See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233865018

Piezoelectric energy harvesting device optimization by synchronous charge

extraction

Article  in  Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures · October 2005

DOI: 10.1177/1045389X05056859

CITATIONS READS
555 2,902

4 authors:

Elie Lefeuvre Adrien Badel

Université Paris-Saclay Université Savoie Mont Blanc
156 PUBLICATIONS   6,510 CITATIONS    185 PUBLICATIONS   6,202 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Claude Richard Daniel Guyomar

Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon
140 PUBLICATIONS   6,907 CITATIONS    451 PUBLICATIONS   14,070 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

phD thesis View project

Vibration energy harvesting with bistable oscillators View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Elie Lefeuvre on 14 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and
Structures
http://jim.sagepub.com/

Piezoelectric Energy Harvesting Device Optimization by Synchronous Electric Charge Extraction

Elie Lefeuvre, Adrien Badel, Claude Richard and Daniel Guyomar
Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 2005 16: 865
DOI: 10.1177/1045389X05056859

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jim.sagepub.com/content/16/10/865

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jim.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jim.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jim.sagepub.com/content/16/10/865.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Sep 29, 2005

What is This?

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Nat. Taichung Univ. of Sci. & Tech. on April 25, 2014
 Piezoelectric Energy Harvesting Device Optimization
by Synchronous Electric Charge Extraction
ELIE LEFEUVRE,* ADRIEN BADEL, CLAUDE RICHARD AND DANIEL GUYOMAR
Laboratoire de Ge´nie Electrique et Ferroe´lectricite´, INSA de Lyon, 8 rue de la Physique, 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex, France

ABSTRACT: This article presents a nonlinear approach to optimize the power flow of
vibration-based piezoelectric energy-harvesting devices. This self-adaptive principle is based
on a particular synchronization between extraction of the electric charge produced by the
piezoelectric element and the system vibrations, which maximizes the mechanical to electrical
energy conversion. An analytical expression of the optimal power flow is derived from a
simple electromechanical model. An electronic circuit designed to perform the synchronous
charge extraction is proposed. Theoretical predictions confirmed by experimental results show
that the new principle increases the harvested power by 400% as compared with a quasilinear
impedance adaptation optimization method.

Key Words: energy harvesting, self-powered, renewable energy, piezoelectric, vibration.

INTRODUCTION of this, the design of vibration-powered electronic

VER the years, there has been a growing interest
O in stand-alone systems in numerous application
fields, such as embedded sensors in buildings, medical
implants, and other remote wireless sensing nodes. In
many applications, the problem posed by these devices
is how to supply the required power. Indeed, in some
applications the system is completely embedded in the
host structure and no physical connection is possible
with the outside world. In this case, the conventional
solution is to use electrochemical batteries. However, the
use of batteries involves drawbacks, such as a finite
available amount of energy and a limited lifetime.
Moreover, certain applications do not tolerate the
chemicals they contain and the possibility of batteries
dying without warning may cause serious problems in
the case of security monitoring.
An alternative solution to build ‘perpetually powered’
systems is to include a microgenerator that converts
available ambient energy into electrical energy. Some
possible ambient energy sources are, for instance,
thermal energy, light energy, or mechanical energy.
The focus here is on the transformation of mechanical
vibrations into electrical energy using piezoelectric
materials.
Vibrations take place in most of the structures, but
their potential energy often remains very low. In spite
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
E-mail: elie.lefeuvre@insa-lyon.fr
devices is made possible by the recent development of
ultralow-power integrated circuits, able for instance, to
feed sensors, to carry out fast signal processing, and
to radio-transmit data (Elvin et al., 2001; Ayers et al.,
2003; Roundy et al., 2003a, b; Amirtharajah and
Chandrakasan, 2004).
Various techniques for the construction of such
piezoelectric microgenerators have been investigated.
Mechanical parts constitute an important aspect in
design, but previous studies have shown that electrical
energy conditioning system has also a determinant effect
on the energy conversion effectiveness (Ottman et al.,
2002, 2003).
The aim of this article is to present a new power flow
optimization principle based on the extraction of the
electric charge produced by a piezoelectric element,
synchronized with the mechanical vibration. First, a
simple electromechanical model to analyze the global
behavior of the system is proposed. The harvested
power is theoretically evaluated using an optimization
principle that can be assimilated to a linear load
impedance adaptation (Ottman et al., 2002, 2003).
The power flow is then theoretically evaluated using
the so-called ‘synchronous electric charge extraction’
principle. A comparison between both the optimization
approaches shows the interest of the new principle in
terms of power gain and reduction of the piezoelectric
material quantity. An electronic circuit designed to
perform the synchronous electric charge extraction and
its control principle are presented. Finally, the theoret-
ical predictions are compared with the experimental
results.

JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT MATERIAL SYSTEMS AND STRUCTURES, Vol. 16—October 2005 865
1045-389X/05/10 000865–876 $10.00/0 DOI: 10.1177/1045389X05056859
ß 2005 Sage Publications

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Nat. Taichung Univ. of Sci. & Tech. on April 25, 2014
866 E. LEFEUVRE ET AL.

