature has evolved all
avians and insects to have definite wings. By
flapping, avians can create sufficient lift and thrust
force to make them highly maneuverable, fly easily,
and sustained endurance. Due to these qualities,
researchers have taken a lot of interest to understand
the said field of the flapping wing over the past few
decades. Consequently, this has given me the
advantage to understand deeper flapping wing
aerodynamics, which paves the way for the better
design of future micro aerial vehicles (MAVs).
Biologists discovered that the dragonfly is one of
the most agile insects of nature, which fly at a low-
Re regime [1], [2] during the 1970s and 1990s. The
dragonfly (Aeshna cyanea) forewing mid- cross-
section is characterized by well-defined
corrugations with varying dimensions over the span
from root to tip. The corrugated wing of the
dragonfly demonstrates sufficient hovering
capability [3] and also enhances considerably
bending resistance during flapping [4]. Further
study revealed that there is a considerable
enhancement of aerodynamic performance (high
L/D) due to corrugations [5] or having insignificant
sensitivity of the Re variations[6]. Later some
experimental analyses showed that the corrugated
airfoil outclassed the conventional airfoil operating
in low-Re conditions [7], [8].These studies have
generated interest in the researchers to try and to
understand the causes for the enhancement of the
aerodynamic performance and stability of
corrugated wings inspired by the dragonfly. Some
numerical work was performed and showed trapped
unsteady vortexes inside the valleys of the
corrugation[9]. These unsteady vortexes produce
low pressure on the upper surface and enhance lift
force and promote the transition from laminar to
turbulent boundary layers flow and attach to the
upper surface. The turbulent flow owns higher
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on FLUID MECHANICS
DOI: 10.37394/232013.2022.17.12
Yagya Dutta Dwivedi, Sudhir Sastry Y. B.,
Bdy Sunil, Ch. V. K. N. S. N. Moorthy,
K. Viswanath Allamraju
E-ISSN: 2224-347X
119
Volume 17, 2022
kinetic energy than laminar flow so it will overcome
the negative pressure gradient. This phenomenon
reduces the flow separation and delays the stall of
the airfoil [8].Another important numerical study
[10] has demonstrated that there exists a strong
negative pressure between the leading edge (LE)
and the first corrugation. The next corrugations also
generate depression with lesser intensity than the
first corrugation. The most severe suction zone that
exists between the LE and the first corrugation, is
the principal cause of the enhanced lift and reduced
drag. Seifert and Levy [11], have undertaken a study
to explain the behavior of the flow around multiple
models of corrugated airfoils. They explained that
the flow accelerates around the leading edge, and
boundary layers appear to be detached, which is
reattaching the backward part of the airfoil and
reducing flow separation.
Even though most of the above studies have focused
to understand the flow pattern and aerodynamic
efficiency of bio-inspired corrugated airfoils and
most of them have compared results with a flat
plate. The flat plate does not have any camber and
also maximum thickness of the flat plate cannot be
compared with the bio-inspired corrugated
airfoil.Therefore, the comparison with flat plate and
the knowledge gained in previous work, can't be
used for comprehension of the effects of
corrugations in the current state. In the present
work, the bio-inspired airfoil taken from the
dragonfly mid-span is obtained from the work of
Tamai and Hu [8]. This airfoil is then filled with
material, so the corrugations are removed and the
geometrical parameters are identical to the bio-
inspired airfoil called hybrid airfoil and then
compared the aerodynamic characteristics
computationally. Another airfoil which is also bio-
inspired corrugated has identical geometry except
the maximum thickness location is shifted towards
the trailing edge by 0.1c from the previous bio-
inspired airfoil. The primary objective of this work
is to assess the efficacy of bio-inspired corrugation
on the aerodynamic performance at Reynold number
80000, which can be used for modern micro aerial
vehicles in the future. The goals of this study are to
investigate the phenomenon responsible for the
augmentation of the aerodynamic performance and
static longitudinal stability of the bio-inspired
corrugated airfoil and to determine the effects of
corrugation on the flow structure and efficiency of
the airfoil. The three CAD models of airfoils were
prepared using commercial software and flow was
simulated by using ANSYS Fluent software. The
models were also fabricated by using a three-
dimensional (3D) printing machine and
aerodynamic characteristics were measured by
open-ended sub-sonic wind tunnel by the varying
angle of attack (AoA) from -4 to +20 degrees at a
fixed Reynolds number of 80000.
