pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.11126 · v1 · pith:ZWW2UINEnew · submitted 2026-06-09 · ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn

Inertial effects on the mechanical efficiency of a semi-passive oscillating hydrofoil energy harvester

Zihan Zhang , Qimin Feng , Yuanhang Zhu , Qiang Zhong This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 11:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn
keywords oscillating hydrofoilenergy harvestermechanical efficiencyinertial effectsreduced frequencypitching axismass ratiosemi-passive
0
0 comments X

The pith

Rotational inertia redistributes actuator torque in oscillating hydrofoils, enabling mechanical efficiency to reach 33.96 percent when mass ratio, pitching axis, and reduced frequency align properly.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper investigates how foil mass ratio, pitching-axis location, and reduced frequency control both hydrodynamic forces and the mechanical power drawn by the actuator in a semi-passive energy harvester. Rotational inertia creates phase-dependent torque that can be offset by favorably timed heave-pitch coupling, so the net actuator demand drops below what fluid forces alone would require. This distinction matters because real devices pay for actuator work, not just fluid power, and prior studies often overlooked the mechanical side. Experiments identify an optimal window of reduced frequencies 0.125-0.16, pitching axes from quarter to one-third chord, and mass ratios 0.5-2.0 that deliver the reported peak mechanical efficiency. Torque-loop analysis and flow visualization confirm that the timing of inertial and fluid torques governs the observed gains.

Core claim

Rotational inertia redistributes actuator demand through phase-dependent torque exchange, while heave-pitch coupling can partially cancel this demand when favorably phased. Pitching-axis location modifies the phase and direction of the fluid torque through changes in the effective hydrodynamic moment arm. Reduced frequency governs the balance between enhanced unsteady loading and inertia-amplified actuator demand. Optimal performance is achieved within reduced frequency region of 0.125-0.16 using quarter-chord to one-third-chord pitching axes and relatively low foil mass ratios from about 0.5 to 2.0, yielding a peak mechanical efficiency of 33.96 percent, which can diverge from the hydrodyna

What carries the argument

Phase-dependent torque exchange driven by rotational inertia and heave-pitch coupling, which is quantified through torque-loop analysis to show net actuator demand reduction.

If this is right

  • Mechanical efficiency can diverge from hydrodynamic efficiency by up to 38 percent depending on the chosen mass ratio and pitching axis.
  • Performance peaks when reduced frequency lies between 0.125 and 0.16.
  • Pitching axes located between the quarter-chord and one-third-chord positions improve torque cancellation.
  • Lower foil mass ratios (0.5 to 2.0) minimize inertia-amplified actuator demand while retaining fluid loading benefits.
  • Synchronization between inertial torque loops and hydrodynamic forces is required to realize the efficiency gains.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Device designers must measure actuator power directly rather than relying on fluid-only metrics when scaling to field conditions.
  • The same inertia-tuning logic could be tested on airfoils in wind-energy oscillating devices to check for comparable efficiency shifts.
  • Active control that adjusts instantaneous frequency or mass distribution might extend the optimal window beyond the static configurations tested.
  • PIV-based flow measurements could be repeated at higher Reynolds numbers to test whether the reported synchronization persists outside laboratory scales.

Load-bearing premise

Laboratory measurements of actuator torque and hydrodynamic forces accurately represent net mechanical energy balance without significant unaccounted mechanical losses, scaling artifacts, or differences from field operating conditions.

What would settle it

Direct comparison of actuator power input and extracted power in a controlled field test under realistic flow conditions that produces mechanical efficiency values differing substantially from the reported 33.96 percent.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.11126 by Qiang Zhong, Qimin Feng, Yuanhang Zhu, Zihan Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) Experimental platform: Schematic of the hydrofoil installed in the water channel. (b) Operating principle and measurements: Side-view diagram of the pitching hydrofoil, force transducer, and baffle planes. (c) Mass decomposition: total mass ratio: 𝑚 ∗ virtual = 𝑚 ∗ rig +𝑚 ∗ foil = (𝑚 virt rig +𝑚 virt foil)∕0.5𝜌𝑐2 𝑠; foil mass ratio: 𝑚 ∗ foil = 𝑚 virt foil∕0.5𝜌𝑐2 𝑠. (d) Torque decomposition: Top-down di… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Cycle-averaged pitch-power coefficients 𝐶̄ hydro 𝑃 ,𝜃 and 𝐶̄ mech 𝑃 ,𝜃 together with harvested heave power 𝐶̄ ℎ (a) and efficiencies 𝜀hydro, 𝜀mech (b) versus foil mass ratio for a leading-edge (𝑥∕𝑐 = 0) hydrofoil at 𝜅 = 0.144. Instantaneous fluid, fluid and inertial, and mechanical torques 𝜏 f luid 𝜃 (𝑡), 𝜏 f luid 𝜃 (𝑡) + 𝜏 inertial 𝜃 (𝑡), 𝜏 mech 𝜃 (𝑡) (c, d, e) and instantaneous hydrodynamic, mechanical p… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Contour maps of (a) hydrodynamic efficiency 𝜀hydro, (b) hydrodynamic pitch-power coefficient 𝐶̄ hydro 𝑃 ,𝜃 , (c) heave power coefficient 𝐶̄ ℎ , (d) mechanical efficiency 𝜀mech, and (e) mechanical pitch-power coefficient 𝐶̄ mech 𝑃 ,𝜃 , with respect to foil mass ratio 𝑚 ∗ foil and pitching-axis location 𝑥∕𝑐 at reduced frequency 𝜅 = 0.144. White markers indicate the experimental test conditions used to constr… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Instantaneous fluid torque 𝜏 f luid 𝜃 (𝑡), mechanical torque 𝜏 mech 𝜃 (𝑡), hydrodynamic pitch power 𝐶 hydro 𝑃 ,𝜃 (𝑡), and mechanical pitch power 𝐶 mech 𝑃 ,𝜃 (𝑡) as functions of phase for pitching-axis locations 𝑥∕𝑐 ∈ {0, 0.25, 0.33, 0.5} at small-mass, 𝑚 ∗ foil = 0.5 (a–h) and mid-mass, 𝑚 ∗ foil = 1.7 (i–p) configurations with 𝜅 = 0.144. Panels (q–t) show the corresponding instantaneous heave power 𝐶ℎ (𝑡).… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effect of pitch-axis location on the flow field and force/torque response at 𝑚 ∗ foil = 1.7 and 𝜅 = 0.144: (a) fluid torque 𝜏 f luid 𝜃 versus pitch angle, showing the pitch-axis-dependent torque loops; (b) instantaneous lift force 𝐿f luid(𝑡) over one motion cycle; (c) phase-resolved vortex topology at three representative phases (𝜙 = 0, 𝜋∕4, 𝜋∕2) for the leading-edge, quarter-chord, and mid-chord configura… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cycle-averaged pitch-power coefficients 𝐶̄ hydro 𝑃 ,𝜃 and 𝐶̄ mech 𝑃 ,𝜃 together with harvested heave power 𝐶̄ ℎ (a) and efficiencies 𝜀hydro and 𝜀mech (b) versus reduced frequency for a leading-edge hydrofoil (𝑥∕𝑐 = 0) at 𝑚 ∗ foil = 2.1. Instantaneous fluid, fluid and inertial, and mechanical torques 𝜏 f luid 𝜃 (𝑡), 𝜏 f luid 𝜃 (𝑡)+𝜏 inertial 𝜃 (𝑡), and 𝜏 mech 𝜃 (𝑡) are shown in (c–e), and instantaneous hydr… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Oscillating-foil-based energy harvesters have demonstrated strong potential for low-speed hydrokinetic energy extraction; however, the actuator-level mechanical energy balance associated with prescribed pitching motion remains poorly understood. The present work experimentally characterizes how foil mass ratio, pitching-axis location, and reduced frequency jointly govern the hydrodynamic and mechanical efficiencies of a semi-passive oscillating hydrofoil. Results show that rotational inertia redistributes actuator demand through phase-dependent torque exchange, while heave-pitch coupling can partially cancel this demand when favorably phased. Pitching-axis location modifies the phase and direction of the fluid torque through changes in the effective hydrodynamic moment arm. Reduced frequency governs the balance between enhanced unsteady loading and inertia-amplified actuator demand. Optimal performance is achieved within reduced frequency region of 0.125-0.16 using quarter-chord to one-third-chord pitching axes and relatively low foil mass ratios from about 0.5 to 2.0, yielding a peak mechanical efficiency of 33.96% -- which can diverge from the hydrodynamic efficiency by approximately 38.16% depending on configuration. Torque-loop analysis and PIV measurements show that this synchronization is a key mechanism governing the observed efficiency trends.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript experimentally characterizes the joint effects of foil mass ratio, pitching-axis location, and reduced frequency on the hydrodynamic and mechanical efficiencies of a semi-passive oscillating hydrofoil energy harvester. It reports that rotational inertia redistributes actuator demand via phase-dependent torque exchange, heave-pitch coupling can cancel demand when phased favorably, and optimal performance occurs for reduced frequencies 0.125-0.16, quarter- to one-third-chord pitching axes, and mass ratios ~0.5-2.0, with a peak mechanical efficiency of 33.96% that can diverge from hydrodynamic efficiency by up to 38.16%. Torque-loop analysis and PIV measurements identify synchronization as the governing mechanism.

