Current Applied Physics 18 (2018) 905–911

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Current Applied Physics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cap

Analysis of the energy extracted by a harvester based on a piezoelectric tile T

a a a,∗ b b,d
Furio Cascetta , Alessandro Lo Schiavo , Aldo Minardo , Marilena Musto , Giuseppe Rotondo ,
Alessio Calcagnic
a
Università degli Studi della Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale e dell’Informazione, via Roma 29, 81031 Aversa CE, Italy
b
Università degli Studi di Napoli, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale, P. le Tecchio 80, 80125 Napoli, Italy
c
Luche S.r.l., via Cagliari 215, 09012 Capoterra CA, Italy
d
ITT Marie Curie, Via Argine, 902, 80147 Napoli NA, Italy

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this paper, we analyze the maximum energy that can be extracted from a piezoelectric harvester subject to
Energy harvesting pulsed excitation, with an interface circuit composed by a standard bridge rectifier. We show that the optimal
Piezoelectricity voltage of the DC load of the bridge rectifier is a fraction, comprised between 1/3 and ½, of the open-circuit
Vibration voltage, depending on the piezoelectric losses and excitation time. A simple analytical model is provided, whose
accuracy has been assessed against SPICE simulations. Furthermore, preliminary experimental tests carried out
over a commercial piezoelectric tile confirm the validity of the proposed model.

1. Introduction tile deployment in according to the frequency of pedestrian mobility.

Among the various energy harvesting technologies, piezoelectric
vibration has emerged as a method for harvesting from macro to micro
scale [1–4]. Piezoelectric materials can be designed to handle a wide
range of input frequencies and forces allowing for energy harvesting to
occur. Although studies on piezoelectric energy harvesting systems
have been extensively conducted over the past years [5–7], this appli-
cation is still in development and therefore, its potential has not yet
been fully exploited. Studies based on piezoelectric energy harvesting
from human force include the energy harvested from the bending of
elbow or finger joints [8], implants in the knee joints [9], piezoelectric
modules inserted under the soles of shoes [10–12], or motion of the
human limbs [13]. However, these cases cannot be considered as
macro-sources because of their limited installation area, but in-
dependent units such as piezoelectric tiles can be planted over a wider
area; thus, they can be used as macro-power sources [14].
Key aspects of the use of piezoelectric tiles on a large scale are cost
reduction and quality of harvesting systems. The first aspect mainly
depends on the efficient use of the system, the integration of various
piezoelectric technologies, the reduced device break times by searching
for new materials and designing appropriate energy transfer facilities.
In this regard, Adnan M. Elhalwagy et al. [15] provided a guide to fa-
cilitate embedding piezoelectric tile technology in the designs as a part
of the demanded low energy consumption in the buildings, while
Xiaofeng Li et al. [16] carried out an optimization of the piezoelectric
Their study confirms that selecting high traffic areas is critical for the
optimization of the energy harvesting efficiency; furthermore, the or-
ientation of the tile pavement significantly affects the total amount of
the harvested energy. The second aspect depends on the efficiency in
transferring mechanical energy from the environment to the piezo-
electric material, and on the coupling between the piezoelectric mate-
rial and the electronic circuits for rectifying, regulating electricity and
storing the energy. From the design point of view, the biggest challenge
in transferring the mechanical energy to the piezoelectric harvester, is
the low input frequency and acceleration of typical mechanical energy
sources. Most vibrational energy harvesters are designed to operate in
resonance mode and the half-power bandwidth is usually small. As a
result, matching a low frequency and acceleration input to a piezo-
electric harvester architecture becomes challenging.
In this paper, we focus our analysis to a piezoelectric tile employing
direct conversion energy from a human footstep. In particular, we re-
port an analytical model that predicts the optimal DC voltage load in a
piezoelectric tile subjected to a pulsed excitation. We show that the
optimal voltage load is different from the optimal value found in case of
sinusoidal excitation. In particular, the model shows that the optimal
voltage is comprised between 1/3 and ½ of the open-circuit voltage,
depending on the characteristics of the mechanical solicitation, and the
piezoelectric capacitance discharge time. Numerical SPICE simulations,
performed for different durations of the mechanical solicitation, con-
firm the validity of the proposed model. Furthermore, we have

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: aldo.minardo@unicampania.it (A. Minardo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cap.2018.04.015
Received 15 December 2017; Received in revised form 21 March 2018; Accepted 20 April 2018
Available online 25 April 2018
1567-1739/ © 2018 Korean Physical Society. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
F. Cascetta et al. Current Applied Physics 18 (2018) 905–911

characterized the energy extracted from a commercial piezoelectric tile,

under typical load conditions. The analysis of the energy provided by
the tile, as a function of output voltage, confirm the predictions of the
proposed model.

