Energy Harvesting

Home
Search
Collections
Journals
About
Contact us
My IOPscience
Modeling and experimental verification of proof mass effects on vibration energy harvester
performance
This article has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text article.
2010 Smart Mater. Struct. 19 045023
(http://iopscience.iop.org/0964-1726/19/4/045023)
View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more
Download details:
IP Address: 146.164.88.120
The article was downloaded on 06/01/2011 at 13:48
Please note that terms and conditions apply.
IOP PUBLISHING
SMART MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES
Smart Mater. Struct. 19 (2010) 045023 (21pp)
doi:10.1088/0964-1726/19/4/045023
Modeling and experimental verification of

proof mass effects on vibration energy
harvester performance
Miso Kim, Mathias Hoegen, John Dugundji and Brian L Wardle
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
Received 3 November 2009, in final form 24 January 2010

Published 16 March 2010
Online at stacks.iop.org/SMS/19/045023
Abstract
An electromechanically coupled model for a cantilevered piezoelectric energy harvester with a
proof mass is presented. Proof masses are essential in microscale devices to move device
resonances towards optimal frequency points for harvesting. Such devices with proof masses
have not been rigorously modeled previously; instead, lumped mass or concentrated point
masses at arbitrary points on the beam have been used. Thus, this work focuses on the exact
vibration analysis of cantilevered energy harvester devices including a tip proof mass. The
model is based not only on a detailed modal analysis, but also on a thorough investigation of
damping ratios that can significantly affect device performance. A model with multiple degrees
of freedom is developed and then reduced to a single-mode model, yielding convenient
closed-form normalized predictions of device performance. In order to verify the analytical
model, experimental tests are undertaken on a macroscale, symmetric, bimorph, piezoelectric
energy harvester with proof masses of different geometries. The model accurately captures all
aspects of the measured response, including the location of peak-power operating points at
resonance and anti-resonance, and trends such as the dependence of the maximal power
harvested on the frequency. It is observed that even a small change in proof mass geometry
results in a substantial change of device performance due not only to the frequency shift, but
also to the effect on the strain distribution along the device length. Future work will include the
optimal design of devices for various applications, and quantification of the importance of
nonlinearities (structural and piezoelectric coupling) for device performance.
(Some figures in this article are in colour only in the electronic version)
wireless sensor nodes [5, 6]. Energy harvesting from external

mechanical excitation is made through conversion of nearly
ubiquitous, ambient mechanical vibration energy using one of
three transduction mechanisms: electrostatic, electromagnetic,
or piezoelectric effects [1, 7]. Although each transduction
mechanism and corresponding application has advantages in
different areas, energy conversion using piezoelectricity is
regarded as one of the most promising technologies for MEMS
devices. Piezoelectric materials [8] produce an electrical
charge or voltage when subjected to a mechanical stress
or strain, or vice versa. Vibrational energy is directly
converted to voltage with no need for complex geometries or
additional components. This is in contrast with electrostatic
devices where an input voltage is required. Perhaps most
importantly, piezoelectric energy harvesters can generate high
1. Introduction
In recent years, harvesting ambient energy from the
environment has been a growing interest area and major focus
of many research groups [1]. Many ambient power sources
such as thermal gradients, mechanical vibrations, fluid flow,
solar, human-driven sources [2, 3] etc. have been actively
investigated in order to realize alternative power supplies.
Ambient sources are potential candidates to replace existing
power sources such as batteries that have a limited energy
storage capacity and lifetime for some applications [4]. In
particular, mechanical vibration energy harvesting has drawn
much attention as substantial advances have been achieved
in integrated circuit technology, particularly in low power
digital signal processors, reducing power requirements for
0964-1726/10/045023+21$30.00
2010 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK & the USA
Smart Mater. Struct. 19 (2010) 045023
M Kim et al
output voltages and enhanced efficiency compared to other

energy harvesting schemes [7].
In order to harvest mechanical vibration energy utilizing
the piezoelectric effect, researchers have developed devices
for various applications including windmills, shoe inserts,
implantable devices, etc [1]. Especially, for applications in
microsystems, several studies have focused on developing
MEMS piezoelectric energy harvesters using established
piezoelectric film processing [913]. Along with research
on fabrication of devices, researchers have also put
considerable amount of effort in developing analytical models
for piezoelectric energy harvesters to study the dynamic
characteristics of these structures. Several models have been
proposed and applied not only to predict and analyze the
devices but also to optimize the design for future applications.
Equivalent electrical circuit modeling has been used to describe
the mechanical components of the mechanical elements to
represent the system purely in the electrical domain [1418].
Alternatively, EulerBernoulli beam theory [19] has also been
applied to study the dynamics of piezoelectric energy harvester
in combination with either force equilibrium analysis [20]
or via energy methods [21]. A coupled electromechanical
model, based on a structural modal analysis for a base-excited
cantilever, was developed by du Toit et al [24, 25]. Cantilever
beam and plate configurations were chosen not only because it
is geometrically compatible with MEMS fabrication processes
but also because such a compliant structure can produce high
strain, and thus more power generation, in comparison with
other structural configurations. Depending on the number of
piezoelectric element layers, the structure can be categorized
as either a unimorph or bimorph configuration. Two modes of
transduction can be used according to the direction of electrical
field and applied strain: {3-1} mode of operation and {3-3}
mode of operation.
Useful closed-form analytic expressions for key device
performance characteristics were previously presented using
the energy method approach focusing on a single vibrational
mode [22, 23], from which both electrical and mechanical
performance could be predicted and optimized across electrical
loading conditions and frequencies. This power-optimized
electromechanically coupled model was experimentally verified using a macroscopic, symmetric bimorph, piezoelectric
{3-1} device. The verified model, in a convenient normalized
form that allows clear interpretation of the device performance,
may also be used for proper experimental design as in the
current work. Other investigations of similar piezoelectric
energy harvester configurations are given by [2628], with
similar results but omitting the normalization and many key
trends (e.g. resonance and anti-resonance operating points of
interest).
In the current work, a rigorous treatment of a proof mass
is presented in detail, including experimental verification. In
MEMS applications, as the device dimensions scale down, the
natural frequencies of these devices can approach the GHz
range. In order to use these devices for practical applications,
it is desirable to adjust the natural frequencies to lower levels
where more significant energy is found in typical spectra [22].
A beam end mass, so called a proof mass, serves to decrease
Figure 1. Schematic of base-excited cantilevered beam/plate with a

proof mass at the tip.
the resonance frequency of a device and also to raise the

average level of inner stress and strain along the beam length
to increase power generated. While it is very common to attach
or integrate a proof mass at the end of the beam/plate to obtain
the target frequency of interest [1012], a rigorous analytical
treatment of a cantilevered harvester with a proof mass has
not been presented. An exact treatment of the proof mass is
considered here resulting in modification of calculated terms in
the prior normalized governing equations [25]. It is shown that
while the addition of the proof mass modifies numerous terms
in the governing equations, the normalized results still hold.
Further, a detailed set of experiments is performed to verify
the model by varying proof mass geometry. Additionally,
we present a generalized treatment for the determination of
mechanical damping ratios based on simple measurement of
actual tip displacements and base displacements originated in
du Toit et al [2225]. Modeling is an indispensable element
in predicting and analyzing the characteristics of piezoelectric
mechanical vibrations energy harvesters. Therefore, the exact
analysis presented here for piezoelectric mechanical vibration
energy harvesters with a proof mass is an essential step in
realizing MEMS devices for future applications.
2. Modeling of cantilevered piezoelectric vibration

energy harvesters with a proof mass
In this section, a coupled electromechanical modal model is
briefly reviewed before a detailed derivation to incorporate the
proof mass is undertaken. The derivation is based on Euler
Bernoulli theory and an energy method approach. Then, key
mechanical and electrical device characteristics are extracted.
While we begin with treating the general multi-degree-offreedom system, we focus on the closed-form analytic solution
in a single mode model that has been shown to be adequate
to predict device performance in past work. The model is
implemented for the case of various energy harvesters built
and tested for model verification. Each energy harvester
is composed of piezoelectric element, structural layer, and
electrodes and the device is wired to the appropriate electrical
circuit to extract the electrical properties such as voltage and
power. The input power source comes from base-excited
mechanical vibrations (see figure 1).
2
M Kim et al
of the piezoelectric element, , the piezoelectric constant

relating charge density and strain, e, and the mechanical
parameter, cE , the stiffness matrix. These physical parameters
are obtained differently depending on whether the structure is
a beam or a plate (see discussion in [22, 24]). Equation (7)
is the representative expression for three-dimensional linear
elastic constitutive relations where a range of small-signal
piezoelectric motion is assumed.
E

