0
Research Papers

# Energy Harvesting From Impulsive Loads Using Intentional Essential Nonlinearities

[+] Author and Article Information
D. Dane Quinn1

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325-3903quinn@uakron.edu

Angela L. Triplett

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325-3903alt25@uakron.edu

Alexander F. Vakakis

Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1206 West Green Street, Urbana, IL 61801avakakis@illinois.edu

Lawrence A. Bergman

Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 104 S. Wright Street, Urbana, IL 61801lbergman@illinois.edu

1

Corresponding author.

J. Vib. Acoust 133(1), 011004 (Dec 08, 2010) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4002787 History: Received February 11, 2010; Revised September 01, 2010; Published December 08, 2010; Online December 08, 2010

## Abstract

Energy harvesting devices designed with intentional nonlinearities offer the possibility of increased performance under broadband excitations and realistic environmental conditions. This work considers an energy harvesting system based on the response of an attachment with strong nonlinear behavior. The electromechanical coupling is achieved with a piezoelectric element across a resistive load. When the system is subject to harmonic excitation, the harvested power from the nonlinear system exhibits a wider interval of frequencies over which the harvested power is significant, although an equivalent linear device offers greater efficiency at its design frequency. However, for impulsive excitation, the performance of the nonlinear harvesting system exceeds the corresponding linear system in terms of both magnitude of power harvested and the frequency interval over which significant power can be drawn from the mechanical vibrations.

<>

## Figures

Figure 7

Bifurcation diagram with impulsive excitation (Γ=0.10, μ=0, β=2.0, ρ=1.0, ε=0.1, ξ=1.0)

Figure 1

Nonlinear energy harvesting device. The piezoelectric element is then connected across a resistive load.

Figure 2

Average harvested power versus frequency with harmonic excitation (Γ=1.0, β=2.0, ρ=1.0, ε=0.1, ξ=1.0); μ=0, —; μ=1.00, ----. The linear response is shown with the thin solid line, —.

Figure 3

Average harvested power versus frequency with impulsive excitation (Γ=1.0, β=2.0, ρ=1.0, ε=0.1, ξ=1.0); μ=0, —; μ=1.00, ----. The linear response is shown with the thin solid line, —.

Figure 4

Average harvested power versus frequency with impulsive excitation (β=2.0, ρ=1.0, ε=0.1, ξ=1.0); Γ=0.10, —; Γ=0.50, ---; Γ=1.00, -⋅-⋅-. (a) μ=0 and (b) μ=1.00.

Figure 5

Frequency at which the maximum power is harvested as the excitation amplitude varies (β=2.0, ρ=1.0, ε=0.1, ξ=1.0); μ=0, —; μ=1.00, ---. The linear response is shown with the thin solid line, —.

Figure 6

Maximum harvested power (Γ=0.10, μ=0, ε=0.1, ξ=1.0); (a) β=2.0, (b) ρ=1.0, and (c) varying ρ and β.

Figure 8

Phase space reconstruction from the averaged equations (Γ=0.10, μ=0, β=2.0, ρ=1.0, ε=0.1, ξ=1.0); (a) ω=1.50, (b) ω=0.50, and (c) ω=0.25

Figure 9

Reconstructed Poincaré map for the aperiodic response shown in Fig. 8, 4000 periods shown (ω=0.25, Γ=0.10, μ=0, β=2.0, ρ=1.0, ε=0.1, ξ=1.0)

Figure 10

Bifurcation diagram (Γ=0.10, β=2.0, ρ=1.0, ε=0.1, ξ=1.0); (a) μ=0 and (b) μ=1.00

Figure 11

Average harvested power versus frequency with impulsive excitation (Γ=0.10, μ=0, β=2.0, ρ=1.0, ε=0.1, ξ=1.0); — increasing frequency; ---decreasing frequency.

Figure 12

Average harvested power versus frequency with impulsive excitation (β=2.0, ρ=1.0, ε=0.1, ξ=1.0); Γ=0.10, —; Γ=0.50, ---; Γ=1.00, -⋅-⋅-; (a) μ=0 and (b) μ=1.00

## Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

### Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related Proceedings Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections