A geometric approach to the dynamics of flapping wing micro aerial
vehicles: Modelling and reduction

arXiv:1511.00799v4 [] 16 Nov 2016

S. Kadam1 , S. Gajbhiye1 and R. N. Banavar1
Abstract— This paper presents a geometric framework for
analysis of dynamics of flapping wing micro aerial vehicles
(FWMAV) which achieve locomotion in the special Euclidean
group SE(3) using internal shape changes. We review the special
structure of the configuration manifold of such systems. This
work addresses to extend the work in geometric locomotion to
the aerial locomotion problem. Furthermore, there seems to be
limited work in modelling of flapping wing bodies in a geometric
framework. We derive the dynamic model of the FWMAV using
Lagrangian reduction theory defined on symmetry groups. The
reduction is achieved by applying Hamilton’s variation principle
on a reduced Lagrangian. The resultant dynamics is governed
by the Euler-Poincaré and Euler-Lagrange equations.

been commercially developed such as Festo SmartBird and
the Aerovironment Hummingbird in the recent years [10].

I. INTRODUCTION
Locomotion of robots or living organisms relates to body
movements that results in progression from one place to
another in a physical space. The locomotion of articulated
mechanical systems is often complex, even when considered
with the aid of reduction principles. Geometric mechanics
finds a very important position in analysis of robotic locomotion [14]. For a large class of locomotion systems,
including underwater vehicles, spacecraft with rotors and
wheeled or legged robots, it is possible to model the motion
of the system using the geometric phase associated with a
connection on a principal bundle [2], [3], [19]. Understanding
the locomotion of animals and robots involves nonlinear
dynamics and the coordination of multiple limbs. A commonality in most of the approaches in locomotion is the
periodic variation in limbs or shape variable to achieve the
macro-motion. This idea of using periodic driving signals to
produce macro-movement appears in a number of settings as
explained in [2], [3], [5], [6], [9].
A flapping wing vehicle is an aerial body like a bird or an
insect that uses periodic wing motions for thrust as well as
lift generation. The idea of aerial robotic locomotion is to understand and imitate the flapping-wing flight of birds, insects
etc. Agility, vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) ability
distinguishes it from conventional aircraft, making it suitable
for various applications. Work in this area has been a topic of
research since long, and many systems are engineered and
commercially used which mimic natural aerial locomotion
[7], [10]. Survey papers [10], [11] highlight that bio-inspired
flight is receiving attention in the aerospace and robotics
research community. A few engineering bird-like MAVs have
1 S Kadam, S Gajbhiye, R N Banavar are with Systems and
Control Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, 400076, India sudin,sneha@sc.iitb.ac.in,

banavar@iitb.ac.in

Fig. 1.

Hummingbird

From the literature on the topic it is noticed that the
modelling of dynamics of the FWMAV is done using analytical mechanics and local parametrizations, and the particular
geometric structure for locomoting bodies is not utilized in
the setting of FWMAVs. It appears that power of tools from
geometric mechanics and control remains to be applied to
the aerial locomotion problem. The purpose of this paper is
to explore the application of tools from geometric mechanics
and control to a problem on a more general structure group
- SE(3) to the FWMAV. Here we refer to [12] which
presents geometric methods for modelling and control of
free-swimming fin-actuated underwater vehicles. This seems
to be one such work analyzing geometry of locomotion on
SE(3), although for a hydrodynamic environment. Capturing the aerodynamics of a FWMAV poses lot of complexities
resulting from nonlinear, unsteady effects, to list a few. There
are many models proposed of various degrees of complexity
in the literature [6],[7],[8],[9],[10]. In the present work we
focus on the modelling and analysis of rigid body dynamic
aspect of the system along with qualitative inclusion of the
aerodynamics forces, rather than delving into the source of
aerodynamic effects and their mathematical forms.
While studying locomotion using internal shape change,
the topology of the configuration space needs attention [1].
The configuration space is divided into two parts. One part
describes the configuration of the internal shape variables of
the mechanism, referred to as the shape or base manifold B.
The other part is the macro-position of the robot, a Lie group
G, representing displacement of the body coordinate frame
with respect to the reference frame. The total configuration

space of the robot, Q is defined by both G and B. Such
systems follow the topology of a trivial principal fiber
bundle, defined mathematically in Appendix A. The fibers
over each point of the base correspond to the different values
of the group variables. The base manifold B is the quotient
(Appendix B) of the entire configuration manifold Q with
the group variables as the equivalence class. This paper
approaches the locomotion problem for FWMAV in such a
setting. The Fig. 2 shows a schematic of a fiber bundle [25].
We refer to [22], [23] for more details on the topology of
locomoting systems .

symmetry group.
The rest of the paper is organized as follow. In the
following section we explain the geometry of the wing
motion followed by definition of the configuration space. In
section III we derive the expression for the Lagrangian of the
system and explain the Lie group symmetry for FWMAV,
followed by the derivation of reduced dynamic equations
including the aerodynamic forces. Section IV concludes the
paper and lays out future scope of work.
II. F LAPPING W INGED VEHICLE
A flapping wing vehicle uses complex wing motions to
generate aerodynamic lift and thrust to manoeuvre in 3
dimensional space. There can be multiple variants of a
flapping wing mechanism. In the following part we explain
the geometry of the FWMAV analysed in this work.
A. Description

Fig. 2.

Fiber Bundle

In this paper we use the ideas of geometric mechanics
to derive the equations of motion for the FWMAV. While
some classical approaches like Euler-Lagrange equation lead
to equations of motion, the geometric mechanics framework
helps to understand the structure and geometric properties of
the system. The classical procedure for deriving dynamics
is by Hamilton’s variations and the resultant equations of
motion are Euler-Lagrange equation. Continuous symmetries
are a vital aspect of geometric mechanics since they facilitate
in lowering the dimension of the system by constructing the
corresponding reduced system. In the geometric approach
we consider the configuration space as a Lie group structure
and identify some symmetry in the system which leads
to reduced dynamics. If the Lagrangian is invariant under
the Lie group G, the group is termed as symmetry group.
Exploiting the symmetries in the system leads to dynamical
model on reduced space, which is generally the shape
space for a locomotion problem. The reduction is based on
identifying configuration space as Lie group and factoring the
dependence of symmetry, then applying Hamilton’s variation
principle which leads to Euler-Poincaré equations on reduced
space. The relevant work on the reduction procedure are
discussed in [19], [24], [18]. Reduction becomes powerful in
the context of control theory as mostly locomotion systems
have full control of the shape variables. This approach also
seems well suited for studying issues of controllability and
choice of gait as detailed in [1]. Sometime the G-invariance
is broken by gravity or by nonholonomic constraint, leaving
symmetry with respect to a subgroup of G. Hence, the resultant equations of motion are Euler-Poincaré with an advected
parameter [18], [20], [21]. In this paper we construct the
dynamics using Lagrangian reduction theory defined on a

Fig. 3 shows a schematic of the MAV whose dynamics is
modelled in this paper. The body is interchangeably referred
to as the torso. Two rigid wing are joined to the body at its
center of mass such that wings can have rotation about any
axis passing through this joint. The wing actuation occurs
through torques applied at these two joints.

xW L
y WL

z WL

xB

zB

yB
xW R

zI
y WR
yI

z WR

xI

Fig. 3.

Flapping winged vehicle schematic

We shall refer to following four coordinate frames in
modelling the dynamics of the rigid winged FWMAV
- Inertial frame {xI , y I , z I }, body frame {xB , y B , z B },
left wing frame {xWL , y WL , z WL } and right wing frame
{xWR , y WR , z WR }. The origin of body and wing frames are
at the respective centers of masses. The vehicle’s longitudinal
axis pointing forward is defined to be body x axis xB . The
y B axis points to the right of the body when looking in
the direction of xB , and the z B axis completes the righthanded frame. Wings’ motion is of course subjected to
the constraints by physical space which restrict allowable
positions. For example, either of the wings can not rotate

about xB axis by 180 degree, due to physical obstruction by
the torso.

We compute the kinetic energy as the summation of that
corresponding to body (B), left wing (WL ) and right wing
(WR ) of the FWMAV as follows.

