Kinematic Condition for Maximizing the Thrust of a Robotic Fish Using a Compliant Caudal Fin

The compliance of a fin affects the thrust of underwater vehicles mimicking the undulatory motion of fish. Determining the optimal compliance of a fin to maximize thrust is an important issue in designing robotic fish using a compliant fin. We present a simple method to identify the condition for maximizing the thrust generated by a compliant fin propulsion system. When a fin oscillates in a sinusoidal manner, it also bends in a sinusoidal manner. We focus on a particular kinematic parameter of this motion: the phase difference between the sinusoidal motion of the driving angle and the fin-bending angle. By observing the relationship between the thrust and phase difference, we conclude that while satisfying the zero velocity condition, the maximum thrust is obtained when a compliance creates a phase difference of approximately π/2 at a certain undulation frequency. This half-pi phase delay condition is supported by thrust measurements from different compliant fins (four caudal-shaped fins with different aspect ratios) and a beam bending model of the compliant fin. This condition can be used as a guideline to select the proper compliance of a fin when designing a robotic fish.

[1]  Neil Anthony Sims,et al.  Fish without footprints , 2011, OCEANS'11 MTS/IEEE KONA.

[2]  Fangfang Liu,et al.  Hydrodynamics of an Undulating Fin for a Wave-Like Locomotion System Design , 2012, IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics.

[3]  Masataka Nakabayashi,et al.  Bioinspired Propulsion Mechanism Using a Fin with a Dynamic Variable-Effective-Length Spring , 2009 .

[4]  T. Y. Wu,et al.  Swimming of a waving plate , 1961, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[5]  George V. Lauder,et al.  Learning from fish: Kinematics and experimental hydrodynamics for roboticists , 2006, Int. J. Autom. Comput..

[6]  Christopher J. Esposito,et al.  A robotic fish caudal fin: effects of stiffness and motor program on locomotor performance , 2012, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[7]  M. Lighthill.  Aquatic animal propulsion of high hydromechanical efficiency , 1970, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[8]  Yonghui Hu,et al.  Optimized design and implementation of biomimetic robotic dolphin , 2005, 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics - ROBIO.

[9]  Daegyoum Kim,et al.  Characteristics of vortex formation and thrust performance in drag-based paddling propulsion , 2011, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[10]  Jun Zhang,et al.  Surprising behaviors in flapping locomotion with passive pitching , 2010 .

[11]  Christopher J. Esposito,et al.  Use of biorobotic models of highly deformable fins for studying the mechanics and control of fin forces in fishes. , 2011, Integrative and comparative biology.

[12]  F. Fish,et al.  STABILIZATION MECHANISM IN SWIMMING ODONTOCETE CETACEANS BY PHASED MOVEMENTS , 2003 .

[13]  K. H. Low,et al.  Modelling and parametric study of modular undulating fin rays for fish robots , 2009 .

[14]  Kyu-Jin Cho,et al.  Review of biomimetic underwater robots using smart actuators , 2012 .

[15]  Kamal Youcef-Toumi,et al.  Performance of Machines with Flexible Bodies Designed for Biomimetic Locomotion in Liquid Environments , 2005, Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[16]  Kamal Youcef-Toumi,et al.  Design of Machines With Compliant Bodies for Biomimetic Locomotion in Liquid Environments , 2006 .

[17]  Chapman,et al.  Experimental simulation of the thrust phases of fast-start swimming of fish , 1997, The Journal of experimental biology.

[18]  Xiaobo Tan,et al.  Modeling of Biomimetic Robotic Fish Propelled by An Ionic Polymer–Metal Composite Caudal Fin , 2010, IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics.

[19]  John T. Beneski,et al.  Passive cambering and flexible propulsors: cetacean flukes , 2006, Bioinspiration & biomimetics.

[20]  Angelo Iollo,et al.  Modeling and simulation of fish-like swimming , 2010, J. Comput. Phys..

[21]  James Tangorra,et al.  Fish biorobotics: kinematics and hydrodynamics of self-propulsion , 2007, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[22]  Hirohisa Morikawa,et al.  Experimental Study on Oscillating Wing for Propulsor with Bending Mechanism Modeled on Caudal Muscle-Skeletal Structure of Tuna , 2001 .

[23]  I. Borazjani,et al.  On the role of form and kinematics on the hydrodynamics of self-propelled body/caudal fin swimming , 2010, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[24]  Y. Imaizumi,et al.  Propulsion system with flexible/rigid oscillating fin , 1995 .

[25]  Li Wen,et al.  Development of a two‐joint robotic fish for real‐world exploration , 2011, J. Field Robotics.

[26]  David Scott Barrett,et al.  Propulsive efficiency of a flexible hull underwater vehicle , 1996 .

[27]  B. Balachandran,et al.  Influence of flexibility on the aerodynamic performance of a hovering wing , 2009, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[28]  Chunlin Zhou,et al.  An improved semi-empirical model for a body and/or caudal fin (BCF) fish robot , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[29]  Kyu-Jin Cho,et al.  Design and analysis of a stiffness adjustable structure using an endoskeleton , 2012 .

[30]  Michael Sfakiotakis,et al.  Review of fish swimming modes for aquatic locomotion , 1999 .

[31]  Air-speed/Wing-tip Speed Ratios of Insect Flight , 1950, Nature.

[32]  Long Wang,et al.  Dolphin-like propulsive mechanism based on an adjustable Scotch yoke , 2009 .

[33]  George V. Lauder,et al.  Robotic Models for Studying Undulatory Locomotion in Fishes , 2011 .

[34]  Eric D. Tytell,et al.  Do trout swim better than eels? Challenges for estimating performance based on the wake of self-propelled bodies , 2007 .

[35]  K H Low,et al.  Parametric study of the swimming performance of a fish robot propelled by a flexible caudal fin , 2010, Bioinspiration & biomimetics.