2. Analytical model

Various load circuits have been proposed and demonstrated to

maximize the energy (and the power) extracted from a piezoelectric
harvester. All essentially function by properly regulating the force that
the transducer presents to the mechanical system [17]. The force pre-
sented by the piezoelectric transducer to the mechanical system is in-
fluenced by the impedance and operation of the electrical circuit that is
connected to it. The transducer interface circuit can, therefore, be de-
signed to allow modification of the damping force, and different types
of circuit are capable of modifying the electrical damping by different
amounts. Because of the need to transform the voltage from time-
varying to DC, the most widely used circuit connected to a piezoelectric
harvester is a standard bridge rectifier with a DC smoothing capacitor.
The voltage level of the DC capacitor significantly influences the force
presented by the transducer to the mechanical system and, hence, the
power extracted by the harvester. This justifies the significant research
efforts both to model the dependence of the extracted power from the
DC voltage level [17,18], and to actively regulate this voltage level
through MPPT (Maximum Power Point Tracking) algorithms im-
plemented in DC/DC switching converters [19]. Although most of the
studies and results are focused on purely sinusoidal mechanical vibra-
tions, there exist no less significant cases where mechanical vibrations
are not sinusoidal, as in the case of piezoelectric harvesters placed in
floor tiles. Therefore, the principal aim of our analysis is determining
the optimal dc voltage ensuring the maximum energy (and power)
extracted from the tile, for any mechanical stress applied on it. Fig. 2. Voltage and current waveforms under impulsive forcing.
We start our analysis from the model expressed in Ref. [18], which
governs the piezoelectric vibrator under the spring mass damper ap- As Eq. (2) suggests, the electrical current ip provided by the piezo-
proximation: electric element is proportional to the displacement velocity u˙ (t ) . Under
the action of a footstep, we assume that the relevant quantities follow
Mu¨ (t ) + ηm u˙ (t ) + ΘVp (t ) = F (t ), (1) the temporal behavior depicted in Fig. 2. In particular, the displacement
is supposed to follow a trapezoidal waveform, with a rise time equal to
− Θu˙ (t ) + Cp V˙ p (t ) = −ic (t ) (2) Δ1, a fall time equal to Δ2 , and a uniform forcing interval equal to T . As
indicated in Fig. 2, the time interval Δ1 can be further split in two in-
In Eqs. (1) and (2), u is the displacement of the mass M ; Vp is the
tervals: in the first one, of duration τ1 , the current ip charges the capa-
voltage across the piezoelectric element; F (t ) is the forcing function; ηm
citance Cp up to VDC . The charge placed on Cp during this interval can be
is the damper coefficient; Θ amd Cp are the effective piezoelectric
calculated applying the charge conservation law:
coefficient and capacitance of the piezoelectric element, respectively;
τ1
ic (t ) is the current provided by the piezoelectric vibrator. Under the
common assumption of weak electro-mechanical displacement [17], ∫ (ip − iRp) dt = Cp VDC
0 (3)
any level of damping from the electrical side makes negligible differ-
ence to the velocity of the proof mass. In such a case, the piezoelectric From Eq. (3) we easily derive:
harvester can be simply modeled by a current generator ip (t ) = Θu˙ (t ) VDC
and a shunt capacitance CP . As earlier discussed, the transducer inter- ip τ1 − τ1 = Cp VDC
2 Rp (4)
face circuit is composed by a full-bridge rectifier followed by a DC
smoothing capacitor. Taking into account that the large value of the And therefore:
capacitance makes the voltage variation negligible during a single step, Cp VDC
the DC capacitor is here modeled by a constant voltage source, im- τ1 =
ip − VDC /(2Rp) (5)
posing a voltage VDC . Finally, we add the parallel resistor RP in order to
take into account the leakage loss of the piezoelectric capacitance. The During the second part of the interval, i.e. for τ1 < t < Δ1, the
overall circuit is represented in Fig. 1. voltage Vp keeps stable to VDC as the diodes of rectifiers are on (we
neglect the voltage drop on diodes). During this time, the output cur-
rent is nonzero and the energy transferred to the DC load, i.e. to VDC , is:
Δ1 Δ1
E1 = ∫ (ip − iRp) VDC dt = ∫ (ip − iRp) VDC dt = (Δ1 − τ1) ⎛Ip − VRDCp ⎞ VDC
⎜ ⎟
0 τ1 ⎝ ⎠
Cp VDC VDC ⎞
= ⎜⎛Δ1 − ⎞⎛
⎟ ⎜Ip − ⎟ VDC
⎝ Ip − VDC /(2Rp) ⎠ ⎝ Rp ⎠ (6)
Fig. 1. Schematic of the simplified piezoelectric circuit. It is useful to introduce the quantity Vp oc , which is the open-circuit

