N. Kato and H. Liu. Optimization of motion of a mechanical pectoral fin. JSME International Journal Series C Mechanical Systems, Machine Elements and Man- ufacturing, 46(4):1356–1362, 2003.
J. Katz and D. Weihs. Hydrodynamic propulsion by large amplitude oscillation of an airfoil with chordwise flexibility. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 88(3):485–497, 1978.
D. Kim and M. Gharib. Characteristics of vortex formation and thrust performance in drag-based paddling propulsion. Journal of Experimental Biology, 214(13):
2283–2291, 2011a.
D. Kim and M. Gharib. Flexibility effects on vortex formation of translating plates.
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 677:255–271, 2011b.
G. V. Lauder. Function of the caudal fin during locomotion in fishes: kinematics, flow visualization, and evolutionary patterns. American Zoologist, 40(1):101–
122, 2000.
G. V. Lauder and E. G. Drucker. Morphology and experimental hydrodynamics of fish fin control surfaces. IEEE journal of oceanic engineering, 29(3):556–571, 2004.
G. V. Lauder and P. G. Madden. Fish locomotion: kinematics and hydrodynamics of flexible foil-like fins. Experiments in Fluids, 43(5):641–653, 2007.
M. Lighthill. Hydromechanics of aquatic animal propulsion. Annual review of fluid mechanics, 1(1):413–446, 1969.
T. Lingham-Soliar. Caudal fin in the white shark, carcharodon carcharias (lamnidae):
a dynamic propeller for fast, efficient swimming. Journal of Morphology, 264 (2):233–252, 2005.
P. Liu and N. Bose. Propulsive performance from oscillating propulsors with span- wise flexibility. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathe- matical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 453(1963):1763–1770, 1997.
K. N. Lucas, N. Johnson, W. T. Beaulieu, E. Cathcart, G. Tirrell, S. P. Colin, B. J.
Gemmell, J. O. Dabiri, and J. H. Costello. Bending rules for animal propulsion.
Nature communications, 5:3293, 2014.
L. Maddock, Q. Bone, and J. M. Rayner. The Mechanics and Physiology of Animal Swimming. Cambridge University Press, 1994.
A. D. Marchese, C. D. Onal, and D. Rus. Autonomous soft robotic fish capable of escape maneuvers using fluidic elastomer actuators. Soft Robotics, 1(1):75–87, 2014.
N. Martin and M. Gharib. Experimental trajectory optimization of a flapping fin propulsor using an evolutionary strategy. Bioinspiration & biomimetics, 14(1):
016010, 2018.
N. K.-H. Martin. Analysis of flapping propulsion: comparison, characterization, and optimization. PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology, 2018.
S. Michelin and S. G. Llewellyn Smith. Resonance and propulsion performance of a heaving flexible wing. Physics of Fluids, 21(7):071902, 2009.
M. Milano and M. Gharib. Uncovering the physics of flapping flat plates with artificial evolution. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 534:403–409, 2005.
M. M. Plucinski, Y. L. Young, and Z. Liu. Optimization of a self-twisting composite marine propeller using genetic algorithms. In 16th International conference on composite materials, Kyoto, Japan, 2007.
P. Prempraneerach, F. Hover, and M. S. Triantafyllou. The effect of chordwise flexibility on the thrust and efficiency of a flapping foil. Proceedings Unmanned, Untethered Submersible Technology, 2003.
T. Rakotomamonjy, M. Ouladsine, and T. L. Moing. Modelization and kinematics optimization for a flapping-wing microair vehicle. Journal of Aircraft, 44(1):
217–231, 2007.
J. J. Rohr and F. E. Fish. Strouhal numbers and optimization of swimming by odontocete cetaceans. Journal of Experimental Biology, 207(10):1633–1642, 2004.
D. Roper, S. Sharma, R. Sutton, and P. Culverhouse. A review of developments towards biologically inspired propulsion systems for autonomous underwater vehicles.Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 225(2):77–96, 2011.
V. C. Sambilay Jr et al. Interrelationships between swimming speed, caudal fin aspect ratio and body length of fishes. Fishbyte, 8(3):16–20, 1990.
M. Sfakiotakis, D. M. Lane, and J. B. C. Davies. Review of fish swimming modes for aquatic locomotion. IEEE Journal of oceanic engineering, 24(2):237–252, 1999.
Z. Su, J. Yu, M. Tan, and J. Zhang. Implementing flexible and fast turning maneuvers of a multijoint robotic fish. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 19(1):
329–338, 2014.
B. Sudki, M. Lauria, and F. Noca. Marine propulsor based on a three-degree- of-freedom actuated spherical joint. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Marine Propulsors, pages 481–485, 2013.
A. H. Techet. Propulsive performance of biologically inspired flapping foils at high Reynolds numbers. Journal of Experimental Biology, 211(2):274–279, 2008.
M. S. Triantafyllou, G. Triantafyllou, and D. Yue. Hydrodynamics of fishlike swimming. Annual review of fluid mechanics, 32(1):33–53, 2000.
I. H. Tuncer and M. Kaya. Optimization of flapping airfoils for maximum thrust and propulsive efficiency. AIAA journal, 43(11):2329–2336, 2005.