2 Methodology
2.1 Airfoil Geometry
The bio-inspired corrugated airfoil cross-section
derived from the mid-span section of a dragonfly
wing (Aeshna cyanea) was obtained by Kesel[12]
and has been named as triangular peak corrugated
airfoil for this study (figure 1 a).A similar airfoil
cross-section was also studied by Vergas et al.[13].
The second airfoil used in this study has been
named a modified simple corrugated airfoil and was
based on the airfoil given by Vargas et al.[13],
however, a modification was made to this profile to
match the maximum thickness of the triangular peak
corrugated airfoil (figure 1 b). The third airfoil was
constructed by joining the peaks of the modified
simple corrugated airfoil making it a hybrid, non-
corrugated airfoil, and was thus named as hybrid
airfoil (figure 1 c). All three profiles (figure 1) were
adjusted to have the same maximum thickness of
10.5 mm and a chord length of 80 mm. Three
dimensional (3D), CAD models of all the three
wings were made for these profiles for fabrication
and subsequent experimentation using CATIA V5
with a span of 400 mm(Aspect ratio=5).
Fig. 1: Airfoil Geometries: (a) Triangular peak
corrugated airfoil; (b)Modified simple corrugated
airfoil; (c) Hybrid non-corrugated airfoil.
2.2 Numerical Settings
2.2.1 Computational Domain
To carry out a numerical analysis of the selected
airfoils, a rectangular domain was chosen. The
domain was constructed such that the domain
extended for a distance 3 times the chord length (c)
of the airfoil upstream of the airfoil, 5 times the
chord length downstream of the airfoil, and 1.5
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on FLUID MECHANICS
DOI: 10.37394/232013.2022.17.12
Yagya Dutta Dwivedi, Sudhir Sastry Y. B.,
Bdy Sunil, Ch. V. K. N. S. N. Moorthy,
K. Viswanath Allamraju
E-ISSN: 2224-347X
120
Volume 17, 2022
times the chord length above and below the airfoil
(figure 2).
Fig. 1: Computational Domain
2.2.2 Mesh Generation
The discretization for the 2D domain has been
accomplished using ANSYS software. The required
element size near the airfoil surface was calculated
based on the wall y+ value. To calculate the wall y+
value, the desired y value was assumed to be 11
since the Reynolds number for this study falls under
the laminar flow regime. Thus, the wall spacing(Δs)
value of 0.5 mm was obtained by using Eq. 1.
Where y+ is a non-dimensional distance from the
wall, μ is fluid kinematic viscosity, ρ is the fluid
density and Ufric is the frictional velocity of the
surface.

 (1)
Thus, a sphere of influence was created around the
airfoil (figure 3.) with a radius of 80 mm (1.5 times
the chord length of the airfoil) and an element size
obtained through the wall spacing calculation as
mentioned above (0.5 mm). This sphere of influence
was created to improve the accuracy of the
calculation by maintaining a very fine mesh within
the sphere. The elements generated in the mesh are
quadrilateral dominant with a face sizing of element
size 1 millimeter and with an inflation of 5 layers
thickness at the airfoil edges (figure 4.) which
further improves the accuracy of the solution. The
mesh thus generated had skewness and
orthogonality with 0.35 and 0.79 respectively
indicating that the mesh is of good quality (figure
5).
Fig. 3: Domain mesh and sphere of influence.
Fig. 4: Inflation around airfoil surface.
Fig. 5: Mesh Quality
2.2.3 Solver Settings
ANSYS FLUENT solver was used to conduct the
CFD simulation and analysis for the airfoils. This
fluent solver is based on the finite volume method.
The flow Reynolds number (Re)in this study is
80,000,which falls in the laminar region and hence
the flow was considered to be laminar. Since the
temperature and energy changes of the flow are
negligible, the energy equation is taken as constant
for this simulation model.
Since the flow is incompressible as the Mach
number is less than 0.3, the viscous model which is
worn by K-epsilon (2-equations) with standard K-
epsilon and standard wall function is been used. The
solution method for velocity and pressure coupling
for the SIMPLE scheme, with spatial discretization
in the least square gradient with 2nd order pressure
with 2nd order upwind momentum at turbulent
kinetic energy and turbulent dissipation rate for both
at 1st order upwind was used.