906
F. Cascetta et al. Current Applied Physics 18 (2018) 905–911

voltage of the piezoelectric element. This voltage, measured when the dE Ip1
≈ 2Ip1 Δ − 2Cp VDC (2 + α )
bridge rectifier is not connected to the piezoelectric element, reaches a dVDC Ip2 (13)
peak value, which can be calculated following these passages:
Therefore, we achieve:
Δ1
Vp oc Ip2 Δ Ip Δ
∫ (ip − iRp) dt = Cp Vp oc → Ip Δ1 − 2 Rp Δ1 = Cp Vp oc → Vp oc VDC opt = ≈
0 Cp (2 + α ) Cp (2 + α ) (14)
Ip Δ1
= Neglecting loss on resistor Rp , the optimal output voltage can be
Cp + Δ/(2Rp) (7)
expressed as:
Note that the circuit in Fig. 2 only produces power if the voltage rise Vp oc
due to the current source is high enough to cause current to flow to the VDC opt ≈
(15)
2+α
DC load, that is Vp oc > VDC .
From t = Δ1 to t = Δ1 + T , the displacement is constant so that both Equation (15) is the main result of our work: it shows that, in case of
piezoelectric and DC currents are zero. During this time, the voltage on low loss (α ≈ 1, i.e. T ≪ Rp Cp ), the optimal voltage is close to one third
the piezoelectric capacitance discharges by a loss factor α = e−T /(Rp Cp) . of the open-circuit voltage, in contrast with the value of one-half of the
During the second charging phase, the charge placed on Cp is: open-circuit voltage found in Ref. [18], and referring to the case of
Δ1 + T + τ2
sinusoidal forcing. Vice versa, in conditions of high loss
(α ≈ 0, i. e . T ≫ Rp Cp) , the optimal voltage is half the open-circuit
∫ (ip − iRp) dt = Cp (1 + α ) VDC
voltage, as in the sinusoidal case. Note that in case of α ≈ 0 , the ab-
Δ1 + T (8)
solute voltage variation on the capacitance Cp is the same for the po-
where τ2 is the time after which the piezoelectric voltage reaches − VDC . sitive and the negative pulses of ip , that is VDC . A symmetric operation
From Eq. (8) we easily derive: happens also in case of sinusoidal forcing and justifies the same result.
VDC On the other hand, as described above, the operation in the typical case
Ip τ2 − τ2 ≈ Cp (1 + α ) VDC of low piezoelectric losses, is asymmetric and leads to a result different
2 Rp (9)
from the one holding in the sinusoidal case.
Cp VDC (1 + α ) Using the optimal voltage VDC opt expressed by Eq. (15), we derive
τ2 = the maximum energy transferred to the load:
Ip − VDC /(2Rp) (10)
Ip1 Ip2 Δ2
After this time, the voltage Vp keeps stable to − VDC as the diodes of Emax =
Cp (2 + α ) (16)
rectifiers are on, while the DC current is nonzero. In particular, the
energy transferred to the load during this time is: In case of N piezoelectric elements connected in parallel and in-
Δ1+ T + Δ2 terfaced to separate rectifiers, the total energy is:
V
E2 = ∫ (ip − iRp) VDC dt = (Δ2 − τ2) ⎛⎜Ip − DC ⎞⎟ VDC
Rp ⎠ Cp VDC (2 + α ) ⎤
Δ1+ T + τ2 ⎝ ETOT = η N VDC Ip1 ⎡2Δ −
⎢ Ip2 ⎥
Cp VDC (1 + α ) ⎞ ⎛ VDC ⎞ ⎣ ⎦ (17)
= ⎛⎜Δ2 − ⎟ ⎜Ip − ⎟ VDC
⎝ Ip − VDC /(2R )
p ⎠⎝ Rp ⎠ (11) where η is an efficiency factor, which takes into account possible un-
balances between forcing of various transducers. Finally, we note that
Assuming for simplicity Δ1 = Δ2 = Δ, the total energy transferred to the time waveform of current is less important that its area. In fact, the
the load is: extracted energy can be rewritten as:
Cp VDC (2 + α ) ⎤