Significance. If the actuator torque measurements accurately capture net mechanical power, the results would provide useful quantitative guidance on inertial effects and efficiency divergence for hydrokinetic harvester design, an area where actuator-level energy balance has been under-studied. The experimental combination of efficiency data with PIV and torque-loop analysis is a strength for identifying mechanisms.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The headline quantitative results (peak mechanical efficiency 33.96%, divergence up to 38.16%, optimal band 0.125-0.16) are extracted directly from actuator torque and force data, yet no error bars, sample sizes, data exclusion criteria, or calibration/validation details for the torque measurements are stated. This is load-bearing for the central claim that mechanical efficiency can diverge from hydrodynamic efficiency by ~38% and that the reported optima are reliable.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (torque-loop analysis paragraph): The claim that rotational inertia redistributes actuator demand through phase-dependent torque exchange and that heave-pitch coupling can cancel demand rests on the unverified assumption that measured actuator torque equals net mechanical power delivered to the fluid after all inertial, frictional, and coupling effects. No independent check (e.g., comparison against known losses, sensor calibration offsets, or rig friction measurements) is described, which directly affects the reported efficiency values and the synchronization mechanism interpretation.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states specific numerical optima without referencing the corresponding figures or tables that contain the underlying data; adding such cross-references would improve traceability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback, which highlights important aspects of experimental rigor. The concerns about uncertainty reporting and torque validation are well-taken, and we will revise the manuscript to address them directly while preserving the core findings on inertial effects and efficiency divergence.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The headline quantitative results (peak mechanical efficiency 33.96%, divergence up to 38.16%, optimal band 0.125-0.16) are extracted directly from actuator torque and force data, yet no error bars, sample sizes, data exclusion criteria, or calibration/validation details for the torque measurements are stated. This is load-bearing for the central claim that mechanical efficiency can diverge from hydrodynamic efficiency by ~38% and that the reported optima are reliable.

    Authors: We agree that explicit uncertainty quantification strengthens the claims. In the revised manuscript, we will add error bars derived from repeated trials to the headline efficiency values in the abstract and results, report sample sizes (typically five repeats per configuration), specify data exclusion criteria based on torque signal quality thresholds, and include a methods subsection on torque sensor calibration (using a certified reference torque) and validation against known static loads. These additions will support the reported 33.96% peak and the ~38% divergence without altering the quantitative results. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (torque-loop analysis paragraph): The claim that rotational inertia redistributes actuator demand through phase-dependent torque exchange and that heave-pitch coupling can cancel demand rests on the unverified assumption that measured actuator torque equals net mechanical power delivered to the fluid after all inertial, frictional, and coupling effects. No independent check (e.g., comparison against known losses, sensor calibration offsets, or rig friction measurements) is described, which directly affects the reported efficiency values and the synchronization mechanism interpretation.