ELECTROMECHANICAL MODEL The rigid mass, M undergoes the action of both

external and internal forces. The external force, F is
The vibration-based electromechanical power gen- the mechanical excitation applied to the structure of
erator considered is composed of a cantilever beam, with the power generator. The internal force is comprised of
piezoelectric elements bonded on its surface. The modal a restoring force, FP due to the piezoelectric disk,
density of such a system is intrinsically relatively poor. a restoring force due to the spring, and a viscous force
Hence, it is possible to get a clear separation between the due to the damper.
first bending mode and the other resonance frequencies. The mass displacement is noted u. I and V are the
On the first bending mode, the strain is maximum at the outgoing current and the voltage on the piezoelectric
clamped end, and the piezoelectric elements bonded in disk, which is connected to the energy-harvesting
this area provide the most effective electromechan- electrical circuit.
ical conversion for a given mechanical excitation. A The piezoelectric equations (1) link the mechanical
schematic representation of the proposed design is shown variables (u, FP) and the electrical ones (I, V ). KPE is
in Figure 1. the stiffness of the piezoelectric disk when it is short-
The proposed mechanical model is based on a mass þ circuited, C0 is its clamped capacitance, and
is the
piezo þ spring þ damper system having only one degree force factor.
of freedom. This model, schematically represented in 8
Figure 2, does not directly correspond to the structure < FP ¼ KPE u þ
V
presented in Figure 1. However, it gives a faithful ð1Þ
: I ¼
u_
C V_
description of the structure behavior near resonance, in 0
the vicinity of its first bending mode, for instance. The
simplicity of this model allows the analytical calcula- Equations (2) give the expressions of KPE, C0, and

tion of the mechanical variables in the linearly elastic as a function of the piezoelectric parameters described in
domain, as well as the electrical variables. Table 1.
In this basic approach, the structure considered is a
cE33 A "S33 A e33 A
rigid mass, M bonded on a spring, KS corresponding to KPE ¼ , C0 ¼ ,
¼ ð2Þ
L L L
the stiffness of the mechanical structure, on a damper, C
corresponding to the mechanical losses inherent to the The electromechanical coupling coefficient of the
structure and on a piezoelectric disk with a thickness, L piezoelectric disk is kt (Equation (3)) and its stiffness
and a surface, A equivalent to the bonded piezoelectric when it is open-circuited is KPD (Equation (4)).
elements. e233 e233
2
k2t ¼ ¼ ¼ ð3Þ
"T33 cE33 "S33 cE33 þ e233 C0 KPE þ
2
Piezoelectric elements
External driving force cD
33 A KPE
KPD ¼ ¼ ð4Þ
L 1
k2t
As the restoring force due to the stiffness of the
Steel beam
mechanical structure and the restoring force due to the
stiffness of the piezoelectric disk act in the same way
on the mass, M, a global stiffness for both mechanical
structure and piezoelectric disk is defined in Equation (5)
when the piezoelectric disk is short-circuited (KE)
Massive rigid support
and open-circuited (KD). The global electromechan-
Figure 1. Electromechanical structure of a power generator. ical coupling coefficient squared, k2, is expressed in
Equation (6) as a function of the force factor,
, the
clamped capacitance, C0, and the global stiffness, KE.
Piezoelectric
Rigid mass M
F disk
u
Table 1. Definitions of piezoelectric parameters.
I A Piezoelectric disk section
L Piezoelectric disk thickness
Energy
cE33 Elastic compliance of the piezoelectric disk short-circuited
V harvesting
cD33 Elastic compliance of the piezoelectric disk open-circuited
electrical circuit "S33 Clamped permittivity of the piezoelectric disk
Damper C
Structure stiffness KS "T33 Null stress permittivity of the piezoelectric disk
e33 Piezoelectric coefficient of the piezoelectric disk
Figure 2. Single-mode model of the electromechanical structure.

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Nat. Taichung Univ. of Sci. & Tech. on April 25, 2014
 Piezoelectric Energy Harvesting Device Optimization 867

Table 2. Definitions of energetic terms. I

R
Fu_ dt Provided energy
1 DC-DC
Mu_ 2 Kinetic energy V VDC converter
2 Cr
1 Battery
KE u2 Elastic energy
R2 2
Cu_ dt Mechanical losses Piezoelectric element
R

V u_ dt Transferred energy Figure 3. Energy harvesting electrical circuit including a DC–DC
converter used as impedance adaptation.

The piezoelectric parameters used in these expressions
are defined in Table 1.

power interface is necessary to ensure the electrical
KE ¼ KPE þ KS
ð5Þ
KD ¼ KPD þ KS

2
2
k2 ¼ ¼ ð6Þ
KE C0 þ
2 KD C0
Equation (7), defining the dynamic equilibrium of
the system, governs the displacement, u of the mass, M.
The energy equation (8) is obtained by multiplying
both the terms of Equation (7) by the velocity and
by integrating over the time variable. The externally
provided energy is distributed as the kinetic energy, the
elastic energy, the mechanical losses, and the transferred
energy, as respectively defined in Table 2. The trans-
ferred energy corresponds to the part of mechanical
energy which is converted into electrical energy. It is the
sum of the electrostatic energy stored on the piezo-
electric disk and the energy absorbed by the connected
electrical circuit, calculated in Equation (9).
Mu€ ¼ F
KE u

V
Cu_
Z Z Z amplitude obviously depends on its inherent damping,
1 1
Fu_ dt ¼ Mu_ 2 þ KE u2 þ Cu_ 2 dt þ
Vu_ dt ð8Þ
2 2
Z Z
1 2