E = E1 + E2  =  VDC Ip1 ⎡2Δ − ETOT ≈ η N Qp VDC ⎡2 −
Cp VDC (2 + α ) ⎤
⎢ Ip2 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦ (12) Qp (18)
⎣ ⎦
VDC VDC
where Ip1 ≡ Ip − Rp
and Ip2 ≡ Ip − 2Rp
. where Qp = Ip Δ is the total charge generated by the transducer if re-
It should be observed that, according to (12), the energy E trans- sistance loss are neglected.
ferred to the load reduces in the typical case of small piezoelectric
losses, that is when α is large (α ≈ 1). Actually, in this case, T is much 3. Numerical validation
smaller than Rp Cp and the piezoelectric capacitance does not have
enough time to discharge from + VDC to 0V before the second current In order to validate the model presented in the previous section, we
impulse arrives. Thus, the current generator, ip , must reverse the charge have used SPICE to simulate a system composed by three piezoelectric
on the capacitance before it can supply the dc load. As shown in Fig. 2, elements with separate rectifiers, and connected in parallel to the same
the second current impulse in the dc load, idc , is shorter than the first DC load. Each piezoelectric vibrator was modeled with a shunt capa-
impulse, even if the two generated impulses, ip , have equal duration citance Cp = 20 nF and a parallel resistance Rp = 20 M Ω . These
(asymmetric operation). On the other hand, if T is sufficiently large values were chosen based on measurements done on the piezoelectric
(α ≈ 0 ), the capacitance discharges to zero and the second current diaphragms, composing the tile used for the experimental tests pre-
impulse in the dc load, idc , is equal to the first one (symmetric opera- sented later. The other parameters have been chosen as follows:
tion). Ip = 25 μA ; Δ= 85 ms ; T = 200 ms . Finally, we assume an efficiency
Moreover, if we compare the situation here analyzed with that of η = 1. The chosen parameters correspond to a loss factor α ≈ 0.61.
sinusoidal forcing, the currently analyzed case is more advantageous Fig. 3 shows the results of the simulation performed when no vol-
because, when the first positive impulse arrives, the capacitance has no tage generator is connected to the output of the bridge rectifiers, and
charge, while in sinusoidal operation, the capacitance has always a with the three piezoelectric vibrators forced by trapezoidal displace-
charge opposite to the incoming half-wave. ments shifted in time by 100 ms . The displacement applied to each
In order to determine the optimal output voltage, we calculate the piezoelectric element cause a positive and a negative current pulse for
first derivative of energy and put it to zero. For this calculation, we each piezoelectric current generator. The latter first charges and then
assume for simplicity that Ip1 e Ip2 are only weakly dependent on VDC , discharges, together with the resistance Rp, its piezoelectric capaci-
V
i.e. Ip ≫ RDC . In this approximation, we can write: tance, as shown by the piezoelectric voltage waveforms. Due to the
p

907
F. Cascetta et al. Current Applied Physics 18 (2018) 905–911

Fig. 3. SPICE simulation of a system composed by three piezoelectric harvesters connected in parallel, in absence of load: (a) displacements and corresponding input
currents; (b) piezoelectric voltages.