The parameter reports of lift drag and pitching
moment were generated at various angles of attack
from -4 to +20deg for calculation of aerodynamics
performance and longitudinal stability. A residual
limit of 1e-5 was set as the convergence criteria for
the analysis to obtain highly accurate results.
The following equations were used to get the
required parametric data from the computational
analysis. The equations include RANS equation (2),
equations for coefficients of lift (3), drag (4), and
pitching moment (5).
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on FLUID MECHANICS
DOI: 10.37394/232013.2022.17.12
Yagya Dutta Dwivedi, Sudhir Sastry Y. B.,
Bdy Sunil, Ch. V. K. N. S. N. Moorthy,
K. Viswanath Allamraju
E-ISSN: 2224-347X
121
Volume 17, 2022
󰇛󰇜



󰇩󰇧



󰇨󰇪

󰆒
(2)


(3)


(4)


(5)
In these equations the ρ is the fluid density, ui and uj
are the velocity components in the x-direction, p is
pressure, xi and xj are the horizontal distance, CL,
CD, and CM are the coefficient of lift, drag, and
pitching moment respectively, U is the free stream
velocity, S is the area of the wing, M is pitching
moment.
2.3 Experimental Setup
2.3.1 Wind Tunnel
The wind tunnel isseparated into some different
parts: the convergent section, test section, and
divergent section. The motor rotates the fans and the
required wind velocity is developed inside the test
section. Turbulence intensity is kept within the limit
in the test section using honeycomb and two layers
of stainless steel wire screens (figure 6). The size of
the test section is 0.6x0.6x2 m. The flow velocity is
measured by a 30-degree inclined tube manometer
to get better accuracy. This wind tunnel can operate
the free velocity ranging from 3 m/s to 50 m/s. The
three forces (lift, drag, and side force) and three
moments are measured by six-component balance
with the help of strain gauges and the Wheat Stone
bridge principle. The accuracy of velocity
measurement is ± 0.5 m/s, force measurement ±0.5
N, and maximum turbulence is 1%. Six component
balance is calibrated before starting the present test
(figure 6). The Triangular peak corrugated airfoilis
fixed inside the wind tunnel as shown in figure 7.
The other wing models are also fixed similarly.
There are three main sources of errors[14] during
measurements of the forces and moments: accuracy
of angles of attack, scale errors of the balance load
cell, and errors due to variation of the density which
affects the dynamic pressure (1/2 ρ V2).
Considering these errors, the forces and moment
evaluation were estimated to be reliable in the tested
flow range.
Fig. 6: A-Wing model inside the wind tunnel test
section
Fig. 7: Triangular Peak Corrugated airfoil in wind
tunnel test section
2.3.2 Models and Flow Condition
The first model hereafter Triangular Peak
Corrugated (TPC) airfoil is obtained from the
forewing of the dragonfly mid-span. The
coordinates were obtained from the work of
Dwivedi et al. [15]. The model is generated by
putting coordinates in the CAD software. This
model is the mimicking of the real forewing of the
dragonfly. The thickness of the material is 4 mm,
the chord is 80 mm and the span is 400 mm. The
maximum thickness (tmax) is 10% of the chord
(0.1c) at 40 % of the chord. This model is geometric
similar to a dragonfly wing at mid-span (figure 8a).
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on FLUID MECHANICS
DOI: 10.37394/232013.2022.17.12
Yagya Dutta Dwivedi, Sudhir Sastry Y. B.,
Bdy Sunil, Ch. V. K. N. S. N. Moorthy,
K. Viswanath Allamraju
E-ISSN: 2224-347X
122
Volume 17, 2022
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 8: 3D printed models of (a) Triangular peak
corrugated airfoil, (b) Modified simple corrugated
airfoil, and (c) Hybrid airfoil.
The second model hereafter Modified Simple
Corrugated (MSC) airfoil, was obtained from the
work of [13]. However, the airfoil was modified by
increasing the height of the second peak and also
increasing the maximum thickness to match the
triangular peak airfoil (figure 8b).
The third model hereafter Hybrid airfoil is a non-
corrugated airfoil created by joining the peaks of the
modified simple corrugated airfoil (figure 8c).
All three models have the same chord length of 80
mm and a span of 400 mm leaving a gap of 100 mm
on both sides of the test section between the models
and walls to avoid flow interference with the wall
and wing. The height and width of the test section
are 600 mm and 600 mm respectively, the blockage
ratio was < 1%. A substantial gap with the wind
tunnel walls is maintained to avoid the wall effects
of the wind tunnel.