Vu_ dt ¼ C0 V þ VI dt ð9Þ
2
OPTIMIZATION OF THE HARVESTED POWER
Optimization of the harvested power requires the
consideration of the global system and its environment,
from the external mechanical excitation that generates
the vibration to the electronic load characteristics. In a
first approximation, an external excitation generating
a single-frequency vibration of the cantilever beam
in its first flexural mode is considered. The strain of
the equivalent piezoelectric disk is assumed to be a
sinusoidal function of time. Thus, the open-circuit
voltage of a piezoelectric element bonded on the beam
is sinusoidal too. Its amplitude depends on the piezo-
electric element material, on its dimensions, and on
the beam vibration amplitude. Since electronic loads
usually require stabilized DC voltages, an electronic
compatibility. In this field, switching-mode power
converters are the preferred interfaces because of their
high efficiency (Erickson and Maksimovic, 2001).
In addition to their primary voltage adaptation role,
power converters may be controlled to maximize the
power flow.
The aim of this section is to compare the maximiza-
tion of the harvested power in the case of the well-
known ‘impedance adaptation’ principle with the new
‘synchronous electric charge extraction’ approach.
Load Impedance Adaptation
The principle of load impedance adaptation consists
of tuning the load impedance to get the higher power
flow. In the case of a linear source and load, there is
only one matching impedance, which is equal to the
generator internal impedance. The linear assumption
means in particular that the internal current source
(or voltage source) of the generator does not depend on
ð7Þ the load impedance. But considering the mechanical
system of the power generator at resonance, its vibration
and harvesting energy on a resonant system results in
increasing its inherent damping (Lesieutre et al., 2003).
Thus, the equivalent internal electric current source
(or voltage source) amplitude of a piezoelectric element
bonded on a vibrating structure at resonance cannot
be considered as strictly independent of the power
absorbed by the electric load and the impedance
adaptation notion must be taken with caution in this
case.
The power flow characteristic is determined by
considering the electrical circuit described in Figure 3.
This circuit rectifies the piezoelectric element alternating
voltage through a diode bridge, and a capacitor, Cr
smoothes the DC voltage. The power flow is then
controlled by the DC–DC power converter, which may
charge, for instance, an electrochemical battery or
directly feed an electronic system.
There are many different DC–DC power converter
circuits, and most of them are able to achieve the
load impedance adaptation defined in this section.

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Nat. Taichung Univ. of Sci. & Tech. on April 25, 2014
868
Each circuit has specific voltage (or current) adjustment
capability (Erickson and Maksimovic, 2001), and the
choice of a particular circuit must be made in consider-
ing the requirements of the application. The DC–DC
converter, represented in Figure 3, can thus be any kind
of power converter.
In the case of the load impedance adaptation
technique, the DC–DC power converter average input
current is adjusted proportionally to the input voltage.
Thus, the circuit including the DC–DC converter and
the battery (Figure 3) can be considered equivalent to a
resistor, R.
Calculations presented here are based on the global
electromechanical model presented earlier and the
simplified circuit shown in Figure 4. Previous studies
on a similar vibration-based power generator showed
a method to track the optimal power flow using a
switchmode DC–DC power converter (Ottman et al.,
2002, 2003), but the model presented in these studies
does not include the mechanical part of the system.
The vibrating structure is driven at resonance by an
external force, F considered purely monochromatic. The
rectifier bridge is considered ideal and the rectified
voltage, VDC is assumed to be constant, which is a good
approximation if the time constant, RCr is much larger
than the oscillating period of the structure. When the
absolute value of the piezoelectric element voltage, V is
lower than the rectified voltage, VDC, the rectifier diodes
are blocked and the outgoing piezoelectric element
current, I is null. In this open-circuit configuration,
the piezoelectric element voltage, V and the mechanical
displacement, u vary proportionally. When the absolute
value of the piezoelectric element voltage, V reaches
the rectified voltage, VDC, the rectifier conducts and
the absolute value of V is then kept equal to VDC. The
blocking of the rectifier occurs when the absolute value
of the piezoelectric element voltage starts to decrease,
i.e., when the displacement, u reaches its extreme values.
Typical voltage and displacement waveforms are shown
in Figure 4.
The electric charge generated by the piezoelectric
element during the particular half vibration period
between the instants t1 and t2 is the integral over the
time of the current, I between these instants. In steady-
state operation, this electric charge is equal to the charge
flowing through the load, R during the same half period,
um
I
VDC
V VDC R
Cr
Voltage V
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Nat. Taichung Univ. of Sci. & Tech. on April 25, 2014
E. LEFEUVRE ET AL.
since the average current flowing through Cr is null. This
charge balance is expressed by Equation (10). Starting
from Equation (10) and considering the second piezo-
electric equation (1), the rectified voltage, VDC is
expressed as a function of the displacement amplitude,
um in Equation (11), which leads to Equation (12),
giving the expression of the average harvested power as
a function of the displacement amplitude.
Z t2
VDC T
I dt ¼ ð10Þ
t1 R 2
R

VDC ¼ $um ð11Þ
RC0 $ þ ð=2Þ
V2DC R
2
P¼ ¼ $ 2 u2m ð12Þ
R ðRC0 $ þ ð=2ÞÞ2

2 $ 2
Ropt ¼ and Pmax ¼ u ð13Þ
2C0 $ 2C0 m
If the mechanical displacement amplitude is kept
constant whatever be the equivalent load resistance, R,
Equation (12) shows that the average power flow
reaches a maximum, Pmax for an optimal load resis-
tance, Ropt given in Equations (13). However, if the
vibration amplitude is affected by the load resistance, R,
this expression of the optimal load resistance, Ropt may
not be valid in certain cases.
To take into account the global behavior of the
electromechanical system, modeled in the section on
Electromechanical Model, the energy balance of the
structure is considered during the half vibration period
defined by instants t1 and t2 (Figure 4). Since there is
no variation of the elastic energy between the instants t1
and t2 in steady-state operation and since the kinetic
energy is null at those instants, the external mechanical
energy provided to the system is distributed between
the mechanical losses and the electrical energy harvested
(Equation (14)). At resonance, assuming that the
displacement remains sinusoidal, the energy balance
(14) can be simplified, and the displacement amplitude,
um can then be expressed as a function of the external
mechanical force amplitude, Fm (Equation (15)). Starting
from Equations (12) and (15), the average harvested
Displacement u
t1 t
t2
Figure 4. Simplified energy harvesting circuit
and corresponding voltage and displacement
waveforms.
 Piezoelectric Energy Harvesting Device Optimization 869