B. Configuration space
Since the motion of the FWMAV is, in general, in 3
dimensional space, it can be represented using the special
Euclidean Lie group SE(3), which shall be the structure
group for this problem. The shape variables in this case
correspond to actuated degrees of freedom of 2 wings, each
of whose motion evolves on a subset of SO(3). Thus we
impart a principal fiber bundle topology to this configuration
space. The notation is as follows:
x B , x WL , x W R

XB , XWL , XWR

B
I
rBI
, rBI

WL
I
rW
, rW
LB
LB

RBI , RWL B
mB , mWL , mWR
IB , IWL , IWR
ωB , ωWL , ωWR

h̄L , h̄R

ρ

Vectors from the origin of inertial
frame to points on body, left wing
and right wing, respectively, represented in inertial frame;
Vectors from the origin of body
frame, left wing frame, right wing
frame to points on body, left wing
and right wing, respectively, represented in respective frames;
Vectors from the origin of inertial
frame to the origin of body frame
(torso of FMWAV), represented in
body and inertial frames respectively;
Vectors from the origin of body
frame to the origin of left wing
frame, represented in inertial and
left frames respectively;
Orientation of body frame with respect to inertial frame and left wing
frame with respect to body frame;
Mass of body (torso), left wing and
right wing respectively;
Moment of inertia of body (torso),
left wing and right wing respectively;
Angular velocities of body, left
wing and right wing respectively
with respect to inertial frame, represented in the respective frames;
The vector from the center of mass
of body to the center of mass of left
and right wings respectively;
The density of the body and wings,
assumed to be constant across the
entire FWMAV.

C. Lagrangian Computation
We compute the Lagrangian L for FWMAV in this section, given as the difference between kinetic energy T and
potential energy V
L=T −V

(1)

T = TB + TWL + TWR
2

2

= ∫ ∥ẋB ∥ ρ d3 XB + ∫
B

+∫

WL

∥ẋWL ∥ ρ d3 XWL

2

WR

∥ẋWR ∥ ρ d3 XWR

We now use the fact that a point on a body can be written
with reference to the center of mass of the body. Also, we
put to use the assumption that the wings are hinged at the
center of mass of the torso. Hence,
I
I
xB = rBI
+ RBI XB , xWL = rBI
+ RBI RWL B XWL ,
I
xWR = rBI
+ RBI RWR B XWR

We also use the fact that the body vector is constant in the
body frame, hence
2

I
+ ṘBI XB ∥ ρ d3 XB +
T = ∫ ∥ṙBI
B

+∫
+∫

WL

WR

2
I
∥ṙBI
+ RBI RW˙L B XWL ∥ ρ d3 XWL
2
I
∥ṙBI
+ RBI R˙ WR B XWR ∥ ρ d3 XWR

(2)

The potential energy is also summation of that for body and
both the wings,
V = VB + VWL + VWR
The potential energies of body, left wing and right wing are
obtained as
I
I
VB = mB grBI
⋅ z I , VWL = mWL grW
⋅ zI ,
LI
I
VWR = mWR grW
⋅ zI
RI

where g be the gravity and z I be the unit vector in z I I
direction, rW
can be decomposed as
L
I
I
I
rW
= rW
+ rBI
LI
LB
B
I
I
= RBI rW
+ rBI
= RBI RWL B h̄L + rBI
.
LB

Hence the total potential energy is obtained as
I
V = mT grBI
⋅ z I + mWL g(RBI RWL B h̄L ) ⋅ z I

