(Stand Alone) Minoru Nagai-Thinking Fluid Dynamics With Dolphins-Ohmsha - IOS (2002) PDF

,tt=4K-r j r
iffS^r**"
1. Very high swimming performance of dolphins at successive jumping.

1. Very high swimming performance of dolphins at successive jumping.
2. Standing swimming of a pacific white-sided dolphin. Only the caudal fin supports
all the body weight.
3. Streamline-shaped body of a pacific bottle-nosed dolphin. The vertical flat tail

meets with the horizontal flat caudal fin.
Thinking Fluid Dynamics with Dolphins
This page intentionally left blank
Thinking
Fluid Dynamics
with
Minoru Nagai
Ohmsha P r e s s
Thinking Fluid Dynamics with Dolphins

2002 Minoru Nagai
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the
publisher.
ISBN 4-274-90492-X (Ohmsha)
ISBN 1 58603 231 3 (IOS Press)
Library of Congress Control Number 2001099011
Translated from the original Japanese edition:
"Techno-life Series Iruka ni Manabu Ryutai Rikigaku" published by Ohmsha, Ltd.
1999 Minoru Nagai
Publisher
Ohmsha, Ltd.
3-1 Kanda Nishiki-cho
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-8460
Japan
Distributor
USA and Canada
IOS Press, Inc.
5795-G Burke Centre Parkway
Burke, VA22015
USA
Fax: +1 703 323 3668
UK and Ireland
IOS Press/Lavis Marketing
73 Lime Walk
Headington, Oxford OX3 7AD
England
Fax:+44 1865 750079
Germany, Austria and Switzerland

IOS Press/LSL. de
Gerichtsweg 28
D-04103 Leipzig
Germany
Fax: +49 341 995 4255
Japan
Ohmsha, Ltd.
3-1 Kanda Nishiki-cho
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-8460
Japan
Fax:+81 332936224
Netherlands and the rest of the World

IOS Press
Nieuwe Hemweg 6B
1013 BG Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Fax:+31 206203419
Far East jointly by

Ohmsha, Ltd. and
IOS Press
LEGAL NOTICE
The Publisher is not responsible for the use which might be made of the following
information.
Printed in Japan
Preface
This small volume is the English edition of a Japanese book entitled 'Learning fluid
dynamics from dolphins.' The title is derived from the fact that "Dolphins swim too
fast to be explained scientifically." The first person to clearly describe this
phenomenon was the English biologist Sir James Gray (J. Gray, 1936), and this
mystery is known among physicists and specialists in marine engineering as 'Gray's
paradox' or simply as the 'Mystery of dolphins.'
In addition to dolphins, tuna, marlin and some other fish are also famous for
swimming at extraordinary high speeds. Treating both dolphins and fish together in
the same title is difficult because both animals have far different taxonomy dolphins belonging to oceanic mammals and tuna and marlin belonging to teleostei
fish. This book uses dolphins as symbolic animals that perform high-speed
swimming. Furthermore, 'dolphins' are chosen as the main character in this English
edition because western readers feel an affinity for them.
This book focuses on young readers, who are interested in technology and science
and who hope to specialize in technological occupations. This book aims to
introduce the developing history of fluid dynamics, and then outlines the research
history and the present recognition of 'Gray's paradox.' Finally, the author's
research, through about three decades, is reviewed. This paradox suggested in the
early 20th century has carried over into the 21st century without finding a complete
solution. It would be a great pleasure for the author if the readers find interest in
fluid dynamics, a discipline that has developed by overcoming numerous paradoxes,
or feel the mood at the forefront of the 'intelligence' of mankind.
The original Japanese edition was published in the autumn of 1999, as a selected
book of 'Techno-life' series by the Japanese Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Fortunately, having the financial support from the Japan Society for the Promotion
of Science, this English edition was realized within three years. Mr. Takayuki
Kawamura, a post MSc researcher at University of the Ryukyus, was in charge of
the language translation from Japanese to English, and Dr. George Yates who is a
friend of the author finally inspected the written English. Dr. Yates was a coresearcher who was studying animal swimming under Professor T. Y. Wu when the
author temporally stayed at the California Institute of Technology as a visiting
researcher in 1984 - 1985. If this book catches the heart of many readers and is
favored by them, the main contribution is owed to the joint-translators
vi
Preface
Mr. Kawamura and Dr. Yates, and the author deeply appreciates their efforts.
Finally, the author dedicates this book to the late Takefumi Ikui, a Professor
Emeritus at Kyusyu University, who was a master of the author, and to my wife,
Megumi Nagai. Teacher Ikui warmly watched the author when the author stepped
into the unknown academic area of 'bio-fluid dynamics,' and cheered up the author.
Megumi has supported the author's irregular researcher life for more than 30 years
since their marriage. None of this book would have appeared without their
existences.
February 2002
Minoru Nagai
Contents
Preface
Chapter 1 Gray's Paradox

Birth of Gray's Paradox
Swimming Speed of Aquatic Animals
Observations of Small Fresh-Water Fish - Discovery of the Swimming Number
1
2
5
Chapter 2 Early History of Fluid Dynamics - From Aristotle to Newton and

D'Alembert
Aristotle's Paradox
9
Newton's Fluid Dynamics and his Paradox
10
Euler's and Bernoulli's Equations and the Paradox of D'Alembert
14
Lifting Theory
18
Chapter 3 Modern Fluid Dynamics
Navier-Stokes Equations
Effects of Small Viscosity
Reynolds' Law of Similarity
Boundary Layer Theory
Laminar Flow and Turbulent Flow
Numerical Simulations and Physical Experiments
Dynamics of Wings in Real Fluids
21
23
24
26
28
29
32
Chapter 4 Principles of Thrust Generation

Momentum Theory
Slender Body Theory
Oscillating Wing Theory
38
40
43
Chapter 5 Research on High-Speed Swimming Performance

Dimensional Analysis
Possibility of Drag Reduction - Flexibility of the Surface Skin
Toms Effect
Effect of Riblets
Studies in Japan
49
57
53
57
60
Contents
Chapter 6 High-Speed Swimming Method of Carp and Dolphins

Small Circulating Water Tunnel and the Measurement of Drag on Fish
Swimming Motion of Fresh-Water Fish
Mechanical Fish - An Invention of Oscillating Wing Propulsion Mechanism
Swimming Motion of Dolphins
Maximum Swimming Speed of Dolphins
Estimation for the Power of Fresh-Water Fish and Dolphins
Episode - Rapid Increase of the Body Temperature of Fish
Chapter 7 Robot Fish - Development of Ocean Engineering
Hertel's Research
Studies in Japan
Mechanical Fish and Oscillating Wing Propulsion Ships of University of
the Ryukyus
Robot Fish of M.I.T.
63
69
71
76
80
84
87
97
93
97
99
Epilogue - The Silver Lining of Solving the Paradox

New Challenges of University of the Ryukyus
The Key Has Shifted to Unsteady and Three Dimensional Flow Fields
103
104
References
707
Author and Translators Profile
709
Index
777
Chapter 1
Gray's Paradox
Aquatic animals such as tuna and dolphins have been observed to swim much faster
than the maximum speed that is predicted from both the power generating capacity of
their muscle and the estimated hydrodynamic drag. This discrepancy is known as
'Gray's paradox' or the 'Dolphins' mystery,' and the problem remains to be fully
explained.
The author has been wrestling with this problem for a quarter century since his
early efforts at University of the Ryukyus, Okinawa, Japan. Examples of the work
were initially 'Research on hydrodynamic drag of soft bodies,' 'Observation of
swimming motions of several fresh-water fish in a water tunnel' and 'Observation of
swimming motions of Dolphins.' Then the research was developed to include Trial
production of a small scale automatic mechanical fish,' Theoretical/experimental
research on oscillating wing propulsion mechanism' and 'Trial production of an
oscillating wing propulsive boat and a large-scale mechanical fish.' Hence, present
achievements on this issue are due to the surveys of many enthusiastic past students of
the university.
This chapter commences with the birth of Gray's paradox, and follows its history until
the latest achievements. Although the backgrounds of paradoxes are often veiled,
scientists and researchers retain their interest with a belief that there must be rational
mechanisms or reasons that explains the paradoxes clearly. In fact, fluid dynamics was
developed by overcoming various paradoxes. However, Gray's paradox, submitted in
the early 20th century, seems to await complete resolution in the new century.
Birth of Gray's Paradox

Sir James Gray (1891 - 1975), a famous biologist at Cambridge University in the
U.K. introduced the observations of Thompson in the Indian Ocean. Thompson
reported that a dolphin (Delphinus Delphus) 6 to 7 feet in length swam parallel to
his ship, which was moving at 20 knots (approx. 10 m/s). Gray assumed the
following physical specification for the dolphin: the body length was 6 ft (1.83 m),
the muscle weight was 35 Ib (15.9 kg), the total weight was 200 1b (90.7 kg), and
the body surface area was 15 ft2 (1.39 m 2 ). Then the hydrodynamic drag was
calculated as 42.5 1bf (189 N) and the necessary power (i.e. drag x velocity) was
calculated to be 2.6 HP (1,940 watts). In this case, the dolphin's power per unit
muscle weight amounted to 0.074 HP/lb (122 watts/kg), which was much grater
than that of a well fit human or a dog whose unit power was reported to be about
0.01 HP/lb (16 watts/kg). It seemed unrealistic that the muscle of oceanic mammals
could generate seven times as much power as the muscle of onshore mammals. If
this consideration were true, the dolphin's muscle power, oxygen supplying system
and the heat radiation method would be marvelous. This problem was submitted as
a paradox. Furthermore, Professor Gray stated that if the flow in the boundary layer
developed on the surface of a dolphin maintained laminar flow, the necessary power
to swim could be decreased. Since the Reynolds number of the flow is about 107
the flow should already have transformed to a turbulent boundary layer, and the
laminar flow hypothesis seems impossible (1936).
Later, Professor I. Tani (1907 - 1990), a pioneer of fluid dynamics in Japan,
assumed the ratio of muscle mass to the whole body mass of a mammal should be
40% and the average maximum power output per unit mass of muscle was 29
watts/kg in his explanation of Gray's paradox in 1964. Tani estimated that the
output per unit body mass would be 6 to 12 watts/kg. The output of the above
dolphin divided by the body mass is 21 watts/kg, which is still two to three times
larger than Tani's suggested value.
Gray's paradox has stimulated the interest of physicists, zoologists, and
shipbuilding and fluid dynamics engineers all over the world, and has challenged
them to explain the paradox from many perspectives. However, a clear solution has
not been obtained yet. In 1985, Professor A. Azuma of the University of Tokyo, an
authority in aeronautical engineering, introduced Dr. T. G. Lang's observations
written in 1974, and he explained that the paradox had finally been solved.
However, Dr. Lang's study actually reported that a pacific spotted dolphin (Stenella
Attenuata) with a body length of 1.86 meters had a maximum swimming speed of
11.05 m/s, and Lang stated that the power of the muscle of a dolphin would be 2.5
times greater than that of a human, which was not unreasonable. Therefore, he had
not proved the phenomenon biologically.
Meanwhile, Lang's experiment recorded the maximum swimming speed of a
dolphin with precision and under carefully controlled laboratory conditions by a
scientist. This agreed with Thompson's report (1.8 meters body length at 10 m/s
swimming speed). On the other hand, the British Guinness Book of Records shows
the maximum swimming speed was 30 knots, i.e. 15.4 m/s, by a killer whale with a
body length of 6 - 8 meters observed in the east Pacific Ocean on October 12, 1958.

Figure 1.1 shows reported swimming speeds of numerous fish, mammals and a
submarine. For each swimmer the velocity is plotted versus the body length. The
single-dot chain line and the double-dot chain line in the figure are the theoretical

nuclear
submarine
body length / (m)

Fig. 1.1 Speeds of Various Swimmers (Nagai, 1982)
maximum speed if the boundary layer flow on the body surface is laminar flow and
turbulent flow respectively. Although most swimmers move at high Reynolds
number, their swimming speed can far exceed the theoretical limits of both laminar
and turbulent flow. The concept of Reynolds number and its relation with boundary
layer flow will be discussed in Chapter 3. Figure 1.1 shows that high-speed
swimmers can swim faster than the theoretical expectations, and the maximum speed
is almost proportion to the body length, as shown with two solid lines of U /.
There are two groups of dolphins plotted in this figure. The upper group is
the data from Dr. Lang and the lower group is the one from the author. The data for
a killer whale ( 6 - 8 meters body length) is from The Guinness Book of Records.
The yellowfin tuna and the marlin, of only 1 to 2 meter in body length, are among
the fastest reported speeds and indicate speeds of about 40 knots.
The three frontispieces of this book are photographs of pacific white-sided
dolphins and pacific bottle-nosed dolphins taken by the author, which illustrate their
superb swimming ability and fitness. There is no doubt that their ability is due to
their strong caudal fins. Readers can easily see the following physical
characteristics: the sectional profile at the end of the body is vertically extended,
and the caudal fin joins perpendicularly. A German aeronautical engineer, Professor
Hertel, observed this characteristic with interest, and he recorded the profiles as
silhouettes in Fig. 1.2 from his book. Figure 1.3 shows the side and the top views of
a killer whale (Orcinus Orca} quoted from the book 'Whale & Dolphin, Seals'
(1965) by M. Nishiwaki who is an emeritus Professor of the University of Tokyo
and a respected marine scientists. Both the dolphins and the killer whales have
slender bodies that give the impression of low hydrodynamic drag and both have
Chapter I Gray's Paradox
distinctive well-developed dorsal fins. A typical caudal fin has a relatively small
vertical thickness and a relatively large horizontal width and joins the body where
the body has a thin horizontal width and a relatively large vertical dimension. The
caudal fin is a high aspect ratio wing with a crescent shaped outline and a horizontal
span. Furthermore, it is well known that cross sections of caudal fins are symmetric
wing profiles.
Fig. 1.2 Silhouette of a Dolphin (Hertel, 1966)
Fig. 1.3 Killer Whale (Orcinus Orca, M. Nishiwaki, 1965)
Observations of Small Fresh-Water Fish - Discovery of

the Swimming Number
Figure 1.1 gives only the swimming speed. It shows the distance each swimmer can
propel forward in a second. The figure does not specify the swimming method or
the propulsive efficiency. To investigate the essence of their fast swimming ability,
the swimming mode - i.e. method of propulsion - of these animals must be
researched precisely.
Professor Gray, the proposer of the paradox, who might consider the same
aspects of problem, constructed large- and small-scale rotational ring pools in his
laboratory at Cambridge University. One of the experimental pools which was later
called a 'Fish Wheel' is shown in Fig. 1.4. The ring pool rotates around the center,
and observers can watch and take photographs of fish swimming against a water
flow as if the fish is swimming stationary in a flowing stream. Readers can also
find that there are fish swimming in the tank and that there are some other devices
including a rotational indicator in the figure.
Fig. 1.4 Fish Wheel Used by Bainbridge et al. (Gray, 1957)
Using the fish wheel, Dr. Bainbridge, a successor of Gray, investigated

correlations of the swimming speed with body length, the amplitude and the
frequency of the caudal fin oscillation of swimming fish. He studied the motion of
dace, trout and goldfish. He clarified that their instantaneous maximum swimming
velocity was approximately 10 body lengths per second. That was about twice the
continuous swimming speed that could be maintained for more than ten seconds.
The data group shown at the lower-left hand side in Fig. 1.1 is taken from
Bainbridge (1958). In addition, the magnitude of the swimming speed under highspeed swimming was found to be proportional to both the body length and the
Chapter I Gray's Paradox
caudal fin beat frequency. He also reported that the amplitude of the tail oscillation
was almost constant at approximately 20% of the body length regardless of the
species and the tail beat frequency.
Professor Breder (Breder, C. M., Jr., 1926), an American zoologist and
researcher, first classified the various swimming motions of fish into three styles or
modes of propulsion as follows:
(1) Anguilliform (eel style of propulsion) - moving the whole body which is
long and narrow
(2) Carangiform (mackerel style of propulsion) - moving the caudal fin and the
rear half of the body
(3) Ostraciiform (boxfish style of propulsion) - moving only the caudal fin
and the body is rigid
Figure 1.5 shows the pictorial classification of these three styles. Highspeed fish such as dace, goldfish, carp, mackerel and tuna belong to the carangiform
mode. According to Bainbridge, high-speed fresh-water fish oscillate only the rear
third of their body in the horizontal direction, and they are classified as carangiform
style swimmers. Tuna are often regarded as the most highly evolved fish using the
carangiform mode of propulsion, and their crescent shaped caudal fin, that joins
perpendicular to the horizontally extended section of the body, resembles the shape
of the caudal fin of dolphins. The dolphins' style of swimming closely resembles
that of tuna despite the fact that the caudal fin oscillates in a different direction.
1 Anguilliform
(2)
Carangiform
(3)
Ostraciiform
Fig. 1.5 Classification of Swimming Style of Fish (C. M. Breder,

Zoologica, 4-5, N.Y. Zoological Society, 1926)
As described later, the author also carefully observed the swimming speeds
of fresh-water fish such as carp, goldfish and tilapia. As a result, an interesting fact
appeared. The swimming speed of these fish is proportional to both the body length
and the frequency of the caudal fin oscillation. The proportionality constant
depended on the species. Although Bainbridge also pointed out this proportionality,
he only specified it in the high-speed range. He did not find the linear
proportionality in the low-speed and low-frequency range. The proportionality

Table 1.1 Swimming Number
Species
Swimming Number (Observer)
Dolphin
Carp
Dace
Trout
Goldfish
Tilapia
0.82 (Nagai)
0.70 (Nagai)
0.63 (Bainbridge)
0.62 (Bainbridge)
0.61 (Bainbridge)
0.58 (Nagai)
Note: For Bainbridge's data, the tail beat frequencies

of dace and trout are more than 5 Hz, for goldfish it is
more than 3 Hz.
constants are shown in Table 1.1, which also shows data for dolphins obtained by
the author.
From the table, it is clear that, among the fresh-water fish, carp is a
distinctively faster fish compared to dace and goldfish, and dolphins have superb
swimming ability. The superior swimming ability of carp might seem reasonable
for all Japanese, however, there is an interesting story about carp. When Professor
M. J. Lighthill (1924 - 1998), a leader in modern fluid dynamics, met a Japanese
researcher, Mr. Y. Watanabe, who visited him with films of his carp typed robot
fish, Professor Lighthill remarked, "Carp are regarded as dull fish in England."
The author concluded that if the constant number in Table 1.1 shows the
extent of swimming ability of aquatic animals, the number should be recognized as
a physically meaningful number. The author named it the 'Swimming Number,' and
proposed it in a Japanese seasonal periodical 'Flow,' the former journal of the Japan
Society of Fluid Mechanics, in 1979. The swimming number is defined in equation
(1.1).
Definition of the Swimming Number : Sw =
(1.1)
fl
Since the Swimming Number is obtained by dividing the swimming velocity U
(m/s) by the tail beat frequencyf(1/s) and the body length / (m), the number has no
dimension. The swimming number is also interpreted as the distance traveled per
body length during one caudal fin oscillation. Frankly speaking, the author was not
confident that this new dimensionless number would be accepted by researchers
throughout the world. However, the hypothesis has been well known among
researchers in Japan since the proposal was introduced in 'Handbook of Fluid
Dynamics' (1987) and in a book 'Fluid Dynamics of Drag & Thrust' jointly authored
with Professor Emeritus I. Tanaka of Osaka University (1996), both in Japanese.
The experimental results shown in Fig. 1.1 indicate that the maximum
swimming speed of high-speed aquatic animals is proportional to the body length.
The data for marlin are on an extended empirical line made with data of the
instantaneous speed of carp. Nevertheless, a complete understanding of the
phenomenon is not as simple as it seems. When considered in terms of fluid
dynamics or animal physiology, the wide range of validity of this proportionality is
still a mysterious phenomenon.

In the following chapters, we will look back to the origins of fluid dynamics, and
prepare for the challenge of elucidating Gray's Paradox.
Chapter 2
Early History of Fluid Dynamics
- From Aristotle to Newton and D'Alembert
Since the drag force opposes the forward motion of an object in water or air, it seems
evident that a force acting forward on the object (a thrust force) is essential to continue
the motion. It took thousands of years for human civilization to arrive at the correct
relationship between the drag and the thrust forces. A careful tracing of history makes
it clear that science developed to provide rational explanations of many such
mysterious phenomena in the world. Therefore, science can be considered as a series
of battles between humankind and paradoxes. Even today, fluid dynamics, as one
branch of physics, has retained such a strong tendency.
Aristotle's Paradox
Aristotle (BC 384 - 322), a famous Greek philosopher, tried to rationally explain all
things in the world. He interpreted them as following: "All substances have their
own laws (which he called as nature) and the phenomena such as fish swimming in
the water and birds flying in the sky are subject to 'the Nature of fish1 and 'the
Nature of birds.'" Thus he could not rationally explain the phenomenon in which an
arrow shot from a bow continued going upward (Fig. 2.1). According to his
philosophy of the world, phenomena such as a rock dropping downward, water
finding its own level and fire rising upward are subject to their own nature. So, if a
rock is moved upward against the law, there must be a certain violent force acting
on the rock to maintain the motion. Unfortunately, he could not find the force
acting on the arrow. Although he developed an erroneous explanation under the
pressure of necessity, he interpreted it as 'The air is slit in front of the arrow and is
closed behind it.' This explanation suggested the concept of a vacuum, but he
remained committed to his famous belief that "Nature dislikes a vacuum," and
refused to accept the existence of a vacuum. Nowadays, people studying the
principles of dynamics are familiar with the law of inertia: 'Without an external
force acting on an object, the object will continue its uniform linear motion.' It took
about 2,000 years to reach this understanding that was explained by Galileo Galilei
(1564 - 1642). Thus, in the latter half of the Renaissance, when the Heliocentric
system replaced the Ptolemaic system, it was correctly recognized that 'An arrow
10
Chapter 2 Early History of Fluid Dynamics
Fig. 2.1 An Arrow Shot from a Bow (What force can keep the arrow moving upward?)
does not necessary need an external force to continue its forwarding motion.'
For instance, when a bird or an airplane flies straight forward at constant
speed, the net magnitude of the external force is zero, thus the drag and the thrust
forces, which have been described at the beginning of this chapter, exactly balance
each other. As Isaac Newton (1642 - 1727) formulated later, "If the drag force
exceeds the thrust force, the object will decelerate, and the converse makes the
object accelerates." It is needless to say that a static condition is one of uniform
linear motions. It is also an interesting fact that the year of Galileo's death
coincided with the birth of Newton.

Newton, the famous discoverer of the universal law of gravitation, reviewed
numerous discoveries in astronomy and physics that occurred during the 100 years
before his birth, and summarized them in his great book 'Principia' (1687, the
philosophy of mathematical principles). This book became the foundation of
modern science based on experiments and examinations, and it replaced Aristotle's
so-called religious understanding of the world that had endured for about 2,000
years.
The law of inertia that Galileo had discovered was taken as the first law of
Newton's three laws of motion. Newton's three laws, which perform the most
important roles even in modern fluid dynamics, are shown as equations (2.1) - (2.3),
in which the character f represents all external forces (in vector), m is the mass of an
object and a is the acceleration (in vector).
Newton's laws of motion:
The first law; the law of inertia
The second law; f =ma
The third law; the law of an action and the reaction
D'Alembert's principle: /+ (-ma) = 0
(2.1)
(2.2)
(2.3)
(2.21)
Examining the three laws, it is clear that they express three aspects of one
11
theorem regarding motions and forces. The three laws always correlate with each
other and never apply independently. For instance, if the force f is taken as zero in
equation (2.2), the second law requires that the acceleration a is also zero, and this
is an expression of the first law, i.e., the law of inertia. Furthermore, the third law,
stating that an external force always accompanies a reaction force, requires that the
external force be the same magnitude as the reaction force but in the opposite
direction. This, in turn, helps us to understand the concept of inertia as a reaction
force against an external force, and enables us to rewrite equation (2.2) as a force
balancing equation (2.2). This equation is called D'Alembert's principle.
Figure 2.2 shows four forces acting on an airplane flying at a constant speed.
In this case, the thrust T and the drag D acting on the plane balance exactly, and the
lift L and the weight under gravity W (= mg} also exactly cancel each other.
Therefore, the net force is zero as described previously. Since the direction of the
thrust is perpendicular to gravity, both forces are independent of one another, and it
is possible for the thrust force to be smaller than the gravity force. This implies that
only one ton of thrust force can move an airplane weighing 10 tons.
thrust;
gravity; W = mg
Fig. 2.2 An Airplane during Steady Cruising (Holding T= D and