T
c et
S
=
.
(7)
D
E
e S
2.1. Modeling cantilever beam and plates with piezoelectric

elements
There are two methods to obtain the model for a cantilever
beam/plate with piezoelectric elements: an energy method
approach and a force equilibrium analysis [20]. Our study is
based on the energy method approach, following the energy
formulation for actuators by Hagood et al [21] and developed
by du Toit et al [25] for energy harvesting. According to the
energy conservation law, an electromechanical system can be
modeled in terms of the sum of kinetic energy (Tk ), internal
potential energy (U ), electrical energy (We ) and external work
(W ) as follows:
t2
[(Tk U + We ) + W ] dt = 0.
Superscripts E, S indicate parameters at constant electric field

and constant strain. The three-dimensional linear elastic
constitutive relations as in equation (7) can be easily simplified
for {3-1} and {3-3} modes of operation where equation (7) is
significantly simplified [22, 23]. Strain, S, in particular, can
also be expressed with respect to mechanical mode shapes.
The EulerBernoulli beam theory allows the axial strain in
the beam to be written in terms of the beam neutral axis
displacement and the distance from the neutral axis (x t :
transverse direction, see figure 1), as given by equation (8).
Primes represent the spatial derivatives throughout this paper.
(1)
t1
Individual energy terms and external work term are defined as:

t
1
1
Tk = 2
s u u dVs + 2
p u t u dVp
(2)
Vs
Vp

U=
1
2

St T dVs +
Vs
We =
W =
nf
1
2
1
2
St T dVp
(3)
Vp
Et D dVp
S(x, t) = x t
(4)
Vp
uk fk (t) +
nq
j q j .
Vp and Vs are volumes of piezoelectric element section

and of the structural (inactive) section of the beam/plate,
respectively. Likewise, p and s denote densities of each
section. Dots indicate the time derivatives and u(x, t) is the
relative displacement matrix, and u represents the velocity.
It should be noted that the relative displacement of the
structure, u(x, t) can be written as the sum of nr individual
modes shapes, ri (x), multiplied by a generalized mechanical
coordinate, ri (t), using the RaleighRitz approach. The mode
shape is a function only of the axial position because only the
transverse displacement (x t direction) is considered in bending
of a beam/plate. Thus, u(x, t) can be expressed as w(x a , t),
which is the beam displacement relative to the base of the
beam/plate, where x a is the axial beam/plate coordinate. The
base excitations follow similarly, wB and thus wB = wB (x a , t).
The relative displacement above is given in equation (6):
u(x, t) = w(x a , t) =
nr
ri (x a )ri (t) = r (x a )r(t)
(8)
Lastly, in order to define the external work term in equation (5),

nf discretely applied external point forces, fk (t) at positions
xk , and nq charges, q j , extracted at discrete electrodes with
positions x j are introduced. In this same equation for the
external work term, the quantity j = (x j , t) is the scalar
electrical potential for each of the nq electrode pairs. For {31} mode devices as used here (see figure 2), there is only one
electrode pair on either surface of the piezoelectric element,
while for a {3-3} mode test device, there may be a large
number of electrode pairs distributed over one surface of the
piezoelectric layer. This scalar electrical potential term, j =
(x j , t) can be expressed via a potential distribution, v j (x),
and the generalized electrical voltage coordinate, v j (t) as in
equation (9):
(5)
j =1
k=1
2 w(x a , t)
= x t r r(t).
x a2
(x, t) =
nq

j =1
v j (x)v j (t) = v (x)v(t).
(9)
It is important to differentiate electrical mode shape vector,

v (x) from the mechanical mode shape vector, r (x). The
form of electrical mode shapes varies according to the specifics
of test-devices, and will be detailed in later sections.
When we substitute equations from (6) to (9) into
equations (2)(5), the energy and external work expressions
in equations (2)(5) can be rewritten in terms of mechanical
or electrical mode shapes and material parameters. These
rewritten equations (2)(5) are then inserted back into the
energy conservation equation (1). Finally, rearrangement of
equation (1) allows us to obtain two governing equations of
motion as below.
(6)
i=1
where r (x a ) represents the row matrix, [r 1 (x a ),r 2 (x a ), . . .]

of mode shapes. Equations (3) and (4) represent the internal
potential and electrical energies in terms of S, T, E, and D
matrices. The S, T, E, and D matrices are defined as applied
strain, developed stress, applied electric field, and developed
electric displacement, respectively and the superscript, t, here
indicates the transpose of the matrix. According to 3D linear
elastic (small-signal) constitutive relations, these matrices are
related through electrical parameters such as the permittivity
Mr + Cr + Kr v = Bf w B
3
(10)
M Kim et al
Figure 2. Illustration of symmetric, bimorph energy harvester with a tip proof mass. The active elements are electrically connected in series.
t r + CP v + q = 0.
piezoelectric element, the coupling term () is directly related

to the piezoelectric constant (e) as shown in equation (14).
Evaluation of the above coefficients from equations (12) to (16)
for practical applications will be presented in later sections,
using a single beam mode (r 1 ).
(11)
As defined in equation (6), r denotes the generalized relative

displacement vector. As shown in equation (6), in order to
convert it to actual displacements, it is necessary to multiply it
by the mechanical mode shapes. Exact modal analysis will be
followed in section 2.2. v is the developed voltage across the
piezoelectric element and q is the charge. Base acceleration,
w B , is the input to the cantilevered system (see figure 1).
Several effective terms, including the mass (M), the stiffness
(K), coupling (), and capacitive matrices (CP ), are defined
below. The forcing vector, Bf , accounts for inertial loading on
the beam/plate structure due to the base excitations.

t
M=
r s r dVs +
rt p r dVp
(12)
Vs

K=
2.2. Modal analysis of cantilevers with a proof mass

Effective terms in the governing equations are generally
expressed in terms of mechanical mode shapes and thus, it is
enough to say that the extent of prediction capability of the
model depends significantly on the mode shapes. Altering the
mode shape via the addition of a proof mass will strongly
affect all the effective constants in equations (10) and (11).
While modal analysis and natural frequency calculations of
free-clamped cantilevered structures appear in the literature
(e.g. [19]), vibration analysis of simple beams with the addition
of a proof mass is less common. Many researchers apply a
point mass assumption or lumped mass assumption in their
study on modal analysis and natural frequencies. In this
section, it will be shown how much the material and geometric
properties of a proof mass and the location where it is placed in
the system affect the modal analysis and therefore, the analysis
of the entire system. The proof mass is considered rigid and
contains rotational terms (due to offset center of gravity and
attachment point, see figure 1), instead of a lumped mass or
concentrated point mass at a certain point.
First of all, it is assumed that the stiffness of a proof mass
is much higher than that of beam/plate itself so that proof
mass contributes to the entire system with regard to the mass
increase, and makes the beam/plate efficiently rigid in the outer
portion from L to L 0 . (Future work will deal with non-rigid
mass case when a proof mass also makes contributions to the
bending stiffness of the system.) In order to treat more general
cases, it is not assumed that the proof mass center of gravity
corresponds to the point of loading on the beam/plate. Also, for
simplicity, the proof mass is assumed to be uniform in the axial
direction with mass per length, equal to m 0 , like the beam/plate
where the cross-section is considered to be uniform with mass
per length, equal to m (see figure 1). It should be emphasized
that in this schematic, the part of the beam/plate under the area
of proof mass is considered part of the total proof mass for this
Vp
(x t r )t cs (x t r ) dVs +

Vs
(x t r )t cE (x t r ) dVp

Vp
(13)

=
Vp
CP =
Vp
(x t r )t et ( v ) dVp
(14)
( v )t S ( v ) dVp
(15)

Bf =
m(x a ) rt dx a .
(16)
Mechanical mode shapes, electrical mode shapes, and

their derivatives mainly comprise these terms. Details on
conventions of materials properties used here can be found
elsewhere [8, 23, 25]. It should be noted that mechanical
damping is included by adding a viscous damping term, C.
As it is assumed that the damping has little dependence on
the device natural frequency, damping is typically measured
at the device natural frequency, which will be covered in
detail in a later section. In the general multi-degree-offreedom (MDOF) governing equations obtained above, the
mechanical domain represented by the actuation equation (10)
is electromechanically coupled to the electrical domain
expressed by the sensing equation (11) via the coupling term
(). As the electromechanical coupling stems from the
4
M Kim et al
beam/plate system for calculation ease. Now we begin with

the introduction of mass of overhang, M0 , static moment at the
junction x = L, S0 , and moment of inertia at the junction, I0 ,
to account for the properties of the total proof mass. In this
particular illustration, we can express these terms as follows:
3
A12 = (cosh N + cos N ) + N I0 ( sinh N sin N )
M0 = m 0 L 0 + m L 0
A22 = (sinh N sin N ) + N M 0 (cosh N cos N )
A21
+ N S 0 ( cosh N + cos N )
= (cosh N + cos N ) + N M 0 (sinh N sin N )
2
+ N S 0 (cosh N cos N )
(17)
+ N S 0 (sinh N + sin N ).
L0
(18)
S0 = M0
2
m0 L0 2
m L0 2
I0 =
(L 0 + h 20 ) +
(L 0 + h 2 )
(19)
3
3
where subscript 0 indicates the part of a proof mass, and
h , L , b and denote height, length, width and density of
the beam/plate and the proof mass, respectively in order. It
is significant to note that the moment of inertia ( I0 ) at the
junction (x a = L ) between the beam/plate and the proof mass
incorporates the rotational inertia of the structure.
As adopted from [29, 30], the governing equations in
terms of mechanical displacement or mode shape can be
determined, using EulerBernoulli beam theory, as given by
equation (20). The N th mode of the mechanical mode
shape is represented by r N (x a ), which can be expressed via
equation (21) where constants (c, d , e, and f ) will be solved
using the boundary conditions.
E I rIVN m2N r N = 0
1
1
(Hz).
(32)
2
It should be noted
that 1 is also related to mass and stiffness
through 1 = K /M . Then, the general bending mode shape
of a clamped-free (simple cantilever) beam/plate with a proof
mass at the tip will be given as follows:
A12
(sinh N x sin N x)].
A11
(33)
This is a rewritten form of equation (21) only in terms of a
single arbitrary scaling constant, (here, d is used), and it is
noted that N x a = N xLa . Once the parameter, N or N is
known from the zero determinant, both mode shape and the
resonance frequency for the N th mode are readily obtainable.
For practical use, we normalize the mode shape to r N (L) = 2
at the junction, which gives d = 2/[(cosh N L ]. The
actual beam/plate tip deflection at x = L + L 0 , is then given
by wtip = [2 + L 0 r N (L)]r , rather than simply wtip = 2r as
used in the no proof mass case.
Addition of a proof mass will cause the effective mass of
the structure, previously indicated as equation (12), to have a
different form as shown in equation (34), which is obtained
from the Lagrange equations of motion.