Fig. 4. SPICE simulation of a system composed by three piezoelectric harvesters

Fig. 6. Optimal output voltage (left vertical axis) and maximum energy (right
connected in parallel, with an output voltage of 30 V. The solid line is the ex-
vertical axis), as a function of pulse duration T, as obtained by SPICE simula-
tracted energy, while the dashed line is output current.
tions (solid lines), or using our model (circles).

Fig. 5. Extracted energy as a function of output voltage, as obtained by SPICE Fig. 7. Ratio between optimal output voltage and open-circuit voltage, as a
simulations (blue solid line), or using our model (red circles). (For interpreta- function of the loss factor α, as computed using SPICE (solid line), or our model
tion of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the (red circle). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend,
Web version of this article.) the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

908
F. Cascetta et al.
Fig. 8. Piezoelectric tile used for experimental tests. (a) Picture (b) internal structure with nine housings for the stacks of piezoelectric diaphragms (c) Each stack
composed by piezoelectric diaphragms spaced by rings.
Fig. 9. Scheme of the electrical connections among piezoelectric diaphragms in
the piezoelectric tile used for experiments (N = 45).
parallel connection of the three bridge rectifiers, the output DC voltage
follows the greater absolute value among the three piezoelectric vol-
tages, producing a multi-peak waveform that will be observed also in
the experimental results presented in the next Section.
As a next step, we consider the case of piezoelectric harvesters
connected to a voltage generator VDC imposing a fixed output voltage.
As an example, we show in Fig. 4 the simulated waveforms in case of an
output voltage fixed to 30 V. In particular, we report in the same graph
the energy cumulated on the load, ETOT , (blue solid line), together with
the output current iDC (red dashed line). We see that, after the com-
pletion of the sixth current pulse (i.e. at t = 670 ms), the transferred
energy has reached a value of ≈220 μJ.
Finally, we compare in Fig. 5 the conveyed energy as a function of
the output voltage, as obtained by SPICE simulations or computed using
909
Current Applied Physics 18 (2018) 905–911
our model (Eq. (17)). We see that a good agreement exists between
numerical and analytical results, at least in the region of interest
(maximum energy). In particular, the more relevant parameters derived
from SPICE simulations are: open-circuit voltage Vp oc = 96 V ; optimal
output voltage VDC opt = 37V ; maximum extracted energy Emax = 227 J .
The corresponding analytical values, obtained by use of Eqs. (7), (15)
and (16), are Vp oc = 96 V , VDC opt = 36.8 V and Emax = 231 uJ . It is
clear that SPICE simulations confirm the validity of the proposed
model.
In order to assess the accuracy of our model for different pulse
durations, we have performed new SPICE simulations with T varying
from 100 ms to 2 s. All other parameters were kept constant. We report
in Fig. 6 the optimal output voltage (left vertical axis) and maximum
energy (right vertical axis) as a function of pulse duration, as retrieved
using SPICE (solid lines), or our analytical model (circles). Note that,
the loss factors α corresponding to the chosen pulse durations T are
reported on top of the graph. We see that analytical and numerical
results are in good agreement, especially in case of low loss (α ≈ 1) . For
increasing loss (α → 0) , our model provides larger values of optimal
output voltage and maximum energy. In any case, the deviation be-
tween SPICE-derived optimal voltage and analytical results is less that
≈1% over the considered pulse duration interval, while the deviation
relative to maximum energy is less than ≈2%.
Using the same simulation data, we have also computed the ratio
between the optimal output voltage and the open-circuit voltage, as a
function of the loss factor α. The simulation results are shown in Fig. 7,
together with the values provided by our model. Still, SPICE simula-
tions and data from our analytical model are in overall agreement,
confirming the general trend expressed by the approximate formula
(15).
4. Experimental results
We have carried out a number of experimental tests over a piezo-
electric tile produced by Luche S.r.l. [20]. A picture of the sample used
for the tests is shown in Fig. 8(a). The tile uses Lead Zirconate Titanate
F. Cascetta et al.
Fig. 10. Typical waveform of the open-circuit voltage generated by the piezoelectric tile under a footstep of a man of about 85 Kg.
Fig. 11. Extracted energy as a function of load voltage. Experimental and
analytical data.