L = W. T is independent of W, hence T<W is possible.)
It is no exaggeration that the Newton's Principia included such wide and

deep essence that it was able to replace Aristotle's world concept, and hence, it
influenced all areas in modern science. The concept of 'Fluid Dynamics' also
appeared in the Principia, and it was Newton who first identified equation (2.4),
which is known as 'Newton's law of viscosity.'
Figure 2.3 explains the meaning of equation (2.4). Taking the model of two
parallel flat plates stretching horizontally with a viscous fluid between them and
with the upper plate moving in the x-direction, the stress (T : a force per unit area),
resulting from the motion of the plate against the viscous fluid force, is in direct
proportion to the velocity gradient du/dy perpendicular to the plate. The
12
Fig. 2.3 Definition of a Viscous Force
proportionality constant jU is called the viscosity coefficient, and is a physical

property of the fluid (with units of Pa.s). Nowadays, a fluid whose viscosity m is
constant regardless the external stress is called a 'Newtonian Fluid,1 and all other
fluids are called 'Non-Newtonian Fluids.' Body fluids and most secretions of living
creatures tend to be Non-Newtonian fluids. There is an influential hypothesis that
such Non-Newtonian characteristic of fluids secreted on the body surface can
dramatically decrease the swimming drag of fish and dolphins. This will be
described in detail in Chapter 5.
Furthermore, Newton appears to have correctly recognized that the drag
acting on a moving object in a fluid has two elements: one element is proportional
to the moving speed of the object, and another is proportional to the square of the
speed. Nowadays, the former is called the viscous drag and the latter the pressure
drag (or profile drag). Since the pressure drag is induced by the change of the
momentum of the fluid, Newton correctly suggested that the pressure drag is in
proportion to the square of velocity, the density of the fluid and the surface area (the
square of a characteristic body dimension) of the object. For example, he showed
that the drag D acting on a sphere of diameter d in a uniform flow is given by
equation (2.5).
Da1/2-pU2S, S = -p d2
(2.5)
2
4
Although equation (2.5) is considered correct even today, Newton could not
proceed with further development because he could not find the proportionality
coefficient. Newton considered the motion of each particle organizing the fluid.
When fluid particles collide with an object, the slant angle of the surface of the
object is crucial for computing the drag. He calculated drags in several cases,
however, he could not logically obtain solutions that fit with the observations.
Figure 2.4 shows a typical problem of an inclined flat-plate in a flow, which
is occasionally quoted as an example of Newton's calculation. The surface area of
the plate is taken as 5, the density of the fluid as p, the uniform velocity as U and the
angle of attack to the flow as a. The mass of the fluid colliding with the flat plate in
a unit time is pUSsina. Assuming that the fluid particles flow smoothly along the
13
Fig. 2.4 Fluid Force on an Inclined Flat-Plate
plate after the collision, the component of velocity perpendicular to the plate before
the collision is Usina and becomes zero after the collision. The component of
velocity parallel to the plate Ucosa does not change. Thus, the change of
momentum of the fluid in a unit time is the product of pUSsina and Usina. From
the equation of motion (2.2), the force acting perpendicular to the plate is given by
equation (2.6), which is a special case of equation (2.5).
F = pU2Ssinn2a
(2.6)
According to equation (2.6), the force Fis proportional to the square of the
sine of the angle of attack a. Therefore, if the angle a becomes vanishingly small,
the force F becomes negligible. Furthermore, multiplying F by cosa gives the lift
acting on the plate. Surprisingly, measured results of the lift force far exceed those
predicted by Newton's theory. This variance between observation and theory is
known as 'Newton's Paradox.'
Figure 2.5 shows the dimensionless normal forces on a two-dimensional
1.0 -
Fig. 2.5 Fluid Force Normal to an Inclined Flat-Plate (Theodore von Karman,
Aerodynamics, Cornell University Press, 1954)
Legend 1. Newton's theory
2. Dead-Water theory of Kirchhoff and Rayleigh
3. Modern Lifting Theory
14
slanted flat plate. Parameter c is the width of the plate. Curve 1 is the result of
Newton's theoretical equation (2.6). In the case of small angles of attack, the force
acting on the plate becomes almost zero. Curves 2 and 3 are the dead-water theory
of Kirchhoff-Rayleigh and the current lifting theory respectively. The last two
theories are able to explain the large force generated on the plate at small angles of
attack. Measurement results coincide very well with curve 3 when the angle a is
small.
Euler's and Bernoulli's Equations and the Paradox of

D'Alembert
Newton's laws of motion have such good accuracy that they are still applied today,
however, Newton's considerations were basically limited to the dynamics of point
masses. Therefore, the flows of air and water were analyzed in terms of a collection
of numerous mass points. The actual air and water are not simple collections of
mass points, but they have an aspect of a continuum that cannot be separated. Thus,
as Aristotle's belief that "Nature dislikes a vacuum," both the existence of a vacuum
and an opposite concept of the superimposing of two fluid particles (intersecting of
stream lines) had to be eliminated to obtain correct solutions.
Standing on such philosophy, physicists after Newton (most of them were
also mathematicians) ignored the molecularity of real fluids (such as air and water),
and they researched an imaginary fluid model that was a continuum without
viscosity and compressibility. Such imaginary fluids are called 'Ideal Fluids.'
Equations that reflect these characteristics and the conservation of mass (equation of
continuity) of an ideal fluid are written as equations (2.7) - (2.9). In the equation of
continuity, A is the cross-sectional area of an imaginary flow path (called a stream
tube). Figure 2.6 shows the definitions of a stream line and a stream tube. It is clear
that if the cross-sectional area becomes smaller (A2<A1) the velocity accelerates
(v 2 >v,).
Ideal fluid model:
No-viscosity m = 0
Incompressibility p = const.
Equation of continuity pvA = const.
(2.7)
(2.8)
(2.9)
The momentum equation and the law of energy conservation of an ideal

fluid were formulated by Euler (Leonhard Euler: 1707 - 1783) and his close friend
Bernoulli (Daniel Bernoulli: 1700 - 1782), and are shown as equations (2.10) and
(2.11) respectively, where, s is the coordinate along a stream line, z is the height and
g is the acceleration of gravity. Euler's equation (2.10) is an application of
Newton's second law, equation (2.2). The acceleration term is on the left hand side
(LHS) and is put equal to the force per unit mass on the right hand side (RHS). In
this equation, the LHS comprises the terms of unsteady acceleration and convective
acceleration, and the RHS comprises the gravity force and the pressure gradient
force along a stream line. Unsteady acceleration means that a fluid element is
15
Euler's and Bernoulli's Equations and the Paradox of D'Alembert
Fig. 2.6 Stream Line and Stream Tube
accelerated by the unsteadiness of the flow, i.e. time to time. On the other hand,
convective acceleration means that the fluid element is accelerated along the flow
direction, i.e. place to place.
Euler's equation of motion:
dt
ds
ds
p ds
(2.10)
(Acceleration = Gravity force + Pressure gradient force)

Bernoulli's equation:
H
h gz = const.
(2.11)
(Pressure energy + Kinetic Energy + Potential energy = Constant)

In the case of steady flow, Bernoulli's equation is obtained by integrating
Euler's equation along s. It conlains an importanl proposition, namely, that the total
amount of energy per unit mass of fluid is conserved. Thus, it represents 'the law of
conservation of energy.' Equation (2.11) is one of the most important equations in
modern fluid dynamics. For example, the water velocity and the volumelric flow
rale from a lap on a water lank can be exactly calculated with this equation. The
Pilot tube invented by Pilot (Henri de Pilot: 1695 - 1771) in 1732, which is still used
to measure the speed of modern aircraft, is based on this equation.
One of the first persons to apply the above equations of an ideal fluid for the
flow around an object of arbitrary profile and to try to rationally explain the
aerodynamic drag was D'Alembert (Jean le Rond D'Alembert: 1717 - 1783) who is
also the first editor of the 'Encyclopedia.' In spile of his precise calculations, the
results he obtained surprised and disappointed him. His written article 'dune
nouvelle theorie de la resistance des fluides' concludes with the sentences as
following passage: "/ do not see then, I admit, how one can explain the resistance of
fluids by the theory in a satisfactory manner. It seems to me on the contrary that
this theory, dealt with and studied with profound attention, gives, at least in most
cases, resistance absolutely zero; a singular paradox which I leave to geometricians
to explain."
16
D-0!
(a) Stream line diagram
(b) Surface pressure distribution

(solid line; ideal fluid, broken and single dot
chain lines; real fluids)
Fig. 2.7 Flow of an Ideal Fluid around a Cylinder and the Pressure Distribution
This was the first declaration of the famous 'Paradox of D'Alembert.'

Euler's equation of motion was written above in one-dimensional form for motion
along a stream line. However, the equation can also be written for two-dimensional
and three-dimensional flows, and many flows under numerous boundary conditions
have been calculated since the appearance of the equation. Figure 2.7 shows an
example of a two-dimensional flow of an ideal fluid flow around a circular cylinder.
Figure (a) shows the stream lines, and figure (b) shows the distribution of the static
pressure on the cylinder surface.
Considering the stream line that runs on the center line of the cylinder (from
a to e, called the stagnation stream line), the flow approaches the cylinder with
reducing velocity. Then, the flow collides with the cylinder at the stagnation point
b, and the velocity becomes zero while the pressure takes on a maximum value.
Then, the flow splits into two parts and is accelerated to pass the point c (or c')
where the maximum velocity is 2V and the pressure is minimum. Next, the flow
velocity is reduced as the stream lines meet at the rear stagnation point d. Here the
velocity is zero and the pressure is maximum once more. Finally, the flow velocity
gradually increases to the previous velocity of V far downstream. This is the
mathematical concept of an ideal flow that is obtained exactly. The pressure
distribution is drawn with a solid curved line shown in Fig. 2.7 (b). The front and
the rear stagnation points have positive pressure whose force acts inward on the
surface of the cylinder. In contrast, a large negative pressure is generated at the
shoulder point c (or c') where the pressure is minimum, and the pressure force pulls
the surface outward. In fact, the behavior of the negative pressure is frequently
experienced in our daily life.
Now, if the surface pressure on the cylinder is integrated over the entire
surface of the cylinder, the net force (in vector) acting on the cylinder can be
obtained. As it is clearly seen from the symmetry of the flow and the pressure
distribution, the resulting net force is zero. This result conflicts with our daily
experiences. Even D'Alembert recognized that the explanation of this paradox
Euler's and Bernoulli's Equations and the Paradox ofD'Alembert
17
comes from the ideal fluid modeling, especially the hypothesis of no-viscosity.
Although the viscosity of air or water is small, the conclusion of zero-drag force of
an ideal fluid seemed too dramatic to explain.
In figure (b), the pressure distributions shown as a dash line and a single-dot
chain line are obtained from experiments using real fluids. As it is clearly shown in
the figure, the experimental result of the pressure distribution near the front
stagnation point almost coincides with the ideal fluid theory. In contrast, the
situation at the rear stagnation point differs greatly from the ideal fluid, and the
measured pressure takes on negative values there. As a result, the cylinder is
pushed on its front and drawn backward on its downstream side. Therefore, the
cylinder suffers a large drag force.
Figure 2.8 shows the flow of an ideal fluid around an inclined flat-plate.
This is also an integrated solution of the two-dimensional Euler's equation of
motion. Comparing this ideal flow field to Newton's flow shown in Fig. 2.4, the
former seems to have a more realistic stream line pattern. However, the stagnation
stream line in this case runs through a b c (or c') d e. Thus the flow is
perfectly closed and the stream line pattern on the upper and the lower streams have
beautiful point-symmetry. Therefore, the net force acting on the plate calculated by
integrating the pressure distribution on the plate in this case is exactly zero.
However, the moment acting to make the plate rotate in the clockwise direction still
exists.
Fig. 2.8 Flow of an Ideal Fluid around an Inclined Flat-Plate
We conclude that an object put in an ideal fluid has a total fluid force equal
to zero regardless of the shape of the object.
Keeping the concept of an ideal fluid model, there is another theory, the
'Dead-water region theory,1 proposed by Kirchhoff (G. Kirchhoff: 1824 - 1887) and
Rayleigh (Lord Rayleigh: 1842 - 1919), which was an attempt to avoid the paradox
of D'Alembert. Figure 2.9 shows an example.
Comparing Fig. 2.9 and Fig. 2.8 it is clear that the stagnation stream line
running through a b c (or c') does not close again behind the plate but
separates and splits the flow from both edges of the plate. There is a dead-water
region between the free stream lines in which the flow velocity relative to the plate
is zero. Provided the pressure in the dead-water region equals the static pressure p^,
the pressure at infinity, a large force acting on the plate can be explained by means
of the pressure difference between the dead-water region and the front face of the
18
Fig. 2.9 Flow around an Inclined Flat-Plate with Dead-Water Region Theory
plate on which the stagnation stream line collides.

Curve 2, in the previous Fig. 2.5, is the computed result of the dimensionless
normal force based on the dead-water theory. Although this theory can avoid the
paradox of D'Alembert and seems to be more realistic than Newton's model, the
result does not agree with experimental results. Moreover, the width of the deadwater region needs an assumption and its length is assumed to be infinite. Thus, this
theory includes some controversial elements and does not fully explain
D'Alembert's Paradox.
Lifting Theory
Using ideal fluid theory in 1878, Rayleigh explained that the fluid force acts
perpendicular to the flow direction (lift). The principle of lift is illustrated in Fig.
2.10. This flow diagram is composed of a uniform flow around a cylinder shown in
Fig. 2.7 (a) and a flow with circulation F
(=fv.ds)
where R is the
radius of the cylinder and V is the speed of the undisturbed flow.

r (=<fv-ds}=2pRV
-ds)=2p
RV(2.12)
Circulation is a physical quantity that measures the intensity of the vorticity
i
Vx
pbo
Fig. 2.10 Superposition of a Clockwise Circulation on a

Uniform Ideal Fluid Flow around a Cylinder
Lifting Theory
19
in the flow field. The circulation is calculated by a circular integration of the

tangential velocity component vds along an arbitrary closed curve C. In this case,
there is a vortex with circulation 2pRV inside the cylinder. The flow approaching
the cylinder is first pulled upward, and then pushed downward by the induced
velocity of this vortex. Since the momentum of the incident flow is turned
downward, the cylinder will receive a large upward force, or lift, as a reaction.
Rayleigh showed that the direction of the lift is perpendicular to both the
velocity vector V and the circulation vector F (taken positive in the clockwise
direction along the vortex center), and the vector lift L is expressed in equation
(2.13) by a vector cross product. The generation of lift can also be explained by
Bernoulli's equation, and by considering the stagnation stream line from a to e in
Fig. 2.10. The velocity is zero at the stagnation points, b and d, where the pressure
is maximum. The locations of the stagnation points are moved downward on the
cylinder compared to the zero circulation condition. The flow speed at c is
accelerated from 2V to 3V , and the flow velocity at c is reduced from 2V to V .
The intensity of the negative pressure at point c is larger than that at c' and the
imbalance of the pressure results in a lifting force acting upward on the cylinder.
The trajectory of a curve ball or a screwball in baseball and a cut ball in tennis
follows large curved lines, and the 'Magnus Effect' is due to the lift. However, it
must be noticed that even in this case, the drag force acting opposite to the flow
direction is zero since the pattern of the stream lines is perfectly symmetric. Thus,
as far as the drag is concerned, the paradox of D'Alembert has not been resolved.
L = pV.xT
(2.13)
Figure 2.11 shows the flow field around a wing with a finite angle of attack.
This pattern of stream lines is in accordance with modern wing theory (lifting
theory), and the pattern is almost identical to the experimental results for small
angles of attack. Comparing the stagnation stream line from a to e in this figure to
the pattern drawn in Fig. 2.8, it is clearly seen that the rear stagnation point d has
moved from the upper surface of the wing to the trailing edge of the wing.
Kutta (Wilhelm Kutta: 1867 - 1944) and Joukowski (Nicolai Egorovich
Joukowski: 1847 - 1921) superimposed a circulation on the uniform flow around a
wing, and they determined the intensity of the circulation so that the location of the
rear stagnation point exactly coincides with the trailing edge. This idea is called the
Kutta condition or the Kutta-Joukowski condition. Thus, they clarified that a wing
Fig. 2.11 Flow around a Wing with an Angle of Attack
20
moving forward is equivalent to a vortex, and why a large lift is generated. They
gave the final solution to this difficult problem of calculating the lift force. Their
solution also allows a flying wing to be considered as a bound vortex. Even in this
case, the drag acting on the wing is theoretically zero.
It has been clarified that the drag on an object cannot be explained by means
of an ideal fluid model. Although Euler's equation of motion can be integrated and
can be used to solve numerous flow fields beautifully by introducing circulation, it
is totally in vain for dealing with drag. As a consequence, theoretical fluid
dynamics was of little use for engineers working on the design of ships, pumps and
fans.
It was generally thought that the explanation of D'Alembert's paradox was
the presence of the viscosity of real fluids. The equations of motion that considered
the internal friction of fluids (viscosity) were known in the middle of the 19th
century, however, because of their complexity, their solution and understanding was
not accomplished until the 20* century.
Chapter 3
Modern Fluid Dynamics
The 20th century is often thought of as the 'age of aeronautics' because of the dramatic
progress made in the field since the first powered flight in 1903. This is correct in
many ways. However, scientists and engineers, including the author, would prefer to
think of this century as the 'age of fluid dynamics.' This is because the appearance of
boundary layer theory in 1904 - the year after the success of powered flight - led to a
solution of D'Alembert's paradox.
Is it destiny that some new scientific discoveries occur at the dawn of a century?
Modern fluid dynamics has grown from the boundary layer theory to become an
essential basis of modern aeronautical engineering. This chapter attempts to clarify the
developments and achievements of modern fluid dynamics.
Navier-Stokes Equations
The first and most fundamental equations of motion involving fluid viscosity
(meaning the viscosity of a Newtonian fluid as given in equation (2.4) in Chapter 2)
were formulated independently by Navier (C. L. M. H. Navier: 1785 - 1836) and
Stokes (G. G. Stokes: 1819 - 1903), and are thus known as the Navier-Stokes
Equations. The equations, given as equaions (3.1) and (3.2), describe the motion of
an incompressible fluid, which are represented in vector format in equation (3.1)
and in x, y, z components in equation (3.2).
The Navier-Stokes equations (p = const.):
dv/dt + (v.V)v = K- Vp +
(3.1)
dt
P
P
(Acceleration = External force + Pressure gradient force + Viscous
force)
22
x component;
du + du + du
dt
dx
dy
dz
p dx
p\dx2
dy2
y component;
dv
+ M dv +v dv +vv dv=yv
dt
dx
dy
dz
component;
dw
dt
dw
dx
dw
dy
dw _ ~
dz
1 dp f l ( d 2 v d
-5^ + -5^ + 3
P dy p\0x~ dy2
1 dp
p dz
^l(d2w
p\dx2
d2w
dy2
(3.2)
2
dz
d2w
dz2
Equation of continuity:
ry
V-v =nQ or du
-r- +, dv
^- +dw
- =n0
dx dy d z
(3.3)
Comparing equation (3.1) to Euler's equation of motion (equation (2.10) in

Chapter 2), it can be seen that the acceleration terms on the LHS of each are
identical. The external force term on the RHS, represented by gravity in equation
(2.10) and more generally by X, Y and Z in equation (3.2), and the pressure gradient
terms, are also comparable. The only difference is the addition of a viscous force as
the third term on the RHS. Despite its apparent simplicity, the Navier-Stokes
equations are one of the most difficult non-linear partial differential equations
known to mathematicians. Even using modern super-computers, it is impossible to
obtain general solutions of these equations. Even the existence of a singular
solution is doubted. Since the viscous force (third term on the RHS) is in
proportion to the coefficient of viscosity, it appears that this term is negligible for
fluids that have very low viscosity, such as air and water. And we might
approximate such fluids as no-viscous fluids. However, the fact that the difference
between both solutions of real and ideal fluids becomes significantly large is the
critical basis of D'Alembert's paradox.
Figures 3.1 and 3.2 are photographs of the flow field made by a cylinder
moving from right to left in a water tank. Figure 3.1 was produced by Prandtl
(Ludwig Prandtl: 1875 - 1953) and his disciple Tietjens. It can be seen that the
pattern of stream lines behind the cylinder is completely different from that of an
ideal fluid and of the dead-water region model. The experiments show large
vortices downstream of the cylinder. The stream lines that should theoretically run
along the wall-surface of the cylinder actually separate from the trailing surface of
the cylinder, and form large vortices downstream. These vortices are generated
alternatively from the top and bottom of the cylinder, forming a staggered pattern.
Figure 3.2 shows various vortex streets generated downstream of the cylinders under
six different flow conditions.
23
Fig. 3.1 An Actual Fluid Flow around a Cylinder (Visualized photograph)

(L. Prandtl, J Roy. Aero. Soc., 31-730,1927)
Fig. 3.2 Karman Vortex Streets Downstream of a Cylinder (Visualized

photograph) (F. Homann, Forsch. Ing-Wes., 7-1,1936)
Karman (Theodore von Karman: 1881 - 1963), another of Prandtl's disciples,

theoretically proved the stability of the vortex street - this effect is now known as a
'Karman vortex street.' The flow fields shown in Figs. 3.1 and 3.2 should serve as
reference states for any mathematical solutions of equation (3.1). However, such
solutions have not been found yet.

Why does neglecting the viscosity of air and water produce such large differences
between a real flow and an ideal fluid flow? The answer is hidden once again in the
molecularity of a real fluid. Water and air are collections of innumerable molecules
that move freely relative to each other. A 'solid' body is also a collection of
individual molecules or atoms, with the distance between the molecules being far
larger than the size of each molecule. Since the velocity of molecular motion under
normal temperature and pressure reaches 400 m/s, the molecules of the fluid can
24
easily move in direct contact with the surface or move away from the body surface.
What then are the boundary (velocity) conditions that a real fluid should
satisfy on average at the surface of a solid body? In the ideal fluid model, the only
boundary condition is that the velocity component perpendicular to the wall be zero.
Hence the velocity component parallel to the wall need not be zero and the fluid
may slip along the body surface. In fact, for all ideal fluid flows described in the
previous chapter, it was assumed that a stagnation stream line was located on the
body surface. More strictly speaking, the solid body surface itself was a stagnation
stream line.
If the molecularity of a real fluid is considered, then the molecules of the
fluid lose their average momentum by means of their 'free access' to the solid
surface. Thus both the perpendicular and tangential velocity components should be
zero. For those who have studied the dynamics of a real fluid flow, this commonly
accepted concept is known as the 'no slip' boundary condition. Fluid friction is
therefore very different from the concept of solid friction that appears in text books
on dynamics: Two solid bodies slip against each other, and the friction force is in
proportion to the normal force.1 The reader needs to be aware that this boundary
condition holds irrespective of the magnitude of the viscosity. It holds even if the
viscosity is very small. The general expression of the description above is shown in
equation (3.4), where vb is the velocity vector of the body, which equals the fluid
velocity v. This condition must always be satisfied, even, for example, if a dolphin
is swimming very fast and is rapidly wiggling its body.
No slip condition: v = vh on the body surface
(3.4)
Reynolds1 Law of Similarity

Since the LHS of equation (3.1) is associated with acceleration, it can be thought of
as inertia force per unit mass. In fluid dynamics the ratio of this term to the viscous
force (the third term on the RHS) is known as the 'Reynolds Number.' The
Reynolds number is defined in equation (3.5), where the density of the fluid is p, the
coefficient of viscosity m a 'characteristic' body length L and the velocity is V. It is
a dimensionless number, and varies widely from 10 ' to 108 depending on the ratio
between the inertia force and the viscous force in the flow field. For example, the
Reynolds number is quite small in the aquatic world of an amoeba or a paramecium.
and quite large for flows around a whale or a ship.
(
Inertia force
Reynolds number: Re = -V Viscous force
pV2 1 L \ pVL
= -- - = -V/L )
M
(3.5)
If each term of the Navier-Stokes equation is non-dimensionalized and if

gravity is neglected then equation (3.6) is obtained. Where, all physical quantities
including the time t in the equation are non-dimensionalized with representative
quantities. In accordance with theory, the solution of the Navier-Stokes equation is
25
Reynolds' Law of Similarity
only determined by the dimensionless coefficient 1/Re (the second term on the
RHS). In other words, 'flow fields whose boundaries are geometrically similar have
similar flow fields under the same Reynolds number.' This theorem is known as
'Reynolds' law of similarity.'
Non-dimensional Navier-Stokes equation:
^ + (V V) v =- Vp + Av
m
Re
(3.6)
Figure 3.3 demonstrates the great value of Reynolds' law of similarity. The
figure shows the coefficient of drag force acting on a sphere for a wide range of
Reynolds numbers. The drag coefficient CD is defined in equation (3.7). All the
experimental results lie on a single curved line, thus showing that the flow fields are
identical under the same Reynolds number, regardless of the sphere diameter or
flow velocity. Once again, the general solution of the Navier-Stokes equation for
arbitrary Reynolds numbers does not exist. Stokes and Oseen (C. W. Oseen)
produced theoretical solutions for very low Reynolds numbers less than 1 (line (1) in
1851 and line (2) in 1910 in Fig. 3.3). In addition, there is a phenomenon where the
drag coefficient at a Reynolds number near 3xl05 suddenly drops from about 0.4 to
0.1 - this is described later.
Drag
Fluid dynamic pressure x Sphere projected area )
L ebster
-----
lien
}Meselsbtrger
- 1 926
..A.
Sl
- ' N**"
^
,
> =*,
jufo,
MM i. >
\
\ ,<
->
(3.7)
1/
iNSarat if:
chiller -Schmiedel
.,
vis
4e
v?
46
? 45
V6S
4 ff
4 6^
70* '
V6a
;i
Re =Vd/v
Fig. 3.3 Drag Coefficient for a Sphere; (D Stokes1 theory, (2) Oseen's theory
(H. Schlichting, Boundary Layer Theory, 7th ed., 17, McGraw Hill,
1979)
26

According to equation (3.6), the greater the Reynolds number the lower the
influence of the viscous force (on the RHS in equation (3.6)) compared to other
terms. However, as already described, even if the Reynolds number is very large,
the flow velocity at the surface of the object must satisfy the 'no slip1 condition due
to the molecularity of the fluid. Prandtl noted this point, and proposed his boundary
layer theory in 1904. He divided the flow around an object into two parts. He
considered the influence of viscosity only in a very thin layer near the surface of the
object, and considered the main stream away from the body as a no- viscous fluid.
This is the Prandtl's boundary layer theory.
Using boundary layer theory, the Navier-Stokes only applies in a very thin
layer of fluid near the body surface. Thus, for the flow around a two-dimensional
object, only the equation of motion for the x-direction (tangential to the surface of
the wall) remains from the three equations of (3.2). The other two equations can be
ignored because of conditions (3.8). Furthermore, in the equation of motion for the
x-direction, the viscous force term can be simplified significantly. Finally, equation
(3.9) is obtained - this is the boundary layer equation.
Assumptions of the boundary layer equation:
near the wall,
w = 0,
<1
(3.8)
d
hence,
du ,
du , du
1 dp . H d2u
dt
dx
p dx
+ M - + v = -- ~^ + -TT
dy
p dy
.. 3 n.9)
<-
Equation of continuity:
^ +^ =0
ox
ay
(3.10)
The flow outside the boundary layer can be analytically derived using
Ruler's equation and the equation of continuity. Thus, the flow field of a real fluid
around a body can be separated into two problems, (1) solving the boundary layer
equation with the conditions of no slip (u = v = 0) at the wall surface, and (2)
solving the ideal fluid flow outside the outer edge of the boundary layer. The edge
of the boundary layer becomes a boundary condition for the main stream, along
with the velocity in the jc-direction at the boundary layer edge that corresponds to
slip.
In 1908 another of Prandtl's disciples, Blasius (H. Blasius), first calculated
equation (3.9) for a boundary layer that developed on a flat-plate positioned parallel
to a uniform flow. Blasius' solution has since been verified experimentally with
good accuracy.
Using boundary layer theory, difficult flow fields of actual fluids could have
been treated mathematically. The theory has brought about remarkable progress in
27
fluid dynamics during the 20th century. In particular, the theory was essential for the
progress of aeronautical engineering that began with the Wright brothers' first
powered flight (W. Wright: 1867 - 1912, O. Wright: 1871 - 1948). D'Alembert's
paradox also revealed its hidden essence: the existence of the no-slip condition, the
development of the boundary layer and the separation of the flow from the wall
surface.
In a flow with an adverse pressure gradient (dpldx > 0), such as the flow
behind a cylinder where the pressure increases along the flow direction, fluid
particles inside the boundary layer have significantly slower speed than for an ideal
fluid near the surface. The fluid cannot move forward and is pushed away from the
surface and into the main stream. Thus, large separation flows may exist wherever
there is a large positive pressure gradient.
In addition, boundary layer separation never occurs under a normal pressure
gradient where the pressure decreases along the flow direction (dpldx < 0). The fact
that the flow pattern in front of a cylinder in Fig. 3.1 and the pressure distribution of
the relevant area in Fig. 2.7 (b) are identical to the solution of an ideal fluid flow can
be seen as the proof of this.
One important result of boundary layer theory is that to reduce the drag of
an object in a fluid, the outline of the object should have a streamlined or a spindle
shape. This means that the rear part (the shape behind the cross-section of
maximum thickness) of a wing should be drawn smoothly to reduce the adverse
pressure gradient dpldx. One of the main topics in aeronautical engineering in the
early part of 20th century was the development of wing shapes that had large lift and
small drag. Many countries made efforts to develop low drag wing profiles
individually and in secret throughout the two World Wars.
Figure 3.4 shows cross sections of a laminar wing profile and a circular
cylinder (steel wire), both of which have the same drag force. As shown, for a wire
of diameter d, a wing whose cord length is 167 times d and whose thickness is 35
times d has the same small drag as the wire itself. This fact illustrates how the
many guide wires used in early biplanes created very large drag, and also makes it
easy to understand why such biplanes were subsequently replaced with modern
monoplanes.
Fig. 3.4 A Cylinder and a Laminar Aerofoil with Equivalent Drag (H. Schlichting,
Boundary Layer Theory, 7th ed., McGraw Hill, 1979)
28
The same reasoning accounts for the fact that high-speed swimming
animals, that are the main theme of this book, have such streamlined shapes or
spindle shapes. They arrived at their current shapes through biological evolution
over tens of thousands of years or even longer. The phenomenon that 'fish swim
smoothly1 means that only a small propelling force is needed to accelerate them, and
once moving the swimming speed is not reduced easily due to the body inertia and
the very low drag.
Laminar Flow and Turbulent Flow