    Authors: The original experiments included static friction characterization of the rig and sensor offset corrections, but these were not described in sufficient detail. The revision will expand the methods to document: (i) torque sensor calibration procedure and offset determination, (ii) no-flow rig friction measurements used to subtract parasitic losses, and (iii) an independent cross-check comparing integrated actuator power against hydrodynamic power estimated from simultaneous force and PIV data in a reference case. This will explicitly justify the net mechanical power interpretation underlying the torque-loop analysis and synchronization mechanism. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental measurements with no derivation chain

full rationale

The paper is a purely experimental study that reports measured hydrodynamic and mechanical efficiencies from laboratory actuator torque, force, and PIV data. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters presented as predictions, or self-citation chains appear in the abstract or description. Optimal performance figures (e.g., 33.96% peak efficiency) are direct experimental outcomes, not reductions by construction to the paper's own inputs. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Experimental paper with no theoretical derivation; free parameters are the design variables varied in the tests. No new physical entities are introduced. The sole domain assumption is that the semi-passive laboratory configuration captures the essential actuator demand of practical devices.

free parameters (3)
  • foil mass ratio
    Experimentally varied in the range 0.5-2.0 as a design parameter controlling inertia.
  • pitching-axis location
    Tested at quarter-chord to one-third-chord positions that alter hydrodynamic moment arm.
  • reduced frequency
    Varied experimentally; optimal window identified as 0.125-0.16.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Laboratory semi-passive motion and torque measurements represent net mechanical energy balance of field-scale harvesters.
    Invoked when translating measured actuator demand into efficiency claims.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5752 in / 1411 out tokens · 24354 ms · 2026-06-27T11:38:32.725152+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Numerical analysis of an oscillating-wing wind and hydropower generator

    Ashraf, M., Young, J., Lai, J., Platzer, M., 2011. Numerical analysis of an oscillating-wing wind and hydropower generator. AIAA journal 49, 1374–1386

    2011

  2. [2]

    Effects of non-sinusoidal motion and effective angle of attack on energy extraction performance of a fully-activated flapping foil

    Boudis, A., Oualli, H., Benzaoui, A., Guerri, O., Bayeul-Lainé, C., Coutier-Delgosha, O., 2021. Effects of non-sinusoidal motion and effective angle of attack on energy extraction performance of a fully-activated flapping foil. Journal of Applied Fluid Mechanics 14, 485–498

    2021

  3. [3]

    Experimental investigation of the energy extraction by a fully-passive flapping-foil hydrokinetic turbine prototype

    Boudreau, M., Dumas, G., Rahimpour, M., Oshkai, P., 2018. Experimental investigation of the energy extraction by a fully-passive flapping-foil hydrokinetic turbine prototype. Journal of Fluids and Structures 82, 446–472

    2018

  4. [4]

    A parametric study and optimization of the fully-passive flapping-foil turbine at high reynolds number

    Boudreau, M., Picard-Deland, M., Dumas, G., 2020. A parametric study and optimization of the fully-passive flapping-foil turbine at high reynolds number. Renewable Energy 146, 1958–1975

    2020

  5. [5]

    Effect of aspect ratio on the energy extraction efficiency of three-dimensional flapping foils

    Deng, J., Caulfield, C., Shao, X., 2014. Effect of aspect ratio on the energy extraction efficiency of three-dimensional flapping foils. Physics of Fluids 26

    2014

  6. [6]

    Inertial effects of the semi-passive flapping foil on its energy extraction efficiency

    Deng, J., Teng, L., Pan, D., Shao, X., 2015. Inertial effects of the semi-passive flapping foil on its energy extraction efficiency. Physics of Fluids 27

    2015

  7. [7]