M=
tr s r dVs +
tr p r dVp + M0 ( r (L))t r (L)
r N = d[(cosh N x cos N x)
m2N
EI
. Boundary conditions at the fixed end and at the junction

point where the beam/plate and the proof mass are connected
are given by:
At x a = 0,
r N = 0
(22)
E I rN = 2N I0 r N + 2N S0 r N
(24)
E I rN = 2N M0 r N 2N S0 r N
(25)
At x a = L ,
where ( ) = / x a . Equations (22) and (23) simply represent a

clamped cantilever, whereas equation (24) represents bending
moment and equation (25) represents shear force at the
junction between the beam/plate and the proof mass. These
boundary conditions give four equations which can be reduced
to the 2 2 matrix equation (26) along with the expressions of
matrix elements, equations (27)(30).

A11 A12
c
(26)
=0
A21 A22
d
Vs
+ 2 S0 ( r (L))
Vp

r (L) + I0 ( r (L))t r (L).
(34)
The last three terms in equation (34) incorporate the properties

of the proof mass. Although the first two terms are present
as in equation (12) when a proof mass is not considered, the
resulting values of these terms will be quite different when
a proof mass is added to the cantilevered structure. This is
because the mode shapes vary due to material and geometric
properties of the proof mass and thus affect the first two terms
in equation (34), which are expressed in terms of these mode
A11 = (sinh N + sin N ) + N I0 ( cosh N + cos N )

+ N S 0 ( sinh N + sin N )
(30)
f1 =
r N = c sinh N x a + d cosh N x a + e sin N x a + f cos N x a .

(21)
E I is the effective bending stiffness, which is obtained
considering the neutral axis and the properties of the beam
multi-layers, while N represents the N th mode resonance
frequencies. It is convenient to define the parameter, 4N =
(23)
(29)
For convenience, all terms above are nondimensionalized such

that N = N L , M 0 = mML0 , S 0 = mSL0 2 , and I0 = mIL0 3 .
We solve for N which makes the determinant | AA2111 AA1222 | =
0 and thus obtain successive values of N , from which
the resonance frequencies associated with each N th mode,
4
N can be calculated through the relation, N = 4N L 4 .
The first resonance frequency, 1 , for example, is given
by equations (31) and (32), in units of (rad s1 ) and (Hz),
respectively:

EI
1 = (1 )2
(rad s1 )
(31)
m L4
(20)
r N = 0
(28)
(27)
5
M Kim et al
load, Rl . Each coefficient in the single mode governing

equations above can be expressed as below:
L
M=
mr2 dx a + M0 (r (L))2
shapes. Likewise, as other terms in the governing equations of

motions in section 2.1, such as effective stiffness (K), coupling
(), and capacitive matrices (CP ), depend on the mode shapes,
the variation of the mode shape will alternate the values for
these effective terms when there is a proof mass. Previously,
the forcing function, Bf , has been defined to account for the
inertial loading of the device due to base excitation. Since not
only a beam/plate but also a proof mass at the tip contributes
to the inertial loading of the device, the forcing vector must
be modified so that the displacement and the rotation of the
tip mass are taken into account. The last two additional terms
modify the forcing vector as demonstrated in equation (35).
L
Bf =
m( r (x a ))t dx a + M0 ( r (L))t + S0 ( r (L))t . (35)
+ 2 S0 r (L)r (L) + I0 (r (L))2

K = M12

= x t r e31 (v ) dV

S
Cp = (v )33
(v ) dV
L
Bf =
mr dx a + M0 r (L) + S0 r (L).
K i j = i j Mii i2
(37)
where i j represents the Kronecker delta. The fact that

the mass and stiffness matrices, M and K, are diagonal is
important in that it allows each vibration mode ri in the
governing equation (10) to be uncoupled structurally from
one another (orthogonal vibration modes) in the governing
system of equations (10) and (11). This allows for easier
computation of the governing equations in the multi-degreeof-freedom (MDOF) treatment of the system.
2.3. Electromechanical model for single mode and power
optimization
(43)
(44)
r
1
1 + ( )2

=

Bf w B
K [(1 2 ) 2m 2 ]2 + [({1 + 2 } 2 ) + 2m ]2
(45)

v
2
1

=
Bf w B | | [(1 2 ) 2m 2 ]2 + [({1 + 2 } 2 ) + 2m ]2
(46)

P

2 2
out
1

.

=
(Bf w B )2
K [(1 2 ) 2m 2 ]2 +[({1 + 2 } 2 ) + 2m ]2
(47)
Expressions for single beam/plate mode can be obtained if

we approximate the infinite degree-of-freedom mechanical
system as a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system, where
the multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) governing equations of
motion are reduced to scalar forms. In order to apply
the coupled model presented, it is more practical to have
scalar equations, which allow simple optimization in terms
of maximum power extraction. Single mode solutions have
been shown to be in excellent agreement with the results
for devices without a proof mass. In single beam mode for
base-excited energy harvester structures, scalar expressions in
equations (38) and (39) replace previously presented multidegree-of-freedom (MDOF) equations (10) and (11).
M r + C r + K r v = Bf w B
(42)
In the above, r and v will from now on refer to the first

mode, r 1 and v1 . It should be noted that all terms presented
above are applicable not only to the system where a proof mass
is attached at the end but also to no proof mass case. If we
set all the parameters related to a proof mass as zero, then the
expressions coincide with the experimentally validated model
presented by du Toit et al [25]. As electrical mode shape,
v , highly depends on device specifics including electrical
connections between piezoelectric layers and mode operations,
coupling term, , and capacitance term, Cp , will also vary
depending on test device setups. Geometric configurations
of energy harvesters, such as unimorph or bimorph structures
as well as inter-element connection also affect the effective
representations for coupling and capacitive terms. Therefore,
suitable equations for coupling and capacitance term that
correspond to our test device specifics will be given in
section 2.4.
From the governing equations (38) and (39), convenient
closed-form solutions of the amplitude for relative displacement, voltage developed and power extracted can be obtained.
The magnitude of the power is calculated above as Pout =
v 2 /Rl . These solutions for the mechanical and electrical
performance of the energy harvesters are:
The matrices M, K, , and CP in equations (10)(15),

and (34) represent square matrices, while Bf in equations (16)
and (35) represents a column matrix. Additionally, the mass
and stiffness matrices M and K are diagonal matrices because
of the orthogonality conditions that exist between any two
modes, ri and r j . Since each mode satisfies the differential
equation (24) and the boundary conditions equations (22)(25),
one can readily show the orthogonality conditions to result in
(36)
(41)
Mi j = i j Mii
(40)
In the above expressions, dimensionless factors are defined and

used such that = 1 Rl Cp for dimensionless time constant,
2
2 = KCp for system coupling, and = 1 for dimensionless
frequency ratio. Also, mechanical damping ratio, m appears
and it is related to the damping constant, C via m =
C
. Mechanical response is calculated using the generalized
2 M1
mechanical displacement, r , which should be multiplied by
normalized mode shape to yield relative displacements, w, that
is, w = r (x)r . The magnitude of voltage (v ) and power
( Pout ) are evaluated in a closed-form solutions as well, as given
in equations (46) and (47). Note that all these equations for
system responses are nondimensionalized with an inertia force
(38)
1
v = 0.
(39)
Rl
Note that sensing equation (39) is modified from equation (11)
using Ohms law, v = Rl ddqt , with a purely resistive electrical
r + CP v +
M Kim et al
represented either by Bf w B or (Bf w B )2 . It is quite beneficial to

be able to use these closed-forms that are properly normalized
as we can avoid complications generated from the calculations
of complex numbers [28] in order to obtain the results. Also,
the way the denominator appears in all three expressions is also
noteworthy. As presented previously by du Toit et al [2225],
two optimal frequency ratios for equal maximum power
generation are gained at resonanceand anti-resonance, which
correspond to r = 1 and ar = 1 + 2 , respectively. The
natural frequency will correspond to either the resonance or
anti-resonance frequency, depending on the electrical loading
for a piezoelectric structure. These two frequency ratios
are obtained from the analysis of the system at short-circuit
condition ( R 0) and open-circuit condition ( R ).
As natural frequencies are generally defined
by the ratio of
stiffness to mass of the system as in = K eff /M , the origin
of these two natural frequencies for an electromechanically
coupled system can be explained from the perspective of
stiffness, K eff . Two different effective stiffnesses, K eff , are
obtained for short-circuit condition and open-circuit condition,
which are K and K (1 + 2 ), respectively. These stiffnesses
stem directly from the piezoelectric constitutive relations that
always specify the electrical or stress boundary condition at
which the piezoelectric constant is measured [31]. Since
the terms inside the denominator of equations (45)(47) are
succinctly arranged focusing on these two optimal frequency
ratio expressions, it is readily possible to analyze the system
responses at optimal points for maximum power extraction
from the equations (45)(47). In order to derive the maximum
power value, it is necessary to optimize the power equation (47)
with respect to load resistance ( Rl ), which yields an optimal
electrical load in terms of dimensionless time constant, opt .
2
opt
=
1
(1 2 )2 + (2m )2
.
2
([1 + 2 ] 2 )2 + (2m )2
anti-resonance as in the following.