By understanding the concept of a boundary layer, the behavior of real fluids can be
understood. However, there remains one un-avoidable problem: Laminar flow and
turbulent flow occur not at the level of molecular motion, but in macro-dynamic
fluid motion. For instance, even in the case of water flow in a pipe that appears to
be uniform, there are two kinds of flow patterns: Laminar flow and turbulent flow.
Reynolds (Osborne Reynolds: 1842 - 1912) first clarified this phenomenon
experimentally in 1883 in England. Figure 3.5 shows his experimental apparatus at
Cambridge University. Using this quite simple equipment Reynolds made water
flow at several different speeds through a transparent glass tube fixed in a tank. The
flow was visualized by injecting colored water through an inlet tube. Reynolds
discovered that when the average velocity va was small, the colored water flowed in
a straight line with no mixing. When the flow velocity exceeded a certain critical
velocity, the colored line disappeared as fluid particles mixed with each other. Thus
Reynolds first clarified that a transition from laminar flow to turbulent flow
occurred at a Reynolds number exceeding a certain critical number (about 2,000).
Sommerfeld (A. Sommerfeld: 1868 - 1952), however, first introduced the term
Reynolds number, Reynolds did not use the term himself.
Fig. 3.5 Reynolds' Experimental Apparatus
Figure 3.6 shows the difference between laminar and turbulent flow in
Reynolds' experiment. In the case of laminar flow, fluid particles do not mix with
each other and thus form a single line parallel to the pipe. In contrast, for turbulent
flow the particles mix with each other and form a complex pattern. In the figure,
v =m/p is the 'Kinematic viscosity1 or 'Coefficient of kinematic viscosity,1 which is
obtained by dividing the viscosity fi by the density of the fluid p. For example, the
kinematic viscosity of water, at 20 Celsius and at one atmosphere of pressure, is
29
colored liquid
colored liquid
r
(a) Re - -<
2,000
(b) Re -
- > 2,000
Fig. 3.6 Laminar and Turbulent Flow in Reynolds' Experiment
approximately 0.01 cm2/s. If the diameter of the water pipe is 1 cm and the average
velocity of the flow is 20 cm/s, the Reynolds number is 2,000. For a larger pipe
diameter or a faster flow speed, the flow will become turbulent.
Most flows that we experience in everyday life have a Reynolds number of
104 or greater, and thus most flows are turbulent. The Navier-Stokes equations for a
real fluid (shown in equation (3.1)) are valid for both laminar and turbulent flows,
however, the detailed flow fields for laminar and turbulent flows are very different.
Since the stream lines in laminar flow are parallel each other, a coordinate axis is
taken parallel to the flow direction, and the convective acceleration, the second term
on the LHS, becomes exactly zero or leaves only the term u (duldx) like the one
dimensional Euler equation. As a consequence, equation (3.1) can then be easily
integrated. Indeed, for a laminar flow including the flow in the boundary layer,
most flow patterns can been solved nowadays.
In the case of a turbulent flow, even if the time-averaged velocity is steady
(dvldt = 0), the instantaneous velocity of each fluid particle (a lump of molecules)
is unsteady (dvldt 0). Thus, the three components of the velocities u, v and w are
functions of the space variables x,y,z and the time t. This means that all terms in
the momentum equation (3.1) or (3.2) are equally important, and none of them can
be ignored. This is the essential complexity of turbulent motion. Although modern
fluid dynamics uses statistical strategies and the concepts of vortex flow modeling
or Vortex viscosity' to analyze the turbulent motion, the reality is that no approach
has proceeded beyond the area of an experimental or a semi-experimental theory.

The recent development of super-computers has enabled precise and realistic flow
simulations by means of direct solutions of the Navier-Stokes equation without any
turbulent models. Figure 3.7 shows one such trial example. The flow field around a
two-dimensional cylinder was divided into 32,761 (= 181x181) O-type grid
meshes. The uniform flow passing the cylinder was discretized and then calculated
directly from time to time. The no-slip condition on the cylinder was also used as
the boundary condition, and the meshes near the cylinder (in the boundary layer
area) were made as small as possible. Three different Reynolds numbers 102, 104
and 3 x 105 were computed.
The results seem surprisingly identical to the actual flow. They show an
instantaneous view of the boundary layer flow separating behind the cylinder and
30
flowing backward to generate large vortices. This seems to agree with the
photographs of an actual flow, as seen in Fig 3.1. Thus a super-computer can
simulate precisely non-uniform (fluctuating) flows that change with time, and
compare favorably with the physical experiments in water tanks or wind tunnels.
Simulations made by super-computers are called 'Numerical experiments' nowadays,
and are treated separately but with the same regard as physical experiments.
The time-averaged drag forces on a cylinder, obtained by numerical
simulations, are compared with the results of physical experiments in Fig. 3.8. The
solid line in the figure is the results of physical experiments. Numerical results
were obtained at seven different Reynolds numbers. In the case of a relatively small
Reynolds numbers, the various numerical solutions are nearly identical and agree
well with the physical experiments. This is not the case for larger Reynolds
numbers. The numerical results show different drags, and depend on the calculation
conditions and the size of the time step, AT, used in the calculation. The numerical
Fig. 3.7 Numerical Calculation of the Flow around a Cylinder (H. Matsumiya et al., 1993)
2.0
AT"
1.0 . +0.1
X 0.05
V 1.67 X10-3 2
3.5X10- 3
1.67 X10-3
A 0.83 X1Q0.0
10'
10'
10"
10*
Fig. 3.8 Numerical Calculations of the Drag Coefficient for a Circular Cylinder (Solid curved
line shows the results of physical experiments after H. Matsumiya et al., 1993)
31
solutions generally have a higher drag than the physical experiments for Reynolds
numbers greater than 102. Thus, even for calculations made with a super-computer,
the results must be examined and compared with physical experiments that have the
same boundary conditions.
It should be noted that physical experiments are not always correctly
compared to the numerical simulations. For instance, there is no assurance that the
flow, in the physical experiment for the flow around a cylinder, is perfectly twodimensional, as is assumed in the numerical simulation. Thus, the essential
difficulty of real fluid motions can be understood, and the importance of
experiments in fluid dynamics is also emphasized.
As previously mentioned, the sudden decrease of drag seen in Fig. 3.8 for
Reynolds numbers near 3x 105 is quite an interesting phenomenon. It is no
exaggeration to say that modern fluid dynamics has solved the entire mechanism of
this phenomenon. As the Reynolds number increases, the boundary layer flow near
the wall reaches a critical velocity, and the flow in the boundary layer undergoes a
transition from laminar to turbulent flow. The key to this phenomenon is that, when
the boundary layer becomes turbulent, the fluid particles obtain kinetic energy from
the main flow in addition to the one-dimensional kinetic energy along the wall. As
a result, the robustness against the adverse pressure gradient that was previously
described becomes stronger, and the separation of the boundary layer is delayed
compared to a laminar boundary layer. Thus the breadth of the separated flow area
becomes narrow compared to the case of laminar flow separation, and consequently
the value of the drag coefficient decreases to about one third of the laminar flow
case.
This sudden decrease in drag is also observed in Fig. 3.3 for the flow passing
a sphere at Reynolds number of around 3x 105. Prandtl, who proposed the
boundary layer theory, first proved the phenomenon physically. He set a tripping
wire in front of a sphere, and artificially created a turbulent boundary layer in the
lower Reynolds number region. This effect is so well known that nowadays most
golf players know the reason for the dimples on a golf ball - the drag of a ball with
dimples is much smaller than without the dimples, and thus the driven distance is
three to five times longer. It is interesting to note how much fluid dynamics has
contributed to sporting technology, and there are many books on the subject.
An additional important fact must be considered when discussing turbulent
flow in pipes and turbulent boundary layers, namely, that there still exists a laminar
flow region very near to the wall (the layer under the turbulent boundary layer).
Since the boundary condition on a solid wall must be the no-slip condition, the flow
next to a smooth wall should be laminar, and a turbulent boundary layer exists
above this laminar layer. This sub-layer is known as a Viscous' or 'laminar' sublayer. Considering the smoothness or roughness of a pipe wall, if the height of
roughness exceeds the thickness of the viscous sub-layer, then the wall surface is
judged to be 'rough' - otherwise it is termed 'fluid dynamically smooth.' The viscous
sub-layer is considered again in the section on Toms effect' in Chapter 6.
32

This final section of the chapter describes the motion of a wing in a real fluid, and
attempts to explain how a wing moving forward in air or water produces lift.
Figure 3.9 shows sequential (by time) animations of the flow around a wing
that suddenly starts to move from rest. Figure (a) shows the instantaneous flow field
as the wing just starts to move. This flow field is nearly identical to Fig. 2.8 (a flow
pattern around an inclined flat-plate), which was already described in the previous
chapter for an ideal fluid. Initially, circulation does not exist in the fluid or around
the wing, and the fluid flows as if it is an ideal fluid that generates neither lift nor
drag. Point A in the figure is the front stagnation point and point S is the rear
stagnation point. The fluid particle initially existing at the trailing edge of point B
flows upstream to the point S on the wing. Figure (b) shows the next instantaneous
flow field in which fluid particles try to pass around point B to the upper surface of
the wing. However, the flow fails to go around the trailing edge and separates at
point B. Point B becomes a 'singular 1 point - in ideal fluid dynamics, the
acceleration required to negotiate the 180 turn is infinity. However, this is not
possible in the case of a real fluid. The author explains the reason in his lecture, by
saying "a flow cannot suddenly change its direction."
Figure (c) shows the flow field at a later time. Despite the separation of the
flow from the lower surface, no dead-water region is generated downstream. In this
case, the rear stagnation point S moves downstream to the trailing edge. From this
time onwards the upper and the lower flows meet at the trailing edge. The fluid
portion between points B and 5 forms a counter clockwise vortex that moves
Fig. 3.9 Flow around a Wing Starting from Rest
33
downstream. Since the flow velocity above the wing is faster than the flow velocity
below the wing, this phenomenon can be regarded as the generation of a 'circulation'
around the wing. The intensity of the circulation is obtained from equation (2.12).
As shown in Fig. (d), the vortex that is generated downstream has exactly the
same magnitude as the circulation around the wing but with negative value.
Therefore, the integration along the entire closed curve C is zero, which is the same
as when the wing was at rest. The vortex attached to a wing is known as a 'bound
vortex,1 and the vortex downstream is known as a 'starting vortex.'
The phenomenon described above can be confirmed by both flow
visualization and computer simulation. The important thing is that the rear
stagnation point moves to the trailing edge due to the molecularity or viscosity of a
real fluid, and circulation is generated as a consequence. As has been described in
the previous chapter, in ideal fluid dynamics the intensity of the circulation is
mathematically determined so that the position of the rear stagnation point coincides
with the trailing edge (Kutta-Joukowski condition), and the lift is explained on this
basis. Thus, circulation occurs only in case of a real fluid flow.
The above explanation is for a two-dimensional fluid flow. What about the
case of a wing that has finite width? Let us consider an airplane taking off the
ground, as in Fig. 3.10. For a finite wing, vortex lines are drawn from both ends of
the wing and are left in the atmosphere as free vortices. These free vortices from
the wing tips are connected with the starting vortex that is also left behind. The
bound vortex, wing tip vortices and the starting vortex constitute a large vortex loop.
The intensity of the free vortices exactly equals that of the bound vortex. To put it a
different way, an airplane consumes fuel in generating energy for the free vortices
that extend continuously during flight. Since the intensity of a vortex is in
proportion to the lift of an airplane, i.e. the weight, it is understood that there are
extremely strong free vortices and a downward flow behind a large airplane. This
means there is dangerous turbulence for any small airplane flying nearby.
bound vortex
free vortices
airport
starting vortex
Fig. 3.10 Relationship among a Bound Vortex, a Starting Vortex and Free Vortices
34
Figure 3.11 shows an example of the characteristics of a wing. The

horizontal axis is the angle of attack a while the vertical axis is the lift coefficient
CL, the drag coefficient CD and the lift-drag ratio CLICD. The relationships between
lift and drag and their coefficients are defined in equations (3.11) to (3.13).
L = CL-^-pV2A
(3.11)
(3.12)
(3.13)
D
.12
-40
8
16
angle of attack OL ()
24
Fig. 3.11 Characteristic Curves of a Wing (I. H. Abbott and A. E.

Doenhoff, Theory of Wing Section, Dover, 1958)
From the figure, the lift coefficient at an angle of attack of zero degrees is
positive because the wing has camber. For small a, CL increases in proportion to a,
which agrees with the circulation theory described previously.
On the other hand, it is well known that if the angle of attack increases
beyond a certain angle, there is a sudden decrease in lift and a rapid increase in
drag. This is known as the 'stall1 phenomenon, and in the figure it happens for a
exceeding 18 degrees. The circulation around a wing in a stall tends to zero, and the
existence of a dead-water region on the upper wing surface causes a large pressure
resistance. According to Fig. 3.11 the lift-drag ratio LID at an angle of attack of 1
degree (relatively small) has a maximum value of 32. If the attack angle of a wing
is kept at this angle during steady cruising, the airplane can realize the most
economical flight, i.e., the plane can carry the maximum load with the minimum
propelling force (minimum fuel consumption). Therefore, in addition to the
maximum lift coefficient, the maximum lift-drag ratio is a particularly important
35
property for a wing.

The shape of a wing defines the characteristic curves for a wing: the
thickness and camber relative to the cord length and the thickness distribution along
the cord. These characteristics are measured mainly by wind tunnel experiments. It
must also be mentioned that the Reynolds number affects the results. Thus the same
wing profile will have very different characteristics when used for a small propeller
airplane, and for a high-speed jumbo jet airplane. In other examples, when a wing
is used for a blade cascade of a water wheel or of a wind turbine, an engineer has to
develop an appropriate wing profile that is optimized to the conditions of use and
the Reynolds number.
This chapter has described the physics of real fluids, the boundary layer theory,
laminar and turbulent flows, numerical and physical experiments and the movement
of a wing in a real fluid. It is a pleasure for the author not only to introduce this
basic knowledge of fluid dynamics to beginners, but also to allow senior readers
who have studied fluid dynamics to rediscover the difficulties, and thus the
interesting complexity and deepness of this field of the science.
Chapter 4
Principles of Thrust Generation
As already described in the introduction of Chapter 2, the Greek philosopher Aristotle
considered fish swimming in water and birds flying in the sky and concluded that their
motion was governed by the nature of fish and the nature of birds. He could not
explain why an arrow - which is not a living animal - continues to fly against gravity.
This mystery was finally solved by Galileo and Newton. Since the only external forces
acting on the arrow are gravity and air resistance (drag), the flying speed of the arrow is
gradually reduced. In this chapter, we will consider how fish swim against the drag
and how birds continue to fly against gravity. Another question arises: how is the
propelling force acting on a fish or a bird obtained? The correct explanation for this
problem was accomplished after the development of Newtonian dynamics, especially
after the establishment of fluid dynamics.
Using Newtonian dynamics (Newton's three laws expressing three aspects of
one theorem for motions and forces), an explanation of thrust generation can be
obtained from the second and the third laws. When a fish or a bird applies a force to
the surrounding fluid (water and air) by moving its body, the magnitude of the force
equals the product of the affected fluid mass multiplied by its acceleration as seen in
equation (2.2). On the other hand, according to the law of action and reaction, exactly
the same magnitude of force acts on the fish or bird but it is oppositely directed. This
is the principle of thrust generation. A fish pushes the surrounding fluid backward by
wiggling its body and caudal fin, and thus obtains thrust. A bird pushes air backwards
and downwards by flapping its wings, and thus obtains both thrust and lift
simultaneously as a reaction to the air movement. It is easier to understand the concept
of action and reaction by imaging a reader to jump up by giving a kick on the ground.
The thrust and lift forces on an airplane have been described in Fig. 2.2, and the
forces on a bird flying steadily are similar to those for an airplane. However,
describing the acceleration of the flow around an easily deformable body is very
different from that around a solid body, and the further developments in fluid dynamics
for flexible shapes (especially real (viscous) fluid dynamics) are needed. The full and
final solution of this problem has not yet been obtained just as real fluid dynamics has
not been completed. In this chapter, momentum theory, slender body theory and
38

oscillating wing theory are explained within the limits of current understanding.
Momentum Theory
A force acting on a fluid can be described by the change of momentum of the fluid.
Thus even if the thrust that an object generates or the drag acting on it is not directly
measured, the magnitude of the force can be determined by considering an
arbitrarily sized control volume surrounding the object and investigating the net
change of fluid momentum that flows in and out of the volume. This is the
momentum theory.
Figure 4.1 shows the momentum theory for a screw propeller. The propeller
exists as an actuator disk at the center of the figure. The relative velocity of the
fluid that flows into the propeller is denoted as V, and the velocity of the fluid
flowing out is V+v. Provided the screw propeller moves in a static fluid, V is the
forward speed, and v is the speed of the jet of fluid directed backward by the
propeller. The area of the disk is S, the pressure in front of and behind the disk are
p1, and p2 respectively, the pressure far from the disk is p_, and the fluid velocity
passing through the disk is V+v'. The thrust T that the disk generates is given by
equation (4.1) or (4.2). Equation (4.1) is due to the pressure difference between the
front and the back of the disk, and equation (4.2) is the increase of fluid momentum
through the control volume. Ignoring the energy loss due to viscosity and the
rotational movement, Bernoulli's equation for the stream lines in the flow upstream
of the disk is given by equation (4.3) and for the flow downstream of the disk by
equation (4.4).
T=(p2-Pl)S
(4.1)
(4.2)
(4.3)
(4.4)
(c.v)
V+v'
V+v
Fig. 4.1 Momentum Theory for a Screw Propeller
Momentum Theory
39
From the above equations it can be induced that v' is just one half of v (in
equation (4.5)). The a shown in equation (4.6) is an important variable in the
momentum theory, and is known as the axial interference factor. Finally, the thrust
coefficient, power and thrust efficiency of a screw propeller are defined in equations
(4.7), (4.8) and (4.9).
v' =
(4.5)
(4.6)
2V
Thrust coefficient: CT
T
=1/1
= 4a (1 + a)
(4.7)
Power: P = -pS(V + v'){(V + v)2 -V2}

= ~pSV3-4a(l + a)2
TV
l +a
Thrust efficiency: 77 = - = -
(4.8)
=-
(4.9)
Figure 4.2 shows characteristic curves of thrust efficiency and thrust

coefficient versus the axial interference factor. The figure shows that the thrust
efficiency is 100% when a is 0. Indeed, the propeller does not produce any force
when a = 0 , and since the drag is also zero, the efficiency is 100%. To keep a high
thrust efficiency, the accelerated flow speed v should be small compared to the
advancing speed V. High-speed swimming fish seem to satisfy this condition. For a
propeller on a ship, the thrust must overcome the drag on the ship body, and a
cannot have a very small value. As a compromise, if a takes a value of 0.5 (thus
making v equal to V), then CT is 3 and 77 is 2/3. It can be found that a modern highspeed boat such as a jet-foil tends to have a large a to obtain a large thrust.
However, this is not a wise strategy in terms of fluid dynamic efficiency.
To correlate the required thrust by momentum theory with the needed
mechanical shaft torque of a propeller, it is necessary to use wing theory. Thus each
blade of the propeller must first be divided into a number of blade elements along its
longitudinal direction. Next, the partial thrusts and the partial torque of the blade
element in each annular flow volume (whose rotational center is always the same)
must be calculated by means of the circulation generated in each blade element.
Finally, the net mechanical torque and power are determined by integrating over all
the blade elements. This is known as blade element theory. Whereas momentum
theory is a solution considering the momentum change in a macro view of a control
volume, the blade element theory is a solution considering the flow around each
40

1.0 rv
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
71 o
0.5
a
Fig. 4.2 Thrust Efficiency and Thrust Coefficient of a Screw Propeller (Momentum theory)
blade element in a micro view. Therefore, the momentum theory can be viewed as a
compulsory theory to determine the boundary condition in a combined application
of blade element and momentum theory.
Slender Body Theory

Although momentum theory precisely holds even for fish and birds, defining the
actuator disk is extremely complicated because the mechanism of thrust generation
depends on the body motion of the individual animal.
As introduced in Chapter 1 , there are two swimming styles among fish that
are considered to have high thrust efficiency. The first is the Anguilliform (eel
swimming) mode, which involves oscillating (wiggle) the whole body from the head
to the tail. The second is the Carangiform (mackerel swimming) mode, which
limits the oscillation to the rear half or third of the body, and also utilizes a welldeveloped caudal fin. Both styles impart backward momentum to the surrounding
fluid and the resulting reaction propels the fish forwards, which was discussed in the
introduction of this chapter. The fluid dynamic efficiency is defined by equation
(4.10), which uses the average thrust T generated by the fish, the swimming speed V
and the average power P (the power that the fish puts into the surrounding fluid).
This definition is completely identical to equation (4.9).
Lighthill applied slender body theory (assuming that the ratio of the body
width to the body length and the ratio of the flow velocity perpendicular to the
direction of the motion to the swimming speed are both small) to an Anguilliform
swimming motion to analyze the propelling mechanism as follows.
Figure 4.3 shows a coordinate system with the origin fixed at the head of the
fish. The fish is assumed to have symmetry about the x-z plane and to propel itself
forwards with a horizontal oscillatory movement. If the displacement in the ydirection of the body centerline along the x-axis is denoted as h(x,I), then the lateral
41
Slender Body Theory
flow velocity of the surrounding fluid in y-direction is approximated by equation

(4.11). This cross flow velocity v consists of an unsteady component plus a
convective component. If the virtual mass of the cross section with area S per unit
length is ma(x), then the sectional momentum in the j-direction is mavdx and the
necessary force for the movement of this section is equal to the net change of the
momentum, and equation (4.12) holds.
/ *\ =
v(x,t)
dt
F =-
dh
dx
-^~
dx
dt
(4.11)
, ,
,1
m a v)
v \ dx
J
(4.12)
displacement h(x,t)
cross sectional area S(x)
Fig. 4.3 Coordinate System for Swimming Motion Analysis (Slender body theory)
Multiplying the force times the lateral velocity of the body, dh/dt, and
integrating the product with respect to x from 0 to / gives the total power P(t) that
the fish provides_to the surrounding fluid, which is shown as equation (4.13). The
average power P is obtained by integrating this equation over time, resulting in
equation (4.14). Since this power consists of the effective power to propel the fish
forward and the kinetic energy that is released and wasted downstream, the average
thrust and the thrust efficiency of the fish can be calculated using equations (4.16)
and (4.17). The above is a summary of Lighthill's theory.
dh f'dh ( d_
d ^,, d\
.,
-^-=7 -^-\-z- + V\(mav)dx
dt Jo dt \dt
.dt
dx)
-^- + V\\ mav \dx-l ~mavdx

\dt
dx)\dt
J ^o dt
= 4-1 f'^m.vdx-lf'm.Sdx
dt\Jo dt
2Jo
tl Vv-^
" dt
1+vr^Lm.vT
J
idt
Jo
(4.13)
(4.14)
42
(4.15)
17 = 1-
&L
dt
(4.17)
Next, Lighthill considered the swimming motion as a progressive wave moving

along the fish body of the form given by equation (4.18). Heref(x) is the
distribution of lateral amplitude along the body axis x, and c in the function g is the
propagating wave velocity. In this case, the average thrust and the thrust efficiency
are remarkably simplified and are given by equations (4.19) and (4.20).
(4.18)
Figure 4.4 shows the thrust and efficiency in this case as functions of Vic.
From the figure, thrust generation is a maximum at a swimming speed of zero with
an efficiency (effective work ratio) of only 0.5. In addition, the efficiency is 100%
when V/c is equal to 1 with a thrust of zero. According to momentum theory in the
previous section, this corresponds to the situation where a is zero in Fig. 4.2 and
thus the effective work ratio is also zero. In mechanical systems, such as pumps or
waterwheels, this condition is known as 'runaway.' If as a compromise, V/c is taken
as 0.8, then the efficiency becomes 90%. It is clear that this theory also assumes
that the fluid is ideal and ignores various losses. Thus it should be noted that
equations (4.19) and (4.20) represent the upper limits of thrust and efficiency.
(4 20)
'
Lighthill also considered the moment of force about key points along the
body axis. He concluded that the most effective motion should:
limit the motion of the body axis to the rear half of the fish, and take the
fish's mass there to be small.
(D take Vic close to 1 so that v is not large compared to dhldt. This prevents
large momentum changes in the rear half of the body where the virtual mass
is large.
(D most importantly, manage the wave form of the motion so that one positive
phase and one negative phase always exist in the rear half of the body.
43

1.0
0.5
0.5
V/c
1.0
Fig. 4.4 Thrust and Efficiency vs. V/c (f'(/) = 0)
This minimizes the angular momentum reaction along the body axis.
An example that fails to fill the third condition is the swimming motion of
mosquito larvae.
The more effective swimming style that primarily uses the tail or the caudal
fin is the Carangiform (mackerel swimming) motion. The profile of the caudal fins
of fish belonging to this style (horse mackerel, mackerel, tuna, dolphins and whales
- although these last two are not fish) is largely protrusive in z-direction, having a
crescent shaped wing with a high-aspect ratio. Thus the assumptions of a slender
body cannot hold. For the swimming motions of such caudal fins, oscillating wing
theory discussed below should provide more realistic analysis.