power is expressed as a function of the force amplitude, load resistance to R3 or an increase in the load resis-
Fm in Equation (16). tance to R4 allows a larger vibration displacement
Z T=2 Z T=2 amplitude. Then, the power entering into the vibrating
V2 T structure increases and the average harvested power
Fu_ dt ¼ C u_ 2 dt þ DC ð14Þ
0 0 R 2 returns at maximum, but for two different load
Fm resistances, instead of one.
um ¼   ð15Þ Finally, the useful power delivered to the terminal
C$ þ 2R$
2 =ðRC0 $ þ ð=2ÞÞ2 electric load may be deducted from the harvested power
V2 R
2 $ 2 and from the DC–DC converter efficiency, which is
P ¼ cc ¼
R ðRC0 $ þ ð=2ÞÞ2 typically between 65 and 90%.
F2m 
 R1 ¼
ð17Þ
 2 2C0 $
C$ þ 2R$
2 =ðRC0 $ þ ð=2ÞÞ2
ð16Þ 
R2 ¼ ð18Þ
2C0 $
The four roots R1, R2, R3, and R4 of @P=@R are res-
pectively given in Equations (17)–(20). If Condition (21) pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2
2
C0 C$
2

2
C0 C$
is satisfied, then R3 and R4 are complex solutions, and R3 ¼ ð19Þ
2C20 C$ 2
R2 is the only load resistance for which the harvested
average power reaches a maximum value, given in pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Equation (22). R1 is not a physical solution, of course. 2
2
C0 C$ þ 2

2
C0 C$
If Condition (23) is satisfied, then the system behavior R4 ¼ ð20Þ
2C20 C$ 2
changes: R2 corresponds to a local minimum of the
average harvested power and there are two optimal
2
load resistances R3 and R4, for which the average  C$ ð21Þ
C0
harvested power reaches the maximum value given in
Equation (24). In this case, the maximum of the average
harvested power remains constant for a given external
2 $ F2m
Pmax ¼ ð22Þ
force amplitude, and its value is theoretically limited 2C0 ðC$ þ ð
2 =C0 ÞÞ2
only by the inherent mechanical losses of the structure
modeled by the damping coefficient, C. This particular
2
 C$ ð23Þ
behavior with two optimal load resistances is character- C0
istic of strongly coupled systems, such as piezoelectric
transformers (Ivensky et al., 2002). The global behavior F2m
is cleared up considering the variations of the harvested Pmax ¼ ð24Þ
8C
power as a function of the load resistance and the
coupling coefficient, shown in Figure 6.
A physical interpretation of the changing system Synchronous Electric Charge Extraction
behavior can be made considering the influence of load
resistance on damping. According to Equation (15), The input current of the DC–DC switching-mode
R2 is the load resistance value leading to the strongest power converter used for impedance adaptation in the
damping effect for any electromechanical coupling. previous section is considered as continuous since it is
In the weak electromechanical coupling domain, the modeled with an equivalent resistor. This is possible in
damping effect is also weak. Its displacement ampli- practice if the switching frequency remains much higher
tude allows the structure to receive power from the than the mechanical vibration frequency. Moreover, the
external driving force. Hence, in this domain it is power converter may include an input filter to smooth
intuitively understandable that the harvested power the current (Erickson and Maksimovic, 2001).
increases if the electromechanical coupling is Contrarily, the input behavior of the DC–DC
improved. But in the strong coupling domain, the converter used in the synchronous electric charge
R2 load induces a significant damping effect. Since extraction approach is voluntarily nonlinear. This non-
the external driving force has a constant amplitude, linear processing of the piezoelectric element electric
the power received by the structure is far lower than charge is derived from the so-called ‘SSD’ principle
that in the weak coupling domain because of the that was developed to address the structural damping
strong displacement amplitude reduction. Thus, in this problem (Richard et al., 1999, 2000). The electrical
domain the harvested power may reduce if the electro- circuit considered and the corresponding waveforms are
mechanical coupling is improved. A reduction in the represented in Figure 5. One difference with the previous

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Nat. Taichung Univ. of Sci. & Tech. on April 25, 2014
870 E. LEFEUVRE
I Vm Displacement u
um
DC-DC
V Vrect converter
Battery
Piezoelectric element Voltage V
circuit (Figure 3) is the absence of an intermediate
voltage smoothing capacitor on the DC side of the
rectifier bridge. Another difference is that the DC–DC
power converter is not permanently operating, but only
during short time intervals, compared to the vibration
period. The operation intervals are triggered on the
minima and maxima of the displacement, u, synchro-
nously with the mechanical vibration. Apart from these
charge extraction intervals, the DC–DC converter input
is equivalent to an open-circuit and the outgoing
current, I is null. In this condition, the mechanical speed
is related to the voltage derivative by Equation (25).
Integrating this equation over the time between
the instants t1 and t2 leads to Equation (26), linking
the voltage amplitude, Vm to the displacement ampli-
tude, um. Hence, electric charge extraction occurs when
the absolute value of the energy stored in the piezo-
electric capacitor, C0 is the maximum. At these instants,
the charge of C0 is quasi-instantaneously transferred
to the terminal electric load through the power
converter, resulting in a cancellation of the piezoelectric
voltage, V.
Only a few DC–DC power converter circuits are able
to achieve the charge extraction described above. A
particularly well adapted circuit is presented in the
section on Electrical Circuits.
The expression of the average power delivered by
the piezoelectric element is given in Equation (27).
Equations (26) and (27) lead to the harvested power
expression as a function of the displacement amplitude,
given in Equation (28).