Pout
1 1

=
(B w )2
K 8 m
f B
opt,r

Pout

(B w )2
f
2.4. Model implementation of experimental device

A symmetric, bimorph cantilevered PZT bender is chosen
and tested with various sizes of proof mass as well as
without a proof mass. The harvester is a cantilevered
plate consisting of two piezoelectric layers (bimorph), one
structural layer, and electrodes (see figure 2). The test
device is operated in {3-1} mode of operation with series
connection between active elements, which requires two
piezoelectric elements to be oppositely poled. In order to
implement the electromechanically coupled model based on
exact modal analysis that can accommodate the specific test
device configurations and interconnection of the piezoelectric
elements, it is necessary to evaluate the relevant coefficients.
In this section, we obtain appropriate scalar equations for the
experimental device.
Since there are two piezoelectric elements, each layer can
be denoted subscripts 1 and 2, to treat the two active layers in
the bimorph configuration. Considering these two layers for
the bimorph configuration, we write equations (53) and (54)
as:
M r + C r + K r (1 v1 + 2 v2 ) = Bf w B
(53)

0
1
Cp1
v1
q
(54)
r+
= 1 .
0 Cp2
2
v2
q2
(48)
4m2
4m2 + 4
(49)
2
opt
,ar =
4 + 4m2 (1 + 2 )
.
4m2 (1 + 2 )2
(50)
opt,ar
1
4
1 1
1
2 m
=
. (52)
K 4 4 + 4m2 (1 + 2 )
K 8 m
As pointed out previously by du Toit et al [22], the values

of optimal power generated at resonance and anti-resonance
have the equal magnitude within the given assumptions. It has
been shown that for extremely high values of damping (perhaps
when the harvester is used as a damper, not seen in typical
macroscale harvesting devices, and certainly not in MEMS
devices that have high quality factors), that the approximation
above does not hold [28].
Substitution of suitable frequency ratios at both

resonance
1 + 2 ) into
( r = 1) and anti-resonance ( ar =
equation (48) yields two optimal electrical loadings, opt,r at
resonance and opt,ar at anti-resonance:
2
opt
,r =
(51)
Equation (54) are summed to obtain a form similar to the scalar

equation (39), and effective constants derived:
(1 + 2 )r + (Cp1 v1 + Cp2 v2 ) = (q1 + q2 ).
(55)
For the symmetric bimorph configuration, 1 = 2 , Cp1 = Cp2 ,

v1 = v2 , and q1 = q2 . Next, the coefficients for one of the
piezoelectric elements (here 1 is chosen) need to be considered
so that they can be applied in the governing equations. For
bimorph cantilevered energy harvesters, there are two ways to
interconnect the piezoelectric elements: the parallel connection
and series connections. As the test device in this work is
connected in series, the poling directions of each piezoelectric
layer should be opposite. Please refer to [8, 23, 25] for detailed
information of the effect of poling direction and corresponding
electrical connection. In series connection, as illustrated in
figure 2, the device is connected to the electrical load by
Note that both optimal electrical loading conditions are

dependent on mechanical damping as well as system coupling,
2
. Once
and are roughly reciprocals of one another in opt
these values are substituted back into the power equation (47),
optimal power expression at resonance and anti-resonance are
gained. In general, mechanical damping ratio, m , is at least
an order of magnitude smaller than square of system coupling,
2 , which allows us to approximate equations (49) and (50)
to give simpler expressions for power as well. Using the
approximation, 2m / 2 1, equations (49) and (50) may be
simplified to produce optimized power both at resonance and
7
M Kim et al
shorting the two center electrodes (e2 and e3 ), and connecting

the top (e1 ) and bottom electrodes (e4 ) across the electrical
load. Based on this, relations of voltage and charge are
achieved such that v1 + v2 = v , and q1 = q2 , giving:
M r + C r + K r 1 v = Bf w B
(56)
1
1
1r + Cp1 v + v = 0.
2
Rl
(57)
2.5. Damping ratio evaluation with a proof mass

When the governing equations of motion are derived,
mechanical damping is incorporated through addition of a
viscous damping term, C, which is related to mechanical
damping ratio, m , via C = 2m 1 M in the case of a single
mode. Mechanical damping is assumed to encompass all
non-electrical damping that influences the system response.
Accurate characterization of mechanical damping is essential
for device performance prediction. As an alternative to the logdecrement method (described for energy harvesters in detail
in [23]), another measurement scheme can be developed to
obtain m through convenient dynamic tests of the harvester.
The relative displacement is expressed as a function of
dimensionless time constant, , in equation (45). At shortcircuit ( = 0) where electrical damping is zero, and at
resonance ( = 1), equation (45) can be rewritten:

r
1 1

(61)
B w = K 2 .
f B
m
Based on the comparison between the above expressions (56)

and (57) and the governing equations (38) and (39) for general
single mode, it is recognized that the coupling term, , and the
capacitance term, Cp in general expression can be rewritten
using coupling and capacitance values for one piezoelectric
layer through = 1 , and Cp = 12 Cp1 for the energy harvester
with bimorph configuration that is electrically connected in
series. This result is intuitive in that two piezoelectric layers are
regarded as simple capacitors and that the effective capacitance
of two identical simple capacitors wired in series is represented
with half of capacitance for one capacitor. As a next step, it is
necessary to examine the appropriate expression for electrical
potential that corresponds to symmetric, bimorph configuration
in {3-1} mode of operation in order to evaluate coupling and
capacitance more specifically. In this work, electric potential
distribution is taken to give a constant electric field through
the thickness of the piezoelectric element. The potential varies
from 0 at the top electrode to +1 of at the bottom electrode in
figure 2. The electric potential for bimorph structure in {3-1}
mode operation is then expressed employing the thicknesses of
piezoelectric layer (tp ) and structural layer (ts ) as given by:
v =
(tp + t2s ) x t
for x t > 0
ts x t
2
tp
for x t < 0.
With an input harmonic base excitation given by w B =

12 wB , where wB is amplitude of base excitation and 1
denotes the first resonant frequency of the vibration. In
addition to the base acceleration, wtip = tipr and K = M12
can be substituted into equation (61) to derive an expression
for the mechanical damping ratio, m , given easily measurable
displacement amplitudes:

Bf r (L + L 0 ) wB
Bf r,tip wB
=
m =
(62)
w .
M 2 wtip
M
2
tip
Absolute tip displacement, wtip , and absolute base displacement, wB , should be experimentally measured at resonance and
short-circuit conditions by aligning the input frequency with
the resonant frequency of the device and letting the electrical
resistance, Rl be zero. Other values such as forcing function,
Bf , and effective mass, M , in the equation can be obtained
from model implementation on specific devices. Equation (62)
is advantageous in that it can be applied to energy harvester
system not only when proof mass is added but also when there
is no proof mass. When a proof mass is attached at the end, the
mechanical mode shape at the tip, r,tip is equal to r (L + L 0 )
instead of simply r (L) = 2, as mentioned earlier, following
equation (33). For the energy harvester system without a proof
mass, where L 0 is zero, the mechanical mode shape at the tip
reduces to 2 through r (L) = 2:

Bf wB
m
(63)
.
M wtip
(58)
If the device is of unimorph configuration or in {3-3} mode

of operation, electric potential should be differently expressed
according to each case. Now it is possible to determine the
final expression for coupling term, , and the capacitance
term, Cp , by substituting electric potential expression shown
in equation (58) into equations (42) and (43). The resulting
expressions are:

tp + ts
br (L)
= 1 = e31
(59)
2
Cp =
1
1 b(L + L 0 ) S
Cp1 =
33 .
2
2
tp
(60)
Equation (63) coincides with the form that was applied in

a prior work by du Toit et al [25] for the case of no
proof mass, where the experimental results agreed well with
simulated results. Note that in both cases, the mechanical
damping has dependence on effective mass, M , and forcing
function, Bf , that are represented in terms of mechanical
mode shape and its derivatives, as shown previously. As the
mechanical mode shape varies according to change in proof
mass properties, these terms change accordingly and thus, it is
Concerning with the calculation of the capacitance, the entire

beam/plate length, L + L 0 , is employed because of the test
device structure. Thus, the model is implemented for the test
device, that is, a symmetric, bimorph configuration in {3-1}
mode of operation, connected electrically in series. Based on
this, mechanical and electrical performances of the system are
simulated and compared with the experimental results, as will
be presented in later sections.
8
M Kim et al
Figure 3. Connection between the electrostatic shaker (as the part that moves the system), the clamping device, and the energy harvester
device with proof mass I. Energy harvester device is electrically wired through electrical leads in order to pull the voltage/current off as shown
in the left.
that consists of purely resistive electrical load in conjunction

with a bimorph device electrically connected in series is
established to achieve electrical responses of the device. A
purely resistive electrical load is helpful not only to simplify
the calculation but also to measure the power generated. The
measured voltage is root-mean-squared
voltage, vrms , and is
converted to vmax by multiplying by 2. Power is evaluated
from the measured voltage and applied electrical resistance,
2
Rl , through the relation, Pmax = vmax
/Rl . To determine the
operating points, it is important to assess both resonant and
anti-resonant frequencies, which is accomplished by sweeping
a range of frequencies using a laser vibrometer either at shortcircuit conditions or at open-circuit conditions. The resonant
frequency is defined as the natural frequency when the device is
in the short-circuit condition while the anti-resonant frequency
is the natural frequency in open-circuit condition. Antiresonant frequency, in particular, is an important measure of
electromechanical coupling and thus, from the information of
anti-resonance frequency, it is possible to assess the extent
of electromechanical coupling in the system. Once resonant
and anti-resonant frequencies are found, both mechanical and
electrical tests are performed at resonances, near resonances,
and away from resonances with varying electrical loading
conditions. The results are graphically presented in the next
section in comparison with simulated results from analytical
modeling.
also necessary to evaluate the mechanical damping ratio that

is appropriate to each proof mass (i.e., device). As damping
is typically measured at the device natural frequency, which is
fixed, the damping dependence on frequency is not considered
here. However, if the damping ratios are not the same at
the resonance and anti-resonance frequencies, the dependence
of the mechanical damping ratios on frequencies should be
examined.
3. Experimental procedures
3.1. Experimental setup and device performance
measurements
A macroscale, cantilevered plate is used as a test device.
The schematic of a bimorph device with addition of a proof
mass at the end of the device along with electrical connection
is shown in figure 2. A brass reinforced bending actuator
(Piezo Systems Inc., T226-A4-503X) is composed of seven
layers: two piezoelectric (active) layers, each of which is
sandwiched by two electrode layers (four layers of electrodes
in total) and one structural (inactive) layer made of brass. Two
piezoelectric layers (PZT-5A) are poled in opposite directions
so that opposite strains in each layer generate electric fields
in the same directions. For bimorph configuration, there are
two ways to interconnect active layers: series and parallel
connections. Series connection is chosen to match the poling
direction in use. Further details on poling direction and
relevant coordinate systems are described in [2224]. The
{3-1} operation is employed where the strain develops in the
direction perpendicular to the electric field. Proof masses are
added at the free end of the piezoelectric mechanical vibration
energy harvester using superglue and insulating tape. In order
to mount the energy harvester device on an electrostatic shaker
for input base excitation, a simple aluminum clamp is adopted,
which is shown in figure 3.
Absolute tip displacement as well as the base displacement
in transverse direction is measured to obtain the relative
mechanical displacement using a laser Doppler vibrometer
(Polytec PSV 300-H). As illustrated in figure 2, a simple circuit
3.2. Test device dimensions and material properties