Figure 4.5 shows the principle of thrust generation by a two-dimensional oscillating
wing. The wing moves in a static fluid from right to left with speed U. In this case
the wing performs a heaving motion, and a simultaneous pitching motion that has a
phase difference of about p/2 relative to the heaving. As shown in the figure, if the
heaving speed is v, then the flow speed relative to the wing is w which is found by
vector addition of v and U. The direction of the relative velocity w coincides with
the tangent of the locus of the wing movement shown as a dashed curve in the
figure. Provided that the wing position relative to the vector w has a non-zero angle
of attack, a circulation is generated around the wing and a lift force L perpendicular
to w is generated. The vector component of the lift L in the forward direction gives
the thrust T on the body of the fish, and the oscillating wing generates a thrust with
two peaks per period.
Since the relative flow around the wing changes periodically, it is easy to
imagine that the flow downstream of the wing is complex, especially for unsteady
changes of circulation. As described in the previous chapter, a negative starting
vortex is generated downstream due to the Kutta-Joukowski condition as the wing
obtains a positive circulation (a bound vortex). When the positive circulation
44
Fig. 4.5 Principle of Oscillating Wing Propulsion
reduces its intensity a bound vortex is released and left behind downstream. Next, a
positive starting vortex is generated downstream when the wing obtains a negative
circulation, and a negative vortex is released downstream when the negative
circulation reduces its intensity. This motion repeats to generate two pairs of
vortices in each period. The generated vortex row develops into a 'Reverse Karman
vortex street' with an induced velocity opposite the swimming direction.
This unsteady state naturally affects the characteristics of the wing, and there
is no guarantee that the generated lift on the wing has the same magnitude as the lift
in a steady flow. For a two-dimensional oscillating wing, if the fluctuating speed V
is small compared to the main speed U, there is an analytical method. However, in
the case of large amplitude oscillations that may be accompanied by flow separation
there is no general solution to date. Thus, computer analysis seems to be suitable
for such flow fields, and these kinds of research have been performed.
Figure 4.6 shows a two hinged oscillating wing mechanism used by the
author. The first hinge and the second hinge are connected with an arm (an
oscillating plate), and the arm oscillates with a rotational motion with constant
amplitude centered about the first hinge. The wing is pin-jointed at the second
hinge of the arm to make a rotation-free motion following the arm's motion with a
relative angle of . As described in the next chapter, this mechanism allows an
elastic body such as a coil spring to be inserted inside the second hinge. Since the
spring acts to reduce the relative angle b to zero, the wing can always keep an angle
of attack relative to the flow velocity U.
Fig. 4.6 Model of Thrust Generation for Two Hinge Oscillating Wing Mechanism
45
Since the arm makes a sine-wave motion centered around the first hinge, the
arm angle aa can be defined as equation (4.21). Where, A is the amplitude and tt>0 is
the angular frequency (2p times the frequency f ).
aa = A sin ( w 0 T )
(4.21)
Although the relative displacement angle b of the wing to the arm is

determined by the fluid force and the spring reaction, solving this problem to
establish momentum equations is quite difficult because the fluid force cannot easily
be determined (despite this, the actual fish performs it easily!). The author took a
strategy of initially assuming a proper motion with an angle b ( t ) , and then
determining the respective forces. This may not be an elegant method to deal with
large amplitude motions, however, direct computer simulations adopt the same
strategy as far as information is available.
Assuming that the advancing speed U is constant for a calculation means
that the average thrust generated by an oscillating wing is exactly balanced by the
average drag forces on the fish. This is a reasonable physical assumption. Equation
(4.22) is a newly defined swimming number for this calculation, having the
arm length R as a representative length. If aa(i), b (t), U, arm length R, half of
the cord length c and wing's characteristics CL and CD are given, then the relative
velocity, acceleration and respective forces on the wing can be calculated as
functions of time t.
SwR =
f'R
(4.22)
\Rw0
Figure 4.7 shows the calculation results of thrust efficiencies. The results
were extracted from the data of the most efficient motions b(t)oPT among an
infinitive number of b(t) corresponding to given SwR. Both a flat-plate wing and a
symmetric shape wing are shown in the figure. As a reference, other calculation
results are shown in the figure in which the virtual mass is neglected and only the
100
80
40
20
SwR
Fig. 4.7 Thrust Efficiency
10
46
lift/drag components are considered. From the figure it can be seen that both a flatplate and a symmetric wing have maximum efficiency at a non-dimensional velocity
SwR of less than 1 , and the efficiency linearly decreases in accordance with an
increase of the velocity. A symmetric wing has an extremely high efficiency - above
80% for values of SwR of less than 10. In addition, the contribution to the efficiency
by the virtual mass force is large for relatively small SwR. In contrast, the
contribution becomes almost negligible for large SwK.
From a number of calculations, the author notes that the lift and drag
coefficients for larger SwR almost entirely govern the thrust force and thrust
efficiency, and recently estimated the contributions analytically. It was found that
for large SwK the average thrust coefficient can be expressed as equation (4.23), with
the maximum value given by equation (4.24), and the efficiency by equation (4.25).
It was thus clarified that the elements of thrust performance at high swimming
numbers are the lift coefficient CL and the drag coefficient Cn of the wing.
Generated thrust for the case of large SwK (analytical solution):
An averaged thrust coefficient
4pA-
1 C:
The maximum valueCTAmax~ -
n~ Cn
Efficiency
T] 1 - ,/*'*
(SwK)ra
CD
(4.23)
(4.24)
(4.25)
Where (Sw R ) ra is the swimming number at runaway

(S W R )
=4A^-
(4.26)
CD
Figure 4.8 shows the estimated results described above. According to the
figure, the averaged thrust coefficient of the oscillating wing has a maximum value
at half the runaway speed, and the efficiency at this point is only about 50%. To
obtain a reasonable efficiency 77 of 80%, SwR is taken to be about a fifth of the
runaway speed. Applying this study to the previous Fig. 4.7, SwR is approximately
10. Furthermore, the study implies that if an arm of length R (corresponding to the
length of the fish body undergoing lateral oscillation) is assumed to be a third of the
body length, then even if fish swim with a swimming number of about 3.0, the fluid
dynamical thrust efficiency could be kept at about 80%.
It can therefore be confirmed that the cross-sectional profile of a dolphin's
caudal fin has evolved into a beautiful symmetric shape in order to have a high liftto-drag ratio, and the Carangiform (mackerel swimming mode) type of oscillating
wing mechanism is based on the lift force generated by the caudal fin. Figure 4.8
corresponds with Fig. 4.4 that described the slender body theory. Comparing both
47
- 100
500
80
400
[-
-60
300
200
20
0
0
100
10
20
30
40
SwR
Fig. 4.8 Estimation of Average Thrust Coefficient and Thrust Efficiency (for large SwR)
theories, the slender body theory only considers the virtual mass force while the
oscillating wing theory takes into account the lift and drag force characteristics, the
contribution of which becomes definitive for large SwR. Comparing both figures at
the runaway speed, both thrust factors become zero. However, the theoretical
efficiency of the slender body theory at this point is 100%, while that of the
oscillating wing theory is zero. Conversely, the theoretical efficiency of the slender
body theory at zero velocity is 50%, while that of the oscillating wing theory is
100%. These results produce a new and interesting agenda for us.
This concludes our description of the basic and current situation of fluid dynamics
and the generating principles of the thrust requirements for fish and dolphins. The
readers should now have the physical and mathematical background required to
understand Gray's paradox.
Chapter 5
Research on High-Speed Swimming
Performance
The reports that dolphins swim so fast that a theoretical explanation is impossible and
that the U.S. Navy and the top fluid dynamics researchers were systematically
investigating this mystery, made the author, who began working at University of the
Ryukyus in his homeland in 1972, feel as if a mountain climber had heard of the
existence of an unexplored mountain near his homeland. The Islands of the Ryukyus,
also called Ryukyus Arc, form the fringe of the East China Sea. In 1972, University of
the Ryukyus was the only university in Okinawa (located in the most southwest part of
Japan) who had faculties of science and technology and it was promoted to the status of
a national university in that year when Okinawa reverted to Japan from the U.S. As a
researcher there, the author could not pass up the opportunity to choose this topic as a
research theme at the university.
The author's specialized category in fluid dynamics during his doctorial degree
at Kyusyu University was high-speed aerodynamics, investigating super-sonic fluid
flow and shock wave generation. The motion of a body in water was not a specialty,
and neither was zoological biology. Thus, at the beginning, the author mainly managed
his own degree thesis while collecting bibliographic references relevant to Gray's
paradox. However, he found in a short time that there were only a few researchers in
engineering fields who were wrestling with this problem, and his interest changed to a
conviction that he could make his own contribution. One of the methods used to
approach a new engineering problem is dimensional analysis. This chapter initially
considers dimensional analysis, and then reviews remarkable research regarding the
possibility of drag reduction.
Dimensional Analysis
For fish to swim quickly, the fluid drag acting on the surface of the fish body must
be small, or the power generated by the muscle must be large. This is because, as
described earlier using an example of a cruising of tuna, the net force on a body that
performs a constant linear motion has to be exactly zero, and thus the drag acting on
50
a fish body and the thrust generated by a fish must balance each other. The muscles
of fish must generate more power than the value of the 'thrust1 multiplied by the
'velocity' - thus the 'drag' multiplied by the Velocity.' The relationship between the
maximum speed of a fish and its body length is investigated by using dimensional
analysis in this section.
Firstly, it is seen that fast swimming fish, from small fresh-water fish (such
as trout and carp) to large aquatic mammals (such as dolphins and whales) have
similar body profiles. The common characteristics among these swimmers are that
the body shape is streamlined or spindle shaped to reduce drag, and the thrust is
generated by means of 'Carangiform' (mackerel propelling) motion or 'oscillating
wing motion.'
Provided that the body shapes of these animals are similar, the body surface
area S and the body mass m are in proportion to the square and the cube of the body
length / respectively. The power generating capability of a fish is in proportion to
the volume of muscles, and if the ratio of muscle volume to weight of these animals
is assumed constant, then the generated power P is proportional to the mass. In
addition, the fluid drag is assumed to consist only of surface friction drag. Then, if
the relationship between the friction drag coefficient cf and the Reynolds number is
distinctly expressed for the two cases of laminar and turbulent boundary layer flow
on a fish body surface, the relationships between the velocity and the body length of
fast swimming fish can be conclusively expressed as equations (5.8) and (5.9). It is
generally true that larger fish swim faster, however, according to these equations, it
is not a linear relationship, and the velocity increases in proportion to the body
length to the power from 0.4 (for turbulent flow) to 0.6 (for laminar flow).
Dimensional Analysis (Relationship between swimming speed
and body length of fast swimming fish):
Sa/2
ma/3
Pam
(5.1)
(5.2)
(5.3)
D = cr~pU2S
(5.4)
where, for a laminar flow, c, <* Re --2 =(I Ul

\~*
V V )
(5.5)
_\_
and for a turbulent flow, c,
\ v)
while,P=7- U = D. U
thus, the following two results are obtained
for a laminar flow, U a / 3/5
for a turbulent flow, U a 1 ^
a-I
(5.6)
(5.7)
(5.8)
(5.9)
Possibility of Drag Reduction - Flexibility of the Surface Skin
51
Figure 1.1 in Chapter 1 plotted the relationship between body length and
velocity for various swimmers on a double logarithmic graph. The single-dashed
line and the double-dashed line show the two cases described above. In addition,
five lines that decrease towards the right of the graph are each lines of constant
Reynolds numbers. It is seen from the figure that most data are in the range of high
Reynolds number of between 105 and 109. As described in Chapter 3 the boundary
layer on a flat-plate transitions to a turbulent boundary layer if the Reynolds number
exceeds 3xl05. From the figure, for fish whose body length is larger than 30 cm and
whose swimming speed is greater than 1 m/s (carp for example), it is reasonable to
assume that the flow in the boundary layer on the fish's body surface is turbulent.
According to the figure, a whale with a body length of 30 meters swimming
at 10 m/s can be explained by extrapolating the data of carp, trout and dace.
However, this extrapolation does not apply to dolphins of around 2 meters in length
that swim as fast as whales. The speeds of dolphins seem to have a relationship of
U a / with the continuous (cruising) swimming ability of carp. Reported maximum
speeds of bonito, tuna and marlin have another relationship U a / with the
instantaneous (burst) swimming ability of small fresh-water fish.
As described in Chapter 1, the dimensionless swimming number (discovered
and named by the author) takes an empirical value of about 0.6 for dace and
goldfish, 0.7 for carp and 0.8 for dolphins. However, the observed results that the
maximum speed is proportional to the body length regardless of species are still not
explained by the analysis. This is another expression of Gray's paradox.
To understand why the swimming speed is larger than the estimation, three
possible explanations are suggested as follows:
(1) The drag coefficient on the fish body surface is less than the value
calculated by equation (5.5) or (5.6).
(2) The power per unit weight of an aquatic animal is not constant as assumed
by equation (5.3). Thus the power increases at a rate greater than the cube
of the body length.
(3) The fluid dynamic efficiency of Carangiform (mackerel propelling) motion
or oscillating wing propelling motion may be higher for larger animals.
For a number of researchers who wrestled with this problem, the possibility of
reduced drag was the first to gain focus and to be investigated. Let us now discuss
this possibility in detail.
Possibility of Drag Reduction - Flexibility of the Surface

Skin
In 1960 in Los angels, U.S.A., Dr. Kramer (Max O. Kramer) manufactured a special
skin using silicon rubber and silicon oil to imitate the skin of dolphins. He covered
a rocket shaped model with the special skin and performed towing tests in seawater.
Subsequently, he obtained the surprising result that the test model exhibited a
reduced drag of up to 60% compared to a model with a solid surface. Figure 5.1
shows the structure of the special elastic surface skin. Silicon rubber comprised the
52
skin's three layers, of which the inner and the outer layers were joint-less hoses. A
circular rubber film with cylindrical protrusions was sandwiched between the inner
and outer layers. The rigidity of the film was varied by controlling the viscosity of
silicon oil that filled the space between the protrusions.
Figure 5.2 shows the results of the frictional drag coefficients for various
Reynolds numbers. The two straight lines in the figure are the theoretical values for
a laminar boundary layer and a turbulent boundary layer. The curved line A is the
case of an experimental solid model. From line A, it can be seen that the
experimental Reynolds numbers are in the transition region, where a turbulent
boundary layer exists downstream of a laminar boundary layer. The special elastic
skin was set to different levels of softness in order of B, C and D. An obvious drag
reduction was found in case C, which was regarded as preventing the boundary
layer transition to turbulent. Kramer's experiment caught worldwide attention, and
a number of similar experiments were executed. Regrettably, however, such distinct
mm.
Fig. 5.1 Structure of Special Elastic Surface Skin (Kramer's rubber film)
6 8 10
20
40
60 80100
Fig. 5.2 Results of Kramer's Experiment (A is a rigid body, B, C, D

are soft surface skins in order of increasing softness)
Toms Effect
53
results have not been repeated.

In Japan, Professor Taneda (S. Taneda, Kyusyu University) et al. attempted
towing experiments in a tank with a two-dimensional flat-plate covered with a
Sofrun (chemical sponge) sheet. Although the experiments were conducted with a
Reynolds number of 105 - 107, the results showed that the drag coefficient of a flatplate with a soft skin was always larger than that of a solid surface. Professor T.
Tagori (1927 - 1990, the University of Tokyo) et al. conducted experiments on
various cloths used for swimming suits and reported that for a cloth containing
elastic fibers, the drag of a flat plate covered with extended cloth in high tension
was always less than the drag of a plate covered with loose cloth. The author also
attempted an experiment on a vinyl flag set in a flow-circulating tank that will be
described later. However, the phenomenon that the softness or fluttering of the flag
reduced the flow drag has not been confirmed. Kramer's experiment also caught the
attention of researchers in theoretical fluid dynamics. The stability problem of
small fluctuations with a flexible boundary in accordance with stability theory for
turbulence was researched, and also gave negative results.
A soft surface skin and a flag passively change their profiles when a fluid
flows over them. If this is defined as 'Passive control,' then to actively change the
surface profile to control the flow is known as 'Active control.' An attempt was
made to use active control of a boundary layer flow in order to produce a drag
reduction. Taneda, previously noted, added propagating waves to a plate surface
and precisely observed the boundary layer flow. As a consequence, he reported that
if the propagating speed of the waves was slower than the main flow speed, the flow
separated downstream of the wave amplitude peaks. In contrast, when the wave
speed was faster than the main flow speed, the flow did not separate and
periodically released reverse Karman vortices downstream of the plate. For an
actively controlled skin, as demonstrated by Taneda's experiments, it is possible that
a surface skin, that performs a propagating wave motion at a speed exceeding the
main flow speed, accelerates the main flow, and thus obtains a thrust due to the
reaction. This result is similar to that for the thrust generating mechanism of
slender body theory. However, measuring only the drag force on a skin that is
generating thrust is impossible so far. Similarly, a jet exhausted from the gills of a
fish seems to accelerate the main flow, however, the details of the effect are not
clear. For the next possibility of drag reduction on a fish body, the effects of the
secretion of mucus are raised. How does the slimy substance on a fish relate to
drag?
Toms Effect
It is well known that solutions of certain kinds of long-chain molecules have quite
low flow drag - this is known as the Toms effect. In 1948 in the Netherlands, Toms
(A. B. Toms) performed a pipe flow experiment with solutions of
polymethlmethacrylate-monochlorobenzene (0.625 - 2.5 g//), and clarified that these
solutions have a reduced pressure loss compared to solutions of simple mono-
54
chlorobenzene.
The Toms effect excited researchers, and many experiments followed the
initial discovery. In the field of ship fluid dynamics, Dr. Hoyt (J. W. Hoyt) and
Dr. Fabula (A. G. Fabula) performed a disc rotating experiment using a number of
polymer solutions to investigate the reduction of frictional torque to determine what
kind of polymers exhibited the Toms effect. According to their results, the common
characteristics of effective polymers such as Polyethylene oxide are that the
molecular weight should be of more than 106, the molecular structure should be a
linear chain connection, and the polymer should be water-soluble.
In 1969, Professor Tagori wrote an explanation of 'Frictional drag reduction
by a polymer solution1 in an article in the journal of the Society of Naval Architects
of Japan, in which he precisely described the achievements of his empirical and
theoretical research over the past 20 years. Since Tagori also confirmed the Toms
effect for mucus on the skin of loach, and directed field tests with a motorboat, he
was a pioneer in this field of study in Japan. In his commentary chapter, he tells
about an episode where he obtained and was cultivating single-celled algae from
Hoyt that exhibited the Toms effect, and he had lost the culture during a school
conflict at the University of Tokyo.
In 1973, two Americans, Drs. S. C. Ling and T. Y. Ling, sampled body
surface mucus from several kinds of fish living in the Chesapeake Bay in the State
of Maryland. They found that the mucus from a small-flat fish (Trinectes
Macutatus: a kind of wrasse) was made of glycol-protein and exhibited similar
physical properties to a polyethylene-oxide solution (Polyox 301) made by Union
Carbide Co. They used both solutions to conduct experiments to confirm the Toms
effect. The mucus of fish was obtained by putting many fish one by one in a
shallow bucket to extract the mucus naturally. Since the amount of mucus was
limited, and since many experiments used large volumes of mucus, polymer
solutions were used as well. The experiments were conducted by releasing fish
mucus or polymer into a pipe flow of water through 40 small holes (diameter at 0.06
cm) drilled in the pipe wall. The inner diameter of the pipe was 1.27 cm (1/2") and
the length was 2 m. They measured the pressure drop along the length of the pipe.
Figure 5.3 shows their results. The experiment used 5 different Reynolds
numbers from 5,500 to 74,000, which generally belong to turbulent flow regimes.
The curved line at the top of the figure is the case where only fresh-water is
released, and the pipe-friction coefficient / corresponds quite well to the Prandtl
equation (5.10). The two curved lines at the bottom of the figure are the results of
two cases where mucus or polymer solutions were released from the wall. The
upper curve is for a 50 ppm polymer solution and fish mucus at 120 ppm (6%). The
lower line is for a polymer solution greater than 500 ppm and fish mucus at more
than 1,500 ppm (75%). As a result of these measurements, it was confirmed that the
former solution reduced drag by 40% while the later solution reduced drag by 60%.
In the former case, with a comparative low concentration, the drag is reduced
dramatically with an increase of polymer concentration. In the latter case, with high
polymer concentration, an increase in concentration does not further reduce drag but
55
Toms Effect
10-1
turbulent flow
10"
103
104
Re
10s
Fig. 5.3 Experiment Results of the Pipe Friction Drag Coefficient

for Fish Secretions and Polymer Solutions
converges at a 60% reduction. In addition, this experiment used an extremely

accurate laser-Doppler flow speed indicator that had the ability to measure the
velocity distribution in the viscous sub-layer existing under the turbulent boundary
layer. According to the results, the drag reduction by a low concentration polymer
solution could be achieved without increasing the thickness of the viscous sub-layer.
Prandtl Equation
p= = 2.
(5.10)
Figure 5.4 shows the velocity distribution adjacent to the wall on a singlelogarithm graph. The vertical axis u+ and the horizontal axis v+ are the nondimensional velocity and non-dimensional distance from the wall respectively, and
they are defined by equations (5.11) to (5.13). In these equations, vw is the
kinematic viscosity of water, and r0 is the wall shear stress. In all three cases,
(fresh-water, low concentration polymer or low concentration fish mucus, and high
concentration polymer or high concentration fish mucus), the velocity distribution
adjacent to the wall falls on the same curve regardless of the different Reynolds
numbers. Thus, the velocity distribution is self-similar and has a typical turbulent
boundary layer structure. The point at which u+ equals to y+ adjacent to the wall is
the viscous sub-layer, and the region far from the wall where u+ is proportional to
lny + is typical of a turbulent boundary layer.
u =
(5.11)
y -
(5.12)
56
/
^ -"1
p
^7 /
^-
1*=
pm.Pblyox301
-I
>l500ppm.
^H
"(>75%) mucus
30
1000
Fig. 5.4 Dimensionless Velocity Distributions in a Boundary Layer
where, u* = to.
(friction velocity)
(5.13)
Ling and Ling discussed the thickness of the viscous sub-layers, and they
discovered an 'anomalous' layer in which the velocity gradient du+ldy* was greater
than 1. This occurred at a y+ of around 10 for a low concentration solution and
around 20 for a high concentration solution. They presumed that this anomalous
layer was generated by the presence of polymer or fish mucus, and it became a
major cause of drag reduction in accordance with an increase of the viscous sublayer thickness. Furthermore, since the viscous sub-layer was quite thin and became
thinner with increasing flow velocity, the rate of diffusion of mucus was almost
constant regardless of the flow velocity, and the volume of mucus required would be
quite small.
If the suggestion of Ling and Ling is correct and if live bonito and tuna
reduce their swimming drag by 60% because of their mucus, then the power
required to achieve the same velocity with the mucus would be two-fifths of that
required without the mucus, and thus the gap of Gray's paradox would become
much smaller. However, further detailed research, following these or successive
reports of this kind of engineering applications, have not been found to date. On the
other hand, for dolphins, the existence of such mucus or similar effects has not been
reported.
Effect
ofRiblets
57
Effect ofRiblets
When one seeks numerous possibilities to solve the problem that the friction drag of
fish is much smaller than imagined, he or she will face a mysterious phenomenon the shark. As is widely known, sharks are so aggressive that they sometimes attack
humans, and people have a fearful image of them. However, here we will consider
the shark as an academic object. There is a native expression for 'sharkskin' (that
means sandy texture) in Japanese, and the shark's sandy skin has been well known
for a long time. Figure 5.5 shows a photograph of sharkskin published in
Dinkelacker's (A. Dinkelacker) report. As can be seen in the photo, there are many
small protrusions lying side by side and the direction of the protrusions seem to
align with the flow direction. For this shark, the height of the protrusions is about
0.1 mm, and the space between them is the same as the height. These minute
protrusions cover the whole shark's body. A model of the whole shark body is
shown in Fig. 5.6. The arrows in the figure indicate the direction of the fine
longitudinal protrusion (from front to rear; the arrows do not show the number of
Fig. 5.5 Photograph of Sharkskin (shield scales) (A. Dinkelacker,

et al., Proc. IUTAM Symp., Bangalore, India, 1987)
Fig. 5.6 Conceptual Picture of Protrusions on a Sharkskin (A. Dinkelacker,

et al., Proc. IUTAM Symp., Bangalore, India, 1987)
58

b
Fig. 5.7 Modeled Figure of Surface Riblets
protrusions; there are many more of them). Figure 5.7 is a cross sectional view of
the protrusions, taken perpendicular to the flow direction. These features of
protrusions are sometimes called 'grooves' to emphasis the indented parts on the
surface, and they are also known as 'longitudinal ridges' or 'riblets.'
Why does a shark have such a skin? The conventional idea is that since the
protrusions can be felt with the hand (even though they are minute) their existence
creates a roughness that increases drag. Therefore, the protrusions would not exist
to reduce the drag but for another reason. For instance, considering the aggressive
nature of sharks, the surface skin may have become tough like a shield for
protection while fighting with enemies. Actually these protrusions are named shield
scales in Japanese and placoid scales in English. Since the latter topic belongs to
zoo-ecology, let us leave it and go ahead. Regarding the former question, the
answer is an unexpected conclusion - the protrusions reduce the turbulent friction
drag.
Dinkelacker et al. manufactured a surface imitating sharkskin inside a
circular pipe, and performed drag experiments. Such pipe drag experiments are the
most basic method for measuring flow drag as described in the research of Ling and
Ling. The friction drag on the inner surface of a circular pipe equals the pressure
difference between the inlet and outlet times the cross sectional area of the pipe in
the case of fully developed flow. Measuring the pressure difference precisely, the
effect on frictional surface drag with and without protrusions can be determined.
The results of Dinkelacker et al. are shown in Fig. 5.8. For Reynolds numbers
between 104 and about 4 x 104, the flow with protrusions has slightly lower drag
than that without (in this case the difference is reported as about 3%). According to
the figure, the surface with protrusions shows larger drag at high Reynolds number,
and shows little difference from the smooth pipe at low Reynolds numbers. The
height of the protrusions and the space between them is also a factor, and thus the
situation is quite complex. Considering the original conception that the protrusions
create roughness and therefore the drag should increase and not decrease, this is
considered as a very mysterious phenomenon.
The relationship between the height of the protrusions, their spacing and the
velocity range that gives drag reduction, is somewhat sensitive. The Reynolds
numbers based on the friction velocity u and the protrusion spacing b (refer to Fig.
5.7) and the Reynolds number based on the friction velocity and the protrusion
height h should both have a value of several tens. In that case, the swimming speed
of a shark would be between 5 - 1 0 m/s, and this is the velocity corresponding to
quick movements when a shark feels in danger or is feeding. After all. there is
Effect ofRiblets
59
Fig. 5.8 Flow Drag for a Pipe with its Inner Surface Coated with Microscopic Protrusions
1: measured for a smooth surface circular pipe
2: theory for a smooth surface circular pipe
O, X: measured for a coated surface
(A. Dinkelacker, et al., Proc. IUTAM Symp., Bangalore, India, 1987)
nothing like the mystery of nature.