u_ ¼ C0 V_ ð25Þ

near its clamped end. The electromechanical coupling
V m ¼ 2 um ð26Þ
C0
1 $
P ¼ C0 V2m ð27Þ
2 

2 $ 2
P¼2 u ð28Þ
C0 m
To take into account the mechanical damping effect
induced by this energy-harvesting technique when the
system is driven at resonance by a constant amplitude
external force, the energy balance of the structure
between instants t1 and t2, is considered just after each
electric charge extraction. The energy provided to the
system by the external force, F during this half period is
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Nat. Taichung Univ. of Sci. & Tech. on April 25, 2014
ET AL.
t1 t
t2
Figure 5. Electric circuit achieving the synchronous
electric charge extraction and corresponding dis-
placement and voltage waveforms.
expressed in Equation (29). Assuming that the displace-
ment remains sinusoidal, the calculation of this energy
balance is simplified, leading to the displacement
amplitude expression, um as a function of the external
force amplitude, Fm, given in Equation (30). The
harvested power as a function of the external
force amplitude, Fm, given in Equation (31) is derived
from Equations (28) and (30). Equation (31) shows
that there exists a particular relation between the
electromechanical parameters given in Equation (32),
for which the harvested power reaches a maximum.
The corresponding harvested power, Pmax is given in
Equation (33).
Z T=2 Z T=2
2
2 2
Fu_ dt ¼ C u_ 2 dt þ u ð29Þ
0 0 C0 m
Fm
um ¼ ð30Þ
C$ þ ð4
2 =C0 Þ

2 $ F2m
P¼2 ð31Þ
C0 ðC$ þ ð4
2 =C0 ÞÞ2

2 C$
¼ ð32Þ
C0 4
F2m
Pmax ¼ ð33Þ
8C
Comparison of Theoretical Performances
The comparison of energy-harvesting devices is
based on the experimental setup parameters described
in Table 3. The piezoelectric element is composed of 68
identical PZT plates bonded on each side of the beam,
is variable by changing the number of PZT plates
connected to the electrical network. Because of their
symmetrical disposition, all the plates are practically
submitted to the same mechanical solicitation on the
first bending mode of the beam. Hence, it may be
considered an elementary electromechanical coupling
relative to any of the PZT plates on this vibration mode.
Parameters,
and C0, given in Table 3, correspond to
all the 68 PZT plates connected together in parallel.
If r is the ratio of connected PZT plates, according
to Equations (2) the value of the capacitance blocked is
equal to rC0, and the force factor is equal to r
. The
other parameters are not affected. Equation (6) shows
 Piezoelectric Energy Harvesting Device Optimization 871

Table 3. Electromechanical parameters.

0.0026 N V
1
C0 74.3 nF
M 0.0669 kg
C 0.1018 N m
1 s
1
KD 9.6  103 N m
1

that the electromechanical coupling coefficient squared,

k2 is proportional to the ratio, r, and therefore to the
number of connected PZT plates.
With the impedance adaptation approach, the
harvested power depends on the equivalent load
resistance, R, and on the parameters,
and C0.
According to Equation (16), these two last param-
eters are proportional to the electromechanical coupl-
Figure 6. Theoretical harvested power as a function of the load
ing coefficient squared. Figure 6 shows the variations resistance and the coupling coefficient squared, in the case of a
of the harvested power as a function of R and k2. constant external force amplitude.
This plot exhibits one or two optimal loads, depending
on the electromechanical coupling, as predicted in
Equation (16). It is also obvious that the increase in 18
the maximum harvested power stops when the electro- (2)
16
mechanical coupling squared is greater than a critical
value. The expression of the critical electromechanical 14
coupling coefficient, kcritical, given in Equation (34) is 12
derived from Equations (6) and (21).
P (mW)

rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 10
C$
kcritical ¼ ð34Þ 8
KD
6
A comparison between Equations (13) and (28) shows (1)
that for a given electromechanical setup and a constant 4

mechanical displacement amplitude, um, the harvested 2

power is four times greater with the synchronous electric
0
charge extraction technique than with the impedance 103 104 105 106 107
adaptation approach. The theoretical harvested power R (Ω)
with the impedance adaptation principle as a function
Figure 7. Theoretical harvested power in the case of an imposed
of the equivalent load resistance is plotted in Figure 7. displacement amplitude: (1) impedance adaptation and (2) synchro-
By comparison, the harvested power on the same nous electric charge extraction.
electromechanical system with the synchronous electric
charge extraction principle is plotted in the same figure. 80
The difference between both the techniques is also visible
on the respective transferred energy cycles. Figure 8 60 (2)

compares the variations of the piezoelectric voltage

40
as a function of the mechanical displacement obtained (1)
with both the techniques. According to the definition 20
(Table 2), the transferred energy is proportional to the
V (V)

0
area inside the cycle curves. It appears that the cycle
induced by the synchronous electric charge extraction -20
technique is significantly larger than the cycle obtained
with the standard impedance adaptation technique for -40
the same mechanical displacement amplitude. -60
Figure 9 shows the power flow behavior as a function
of the coupling coefficient squared with both the -80
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
approaches, the system being driven by a constant u (mm)
amplitude external force at resonance. Both maxima have
Figure 8. Theoretical cycles of the piezoelectric voltage as a
the same value, as predicted by Equations (24) and (33). function of the displacement: (1) impedance adaptation and
But it is remarkable that the maximum corresponds (2) synchronous electric charge extraction.