Geometric parameters of the devices and material properties
used in model implementation are listed in table 1. Depending
on availability, values are adopted from publications,
measured, or calculated. It is necessary to differentiate energy
harvester length, L EH , from actual energy harvester length,
L tot . Actual energy harvester length describes the length of
the energy harvester plate excluding the length occupied by
the clamping device. As the thickness of nickel electrode is
about 1 m, it is regarded as negligible considering the entire
macroscale device. Regarding material properties, several
values such as density, elastic stiffness, piezoelectric constant,
9
M Kim et al
Table 1. Geometric and material properties of the tested macroscale bimorph energy harvesters.
Value
Comment
63.7
53.0
31.7
0.675
10.5
0.275
0.126
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Device dimensions
Energy harvester length L EH (mm)
Cantilevered energy harvester length L tot (mm)
Energy harvester width b (mm)
Energy harvester thickness t (mm)
Energy harvester mass MEH (g)
Piezoelectric layer thickness tp (mm)
Structural layer thickness ts (mm)
Material properties used

Piezoelectric layer density p (kg m3 )
Structural layer density s (kg m3 )
Proof mass density 0 (kg m3 )
E
Piezoelectric layer stiffness c11
(GPa)
Structural layer stiffness cs (GPa)
T
(F m1 )
Absolute permittivity 33
7750
7630
7751
61
100
18000
S
Absolute permittivity 33
(F m1 )
Vacuum permittivity 0 (F m1 )
Strain constant d31 (1012 C m1 )
Strain constant e31 (C m1 )
Reference [32]
Calculated
Calculated
Reference [32]
Calculated
Reference [33]
15510
8.854 1012
190
14.2
Calculated
Reference [34]
Reference [33]
Calculated
Table 2. Geometric dimensions of device proof masses and input base accelerations.
Mass,
M0 (g)
No proof mass 0
Proof mass I 16.7
Proof mass II 34.7
Active plate
length, L
(mm)
Proof mass
length, L 0
(mm)
Proof mass
L TOT
(=L + L 0 ) thickness, t0
(mm)
(mm)
Base
acceleration
(m s2 )
53.0
42.7
31.6
0
10.4
21.6
53.0
53.1
53.2
2.5
0.5
0.2
0
6.61
6.66
performance tests for the purpose of model verification. It

is beneficial to test the device without a proof mass as the
experimental results can be compared with prior work by du
Toit et al [25], where the same type of device was tested
without a proof mass. Key effective parameters such as mass,
stiffness, capacitance, etc that appear in governing equations
for model implementation are listed in table 3. Overall, all
effective parameters in the governing equations (38) and (39)
vary depending on whether a proof mass is added or not as
well as geometric specifics of the proof mass. Consistent with
expectations, the effective mass, M , increases as the size and
the mass of a proof mass increases and that effective stiffness,
K increases as the active beam/plate length gets shortened due
to longer proof mass, when proof mass I (PM I) and proof mass
II (PM II) are compared. Other parameters such as coupling,
, capacitance, Cp , and system coupling, 2 , are found not
to change significantly with proof masses as they are only
affected by coupling constant and electrical mode shapes, not
mechanical or geometric factors. Mechanical damping ratio
is also obtained following the procedure stated in section 2.5
previously, where mechanical responses measured at shortcircuit condition are required along with theoretical values
of effective mass, M , forcing function, Bf , and mechanical
mode shape at the tip of the device, r,tip . It should be
noted that the mechanical mode shape at the tip, r,tip , as
well as effective mass, M , and forcing function, Bf , increase
significantly as proof mass becomes larger and heavier. It
and the absolute permittivity at constant stress of piezoelectric

layer (PZT-5A) are taken from available literature. Both the
density of structural layer and proof masses are calculated from
the known values of mass and volume. The elastic stiffness
of the structural layer is found to be 100 GPa (inferred from
device resonant frequency, as it was not directly measured).
While piezoelectric strain constant, d31 is available as 190
1012 (C m1 ), the stress constant, e31 is computed using its
relation with coupling coefficient matrix, . Refer to [23] for
more detailed description of measurement methods for each
property. For plate structures, the absolute permittivity at
S
constant strain, 33
, is related to the absolute permittivity at
S
T
T
constant stress, 33 , through 33
= 33
2d31e31 , and thus, the
absolute permittivity at constant strain is evaluated based on the
T
known information of 33
, from publication and piezoelectric
constants. Masses, lengths, thicknesses of two different sizes
of proof masses are presented in table 2 together with input
base accelerations at which the energy harvester device with a
proof mass is excited.
4. Experiment-model correlation and discussion

4.1. Model implementation
Model simulations are run on the macroscale energy harvester
without a proof mass (no PM), with proof mass I (PM I),
and with proof mass II (PM II), followed by experimental
10
M Kim et al
(a)
(b)
Figure 4. Variation of mechanical mode shapes and second derivatives (strain is proportional to the second derivative) in the axial direction
from the clamp ( x = 0) to the proof mass junction ( x = 1). (a) r , (b) second derivative of r .
Table 3. Key device parameters for model implementation.
No PM
PM I
PM II
M (kg)
K (N m1 )
0.008 78
0.114
0.414
4 150
7 760
19 900
(N V1 )
0.004 688
0.006 653
0.009 614
Cp (108 F)
Bf
r,tip
4.194
4.202
4.210
0.006 872
0.049 58
0.126 4
0.1262
0.1367
0.1110
2
2.767
4.301
0.0182
0.0154
0.0146
derivative of mechanical mode shapes. The importance of

mechanical mode shape should be highlighted when a proof
mass is attached at the end of an energy harvester device. In
figure 4, the effect of proof mass on the mechanical mode
shape and the second derivatives of mode shapes are noted
to vary. The horizontal axes represent x, an axial position of
normalized length of the device plate, where the 1.0 indicates
the junction point between the device plate and a proof mass.
Figure 4(a) clearly shows that the mechanical mode shape is
normalized to 2 consistently for all cases at the junction where
the proof mass begins. The plot in figure 4(a) reveals that
the mechanical mode shapes change slightly, depending on
whether there is a proof mass or not (no PM versus PM I or II),
as well as on the size of the proof masses. When the second
derivatives of mechanical mode shapes are compared with one
another, the difference along the plate length in the values
of second derivatives of mechanical mode shapes is more
apparent. Considering figure 4(b), in addition to managing
resonant frequency, adding a proof mass has two additional
positive effects: (i) the maximum strain, and therefore stress,
is reduced at the cantilever root, and (ii) average strain is
increased due to non-zero strain at the proof mass (device end).
is important to note that the mechanical damping ratios are

derived from the equation of mechanical displacement at shortcircuit conditions and resonance and thus computed using
the data measured at short-circuit condition and resonance.
As it is also possible to achieve the mechanical damping
ratios utilizing the equations and measured data at opencircuit conditions and anti-resonance as well, they are also
computed to confirm that damping has little dependence on
frequency in that range. Although detailed damping analysis
at open-circuit condition and anti-resonance is not presented
here, the key result from comparison is that there is little
difference in the values of mechanical damping ratios analyzed
either at short-circuit and resonance or at open-circuit and
anti-resonance. Determination of damping is critical and the
scheme suggested and utilized in this work is effective, as
small changes in values of mechanical damping ratios cause
large changes in device response, especially at the resonances.
This implies the importance of considering the geometric and
material properties of a proof mass when a device incorporates
a proof mass in order to get exact treatment of device dynamics
(e.g. damping ratio analysis) instead of using a point mass
assumption. Key performance resulting equations are used to
gain mechanical tip displacement histories as well as electrical
responses as a function of electrical loading, Rl , which
are plotted together with experimental results in figures 5
through 13.
4.3. Performance of piezoelectric vibration energy harvesters

4.3.1. Resonant and anti-resonance frequencies. Our model
in section 2 allows us to predict resonant and anti-resonant
frequencies, which are compared with experimental results.
As shown in table 2, the dimensions of PM I and PM II
are distinct particularly in that PM II is longer in the axial
direction, therefore having more distributed mass over the
energy harvester than PM I. As they have similar thickness,
this geometric sequence is quite beneficial to investigate the
influence of mass distribution as well as the geometric variation
on the device of rigid body proof masses. Table 4 summarizes
resonant frequencies and anti-resonant frequencies obtained
from simulation and measurement for all proof mass cases.
4.2. Mechanical mode shapes for the proof masses