S. Vogel. Life in moving fluids. Princeton University Press, 1994.
J. A. Walker and M. W. Westneat. Performance limits of labriform propulsion and correlates with fin shape and motion. Journal of Experimental Biology, 205(2):
177–187, 2002.
P. W. Webb. Form and function in fish swimming. Scientific American, 251(1):
72–83, 1984.
L. Wen, T. Wang, G. Wu, and J. Liang. Quantitative thrust efficiency of a self- propulsive robotic fish: Experimental method and hydrodynamic investigation.
IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 18(3):1027–1038, 2013.
Q. Zhu. Numerical simulation of a flapping foil with chordwise or spanwise flexi- bility. AIAA journal, 45(10):2448–2457, 2007.
A p p e n d i x A
EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENTS OF INVERTED FLAGS OF
AR=2 AT MODERATE ANGLES OF ATTACK
110
-100 0
-100 0 100 =2
-100 0 100 =4
-100 0 100 =6
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
-100 0 100 =8
=12
=14
=16
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
1/2
=18
=22
=24
Figure A.1: Maximum (◦), minimum (◦) and mean (•) deflection angle,Φ, for an inverted flag of AR=2 and µ= 2.76 as a function of non-dimensional flow velocity,κ, and angle of attack,α
111
0 1
0 1
2 =2
0 1 2
A/L
=4
0 1
2 =6
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
0 1
2 =8
=12
=14
=16
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
1/2
=18
=22
=24
Figure A.2: Maximum cross section, A’, for an inverted flag of AR=2 and µ= 2.76 as a function of non-dimensional flow velocity, κ, and angle of attack,α
112
0 2
=0
0 2 4
=2
0 2 4
f (Hz)
=4
0 2 4
=6
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
0 2 4
=8
=10
=12
=14
=16
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
1/2
=18
=20
=22
=24
Figure A.3: Frequency of motion, f, for an inverted flag of AR=2 and µ= 2.76 as a function of non-dimensional flow velocity, κ, and angle of attack,α
113
0 0.1
0 0.1
0.2 =2
0 0.1 0.2
St
=4
0 0.1
0.2 =6
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
0 0.1
0.2 =8
=12
=14
=16
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
1/2
=18
=22
=24
Figure A.4: Strouhal number,St = f A0/U, for an inverted flag of AR=2 and µ= 2.76 as a function of non-dimensional flow velocity,κ, and angle of attack,α
114
-100 0
-100 0 100 =2
-100 0 100 =4
-100 0 100 =6
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
-100 0 100 =8
=12
=14
=16
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
1/2
=18
=22
=24
Figure A.5: Maximum (◦), minimum (◦) and mean (•) deflection angle,Φ, for an inverted flag of AR=2 and µ= 2.62 as a function of non-dimensional flow velocity,κ, and angle of attack,α
115
0 1
0 1
2 =2
0 1 2
A/L
=4
0 1
2 =6
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
0 1
2 =8
=12
=14
=16
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
1/2
=18
=22
=24
Figure A.6: Maximum cross section, A’, for an inverted flag of AR=2 and µ= 2.62 as a function of non-dimensional flow velocity, κ, and angle of attack,α
116
0 2
=0
0 2 4
=2
0 2 4
f (Hz)
=4
0 2 4
=6
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
0 2 4
=8
=10
=12
=14
=16
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
1/2
=18
=20
=22
=24
Figure A.7: Frequency of motion, f, for an inverted flag of AR=2 and µ= 2.62 as a function of non-dimensional flow velocity, κ, and angle of attack,α
117
0 0.1
0 0.1
0.2 =2
0 0.1 0.2
St
=4
0 0.1
0.2 =6
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
0 0.1
0.2 =8
=12
=14
=16
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
1/2
=18
=22
=24
Figure A.8: Strouhal number,St = f A0/U, for an inverted flag of AR=2 and µ= 2.62 as a function of non-dimensional flow velocity,κ, and angle of attack,α
118
-100 0
-100 0 100 =2
-100 0 100 =4
-100 0 100 =6
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
-100 0 100 =8
=12
=14
=16
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
1/2
=18
=22
=24
=26
Figure A.9: Maximum (◦), minimum (◦) and mean (•) deflection angle,Φ, for an inverted flag of AR=2 and µ= 2.49 as a function of non-dimensional flow velocity,κ, and angle of attack,α
119
0 1
0 1
2 =2
0 1 2
A/L
=4
0 1
2 =6
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
0 1
2 =8
=12
=14
=16
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
1/2
=18
=22
=24
=26
Figure A.10: Maximum cross section, A’, for an inverted flag of AR=2 and µ= 2.49 as a function of non-dimensional flow velocity, κ, and angle of attack,α
120
0 2
=0
0 2 4
=2
0 2 4
f (Hz)
=4
0 2 4
=6
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
0 2 4
=8
=10
=12
=14
=16
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
1/2
=18
=20
=22
=24
=26
Figure A.11: Frequency of motion, f, for an inverted flag of AR=2 and µ=2.49 as a function of non-dimensional flow velocity, κ, and angle of attack,α