3 Results and Discussion
3.1 Aerodynamic Characteristics
Lift, drag, and pitching moment were the primary
aerodynamic parameters calculated for the different
airfoils considered over a range of 4 to 20-degree
angles of attack. Plots comparing these parameters,
the three airfoils were generated using MATLAB
R2021a.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 9: (a) Variation of coefficient of lift (CL)and b)
Coefficient of drag (CD) with the angle of attack
(AOA) at Re 80000.
The plot CL vs AOA showed that the Hybrid airfoil
and the MSC airfoil were producing nearly the same
amount of lift coefficient up to 8 degrees AOA,
however, the TPC airfoil was producing
approximately 15% lesser CL than the other two
tested airfoils. However, between 8 to 12 Degree
AOA, it was observed that the rate of CL produced
by Hybrid airfoil had reduced before decreasing
rapidly to 20 degrees AOA. Also, the amount of lift
produced by the MSC airfoil kept on increasing
significantly to 12 to 16 degrees AOA. At 20
degrees AOA, the difference in CL between the
MSC and TPC airfoil and the Hybrid airfoil was
found 25%. The results alsoshowed that all the
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on FLUID MECHANICS
DOI: 10.37394/232013.2022.17.12
Yagya Dutta Dwivedi, Sudhir Sastry Y. B.,
Bdy Sunil, Ch. V. K. N. S. N. Moorthy,
K. Viswanath Allamraju
E-ISSN: 2224-347X
123
Volume 17, 2022
airfoils produced a negative lift at -4 degree AOA
(figure. 9 a)
It is noticed from figure 9(b), that the CD produced
byboth corrugated airfoils were almost similar up to
12 degrees AOA in that the Hybrid airfoil showed
the least drag coefficient. However, above 120
AOA, the CD produced by the Hybrid airfoil
increased sharply and after 160 AOA the hybrid
airfoil showed the highest increase in CD. This
shows that the drag produced by Hybrid airfoils
increases rapidly at high AOA whereas the
corrugated airfoils show a gradual increase in CL
and a gradual decrease in CD. Between the two
corrugated airfoil profiles chosen, it was observed
that the MSC airfoil consistently produced higher
lift and lower drag than the TPC airfoil. Thus the
MSC airfoil can provide better aerodynamic
efficiency than the TPC airfoil.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 10: (a) Variation of CL/CD with AOA and b)
Coefficient of the moment (CM)Vs AOA at Re
80000.
The hybrid airfoil has the highest aerodynamic
performance (10) at 4 degrees AOA and then falls
tremendouslyand becomes lesser than the other two
tested airfoils at 20 degrees AOA and beyond. But,
there is a sharp decline in the aerodynamic
performance (CL/CD)from 10 to 2when AOA
increased from 4 to 20 degrees (figure 10 a). This
indicates that the Hybrid airfoil is not
suitableforhigher AOA and its efficiency decreases
very rapidly. However, the corrugated airfoils
showed maximum aerodynamic performance of 6,
at 8 degrees AOA and the decrease in performance
after that wasn’t as sharp as that of the Hybrid
airfoil. At 20 degrees AOA, it can be seen that the
Hybrid airfoil had the lowest performance among
the three airfoils whereas the MSC airfoil had the
best performance among all three tested airfoils.
This showed that the corrugated airfoils are more
efficient at higher angles of attack than conventional
airfoils. Between, the two corrugated airfoils, it is
clear that the MSC airfoil has better aerodynamic
efficiency than the TPC across all the tested ranges
of AOA up to 20 degrees. Hence, the MSC airfoil
may be much more useful in flight, where there is a
large variation of the angle of attack like in bio-
inspired flights of insects and birds (figure 10 a).