Mechanical mode shape, r , plays a major role in describing
the structural dynamics of the beam/plate harvester. In this
investigation, the first vibration mode would generally give the
greatest power, and the subsequent experiment targets the first
vibration mode as the frequency of interest for these energy
harvesters, i.e., the input energy at higher modes will be less
than at the first mode as it is a design choice. Importantly,
axial strain, (see equation (8)) is written in terms of the second
11
M Kim et al
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Figure 5. No proof mass (no PM): predicted versus measured response: tip displacement plotted against the electrical load at various input
frequencies. Base acceleration is held constant at 2.5 m s2 . Empty squares in red color indicate the tip displacements measured at
open-circuit condition ( Rl ). (a) 75 Hz, (b) 95 Hz, (c) 109.5 Hz (resonance), (d) 115.25 Hz (anti-resonance), (e) 135 Hz, (f) 160 Hz.
Table 4. Summary of frequencies, dimensionless time constants and electrical load both at short-circuit condition and open-circuit condition.
Calculated
Case
Measured
f1,r (Hz)
No PM 109.5
PM I
41.63
PM II
34.75
Calculated
Calculated
f1,r (Hz)
Measured
f 1,ar (Hz)
Calculated
f 1,ar (Hz)
r,opt ar,opt Rr,opt (k ) Rar,opt (k )
109.45
41.44
34.85
115.25
44.5
37.0
116.15
44.16
36.73
0.278 3.21 9.62

0.222 3.98 20.3
0.255 3.55 27.6
Overall, measured values and simulated values of both

resonant frequencies ( f1,r ) and anti-resonant frequencies ( f 1,ar )
are in good agreement for all cases.
Considering the
fact that an accuracy of down to 0.125 Hz is possible to
obtain experimentally, the difference between the measured
frequencies and calculated ones correspond quite accurately.
An important point is that the resonant frequency is greatly
reduced when a proof mass is introduced. For example,
the natural frequency at short-circuit condition of the device
without a proof mass is measured as 109.5 Hz, which is
decreased by more than half to 41.63 Hz by adding PM I at
the end of the device. Although PM II is roughly twice longer
than PM I, the resonant frequency of PM II (34.75 Hz) is not
111.5
364.0
384.6
lower by half than that of PM I (41.63 Hz). The same trends are
seen in not only resonance frequencies but also anti-resonance
frequencies, both empirically and theoretically. The results
shown in table 4 suggest that the model is capable of predicting
both resonance and anti-resonance frequencies both with and
without a proof mass.
4.3.2.
Model-experiment comparison of overall energy
harvester response.
Mechanical and electrical device
responses are compared here. For each case (No PM,
PM I, and PM II) depending on proof masses, mechanical
tip displacement is measured at various discrete electrical
resistances ranging from 0 to 100 k with varying operating
12
M Kim et al
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Figure 6. No proof mass (no PM): predicted versus measured response: voltage developed, plotted against the electrical load at various input
frequencies. Base acceleration is held constant at 2.5 m s2 . Empty squares in red color indicate the voltages measured at open-circuit
condition ( Rl ). (a) 75 Hz, (b) 95 Hz, (c) 109.5 Hz (resonance), (d) 115.25 Hz (anti-resonance), (e) 135 Hz, (f) 160 Hz.
frequencies.
Operating frequencies are selected to be
two frequencies below resonances, at resonant and antiresonant frequency, and two frequencies above anti-resonances
for comparison, so that both off-resonant operation and
resonant operation are systematically analyzed. For PM II
case, considering the narrow range of frequencies, one
below resonance and one above anti-resonance frequencies
are chosen as off-resonant operating frequencies instead of
two points for each. At the same conditions, electrical
performances are obtained by measuring the voltage generated
across the electrical resistive loads and calculating the
extracted power using measured voltage. All experimental
results are graphically demonstrated in figures 5 through 13
using dots while predicted results from modeling are
represented by lines on the same plots. In addition to the data
points from 0 to 100 k , the measured points at open-circuit
condition, where electrical loading, Rl , goes to infinity, are
included at each input frequency in the plots of mechanical tip
displacements (figures 5, 8, and 11) and voltages (figures 6, 9,
and 12) versus electrical resistance, Rl . Empty squares in red
color are used to distinguish these points from other measured
points. As power goes to zero at open-circuit, these points are

not considered in powerresistance plots.
Tip displacements are shown in figures 5, 8, and 11, and
compare the experimentally obtained actual tip displacements,
wtip , with predicted tip displacement from modeling for no
PM, PM I and PM II, respectively. On the whole, the
simulation is in good agreement with experimental results at
various electrical loadings and multiple operating frequencies.
Particularly, at off-resonant operations, for example, at 75 Hz
or 160 Hz in figures 5(a) and (f), respectively, the model
accurately predicts the magnitudes and trends of mechanical
tip displacement histories. It is also shown that as further
away from resonance or anti-resonances, the closer the model
is to the experimental results. Regardless of whether there
is an attachment of a proof mass or not, similar trends in tip
displacement histories result. At frequencies below resonance,
tip displacements decrease slightly as the electrical loading
increases (e.g. figures 5(a), (b), 8(a), (b) and 11(a)). As
the operating frequency gets closer to resonance, the extent
of decrease becomes larger although it does not decrease
proportionally to resistance. For frequencies at the point
13
M Kim et al
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Figure 7. No proof mass (no PM): predicted versus measured response: extracted power plotted against the electrical load at various input
frequencies. Base acceleration is held constant at 2.5 m s2 . (a) 75 Hz, (b) 95 Hz, (c) 109.5 Hz (resonance), (d) 115.25 Hz (anti-resonance),
(e) 135 Hz, (f) 160 Hz.
electrical loadings, which is followed by voltages approaching

a saturated point. Although it is not presented here, when
voltage is plotted in a loglog scale, this trend becomes more
prominent. For voltages, the maximum values are obtained
at anti-resonance, not at resonances. For example, within
the resistance range of experimental measurements used here
(0100 k ), the highest voltage of 6.9 V appears at antiresonance among all other operating frequencies in case of
a device without a proof mass (figure 6(d)). However, the
data point of 11.1 V measured at the open-circuit condition
( Rl ) suggests that the voltage would keep increasing as
the electrical resistance increases until it reaches this value, if
the measurements were taken at an extended range of electrical
load beyond 100 k . This trend appears more prominent
particularly at anti-resonances for all cases (figures 6(d), 9(d),
and 12(c)). Unfortunately, the range of electrical resistance for
experimental measurements was limited here to 0100 k , but
the experimental trends are indicated by the open-circuit data
points. On the other hand, at resonances (figures 6(c), 9(c),
and 12(b)), it is observed that the voltages measured at
100 k are already close to the values measured at open-
of anti-resonance and above anti-resonance, the trends of

tip displacements are different in that they increase with
increasing resistance. It should be noted that the maximum
tip displacements are obtained at resonance for the shortcircuit condition ( Rl = 0), and at anti-resonance for the
open-circuit condition ( Rl ). These displacements are
approximately equal, and represent the two points where no
energy is harvested.
Voltages generated are plotted against resistance from
0 to 100 k at various operating frequencies. Overall,
experimental results of electrical responses of the devices
represented by voltages agree well with the simulations for
all no PM, PM I, and PM II, as shown in figures 6, 9,
and 12, respectively. In a similar fashion to the mechanical
relative tip displacements, when further away from resonances
or anti-resonances, the more precise the predicted values
are when compared with experimental results. In general,
the voltage increases along with the increase of resistances
both empirically and theoretically at not only off-resonant
operations but also resonant operations. The tendency is
that the voltage is on the sharp increase at relatively low
14
M Kim et al
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Figure 8. Proof mass I (PM I): predicted versus measured response: tip displacement plotted against the electrical load at various input
open-circuit condition ( Rl ). (a) 20 Hz, (b) 30 Hz, (c) 41.625 Hz (resonance), (d) 44.5 Hz (anti-resonance), (e) 55 Hz, (f) 80 Hz.
circuit condition ( Rl ), which is quite in contrast to the

trends at anti-resonances where a large numerical difference
is present between resistance data at 100 k and infinity. In
section 2.3, optimal electrical loading conditions for maximum
power at both resonance and anti-resonance are derived and
given in equations (49) and (50). Optimal electrical resistances
as well as corresponding dimensionless time constant, opt at
resonance and anti-resonance for all three proof mass cases are
computed and listed in table 4. As shown in table 4, optimal
electrical loading conditions at resonances are within the range
of 0100 k , while optimal electrical resistances appear well
above 100 k at anti-resonances. For example, 384.6 k and
364.0 k are calculated for PM I and PM II, respectively,
as optimal electrical resistances where maximum power can
be obtained. This is related to the different behavior at
open-circuit condition between resonance and anti-resonance.
If the voltage were measured near the optimal points, like
400 k , for instance, at anti-resonance, the measured points
at these points would approach the values measured at Rl
. The empirical results of device responses at open-circuit
conditions ( Rl ) help predict the tendency of voltage
behavior against electrical loading that are beyond the range

of measurement undertaken in this work. Also, this tendency
corresponds well with the trends of simulated results. Not only
voltages but also tip displacements measured at open-circuit
conditions ( Rl ) do exhibit the similar behavior in that
the values at open-circuit conditions ( Rl ) represent the
device responses at extended electrical loading conditions as
in figures 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 12. One other point to notice
in these voltageresistance figures is the large difference in
voltage between resonance and anti-resonance. This change
is reflected in the voltage equation (46) yielding:
vAR
2
=
1 + 2
vR
2 m
(64)
where vAR and vR represent the voltages at anti-resonance

and resonance, respectively. In fact, from equation (46), the
largest voltage in the system for a constant base acceleration,
w B , is obtained at open-circuit conditions ( Rl ). This
corresponds with the maximum tip displacement for opencircuit conditions mentioned earlier, and together they serve
to identify the anti-resonance frequency, AR . Also from
15
M Kim et al
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Figure 9. Proof mass I (PM I): predicted versus measured response: voltage developed, plotted against the electrical load at various input
condition ( Rl ). (a) 20 Hz, (b) 30 Hz, (c) 41.625 Hz (resonance), (d) 44.5 Hz (anti-resonance), (e) 55 Hz, (f) 80 Hz.
equations (45)(47), a check can be made on the electrical

coupling parameter, 2 , by comparing the resonance and antiresonance frequencies, R and AR , using the relation,