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Nat. Taichung Univ. of Sci. & Tech. on April 25, 2014
872 E. LEFEUVRE ET AL.

6
reduction of the piezoelectric material quantity required
(2) (1) to reach the maximum harvested power, comparatively
5
with the standard impedance adaptation technique,
whether the system is driven with an imposed displace-
4 ment or with a constant amplitude external force.
P (mW)

3
EXPERIMENTAL
2
Experimental Setup
1
The experimental setup, shown in Figure 11, is
0
composed of a cantilever beam clamped at one end in
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 a rigid structure. The beam is driven by an electro-
k2 magnet that may generate a periodic force. As
Figure 9. Theoretical harvested power as a function of the coupl- previously explained, the global electromechanical
ing coefficient squared in the case of a constant external coupling coefficient can be tuned by modifying the
force amplitude at resonance: (1) impedance adaptation and
(2) synchronous electric charge extraction. number of piezoelectric inserts connected in parallel
to the electronic circuit. With 68 piezoelectric inserts
bonded on the beam, the coupling coefficient squared,
1.2 k2 is variable between 0.00014 and 0.0094. The inserts
are arranged in four rows of 17 inserts, two on the top
1.1
(rows number 1 and 2) of the beam and two on
1 its bottom (rows number 3 and 4). The piezoelectric
0.9 material is P1-89 ceramic (QS-France) and the beam
0.8 material is XC75 blue steel. The dimensions of the beam
um (mm)

(1) and the piezoelectric inserts are given in Table 4.

0.7
The poling direction of the piezoelectric inserts is
0.6 perpendicular to the beam and it is the lateral coupling
0.5 k31 that mainly drives the piezoelectric response. The
0.4
measurement of the cantilever free end displacement is
(2) obtained with an inductive proximity sensor.
0.3

0.2 Model Identification

0 0.005 0.01
k2
Figure 10. Theoretical displacement amplitude as a function of the
coupling coefficient squared in the case of a constant external force
amplitude: (1) impedance adaptation and (2) synchronous electric
charge extraction.
to a smaller electromechanical coupling coefficient in
the case of the synchronous charge extraction approach.
Actually, with the considered electromechanical char-
acteristics, the maximum occurs with k2 equal to 0.003
in the case of the synchronous charge extraction whereas
the maximum is reached with k2 equal to 0.012 in the
case of the impedance adaptation. The corresponding
displacement amplitude variations plotted in Figure 10
show that the damping effect is always stronger with the
synchronous electric charge extraction for any coupling
coefficient. This behavior confirms the energy con-
version increase induced by the synchronous charge
extraction principle.
Thus, a direct benefit of the new optimization
principle proposed herein is a 70–75% theoretical
0.015
The considered piezoelectric structure is more com-
plex than the single-mode resonator described in the
section on Electromechanical Model. And the various
parameters cannot be simply obtained from the
properties of the piezoelectric inserts. However, the
structure presents all the features of a piezoelectric
electromechanical device as defined in the above-
mentioned section. Its properties can therefore be
identified using the experimental measurements defined
in Table 5 and Equations (35). The identified model
then describes the experimental setup behavior around
the considered resonance frequency which is, in this
case, the first flexural mode. Numerical data corre-
sponding to the experimental setup when all the
piezoelectric inserts are connected are summarized in
Table 6.
f02 KE

¼ C0 , KE ¼
 2 2
, M ¼ 2 2 , C ¼ 4Mf1
f1
f0 4 f0
ð35Þ

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Nat. Taichung Univ. of Sci. & Tech. on April 25, 2014
 Piezoelectric Energy Harvesting Device Optimization 873

Energy harvesting
device
Signal PZT insert rows
generator
PZT inserts Steel beam #1 #2
Inductive
proximity Steel beam
Electromagnet sensor
#3 #4
Rigid support

Power amplifier
Figure 11. Experimental setup and insert rows numeration.

Table 4. Dimensions of experimental setup. Table 6. Experimental parameters.

Steel beam 180 mm length f0 60.18 Hz
95 mm width f1 60.46 Hz
2 mm thickness  0.0024
 35,000 V/m
PZT inserts 15 mm length C0 74.3 nF
5 mm width

0.0026 N/V
0.5 mm thickness k2 0.0094
KE 9  103 N m
1
M 0.0669 kg
C 0.1018 N m
1 s
1
Table 5. Definitions of experimental measurements.
f0 Short-circuit resonance frequency
f1 Open-circuit resonance frequency I IL •L D ID
 Open-circuit damping coefficient
 Piezo open-circuit voltage to the beam free end •
Vrect RL
displacement ratio V Vout
C0 Clamped capacitance of the piezoelectric elements
T Cf
VG

