Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and

Structures
http://jim.sagepub.com/

Beam Shape Optimization for Power Harvesting

John M. Dietl and Ephrahim Garcia
Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 2010 21: 633 originally published online 1 March 2010
DOI: 10.1177/1045389X10365094

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jim.sagepub.com/content/21/6/633

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/21/6/633.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Mar 25, 2010

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Mar 1, 2010

What is This?

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at OREGON STATE UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014
 Beam Shape Optimization for Power Harvesting
JOHN M. DIETL* AND EPHRAHIM GARCIA
Laboratory for Intelligent Machine Systems, Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Cornell University, 226 Upson Hall, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA

ABSTRACT: A problem in piezoelectric bimorph energy harvesting is to generate the most

power with limits in system mass. The authors propose a new approach: to change the shape
of the beam to concentrate the strain in sections of the beam where it can contribute the most to
transduction. A vibration model of beams with non-uniform width is developed and validated
with shaker table tests. Three beams with different shapes are tested over a wide band, encom-
passing the lowest two modes of vibration. An optimal beam shape is calculated using a heuristic
optimization code and the attributes of this optimal beam are discussed. Then, beam shapes
are optimized to allow for increased base excitation and constrained by maximum root
strain. Finally, the tip mass-to-beam mass ratio is studied parametrically, correlating increased
transduction with increased beam mass.

Key Words: energy harvesting, piezoelectric, optimization.

INTRODUCTION of force input. Due to vibration energy being generally

HERE are classes of problems where miniaturization
T and mass reduction are critical. One such applica-
tion is the development of functional electronics to be
carried by animals. A project is currently under way to
implant cybernetics in insects (Bozkurt et al., 2009).
These electronic implants contain sensors for collecting
data and navigation, communications devices for data
transfer and for delivering instructions, and actuators
(mainly sonic pulses) to control the insect’s flight
(Reissman and Garcia, 2008). Minimizing power
supply weight is mandatory for the insect to fly unen-
cumbered. Thus power harvesting may have a new
application in the development of active tagging for
animal tracking.
Piezoelectric actuators and sensors have long been the
subject of experimental and analytical study, for actua-
tion, actuator dimension optimization, actuator place-
ment optimization, and sensor placement. During the
last decade, a growing segment of researchers has
focused on power harvesting, employing experimental
and analytical methods.
Among earlier experimental studies was Goldfarb and
Jones (1999), which modeled and tested a piezoelectric
stack actuator, concluding: the stack’s efficiency peaked
at a frequency much lower than the stack’s structural
resonance, and that due to non-linearities the system’s
energy transfer frequency was dependent on amplitude
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
E-mail: jmd99@cornell.edu
Figures 1—13 appear in color online: http://jim.sagepub.com
lower in the frequency spectrum, most studies of piezo-
electric energy harvesters have focused on cantilevered
beams with transverse vibration. Roundy and Wright
(2004) provided a model and experiment for a piezoelec-
tric bimorph.
There are many papers on piezoelectric bimorph and
unimorph modeling, including Roundy and Wright
(2004), whose model relied on adapting piezoelectric
constitutive laws and Euler—Bernoulli strain-bending
assumptions to an electronic-analog set of equations.
This model was utilized to provide an adequate input
to a set of candidate power harvesting circuits. Other
single degree of freedom models have been published
(Liao and Sodano, 2008), but they are not intended to
capture a system’s response to vibration and electronic
coupling over a wider bandwidth. Without this band-
width both the higher modes of vibration inherent to
wide-band excitation and non-linear forcing from
coupling circuitry are ignored (Timoshenko et al., 1974).
The Rayleigh—Ritz approach to modeling transverse
vibrations is a popular alternative. Hagood and von
Flotow (1990) derived the basic framework for modeling
a general piezoelectric actuator/sensor through discrete
modes of electromechanical excitation. As applied by
Sodano et al. (2004) and duToit et al. (2005), a general-
ized Hamiltonian of the coupled electromechanical
system is constructed in terms of a finite selection of
applicable basis functions. From this, a set of coupled
differential equations describing the system, including
an arbitrary number of shape functions, can be gener-
ated. A second approach eschews the Hamiltonian
energy formulations and directly applies the piezoelectric

JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT MATERIAL SYSTEMS AND STRUCTURES, Vol. 21—April 2010 633
1045-389X/10/06 0633—14 $10.00/0 DOI: 10.1177/1045389X10365094
ß The Author(s), 2010. Reprints and permissions:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at OREGON STATE UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014
634 J. M. DIETL AND E. GARCIA
constitutive laws to the Euler—Bernoulli beam deforma-
tion equation on both unimorph (Erturk and Inman,
2008) and bimorph (Erturk and Inman, 2009) configura-
tions. These have been verified as accurate over varying
electrical loads and with varying tip mass.
Researchers have studied alternative beam configura-
tions as well. Erturk et al. (2009a) studied an L-shaped
beam-mass structure with constant cross section.
This article presents a study of beams with varying
cross-sectional area. The motivation is that the strain
is not constant along the length of a piezoelectric
bimorph. However, the electric field across the piezo-
electric layers is proportional to axial strain. By arran-
ging the beam so that there is more piezoelectric material
where there is more strain, and removing material from
where there is less strain, the overall coupling of the
beam can be increased.
This has been previously studied by Goldschmidtboe-
ing and Woias (2008) and by Paquin and St-Amant
(2009). Those studies looked at rectangular and triangu-
lar beams, concluding that there was little improvement
in efficiency in triangular beams, but the beams did
permit greater excitation amplitude. Our motivation is
to optimize over a larger range of shapes and tip masses
to further exhaust the possibilities for beam shape to
effect greater power output.
These beams are designed as cantilevered bimorph
transverse vibrators with tip mass, with a constant
layer thickness — the beam’s total thickness does not
vary. Instead, the beam width is adjusted to affect the
strain distribution throughout the length of the beam, to
provide increased transduction efficiency at resonance.
PIEZOELECTRIC CANTILEVER MODELING
The piezoelectric bimorph is modeled as a coupled
electromechanical system (Figure 1). The beam is
x elements inside the beam are constrained to one dimen-
w(x )
M
y (x,t)
tp
tp ts
M R
.. L Z t2
z(t)
Figure 1. A piezoelectric bimorph schematic.
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at OREGON STATE UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014
composed of a brass substrate (thickness ts) sandwiched
between two layers of piezoelectric ceramic (thickness
tp), polarized in the same direction so that they can be
operated in parallel. When a voltage is applied across
the beams toward the brass substrate, one layer expands
as the other contracts. The alternative configuration,
where the beams are polarized for series operation, is
not discussed. The width of the beam is allowed to
vary along its length, but the piezoelectric and substrate
widths are identical.
Each piezoelectric ceramic layer is sandwiched
between two electrode surfaces. These provide a uniform
voltage along each surface of the ceramic, akin to a par-
allel plate capacitor. The ceramic layers’ electric fields
are uniform due to the assumptions that the electrodes
are perfect conductors (and thus the voltage at all points
along the electrode is the same) and the ceramic has a
uniform dielectric constant. Although the strain and
electric displacement are functions of the electric field,
they adjust themselves according to the material’s con-
stitutive laws. The electrodes assumed to be thin enough
to have no effect on the mechanical properties of the
beam, but only to facilitate electromechanical coupling
in the piezoceramic layers.
The two ceramics are wired in parallel with each other
and with a load resistor R. This resistor provides an elec-
tric load, and prevents the high-impedance measuring
devices (oscilloscope and dynamic signal analyzer) from
affecting the system performance. This simple circuit
does not approximate any practical energy harvesting
circuitry, but it helps to characterize the electromechani-
cal parts of the complete device. Thus, the model of the
mechanical and electrical behavior of the piezoelectric
will permit development of the power circuitry, which
could be easily coupled to the beam model.
The Euler—Bernoulli model is appropriate for handling
transverse vibrations of composite beams that are suffi-
ciently long and slender. Its main assumptions that
distinguish it from more sophisticated modeling techni-
ques are that all motions occur in plane (i.e., that mass
sion), and that shear strain and rotational inertia are
neglected.
Mathematical Model
Hagood et al. (1990) provides a good starting point to
model piezoelectric cantilevers using Hamilton’s princi-
ple. This approach is later followed by Sodano et al.
(2004), but since it assumes a constant beam width w,
the system matrices must be re-derived for this system.
In this Hamiltonian system, the dynamics can be con-
structed from the integral of action given here:
½ðT  U þ We Þ þ W þ Ddt ¼ 0: ð1Þ
t1
 Beam Shape Optimization for Power Harvesting 635

The terms in the equation are the kinetic energy T If the tip mass is allowed to rotate, however, the
and potential energy U of the vibrating beam, the kinetic energy term expands to include the additional
stored energy We in the electric field of the piezoelec- translational and rotational kinetic energies:
tric device, and the applied work W. The sum: T —
Z   " 
U þ We is called the Lagrangian La. There is also a 1 L
@yðx, tÞ 2 1 @yðL, tÞ 2
dissipation function D that will account for the energy T¼ l wðxÞ dx þ M0
2 0 @t 2 @t
lost in the resistor. In an elastic body, we must
account for the energies at all points within the struc- 2  2 #
ture; hence they will take the form of volume @yðL, tÞ @2 yðL, tÞ lm h2m @2 yðL, tÞ
þ lm þ þ ,
integrals. @t @t@x 3 12 @t@x
To apply this to a bimorph piezoelectric bender, we ð5Þ
assume that the motion of the beam is constrained to
the transverse direction, that only one component of which has an effect on the calculated dynamics when the
u, y(x,t), is non-zero. Furthermore, strain in the beam tip mass to beam mass ratio a is high.
can be expressed as a function of the displacement
y(x,t) and its spatial partial derivatives. We also Potential Energy
assume that the electric field in each piezoceramic
layer is equal (but opposite sign due to symmetry) Mechanical potential energy U is the energy stored in
and has a scalar value E. Also, the electric field the elastic elements due to deformation. It is the integral
inside the (conducting) substrate is 0. of the dot product of the strain vector S and the stress
vector T:
Z
Kinetic Energy 1 T
U¼ S TdV: ð6Þ
V2
The first integral is the kinetic energy:
Due to the assumption that there is strain in the axial
Z direction (the x-direction), we represent the strain with
1 T
T¼ _u u_ dV: ð2Þ the scalar S. The axial strain in a beam undergoing
V2
bending is proportional to the curvature of the beam,
as expressed by the displacement’s second spatial deriv-
The equation considers the motions of infinitesimal ative. The strain is also a function of position within the
elements of the elastic structure; each element has den- material; it is proportional to the distance ŷ from the
sity q and velocity vector u_ . Applying the assumption of neutral axis:
planar motion, there is only one non-zero component of
the velocity field, @yðx, tÞ=@t. @2 yðx, tÞ
S ¼ y^ : ð7Þ
Since, the velocity is applied in this single direction, @x2
the y-z sections can be considered as solid elements
vibrating uniformly with a single mass and displace- This is derived from the Euler—Bernoulli beam model
ment. The mass of an infinitesimal slice of the beam is: (see, for instance, Inman, 2001).
m ¼ wðxÞ s ts þ 2p tp dx, where s and p are the den- To calculate the stress in the beam, we use the mate-
sities of the substrate and piezoelectric layers, respec- rial constitutive equations in one dimension. Here is the
tively. The term: constitutive law for the center shim:
  1
l ¼ s ts þ 2p tp ð3Þ Ts ¼ Ss : ð8Þ
ss
will be used as shorthand throughout this exposition. The stress Ts is equal to the strain divided by the
The tip mass’s energy is also considered here. It is a compliance ss. The piezoceramic’s relationships are
rigid block of mass M0, and it is constrained to move more complicated, in that the electric field also adds to
in one direction. After integrating in the y- and z- the material’s stress:
directions, the kinetic energy of the beam-mass structure
simplifies to: 1 d
Tp ¼ E
Sp  E E: ð9Þ
sp sp
Z    
1 L
@yðx, tÞ 2 1 @yðL, tÞ 2 Thus, the stress in the piezoelectric element is equal to
T¼ l wðxÞ dx þ M0 : ð4Þ
2 0 @t 2 @t the sum of the mechanical stress and the stress due
to piezoelectric effect. The mechanical stress is identical

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at OREGON STATE UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014
636 J. M. DIETL AND E. GARCIA

to that of the non-piezoelectric shim (strain divided by The constant gs equals the shim compliance divided
compliance), except for a different compliance coeffi- by the piezoelectric compliance. Then the ŷ integral can
cient SEp . Here the superscript denotes the value of the be evaluated, leaving an integral in x multiplied by a
compliance measured at a constant electric field. group of coefficients independent of the beam shape
The electrically induced stress is proportional to the elec- and motion:
tric field with a coefficient of the piezoelectric coupling
coefficient d divided by the compliance. Z L  2 2
1 I0w @ yðx, tÞ
To evaluate the potential energy, it is necessary to sub- Us þ UpS ¼ wðxÞ dx: ð15Þ
2 sEp 0 @x2
divide the volume of the beam into the substrate and
piezoelectric parts. Fortunately, the additive nature of
integration encourages this. Thus the stress at a point in I0w, the term in the square brackets in Equation (14),
the substrate is (using Equations (7) and (8)): is a coefficient derived from the composite nature of the
beam, equal to the moment of inertia of the beam’s cross
1 1 @2 yðx, tÞ section divided by the cross section’s width:
Ts ¼ Sðx, t, y^ Þ ¼  y^ : ð10Þ
ss ss @x2
Z ts =2 Z ts =2þtp Z ts =2
Izz ðxÞ
The stress in the piezoelectric is (using Equations (7) I0w ¼ s y^ 2 dy^ þ y^ 2 dy^ þ y^ 2 dy^ ¼ :
ts =2 ts =2 ts =2tp wðxÞ
and (9)):
ð16Þ
2
1 d 1 @ yðx, tÞ d
Tp ¼ Sðx, t, y^ Þ  E E ¼  E y^  E E: ð11Þ This is a constant, dependent only on the layer’s thick-
sEp sp sp @x2 sp
nesses and compliance.
The potential energy term dependent on the electric
The piezoelectric stress has two terms, one proportional field is an integral over the volume, first evaluated in the
to strain, and one proportional to electric field. These z-direction:
terms will also be separated into manageable integrals.
The potential energy term integrates strain times the Z !
L 2
stress within the volume of the material: 1 @ yðx, tÞ d
UpE ¼
2 0 @x2 sEp
U ¼ Us þ UpS þ UpE , ð12Þ "Z Z #
ts =2þtp ts =2
 EðtÞwðxÞ ^ y^ þ
yd ^ y^ dx: ð17Þ
yd
ts =2 ts =2tp
where we recombine the piezoelectric and shim terms
that do not depend on electric field. The resulting inte-
grals can be evaluated over width (z-direction): Again, the terms dependent on ŷ can be separated out
and integrated independently of the integral in x. This
Z L Z ts =2  2 leaves:
1 y^ 2 @2 yðx, tÞ
Us þ UpS ¼ wðxÞ dy^ dx
2 ss @x2 Z
1 d
0 ts =2 L
@2 yðx, tÞ
Z  2 UpE ¼  ts tp þ t2p E EðtÞ wðxÞ dx: ð18Þ
L Z tp þts =2 2 sp @x2
1 y^ 2 @2 yðx, tÞ 0
þ wðxÞ ^ ...
dydx
2 0 ts =2 sEp @x2

Z L Z ts =2  2 Electric Potential Energy

1 y^ 2 @2 yðx, tÞ
þ wðxÞ ^
dydx:
2 0 ts =2tp sEp @x2
The electrical potential energy is the integral of the
ð13Þ electric field E times the electric displacement D:

The terms dependant on ŷ can be separated: Z

1 T
We ¼ E DdV: ð19Þ
" Z Z ts =2þtp Z ts =2 # V2
ts =2
11 2 2 2
Us þ UpS ¼ E s y^ dy^ þ y^ dy^ þ y^ dy^
2 sp ts =2 ts =2 ts =2tp
When an electric field is applied to a dielectric mate-
Z L  2 2 rial, the poled molecules in the material deform in
@ yðx,tÞ
 wðxÞ dx: ð14Þ response. This electrical deformation is called the electric
0 @x2 displacement.

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at OREGON STATE UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014
 Beam Shape Optimization for Power Harvesting 637

Once again, it is necessary to consider the constitutive In fact, if we were to measure the capacitance of the
equations of the piezoelectric: beam it would equal to this:
Z
d "S L
Dp ¼ Sp þ "S E: ð20Þ Cb ¼ 2 wðxÞdx: ð27Þ
sEp tp 0

The equation for electric displacement is similar to Applied Forces and Charges
that for stress (Equation (9)); all the terms are familiar
save for eS, the dielectric constant evaluated at constant Finally, we allow for external forces and charges to be
strain. Also, it is noted that the electric field in the sub- applied to the structure. These are accounted for in this
strate is identically zero, so that there is no electric applied work integral:
potential energy to be evaluated there. The expression
ETD becomes a scalar and dependent only on y(x, t) and Z
E (Equations (20) and (7)): @W ¼ u  fdV  @IðtÞ: ð28Þ
V
@2 yðx, tÞ d
EDp ¼ y^ E þ "S E2 ð21Þ
@x2 sEp There are two terms. The first is the applied mechan-
ical work to the structure, the integral of the displace-
We can now evaluate Equation (19), but first it is easier ment field (of the infinitesimal mass elements of the
to separate the equation into two integrals: one for structure) u dotted with the force distribution f. The
terms solely dependent on the electrical characteristics, second term is the applied electrical work, the current
and one with both electrical and mechanical components. into the capacitor (rate of charge accumulation) times
Thus: the flux linkage  on the electrodes.
For this analysis, the applied force on the beam is a
We ¼ WeS þ WeE : ð22Þ base excitation, and the applied charges are the coupling
of the piezoelectric electrodes to an RC circuit. The base
First, the mechanically dependent integral is identical excitation is given by an applied acceleration a(t) to the
to Equation (17), with opposite sign: mass of the beam:
Z !
1 L @2 yðx, tÞ d Z L
We S ¼ @Wf ¼ fðx, tÞdx
2 0 @x2 sEp 0
"Z Z ts =2 # Z L
ts =2þtp
EðtÞwðxÞ ^ y^ þ
yd ^ y^ dx:
yd ¼ l wðxÞ@yðx, tÞdx þ M0 @yðL, tÞ aðtÞ: ð29Þ
ts =2 ts =2tp 0

ð23Þ
The base excitation is an acceleration of the root of
It is simplified as before: the beam, constrained to the transverse direction. This
manifests itself in the beam equations as a distributed
Z
1 d L
@2 yðx, tÞ force. If the tip mass is allowed to rotate, then there is a
We S ¼ ts tp þ t2p E EðtÞ wðxÞ dx: ð24Þ grander expression for the mechanical work input:
2 sp 0 @x2
"Z
L
Wf ¼ l wðxÞ@yðx, tÞdx
The other integral is pure energy storage in an electric 0
field. It resembles the energy stored in a parallel plate 
#
capacitor: Lm @yðx, tÞ

þM0 @yðL, tÞ þ @ aðtÞ: ð30Þ

Z Z 2 @x
x¼L
1 L ts =2þtp
We E ¼ EðtÞ2 wðxÞ"S dy^
2 0 ts =2 The extra term accounts for the center of mass of the
Z ts =2 tip mass being offset from the end of the beam by a
þ EðtÞ2 wðxÞ"S dydx:
^ ð25Þ distance of ½Lm.
ts =2tp
The electrical work on the beam is:
By separating out the ŷ integral, we arrive at a simpler
expression for the energy in the electric field: @WQ ¼ 2IðtÞ@: ð31Þ
ZL
WeE ¼ "S tp EðtÞ2 wðxÞdx: ð26Þ The current, I(t), is determined by the external circuit
0 elements connected to the beam. A dissipation function

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at OREGON STATE UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014
638 J. M. DIETL AND E. GARCIA

D is the simplest way to account for the resistor’s effect Finally, we introduce the flux linkage , whose deriv-
on the system. In this case, the function is: ative is equal to the voltage:

1 _2 _ ¼ V: ð38Þ
D¼ : ð32Þ
2R
This aids in the resolution of the Hamiltonian into
Rayleigh—Ritz ordinary differential equations for the behavior of the
whole electromechanical system (Crandall, 1968).
It is necessary to put the terms of the Hamiltonian After replacing substituting for y(x,t) and E in
into an accessible form. Since the coordinate y(x, t), a Equations (4), (15), (18), (24), (26), (30), (31), and (32)
function of two independent variables, is unwieldy, the we can assemble the integral of action (for the
principle of separation of variables used. We set y(x, t) non-rotating tip mass case):
equal to the product of two vector variables, one depen-
dent on space and the other on time. Thus: Z t2   
@ T  Us þ UpS  UpE þ WeS þ WeE
t1
yðx, tÞ ¼ ðxÞT qðtÞ: ð33Þ  
þ @ Wf þ WQ þ @Ddt ¼ 0, ð39Þ
The space-dependent variable ðxÞ is a vector of ( Z
Z t2
assumed mode shapes. Analytical formulas for the 1 L  2 1  2
mode shapes of an arbitrary beam are unknown, but @ l wðxÞ ðxÞT q_ ðtÞ dx þ M0 ðLÞT q_ ðtÞ
t1 2 0 2
the mode shapes for a slender prismatic beam with a
tip mass is known (see, for instance, Inman, 2001). Z L Z L
"S 1 I0w  2
They are selected to be admissible solutions to the þ _2 wðxÞdxþ E wðxÞ 00
ðxÞT qðtÞ dx
tp 0 2 sp 0
Euler—Bernoulli beam equation for a prismatic beam
)
with the same boundary conditions as our composite   d ZL
T
beam. The general form for the mode shape of the  ts tp þ t2p _ wðxÞ 00
ðxÞ qðtÞdx
tp sEp 0
k-th mode is:
(Z
L
sin k þ sinh k þ@ l wðxÞ ðxÞT qðtÞdx þ M0 ðxÞT qðtÞ aðtÞ
k ðxÞ ¼ C1 sin k x  sinh k x  0
cos k þ cosh k
! )
_2
 ðcos k x  cosh k xÞ , ð34Þ 2IðtÞ@_ þ @ dt ¼ 0: ð40Þ
2R

where k is a natural frequency of vibration determined Lagrange’s equation for the system is:
from the characteristic equation:
d @La @La @D
 þ ¼ F, ð41Þ
1 dt @_q @q @_q
ðcos  cosh  þ 1Þ þ ðcos  sinh   sin  cosh Þ ¼ 0,

ð35Þ d @La @La @D
 þ ¼ IðtÞ: ð42Þ
dt @_ @ @_
and a is the ratio of the tip mass to the mass of the rest
of the beam: These are Lagrange’s equations, generalized for an
electromechanical system (see, for instance, Moon,
M0 1998). After evaluating the derivatives, we are left with
¼ : ð36Þ two sets of ordinary differential equations that describe
mbeam
the motion of the beam:
For shorthand, we use the dot symbol ( ) for time
derivatives, and the prime (0 ) symbol for x derivatives. M€qðtÞ þ KqðtÞ  ?VðtÞ ¼ uaðtÞ, ð43Þ
We want to use the electric field to compute the volt-
age V across the piezoelectric beams, so we use the linear
assumption: and the electronics:
V 1
E¼ : ð37Þ Cb V_ ðtÞ þ VðtÞ ¼ ?T q_ ðtÞ: ð44Þ
tp R

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at OREGON STATE UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014
 Beam Shape Optimization for Power Harvesting 639

These are linear, coupled, time-invariant, ordinary MODEL VERIFICATION

differential equations. The coefficient matrices are
dependent on the width w(x) and the assumed mode To validate the variable-width Euler—Bernoulli
shapes. First, the mass matrix M: model, and to verify the piezoelectric material proper-
ties, a series of tests were conducted. Each beam was
Z L designed to resonate at 28 Hz. These tests are especially
M¼ l wðxÞ ðxÞ ðxÞT dx needed to determine the model’s verisimilitude for
0 non-rectangular beams. The beams were cut from a

T lm 0 T
sheet of piezoelectric bending sensor stock, Piezo
þ M0 ðLÞ ðLÞ þ ðLÞ ðLÞ Systems, Inc.’s T220-A4-503 (Y) bending sensor.
2
Thus, three beam shapes are tested (Figure 2(a)):
2  
lm 0T lm h2m 0 0T
straight (rectangular), tapered (growing thinner toward
þ  þ ðLÞ ðLÞ þ þ ðLÞ ðLÞ : the tip), and reverse tapered (growing wider toward the
2 3 12
tip). The cantilevered sections of each beam have iden-
ð45Þ
tical mass 0.8 g, and all beams have an identical tip mass
of 1.2 g. With the basic shapes of the beams selected,
It is equivalent to the mass matrix in a standard each beam’s length and width were adjusted so that
(non-electromechanical) beam vibration problem. they would have identical area while resonant
It has two terms: the first dependent on the beam density (first mode) at 28 Hz, (hence, the different lengths of
and geometry, and the second is dependent on the tip the beams).
mass. It is a square, symmetric, positive definite matrix For each beam, a parallel resistance is added. The
with size equal to the number of mode shapes. resistance was chosen to match the capacitance of each
Next, the stiffness matrix K: beam at the chosen excitation frequency (Rizzoni, 2003):
Z
I0w L
00 T
1
K¼ E wðxÞ 00
ðxÞ ðxÞdx : ð46Þ R¼ : ð49Þ
sp 0
j!C

We measure the voltage across the piezoelectric using

This matrix is exactly the same as the equivalent stiff-
ness matrix in an Euler—Bernoulli beam. It is also
square, symmetric, and positive definite.
The coupling matrix H is used in both the electrical
and mechanical equations:
  d Z L
2 00
? ¼ ts tp þ tp E wðxÞ
sp tp 0
It depends on mechanical (SEp , u), electrical (d), and
geometric (w, ts, tp) properties of the system.
Finally, the input matrix u couples the base excitation
to the beam motion:
Z L  
u¼ l wðxÞ ðxÞT dx þ M0
0 2
This matrix is in units of mass to multiply with accel-
eration and simulate a force on the beam structure.
The beam model developed here is derived from
the fundamental properties of piezoelectric and
non-piezoelectric materials, and from the standard
assumptions of linear mechanics of bending
structures. When the constraint that each beam has a
constant cross section is applied, the model
collapses to that in du Toit et al. (2005) and in Sodano
et al. (2004).
both the oscilloscope and a Hewlett-Packard 35660A
Dynamic Signal Analyzer — the latter is capable of pro-
viding simultaneous wide-band excitation and measure-
ment. Additionally, the base acceleration is measured,
and thus a frequency response function from the base
excitation to the voltage output of the piezoelectric can
be constructed. The frequency range of the test is
ðxÞdx : ð47Þ selected to cover the first two modes of excitation.
Each beam is excited by random base excitations by a
Brüel & Kjær Type 4809 Shaker Table: the random
signal was sent from the Signal Analyzer to the Brüel
& Kjær Type 2718 Power Amplifier. The measured out-
puts are the base acceleration and the voltage output
from the piezoceramic through the resistor.
Figure 3 shows that the mathematical model of the
system is capable of capturing the effects of the beam
lm
ðLÞ þ 0
ðLÞ : ð48Þ shape variation, including the frequencies of the first
two modes and the shape of the curves between modes.
After each beam’s frequency response function was
measured, the data is utilized to calculate the damping
ratios of the three beams, (using a subspace method in
MATLAB). This information is unmodeled prior to
experiment. Also unmodeled are any torsional modes
of vibration, but they appear in experimental data at a
frequency between the two transverse vibration reso-
nances. These experiments allow the authors to confi-
dently simulate the beam response to base excitation,
and to use such simulations for design and optimization.

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at OREGON STATE UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014
640 J. M. DIETL AND E. GARCIA

Figure 2. (a) Three beams designed and tested, (b) the testing rig complete with signal analyzer, shaker table, and conditioning electronics.

Beam shape=Linear taper, α = 1.5

SIMULATION
(a) 20
Simulated
Experimental
MATLAB is used to simulate the electrical response
0 of a system with a resistive load to a sinusoidal displace-
ment excitation at a given frequency. The equations of
(V(jw)/a(jw) (dB)

motion are linear, and thus the resulting vibratory

–20
motions are easily calculable.
–40
Non-dimensionalization of Equations of Motion

–60 For increased numerical stability and smoother

optimization, the equations of motion were non-
–80 dimensionalized. Using appropriate changes in
101 102 103
Frequency (Hz) variables, we can produce dimensionless equations to
Beam shape=Rectangular, α = 1.5 simplify analysis and simulation. Letting:
(b) 20
Simulated
10 Experimental x y w ~ V t q
x~ ¼ , y~ ¼ , w~ ¼ , V ¼ , t~ ¼ , q~ ¼ , ð50Þ
0 L yþ wþ V0 t0 yþ
(V(jw)/a(jw) (dB)

–10
where the denominators are selected to be on the order
–20 of the variables they reduce. The characteristic time t0, is
–30 the reciprocal of the dimensionless natural frequency of
the bending vibration:
–40
–50 sEp L4 l
t20 ¼ : ð51Þ
–60 I0w
101 102 103
Frequency (Hz)
Beam shape=Reverse taper, α =1.5 The characteristic displacement is the length of the
(c) 10
Simulated
beam:
Experimental
0 yþ ¼ L: ð52Þ
–10 The characteristic voltage V0 is such that the dimen-
(V(jw)/a(jw) (dB)

–20
sionless electromechanical coupling matrix (57) is on the
same order as the mass and stiffness matrices:
–30
l yþ L2 sEp tp
–40 V0 ¼   : ð53Þ
d ts þ tp t20
–50

–60 Finally, the characteristic width wþ is equal to the

101 102 103 average width of the beam:
Frequency (Hz)
Z
1 L
Figure 3. Frequency response functions of the three beams: wþ ¼ wðxÞdx: ð54Þ
(a) linear taper, (b) rectangular, (c) reverse taper. L 0

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at OREGON STATE UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014
 Beam Shape Optimization for Power Harvesting 641