To assess the longitudinal (pitching) static stability
of the present work, the variation of the coefficient
of the moment (CM) with AOA was considered. The
conditions for the longitudinal static stability are
Cmα< 0 and Cm0> 0. It was perceived that the
pitching moment increases with an increase in AOA
in all the three tested airfoils. The positive
magnitude of CM indicates the clockwise direction
of the moment (nose up). Since clockwise moment
increases longitudinal instability, it is desired to
have a less positive CM to ensure a stable flight. It
was seen from figure 10(b) that at 40 AOA, the
Hybrid airfoil and the MSC airfoil produced almost
the same amount of CM whereas the TPC airfoil
produced significantly less CM. However, as the
AOA increased, the CM produced by the corrugated
airfoils increased at a higher rate than that of the
Hybrid airfoil. Between 8 and 12 degrees AOA, it
was observed that there is a sudden increase in the
CM produced by both the corrugated airfoils as
compared to the Hybrid airfoil. Also, at 120 AOA,
the CM produced by the TPC airfoil exceeds that of
the Hybrid airfoil. Figure 10 (b)shows that the CM
produced by both corrugated airfoils is higher than
the Hybrid airfoil at high AOA. This showed that
both corrugated airfoils generated high longitudinal
instability at a higher angle of attack and the non-
corrugated airfoil is comparatively less unstable.
This instability is essential for the higher
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on FLUID MECHANICS
DOI: 10.37394/232013.2022.17.12
Yagya Dutta Dwivedi, Sudhir Sastry Y. B.,
Bdy Sunil, Ch. V. K. N. S. N. Moorthy,
K. Viswanath Allamraju
E-ISSN: 2224-347X
124
Volume 17, 2022
maneuverability and agility of the dragonfly as the
stability and maneuverability are just the opposite of
the activities.
3.2 Streamlines
Streamlines were obtained at 0-degree AOA for
each profile. Figure 11(a) and 11 (b) depict the
circulation of flow in the clockwise direction in the
valleys of the corrugated profiles. The flow
direction inside the valley is opposite to the
direction of the flow in the free stream. This
circulation of flow is interpreted as trapped leading-
edge vortices (LEVs). These LEVs reduce the drag
of the flow while providing a smoothing effect like
a smooth conventional airfoil. This caused the delay
in the boundary layer separation which is a
phenomenon similar to that which can be observed
in a golf ball as it moves through the air. This results
in a reduction in the net drag produced by the
corrugated airfoil. However, these trapped vortices
weren't seen in the Hybrid airfoil (figure 11c) due to
the absence of peaks and valleys in this
configuration.
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 11: Streamlines at 0 degrees AOA: (a)
Triangular Peak airfoil; (b) Modified Simple
Corrugated airfoil; (c) Hybrid airfoil.
3.3 Numerical Flow Analysis
3.3.1 Velocity Distribution
The velocity contours of the three tested airfoils are
shown in figure 12. These contours are obtained by
ANSYS CFD_POST for the AOA of 8, 16, and 20
degrees and Reynolds number 80,000. At 8 degrees
AOA, all the corrugated airfoils showed nearly
similar flow characteristics. That’s why the CL, CD
and CL/CD at this 8 degrees AOA for both
corrugated airfoils are similar (figure 9, 10). At 16
degrees AOA, the velocity contours of the TPC
airfoil had discontinuity on the upper side and the
MSC airfoil was not observed. However, the Hybrid
airfoil generates lesser lift and higher drag than the
corrugated airfoils. Also, the flow separation was
started in a Hybrid airfoil but the other two were
found to be attached flow with the least drag. The
high-velocity zone in TPC and MSC airfoils was
found to be at 2c to 3c downstream and in Hybrid
airfoils, it's less than 0.7c where c is the chord
length of the airfoil. That is why a significant drop
in the aerodynamic performance of the Hybrid
airfoil was noticed in this AOA (Figure 10 a). This
was not found in the other two airfoils. At 20
degrees AOA, the Hybrid wings velocity system is
broken down and full separation with a high amount
of drag was noticed.
The drag of the MSC airfoil was found 15% lesser
than the triangular peaked airfoil at 20 degrees
AOA. So the MSC airfoil could be used for power
saving of the propulsion system. This reduction of
the drag could be due to the discontinuation in
velocity in the MSC airfoil and the formation of the
LEVs in the corrugated airfoils.
Fig. 12: Velocity contour of the Hybrid, Triangular
Peak Corrugated, and Modified Simple Corrugated
airfoil at Re = 80,000.