    Experimental investigation of the dynamic behaviour of a fully passive flapping foil hydrokinetic turbine

    Duarte, L., Dellinger, N., Dellinger, G., Ghenaim, A., Terfous, A., 2019. Experimental investigation of the dynamic behaviour of a fully passive flapping foil hydrokinetic turbine. Journal of Fluids and Structures 88, 1–12

    2019

  8. [8]

    Experimental optimisation of the pitching structural parameters of a fully passive flapping foil turbine

    Duarte, L., Dellinger, N., Dellinger, G., Ghenaim, A., Terfous, A., 2021. Experimental optimisation of the pitching structural parameters of a fully passive flapping foil turbine. Renewable Energy 171, 1436–1444. Z.Zihan et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 20 of 22 Inertial effects on the mechanical efficiency of a foil-based energy harvester

    2021

  9. [9]

    Optimal kinematics for energy harvesting using favourable wake–foil interactions in tandem oscillating hydrofoils

    Handy-Cardenas, E.E., Zhu, Y., Breuer, K.S., 2025. Optimal kinematics for energy harvesting using favourable wake–foil interactions in tandem oscillating hydrofoils. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 1012, A23

    2025

  10. [10]

    Aninvestigationofthefluid-structureinteractioninanoscillating-wingmicro-hydropowergenerator

    Jones,K.D.,Lindsey,K.,Platzer,M.,2003. Aninvestigationofthefluid-structureinteractioninanoscillating-wingmicro-hydropowergenerator

    2003

  11. [11]

    Effect of side-walls on flapping-wing power-generation: An experimental study

    Karakas, F., Fenercioglu, I., 2016. Effect of side-walls on flapping-wing power-generation: An experimental study. Journal of Applied Fluid Mechanics 9, 2769–2779

    2016

  12. [12]

    Energy harvesting performance and flow structure of an oscillating hydrofoil with finite span

    Kim, D., Strom, B., Mandre, S., Breuer, K., 2017. Energy harvesting performance and flow structure of an oscillating hydrofoil with finite span. Journal of Fluids and Structures 70, 314–326

    2017

  13. [13]

    Parametric study of an oscillating airfoil in a power-extraction regime

    Kinsey, T., Dumas, G., 2008. Parametric study of an oscillating airfoil in a power-extraction regime. AIAA journal 46, 1318–1330

    2008

  14. [14]

    Prototype testing of a hydrokinetic turbine based on oscillating hydrofoils

    Kinsey, T., Dumas, G., Lalande, G., Ruel, J., Mehut, A., Viarouge, P., Lemay, J., Jean, Y., 2011. Prototype testing of a hydrokinetic turbine based on oscillating hydrofoils. Renewable energy 36, 1710–1718

    2011

  15. [15]

    Virtual damper–spring system for viv experiments and hydrokinetic energy conversion

    Lee, J., Xiros, N., Bernitsas, M., 2011. Virtual damper–spring system for viv experiments and hydrokinetic energy conversion. Ocean Engineering 38, 732–747

    2011

  16. [16]

    Nonsinusoidal motion effects on energy extraction performance of a flapping foil

    Lu, K., Xie, Y., Zhang, D., 2014. Nonsinusoidal motion effects on energy extraction performance of a flapping foil. Renewable energy 64, 283–293

    2014

  17. [17]

    Effect of pivot location and passive heave on propulsion from a pitching airfoil

    Mackowski, A., Williamson, C., 2017. Effect of pivot location and passive heave on propulsion from a pitching airfoil. Physical Review Fluids 2, 013101

    2017

  18. [18]

    Developing a cyber-physical fluid dynamics facility for fluid–structure interaction studies

    Mackowski, A.W., Williamson, C.H., 2011. Developing a cyber-physical fluid dynamics facility for fluid–structure interaction studies. Journal of Fluids and Structures 27, 748–757

    2011

  19. [19]

    Wingmill: an oscillating-wing windmill

    McKinney, W., DeLaurier, J., 1981. Wingmill: an oscillating-wing windmill. Journal of energy 5, 109–115