Research on riblets was begun in 1970 by a team lead by Walsh (M. J.
Walsh) at NASA Langley Research Center. Walsh and Weinstein (L. M. Weinstein)
presented their first thesis in the AIAA Journal in 1978. In their report, the fluid
drag and heat transfer of a longitudinally ribbed surface (in the flow direction) were
investigated. The aim of the experiment was clearly described to control the flow
by limiting expansion of turbulent bursts in the lateral direction within small areas
near the wall. Later, results were quoted in many theses, and the influence of the
profile, spacing and height of the minute protruding ridges lying parallel to the flow
direction was precisely investigated. Subsequently, the characteristic properties
have been almost fully clarified, and it has been confirmed that, if the flow
properties meets certain conditions, the drag can be reduced by a maximum of about
8%. The reason for this drag reduction is considered to be the same reason that
initially motivated the studies by Walsh and Weinstein. At the beginning of a
turbulent burst, the protrusions regulate the width and growth of three-dimensional
60
hairpin vortex filaments (also known as banana vortex). Thus the turbulent structure
is changed in a way that leads to a drag reduction.
The Americas Cup yacht race is a practical example of the application of riblets.
This race has a 150 year history, with the first event in 1851. An American club had
won the race every year, and the Americas Cup had not moved outside the U.S. until
1983. In 1983 an Australian boat beat the undefeated American team by using a
yacht named 'Australia-II,' which was constructed with high-tech designs, and
finally brought the cup to the southern hemisphere. This achievement became big
news. This yacht was equipped with a fin attached to the keel, which had been
tested but never used until the 1983 race. It was said that the fin greatly improved
performance under the maximum waterline regulations. This incident inspired
interests in European style boats. An honorable American yacht club re-designed
their ship profiles using numerical fluid dynamics in addition to more traditional
design tools. The ship subsequently built was named 'Stars and Stripes' and was
fully covered with a riblet film. The film was made of fine grooves, and was
developed by NASA in conjunction with 3M Co. in the U.S. The film used on
'Stars and Stripes' was an adhesive tape-sheet (12 inches in width, 75 inches in
length and 0.18 mm in thickness) and was designed for a speed of 4 - 8 knots. It
was attached so that the longitudinal grooves followed the flow direction. The
mechanism of the frictional drag reduction has been described before, and the fluid
should flow parallel with the longitudinal grooves. The effect of riblets became
famous because they made it possible for an American club to bring the cup back to
the U.S. Since the incident, the use of riblets on the surface of yachts has been
prohibited in the Americas Cup races. The reader may also remember the sharkskin
swimming suits used by the Australian team at the Sydney Olympics in 2000. Of
course, they aimed the riblet effect to make the swimming motion more effective.
Studies in Japan
In 1988, I. Tani reassessed the possibility of drag reduction using microscopic
surface roughness distributed on the surface (described above as riblets), by
carefully reanalyzing the data from the experiments of Nikuradse (J. Nikuradse) for
sand roughness on the inside surface of a circular pipe that was reported 50 years
previously. The roughness height was no more than y+ = 5 in the viscous sub-layer
of a turbulent boundary layer, which was regarded as smooth enough in
conventional fluid dynamics. Since the success of the 'Stars and Stripes' and Tani's
reappraisal, reports that confirmed the riblet effect have been recently produced in
Japan. Professor H. Ohsaka et al. (Yamaguchi University) and Professor Y. Kohama
et al. (Tohoku University) have independently confirmed that, by using a netpatterned roughness, the turbulent friction drag coefficient could be reduced by 2 5% at a roughness Reynolds number of about 2.0. Furthermore, Kohama suggested
that the small spaces formed between riblets catch slow speed fluid-blocks to create
an effect whereby the blocks are not lifted by longitudinal horseshoe vortices. This
Studies in Japan
61
subsequently weakens the bursts (ejections) that are the main cause of turbulent
energy generation. In addition, Professor T. Nakahara et al. (Tokyo Institute of
Technology) reported that after coating the inner surface of a pipe with fine fur the
pipe drag was dramatically reduced.
The effect of riblets as well as the Toms effect seems to be controlled by still
veiled fluid dynamics phenomena of quite delicate structure. The difference
between ideal fluid dynamics and real fluid dynamics, the difference between slip
and no slip on a wall, has been clearly explained by considering the molecularity of
the fluid. The reduction of the frictional drag of a turbulent boundary layer over
rough surfaces (a mysterious phenomenon at first sight) will also be understood by
considering the molecularity of the fluid. However, it should be remembered that
molecularity in this case refers not to the single molecule level (e.g. H2O) but rather
to the 'fluid particle1 level (a collection of an infinite number of molecules). This
means that the behavior of 'fluid particles' in fluid dynamics should be considered
(refer to Chapter 3 for a definition of the fluid particle). It is suggested that the
molecular weight for polymers that show Tom's effect is approximately 1,000,000
and this is far greater than the molecular weight of 18 for a single H2O molecule.
The friction drag on a ship is affected by small changes in surface
conditions, such as the paint quality on the bottom of the hull or the presence of
algae, and also by the properties of seawater. This has been a difficult problem for
many years in the shipbuilding association and related industries. If there is a
dramatic explanation of the flow (as Ling and Ling suggested for polymers) in an
anomalous layer adjacent to the viscous sub-layer and if it is consistent with the
dimensions of polymers having a molecular weight of 106, modern science will also
unveil its mechanism in the near future.
Chapter 6
High-Speed Swimming Method of
Carp and Dolphins
As Aristotle reasoned, the swimming of fish in water is governed by 'the Nature of
fish.' There must be a maxim of "Learn swimming from fish." The first effort that the
author undertook to solve Gray's paradox was to prepare a special water tank as Gray's
investigations inspired. The author's tank was a full-scaled circulating water tunnel
constructed with engineering principles.
This chapter introduces several research efforts conducted by the author over
the last 25 years.
Small Circulating Water Tunnel and the Measurement

of Drag on Fish
Figure 6.1 shows a circulating water tunnel for observation of fresh-water fish. The
design and construction were done by undergraduate students, K. Shinzato and K.
Tokashiki (graduated in 1974, Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of
Science & Engineering at University of the Ryukyus). Shinzato devoted an
additional year as a postgraduate researcher to complete the tunnel. The test section
has the dimensions of 210 mm x 210 mm and a length of 1,000 mm, and is made of
transparent acrylic that enables the flow inside to be observed. The flow velocity is
variable from 0 to 2.3 m/s. This tunnel can also measure the fluid drag acting on a
fish body. Figure 6.2 shows a specially made towing-drag detector.
The theme of Shinzato's dissertation was 'Research into the drag on a soft
plate put parallel to the flow.' He put a vinyl flag in the test section of the tunnel,
and investigated the drag and flapping movements of the flag. As described before,
the flapping flag in a flow has a larger drag than the flag with no flapping (rigid
plate) in every case, which was against our expectation.
Successive juniors to Shinzato have measured the drag on spindle shaped
fish models and real fish that had a soft surface skin. Figure 6.3 shows the scene
while measuring the drag on a carp. Prior to this experiment, the authors tried to
measure the drag on seawater fish (sea bream, yellowtail, saury, etc.) purchased in
the fish market and anesthetized fresh-water fish. However, reliable data was not
obtained. Controlling the posture of dead or anesthetized fish was so difficult
64
1600-j-U:
I
1
2100
MOOO-M 000^1096 -L-1500~

LL
..._ _
8556
Fig. 6.1 Small Circulating Water Tunnel (University of the Ryukyus)
r<n^~^
Strain
meter
Oscillograph
Fig. 6.2 Towing Type Drag Force Sensor
because the body immediately started a pitching or rolling motion with an increase
of the flow speed, and only unstable data resulted. In contrast, since living fish
control their posture themselves, stable data was obtained. It must be noted that the
adopted drag data was the data that was sampled when fish were in a static state. To
calculate the drag coefficient of the tested fish, body profiles such as body length,
sectional and surface areas must be accurately measured. Students started on
photographing and sketching the fish body.
Small Circulating Water Tunnel and the Measurement of Drag on Fish
65
Fig. 6.3 Carp Undergoing Drag Measurement (The towing force while the
specimen is motionless in the flow was regarded as the drag)
Figure 6.4 shows an example sketch of a carp body. Based on this data, the
cross-sectional area A (= 7tabl4) and the perimeter / were calculated (/ must be
calculated by a computer) from the cross-sectional profiles (sliced in distances of 1 2 cm). Each section was regarded as an ellipse with major diameter a and minor
diameter b. Finally, the 'hydrodynamic equivalent diameter' de (the fluid
dynamically equivalent circle diameter) was determined using equation (6.1).
. ,
,.
.
,
Equivalentt diameter de
4 x A(cross-sectional area) nab

^
- =
/ (wetted perimeter)
/
Fig. 6.4 Sketch of a Carp (/ = 28.6 cm)
(6.1)
66
Figures 6.5 and 6.6 are the profile diagrams of carp and tilapia. The dashed
lines in the figures are the actual body profiles (outlines of the major diameters a),
and the solid lines are those of the computed hydrodynamic equivalent diameters.
The solid lines are, in other words, profiles of axial symmetric (spindle shaped)
objects that are fluid dynamically equivalent to the tested fish.
Fig. 6.5 Body Profile of a Carp (Solid line is the equivalent spindle shape)
l=23.4cm
Fig. 6.6 Body Profile of a Tilapia (Solid line is the equivalent spindle shape)
The surface area S of the fish was estimated by equation (6.2) - the surface
area of the spindle shaped object plus the area of the dorsal, 5,, anal, S2, and caudal,
S 3 ,fins.
Table 6.1 shows measurement profiles for 22 examples of the tested fish.
The data is sorted in order of increasing body length for each species. The weights
are based on actual measurements. It was found that the average ratio of the
maximum equivalent diameter demax to the body length / was about 0.21 regardless
of the species. This value will be discussed later and almost coincides with the ratio
of the amplitude of the oscillating caudal fin to the body length. In addition, if the
ratio of the cube of the body length to the fish weight is calculated as an index of the
slenderness of the fish, then the average value is 60 for tilapia and 55 for carp as
seen in equations (6.4) and (6.5). We note that there is a slight difference in the
slenderness index between these two species.
dedx
den
+ S, +S,
= 0.21
Tilapia: -60 cm 3/ gf
W
(6.2)
(6.3)
(6.4)
Table 6.1 Profiles of the Tested Fish
Species
Tilapia
Tilapia
Tilapia
Tilapia
Tilapia
Tilapia
Carp
Colored carp
Colored carp
Carp
Carp
Carp
Carp
Carp
Carp
Carp
Carp
Carp
Colored carp
Carp
Carp
Carp
Body length
/(cm)
Max. equ. dia.

de max (cm)
Surface area
S (cm2)
21.3
4.27
23.2
5.94
23.4
4.56
23.8
4.77
Max. area
Sab (cm2)
24.4
4.78
27.7
6.16
12.2
2.52
230.13
322.73
261.42
352.03
283.62
401.07
87.69
4.04
188.57
13.47
4.02
186.17
14.19
16.38
30.61
18.96
21.04
20.98
33.37
5.47
17.0
17.5
223.1
351.2
34.5
114.2
l3/w
S//2
demaxll
(cmVgf)
0.507
0.600
0.477
0.621
0.476
0.523
0.589
0.200
0.256
0.195
0.200
0.196
0.222
0.207
60.43
0.616
0.231
0.527
0.214
122.2
18.5
18.8
Weight
W(gf)
123.0
60.52
52.63
40.24
46.93
51.48
19.5
134.3
55.21
19.8
134.4
57.76
59.48
4.10
211.16
14.27
132.5
27.7
6.25
27.9
6.02
423.15
490.15
32.30
30.10
28.6
5.31
396.68
36.2
7.00
19.9
0.533
0.206
458.1
0.551
388.9
480.2
0.630
0.226
0.216
0.485
0.186
25.7
27.5
316.0
28.0
40.0
23.81
43.51
842.2
1,109.0
0.193
65.81
46.40
55.84
45.71
56.33
57.71
68
Carp:l/w=
w
55 cm 3/ gf
(6.5)
Figure 6.7 shows plots of the friction drag coefficient on fish bodies
measured in the circulating water tunnel. The horizontal axis is the Reynolds
number whose representative length is the body length. The drag coefficients on the
vertical axis are calculated by equation (6.6), where S is the surface area of the fish
determined by equation (6.2). The Reynolds numbers for tilapia was limited in a
narrow range compared with carp because at lower Reynolds number flows (low
speed), tilapia tended to make caudal fin and the body oscillations and thus provided
few stable data. At high Reynolds number flows (high speed), posture control
became difficult and the body started rolling and measurements also became
impossible.
D
(6.6)
These oscillations result because the major axis of tilapia's cross-sectional

profile is comparatively larger than that of carp. Considering the fluctuation of the
data for tilapia, the measurement results plotted for tilapia at each flow speed are the
average values with their dispersion indicated. According to the figure, for
Reynolds numbers of less than 2x 105, the drag coefficient for both carp and tilapia
decreases with an increase of the Reynolds numbers. For Reynolds numbers of
more than 2x 105, both approach a constant value of about 0.02. The measurement
values of CfD for carp tend to be smaller than the average for tilapia. Although this
tendency seems to be considerable at higher Reynolds numbers, it is not decisive
U1U
Q05
J
Carp
$ Tilapia
i
A
Mechanical fish ~j
*
r
i
V
1,1 f 1
A
<
^^sCfD=0.\ 10(/te/)" ""
<*
A
n IT
ft
^ft S fe^r
0.005
10
Fig. 6.7 Frictional Drag Coefficients on Fish Bodies (Obtained

by circulating water tunnel measurements)
69
due to the limited data. For a mechanical fish having a metal surface, the drag
coefficient is clearly less than that of carp and tilapia. This is especially remarkable
at higher Reynolds numbers where the friction drag coefficient drops to around
0.008 at a Reynolds number of about 106.
The straight line lying below the line for the mechanical fish in the figure is
the friction drag coefficients of a flat-plate that was described in Chapter 3, and is a
semi-empirical equation for a turbulent boundary layer. According to the equation
(C fD = 0.074(Ret)-1/5 ), the friction drag coefficient is 0.0064 at a Reynolds number of
2xl05. The measurement values for carp and tilapia are three times of this value.
Readers might wonder about the justification of a direct comparison between the
drag of a plate and that of a spindle shaped object. We, anyway, could not confirm
that fluid drag on a living fish was less than that on a rigid body in this experiment.
Nevertheless, the drag measurements for sharks and dolphins whose Reynolds
numbers can reach no less than 107 have not been performed, and this problem still
remains as a future agenda.

Next, we attempted direct and precise observations of the swimming motion of
fresh-water fish by using the circulating water tunnel. The experiments were
performed for all carp and tilapia shown in Table 6.1. A fish was put in the test
section of the tank and allowed to swim freely. The current speeds were increased
by steps and the swimming motions were recorded by a movie camera. The test fish
were observed to swim easily upstream against the flow as expected. A flowrectifying mesh upstream and a metal net downstream of the test section restricted
the fish to swim in the test section. The swimming motion was recorded on 16 mm
color film at 48 frames per second from the same angle as shown in Fig. 6.3. As
shown in Fig. 6.3, a mirror inclined at a 45 degrees angle was set beneath the test
section to simultaneously record the side and bottom view of the swimming fish.
Figure 6.8 shows the time-split swimming movements of a carp. The figures
were extracted from every fourth frames in the film and the oscillation period of the
fish body was 0.6 seconds. The relative flow speed (i.e. swimming speed) was
measured at 45.90 cm/s, and the wave speed of the longitudinally propagating wave
along the body was measured at 60.66 cm/s. If the ratio of the flow speed to the
wave speed (0.76) is put into equation (4.20) for the efficiency in slender body
theory in Chapter 4, the efficiency becomes 0.88.
Figure 6.9 is a superimposed picture that consists of the centerlines of the
carp from the same recorded swimming sequence. From this observation, the
following four points are clarified:
(1) The oscillating amplitude of the caudal fin is about 20% of the body length,
which coincides with Bainbridge's observations for dace and trout.
(2) The maximum hydraulically equivalent diameter of the body and the
oscillating amplitude of the caudal fin have approximately the same
magnitude.
70
Fig. 6.8 One Period of the Swimming Motion of a Carp (U = 45.90 cm/s, f= 1.7 Hz)
18 20
{/=45.90cm/s <fc>=7.00cm b/l=0.199

Fig. 6.9 Superimposed Images of a Carp During Swimming
(Time between each image is 1/48 sec)
(3) The movement of the body axis mainly occurs along the rear part of the
body and the gradient of the oscillating amplitude at the tail is almost zero,
which coincides with that of the efficient slender body motion that Lighthill
suggested.
(4) According to the observations, the mouthpart of the swimming fish also
oscillates slightly from left to right.
Figure 6.10 shows the swimming speed of carp, in which the horizontal axis
is the oscillation frequency of the caudal fin, and the vertical axis is the specific
speed (the ratio of the swimming speed to the body length). Although the body
lengths of the fish varied from 12 to 40 cm, it was found that the experimental
results could be arranged by the specific speed regardless of the body length.
71
Fig. 6.10 Swimming Speed of Carp (Body length 1=12-40 cm)
Although the measurement data were scattered, the average value could be
approximated with a linear regression almost passing through the origin.
Bainbridge reported that there are many cases in which the linear regression
equation had a positive cut-off on the x-axis (i.e. the caudal fin is idling at zero
speed). Another obvious tendency is that the scatter of the data points from the
averaged linear line is greater at higher oscillating frequencies. This is due to the
unsteadiness of the swimming motion at higher frequencies. When fish are
accelerating against the stream, the specific speed is lower than the average specific
speed; when fish are decelerating by the stream, the measured speed is higher than
the average. The above is the story of how the 'Swimming number1 Sw was found.
In addition to carp, experiments for tilapia were also conducted. As a result,
we concluded that the swimming numbers of these two fish (carp and tilapia) were
0.695 and 0.576 respectively. On the other hand, Bainbridge reported swimming
numbers for dace, trout and goldfish under faster swimming condition as 0.63,0.62
and 0.61 respectively. Thus, the three fish tested by Bainbridge have a superior
swimming ability when compared to tilapia but a poorer swimming ability when
compared to carp. Since the swimming number of carp is 10% greater than that of
the other fish tested, carp can be considered to have superior swimming ability.
Mechanical Fish - An Invention of Oscillating Wing

Propulsion Mechanism
The next step of our research on small fresh-water fish was to produce a mechanical
fish that swam similar to actual fish. The idea of a mechanical fish arose naturally
from mechanical engineers who joined the research. Figure 6.11 shows a drawing
of a small-scale mechanical fish that was first made at University of the Ryukyus in
72
Fig. 6.11 Small-Scale Automatic Mechanical Fish (University of the Ryukyus, 1978)
1978. The body shell consisted of the head, the body, the tail and the caudal fin,
each of which was made from an aluminum block or plate. The head and the body
shell have spaces for batteries, a motor and a Scotch-yoke mechanism, which were
joined with screw bolts to make a waterproof seal. There were two hinges: one
connecting the body and the tail, and another connecting the tail and the caudal fin.
Both hinges were free to rotate around the joints. A silicon rubber film (part (?) in
the figure) with the thickness of 1 mm was attached between the body and the tail to
seal against water. In addition, a coil spring (part ) was inserted between the tail
and the caudal fin to reduce the relative rotational angle between them. The elastic
support of the caudal fin with springs is the characteristic of this mechanism, and
was the first invention in the author's research life. The details of the thrust
generating mechanism were described in the section on 'oscillating wing theory' in
Chapter 4.
The body shape and the caudal fin of this mechanical fish are based on an
actual tuna. The model has an overall length of 416 mm (body length of 390 mm)
and a maximum diameter of 78 mm, which is almost the same size as a carp. The
oscillation frequency of the tail and the caudal fin (i.e. the rotational speed of the
DC motor) is remote-controlled by a radio on shore. A purpose of producing this
mechanical fish was that, if a 'fish with a known propelling force' was available,
then the difficulty of making measurement on a 'self-propelling body' that
accompanies a complex correlation between the drag force and the propelling force
might be avoided. The completion of this mechanical fish was mainly
accomplished by graduate students T. Ikemiya, K. Ohta, and H. Nakachi (all are
now working for Okinawa Electric Power Co.). The construction was especially
benefited by Ohta's craftsmanship, as well as technology provided from the
workshop of the Department.
Figure 6.12 shows a series of pictures taken during one period of the
swimming motion in the small circulating water tunnel obtained by an 8 mm-film
camera. The period of the body oscillation is about 0.2 seconds (frequency of 5
73
Fig. 6.12 Swimming Motion of a Small-Scale Mechanical Fish

(U 1.2 m/s, VII 3.1 cm, /= 5 Hz)
Hz), and the advancing speed is about 120 cm/s. The single dashed line in the
figure indicates the advancing speed. Comparing this figure with Fig. 6.8, it is seen
that the mechanical fish advances by nearly identical movements as the carp.
However, looking carefully at the motions, it is found that the lateral displacement
from the centerline at the head and the body is larger than that of the carp. The
absence of the dorsal fins in the mechanical fish seems to cause the increased lateral
motion. The crescent shaped fins attached to both sides of the tail stabilize the
straightforward movement of the mechanical fish.
Figure 6.13 ((a) - (d)) shows the relationship between the specific speed and
the oscillating frequency of the caudal fin. These experiments were done under
free-swimming conditions in a competition size swimming pool. The oscillating
frequency was adjusted by radio control. Figure (a) is the result using a coil spring
whose spring constant k is 0.78 gf/mm, which is the softest among the springs used.
According to the figure, the fastest specific speed of 1.25 is recorded at an
oscillating frequency of 2.8 Hz, and the specific speed gradually decreases with an
increase of the oscillating frequency to become 0.78 at the maximum oscillating
frequency of 6.34 Hz. Thus, if the oscillating frequency increases, the advancing
speed does not increase, which is contrary to the case of carp and dolphins. As
74
Fig. 6.13 Specific Speed versus the Oscillating Frequency of the Caudal Fin
of a Small-Scale Mechanical Fish (k is the spring constant)
clearly seen from comparing with the other cases, this behavior is because the
spring constant is too small (i.e. the fluid force acting on the caudal fin exceeded the
reaction of the spring) to retain the relative angle of attack within an effective area.
As a reference, the case without a coil spring was also attempted, and then the
mechanical fish moved slightly backward.
Figure (b) is the case for the spring constant of 7.67 gf/mm with the
frequency between 5.3 - 6.3 Hz, in which 13 experiments were conducted. In this
case, it is seen that the advancing speed increases in proportion to the frequency.
Since there is a considerable scatter of the data, the average gradient (average
swimming numbers) by the least-square method and their divergence were
calculated and shown in the figure. In this case, the average swimming number was
determined as 0.538 0.039. Figure (c), the case of a harder spring with a constant
of 13.5 gf/mm, shows a wider frequency range from 3.7 to 5.75 Hz and more stable
data with an average swimming number of 0.596 0.040. In the case of the
strongest spring constant of 22.4 gf/mm shown in Fig. (d), it is obvious that the
obtained frequencies are plotted in a very narrow region, and the scatter of data is
relatively large. The average swimming number in this case was recorded at
0.668 0.087, which was the largest among all tests performed. The reason why
data exceeding 5 Hz could not be obtained is that the electric motor had insufficient
power to overcome the increased fluid reaction forces when the average wing angle
of attack to the relative water flow became large.
The small mechanical fish that has a body length of 39 cm achieved a
maximum swimming speed of 130 cm/s at an oscillation frequency of 5 Hz. It was
75
found that this swimming ability cannot reach the ability of dolphins (Sw = 0.818)
and carp (Sw = 0.695) but can exceed trout (Sw = 0.62) and dace (Sw = 0.63). On
the other hand, it was also found that the efficiency (the net power to tow the
mechanical fish divided by the power of the electric motor) did not exceed 23%,
which is not a surprisingly high efficiency. In other words, even if the power
transmission efficiency is estimated as about 0.5, the fluid efficiency for the caudal
fin is no more than 50%, which is not a very high efficiency.
Although we expected that these experiments and calculations for swimming
efficiency would provide hints to unveil Gray's paradox, the expectation was in vain.
One of the reasons is considered to be that the generated specific power relative to
the weight of mechanical fish was still too small when compared with the maximum
power estimated from the weight of an actual fresh-water fish, and thus the flow
speed used in the experiments did not reach the flow speed at which Gray's paradox
would occur.
THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC
25
cents
rrKliy, Nwtmtar II. Ittl
Experts study why some fish swim faster than fact

ByCuteHodf.
UnRyokyoiaiOklMMtliiiikUioKwkiKwunyk.liii.lmimmiHtilly.adjusttotheflow .
find out*<M-)building*tfish.
Hi.
t a r n . HI.teamNagai
i osaid,
nowniso * mrtiudfc*
t mrtiu*
MOM
H. .MOM)
Nrtunt Inn iqr mm Mi omnot win &*
Nagai
Nirtkl..m
MtimU
Umm
mmmih
mihrl
rlifcoaU
ifcoaU rig
rivilio^MraBldi.>Ucli<Ub.(
ilio^MraM dmia. >Uek <U b. B (M k. Uk.
at as.
ydo.Tb.fhli.,tliniUu...<k.yr,in,Wy q^j h^, , m,.,a,,,y, p^pJUa, f~m* &m wfcr, .IWl.oM, ft wll t UbSS&t fit*
B.pi*r,ii7.iVti,
(dmtat mU Thmdqr tal UBM tip

okDolokfa.iwtl,m.rm.m.ii
Why iW*"*-"" WMtrUhTki Hid.