3.3.2 Pressure Distribution
The pressure contours of all the three tested airfoils
are shown in figure 13 for the AOA 8, 16, and 20
degrees at Re 80,000. Up to 8 degrees AOA, the
Hybrid airfoil showed better flow characteristics
(high lift and less drag). However, as the AOA is
increased to 16 degrees the pressure on the upper
surface is reduced on the corrugated airfoils and
trailing edge vortices observed in Hybrid and TPC
airfoils (blue dot). This vortex was not seen in the
MSC airfoil and hence the lift on the MSC airfoil is
the best out of the three tested airfoils. At 20
degrees AOA, the Hybrid airfoil showed a fully
chaotic flow. The corrugated airfoils showed better
flow behavior than the Hybrid airfoil. The intensity
of the trailing edge vortices for both corrugated
wings was less than the hybrid airfoil.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on FLUID MECHANICS
DOI: 10.37394/232013.2022.17.12
Yagya Dutta Dwivedi, Sudhir Sastry Y. B.,
Bdy Sunil, Ch. V. K. N. S. N. Moorthy,
K. Viswanath Allamraju
E-ISSN: 2224-347X
125
Volume 17, 2022
Fig. 13: Pressure distribution on the Hybrid, TPC,
and MSC airfoil at Re = 80,000.
3.4 Validation
The validation of computation work was carried out
by wind tunnel testing at the Institute of
Aeronautical Engineering, Hyderabad, Indiaof the
triangular peak airfoil as this represented the
forewing of the dragonfly. Numerous research
works were done in past on this airfoil and
experimental results are also available to compare
the present experimental and computational work.
The results obtained in this study were validated by
the results obtained by Murphy and Hu [6]at
Re=80000. Figure 14 and figure 15 showed the
comparison of the variation of the coefficient of lift
and drag for AOA of the TPC airfoil for the present
computational work and experimental work. The
comparison showed that the results of the present
computational work are less than 4% deviation up to
8 degrees AOA in the linear zone, and less than 7%
deviation found up to 12 degrees AOA. The
variation in results was found to be more at 16 and
20 degrees AOA. It's due to the nonlinear nature of
the fluid flow behavior, which the used software
might have not able to predict accurately. The
experimental CD results are very close to the
computational work up to 80 AOA. However, the
deviation increases more at the higher AOA. The
results of the aerodynamic characteristics of the
TPC airfoil match sufficiently and the results are
also validated by the experimental work of Murphy
and Hu [6] as shown in Figures 14 and 15.
Fig. 14: Validation of results of variation of
coefficient of lift (CL) with (AOA) at Re=80000.
Fig. 15: Validation of results of variation of
coefficient of drag (CD) with (AOA) at Re=80000.
4 Conclusions
The following conclusions are drawn by observing
the results:
The lift coefficient (CL) of Hybrid and
modified simple corrugated (MSC) airfoils
are similar up to 8 degrees AOA. However,
for triangular peaked corrugated (TPC)
airfoil the CL was found 20% less than both.
Above 8 degrees AOA, the MSC airfoil
produced 20% more CL in comparison with
the Hybrid airfoil and 30% more than the
TPC airfoil. Above 16 degrees AOA, the
sharp drop of CL of Hybrid airfoil was
found to be 40%.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on FLUID MECHANICS
DOI: 10.37394/232013.2022.17.12
Yagya Dutta Dwivedi, Sudhir Sastry Y. B.,
Bdy Sunil, Ch. V. K. N. S. N. Moorthy,
K. Viswanath Allamraju
E-ISSN: 2224-347X
126
Volume 17, 2022
The Drag coefficient (CD) of TPC and MSC
airfoils is almost similar in all tested AOA.
The Hybrid airfoil showed lesser CD among
the other two airfoils ranging from 20-30%
at different AOA.
The aerodynamic performance (CL/CD) of
the Hybrid airfoil increased to 10 at 4
degrees AOA and then falls sharply to 2 at
20 degrees AOA. The other two corrugated
airfoils showed similar CL/CD up to 8
degrees AOA. Beyond 16 degree AOA, the
MSC airfoil outperformed the remaining
two airfoils.
The longitudinal static stability of all
airfoils increased with an increase in AOA
up to 12 degrees and hence the dCM/dα is
positive. However, beyond 12 degrees
AOA, the CM of Hybrid and TPC airfoils
started falling. The CM of the MSC airfoil
increased continuously up to the tested
maximum AOA of 20 degrees. This showed
that the Hybrid and TPC airfoils are
unstable up to 12 degrees AOA. The MSC
airfoil showed always unstable and no
effects of AOA were felt in this airfoil.
