Skip to main content
Log in

Impact of Caudal Fin Shape on Thrust Production of a Thunniform Swimmer

  • Published:
Journal of Bionic Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Tuna, known for high endurance cruising, have already inspired several underwater robots and swimming studies. This study uses a biomimetic robotic tuna to investigate how different caudal fin planform geometries affect the thrust production and flow structures during Body and/or Caudal Fin (BCF) swimming. The robot was tethered to a circulating water tunnel, and swimming was simulated by moving water at a constant speed relative to the stationary robot. Three differently shaped caudal fins were tested, one rectangular, one elliptical, and one swept. Area, aspect ratio, and rigidity were kept constant between the three fins to ensure that the effect of caudal fin shape could be isolated. The fins were tested at three freestream velocities and four Strouhal numbers (St) so that comparisons between the fins could be made for a variety of swimming scenarios. The swept fin, which is the tested caudal fin most similar to one found on a fusiform swimmer, had the greatest thrust potential at high St, followed by the elliptical fin. The rectangular fin generally produced the least thrust. It was shown that in addition to producing the most thrust, the swept fin also best stabilized the leading edge vortex that developed during the second half of the stroke.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Li N Y, Liu H X, Su Y M. Numerical study on the hydrodynamics of thunniform bio-inspired swimming under self-propulsion. PLOS ONE, 2017, 12, e0174740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lindsey C C. Form, function, and locomotory habits in fish. Fish Physiology, 1978, 7, 1–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sfakiotakis M, Lane D M, Davies J B C. Review of fish swimming modes for aquatic locomotion. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 1999, 24, 237–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Blake R W. Fish functional design and swimming performance. Journal of Fish Biology, 2004, 65, 1193–1222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Webb P W. Hydrodynamics and Energetics of Fish Propulsion (Bulletin). Department of the Environment Fisheries and Marine Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1975, 190, 1–156.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Borazjani I, Daghooghi M. The fish tail motion forms an attached leading edge vortex. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2013, 280, 20122071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Muller U K, Smit J, Stamhuis E J, Videler J J. How the body contributes to the wake in undulatory fish swimming. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 2001, 204, 2751–2762.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Webb P W. Body form, locomotion and foraging in aquatic vertebrates. American Zoologist, 1984, 24, 107–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Webb P W. Simple physical principles and vertebrate aquatic locomotion. American Zoologist, 1988, 28, 709–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lighthill M J. Aquatic animal propulsion of high hydrome-chanical efficiency. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 1970, 44, 265–301.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Borazjani I, Sotiropoulos F. On the role of form and kinematics on the hydrodynamics of self-propelled body/caudal fin swimming. Journal of Experimental Biology, 2010, 213, 89–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Masoomi S F, Gutschmidt S, Chen X, Sellier M. The kinematics and dynamics of undulatory motion of a tunamimetic robot. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 2015, 12, 83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Anderson J M, Chhabra N K. Maneuvering and stability performance of a robotic tuna. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 2002, 42, 118–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Barrett D. Propulsive Efficiency of a Flexible Hull Underwater Vehicle, Department of Ocean Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hu Y H, Liang J H, Wang T M. Mechatronic design and locomotion control of a robotic thunniform swimmer for fast cruising. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, 2015, 10, 026006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Alvarado P V y, Youcef-Toumi K. Performance of machines with flexible bodies designed for biomimetic locomotion in liquid environments. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Barcelona, Spain, 2005.

  17. Esposito C J, Tangorra J L, Flammang B E, Lauder G V. A robotic fish caudal fin: Effects of stiffness and motor program on locomotor performance. Journal of Experimental Biology, 2012, 215, 56–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kopman V, Porfiri M. Design, modeling, and characterization of a miniature robotic fish for research and education in biomimetics and bioinspiration. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 2013, 18, 471–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Low K H, Chong C W. Parametric study of the swimming performance of a fish robot propelled by a flexible caudal fin. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, 2010, 5, 046002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ren Z Y, Yang X B, Wang T M, Wen L. Hydrodynamics of a robotic fish tail: Effects of the caudal peduncle, fin ray motions and the flow speed. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, 2016, 11, 016008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Heo S, Wiguna T, Park H C, Goo N S. Effect of an artificial caudal fin on the performance of a biomimetic fish robot propelled by piezoelectric actuators. Journal of Bionic Engineering, 2007, 4, 151–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Matta A, Bayandor J, Battaglia F, Pendar H. Effects of fish caudal fin sweep angle and kinematics on thrust production during low-speed thunniform swimming. Biology Open, 2019, 8, bio040626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Feilich K L, Lauder G V. Passive mechanical models of fish caudal fins: Effects of shape and stiffness on self-propulsion. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, 2015, 10, 036002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hemmati A, Van Buren T, Smits A J. Effects of trailing edge shape on vortex formation by pitching panels of small aspect ratio. Physical Review Fluids, 2019, 4, 033101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. King J T, Green M A. Experimental study of the three-dimensional wakes produced by trapezoidal panels with varying trailing edge geometry and pitching amplitude. AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum, San Diego, California, USA, 2019.