+ mWR g(RBI RWR B h̄R ) ⋅ z I

(3)

where mT = (mB + mWL + mWR ). From (2) and (3) we
have all the terms for finding Lagrangian in equation (1).
III. G ROUP ACTION , L AGRANGIAN INVARIANCE AND
E QUATIONS OF MOTION
Symmetry is exploited to develop a dynamical model in a
reduced space. A left action of a Lie group G on manifold Q
is a mapping Φ ∶ G×Q Ð→ Q and the tangent lifted action by
T Φ ∶ G×T Q Ð→ T Q. Assuming the action is free and proper
[17], the Lagrangian L is said to be invariant if it remains
unchanged under the induced action of G on T Q. The group
under which L is invariant is termed as the symmetry

group. To exploit symmetries in this problem, we cast the
configuration space in the larger space, on the lines of [20]
and then fix the gravitational vector for further analysis
accordingly. Let configuration space Q be the submanifold
of the extended space Q̃ = Q × R3 , so that the gravity vector
z I is considered as a new coordinate p ∈ R3 . On this space
define an extended Lagrangian L̃ be L̃ ∶ T Q̃ Ð→ R which
is invariant under the action G. Then the Lagrangian of the
system is given by L = L̃∣p=z . The configuration space is
identified as trivial fiber bundle with (SO(3)) as the bundle
space or group space and (R3 ×SO(3)×SO(3)) as the shape
space. The left action of G = SO(3) on Q̃ is given as
I
ΦR1 ∶ (RBI ,rBI
, RWL B , RWR B , p)

Ð→ (R1 RBI , R1 rBI , RWL B , RWR B , R1 p)
and the tangent lifted action of G is

I

Gz = {RBI ∈ SO(3)∣
= z }.
Proof: Under the left action of G, the Lagrangian L in
(1) is given by
2

I
L = ∫ ∥R1 (ṙBI
+ ṘBI XB )∥ ρ d3 XB +
B

+∫

2
I
∥R1 (ṙBI
+ RBI R˙ WL B XWL )∥ ρ d3 XWL

WR

Define the body(torso)-coordinate as
B
T
I
rBI
= RBI
rBI
,

T
̂B = RBI
ω
ṘBI ,

T
Γ = RBI
zI

(5)

̂B ∈ so(3) is the angular velocity in torso-bodywhere ω
B
coordinate, rBI
∈ R3 is the position vector in torso-body
frame and Γ ∈ R3 is called an advected vector [18]. Then
the reduced Lagrangian l ∶ (so(3) × O × T R3 × T SO(3) ×
T SO(3)) Ð→ R is given by

T
ṘWR B , RBI
z I ),

Theorem 1: The Lagrangian L = L̃∣p=z is invariant under
the group

WL

I
I
= L̃(RBI , rBI
, RWL B , RWR B , ṘBI , ṙBI
, ṘWL B , ṘWR B , z I ).

T
I
T
I
= l(e, RBI
rBI
, RWL B , RWR B , RBI
ṘBI , ṙBI
, ṘWL B ,

I
Ð→ (R1 ṘBI , R1 ṙBI
, ṘWL B , ṘWR B , R1 ṗ).

+∫

I
I
L(RBI , rBI
, RWL B , RWR B , ṘBI , ṙBI
, ṘWL B , ṘWR B )

I
I
L(RBI , rBI
, RWL B , RWR B , ṘBI , ṙBI
, ṘWL B , ṘWR B )

I
T ΦR1 ∶ (ṘBI , ṙBI
, ṘWL B , ṘWR B , ṗ)

T
RBI
zI

(Appendix C) G/Gz of z I in R3 , then we have reduced the
system from T Q̃ to so(3) × O × T R3 × T SO(3) × T SO(3).
I
Given a curve (RBI (t), rBI
(t), RWL B (t), RWR B (t)) ∈
Q, the L is extracted from extended Lagrangian L̃ as

2
I
∥R1 (ṙBI
+ RBI R˙ WR B XWR )∥ ρ d3 XWR

I
B
+ mT g⟨R1 rBI
, z I ⟩ + mWL g⟨R1 RBI rW
, zI ⟩
LB
B
+ mWR g⟨R1 RBI rW
, z I ⟩,
RB

B
B
̂B , ṙBI
= l(rBI
, R WL B , R WR B , ω
, ṘWL B , ṘWR B , Γ).