All these above conclusions are easily
visualized by the computational simulation
by noticing leading-edge vortices, pressure
and velocity variations, and trapped vortices
inside the valleys of the corrugation. The
results are also validated by experimental
work and with the existing previous work of
Murphy and Hu [6].
References:
[1] K. Kawachi, “Flight Mechanism of Insect.
From Standpoint of View of Bio-
Fluiddynamics.,” Seibutsu Butsuri, vol. 39, no.
5, Sep. (1999), DOI: 10.2142/biophys.39.279.
[2] B. Newman, S. Savage, and D. Schouella,
“Model Test on a Wing Section of an Aeschna
Dragonfly,” Scale effects in animal locomotion,
pp. 445–477, (1997).
[3] J. Wakeling and C. Ellington, “Dragonfly
flight. I. Gliding flight and steady-state
aerodynamic forces.,” Journal of Experimental
Biology, vol. 200, no. 3, pp. 543–556, Feb.
(1997), DOI: 10.1242/jeb.200.3.543.
[4] C. J. C. REES, “Form and function in
corrugated insect wings,” Nature, vol. 256, no.
5514, pp. 200–203, Jul. (1975), DOI:
10.1038/256200a0.
[5] M. Okamoto, K. Yasuda, and A. Azuma,
“Aerodynamic characteristics of the wings and
body of a dragonfly,” Journal of Experimental
Biology, vol. 199, no. 2, pp. 281–294, Feb.
(1996), DOI: 10.1242/jeb.199.2.281.
[6] J. T. Murphy and H. Hu, “An experimental
study of a bio-inspired corrugated airfoil for
micro air vehicle applications,” Experiments in
Fluids, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 531–546, Aug.
(2010), DOI: 10.1007/s00348-010-0826-z.
[7] Tsuzuki N, “A study on a miniature rotary-
wing vehicle for mars exploration: its
feasibility and aerodynamic characteristics of
the rotor,” (2005).
[8] M. Tamai, Z. Wang, G. Rajagopalan, H. Hu,
and G. He, “Aerodynamic Performance of a
Corrugated Dragonfly Airfoil Compared with
Smooth Airfoils at Low Reynolds Numbers,”
(2007).
[9] A. Obata and S. Shinohara, “Flow visualization
study of the aerodynamics of modeled
dragonfly wings,” AIAA Journal, vol. 47, no.
12, pp. 3043–3047, Dec. (2009), DOI:
10.2514/1.43836.
[10] C. J. Barnes and M. R. Visbal, “Numerical
exploration of the origin of aerodynamic
enhancements in [low-Reynolds number]
corrugated airfoils,” Physics of Fluids, vol. 25,
no. 11, Aug. (2013), DOI: 10.1063/1.4832655.
[11] D. E. Levy and A. Seifert, “Simplified
dragonfly airfoil aerodynamics at Reynolds
numbers below 8000,” Physics of Fluids, vol.
21, no. 7, (2009), DOI: 10.1063/1.3166867.
[12] A. Kesel. Aerodynamic Characteristics of
Dragonfly Wing Sections Compared with
Technical Airfoils. J Exp Biol; 203: 3125–3135
(2000)
[13] A. Vargas, R. Mittal, and H. Dong, “A
computational study of the aerodynamic
performance of a dragonfly wing section in
gliding flight.,” Bio inspiration & bio mimetics,
vol. 3, no. 2, p. 26004, (2008), DOI:
10.1088/1748-3182/3/2/026004.
[14] É. Mangeol, D. Ishiwaki, N. Wallisky, K. Asai,
and T. Nonomura, “Compressibility effects on
flat-plates with serrated leading-edges at a low
Reynolds number,” Experiments in Fluids, vol.
58, no. 11, Nov. (2017), DOI: 10.1007/s00348-
017-2443-6.
[15] Y. D. Dwivedi and Y B Sudhir Sastry, “An
experimental flow field study of a bio-inspired
corrugated wing at low Reynolds number,”
INCAS Bulletin, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 55–65,
(2019), DOI: 10.13111/2066-8201.2019.11.3.5.
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)
This article is published under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en
_US
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on FLUID MECHANICS
DOI: 10.37394/232013.2022.17.12
Yagya Dutta Dwivedi, Sudhir Sastry Y. B.,
Bdy Sunil, Ch. V. K. N. S. N. Moorthy,
K. Viswanath Allamraju
E-ISSN: 2224-347X
127
Volume 17, 2022