We can define these matrices, which are normalized motivation for these varying cross-section beams to be
dimensionless analogs to the matrices defined in studied, because the electric field is proportional to
Equations (45)—(48): strain over the section, it can be increased by careful
Z1 ( beam shape design (and power, which is a function of
M~ ¼ w~ ðx~ Þ ~ ðx~ Þ ~ ðx~ Þ dx~ þ  ~ ð1Þ ~ T ð1Þ
T electric field squared). Bending strain is proportional to
0 the curvature of the beam; that is the second spatial deriv-
ative of the displacement function, y(x, t). Thus, electric
lm 0 field production is most fruitful when the slope of the
þ ~ ð1Þ ~ T ð1Þ
2L beam is monotonic. This occurs only in the first mode
 2   of vibration, where the curvature never changes sign. In
lm 0T lm h2m 0 0T
þ  þ ~ ð1Þ ~ ð1Þ þ þ ~ ð1Þ ~ ð1Þ , other work (Erturk et al., 2009b), researchers have looked
2L 3L2 12L2 into alternative electrode geometries that can operate in
ð55Þ higher modes without electrical cancellation. This, how-
Z ever, is beyond the scope of the current study.
1
~ ¼
K w~ ðx~ Þ ~ 00 ðx~ Þ ~ 00 ðx~ ÞT dx,
~ ð56Þ Figure 4(a) shows the first three mode shapes for the
0 three tested beams and Figure 4(b) shows the second
Z 1
derivative of the first mode shape for the three beams.
~ ¼
? w~ ðx~ Þ ~ 00 ðx~ Þdx;
~ ð57Þ Each beam’s mode shape resembles the others’ mode
0 shapes, but the effect of the shape change is apparent in
Z 1   the second derivative. The tapered beam has a flatter cur-
lm 0
u~ ¼ w~ ðx~ Þ ~ ðx~ Þdx~ þ  ~ ð1Þ þ ~ ð 1Þ : ð58Þ vature profile than the other two beams, with the
0 2L
reverse-tapered beam’s curvature is more biased toward
the base. Also note the different lengths of the three
By further defining some constants, we can remove beams, as the lengths were selected so that the beams’
almost all dimensionality from the equations. This con- resonance was at the chosen excitation frequency.
stant cˆ characterizes the coupling between the mechan- The strain of each beam (on the outer surface) can be
ical and electrical elements of the beam system. The computed by regarding strain as an output from the
smaller its value, the more the mechanics are affected dynamic equations. The magnitude of the strain is cal-
by the electronics: culated from the frequency response function of
the beam at resonance at each location of interest.
d   yþ Figure 5(a) shows the calculated strain in the beam as
c^ ¼ E
ts þ tp wþ : ð59Þ a function of position in the x-direction. All three beams
Cb Vsp L
have higher strain at the root than the tip, but the strain
This constant scales the base excitation to the dimen- distribution of the reverse-tapered beam is skewed much
sionless scale. It is in units of seconds-squared per meter: more than the rectangular and tapered beams.
For an effect that applies more to the problem of creat-
t20 ing electric field in the piezoceramic, the strain in the
¼ : ð60Þ beam must be weighted by the width of the section being
yþ
strained. Figure 5(b) shows this effect. The large strain at
The resulting differential equations have time deriva- the root of the reverse-tapered beam is modulated by its
tives with respect to the dimensionless time defined in smaller width to produce a similar amount of electric field
Equation (51): to the other two beams. The curves are exactly propor-
 tional to the amount of electrical energy produced along
M~ q€~ þ C
~ q_~ þ K~ ~ E~ ¼ u~ a t~ ,
~q? ð61Þ the length of each beam: the amount of charge carried off
the piezo at a point along its length is proportional to the
_ t0 ~ ~ T q_~ :
V~ þ V ¼ c^? ð62Þ strain there times the width of the section.
Cp R

They retain the same form, except they are scaled by Maximization of Power Output through Shape Change
the input and output constants.
The next problem is to find an optimal width profile
for maximal voltage generation, that is, to minimize the
Strain Distribution as Function of Beam Shape negative of the average voltage squared:
Z
1 T
The different shapes of the beams affect the strain dis- J ¼  lim Vðt, wðxÞ, LÞ2 dt: ð63Þ
T!1 T 0
tribution along the length direction. This is the main

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at OREGON STATE UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014
642 J. M. DIETL AND E. GARCIA

(a) Rayleigh–Ritz mode shapes

1 (b) Rayleigh–Ritz mode shapes
Rectangular Linear taper Reverse taper 1
f1(x)

0.5

f1(x)
0 0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
2
0
f2(x)

1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Rectangular Linear taper Reverse taper
0 3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
2 2

f1„„(x)
f3(x)

0 1

–2 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Position (mm) Position (mm)

Figure 4. (a) Three fundamental mode shapes of the three beams, (b) first mode of the three beams and its second derivative.

Strain distribution for three beams StrainµWidth/mass for three beams

(a) 1.2 µ10–3 (b) 1
Rectangular Rectangular
Linear taper Linear taper
1 Reverse taper 0.8 Reverse taper
S(x)w(x)/Mtotal (mm/kg)

0.8
0.6
S (x)

0.6
0.4
0.4

0.2
0.2

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Position (mm) Position (mm)

Figure 5. (a) Strain in the three beams as a function of x position, (b) strain times width as a function of the x position.

Other variables are kept constant: shim thickness, unrealistic mechanical defects (e.g., zero width, extreme
piezo thickness, total mass, tip mass, patch configura- thinness, etc.).
tion, electrode configuration, and total beam area are Goldschmidtboeing’s and Woias’s (2008) finding that
kept constant. We do allow for a wide variety of beam their triangular beam allowed higher excitation ampli-
shapes, however. Beam shapes are defined through the tude, and therefore was capable of producing more
function w~ ðx~ Þ the width of the beam as a function of absolute power than the standard rectangular beam is
position on its length. In this case, the function is a also addressed. Here we introduce a new optimization
polynomial: cost function:
Z
1 T
w~ ðx~ Þ ¼ a0 þ a1 x~ þ a2 x~ 2 þ    ð64Þ J ¼  lim Vðt, wðxÞ, L, aÞ2 dt ð65Þ
T!1 T 0

The coefficients determine the beam shape. For exam-

ple, the linearly tapered beam has two terms in this func- that includes the amplitude of the sinusoidal base exci-
tion. It is helpful to limit the number of terms in the tation aðtÞ ¼ a cosð!tÞ. With the total mass still con-
polynomial for both computational and mechanical rea- strained, the base excitation is allowed to grow until
sons. As the number of terms increases, the computa- the root strain reaches a maximum; that is, a new con-
tional time increases, but the complexity of the shape straint, maximum strain at the root of the beam (where
increases as well. stress concentrations are the greatest), is added.
In addition to the width profile, the total length of the The optimization is conducted through a constrained
beam is a variable under investigation in the optimiza- MATLAB pattern search algorithm followed by a gra-
tion. With L selected, the constant wþ is calculated to dient search to find the local optimum.
maintain constant area. A linear constraint is necessary Additionally, we perform a study of the effect of the
to ensure that the shape has the correct size and has no variation of the tip-mass/beam-mass ratio and excitation

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at OREGON STATE UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014
 Beam Shape Optimization for Power Harvesting 643

Table 1. The power (watts) through the resistor from the three original beams and the optimized
beams in simulation.

Beam shape Rectangular Linear taper Reverse taper Optimal linear Optimal curved

Power (W) 0.0331 0.0326 0.0325 0.0334 0.0334

(a) Beam shape (b) Beam shape

2
3
2
Beam width (mm)

Beam width (mm)

1
1
0 0
–1
–1
–2
–2 –3
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
x (mm) x (mm)

Figure 6. Beam shapes: (a) linear optimal beam, (b) curved optimal beam.

frequency on the performance of a rectangular beam.

Rayleigh-Ritz mode shapes
This study, more of a parameter space exploration 1
than an optimization, still requires the length of the
beam to be optimized so that it would resonate at the
f1(x)
0.5
given excitation frequency. For this, only the gradient
search was required for each combination of given Rectangular
0
excitation frequency and tip-mass/beam-mass ratio. 0 10 20 30 Linear taper
The terms of (63) were fixed so that the beam remained Reverse taper
4 Linear optimal
rectangular.
Curved optimal
f1„„(x)

2
RESULTS
0
Shape Optimization at Constant Base Excitation 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Position (mm)
The first optimization is performed on a beam with a
linear profile. Thus only two terms in the polynomial Figure 7. The first mode (above) and second derivative (below) of
the first mode for four beams.
expansion for w~ ðx~ Þ were non-zero. The pattern search
finds a suitable beam with greater power output
than the three previously tested beams (Table 1).
The beam’s shape can be seen in Figure 6(a). With a Additionally, the frequency response of the two opti-
power output of 0.033354 W, the optimized beam mal beams is not much different from that of the rect-
achieves a 0.52% increase in performance over the rect- angular beam (Figure 9). This means that the
angular beam. Next, we expanded the search to beams increased power output has no effect on the bandwidth
with curvature (on a fifth-order polynomial basis). of the structure, which could possibly have been
The search algorithm similarly found a shape slightly compromised.
superior in power output to the rectangular and optimal
linear beams (Figure 6(b)). It has no performance
increase over the linear beam. Shape Optimization with Variable Amplitude
Figure 7 shows the mode shapes for the linear optimal Base Excitation
and curved optimal beams. These beams closely match
the rectangular beam, except that they are slightly more The next issue is whether there is an optimal shape to
curved at the root. This is the cause of the increased allow the beam to withstand a maximum base excitation
strain at the root of the beams in Figure 8(a). without failing mechanically. A new optimization pro-
Figure 8(b) shows that this increased strain at the root cedure is used with the power output of the beam still to
of the beams is not compromised by the decreased be maximized but with variable base excitation (66). The
width; this explains the increased power output. resulting beam shape and its frequency response is

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at OREGON STATE UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014
644 J. M. DIETL AND E. GARCIA

–3 Strain distribution for five beams Strain µ Width/mass for five beams
(a) 1 µ10 1.5
Rectangular (b)
Rectangular
Linear taper Linear taper

S(x)w(x)/Mtotal (mm/kg)
0.8
Reverse taper Reverse taper
Linear optimal 1 Linear optimal
0.6 Curved optimal Curved optimal
S(x)

0.4
0.5

0.2

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Position (mm) Position (mm)

Figure 8. (a) The strain distribution in five beams, (b) strain times width for five beams.

Frequency response Tip Mass-to-Beam Mass Ratio Effect

40

This problem has additional interesting results. As the

20 tip mass is increased, the optimal length of the beam
|V(jw)/a(jw)| (dB)

Rectangular monotonically decreases and approaches an asymptotic

0 Linear taper
–20
–40
–60
101 102
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 9. The frequency response of the five beams.
shown in Figure 10. As Goldschmidtboeing and Woias
observed, the optimal beam has a wider root than tip,
but this optimal beam also includes a widening at
the tip, perhaps to permit greater bending at that
section.
As a mark of comparison, the optimization is run with
the shapes of the beams constrained to those of the three
tested beams: straight, tapered, and reverse tapered.
Their strain and strain by width distributions are
shown in Figure 11. This shows how the beams compare
to the new optimum. Since the magnitude of the output
voltage is roughly proportional to the amplitude of the
strain times the width, Figure 11(b) shows how the opti-
mized beam outperforms the others. It allows such a
greater base excitation that it achieves a greater area
under the strain times width curve and produces the
most voltage and power.
This result is also invertible; with a given power requi-
rement and base excitation, the mass of the optimal
beam is lower than that of the equivalent rectangular
beam, while not exceeding the maximum allowable
strain.
value (Figure 12(a)). Similarly, while the power initially
Reverse taper decreases as tip mass is increased (albeit by very little),
Linear optimal the power begins to increase at a tip-mass/beam-mass
Curved optimal ratio of approximately 0.1 (Figure 12(b)). The power
approaches a new asymptote approximately 20%
higher than the power output with no tip mass.
This is partially explained by the qualitative change in
103 the beam’s behavior as tip mass/beam mass ratio is
increased. When a is increased from zero to infinite, the
boundary conditions of the beam are effectively changed.
A tip mass of zero corresponds to the clamped—free
beam, but as the tip mass increases, the end condition
begins to resemble a clamped—clamped beam, and the
system’s eigenvalues reflect this (Figure 13). The lowest
eigenvalue approaches zero as the tip mass is increased
and the first mode is attenuated. The second eigenvalue
decreases as well, and this mode becomes the primary
mode at extremely high a. This high ratio of a greater
than 100, however, is not realistic. In Figure 12 the
point of diminishing returns occurs around a ¼ 10, but
the first mode remains active there.
CONCLUSIONS
Through modeling the vibration of a piezoelectric
bimorph, the authors have demonstrated that adjusting
the shape of the bimorph can significantly affect
piezoelectric transduction. The Euler—Bernoulli/
Rayleigh—Ritz model of bending vibration is applied
to a series of long, slender beams with tip masses.
These beams all exhibit the behavior predicted by the
model, accurately matching the first and second modes
of vibration. With these results, it can be reasonably
assumed that an optimal beam shape can be discovered

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at OREGON STATE UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014
 Beam Shape Optimization for Power Harvesting 645

(a) Beam shape, a=1.5 (b) Beam shape = Optimal, a=1.5

2 60

40

Beam width (mm)

|V(jw)/a(jw)| (dB)
1
20
0
0
–1 –20

–2 –40 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 102 103
Frequency (Hz)
x (mm)

Figure 10. (a) The optimal shape for maximal output with varying input amplitude, (b) frequency response of the same beam.