We use (5) and allude to Appendix D for kinetic energy
calculations to get the following expression for the reduced
Lagrangian.
1
1
1
B 2
B 2
∥ + ωBT IB ωB + mWL ∥ṙBI
∥
l = mB ∥ṙBI
2
2
2
1
1 T
T
+ ωBT (RWL B IWL RW
I ω
)ωB + ωW
L WL WL
LB
2
2
1
B 2
∥
+ ωBT (RWL B IWL RWL B )ωWL + mWR ∥ṙBI
2
1
1 T
T
+ ωBT (RWR B IWR RW
I ω
)ωB + ωW
R WR WR
RB
2
2
B
+ ωB (RWR B IWR RWR B )ωWR + V (rBI , Γ),
B
= ZM Z T + V (rBI
, Γ)

(6)
I
∥ṙBI

=∫

2

3

+ ṘBI XB ∥ ρ d XB +

B

+∫

I
∥ṙBI
WL

2

+∫

WR

I
∥ṙBI
+ RBI R˙ WR B XWR ∥ ρ d3 XWR

ωB ωWL ωWR ]
B
mT g⟨rBI , Γ⟩ + mWL g⟨RWL B h̄L , Γ⟩

B
where, Z = [rBI

2
+ RBI R˙ WL B XWL ∥ ρ d3 XWL

V =
(4)

I
B
+ mT g⟨rBI
, R1T z I ⟩ + mWL g⟨RBI rW
, R1T z I ⟩
LB
B
+ mWR g⟨RBI rW
, R1T z I ⟩
RB

where the fact that R1 R1T = I has been used. Since R1T z I =
z I , the Lagrangian remains the same.
Remark: The gravity breaks the full group symmetry, and
hence leaving symmetry with respect to subgroup Gz =
SO(2), a subgroup of SO(3). In other words, the system
Lagrangian remain unchanged if we rotate about z I axis.
From the argument, we see that (Q, L) can be constructed
by (Q̃, L̃).
When the Lagrangian L is invariant under the group action
the equations get reduced to the quotient space T Q/Gz . Let
so(3) be the Lie algebra of G and O be the orbit space

+ mWR g⟨RWR B h̄R , Γ⟩
⎡M1 ⎤ ⎡m11
⎢ ⎥ ⎢
⎢M ⎥ ⎢m
⎢ ⎥ ⎢
M = ⎢ 2 ⎥ = ⎢ 21
⎢M3 ⎥ ⎢m31
⎢ ⎥ ⎢
⎢M4 ⎥ ⎢m41
⎣ ⎦ ⎣

m12
m22
m32
m42

m13
m23
m33
m43

m14 ⎤⎥
m24 ⎥⎥
⎥
m34 ⎥⎥
m44 ⎥⎦

m11 = mT I3×3 ; m33 = IWL ; m44 = IWR ,
T
T
m22 = IB + RWL B IWL RW
+ RWR B IWR RW
,
LB
RB
T
m23 = RWL B IWL RW
= m32 ,
LB
T
m24 = RWR B IWR RW
= m42 .
RB

The other terms are zero.
We now calculate the dynamic equation of the reduced
Lagrangian l using Hamilton’s variational principle. Let δ

denote the variational operator. The dynamic equations are
given by solving the following equation t1
B
B
̂B , ṙBI
δ ∫ l(rBI
, R WL B , R WR B , ω
, ṘWL B , ṘWR B , Γ) dt = 0,
t0

where the curve RBI (t) joins two fixed configurations in
I
SO(3) = G and the curves rBI
(t), RWL B (t) and RWR B (t)
joins two fixed configurations in R3 × SO(3) × SO(3) =
Qs and hence covers the entire space Q = G × Qs . The
I
variations δRBI (t), δrBI
(t), δRWL B (t) and δRWR B (t) are
independent variations vanishing at the end points, hence,
δRBI (t0 ) = RBI (t1 ) = 0, δRWL B (t0 ) = δRWL B (t1 ) = 0.
B
B
δRWR B (t0 ) = δRWR B (t1 ) = 0 and δrBI
(t0 ) = δrBI
(t1 ) = 0,