2 =
AR
R
respectively, with the results summarized in table 4. As the

optimal electrical resistances particularly at anti-resonances
exceed the experimental performance test range (100 k ),
simulated powers are re-plotted against a more extended range
of electrical resistances from 0 to 400 k at resonances
and at anti-resonances for all cases of no PM, PM I and
PM II, and presented in figure 14.
For example, for
the case of PM I, the maximum power, 166.9 W, takes
place at around 20.3 k at resonant operation whereas the
power is maximized as 164.5 W at about 364 k at antiresonance. For no PM case, 335.2 W at 9.62 k is
obtained at resonance while 327.5 W is computed at its
optimal resistance of 111.5 k at anti-resonant operation.
Power in PM II case is maximized as 60.5 W at resonance
and 59.3 W is obtained at anti-resonance at their optimal
electrical resistance 27.6 k and 384.6 k , respectively. It
is quite significant that almost equal maximum power can be
achieved at distinct electrical loading conditions, depending on
whether a device is operated at resonance or anti-resonance.
This also implies the frequency shift according to electrical
loading, which is consistent with the discussion by du Toit
2
1.
(65)
Power extracted from a test piezoelectric vibration energy

2
harvester is acquired using the relation, Pmax = vmax
/Rl
and are presented in figures 7, 10, and 13 together with the
simulated lines obtained from modeling. The unit of power
here is micro-watts. Again, the model captures accurately
the trend of power across varying electrical loading conditions
at various input frequencies. In a prior work by du Toit
et al [2225], it was theoretically shown that there are two
optimum operating points in terms of power maximization
and that those two points correspond to resonance and
anti-resonance, giving equal values of maximum power
when 2m / 2 1.
The optimal points of electrical
loadings for maximum power at resonance ( Rr,opt ) and antiresonance ( Rar,opt ) are calculated using equations (49) and (50),
16
M Kim et al
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Figure 10. Proof mass I (PM I): predicted versus measured response: extracted power plotted against the electrical load at various input
frequencies. Base acceleration is held constant at 0.5 m s2 . (a) 20 Hz, (b) 30 Hz, (c) 41.625 Hz (resonance), (d) 44.5 Hz (anti-resonance),
(e) 55 Hz, (f) 80 Hz.
to perform with much diminished effectiveness. In terms of

voltage, the maximum value is seen to be achievable at antiresonance conditions. Thus, depending on the application,
it should be determined whether the systems are operated at
resonance or anti-resonance (i.e., if high current or voltage
is desired, respectively). Also, adjusting the input conditions
such that they are as close to the resonance or anti-resonance
is another substantial point when considering the device
operations. Secondly, although predicted and measured
performance results are well correlated both mechanically
and electrically at off-resonant operations, it is observed that
a consistent discrepancy exists at the resonances and antiresonances between the simulation and the measurement.
When prediction deviates from experimental measurement
for voltage, the extent of discrepancy for power is more
pronounced because the power is obtained through using
the value of voltage squared, as shown in power plots
of figures 7, 10, and 13. The deviation that occurs at
resonance and anti-resonance is attributed to the nonlinearity in
piezoelectric coupling that is not incorporated in the modeling.
The model here is based on a linear constitutive relation
et al in [25], using powerfrequency ratio plots at various

electrical resistances. The slight numerical difference between
the maximum power at resonance and anti-resonance suggests
that system coupling, 2 , is not large enough compared to the
mechanical damping ratio, m , to satisfy the approximation that
2m / 2 1. As already shown in voltageresistance plots,
the maximum voltage appears at anti-resonance rather than
resonance. Therefore, anti-resonant operation is advantageous
when high voltage is required with high electrical resistance
while resonant operation is beneficial for the applications
that require high current. This explains why not only
resonant frequency but also anti-resonant frequency should be
considered for optimal design.
There are two aspects that should be mentioned regarding
the operation at resonances. First of all, the advantages of
resonant (or anti-resonant) operation for energy harvesting are
clearly observable when the resonant operation is compared
with the off-resonant operation. Both mechanical and electrical
performance of the system is greatly amplified at resonance
compared to the off-resonant operation. Small deviations from
resonance or anti-resonance condition will cause the device
17
M Kim et al
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Figure 11. Proof mass II (PM II): predicted versus measured response: tip displacement plotted against the electrical load at various input
open-circuit condition ( Rl ). (a) 25 Hz, (b) 34.75 Hz (resonance), (c) 37 Hz (anti-resonance), (d) 50 Hz.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Figure 12. Proof mass II (PM II): predicted versus measured response: voltage developed, plotted against the electrical load at various input
condition ( Rl ). (a) 25 Hz, (b) 34.75 Hz (resonance), (c) 37 Hz (anti-resonance), (d) 50 Hz.
at the resonances, the general trends of the tip displacement,

voltage, and power at resonance as well as at away from
resonance are predicted accurately.
Lastly, the relation between the electrical damping ratio
and mechanical damping ratio can be analyzed using tip
displacement versus electrical loading result. As stated
earlier, the electrical damping ratio is known to be equal to
of piezoelectricity. However, the piezoelectric constants are

known to be nonlinear even at moderate levels of strain
(e.g. 100 -strain). Accordingly, a moderate discrepancy
takes place at resonant and anti-resonant conditions due to
the nonlinearity and this is consistent with modeling of the
nonlinearity by others [3538]. Although there are small
quantitative differences between measurement and simulation
18
M Kim et al
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Figure 13. Proof mass II (PM II): predicted versus measured response: extracted power plotted against the electrical load at various input
frequencies. Base acceleration is held constant at 0.2 m s2 . (a) 25 Hz, (b) 34.75 Hz (resonance), (c) 37 Hz (anti-resonance), (d) 50 Hz.
identical to those used by Erturk et al [28], but they used massnormalized modes and complex quantities, which obscure the
meaning of the resulting calculations; although the proof mass
was not rigorously treated, the behavior in that work does
indicate (undiscussed) resonant and anti-resonant behavior.
mechanical damping ratio when the power is maximized at

optimal electrical loadings. As electrical resistance is zero
at short-circuit condition, no electrical damping does exist at
this point. However, when electrical resistance is introduced,
more and more electrical damping affects the device responses.
This is apparently shown in the measurement results of tip
displacement against electrical loading especially at resonance.
For PM I case, the maximum power in measurement occurs at
20 k at resonant operation (41.625 Hz) as in figure 10(c).
If we compare the tip displacement at 20 k , where the
maximum power takes place, with the tip displacement at
short-circuit conditions ( Rl = 0 k ), the former comes as
138.3 m, which is about a half of the latter, 280.3 m. It can
be easily derived from equation (45) that the tip displacement
at resonance is inversely proportional to mechanical damping
ratio, m at short-circuit conditions ( Rl = 0 k ). Since
the electrical damping ratio becomes equal to the mechanical
damping ratio at the point where the power reaches maximum,
the total damping at the point of maximum power will be two
times the total damping at short-circuit condition where only
a mechanical damping is involved. This coincides with the
observation on the decrease in experimentally measured tip
displacements by about a half when the value at short-circuit
condition is compared with the data measured at the point
where power is maximum.
The electromechanically coupled energy harvester model
predicts quite accurately both mechanical and electrical
device responses overall, especially at off-resonant operations
both below and above resonance or anti-resonance. The
model has a capability of not only capturing the general
trend of system response but also estimating quite precisely
values of magnitude for resonance frequencies, mechanical
performances, and electrical device responses. The governing
equations of the system (equations (56) and (57)) are almost
5. Conclusions and recommendations

An analytical model for a cantilevered piezoelectric vibration
energy harvester focusing on the addition of a proof mass
is presented. Material and geometric properties of a proof
mass as well as the cantilevered beam/plate structures are
thoroughly considered in the coupled electromechanical model
by analyzing the exact vibration and mode shapes of the
system. The system has been nondimensionalized to show key
parameters such as resonant frequency, mechanical damping
factor, system piezoelectric coupling, and nondimensional
electrical loading (1 , m , 2 , and , respectively). This
also helps discern the behavior of the system easily through
the resulting equations (equations (45)(47)). The model
is experimentally verified using a macroscale, symmetric,
bimorph, cantilevered PZT bimorph device operating in
{3-1} mode with and without a proof mass. Experimental
tests undertaken on the energy harvesting device with different
geometry proof masses demonstrate that the properties of the
proof mass affect the resulting performance of the energy
harvester device beyond simply reducing the natural frequency.
The predicted results from the simulation are in good
agreement with the experimental results of device responses
both mechanically and electrically. Especially, a scheme
to obtain the mechanical damping ratio from modeling and
experiments is investigated and found to contribute to accurate
prediction of device performances. In this work, a distributed
19
M Kim et al
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Figure 14. Dual-power optimization at resonance and anti-resonance for each proof mass case. (a) No PM: 109.5 Hz (resonance), (b) No PM:
115.25 Hz (anti-resonance), (c) PM I: 41.625 Hz (resonance), (d) PM I: 44.5 Hz (anti-resonance), (e) PM II: 34.75 Hz (resonance), (f) PM II:
37 Hz (anti-resonance).
rigid proof mass is assumed and thus this will be followed