  26. King J T, Kumar R, Green M A. Experimental observations of the three-dimensional wake structures and dynamics generated by a rigid, bioinspired pitching panel. Physical Review Fluids, 2018, 3, 034701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Krishnadas A, Ravichandran S, Rajagopal P. Analysis of biomimetic caudal fin shapes for optimal propulsive efficiency. Ocean Engineering, 2018, 153, 132–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Van Buren T, Floryan D, Brunner D, Senturk U, Smits A J. Impact of trailing edge shape on the wake and propulsive performance of pitching panels. Physical Review Fluids, 2017, 2, 014702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhou K, Liu J K, Chen W S. Study on the hydrodynamic performance of typical underwater bionic foils with span-wise flexibility. Applied Sciences, 2017, 7, 1120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Dewar H, Graham J. Studies of tropical tuna swimming performance in a large water tunnel — Kinematics. Journal of Experimental Biology, 1994, 192, 45–59.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Webb P W. Is the high cost of body/caudal fin undulatory swimming due to increased friction drag or inertial recoil? Journal of Experimental Biology, 1992, 162, 157–166.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Fierstine H L, Walters V. Studies in locomotion and anatomy of scombroid fishes. Memoirs of the Sourthern California Academy of Sciences, 1968, 6, 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Matta A, Pendar H, Bayandor J. A preliminary investigation of caudal fin shape effects on thrust and power of a newly designed robotic tuna. Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting, Waikaloa, Hawaii, USA, 2017.

  34. Nursall J R. The lateral musculature and the swimming of fish. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1956, 126, 127–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Magnuson J J. Locomotion by scombrid fishes: Hydromechanics, morphology, and behavior. Fish Physiology, 1978, 7, 239–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Yang L, Su Y M, Xiao Q. Numerical study of propulsion mechanism for oscillating rigid and flexible tuna-tails. Journal of Bionic Engineering, 2011, 8, 406–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lauder G V, Tangorra J L. Fish locomotion: Biology and robotics of body and fin-based movements. In: Robot Fish: Bio-inspired Fishlike Underwater Robots, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Yu J, Tan M, Wang L. Cooperative control of multiple bio-mimetic robotic fish. In: Recent Advances in Multi Robot Systems, Lazinica A ed., IntechOpen, Vienna, Austria, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Gater B, Bayandor J. Power regeneration of a bioinspired electromechanical propulsive fin. Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting 2017, Waikaloa, Hawaii, USA, 2017.

  40. Liu J D, Hu H S. Biological inspiration: From carangiform fish to multi-joint robotic fish. Journal of Bionic Engineering, 2010, 7, 35–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Anderson J M, Streitlien K, Barrett D S, Triantafyllou M S. Oscillating foils of high propulsive efficiency. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 1998, 360, 41–72.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. Lauder G V, Tytell E D. Hydrodynamics of undulatory propulsion. Fish Physiology, 2005, 23, 425–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Triantafyllou G S, Triantafyllou M S, Grosenbaugh M A. Optimal thrust development in oscillating foils with application to fish propulsion. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 1993, 7, 205–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Clark R P, Smits A J. Thrust production and wake structure of a batoid-inspired oscillating fin. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 2006, 562, 415–429.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Wen L, Wang T M, Wu G H, Liang J H. Hydrodynamic investigation of a self-propelled robotic fish based on a force-feedback control method. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, 2012, 7, 036012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Matta A. Toward Efficient Bio-Inspired Propulsion: The Effect of Propulsor Shape and Kinematics on System Performance and Efficiency during Bio-inspired Locomotion, PhD thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, USA, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Chan W L, Kang T, Lee Y J. Experiments and identification of an ostraciiform fish robot. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), Sanya, China, 2007.

  48. [48] Harper C W, Maki R L. A Review of the Stall Characteristics of Swept Wings, Report, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, USA, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kim D, Gharib M. Characteristics of vortex formation and thrust performance in drag-based paddling propulsion. Journal of Experimental Biology, 2011, 214, 2283–2291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ellington C P, van den Berg C, Willmott A P, Thomas A L R. Leading-edge vortices in insect flight. Nature, 1996, 384, 626–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Sane S P. The aerodynamics of insect flight. Journal of Experimental Biology, 2003, 206, 4191–4208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Maxworthy T. The fluid dynamics of insect flight. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 1981, 13, 329–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Lentink D, Dickinson M H. Rotational accelerations stabilize leading edge vortices on revolving fly wings. Journal of Experimental Biology, 2009, 212, 2705–2719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Maertens A P, Gao A, Triantafyllou M S. Optimal undulatory swimming for a single fish-like body and for a pair of interacting swimmers. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 2017, 813, 301–345.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  55. Triantafyllou M S, Triantafyllou G S, Yue D K P. Hydrodynamics of fishlike swimming. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 2000, 32, 33–53.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  56. Borazjani I, Sotiropoulos F. Numerical investigation of the hydrodynamics of carangiform swimming in the transitional and inertial flow regimes. Journal of Experimental Biology, 2008, 211, 1541–1558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank the Department of Biomedical Engineering and Mechanics and the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Virginia Tech for their assistance in providing equipment and experimental facilities to the team. A special acknowledgement is extended to the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering of the University at Buffalo — The State University of New York, for their invaluable support of the continued research in this area.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Matta.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Matta, A., Pendar, H., Battaglia, F. et al. Impact of Caudal Fin Shape on Thrust Production of a Thunniform Swimmer. J Bionic Eng 17, 254–269 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42235-020-0020-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42235-020-0020-9

Keywords

Navigation