Figure 12. Experimental circuit performing the synchronous electric

charge extraction.
Electrical Circuits

The DC–DC power converter has not been imple-
mented in the case of the impedance adaptation
principle. Actually, the power converter is not necessary
to characterize the energy-harvesting device since it can
be replaced by a resistance, R. In this case, the harvested
power is measured with the simplified electrical circuit,
described in Figure 4, comprising four UF4004 diodes
and a 470 mF capacitor, Cf.
In the case of the synchronous electric charge
extraction principle, it is necessary to implement a
DC–DC power converter since this nonlinear energy
converter cannot be simulated by a passive element. The
DC–DC converter circuit is detailed in Figure 12. It
comprises four UF4004 rectifier diodes and a flyback
switching mode converter. The flyback converter is
composed of an IRFD220 MOSFET transistor, T, a
Myrra 74010 coupled inductor, L, an SB540 Schottky
diode, D and a 1000 mF storage capacitor, Cf.
The electronic load, which could be an electrochemical
battery or any electronic circuit, is simulated by a
resistor, RL. The power converter operation is controlled
by the gate voltage, VG of the MOSFET transistor,
which is determined by a control circuit measuring the
rectified voltage, Vrect. When the rectified voltage Vrect
reaches a maximum, a 15-V voltage is applied on the
transistor gate. The transistor then conducts and starts
the transfer of electric charge from the piezoelectric
element to the coupled inductor, L. When the electric
charge of the piezoelectric element is completely
extracted, the control circuit detects the cancellation
of the rectified voltage and applies a null voltage on
the transistor gate. Thus, the transistor is blocked, the
piezoelectric element returns to an open circuit, and the
energy stored by the coupled inductor, L is transferred
to the storage capacitor, Cf. The next electric charge
extraction sequence occurs when the rectified voltage
reaches its next maximum, synchronously with the
mechanical displacement. Experimental displacement,
voltages, and currents are shown in Figures 13 and 14.
According to these chronograms, the piezoelectric
element is on an open circuit during 8.3 ms, whereas
the electric charge extraction duration is nearly 10 ms.

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Nat. Taichung Univ. of Sci. & Tech. on April 25, 2014
874 E. LEFEUVRE ET AL.

3 100
2 80

Vrect (V)
1 60
u (mm)

40
0
20
-1
0
-2 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
0.6 x 10-5
-3
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
0.4

IL (A)
100 0.2

0
50
-0.2
V (V)

-2 -1 0 1 2 3
0 x 10-5
5
-50 4
3

ID (A)
-100 2
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05 1
0
100 -1
-2 -1 0 1 2 3
80 20 x 10-5
Vrect (V)

60
10
VG (V)

40
0
20
-10
-2 -1 0 1 2 3
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05 t (s) x 10-5
t (s) Figure 14. Experimental voltage and current waveforms during an
Figure 13. Experimental displacement and voltage waveforms electric charge extraction sequence.
obtained with the synchronous electric charge extraction technique.

The output voltage, Vout of the DC–DC converter is 18

determined by the load, i.e., by the battery voltage or by 16 Pin
the equivalent load resistance value if the load is directly Pout
14
fed by the converter. With a determined input power,
the ideal flyback converter may theoretically deliver a 12
constant output power whatever be the voltage, Vout. In
P (mw)

10
practice, imperfections of the components restrict the
effective output voltage domain. Figure 15 shows that 8

for a 17.5 mW average input power, Pin provided by the 6

piezoelectric element, the flyback converter delivers
4
practically a 12.3 mW constant output power, Pout in
the 5–25 V output voltage range. This corresponds to a 2

70% power converter efficiency. The flyback converter 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
consumption is almost 5.2 mW, distributed in 4.1 mW
Vout (V)
dissipated in the power circuit (Figure 12) and 1.1 mW
consumed by the transistor self-powered control circuit Figure 15. Experimental DC–DC converter average input and output
power as a function of the output voltage.
(not represented).

Experimental Comparison of Performances
The first experimental comparison between both the
energy-harvesting optimization approaches is made
in the case of an imposed mechanical displacement,
monitored with an inductive proximity sensor. The
experimental and predicted harvested power variations
as a function of the equivalent load resistance are in very
good agreement in the case of the impedance adaptation
technique, as shown in Figure 16. The harvested power
reaches 4.6 mW with a 10 k
optimal load resistance
and a 2 mm displacement amplitude at 60 Hz. With
the same mechanical excitation, the available har-
vested power, Pin reaches 17.5 mW in the case of the

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Nat. Taichung Univ. of Sci. & Tech. on April 25, 2014
 Piezoelectric Energy Harvesting Device Optimization 875

18 1.2

1.1 Theoretical
16 Pin
Experimental
(2) 1
14
0.9
Pout
12
0.8

um (mm)
P (mW)

(1)
10
0.7
8 0.6
(1)
6 0.5
Theoretical
4 0.4
Experimental (2)
2 0.3

0.2
0 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
102 103 104 105 106 107
R (Ω) k2

Figure 16. Experimental harvested power as a function of the Figure 18. Experimental displacement amplitude as a function
load resistance for a 2-mm displacement amplitude at 60 Hz: of the coupling coefficient squared with a constant external force
(1) impedance adaptation and (2) synchronous electric charge amplitude at resonance: (1) impedance adaptation and (2) synchro-
extraction. nous electric charge extraction.