by an analysis on the flexible proof mass as a future work.
Also, the importance of anti-resonant operation as well as the
resonant operation is emphasized. Consistent with prior work
for cantilevered harvesters without a proof mass, the work
here shows again that the two frequency ratios at resonance
and anti-resonance are the best candidates for optimal device
operating points in terms of power maximization. The exact
analysis of a proof mass in an energy harvesting device helps
avoid the necessity of choosing an arbitrary point for a point
mass position and thus provides a more accurate prediction
both on frequencies and device performances, depending on
the properties of proof masses. Future work will incorporate
structural and piezoelectric coupling nonlinearities into the
modeling [38] so that the moderate discrepancy between the
simulation and the experimental measurement at resonance and
anti-resonance can be deduced. The effects of higher order
structural vibration modes on the overall system response also
need further study. The developed analysis can be used as an
optimization tool to both predict device performance of MEMS
and other cantilevered harvesters containing a proof mass, as
well as in general design for different applications.
References
[1] Cook-Chennault K A, Thambi N and Sastry A M 2008
Powering MEMS portable devices-a review of
non-regenerative and regenerative power supply systems
with special emphasis on piezoelectric energy harvesting
systems Smart Mater. Struct. 17 043001
[2] Rome L C, Flynn L, Goldman E M and Yoo T D 2005
Generating electricity while walking with loads Science
309 1725
[3] Donelan J M, Li Q, Naing V, Hoffer J A, Weber D J and
Kuo A D 2008 Biomechanical energy harvesting: generating
electricity during walking with minimal user effort Science
319 807
[4] Wardle B L and Spearing S M 2009 Microfabricated Power
Generation Devices and Technology ed A Mitsos and
P I Barton (Weinheim: WileyVCH) chapter 9 (Structural
Considerations)
[5] Rabaye J, Ammer M J, da Silva J L, Patel D and
Roundy S 2000 PicoRadio supports ad hoc ultra-low power
wireless networking IEEE Comput. 33 428
[6] Amirtharajah R and Chandrakasan A P 1998 Self-powered
signal processing using vibration-based power generation
IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits 33 68795
[7] Beeby S P, Tudor M J and White N M 2006 Energy harvesting
vibration sources for microsystems applications Meas. Sci.
Technol. 13 R17595
20
M Kim et al
[8] Ikeda T 1996 Fundamentals of Piezoelectricity (New York:

Oxford University Press)
[9] Madou M J 2002 Fundamentals of Microfabrication
(Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC)
[10] Shen D, Park J-H, Ajitsaria J, Choe S-Y, Howard C W III and
Kim D-J 2008 The design, fabrication and evaluation of a
MEMS PZT cantilever with an integrated Si proof mass for
vibration energy harvesting J. Micromech. Microeng.
18 055017
[11] Fang H B, Liu J Q, Xu Z Y, Dong L, Wang L, Chen D, Cai B C
and Liu Y 2006 Fabrication and performance of
MEMS-based piezoelectric power generator for vibration
energy harvesting Microelectron. J. 37 12804
[12] Jeon Y B, Sood R, Jeong J-H and Kim S-G 2005 MEMS power
generator with transverse mode thin film PZT Sensors
Actuators A 122 1622
[13] Marzencki M, Basrour S, Charlot B, Colin M and
Valbin L 2005 Design and fabrication of piezoelectric micro
power generators for autonomous microsystems DTIP05
Symp. Design, Test, Integration & Packaging of
MEMS/MOEMS (Montreux, Switzerland) pp 299302
[14] Umeda M, Nakamura K and Ueha S 1996 Analysis of
transformation of mechanical impact energy to electric
energy using piezoelectric vibrator Japan. J. Appl. Phys.
35 326773
[15] Umeda M, Nakamura K and Ueha S 1997 Energy storage
characteristics of a piezo-generator using impact induced
vibration Japan. J. Appl. Phys. 36 314651
[16] Roundy S, Wright P K and Rabaey J 2004 Energy Scavenging
for Wireless Sensor Networks with Special Focus on
Vibrations (Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic)
[17] Roundy S and Wright P K 2004 A piezoelectric vibration based
generator for wireless electronics Smart Mater. Struct.
13 113142
[18] Roundy S 2005 On the effectiveness of vibration-based energy
harvesting J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 16 80923
[19] Inman D J 1996 Engineering Vibration (Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice-Hall)
[20] Soderkvist J 1991 Dynamic behavior of a piezoelectric beam
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 90 68692
[21] Hagood N, Chung W and Von Flotow A 1990 Modelling of
piezoelectric actuator dynamics for active structural control
J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 1 32754
[22] du Toit N E, Wardle B L and Kim S-G 2005 Design
considerations for MEMS-scale piezoelectric mechanical
vibration energy harvesters Integr. Ferroelectr. 71 12160
[23] du Toit N E 2005 Modeling and design of a MEMS

piezoelectric vibration energy harvester Masters Thesis
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
[24] du Toit N E and Wardle B L 2006 Performance of
microfabricated piezoelectric vibration energy harvesters
Integr. Ferroelectr. 83 1332
[25] du Toit N E and Wardle B L 2007 Experimental verification of
models for microfabricated piezoelectric vibration energy
harvesters AIAA J. 45 112637
[26] Sodano H A, Park G and Inman D J 2004 Estimation of electric
charge output for piezoelectric energy harvesting Strain
40 4958
[27] Ajitsaria J, Choe S-Y, Shen D and Kim D J 2007 Modeling and
analysis of a bimorph piezoelectric cantilever beam for
voltage generation Smart Mater. Struct. 16 44754
[28] Erturk A and Inman D J 2009 An experimentally validated
bimorph cantilever model for piezoelectric energy harvesting
from base excitations Smart Mater. Struct. 18 025009
[29] Rama Bhat B and Wagner H 1976 Natural frequencies of a
uniform cantilever with a tip mass slender in the axial
direction J. Sound Vib. 45 3047
[30] To C 1982 Vibration of a cantilevered beam with a base
excitation and tip mass J. Sound Vib. 83 44560
[31] IEEE 1987 ANSI Standard 176-1987 IEEE Standard on
Piezoelectricity
[32] eFunda-engineeringFundamentals, Materials http://www.
efunda.com/materials/materials home/materials.cfm
[33] Piezo Systems Inc. 2007 Introduction to piezo transducers
Piezoelectric Engineering & Manufacturing Catalog #7B
[34] Halliday D, Resnick R and Walker J 2007 Fundamentals of
Physics 8th edn (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley)
[35] Quinn D D, Vakakis A F and Bergman L A 2007
Vibration-based energy harvesting with essential
nonlinearities ASME Int. Design Engineering Technical
Conf. (Las Vegas, NV)
[36] Shaw S W and Balachandran B 2008 A review of nonlinear
dynamics of mechanical systems in year 2008 J. Syst. Des.
Dyn. 2 61140
[37] Renno J M, Daqaq M F and Inman D J 2009 On the optimal
energy harvesting from a vibration source J. Sound Vib.
320 386405
[38] Triplett A and Quinn D D 2009 The effect of nonlinear
piezoelectric coupling on vibration-based energy harvesting
J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 20 195967
21

Energy Harvesting

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Energy Harvesting

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Home

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

SMART MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES

Smart Mater. Struct. 19 (2010) 045023 (21pp)

Modeling and experimental verification of

Received 3 November 2009, in final form 24 January 2010

wireless sensor nodes [5, 6]. Energy harvesting from external

2010 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK & the USA

Smart Mater. Struct. 19 (2010) 045023

output voltages and enhanced efficiency compared to other

Figure 1. Schematic of base-excited cantilevered beam/plate with a

the resonance frequency of a device and also to raise the

2. Modeling of cantilevered piezoelectric vibration

Smart Mater. Struct. 19 (2010) 045023

of the piezoelectric element, , the piezoelectric constant

2.1. Modeling cantilever beam and plates with piezoelectric

Superscripts E, S indicate parameters at constant electric field

Vp and Vs are volumes of piezoelectric element section

ri (x a )ri (t) = r (x a )r(t)

Lastly, in order to define the external work term in equation (5),

v j (x)v j (t) = v (x)v(t).

It is important to differentiate electrical mode shape vector,

where r (x a ) represents the row matrix, [r 1 (x a ),r 2 (x a ), . . .]

Smart Mater. Struct. 19 (2010) 045023

piezoelectric element, the coupling term () is directly related

As defined in equation (6), r denotes the generalized relative

2.2. Modal analysis of cantilevers with a proof mass

(x t r )t cs (x t r ) dVs +

(x t r )t cE (x t r ) dVp

Mechanical mode shapes, electrical mode shapes, and

Smart Mater. Struct. 19 (2010) 045023

beam/plate system for calculation ease. Now we begin with

A22 = (sinh N sin N ) + N M 0 (cosh N cos N )

. Boundary conditions at the fixed end and at the junction

where ( ) = / x a . Equations (22) and (23) simply represent a

The last three terms in equation (34) incorporate the properties

A11 = (sinh N + sin N ) + N I0 ( cosh N + cos N )

r N = c sinh N x a + d cosh N x a + e sin N x a + f cos N x a .

For convenience, all terms above are nondimensionalized such

Smart Mater. Struct. 19 (2010) 045023

load, Rl . Each coefficient in the single mode governing

shapes. Likewise, as other terms in the governing equations of

+ 2 S0 r (L)r (L) + I0 (r (L))2

where i j represents the Kronecker delta. The fact that

Expressions for single beam/plate mode can be obtained if

In the above, r and v will from now on refer to the first

The matrices M, K, , and CP in equations (10)(15),

In the above expressions, dimensionless factors are defined and

Smart Mater. Struct. 19 (2010) 045023

represented either by Bf w B or (Bf w B )2 . It is quite beneficial to

anti-resonance as in the following.

2.4. Model implementation of experimental device

As pointed out previously by du Toit et al [22], the values

Substitution of suitable frequency ratios at both

Equation (54) are summed to obtain a form similar to the scalar

(1 + 2 )r + (Cp1 v1 + Cp2 v2 ) = (q1 + q2 ).

For the symmetric bimorph configuration, 1 = 2 , Cp1 = Cp2 ,

Note that both optimal electrical loading conditions are

Smart Mater. Struct. 19 (2010) 045023

shorting the two center electrodes (e2 and e3 ), and connecting

2.5. Damping ratio evaluation with a proof mass

Based on the comparison between the above expressions (56)

With an input harmonic base excitation given by w B =

If the device is of unimorph configuration or in {3-3} mode