    1981

  20. [20]

    Large amplitude flow-induced oscillations and energy harvesting using a cyber-physical pitching plate

    Onoue, K., Song, A., Strom, B., Breuer, K.S., 2015. Large amplitude flow-induced oscillations and energy harvesting using a cyber-physical pitching plate. Journal of Fluids and Structures 55, 262–275

    2015

  21. [21]

    Reliabilitystudyofafully-passiveoscillatingfoilturbineoperatinginaperiodically-perturbed inflow

    Oshkai,P.,Iverson,D.,Lee,W.,Dumas,G.,2022. Reliabilitystudyofafully-passiveoscillatingfoilturbineoperatinginaperiodically-perturbed inflow. Journal of Fluids and Structures 113, 103630

    2022

  22. [22]

    Development of a new oscillating-wing wind and hydropower generator, in: 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, p

    Platzer, M., Ashraf, M., Young, J., Lai, J., 2009. Development of a new oscillating-wing wind and hydropower generator, in: 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, p. 1211

    2009

  23. [23]

    An experimental investigation of a passively flapping foil in energy harvesting mode

    Qadri, M.M., Shahzad, A., Zhao, F., Tang, H., et al., 2019. An experimental investigation of a passively flapping foil in energy harvesting mode. Journal of Applied Fluid Mechanics 12, 1547–1561

    2019

  24. [24]

    Fluid-structure interaction of a fully passive flapping foil for flow energy extraction

    Qadri, M.M., Zhao, F., Tang, H., 2020. Fluid-structure interaction of a fully passive flapping foil for flow energy extraction. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 177, 105587

    2020

  25. [25]

    Prediction of energy harvesting efficiency through a wake–foil interaction model for oscillating foil arrays

    Ribeiro, B.L.R., Franck, J.A., 2024. Prediction of energy harvesting efficiency through a wake–foil interaction model for oscillating foil arrays. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 996, A46

    2024

  26. [26]

    Vortex dynamics and reynolds number effects of an oscillating hydrofoil in energy harvesting mode

    Ribeiro, B.L.R., Frank, S.L., Franck, J.A., 2020. Vortex dynamics and reynolds number effects of an oscillating hydrofoil in energy harvesting mode. Journal of Fluids and Structures 94, 102888

    2020

  27. [27]

    Wake-foil interactions and energy harvesting efficiency in tandem oscillating foils

    Ribeiro, B.L.R., Su, Y., Guillaumin, Q., Breuer, K.S., Franck, J.A., 2021. Wake-foil interactions and energy harvesting efficiency in tandem oscillating foils. Physical Review Fluids 6, 074703

    2021

  28. [28]

    Experimental study of inertia-based passive flexibility of a heaving and pitching airfoil operating in the energy harvesting regime

    Siala, F.F., Kamrani Fard, K., Liburdy, J.A., 2020. Experimental study of inertia-based passive flexibility of a heaving and pitching airfoil operating in the energy harvesting regime. Physics of Fluids 32. Z.Zihan et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 21 of 22 Inertial effects on the mechanical efficiency of a foil-based energy harvester

    2020

  29. [29]

    Simulations of Hydrofoil Arrays with Applications in Energy Harvesting

    Simeski, F., 2017. Simulations of Hydrofoil Arrays with Applications in Energy Harvesting. Ph.D. thesis. Bachelor’s thesis, Brown University

    2017

  30. [30]

    Experiments in direct energy extraction through flapping foils, in: ISOPE International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference, ISOPE

    Simpson, B.J., Hover, F.S., Triantafyllou, M.S., 2008. Experiments in direct energy extraction through flapping foils, in: ISOPE International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference, ISOPE. pp. ISOPE–I

    2008

  31. [31]

    Developing a four-axis cyber-physical traverse system for highly dynamic experimental fluid mechanics studies

    Sorensen, A., 2024. Developing a four-axis cyber-physical traverse system for highly dynamic experimental fluid mechanics studies. Master’s thesis. Iowa State University

    2024

  32. [32]