(a) Strain distribution (b) Strain × Width/mass

0.015 6
Rectangular Rectangular
Linear taper 5 Linear taper
Reverse taper Reverse taper
0.01 4 Optimal
Optimal
S(x)

0.005 2
1

0 0
0 0 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Position (mm)
Position (mm)

Figure 11. (a) Strain distribution for the three original beams with root strain maximized, (b) strain times width distribution for the beams with
root strain maximized.

(a) Optimal length vs a (b) Prms vs a

0.05
0.1
Optimal length (m)

0.08 0.04
Prms(W)

0.06
0.04 0.03

10–4 10–2 100 102

a 0.02
10–4 10–2 100 102
15.9 Hz 23.4 Hz 34.3 Hz 50.3 Hz a

Figure 12. (a) The optimal beam length as frequency and tip-mass vary, (b) the power output of beams with optimal length as frequency and
tip-mass vary.

a=0 a =106
(a) 5 (b) 2 2

4 1.5
1
3 b1 1
f(x)
f(x)

0
b

b2
2 0.5

1 –1
0

0 –20 –0.5
100 105 0.5 1 0 0.5 1
a x/L x/L

Figure 13. (a) Straight-beam eigenvalues as a function of a, (b) eigenfunctions for two cases of a.

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at OREGON STATE UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014
646 J. M. DIETL AND E. GARCIA
that produces the maximal voltage output from a given
source of base excitation, constrained by mass and
piezoelectric geometry (e.g., thickness, maximum
length). Additionally, there is perhaps an opportunity
to search among configurations where the tip
mass-beam mass ratio is variable as well.
Optimal beams are found to improve the power trans-
duction from sinusoidal base excitation to electrical
power. This result contributes to the increase in of
power output in energy harvesting devices constrained
by mass, or to decrease the mass of such devices in
power constrained situations.
We have shown that beams with non-uniform width
can be manufactured and tested. Although no beams of
non-linear width profile were constructed, we believe
these to be within the grasp of current piezoceramic
manufacturing technologies and can be an inexpensive
method to increase energy harvesting performance.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the NDSEG
fellowship for financial support and Eric Wolff for help
constructing the piezoelectric beams.
REFERENCES
Bozkurt, A., Gilmour, R., Sinha, A., Stern, D. and Lal, A. 2009.
‘‘Insect Machine Interface Based Neuro Cybernetics,’’ IEEE
Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 56(6):1727—1733.
Crandall, S.H., Karnopp, D.C., Kurtz Jr, E.F. and Pndmore-Brown,
D.C. 1968. Dynamics of Mechanical and Electromechanical
Systems, pp. 291—326, Robert E Krieger Publishing Co.,
Malabar, Florida.
duToit, N.E., Wardle, B.L. and Kim, S.-G. 2005. ‘‘Design Considera-
tions for MEMS-Scale Piezoelectric Mechanical Vibration
Energy Harvesters,’’ Integrated Ferroelectrics, 71:121—160.
Erturk, A. and Inman, D.J. 2008. ‘‘A Distributed Parameter
Electromechanical Model for Cantilevered Piezoelectric
Energy Harvesters,’’ Journal of Vibrations and Acoustics,
130:041002—1.
Erturk, A. and Inman, D.J. 2009. ‘‘An Experimentally Validated
Bimorph Cantilever Model for Piezoelectric Energy Harvesting
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at OREGON STATE UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014
from Base Excitations,’’ Smart Materials and Structures,
18:025009.
Erturk, A., Renno, J.M. and Inman, D.J. 2009a. ‘‘Modeling of
Piezoelectric Energy Harvesting from an L-shaped Beam-mass
Structure with an Application to UAVs,’’ Journal of Intelligent
Material Systems and Structures, 20:529—544.
Erturk, A., Tarazaga, P.A., Farmer, J.R. and Inman, D.J. 2009b.
‘‘Effect of Strain Nodes and Electrode Configuration on
Piezoelectric Energy Harvesting from Cantilevered Beams,’’
ASME Journal of Vibration and Acoustics, 131:011010.
Goldfarb, M. and Jones, L.D. 1999. ‘‘On the Efficiency of
Electric Power Generation with Piezoelectric Ceramic,’’ ASME
Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control,
121:566—571.
Goldschmidtboeing, F. and Woias, P. 2008. ‘‘Characterization of
Different Beam Shapes for Piezoelectric Energy Harvesting,’’
Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering, 18:104013.
Hagood, N.W., Chung, W.H. and von Flotow, A. 1990. ‘‘Modeling of
Piezoelectric Actuator Dynamics for Active Structural Control,’’
Journal of Intelligent Materials Systems and Structures,
1:327—354.
Inman, D.J. 2001. Engineering Vibration, 2nd edn, pp. 458—468,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Liao, Y. and Sodano, H.A. 2008. ‘‘Model of a Single Mode energy
Harvester and Properties for Optimal Power Generation,’’ Smart
Materials and Structures, 17:065026.
Moon, F.C. 1998. Applied Dynamics with Applications to Multibody
and Mechatronic Systems, pp. 401—407, John Wiley and Sons,
New York.
Paquin, S. and St-Amant, Y. 2009. ‘‘Electromechanical Performances
of Different Shapes of Piezoelectric Energy Harvesters,’’
In: Proceedings of the Cansmart 2009 International Workshop
on Smart Materials and Structures, 22—23 October, Montreal,
Quebec, Canada, pp. 187—196.
Reissman, T. and Garcia, E. 2008. ‘‘Surgically Implanted
Energy Harvesting Devices for Renewable Power Sources in
Insect Cyborgs,’’ In: ASME International Mechanical
Engineering Congress and Exposition, October 31 to
November 6, Boston, MA.
Rizzoni, G. 2003. Principles and Applications of Electrical Engineering,
4th edn, p. 360, McGraw Hill, Boston.
Roundy, S. and Wright, P.K. 2004. ‘‘A Piezoelectric Vibration Based
Generator for Wireless Electronics,’’ Smart Materials and
Structures, 13:1131—1142.
Sodano, H.A., Park, G. and Inman, D.J. 2004. ‘‘Estimation of Electric
Charge Output for Piezoelectric Energy Harvesting,’’ Strain,
40:49—58.
Timoshenko, S., Young, D.H. and Weaver, W. 1974. Vibration
Problems in Engineering, 4th edn, pp. 415—431, John Wiley and
Sons, New York.