So, the explicit variation of the integral is
∂l
∂l
∂l
B
, δωB ⟩ + ⟨ B , δrBI
⟩ + ⟨ , δΓ⟩
∂ωB
∂Γ
∂rBI
∂l
∂l
∂l
B
+ ⟨ B , δ ṙBI
⟩+⟨
, δRWL B ⟩ + ⟨
, δRWR B ⟩
∂RWL B
∂RWR B
∂ ṙBI
∂l
∂l
+⟨
, δ ṘWL B ⟩ + ⟨
, δ ṘWR B ⟩} dt.
(7)
∂ ṘWL B
∂ ṘWR B

δ ∫ l dt = ∫ {⟨

B
B
To compute the variations of δωB , δrBI
, δ ṙBI
and δΓ, we
proceed as follows. Let η and ȳ be the functions satisfying
T
T
I
η̂ = RBI
δRBI and ȳ = RBI
δrBI
respectively, vanishing at
B
B
̂B , δrBI
the end points. The variations ω
, δ ṙBI
and δΓ are
computed as

d
B
(M1 Z) = (mB + mWL + mWR )ṙBI
× ωB + F a ,
dt
d
(M2 Z) = M1 Z × ωB + mWL g h̄L × Γ + mWR g h̄R × Γ + TBa ,
dt
d
∂l
c
a
(M3 Z) − (
) = TW
+ TW
,
L
L
dt
∂RWL B
∂l
d
c
a
(M4 Z) − (
) = TW
+ TW
R
R
dt
∂RWR B
(9)
where,
a
a
TBa , TW
, TW
∶ Aerodynamic torques acting on the
L
R
body, left wing and right wing respectively;
F a ∶ Total aerodynamic force acting on FWMAV;
c
c
TW
,
T
∶
Control torques applied on the left and
WR
L
right wings respectively, at their respective joints with the body.
The first two equations of (9) are the Euler-Poincaré
equations whereas the last two are the Euler-Lagrange
equations. The evolution of Γ is calculated from the
advected dynamics as
Γ̇ = −ωB × Γ.

(10)

Using the solution ωB of the equation (9), we can now find
the curve RBI (t) by reconstruction equation
ṘBI (t) = RBI (t)̂
ωB with RBI (0) = RBI 0 .

(11)

B
B
δωB = η̇ + adωB η, δrBI
= −̂
η rBI
+ ȳ

Hence, equation (9), (10) together with the reconstruction
equation (11), give the complete dynamics of the FWMAV.

B
B
̂B ȳ + ȳ˙
δ ṙBI
= −̂
η ṙBI
+ω

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

−1
−1 I
and δΓ = −RBI
δRBI RBI
z = −̂
η Γ.
By substituting these in equation (7), applying Hamilton’s
variational principle, we get following equations representing
the dynamics of the FWMAV -

∂l
∂l
∂l
d
( B ) − B = ( B × ωB )
dt ∂ ṙBI
∂rBI
∂ ṙBI
∂l
∂l
∂l
d
∂l
B
B
(
) − ad∗ωB (
) = ( B × ṙBI
) + (rBI
× B )
dt ∂ωB
∂ωB
∂ ṙBI
∂rBI
∂l
−(
× Γ)
∂Γ
∂l
∂l
d
(
)−
= 0,
dt ∂ ṘWL B
∂RWL B
d
∂l
∂l
(
)−
=0
dt ∂ ṘWR B
∂RWR B

(8)

We substitute the reduced Lagrangian in above equations
and compute the derivatives. After inclusion of the aerodynamic and control forces we finally get the equations of
motion for the FWMAV as follows

This work is intended to explore the application of geometric mechanics to locomotion on SE(3) for the FWMAV problem. The existing literature on the topic relies
on traditional techniques based on classical mechanics and
local parametrization, which tends to hide the underlying
geometric structures of the system dynamics. This work has
achieved to find the equations of motion in a coordinate a
free setting.
In this paper we have incorporated the aerodynamic forces
and moments without much regard to their form. It is known
that accurate modelling of these forces renders accounting
for complex phenomena. High-fidelity models are generally
not amenable to analytical control theoretic methods. Instead, low-fidelity models, which although would not fully
represent the physics, can help serve useful purpose. One
is that it allows a description of the system in a control
affine form in which the control inputs enter linearly. The
reference [12] does such analysis for the hydrodynamic
locomotion problem. It also gives controllability analysis for
the underwater vehicle, using Lie bracket conditions. Such
analysis can also be performed for the FWMAV. Feasibility