    Resonant response and optimal energy harvesting of an elastically mounted pitching and heaving hydrofoil

    Su, Y., Breuer, K., 2019. Resonant response and optimal energy harvesting of an elastically mounted pitching and heaving hydrofoil. Physical Review Fluids 4, 064701

    2019

  33. [33]

    Confinement effects on energy harvesting by a heaving and pitching hydrofoil

    Su, Y., Miller, M., Mandre, S., Breuer, K., 2019. Confinement effects on energy harvesting by a heaving and pitching hydrofoil. Journal of Fluids and Structures 84, 233–242

    2019

  34. [34]

    Effects of non-sinusoidal pitching motion on energy extraction performance of a semi-active flapping foil

    Teng, L., Deng, J., Pan, D., Shao, X., 2016. Effects of non-sinusoidal pitching motion on energy extraction performance of a semi-active flapping foil. Renewable energy 85, 810–818

    2016

  35. [35]

    Numerical optimization of a fully-passive flapping-airfoil turbine

    Veilleux, J.C., Dumas, G., 2017. Numerical optimization of a fully-passive flapping-airfoil turbine. Journal of Fluids and Structures 70, 102–130

    2017

  36. [36]

    Pivot location and mass ratio effects on flow-induced vibration of a fully passive flapping foil

    Wang, Z., Du, L., Zhao, J., Thompson, M.C., Sun, X., 2021. Pivot location and mass ratio effects on flow-induced vibration of a fully passive flapping foil. Journal of Fluids and Structures 100, 103170

    2021

  37. [37]

    How motion trajectory affects energy extraction performance of a biomimic energy generator with an oscillating foil? Renewable energy 37, 61–75

    Xiao, Q., Liao, W., Yang, S., Peng, Y., 2012. How motion trajectory affects energy extraction performance of a biomimic energy generator with an oscillating foil? Renewable energy 37, 61–75

    2012

  38. [38]

    A review on flow energy harvesters based on flapping foils

    Xiao, Q., Zhu, Q., 2014. A review on flow energy harvesters based on flapping foils. Journal of fluids and structures 46, 174–191

    2014

  39. [39]

    Numerical simulation of fully passive flapping foil power generation

    Young, J., Ashraf, M.A., Lai, J.C., Platzer, M.F., 2013. Numerical simulation of fully passive flapping foil power generation. AIAA journal 51, 2727–2739

    2013

  40. [40]

    Flow-energy harvesting using a fully passive flapping foil: A guideline on design and operation

    Zhao, F., Qadri, M.M., Wang, Z., Tang, H., 2021. Flow-energy harvesting using a fully passive flapping foil: A guideline on design and operation. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 197, 106323

    2021

  41. [41]

    Improve the performance of a semi-active flapping airfoil power generator by adjusting both offsetting mass center displacement and changing pitching axis position

    Zhu, J., Zhu, M., Zhang, T., 2021a. Improve the performance of a semi-active flapping airfoil power generator by adjusting both offsetting mass center displacement and changing pitching axis position. Energy Reports 7, 5074–5085

  42. [42]

    Optimal frequency for flow energy harvesting of a flapping foil

    Zhu, Q., 2011. Optimal frequency for flow energy harvesting of a flapping foil. Journal of fluid mechanics 675, 495–517

    2011

  43. [43]

    Nonlinear fluid damping of elastically mounted pitching wings in quiescent water

    Zhu, Y., Mathai, V., Breuer, K., 2021b. Nonlinear fluid damping of elastically mounted pitching wings in quiescent water. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 923, R2

  44. [44]

    Nonlinear flow-induced instability of an elastically mounted pitching wing

    Zhu, Y., Su, Y., Breuer, K., 2020. Nonlinear flow-induced instability of an elastically mounted pitching wing. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 899, A35. CRediT authorship contribution statement Zihan Zhang:Conceptualization of this study, Methodology, Software.Qimin Feng:Methodology–PIV Experiments.Yuanhang Zhu:Writing - Original draft preparation.Qiang Zhong:...

    2020