Bat k> Mid l Hid ollur n|iitn it Ui. Univmity
Fig. 6.14 Interview Article with the Author at the ASME Meeting
(Arizona Republic, Nov. 19 1982)
In a regular winter meeting of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers

(ASME) held in November 1982 in Phoenix, Arizona, the author presented a series
of research works including the small mechanical fish. The Arizona Republic, a
local news company, interviewed the author and published an article describing his
research. This article made the attendance in the society focus on the author's
research. Professor Triantafyllou (M. S. Triantafyllou) at Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, described later, was one of them. Figure 6.14 is a copy of the article in
the Arizona Republic. The heading and leading line of the article are humorous and
also very inferable: Experts study why some fish swim faster than fact; "Nature's
laws say some fish cannot swim as fast as they do. The fish haven't heard this, so
they swim very fast indeed." Since the interviewed article written by Mr. Hodge was
the only article relevant to the ASME meeting on that day among all newspapers, it
seemed like an advertisement for the ASME meeting.
76

The next step, after gaining some fruitful achievements and confidence through
observations for small fresh-water fish and producing a small mechanical fish, was
the observation of living dolphins and producing a full-scale robot fish similar to a
dolphin. Let us start by describing the Okinawa Memorial Park Aquarium in which
observations of dolphins were conducted.
In 1975, the International Oceanic Exhibition was held in Okinawa. The
exhibition was located at the shore area in Motobu-town at the northern part of the
mainland of Okinawa, and the site occupied an area of about 77 hectares. After
termination of the exhibition, the entire site was rearranged and became the
National Okinawa Memorial Park, in which an aquarium, a botanical garden (the
Tropical Dream Center) and the Aqua-police (this was closed permanently and
towed away in 2000) were the main facilitates. Both theaters, the 'Oki-chan's
theater' and the 'Dolphin Studio,' are affiliated with the aquarium, and these facilities
provided worthy opportunities to investigate the swimming motions of dolphins.
Figures 6.15 and 6.16 are photographs of the 'Oki-chan's theater1 and the
'Dolphin Studio.' The former is an ellipse shaped seawater pool, with a major
diameter of 25 m, a minor diameter of 15 m and a depth of 4 m. The latter is a
Fig. 6.15 Scene of Oki-chan's Theater and the Tank Dimensions
Fig. 6.16 Scene of Dolphin Studio and the Tank Dimensions
77
circular shaped seawater pool, whose diameter is 14 m with a depth of 3 m. Both

facilities are connected to each other with a pipe (a bypass for dolphins). Fresh
seawater is exchanged at a rate of 300 tons every hour, and is provided to both
theaters and the main aquarium. As seen from Fig. 6.16, the sidewall of the Dolphin
Studio facing the audience is a flat-plate wall with a width of 8 m so that the
audience can observe the swimming movements of dolphins through a transparent
acrylic window (width 7 m and height 1.8 m) fitted on the wall.
Table 6.2 shows the body properties for the pacific white-sided dolphins,
pacific bottle-nosed dolphins, bottle-nosed dolphins, and false killer whales
observed. The designations, for example, such as Oki(l) and Oki(2) indicate the
body properties as of June 1979 and November 1995 respectively. For Oki, it can
be read that she grew and increased her body length by 24 cm and her weight by 59
kgf over the 16 years. By the way, the name of 'Oki-chan's theater' derived its
nickname from the then popular baby dolphin.
Table 6.2 Body Profiles of Dolphins
Species
Nickname *
Sex
Body length
/(cm)
Pacific white-sided dolphin

(Lagenorthyncus obliquidents)
Moto (1)
Toppo (2)
Pal (2)
Oki(l)
Kuro(l)
Poy(l)
Poy (2)
Oki (2)
Muk(l)
Dan (1)
Dan (2)
Kuro (2)
Muk (2)
F
M
200
202
F
F
M
M
M
F
M
M
M
M
M
Tok (2)
Shiro(l)
Pea (2)
Gon (2)
Pacific bottle-nosed dolphin

(Tursiops truncates aduncas)
Bottle-nosed dolphin
(Tursiops truncates gilli)
False killer whale
(Pseudorca crassidens)
P/W
(cmVgf)
206
209
225
230
235
233
236
237
258
258
259
Weight
W(kgf)
89
96
102
114
130
138
168
173
120
148
202
171
175
F
M
262
277
218
264
M
F
347
361
483
483
82.50
80.51
86.51
97.40
89.89
85.86
85.75
80.08
87.62
88.17
77.25
73.12
109.54
89.95
85.02
100.43
99.28
* Numbers inside the brackets indicate the date measured ((1) June 1979, (2) November 1995).
From the table, the average value of 13/W (this is an index for the body
profile and slenderness) for pacific bottle-nosed dolphins is 88.7. If the result is
compared with the previously described tilapia (60) and carp (55), then these
dolphins are more 'slender,' and this conclusion is against the author's expectation.
Although the number of data is small, the indexes for bottle-nosed dolphins (81.5),
false killer whales (92.0) and pacific white-sided dolphins (88.0) are more or less
close to that of the pacific bottle-nosed dolphins. These results imply that these
kinds of large sea animals (dolphins and whales) are sufficiently slender and they
have almost similar body shapes.
78
Fig. 6.17 Swimming Motion of a Dolphin During One Period (U = 2.4 m/s, /= 1.41 Hz)
Figure 6.17 is a series of pictures of a dolphin (Poy(l)) swimming. Every
fifth picture was extracted from a 16 mm color film that was recorded at 48 frames
per second. The movie was taken in the Dolphin Studio. Although the actual
swimming movement was performed upside down (backstroke), the pictures are
shown as a normal view. For this example, the swimming speed is 2.4 m/s and the
period is 0.708 second. Since the body length is 2.3 m, the swimming number is
calculated as 0.74. Although measurement of the propagating wave speed along the
body axis direction was attempted as it was for carp, it could not be reliably
deduced due to the asymmetric movement of the body axis.
Figure 6.18 is a superimposed picture that consists of instantaneous pictures
(every third frame of the movie, thus 1/16 of a second between images shown) for
the movements of the body axis during one period. From this picture, the following
characteristics that are far different from fresh-water fish are observed:
79
flow
U=2.4m/s
= 1.41Hz
b/l = 0.332
Fig. 6.18 Superimposed Images of a Dolphin (Time between each image is 1/16 sec)
(1) The oscillation of the body center axis and the caudal fin is not horizontally
symmetric.
(2) The oscillating amplitude gradient of the rear part of the body is quite steep
compared with fish.
(3) The oscillating amplitude reaches 33% of the body length, which is quite
large compared with fish.
(4) The oscillating pattern of the body center axis is a first-mode oscillation,
and a node occurs near the maximum sectional area. The amplitude of the
head is comparatively large.
In terms of evolution, dolphins are mammals that may have lived on shore at one
time in their evolving process, and their bones are far different from those of fish.
Such biological background may have caused the differences in swimming method
as described above. It is clear that the swimming method of dolphins does not agree
with the effective movement that Lighthill suggested in his slender body theory.
The author understands the swimming motion of dolphins as a typical form
of oscillating wing propulsion - the swimming method does not generate a thrust
force along the whole body as is adopted among slender fish but generates thrust
only by heaving and pitching motion of the caudal fin. The author also considers
that the part of the body behind the dorsal fin acts as an arm that provides the
heaving motion to the caudal fin. As seen from the frontispiece-3, this arm is
flattened to reduce the drag against its vertical movement. The caudal fin acts as an
oscillating wing and is attached perpendicularly to the end of the 'arm-plate.' By the
way, it should be noted that the dolphin's pectoral fins evolved from the mammalian
hand and thus they have bones inside. In contrast, the dorsal and the caudal fins do
not have such bones. In the process of evolution, dolphins and whales have retained
high-speed swimming, and such demands made muscles develop independently to
obtain large dorsal fins and wing shaped caudal fins without bones. In addition, the
cross-sectional shapes of both fins are fluid dynamically high-performing
symmetric wing profiles.
Figure 6.19 shows the relationship between the oscillating frequency of the
caudal fin and the specific speed, which was derived from the filmed records in the
Dolphin Studio. Although the number of dolphins and the measurements were
limited compared with those of carp shown in Fig. 6.10, this figure also supports the
80
f (Hz)
Fig. 6.19 Swimming Speed of Dolphins (Measured in : 1979. : 1995)
study that the swimming speed of dolphins is in proportion to the body length and
the oscillating frequency of the caudal fin. In the figure the white marked plots
(unfilled symbols) are the results measured in 1979, and the black marked plots
(filled symbols) are the results obtained in 1995. There are some groups of points
from the 1979 data that have the same specific speed but different frequencies. This
means that a specified dolphin varied the oscillating period of the caudal fin and
maintained the same swimming speed. In other words, dolphins might keep a fixed
swimming speed while changing the oscillation frequency over a range of values.
From the figure, the swimming number, which shows the extent of the
swimming ability of pacific bottle-nosed dolphins, was determined as 0.818. This
result is comprehensively greater than goldfish and tilapia (both about 0.6) and carp
(about 0.7), which verifies a higher swimming ability for dolphins as expected.

Following the observations in the Dolphin Studio, movies were taken and analyzed
for numerous jumping behaviors in the Oki-chan's theater. Figure 6.20 shows
superimposed pictures when a dolphin jumped up and over a bar. The body outlines
were extracted from every tenth frame (208 millisecond interval between images) of
a film taken at 48 flames per second. The observed dolphin (Poy(l)) had a body
length of 2.3 m and a weight of 138 kgf, and the maximum height of the center of
gravity of the body was measured at 2.73 m. The maximum instantaneous speed
during the jumping occurs when the dolphin escapes from the water surface, and the
three calculation methods to determine this speed are as follows:
(1) by the maximum reachable height h (v0 = 2gh )
(2) by the duration of the jumping T (vn = gT/2)
81
Fig. 6.20 Superimposed Pictures of a Bar Jump by a Dolphin (/ = 2.30 m, W = 138 kgf)
Fig. 6.21 Vertical Jump of a Dolphin (/ = 2.77 m, W = 264 kgf)
(3) by the duration needed for the whole body to escape the water surface (the
body is used as a scale)
We attempted all three methods, and confirmed that the deviations among them
were about 10% at maximum. Since the third method seemed to be the surest, this
method was adapted finally. This method took the smallest value among the three
measurement methods, and the maximum speed was judged as 6.50 m/s. Thus, the
specific speed was 2.83.
Figure 6.21 is another picture for a high-jumping dolphin (Shiro(l)) that has
a body length of 2.77 m and a weight of 264 kgf. In this picture, although the
instance of escaping from the water was not caught, the initial speed calculated by
82
the maximum reachable height (4.52 m) of the center of gravity of the body was
9.41 m/s, which gives a specific speed of 3.40. As introduced in Chapter 1, Lang
recorded a maximum speed of 11.05 m/s for a pacific spotted dolphin whose body
length was 1.86 m. Allegedly, dolphins in the open sea are said to swim at no less
than 15 m/s. The author requested the aquarium staff for special performances to
record the maximum possible speed close to the hearsay evidence. However, an
escape velocity of 9.41 m/s recorded for a high jump by Shiro was the maximum
record, which means, contrary to our expectation, data exceeding 10 m/s could not
be obtained at that time.
There were two periods of earnest measurements conducted at the Okinawa
Memorial Park Aquarium in 1979 and 1995. The second measurement period was
conducted to obtain additional data needed for an earlier book of 'Fluid Dynamics of
Drag and Thrust' that was produced by the Ship and Ocean Foundation. The authors'
interest since the beginning of the publishing plan was in the maximum speed of
dolphins. They visited the aquarium again after 16 years, and collected much new
information. Professor Tanaka, Assistant Professor I. Teruya (University of the
Ryukyus), Y. Kina, T. Nakai, Y. Harada and Z. Yosimine (all graduates/
postgraduates of University of the Ryukyus), Mr. Y. Fukui and Ms. Y. Kikuchi (a
head of Ship & Ocean Foundation and a secretary) and the author constituted 9
members of the visiting staff to the aquarium on November 23 and 24 in 1995. Mr.
S. Uchida (the director of the aquarium), Mr. T. Nagasaki (the vice-chief of the
breeding section) and other staff, who had established numerous records such as the
Guinness record for the longest breeding of a whale shark, showed comprehensive
attitudes for the series of investigations, and responded to data collection need in the
same good spirit as they did 16 years ago. Some surprises for the research team
were that 'Oki' had grown up and increased her body length and weight, and that
most dolphins continued as performers for 20 years. According to Mr. Uchida, the
most difficult thing is to retain the performance level over the long years. As far as
observations, the aquarium's breeding skills are at the top level when compared to
others all over the world.
Table 6.3 shows data for the swimming ability of dolphins obtained during
the second measurement period. The measurements were conducted in the Dolphin
Studio, and the performers were Kuro and Muk (pacific bottle-nosed dolphins).
Videotapes were used to record and analyze the swimming ability this time. The
method used to determine the escape speed was unified to adopt the third method in
the previous description (a dolphin's body length was put as a scale, and the speed
was calculated from the duration to pass a certain point). The instantaneous speed
and the frequency at jumping were determined when the dolphin escaped from the
water surface. From this table, the average swimming number of dolphins was 0.79
for backstrokes, and 0.88 for high jumps. The average swimming number for the
total of 8 performances is 0.81, and this value agrees well with the average
swimming number of 0.818 shown in Fig. 6.19. Through these experiments, the
superb swimming ability of dolphins and the reliability of the measurement methods
83
Table 6.3 Swimming Ability of Dolphins (at Dolphin Studio, 1995)

Dolphin name
Kuro(2)
, ~o
/ = 2.58 m
Muk (2)
, ^r,
/ = 2.59 m
Performance
Backstroke
, f ,
Backstroke
Average of Backstrokes
Kuro (2)
High jump
Muk (2)
High jump
Average of High jumps
Speed U (m/s)
VII
/(Hz)
Sw
4.46
3.56
3.20
5.17
4.50
4.33
4.20
7.74
7.35
7.55
1.73
1.37
1.24
2.00
1.74
1.67
1.63
3.00
2.83
2.92
2.01
2.07
1.88
2.26
2.10
2.07
2.07
3.17
3.44
3.31
0.86
0.67
0.66
0.88
0.83
0.81
0.79
0.95
0.82
0.88
were confirmed. In addition there was a new observation that the swimming
numbers for high jumps (under higher oscillating frequency) are considerably high.
The swimming numbers at high frequencies in the 1979 measurements were
very low and led to reduce the average value. This is due to the difference of the
measuring conditions and the methods. During the second occasion (1995), we
measured the speed and frequency at jumping from the underwater side. Assuming
that the 1995 measurements are more reliable than the 1979 measurements,
dolphins retain a swimming number of about 0.82 up to the high frequency of 3 Hz.
Naturally, the maximum speed of animals including tuna and marlin is determined
by the maximum frequency and the swimming number. The record for a killer
whale's (body length of 7 m) maximum speed is 15.4 m/s in the British Guinness
Book of Records, and this leads to an oscillating frequency of the killer whale's tail
of only 2.7 Hz, with an assumed swimming number of 0.82. If the swimming
number is smaller, then the oscillating frequency must be larger.
Table 6.4 Maximum Speed of Dolphins (at Oki-chan's theater, 1995)
Nickname
Body length
Km)
Performance
Speed
U(m/s)
Moto (2)
Toppo (2)
Tok (2)
(1)*
Gon (2)
2.00
2.02
2.62
2.77
3.61
Vertical jump
Screw jump
Bar jump
Vertical jump
Vertical jump
8.57
8.99
7.74
9.41
7.47
Estimated frequency (Hz)

(Sw = 0.82)
4.29
4.45
2.95
3.40
2.07
5.23
5.43
3.60
4.14
2.44
* Data for Shiro was obtained in 1979.
Table 6.4 shows the maximum speeds of dolphins recorded by a video

camera in the Oki-chan's theater. The judgment method to determine the swimming
speed was the same as for the previous table (the escape speed from the water
surface). Each speed shown in the figure is the maximum speed among plural
measurements. In the table, the data for Shiro was collected in 1979, as described
with Fig. 6.21 (Shiro passed away regrettably in 1983).
84
The maximum speed measured in the 1995 tests was 8.99 m/s, and no
speeds exceeding 10 m/s were obtained. However, this record made by Toppo (a
pacific white-sided dolphin) was the biggest fruit obtained this time, and the specific
speed of this small dolphin (with a body length of about 2 m) reached 4.45 body
lengths per second. Assuming that the swimming number is 0.82, which may be a
high value, the estimated frequency is calculated as 5.43 Hz. Indeed, there was
information that this dolphin swam fast, and this was the first opportunity for the
author to collect data for this species. Since the two pacific white-sided dolphins
were brought into the facility after the previous investigation in 1979 and since they
joined the other players after training in 1984, the measurements for them were of
keen interests in this research. The readers might be immediately aware that if the
maximum oscillating frequency of 5 Hz is achievable for other larger dolphins, their
maximum swimming speed would easily exceed 10 m/s. Using an oscillating
frequency of 5 Hz for Shiro (bottle-nosed dolphin, body length of 2.77 m) and Gon
(false killer whale, 3.61 m), their maximum swimming speeds are estimated as 11.4
m/s and 14.8 m/s respectively.
Another point the author noticed at the second investigation was the
difference in the size of the Dolphin Studio and the Oki-chan's theater. Not only the
depth but also the area of the pool considerably affects the maximum escape speed.
The influence is not so clear when comparing Table 6.3 with Table 6.4.
Nevertheless, it was found that in the Oki-chan's theater, when dolphins were
ordered to perform higher jumps, they took longer approach distances and times.
When Toppo was ordered to perform a screw-jump, he took so long of an approach
distance and time that the audience could not imagine where he would came out of
the water; and he suddenly flew into the air and drew a big arch using the whole
theater space (refer to the frontispiece-1). If the observation regarding the
approaching distance strikes the essence of the issue, both the estimated maximum
frequency for the pacific white-sided dolphin and the estimated maximum speeds
for Shiro and Gon described above can have their basis.
Estimation for the Power of Fresh-Water Fish and

Dolphins
Let us estimate the power of fresh-water fish and dolphins in this last section of this
chapter. The drag and power of a carp with a body length of 28 cm and a weight of
390 gf is estimated in Table 6.5. Assuming that the oscillating frequency of the
caudal fin is 5 Hz and the swimming number is 0.7 at maximum speed, then the
swimming speed and the Reynolds number are 0.98 m/s and 2.74x 105respectively.
According to Fig. 6.7, the friction drag coefficient and the fluid drag acting on the
carp are 0.0179 and 43 gf respectively, and the power that the carp consumes to
propel itself and the power per unit weight are estimated as 0.413 W and 1.06
W/kgf respectively.
If the calculated results are approximated, a carp can achieve a swimming
speed of 1 m/s by expending energy at a rate of about 0.5 W. Even considering the
85
Table 6.5 Typical Body Profile and Estimated Power of Carp

Weight: W= 390 gf
Body length : / = 28 cm
Maximum cross sectional area of the body :
Sab
= 30.0 cm2
At maximum cross sectional area, major dia. (a), minor dia. (b) : a - 7.5 cm, b - 5.1 cm
At maximum cross sectional area, equivalent dia.:
de = 6.0 cm
S = 490 cm2
Body surface area (including fins) :
3/
3
/ W=56cm /gf
S/WM = 9.18
/=5Hz
Oscillating frequency
7 = 0.98 m/s
Speed (U = Swxfxl)
Re = 2.74xl05
Reynolds number
D = 43 kgf
Drag
C>=0.0179
Friction drag coefficient (C/= 0.219fo,-'/5)
Thrust power (P = DxU)
P = 0.413 W
P/W= 1.06 W/kgf
Generated power per unit weight
efficiencies for energy transmission to the muscles and for the swimming motions,
the energy consumption per unit weight of a carp is estimated to be around 2.0
W/kgf, and the described swimming speed is achievable. Since the power generated
by a human or a dog per unit weight is about 10 W/kgf, there is enough margin in
the power consumption for a carp to swim fast. Therefore, Gray's paradox for carp
does not exist.
Table 6.6 Typical Body Profile and Estimated Power of Dolphins
Body length : / = 2.3 m
Weight W =138 kgf

/ 3 /W=88.2cm 3 /gf
Estimated body surface area : 5 = 2.45 m2
(calculated from S/W23 = 9.18)
Swimming number : Sw = 0.82
Oscillating frequency of the caudal fin : /
4 Hz
5 Hz
7.54 m/s
Speed : U
9.43 m/s
1.73x 107
Reynolds number : Ret
2.17xl0 7
3
5
7.81 x 10Friction drag coefficient : C/ (= 0.219 Ret " )
7.44 x lO-3
Drag : D
52.9 kgf
82.7 kgf
Thrust power : P
3.91 kW
7.64 kW
28.3 W/kgf
55.4 W/kgf
Generated power per unit weight : P/W
2.89 m/s
5.65 m/s
Next, let us consider a dolphin with a body length of 2.3 m and a weight of
138 kgf with a typical body profile. Table 6.6 shows these properties including
other elements. As described earlier, if 13/W in this table and that in Table 6.5 are
compared, then dolphins are more slender than carp. To estimate the body surface
area, we adopted the method that the surface area was not in proportion to I2 but to
W2'3. Thus, the body surface area S in Table 6.6 was determined by calculating
from the value of S/W2'3 for carp. As a consequence, this method prevents
86
overestimation for the generated power per unit weight of dolphins.