of range of interesting manoeuvres exhibited by insects and
MAVs can be studied through such a controllability analysis.
It also appears that in addition to the SO(2) symmetry the
FWMAV has R2 symmetry, which corresponds to the motion
in the x − y plane. Under the action of this R2 group the
potential and kinetic energies are invariant. Hence a reduction
under a semidirect product group SE(2) = SO(2) S R2 can
be explored.
APPENDIX
A. Trivial principal fiber bundle
Let Q be a manifold and G a Lie group. A trivial principal
fiber bundle with base B and structure group G is a manifold
Q = B × G with a free left action of G on Q given by left
translation in the group variable : φh (x, g) = (x, hg) for
x ∈ M and g ∈ G.

The quotient space X/ ∼ of a topological space X and an
equivalence relation ∼ on X is the set of equivalence classes
of points in X, under the equivalence relation ∼.
C. Orbit space
We identify SO(3)/SO(2) as the orbit space O in R3
defined by
O = {y ∈ R3 ∣y = gz for some g ∈ SO(3)}.
If O is closed in R3 , then SO(3)/SO(2) is diffeomorphic
to O, a submanifold of R3 .
D. Explicit computation of equation (6)
The reduced Lagrangian is given as,
2

B
̂B XB ∥ ρ d3 XB
+ω
l = ∫ ∥ṙBI
B
2

+∫

B
∥ṙBI
̂WL )XWL ∥ ρ d3 XWL
+ (̂
ωB RWL B + RWL B ω

+∫

B
∥ṙBI
̂WR )XWR ∥ ρ d3 XWR
+ (̂
ωB RWL B + RWR B ω

2

WR

B
− V (rBI
)

We present the computation of integration for kinetic energy
calculation of the body.
2

B
̂B XB ∥ ρ d3 XB
∫ ∥ṙBI + ω
B
2

2

B
B
∥ + ∥ωB × X∥ + 2 ⟨ṙBI
̂B XB ⟩) ρ d3 XB
= ∫ (∥ṙBI
,ω
B
2

B
∥ ∫ ρ d3 XB + ωB ⋅ (∫ ρX̂BT X̂B d3 XB ) ωB
= ∥ṙBI
B

=

B 2
∥
mB ∥ṙBI

B
T

+ (ωB ) IB ωB

where, the body mass, body inertia and position of center of
mass in body coordinates is given respectively as
3
̂T X
̂
mB = ∫ ρ d3 XB ; IB = ∫ X
B B ρ d XB
B

1
B 2
B 2
∥
∥ + (ωB )T IB ωB + mWL ∥ṙBI
Tred = mB ∥ṙBI
2
1
1 T
T
+ ωBT (RWL B IWL RW
)ωB + ωW
I ω
LB
L WL WL
2
2
1
B 2
∥
+ ωBT (RWL B IWL RWL B )ωWL + mWR ∥ṙBI
2
1
1 T
T
+ ωBT (RWR B IWR RW
IW ωWR
)ωB + ωW
RB
2
2 R R
+ ωB (RWR B IWL RWR B )ωWR
where
mWL = ∫ ρ d3 XWL ; IWL = ∫
B

mWR = ∫

WR

WL

ρ d3 XWR ; IWR = ∫

3
̂T X
̂
X
WL WL ρ d XWL ,

WR

3
̂T X
̂
X
WR WR ρ d XWR .