6 from the displacement, since the air gap variation

between the beam and the electromagnet is negligible.
(1)
5 (2) Thus, a constant amplitude external force is obtained
by feeding the electromagnet with a constant ampli-
Pin
4 tude current. Figure 17 shows that the experimental
Pout harvested power variations as a function of the electro-
P (mW)

3 mechanical coupling are in very good agreement with

2 maximum power of 5.7 mW is reached using 17 patches
Theoretical
1 Experimental
0
0 0.005 0.01
k2
Figure 17. Experimental harvested power as a function of the
coupling coefficient squared with a constant external force ampli-
tude at resonance: (1) impedance adaptation and (2) synchronous
electric charge extraction.
synchronous electric charge extraction technique. And
the DC–DC power converter delivers a 12.3 mW useful
power, Pout since its maximum efficiency is 70%. These
results confirm the theoretical predictions: the synchro-
nous electric charge extraction principle increases power
transfer by over 400% as compared to the impedance
adaptation technique. Considering a 70% efficiency
power converter performing the impedance adaptation,
the useful harvested power would be 3.2 mW. Thus, the
ratio between useful power harvested in both the cases
would practically remain four.
The second experimental comparison between both
the energy-harvesting optimization approaches is made
in the case of a constant external force at resonance. The
cantilever beam being driven by an electromagnet, the
external force is proportional to the feeding current
squared. This force may be considered independent
the theoretical predictions with both techniques. The
in the case of the synchronous electric charge extrac-
tion principle, whereas the same maximum power
is practically reached using all the 68 patches in the
case of the impedance adaptation technique. Figure 18
0.015 shows that experimental vibration amplitude variations
as a function of the electromechanical coupling are
in excellent agreement with theoretical prediction in
both cases.
Finally, the experimental results confirm that the
new synchronous electric charge extraction technique
allows a 70–75% reduction of the piezoelectric material
required to reach the maximum power by comparison
with the standard impedance adaptation technique.
CONCLUSIONS
This article presents a new approach to maximize the
power delivered by a piezoelectric energy-harvesting
device. In considering an electromechanical piezoelectric
energy conversion system having a constant vibration
amplitude, the harvested power is increased by 400%
as compared to the optimal power conversion reached
using a quasilinear impedance adaptation technique.
In the case of a constant force amplitude driving the
vibration of the electromechanical system at resonance,
the new optimization principle reduces the piezoelectric
material quantity required to harvest the maximum

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Nat. Taichung Univ. of Sci. & Tech. on April 25, 2014
876 E. LEFEUVRE
power by 75%, when compared to the impedance
adaptation technique. Moreover, the optimization
method is intrinsically self-adaptive to environmental
changes and its implementation does not require
any sophisticated computing circuit nor any vibration
transducer.
According to experimental results, the simple model
proposed in this article gives a faithful description of
the electromechanical behavior of the vibration-based
electrical generator in the vicinity of a mechanical
resonance.
The advantages brought by the new power optimiza-
tion method make it possible to envision more efficient
and less invasive vibration-based microgenerators that
could feed, for instance, a next generation of infinite-
lifespan wireless sensing networks and any other
autonomous wireless system.
REFERENCES
Amirtharajah, R. and Chandrakasan, A. 2004. ‘‘A Micropower
Programmable DSP using Approximate Signal Processing based
on Distributed Arithmetic,’’ IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits,
39(2):337–347.
Ayers, J., Greve, D. and Oppenheim, I. 2003. ‘‘Energy Scavenging
for Sensor Applications using Structural Strains,’’ In: Proceedings
SPIE Smart Structures and Materials Conference, Vol. 5057,
pp. 364–375.
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Nat. Taichung Univ. of Sci. & Tech. on April 25, 2014
View publication stats
ET AL.
Elvin, N.G., Elvin, A. and Spector, M. 2001. ‘‘A Self-powered
Mechanical Strain Energy Sensor,’’ Smart Materials and
Structures, 10(2):293–299.
Erickson, R.W. and Maksimovic, D. 2001. Fundamentals of
Power Electronics, pp. 131–177, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Boston, MA, ISBN 0-7923-7270-0.
Ivensky, G., Zafrany, I. and Ben-Yaacov, S. 2002. ‘‘Generic
Operational Characteristics of Piezoelectric Transformers,’’ IEEE
Transactions on Power Electronics, 17(6):1049–1057.
Lesieutre, G.A., Ottman, G.K. and Hofmann, H.F. 2003. ‘‘Damping
as a Result of Piezoelectric Energy Harvesting,’’ Journal of Sound
and Vibration, 269(3–5):991–1002.
Ottman, G., Hofmann, H., Bhatt, A. and Lesieutre, G. 2002.
‘‘Adaptive Piezoelectric Energy Harvesting Circuit for Wireless
Remote Power Supply,’’ IEEE Transaction on Power Electronics,
17(5):669–676.
Ottman, G., Hofmann, H., Bhatt, A. and Lesieutre, G. 2003.
‘‘Optimized Piezoelectric Energy Harvesting Circuit using Step-
down Converter in Discontinuous Conduction Mode,’’ IEEE
Transaction on Power Electronics, 18(2):696–703.
Richard, C., Guyomar, D., Audigier, D. and Ching, G. 1999. ‘‘Semi
Passive Damping using Continuous Switching of a Piezoelectric
Device,’’ In: Proceedings SPIE Smart Structures and Materials
Conference, Vol. 3672, pp. 104–113.
Richard, C., Guyomar, D., Audigier, D. and Bassaler, H. 2000.
‘‘Enhanced Semi Passive Damping using Continuous Switching
of a Piezoelectric Device on an Inductor,’’ In: Proceedings
SPIE Smart Structures and Materials Conference, Vol. 3989,
pp. 288–299.
Roundy, S., Otis, B., Chee, Y.-H., Rabaey, J., and Wright, P.K.
2003a. ‘‘A 1.9 GHz Transmit Beacon using Environmentally
Scavenged Energy,’’ In: ISPLED 2003 Conference, Seoul, Korea.
Roundy, S., Wright, P.K. and Rabaey, J. 2003b. ‘‘A Study of Low
Level Vibration as a Power Source for Wireless Sensors Nodes,’’
Computer Communications, 26(11):1131–1144.