As seen in the previous section, the swimming number for dolphins is
estimated to be about 0.82, and the maximum speeds are scattered between 7 - 1 0
m/s. Here, let us estimate the power of a dolphin under two different oscillating
frequencies of the caudal fin, namely, 4.0 and 5.0 Hz.
According to Table 6.6, the Reynolds number of the dolphins at maximum
speed is about 2 x 107, and the friction drag coefficient is about 0.007 or 0.008 and
the total fluid drag is between 50 - 80 kgf. For the caudal fin frequency of 4.0 and
5.0 Hz, the power consumed for swimming is 3.91 kW and 7.64 kW respectively.
The speed ratio between the two frequencies is 1.25 (7.54 m/s at 4 Hz, and 9.43 m/s
at 5 Hz), while the ratio of power demand is enlarged to 1.95. The reason for the
difference between the speed ratio and the power ratio is that the power is in
proportion to the cube of the speed. The power per unit weight is calculated as 28.3
W/kgf (4 Hz) and 55.4 W/kgf (5 Hz), which are 27 and 52 times as large as that of
carp (Table 6.5).
Lang, et al. managed observations for three dolphins (body length of 1.86 2.09 m, weight of 52.7 - 91 kgf), which were slightly smaller than the dolphin
discussed here. They estimated the power consumptions to be between 2.5 - 4.5
kW. Assuming the average weight is 90 kgf, the power generated per unit weight
would be 28 - 50 W/kgf, which coincides with the author's estimation.
The traditional rule of thumb in the physiological sciences is that the power
generated per unit weight by a human ranges between 8 and 10 W/kgf. For
example, if a sport player, whose weight is 60 kgf, pedals a bicycle connected to an
electric generator, then he can generate a maximum power of about 500 W. Tani
suggested that humans are able to instantaneously generate 1 HP (736 W) using
their whole body. Using the same 60 kgf human and Tani's power estimate, the
power per unit weight is 12.3 W/kgf. The author also attempted his own
examination by having a student (23 years old. with a height of 177 cm and a
weight of 74 kgf) dash up the external stairs of a building at University of the
Ryukyus. As a result, the student generated a maximum power of 589 W. Thus, the
estimated maximum power is no more than 750 W for humans or other mammals
such as dolphins. It is interesting to note that a power of 736 W is known as a horse
power!
It is almost certain that the dolphin illustrated in Table 6.6 could swim at a
speed of 7.5 m/s, and retaining this speed for 1 minute seems likely. In this case,
the generated power per unit weight is 28.3 W/kgf, which is three times as large as
that for humans, and Gray's paradox still exists here.
Figure 6.22 was prepared to rearrange the problem. The variables taken on the
vertical and the horizontal axes are the same as Fig. 1.1. Data points are shown for
only 4 species; typical carp (from Table 6.5), dolphins (from Table 6.6), blue whales
and martin (both from Fig. 1.1). The solid line running to the upper right side is an
estimated line of the maximum swimming speed under the assumption that the
power per unit weight is 10 W/kgf. Since all body shapes are assumed similar to
87
30
10
8
8,
0.5
10
50
body length / (m)
Fig. 6.22 Relationship between Swimming Speed and Body Length (Dashed and solid lines
are estimation of maximum speeds on condition that the unit power of swimmers
is 10 W/kgf)
dolphins (or carp), and since the boundary layer on the body surface is considered
as a turbulent boundary layer, the relationship between the maximum speed and the
body length is approximated as U = 3.55/3/7. The slope of this line is the same as the
corresponding line in Fig. 1.1.
Comparing the estimated line and the observation results in the figure, the
speeds of carp and blue whales are lower than the estimation, which implies that
their muscle power is sufficient to overcome the drag. For dolphins and the marlin,
the observed speeds are two or more times faster than the estimation. Replacing the
friction drag coefficient Cf= 0.219/te"5 (Table 6.6) with that for a rigid body model
(the mechanical fish in Fig. 6.7) of Cf = 0.110/?e 1/5, the estimated speed is
approximated as U = 4.54/3/7 which is shown as a dashed line in the figure. By
assuming a rigid body, the expected speed increases by 30%, however, the observed
values for dolphins and the marlin cannot yet be explained.
Therefore, as a conclusion of this chapter, the author again declares that
Gray's paradox is not yet solved. Towards further research - although it sounds very
difficult - there remains two agendas: proving that the drag on these aquatic animals
under high-speed swimming condition is very low, and/or showing that these
animals can generate extremely large power per unit weight.
Episode - Rapid Increase of the Body Temperature of Fish
Tani asked himself whether fish could generate a power of 60 - 70 W/kgf. He then
described that "some people wonder that if a fish generates several times as much
power as a human, then the heat generation and the oxygen demand must become
88
extreme, and the heart and the blood vessels must be overloaded." From his
description, he seems to deny the possibility for his own question. Concerning this
topic, the author obtained surprising information that bonito are heated as if they are
burning after high-speed swimming. An account of the circumstances of these
observations is given here.
Every year Mr. H. Teruya (the chief of the fish breeding section of the
Aquarium in the National Okinawa Memorial Park) goes aboard a bonito-fishing
boat owned by a nearby organization to collect bonito and tuna for exhibition use in
the aquarium. The following sentences are descriptions about the fishing scene,
quoted from part of a column named 'Kara-jishi (an imaginary lion which was
inherited from China)' in the Okinawa Times (It is a slightly long passage to make
the readers feel the reality of the fishing events):
"The sea surface started agitating with water sprays. Bonito were just there.
The first bonito was caught at the bow. All other fishing rods also started
moving up and down, and bonito were thrown on the deck - or rather the
expression of falling down from the sky might be right. Of course, all
aquarium staff were wearing helmets for perfect protection. The surface of
the bonito is felt by hands getting sore as if it is burnt. The caudal fin of the
bonito that struggles violently on the deck would decay after a few days.
For bonito that are fast swimmers, getting hurt on the caudal fin would be
fatal damage. The staff have to adjust themselves to the rolling of the boat
and to straddle on the deck in order to catch the bonito with special vinyl
baskets so that the fish do not get hurt by falling on the deck, and put them
into a prepared water tank."
The expression of "The surface of bonito as if it is burnt" excited the
author and caused hot discussions. The author spent three months awaiting the
details of the scene from Mr. Teruya. In July 1996, the author succeeded in directly
asking him about this incident, and he replied: "I might have led you to
misunderstand. The temperature was not so hot that I could not touch the skin." the comment disappointed the author. Teruya instead introduced the following
important bibliographic information: "Generally the body temperature of fish that
are so-called cold blood animals is within 0.5t of the surrounding water
temperature. However, lean meat species of fish are reported to have a higher body
temperature than the water temperature." "Tuna often have a body temperature of
around 30oC when they are caught, and it takes several hours (no less than 5 hours)
to cool them down" (there are two kinds of reported seawater temperatures of l0oC
and 16C in a figure of the book that was introduced by Teruya). "Bullet mackerel
have also been observed to have a body temperature increased by about 10oC during
struggling for some tens of seconds." This rapid increase of the body temperature is
considered to result from the sudden glycolytic reaction within the red muscle.
According to Teruya, "Recent research into pacific mackerel and bullet mackerel
has shown that the red muscle in the tail of fish that moves aggressively during
Estimation for the Power of Fresh- Water Fish and Dolphins
89
swimming is more developed than that in the body, and the tail contains more
myoglobin than the body."
Although the deduction from these testimonies contradicts Tani's
expectation, the author has confirmed the importance of the caudal fin to perform as
a propelling device and convinced that the fish body is an extremely high power
engine, through Teruya's sensitive observations and description.
In addition to the above description, the author also intends to estimate the power of
dolphins by analyzing the performance of Tail-walking' that is performed when the
dolphin 'stands' on its caudal fin (photo-2 in frontispiece). However, this has not
been accomplished yet due to time limitation. These thoughts and plannings are
given as an attractive agenda not only for the author but also for readers to solve in
the future.
Chapter 7
Robot Fish - Development of Ocean
Engineering
The fact that some fish and dolphins swim very fast has attracted attention of many
engineers and researchers as already described. On the other hand, there has not been a
long history of people successfully adopting the propulsion methods of fish into boat
designs. Except for ancient sailing ships the propelling methods of boats in Europe
used oars or paddles powered by humans, and similar tools in the Orient are called 'kai'
and 'ro.' The author thinks that only 'ro' which utilizes the fluid dynamical lift force is
the most similar propelling device to the caudal fin of fish.
After the appearance of steam engines, the majority of propulsion devices
changed to paddle wheels and then to screw propellers. Application of the propulsion
methods of fish does not seem to have been considered until the establishment of the
20th century's modern fluid dynamics, because the principles of these propelling
methods were too difficult to understand. As described in the beginning of Chapter 2,
Aristotle believed that fish swimming was explained by 'the nature of fish.' However,
design and manufacturing prototypes that have propelling devices with a similar
mechanism to the caudal fin of fish have been attempted in many places, only during
the most recent decades.
Hertel's Research
Dr. Hertel (H. Hertel), who left a bright footprint in the aeronautic history of
Germany and Europe from the 1930's to the 1960's, argued for the necessity of
collaboration between biology and engineering, and wrote a famous book,
'Structure, Form and Movement.' This book shows a number of beautiful
photographs, and explains how the structures of plants and animals have important
functions by introducing the surprising aerodynamics of insects or bats, and the
high-speed swimming ability of fish and dolphins. Since it was first published, the
book has fascinated researchers for more than 30 years. The book also introduced
the research on fish swimming by Gray, Bainbridge, and Wu (T. Y. Wu: California
Institute of Technology). It is not too much to say that the topics discussed by
Hertel touch all the various issues related to drag and thrust considered in this book.
92
Hertel correctly evaluated the role of the caudal fin for fish swimming at highspeed.
Figure 7.1 shows an oscillating plate propelling boat, 'TUB-TUB-1.' Hertel
proudly introduced the origin of the name of this boat: 'Technik Und Biologic an der
Technischen Universitaet Berlin-1.' In this figure, part-1 is a thin oscillating plate
made of steel. This plate does not oscillate like a rigid wing. Instead, a propagating
wave is transmitted downstream when a stroke-shaft (part 2) and twist-shaft (part 3)
provide heaving and pitching motions to the head part of the oscillating plate.
Thrust force is obtained in reaction to the water being pushed downstream.
Fig. 7.1 Oscillating Plate Propelling Boat TUB-TUB-1' (H. Hertel, Structure.
Form and Movement, Reinhold Publishing Co., N.Y., 1966)
Since TUB-TUB-1 performed quite well, a series of prototypes were

produced until TUB-TUB-3. The oscillating plate propagated a progressive wave
motion similar to that observed in eels or sea snakes, and the boat achieved a speed
of 65 cm/s. Professor Wu estimated the thrust efficiency to be 50 - 60%. The TUBTUBs were probably the first boats to apply fish-like motions in their propulsion
methods.
Hertel also wrote the following quite inferable passage after the description
of the TUB-TUBs in his book: "It is still unclear how far we can compare the threedimensional flow around these animals with the flat potential flow. Future thought
might be given to the question of the extent to which an isolated evaluation of the
'propuls|on efficiency' of fishes only is appropriate, when actually the propulsion
and drag mechanisms are intertwined, as will be brought out in the section titled
'solution of Gray's Paradox.'" This indicates that Gray's paradox may exist because
fish motions were analyzed by separately considering the drag on the body and the
thrust efficiency. Professor Wu also produced a fish-like model and set it in a
circulating water tank to measure the drag and to observe the flow field around the
model - probably the motive was on the same basis. Unfortunately, quantitative data
was not presented in public. When the author stayed at the California Institute of
Technology in 1984 as a visiting researcher, Professor Wu and his laboratory's
interest had shifted to other themes such as research on 'solitons.' that are. solitary
waves.
Studies in Japan
93
Studies in Japan
Subsequent to the explanation by Dr. Tani (Ichiro Tani: late Emeritus Professor of
the University of Tokyo) presented earlier, a number of studies on the high-speed
swimming ability of fish were performed. In the field of fluid physics, researchers
such as Professors S. Taneda (Kyusyu University), Y. Narasako (Kagoshima
University), T. Tagori, A. Azuma and T. Kambe (all at the University of Tokyo)
have performed theoretical or experimental investigations, and given superior
explanations. Representative results have already been introduced in the previous
chapters.
On the other hand, since the propelling methods like fish are very interesting
theme, there are some engineering studies that originated from the pioneering work
by Dr. Isshiki (Syouji Isshiki, an Emeritus Professor at Tokyo Institute of
Technology). Several examples of mechanical fish or fish-fin type ship propellers
are now presented. Figure 7.2 shows a mechanical fish made by Mr. Watanabe (Y.
Watanabe; from the former Mechanical Engineering Laboratory in the Ministry of
Trade and Industry*1 now AIST). Although Watanabe was basically a specialist in
(D Head : balanced by lead inside polystyrene
form
(2) External Skin: polyethylene
(3) Motor
Power Transducer: changing the rotational
motion into reciprocal motion
Battery : 8 AA size batteries
(6)Tail: Phosphorus bronze with a thickness of 0.2mm
(7) Caudal Fin: loosely tensioned Polyethylene
membrane
Fig. 7.2 Mechanical Fish Made by AIST at MTI (Japan, Y. Watanabe)

(Mainichi newspaper, April 7,1976)
control engineering, he made the model because of his interest in the swimming
motion of carp. The body, which is 42 cm in total length and 950 gf weight, is
made of copper plates and plastics, and the caudal fin is driven by a DC motor.
According to the record, the mechanical fish swam just like carp in a pool in front of
the laboratory. After filming the model in operation, Watanabe visited Europe with
the experimental movie records, and met with Professor Lighthill at Cambridge
University as mentioned in Chapter 1. The movement to solve problems related to
fish motions from engineering perspectives had commenced in the former AIST and
began attracting much attention.
Professor Tsuchiya (K. Tsuchiya: Waseda University) et al. produced a two*1
This organization changed from a governmental organization to a public research

organization, and newly started as the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science
and Technology (AIST) in 2001.
94
dimensional model imitating a boxfish, and analyzed the motion on an experimental

basis. Their model consisted of three parts: the head, the body and the caudal fin.
These components moved relative to each other. In their experiment the following
three kinds of motions were given to the body, and measurements such as the forces
were executed.
(1) A lateral oscillation when the head and the caudal fin have a coincidental
phase.
(2) A lateral oscillation when the body oscillation has a phase advanced by p/2
relative to that of the caudal fin.
(3) A lateral oscillation only by the caudal fin.
As a result, case (D had the largest values for the generated speed, the thrust
and the power, while case (3) had the best efficiency among the three cases.
Isshiki considered applying a caudal fin-type mechanism for a ship-propeller
since the early stage. Figure 7.3 shows an initial polliwog-shaped mechanical fish
made in his laboratory. Although the body length was very short, it was confirmed
that the 'polliwog' swam well using rubber band power and a caudal fin made of
plastic plates. Figure 7.4 shows another propelling machine that replaced a
Fig. 7.3 Polliwog-Shaped Mechanical Fish (Propelled by rubber band

power and plastic fins) (S. Isshiki, Kinzoku, 44-11, 1974)
support arm upper fin (rubber plate)
I Nmetalribj
connecting rod
crank
lower fin
Fig. 7.4 Structure Diagram of Oscillating Caudal Fins (S. Isshiki, Kinzoku, 46-12, 1976)
Studies in Japan
95
motorboat screw propeller. The caudal fins are made to oscillate by the supportarms connected via cranks that are jointed with the crankshaft (screw shaft), and the
elastic force of the caudal fins, which were made of rubber plates, generates the
thrust force. However, since the rotational speed of the crankshaft was very high,
and the oscillatory amplitude was limited to quite small values, less thrust force was
generated than expected.
These two propelling mechanisms have the same characteristic as
Watanabe's mechanical fish, and the thrust force relies on the elastic force of the
caudal fin. Isshiki commented that if the thrust generation was expected only by the
flexibility of wing materials such as rubber plates, the choice of material, especially
for the fatigue destructive strength, would be decisively important.
Next, Isshiki and his disciple, Associate Professor Morikawa (H. Morikawa:
Shinsyu University), succeeded in developing a full-scale oscillating wing
propelling ship in which a two-dimensional rigid horizontal wing was mechanically
provided heaving and pitching motions to propel the ship. Figure 7.5 shows a
photograph of the experimental cruising of this ship. This invention was also
introduced by the press as the appearance of a new, safe, and highly efficient ship
named 'Fin-ship.' As a result of the trial tests, they reported that the maximum
speed reached was about 2 m/s and the average thrust efficiency was quite high at
6510%. The mirror effect of the horizontal oscillating wing caused by the bottom
plates of the ship is regarded as the reason why the average thrust efficiency is
higher than that (40%) of conventional screw propellers. Isshiki stressed the
significance for the development of oscillating wing propellers as follows:
(1) It has high thrust efficiency and has energy saving effects at slower speeds.
(2) The propulsion mechanism has minimal possibility of accidents that roll up
fishing nets or ropes and has little danger of injuring aquatic animals and
swimmers that is occasionally seen for conventional small boats.
He also occasionally stresses "the necessity of reexamination for engineering in
terms of the increase of safety, environmental conservation and biological insight"
and the significance of "making too much evolved mechanical technology recur to
the origin." His philosophy in many points seems to coincide with that previously
described by Hertel, who established a 'Department of Engineering and Biology1 at
Berlin University. When the author met with Dr. Isshiki, who was working as the
president of the Japanese Society of Mechanical Engineers, in an academic meeting
in Tokyo in 1982 or 1983, the author still remembers well that Isshiki told him with
great pleasure as if the incident was his private happiness: "Mr. Nagai, our fin-ship
has recorded 60% in its efficiency!" He also introduced an interesting episode:
"When Perry visited Uraga*2, he was surprised that an indigenous oriental oar
Perry was the first formal U.S. representative (admiral), who opened the door of
Japanese modernization. Uraga was a satellite town of the then capital city of Edo
(former Tokyo).
96
Fig. 7.5 Cruising Scene of Oscillating Wing Propulsion Ship (S. Isshiki
and H. Morikawa, SNAJ Journal, vol.642. Dec. 1982)
(known as 'Hatcho-ro,' meaning eight 'ro's) of a native boat easily performed highspeed."
There are a number of scientific attempts to investigate or to apply the fish
type propelling method at many universities in Japan since the research at Waseda
University and Tokyo Institute of Technology. Dr. Tsutahara (M. Tsutahara at Kobe
University) et al. invented an oscillating wing based on the Weis-Fogh mechanism,
and tried to apply it to a small ship model. Dr. Shimizu (Y. Shimizu at Mie
University) attempted to produce a small mechanical fish, as a biologically copied
machine, to experimentally clarify the characteristics of an oscillating wing
propelling mechanism. Dr. Nakashima (M. Nakashima at Tokyo Institute of
Technology) is enthusiastically continuing theoretical and experimental research on
'Optimized motions for body bending-typed water propelling mechanism.1
Professor Kato (N. Kato at Tokai University) focused his work on the
control methods of swimming motions of fish and experimentally analyzed the
motions of the pectoral fins. He also accumulated basic research with the target of
completing a well controllable automatic mechanical fish. In March, 1995, the
author et al. visited Professor Kato at the Department of Oceanography at Tokai
University, Shimizu-city, Shizuoka to collect information for his research. At that
time, we also had a precious opportunity to look at numerous oceanic animal robots
called 'mechanimal's that were on open displays in the departmental oceanographic
science museum. If the author's memory is correct, these 'mechanimal's were
developed for demonstration at the Okinawa International Oceanic Exhibition in
1975.
In March, 1997, Dr. Morikawa, Dr. Kato and the author organized an 'Aqua
Bio-Mechanism Studying Group' in Japan. The study group regularly meets twice a
year, and includes a wide variety of members whose specialties span across many
disciplines from engineering to biology. For example, one participant is Associate
Professor Kamimura (S. Kamimura at the University of Tokyo) who investigated the
'bending/inner slipping motions of the sperm flagella of sea urchin.'
Mechanical Fish and Oscillating Wing Propulsion Ships of University of the Ryukyus
97
Mechanical Fish and Oscillating Wing Propulsion Ships

of University of the Ryukyus
As already described, the author has luckily obtained a patent for a new oscillatory
propelling mechanism, the 'Fish-Fin-Type Propeller,' through his research into fish
motions.
Figure 7.6 shows a large-scale mechanical fish made subsequent to the
small-scale mechanical fish. In contrast to the small-scale fish that adopted a radiocontrolled system, the large-scale fish employed an on-line controlling system fixed
on the ship. The new system was expected to be able to collect more quantitative
data than the former system. As is obvious from a comparison with Fig. 6.11, and
since the large-scale mechanical fish was also referred to the body profiles of a tuna,
it has a similar shape to the small-scale mechanical fish. However, since the size of
the large-scale model was almost the same as a dolphin (with a body length of 2.3 m
and a maximum body diameter of 44 cm), all components required major changes
in their design. The body and the hatch were made of FRP, and the tail was workprocessed from an aluminum block. The flexible skin joining the body and the tail
employed a rubber sheet (with a thickness of 3 mm). The main driving device
consists of a starter-motor (7 kVA, axial output of about 5 kW) and batteries (24 V,
120 Ah), both of which were for automobiles. The rotational speed of the motor
was reduced by 1/10 to drive a Scotch-yoke mechanism.
Fig. 7.6 Large-Scale Mechanical Fish (University of the Ryukyus, 1980)
This large-scale mechanical fish was fixed via a strut to a mother boat (for 2
passengers), and it was manipulated (by controlling the electric current) on board.
Numerous data such as the electric voltage, the electric current, the thrust force and
the boat speed were measured. As expected, the mechanical fish succeeded to move
and propel the mother boat. However, the maximum speed was no more than 1.5
m/s and the swimming number was no more than 0.40, which left many technical
problems. The reason for the low maximum speed was a low gear ratio: the motor
could only rotate at a lower rotational speed than its design speed, and thus the
oscillating frequency was so low that the 'fish' could not perform well. This
98
mechanical fish provided numerous technical exercises and studies to the research
team at University of the Ryukyus.
The next activity that we wrestled with was to design and produce an
oscillating wing propulsion ship. The aim was to test the oscillating wing
propulsion mechanism in a quantitative way and to verify the practical feasibility.
The fact that Isshiki et al. had succeeded in making a horizontal wing and vertically
oscillating typed fin-ship naturally provided insight. The intention of this project
was to propose and develop a new ship-propeller as an alternative to the screw
propeller by collaborating with Isshiki's team. The accumulation of quantitative
data for the prototype ship would enable the team to make comparative studies with
oscillating wing theory that was examined in parallel. Figure 7.7 shows the overall
drawing of the first ship using the oscillating wing propulsion. A gasoline engine
from a motorcycle (193 cc displacement, 13 HP output) was mounted on a hand
made small boat. The axial rotational speed of the engine was reduced by a chain,
and transmitted via an eccentric plate cam combined with its receiving device. A
rotational oscillatory motion (via a new Scotch yoke that was joined with the cam
mechanism) was provided to an oscillatory arm located at the bottom of the boat.
As seen in the figure, the engine and the main driving mechanism of the ship
associate a built-in unit in the external cylinder of the main shaft so that the whole
unit can rotate by manipulating on board. This means the engine assembly can be
rotated relative to the boat and can also function as a rudder. There was a centering
keel attached to the front part on the bottom of the boat to prevent undesired yawing
motion. The achievements of this experimental ship were presented at the ISOPE
2635
Fig. 7.7 Oscillating Wing Propulsion Ship - 1 (University of the Ryukyus, 1988)
Robot Fish of M.l.T.
99
international conference held in Seoul, 1989. The maximum speed was 1.12 m/s.
Thus, the effectiveness of the oscillating wing mechanism by means of
producing full-scale ships was verified, and numerous interesting characteristics of
the mechanisms were recorded quantitatively. It was clarified from both the theory
and the experiments that designers should not optimistically use flat plates for
oscillating wings but should use symmetric wings that have as high a lift-drag ratio
as possible. The 3rd prototype (produced in 1996) that employed lighter weight
components, an open-deck canoe and used a symmetric wing finally achieved a
maximum speed of 2.0 m/s (4 knots, as fast as Olympic swimmers) at 2.0 Hz. This
prototype had good controllability and thus the development of oscillatory wing
propulsion ships is considered more or less in the practical stage.
Robot Fish of M.l.T.

In January 1995, there was an article with the headline 'Robotic Fish Gotta Swim,
Too!,' which was the closing article in a magazine of the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers. The article said that a team led by Professor Triantafyllou
(M. S. Triantafyllou at Massachusetts Institute of Technology) had developed a
Robotic Tuna named 'Charley' measuring 52 inches (1.3 m) in length. According to
the article, Triantafyllou had the idea of producing Charley three years before the
production when he was investigating vortices behind a circular cylinder (the
Karman vortices) and their inducing vibrations. By the way, the author received a
private letter from him in August of 1992. In the letter he invited the author to
collaborate with him, and said that he was making a mechanical fish with a body
length of 5 feet (60 cm). In a later article, he correctly suggested, "the vortices
formed behind the fish are similar to Karman vortices. Nevertheless, different from
the case of the cylinders, the vortices behind the fish do not become the cause of
drag but generate thrust force due to the induced velocity downstream."
Figure 7.8 shows the structure of Charley. Obviously, the structure is
different from the authors' mechanical fish but it does resemble a real tuna. Charley
has an aluminum backbone that consists of 8 pairs of links and hinges, which are
driven and controlled by 6 brushless servo-motors (the main motor generates 2 HP).
Thus, the backbone accompanies a multiple jointed structure. The relative motions
of the components including the caudal fin are independently controlled by the six
motors and belt drives. The ribs are made of polystyrene and are distributed at 1inch intervals, and they are connected with the backbone by flexible beams. The
body surface is covered with a special elastic fiber (Lycra). The reason for using
Lycra is to reduce the drag. Charley, at present, seems to be hung from an electric
train by a strut, and is towed or swims in an experimental pool to perform tests.
Although the detailed data has not yet been presented, according to the previous
article, Charley has achieved a swimming speed of about 2 m/s. The target is said to
be about 20 m/s (40 knots). It is interesting that Charley achieved a speed almost
the same as those of the mechanical fish and the oscillating wing ship tested in the
authors' laboratory in spite of the differences in their methods.
100
Starting from Charley, their first mechanical fish, the M.I.T. team is planning
to produce other kinds of mechanical fish and to produce a seabed-exploring robot
with a length of 4.5 m. The production of Charley is a relevant circumstance that
the author and Professor Tanaka accidentally became aware of while editing their
former writing of 'Fluid Dynamics of Drag & Trust,' and made contact with
Professor Triantafyllou. This event finally enabled a color copy of Charley to
appear as an opening photograph of the book.
As seen above, research and analysis of high-speed swimming ability has
accumulated various endeavors for drag and thrust. The research has reached across
Fig. 7.8 Robotic Tuna 'Charley1 of M.I.T. (M.S. Triantafyllou and G. S.

Triantafyllou. Scientific American, pp.272-273, March 1995)
Fig. 7.9 Large Mechanical Fish and Graduates (Andou. Ashimine

and Usami, in order from the left to right)
Robot Fish of M.I.T.
101
the stages of engineering application of oscillating wing propelling mechanisms or

of constructing practical fish shape robots and experimental ships. Professor Tanaka
has given a concrete view for the future perspectives about oscillating wing
propulsion ships. Although Gray's paradox has not yet been solved, it can be clear
that some attempts such as Charley of M.I.T. excite world engineers and
researchers, and accelerate their efforts. As an example, the appearance of an
'automatic mechanical fish for visual pleasure use' made by Mitsubishi Heavy
Industry Co. (presented in the spring of 1999 just before publishing this original
Japanese book) can be raised.
Commencing from Hertel's TUB-TUB-1, Isshiki groped for harmonizing
human technology with nature. The author is convinced that in the early days of
this century, fish-typed robots that can swim in water and high-speed oscillating
wing propulsion ships will appear. He also believes that continued research will
pave the way for a new period of oceanic culture, symbolized by novel oceanic
transports and numerous other activities.
Epilogue - The Silver Lining of

Solving the Paradox
The seven foregoing chapters have explained the birth and history of Gray's
paradox, observations for swimming motions of carp and dolphins, the possibility of
drag reduction, oscillating wing theory and their applications respectively, in terms
of fluid dynamics. The paradox has not been fully solved yet. However, even
according to observations by the author, it is a sure fact that dolphins of 2 m in
length can swim at 10 m/s by oscillating their tails at 5 Hz. It is also an undeniable
fact that a 7 m long killer whale can swim at 15 m/s, and a 1.5 m marlin can swim
even faster. Therefore, Gray's paradox still exists, and neither the fluid drag acting
on these swimmers nor their generating power can be explained by modern fluid
dynamics and zoo-physiology.
New Challenges of University of the Ryukyus

The last figure in Chapter 7 of this book is a photograph of a large-scale mechanical
fish that was recently built and is being examined by performance tests. This robot
fish is the second machine among large 'fishes' produced by the author and his
coworkers, which employed not only the experience of the first prototype but also
much experience derived from oscillating wing propulsion ships. The principle of a
two-point hinged and oscillating wing mechanism has not changed, nevertheless,
the structure of the secondary hinge, the assembling method of the spring materials
and the forming method of the wing have undergone many improvements.
Furthermore, the addition of two pairs (a total number of four) of small servomotors to the main drive motor enabled adjustment of the rotational angle of both
the left and right pectoral fins, the second dorsal fin and the anal fin to control the
posture of the body. Since this robot fish is equipped with lighting and a CCD
camera, the operator can safely control the robot by watching a monitoring screen.
The oscillating frequency of the caudal fin is 3.0 Hz. This robot fish was roughly
completed by March 1998, and a postgraduate student J. Makiya repeatedly
conducted performance tests through the period of writing this book. Although
research has commenced with the objective to solve Gray's paradox, it is naturally
expected that this mechanical fish will become one of the pioneers of ocean probing
robots and will contribute to the development and progress of marine engineering.
104
The Key Has Shifted to Unsteady and Three-Dimensional

Flow Fields
In the summer of 1998, the author joined the fluid dynamics meeting of ASME held
in Washington, D.C., U.S.A. with Makiya. The meeting involved the latest progress
in fluid dynamics, research in turbulence, direct-simulations of three-dimensional
flow fields and the rapid improvement of visualization and measurement
technology, which intellectually excited the author. Makiya and the author
presented their research in a session for unsteady flow. There were many interesting
research studies on unsteady and the three-dimensional flow fields at this meeting.
Among the presentations, Professor Platzer (M. F. Platzer) et al. from the
U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterrey, California presented an interesting
speech about 'Small flapping wings in the wake of a stationary main airfoil.' Their
experimental equipment consisted of assemblies of two pairs of static airfoils and
oscillating sub-wings in tandem. The small sub-wings were 1/10 the size of the
main wings and oscillated independently in the wake of the main wings. The
experiments were performed in a circulating water tunnel. According to Platzer, the
flow downstream of the main wings was improved by simply adding a heaving
(their so-called 'plunging') motion to the small wing. Their main wings (airfoils)
resemble the body of a dolphin or a whale that generates a wide wake for the author.
However, the wake structure was almost erased when the small sub-wings oscillated
at more than 5 Hz. Platzer showed the velocity distribution along the mainstream
measured by a laser-Doppler velocity meter. The results clearly proved that the
velocity distribution adjacent the trailing edge of the main wings changed from a
pattern of a conventional wake to that of a jet. According to him, the elimination of
the wake was also confirmed by visualization of the flow. Improvement of the flow
around the main wings directly suggested the flow drag of the system was reduced.
The author's question after their presentation was natural: "Professor Platzer,
did you measure the drag on the main wings?" He replied while smiling: "No, not
yet." He seemed to have been investigating the influence of a finite width wing that
imposes a two-dimensional oscillating movement upon a three-dimensional flow
field. When the author heard about this research, he remembered the statement
formerly made by Professor Hertel - "Future thought might be given to the question
of the extent to which an isolated evaluation of the 'propulsion efficiency' of fishes
only is appropriate, when actually the propulsion and drag mechanisms are
intertwined, as will be brought out in the section titled 'solution of Gray's Paradox.'"
The author completely agrees with this statement. It is no exaggeration to say that
Hertel's and Platzer's hints can make us see the silver lining in the dark cloud to
solve Gray's paradox.
The interchange between Professor M. F. Platzer and the author is continuing. In
August 2000, the author co-organized the '1st International Seminar on Aqua BioMechanisms' in Hawaii officially supported by the Japanese and the U.S.
governments. The author requested Professor Platzer to join the meeting as well as
105
Professor T. Y. Wu (California Institute of Technology), Professor P. W. Webb