R EFERENCES

B. Quotient space

WL

The calculation for wings shall be similar, hence the reduced
kinetic energy is given as

B

[1] S. D. Kelly, and R. M. Murray, Geometric phases and robotic locomotion, Journal of Robotic Systems, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 417-431, 1995.
[2] Y. Liang, A Review of Geometry in Robotic Locomotion, Technical
project, California Institute of Technology, 1996.
[3] A. Cabrera, Base-controlled mechanical systems and geometric phases,
Journal of Geometry and Physics, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 334-367, 2008.
[4] F. Bullo, On controllability and symmetries in simple mechanical
systems, Technical project, California Institute of Technology, 1996.
[5] S. D. Kelly, M. J. Fairchild, P. M. Hassing, and P. Tallapragada,
Proportional heading control for planar navigation: The Chaplygin
beanie and fishlike robotic swimming, Americal Control Conference,
Canada, June 2012.
[6] S. Chung, and M. Dorothy, Neurobiologically inspired control of
engineered flapping flight, Journal of guidance, control, and dynamics,
vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 440-453, March-April 2010.
[7] H. Taha, Mechanics of Flapping Flight: Analytical Formulations of
Unsteady Aerodynamics, Kinematic Optimization, PhD dissertation,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Oct. 2013.
[8] H. Taha, M. R. Hajj, and P. S. Beran, State-space representation of
the unsteady aerodynamics of flapping flight, Aerospace Science and
Technology 34, 2014.
[9] P. D. Kuang, M. Dorothy, and S. Chung, Robobat: Dynamics and
control of a robotic bat flapping flying testbed, AIAA Infotech at
Aerospace Conference, St. Louis, MO. March 2011.
[10] A. Paranjape, M. Dorothy, S. Chung, and K. D. Lee, A flight
mechanics-centric review of bird-scale flapping flight. International
Journal of Aeronautical and Space Sciences, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 267281, 2012.
[11] H. E. Taha, M. R. Hajj, and H. N. Ali, Flight dynamics and control
of flapping-wing MAVs: a review. Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 70, no.
2, pp. 907-939, 2012.
[12] K. Morgansen, B. Triplett, and D. J. Klein, Geometric methods
for modeling and control of free-swimming fin-actuated underwater
vehicles. Robotics, IEEE Transactions on robotics, vol. 23, no. 6, pp.
1184-1199, 2007.
[13] F. Bullo, Geometric control of mechanical systems. vol. 49. Springer
Science & Business Media, 2005.
[14] A. M. Bloch, Nonholonomic mechanics and control. vol. 24. Springer
Science & Business Media, 2003.
[15] S. Kobayashi, and K. Nomizu, Foundations of differential geometry.
vol. 1, Interscience Publishers, 1963.
[16] A. Paranjape, S. J. Chung, and M. S. Selig, Flight mechanics of a
tailless articulated wing aircraft, Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, vol.
6, no. 2, 2011.
[17] J. E. Marsden, and T. Ratiu, Introduction to mechanics and symmetry:
a basic exposition of classical mechanical systems. Vol. 17. Springer
Science & Business Media, 2013.
[18] H. Cendra, D. D. Holm, J. E. Marsden, and T. S. Ratiu. Lagrangian
reduction, the Euler-poincare equations, and semidirect products,
American Mathematical Society Translation(2), volume 186, 1998.

[19] A. M. Bloch, P. S. Krishnaprasad, J. E. Marsden, and R. M. Murray, Nonholonomic Mechanical systems with symmetry, Archive for
Rational Mechanics and Analysis, Springer-Verlag, volume 136,1996.
[20] D. Holm, T. Schmah, and C. Stoica, Geometric Mechanics and
Symmetry, Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2009.
[21] S. Gajbhiye, and R. N. Banavar, Euler-Poincare Equations for a
spherical robot actuated by a pendulum, Proceedings of 4th IFAC
Workshop on Lagrangian and Hamiltonian methods for Non Linear
Control, vol. 4, pp 72-77, 2012.
[22] J. Gallier, Geometric methods and applications: for computer science
and engineering. Vol. 38. Springer Science & Business Media, 2011.
[23] J. Wilson, Manifold Theory. Lecture notes. Workshop of Multiagent
Pathfinding (WOMP), University of Chicago, 2012.
[24] J. Ostrowski, J. Burdick, The geometric mechanics of undulatory
robotic locomotion, The international journal of robotics research, vol.
17, no. 7, 1998.
[25] T. Rowland, Fiber Bundle. From MathWorld–A Wolfram
Web Resource, created by Eric W. Weisstein., [online]
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FiberBundle.html. [Accessed : 20
- Aug - 2015]