(University of Michigan) and others. The three Professors attended and gave
keynote lectures. The representatives of Japan were the members of the 'Aqua BioMechanism Studying Group' that was introduced in Chapter 7. The Honolulu
branch of Tokai University kindly provided lecture rooms and accommodation
facilities. The seminar also welcomed European researchers, which certified that
research in aqua bio-mechanism is becoming popular worldwide. Additionally, it is
a most gratifying occurrence that Japanese Dr. M. Nakashima (Tokyo Institute of
Technology) will study under Professor Platzer from the summer of 2001 for a year
after an interchange held at this seminar.
Thanks to the development of robot fish by M.I.T. and the author and his coworkers,
and the enthusiastic research into turbulent drag and three-dimensional flow fields,
the author firmly believes that the day on which a declaration that "Gray's paradox
has been solved" will come sooner or later. No one knows whether such a
declaration will be made by a researcher at University of the Ryukyus or at other
Japanese institutes, or, after all, by American or European researchers.
Towards solving Gray's paradox, the author has written everything to the best of his
current understanding. It would be a great pleasure for the author, if this book
excites the intellectual interests of readers, and if the readers comprehend the
intellectual depth and interesting facets of fluid dynamics, and if they are stimulated
to participate in the new marine engineering age that will definitely come to pass in
this 21st century.
References
Chapter 1
J. Gray: Journal of Experimental Biology, 13, pp.192-199,1936.
C. M. Breder: Zoologica, N. Y., 4, p.159,1926.
I. Tani: KAGAKU, 34-9, pp.471-476,1964-9 (in Japanese).
A. Azuma: Journal ofJSAA, 33-382, pp.617-625,1985-11 (in Japanese).
M. Nagai: NAGARE, Journal of Japanese Society of Fluid Dynamics, 10-4, pp.47-55,
1979 (in Japanese).
Japan Society of Fluid Dynamics: Hand Book of Fluid Dynamics, p.761, Maruzen,
1987 (in Japanese).
I. Tanaka and M. Nagai: Fluid Dynamics of Drag and Thrust, Ship and Ocean
Foundation, 1997 (in Japanese).
Chapter 2
J. D. Bemal: Science in History, 3rd ed., C. A. Watts & Co., Ltd., London, 1965.
T. von Karman: Aerodynamics, Cornell University Press, 1954.
Chapter 3
H. Schlichting: Boundary Layer Theory, 8th English ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999.
G. K. Batchelor: An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, 1974.
Y. Tomita: Hydraulics, Jikkyou-Shuppan, 1989 (in Japanese).
H. Matumiya, K. Kishi, N. Taniguchi and T. Kobayashi: Transaction ofJSME(B), 59566, p.2937,1993-10 (in Japanese).
Chapter 4
T. Kambe: Journal ofJSAA, 25-277, p.53,1977-2 (in Japanese).
M. Nagai, I. Teruya, K. Uechi and N. Miyazato: Transaction of JSME(B), 62-593,
p.200,1996-1 (in Japanese).
M. Nagai, I. Teruya and T. Nakai: Transaction ofJSME(B), 62-604, p.113, 1996-12
(in Japanese).
Chapter 5
M. O. Kramer: ASNE Journal, 72, p.25,1960-2.
A. B. Toms: Proc. 1st Int. Rheol. Congr. Vol. 2, North Holland Pub. Co., Amsterdam,
1949.
I. Tani: Proc. Japan Academy, 64-B, pp.21-24,1988.
108
References
Chapter 6
M. Nagai: Fish-Fin-Type Propeller, Patent No. 1275556 (1985-7), Japan.
Tokyo Institute of Fisheries: TUNA, p. 155, Seizando-shoten, 1992 (in Japanese).
Chapter 7
H. Hertel: Structure, Form and Movement, Reinhold Publishing Co., N.Y., 1966.
T. Y. Wu, C. J. Brokaw and C. Brennen: Swimming and Flying in Nature, Plenum
Press, N.Y., 1974.
M. Nagai, I. Teruya and T. Nakai: Transaction ofJSME(B), 62-597, p.177, 1996-5 (in
Japanese).
Author and Translators Profile

Author
Minoru NAGAI, Ph.D.
Born in 1944, Naha, Okinawa, Japan. In 1972 he finished his Ph.D. study in Faculty
of Engineering at Kyushu University and became Lecturer at University of the
Ryukyus. He became Associate Professor at the university in 1973, and was a
Visiting Researcher at the California Institute of Technology and the University
College of London during 1984 - 1985. The author was promoted in 1987 to
Professor at University of the Ryukyus where he is currently teaching.
Since the beginning of his research work at University of the Ryukyus, Professor
Nagai engaged himself in studies on fish swimming, oscillating wing propulsion
mechanisms, wind energy, environmental issues and other topics in fluid dynamics.
Now, his life work is marine engineering and natural energies. He also serves as a
director of the Japan Wind Energy Association and as a director of the Okinawa
Branch of the Japan Institute of Invention and Innovation.
Translator
Takayuki KAWAMURA, MSc
Born in 1966, Tokyo, Japan. He graduated from the Department of Aerospace
Engineering, Nihon University in 1988, and finished the MSc course in Renewable
Energy and the Environment at the University of Reading, UK in 1999. He was a
Researcher in Faculty of Engineering at University of the Ryukyus from 1999 to 2000.
Now, he represents his own engineering workshop "Tiida crafts" in Tokyo, Japan.
Translation reviser
George Thomas YATES, Ph.D.
Born in 1949, Youngstown, Ohio, USA. He received his Ph.D. in Engineering Science
at the California Institute of Technology in 1977, and was a Research Fellow/Senior
Scientist at the California Institute of Technology through 1992. Now, he works at Y's
Engineering and is an Adjunct Professor of Mathematics at Kent State University.
Index
10,24
acceleration
14
acceleration of gravity
53
Active control
actual flow
30
actuator disk
38
adverse pressure gradient
27,31
aeronautical engineering
21,27
21
aeronautics
59
AIAA Journal
37
air resistance
15
aircraft
33
airplane
61
algae
American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME)
75,99,104
Americas Cup
60
amoeba
24
anal fin
103
anesthetized fish
63
angle of attack
12,19,34,44,74
Anguilliform
6,40
animal physiology
7
anomalous layer
56,61
aqua bio-mechanism
105
Aqua Bio-Mechanism Studying Group
96,105
Aqua-police
76
aquatic animals
2,7,87
Aristotle
9
Aristotle's paradox
9
Arizona Republic
75
arm-plate
79
ASME
104
aspect ratio
4
astronomy
10
Australia-II
axial interference factor
axial symmetric
Azuma, A.
60
39
66
2,93
B
78
backstroke
Bainbridge, R.
5,69,71,91
60
banana vortex
19
baseball
97
batteries
14
Bernoulli, Daniel
Bernoulli's equation
15,38
biological evolution
28
95
biological insight
27
biplane
blade element and momentum theory
40
39
blade element theory
26
Blasius' solution
Blasius, H.
26
body length
7,50
64,77
body profile
24
body surface
body temperature
bonito
3,88
bonito-fishing
77
bottle-nosed dolphin
bound vortex
20,33
boundary condition
29
boundary layer
2
26
boundary layer equation
boundary layer flow
3,29,53
27
boundary layer separation
boundary layer theory
21,26,35
boxfish
94
6
Breder, C. M.
112
Index
breeding skill
Bullet mackerel
82
California Institute of Technology

92,105
camber
34,35
Cambridge University
1,5,28
Carangiform
6,40,50
carp
6,7,66,69,70,84,93
caudal fin
3,40,43,46,70,71,89
CCD camera
103
centering keel
98
change of momentum
13
characteristic body length
24
characteristic curve
35,39
characteristics of a wing
34
Charley
99
Chesapeake Bay
54
circular cylinder
16
circular pipe
58,60
circulating water tunnel
63,104
circulation
19,32,33,43
circulation theory
34
coefficient of drag force
25
coefficient of kinematic viscosity 28
coil spring
72,73
cold blood animal
88
compressibility
14
computer simulation
33
continuum
14
control volume
38
convective acceleration
15,29
crankshaft
95
crescent shaped
6
crescent shaped wing
43
critical velocity
31
cross-sectional area
14,65
curve ball
19
cutball
19
cylinder
29,30
D
dace-
3.5,6,7,71
D'Alembert, Jean le Rond

15
D'Alembert's paradox
20,21,22
D'Alembert's principle
10,11
DC motor
72,93
dead-water region
18,34
17
dead-water region theory
dead-water theory of KirchhoffRay leigh
14
density of the fluid
12
design speed
97
dimensional analysis
49
dimensionless number
24
dimples
31
Dinkelacker, A.
57
direct solutions of the Navier-Stokes
equation
29
disc rotating experiment
54
divergence
74
dolphin
1,7,43,76,85
Dolphin Studio
76
dorsal fin
4.103
downward flow
33
drag
2,10,104
drag coefficient
25,31,34
drag force
9,17
drag mechanism
92
drag reduction
49,53.60
E
98
eccentric plate cam
69
efficiency
72
8 mm-film
53,99
elastic fiber
97
electric current
97
electric voltage
65
ellipse
15
Encyclopedia
95
environmental conservation
26
equation of continuity
14
Euler, Leonhard
14,15,16,22.26
Euler's equation
79
evolution
31
experiment
10
external force
113
Index
Gray, James
Gray's paradox
54
Fabula, A. G.
77,84
false killer whale
fatigue destructive strength
95
33
finite wing
95
Fin-ship
5
FishWheel
53,63
flag
63
flapping movement
46
flat-plate
flat-plate wing
45
32
flow field
flow simulation
29
flow visualization
33
63,84
fluid drag
39
fluid dynamic efficiency
fluid dynamical lift
91
fluid dynamically smooth
31
fluid dynamics
9,11,21,31,105
fluid force
45
fluid momentum
38
fluid particle
12,28,31,61
free vortex
33
frequency
6
friction drag coefficient '50,68,84,87
friction velocity
56,58
frictional drag coefficient
52
front stagnation point
32
FRP
97
fuel
33
fuel consumption
34
Fukui, Y.
82
fur
61
Galilei, Galileo
gasoline engine
gill
glycol-protein
glycolytic reaction
goldfish
gravity
gravity force
98
88
3,i
37
15
1,91
2,47,51,56,75,86,87,104
groove
58
Guinness Book of Records
2
Guinness record
82
H
61
H2O molecule
60
hairpin vortex
Harada,Y.
82
87
heat generation
heat radiation
59
heat transfer
92
heaving
43
heaving motion
9
Heliocentric system
3,91,95,104
Hertel,H.
82,83
high jump
43
high-aspect ratio
high-speed swimming ability 91,100
high-speed swimming animal
28
high-tech design
60
horse mackerel
43
horse power
86
horseshoe vortex
60
Hoyt,J. W.
54
hull
61
hydrodynamic equivalent diameter
65
ideal fluid model

14,24
Ikemiya, T.
72
inclined flat-plate
17
induced velocity
44,99
24
inertia force
International Oceanic Exhibition 76
invention
72
ISOPE
98
Isshiki, Syouji
93
114
Index
Japanese Society of Mechanical

Engineers (JSME)
95
jet
38,53,104
Joukowski, Nicolai Egorovich
19
K
Kagoshima University
93
kai
91
Kambe, T.
93
Kamimura, S.
96
Kara-jishi
88
Karman vortex
99
Karman vortex street
23
Karman, Theodore von
23
Kato, N.
96
keel
60
Kikuchi, Y.
82
killer whale
2,3,83
Kina, Y.
82
kinematic viscosity
28,55
kinetic energy
31
17
Kirchhoff,G.
Kobe University
96
Kohama, Y.
60
Kramer, Max O.
51
Kramer's experiment
52,53
Kutta condition
19
Kutta, Wilhelm
19
Kutta-Joukowski condition 19,33,43
Kyusyu University
49,53
laminar
50
laminar boundary layer
31,52
laminarflow
3,28
laminar flow separation
31
laminar sub-layer
31
laminar wing profile
27
2,82,86
Lang, T. G.
laser-Doppler flow speed indicator
55
104
laser-Doppler velocity meter
law of action and reaction

37
law of conservation of energy
15
law of energy conservation
14
law of inertia
9,10
lean meat species
88
least-square method
74
lift
18,19,32,33
lift coefficient
34
lift force
20,43,46
lift-drag ratio
34
lifting force
19
lifting theory
14,18
Lighthill, M. J.
7,40,70,79,93
Lighthill's theory
41
linear chain connection
54
linear regression
71
Ling,S. C.
54
Ling,T. Y.
54
living
fish
64
loach
54
long-chain molecule
53
low drag wing profile
27
Lycra
99
M
mackerel
6,43
macro-dynamic fluid motion
28
Magnus Effect
19
main flow
31
main stream
26
main wing
104
Makiya,J.
103,104
mammal
79
marine engineering
103,105
marlin
7
mass
50
mass of the fluid
12
mass point
14
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
75
maximum frequency
83
maximum power
86
maximum speed
81,83
maximum swimming speed
86
115
Index
measurement technology
104
Mechanical Engineering Laboratory
93
71,93,96,97
mechanical fish
96
mechanimal's
96
Mie University
69
mirror
95
mirror effect
Mitsubishi Heavy Industry Co. 101
modern fluid dynamics
29
molecular motion
28
molecular structure
54
molecular weight
54
molecularity
14,23,61
molecule
23
moment
17
momentum
38
momentum equation
14
momentum of the fluid
12
momentum theory
38
mono-chlorobenzene
53
monoplane
27
Morikawa,H.
95,96
mosquito larvae
43
Motobu-town
76
motorboat
95
motorcycle
98
movie camera
69
mucus
53,54
muscle
50
muscle power
87
myoglobin
89
N
Nagasaki, T.
Nakachi, H.
Nakahara, T.
Nakai,T.
Nakashima, M.
Narasako, Y.
NASA
nature
Nature dislikes a vacuum
nature of bird
82
72
61
82
96,105
93
59,60
9
9
9
nature of fish
nature's law
Naval Postgraduate School
Navier, C. L. M. H.
Navier-Stokes equation
Newton, Isaac
Newtonian Fluid
Newton's law of viscosity
Newton's Paradox
Newton's three laws of motion
Nikuradse, J.
Nishiwaki, M.
no slip
no slip condition
non-dimensionalized
Non-Newtonian fluid
non-viscous fluid
normal pressure gradient
numerical experiment
numerical fluid dynamics
numerical simulation
9
75
104
21
21,24
10
12
11
13
10
60
3,4
24,26
24
24
12
26
27
30
60
30,31
o
ocean probing robot .................. 103
oceanic mammal ........................ 2
Ohsaka,H.
..............................
60
Ohta,K.
.................................
72
Oki
....................................
77,82
Oki-chan's theater ..................... 76
Okinawa
.................................
76
Okinawa International Oceanic
Exhibition
...........................
96
Okinawa Memorial Park Aquarium
..........................................
76
Okinawa Times
88
3
Orcinus Orca
Osaka University
7
oscillating frequency
73,80,97
oscillating plate
92
oscillating wing
43,50
oscillating wing propelling ship ...... 95
oscillating wing propulsion ............ 79
oscillating wing propulsion mechanism
..........................................
98
116
Index
oscillating wing propulsion ship

98
oscillating wing theory
43,47,72,98
oscillation
6
oscillation
frequency
70,72
oscillatory arm
98
Oseen, C. W.
25
Ostraciiform
6
oxygen demand
87
oxygen supplying
2
pacific bottle-nosed dolphin

pacific mackerel
pacific spotted dolphin
pacific white-sided dolphin
paddle wheel
paint
paradox of D'Alembert
paramecium
Passive control
pectoral
fin
perimeter
Perry, Admiral
Phoenix
photographing
physical experiment
physics
physics of real fluid
physiological science
pipe drag
pipe drag experiment
pipe flow
pipe-friction coefficient
pitching
pitching motion
Pilot, Henri de
Pilot tube
Platzer, M. F.
polli wog
Polyelhylene oxide
polyethylene-oxide solution
polymer concentralion
3,77,80,82
88
2,82
3,77,84
91
61
16,17,19
24
53
79,103
65
95
75
64
30
10
35
86
61
58
53,54
54
64
43,92
15
15
104
94
54
54
54
polymer solution
polymethlmethacrylatemonochlorobenzene
power
2,:
power generating
power per unit weight
powered flight
Prandtl equation
Prandtl, Ludwig
Prandtl's boundary layer theory
pressure difference
pressure distribution
pressure drag
pressure drop
pressure gradient force
Principia
process of evolution
profile drag
propagating wave
propelling mechanism
propulsion efficiency
protrusion
Ptolemaic system
53
50
84
21,27
54
22
26
38,58
16,17
12
54
15
10
79
12
53,69
40
92
57
9
R
73
radio control
Rayleigh, Lord
17,18
14,23,33
real fluid
32
rear stagnation point
red muscle
88
relative velocity
38
72
remote-controlled
9
Renaissance
Reverse Karman vortex street
44
Reynolds' experiment
28
Reynolds' Experimental Apparatus
28
Reynolds' law of similarity
25
Reynolds number
-2,24,25,26,30,35,50,52,58,68,84
Reynolds, Osbome
28
riblet
58,60
riblet
film
60
Index
ro
robotfish
Robotic Tuna
robustness
rolling motion
rotational indicator
rotational ring pool
rough
roughness
roughness Reynolds number
rubber band
rubber plate
rudder
runaway
91
103
99
31
64
5
5
31
31
60
94
95
98
42,46
safety
sand roughness
saury
Schlichting, H.
school conflict
Scotch-yoke mechanism
screw propeller
screwball
screw-jump
sea bream
sea urchin
seabed-exploring robot
seawater
secretion
self-propelling body
self-similar
semi-experimental theory
separation flow
separation of the boundary layer
separation of the flow
servo-motor
sharkskin
sharkskin swimming suits
shear stress
Shimizu, Y.
Shinsyu University
Shinzato, K.
Ship and Ocean Foundation
95
60
63
27
54
72,97
38,91
19
84
63
96
-100
61
12,53
72
55
29
27
-"31
27
99
57
60
55
96
95
63
82
117
61
shipbuilding association
52
silicon oil
silicon rubber
51
104
silver lining
single molecule
61
54
single-celled alga
32
singular point
69
16 mm color film
sketching
64
slender body theory
40,47,79
77
slenderness
24
slip
small fluctuation
53
small-flatfish
54
smoothness
31
Society of Naval Architects of Japan
54
Sofrun
53
soft surface skin
53
24
solid friction
solitary wave
92
92
soliton
28
Sommerfeld, A.
southern hemisphere
60
specific speed
70,73
sperm flagella
96
25
sphere
spindle shape
27,28,66
31
sporting technology
spring reaction
45
stability problem
53
stability theory
53
16
stagnation point
stagnation stream line
16,18,24
stall
34
60
Stars and Stripes
starter-motor
97
starting vortex
33,43
steam engine
91
Stokes, G. G.
21,25
stream line
14
stream tube
14
streamlined
27,28
stress
11
118
sub-wing
104
super-computer
29
superimposed picture
69
surface area
12,64
surface friction drag
50
swimming method
79
swimming mode
5
swimming motion
69
swimming number 7,46,51,71,74,97
swimming pool
73
swimming speed
2,70,84
swimming suit
53
Sydney Olympics
60
symmetric shape wing
45
symmetric wing
4,46,79
Tagori, T.
53,54,93
72
tail
Tail-walking
89
7,82,100
Tanaka, I.
53,93
Taneda, S.
Tani, Ichiro
2,60,86,87,92,93
19
tennis
88
Teruya, H.
82
Teruya, I.
63
test section
theoretical fluid dynamics
20,53
thickness
35
Thompson
1
three-dimensional flow
16
three-dimensional flow field
104
60
3MCo.
thrust
10,42,43
thrust coefficient
39
thrust efficiency
39,42,45,46,92,95
thrust force
9,46,92,95,97,99
thrust generation
40,43
Tietjens
22
tilapia
6,66,71
Tohoku University
60
Tokai University
96,105
Tokashiki, K.
63
Index
Tokyo Institute of Technology

61,93,96,105
Toms effect
53,61
Toppo
84
towing experiment
53
towing-drag detector
63
trailing edge
19,32,104
transition
31
transparent acrylic window
77
Triantafyllou, M. S.
75,99
tripping wire
31
Tropical Dream Center
76
trout
3,5,71
Tsuchiya, K.
93
Tsutahara, M.
96
TUB-TUB-1
92
tuna
6,43,72,88
turbulence
33,53
turbulent boundary layer 2,31,52,60
turbulent boundary layer flow
50
turbulent boundary layer structure 55
turbulent burst
59
turbulent flow
3,28,29
turbulent model
29
turbulent motion
29
two hinged oscillating wing
44
two-dimensional flow
16
u
82
Uchida, S.
18
undisturbed flow
54
Union Carbide Co.
10
universal law of gravitation
105
University of Michigan
University of the Ryukyus
63,82
University of Tokyo
2,53,93,96
unsteady acceleration
14
vacuum
velocity distributionvinyl flag
virtual mass
virtual mass force
9
55,104
53,63
41,45
46
119
Index
viscosity
viscosity coefficient
viscous
viscous drag
viscous force
viscous sub-layer
viscous sub-layer thickness
visualization
visualized photographvolumetric flow rate
vortex
vortex line
vortex viscosity
12,14
12
31
12
22,24
55,60,61
56
104
23
15
19,20
33
29
59
96
65
24,43
82
19,32
35
19,39
33
27
27
91,105
w
wake
Walsh, M.J.
Waseda University
Washington, D. C.
Watanabe, Y.
wave speed
Webb, P. W.
Weinstein, L. M.
Weis-Fogh Mechanism
wetted perimeter
whale
whale shark
wing
wing profile
wing theory
wing tip vortex
Wright, O.
Wright, W.
Wu,T. Y.
104
59
93
104
7,93
69
105
yacht
yacht race
Yamaguchi University
yellowtail
Yosimine, Z.
60
60
60
63
82
z
AQ

(Stand Alone) Minoru Nagai-Thinking Fluid Dynamics With Dolphins-Ohmsha - IOS (2002) PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

(Stand Alone) Minoru Nagai-Thinking Fluid Dynamics With Dolphins-Ohmsha - IOS (2002) PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

,tt=4K-r j r

1. Very high swimming performance of dolphins at successive jumping.

3. Streamline-shaped body of a pacific bottle-nosed dolphin. The vertical flat tail

Thinking Fluid Dynamics with Dolphins

This page intentionally left blank

Thinking Fluid Dynamics with Dolphins

Germany, Austria and Switzerland

Netherlands and the rest of the World

Far East jointly by

Chapter 1 Gray's Paradox

Chapter 2 Early History of Fluid Dynamics - From Aristotle to Newton and

Chapter 4 Principles of Thrust Generation

Chapter 5 Research on High-Speed Swimming Performance

Chapter 6 High-Speed Swimming Method of Carp and Dolphins

Epilogue - The Silver Lining of Solving the Paradox

Author and Translators Profile

Birth of Gray's Paradox

Chapter 1 Gray's Paradox

Swimming Speed of Aquatic Animals

Swimming Speed of Aquatic Animals

body length / (m)

Chapter I Gray's Paradox

Fig. 1.2 Silhouette of a Dolphin (Hertel, 1966)

Fig. 1.3 Killer Whale (Orcinus Orca, M. Nishiwaki, 1965)

Observations of Small Fresh-Water Fish - Discovery of the Swimming Number

Observations of Small Fresh-Water Fish - Discovery of

Fig. 1.4 Fish Wheel Used by Bainbridge et al. (Gray, 1957)

Using the fish wheel, Dr. Bainbridge, a successor of Gray, investigated

Chapter I Gray's Paradox

Fig. 1.5 Classification of Swimming Style of Fish (C. M. Breder,

Observations of Small Fresh-Water Fish - Discovery of the Swimming Number

Swimming Number (Observer)

Note: For Bainbridge's data, the tail beat frequencies

Chapter 1 Gray's Paradox

still a mysterious phenomenon.

Chapter 2 Early History of Fluid Dynamics

Newton's Fluid Dynamics and his Paradox

Newton's Fluid Dynamics and his Paradox

Fig. 2.2 An Airplane during Steady Cruising (Holding T= D and

It is no exaggeration that the Newton's Principia included such wide and

Chapter 2 Early History of Fluid Dynamics

Fig. 2.3 Definition of a Viscous Force

proportionality constant jU is called the viscosity coefficient, and is a physical

Newton's Fluid Dynamics and his Paradox

Fig. 2.4 Fluid Force on an Inclined Flat-Plate

Chapter 2 Early History of Fluid Dynamics

Euler's and Bernoulli's Equations and the Paradox of

The momentum equation and the law of energy conservation of an ideal

Euler's and Bernoulli's Equations and the Paradox of D'Alembert

Fig. 2.6 Stream Line and Stream Tube

(Acceleration = Gravity force + Pressure gradient force)

(Pressure energy + Kinetic Energy + Potential energy = Constant)

Chapter 2 Early History of Fluid Dynamics

(b) Surface pressure distribution

This was the first declaration of the famous 'Paradox of D'Alembert.'

Euler's and Bernoulli's Equations and the Paradox ofD'Alembert

Fig. 2.8 Flow of an Ideal Fluid around an Inclined Flat-Plate

Chapter 2 Early History of Fluid Dynamics

plate on which the stagnation stream line collides.

radius of the cylinder and V is the speed of the undisturbed flow.

Circulation is a physical quantity that measures the intensity of the vorticity

Fig. 2.10 Superposition of a Clockwise Circulation on a

in the flow field. The circulation is calculated by a circular integration of the