as piezoelectric material. The input mechanical energy is transformed
into electrical energy through nine stacks, placed under the upper
surface of the tile and each composed by five piezoelectric diaphragms
(buzzers) spaced by rings to allow the vibration, as shown in Fig. 8(b)
and (c). Each buzzer, a Piezotite 7BB-35-3L0 by Murata [21], is con-
nected to a full-bridge rectifier, and the outputs of all bridges are
connected in parallel to the output terminals of the tile (see the scheme
of Fig. 9).
The electrical characterization was performed using a digital sam-
pling oscilloscope with a 500 MHz bandwidth. The oscilloscope was
used to capture voltage and current signals, while two single-output
stabilized power supplies, capable of generating voltages up to 32 V,
were used in order to impose the desired voltage on the rectifier
bridges.
The first experiment was aimed to determine the open-circuit vol-
tage provided by the piezoelectric tile in the presence of a typical me-
chanical stress. The latter was produced by the footstep of a man of
about 85 kg, walking over it, and resting on a single foot. The typical
recorded voltage waveform is shown in Fig. 10. This test was repeated
several times under the same operating conditions, in order to evaluate
910
Current Applied Physics 18 (2018) 905–911
the repeatability of the measured data. The tests have shown that the
open-circuit voltage was comprised between 100 V and 110 V. The
variability of this voltage is attributed to the sensitivity of the tile to the
exact distribution of the applied load over its surface. After application
of the mechanical stress, the open-circuit voltage at the electrical
terminals returned to zero after about 3 s, showing an exponentially
decaying response. The open-circuit voltage waveform also reveals the
presence of several peaks. This behavior is compatible both with the
rectification of the AC voltage generated by each piezoelectric trans-
ducer, as well as with the non-synchronized mechanical forcing of the
various piezoelectric transducers located within our tile.
Successive tests were aimed to determine the energy extracted by
the tile, when subjected to mechanical stress, while varying the voltage
imposed by the generator connected to the tile's output terminals. For
this test, the current supplied by the tile at the output terminals was
measured though a test resistance of 1 kΩ, connected in series to the
applied DC voltage. The test resistance was chosen to be small enough,
in order to cause a negligible voltage drop compared to the DC voltage.
The latter has been varied from 0 V to 64 V, which was lower than the
maximum open-circuit voltage, but larger than the value providing
maximum energy extraction. The results of three test series, together
with a fitting curve obtained by using the average data, are reported in
Fig. 11.
In order to compare the experimental results with analytical results
from our model, we have used it with parameters identical to those used
in the previous paragraph, except the number of piezoelectric elements
increased up to N = 5 × 9 = 45, and the efficiency η set to 0.7 . The
computed energies are compared to experimental data in Fig. 11. A
reasonable agreement between experimental and model data is ob-
served, especially in terms of optimal output voltage. In fact, the ex-
perimental optimal voltage, extracted from the fitting curve, is 35 V,
while our model predicts an optimal voltage of 37 V. In any cases the
ratio between the optimal voltage and experimentally determined
open-circuit voltage value (Vpoc ≈ 105 V ), is ≈ 0.35, in decent agree-
ment with the factor provided by Eq. (15) for α = 0.61, i.e.
1/(2 + α ) = 0.38. Finally, it is important to observe that, while the ef-
ficiency factor used for the data shown in Fig. 11 was chosen arbitrarily,
in order to quantitatively match the experimentally measured energies,
this choice does not influence the ratio between optimal output voltage
and open-circuit voltage (see Eq. (15)), which is the real parameter of
interest in our analysis.
F. Cascetta et al.
5. Conclusions
A simple analytical expression for the optimal output voltage in
piezoelectric harvesters subjected to pulsed excitation has been derived,
in the typical context of a piezoelectric tile. The model reveals that the
optimal output voltage is comprised between 1/3 and ½ of the open-
circuit voltage, depending on the ratio between the discharge time of
the piezo capacitance and the duration of the pulsed excitation. The
developed model has been assessed against SPICE simulations, as well
as experimental tests performed over a commercial piezoelectric tile.
Acknowledgements
This work has been partly funded by Luche srl (www.veranu.eu).
References
[1] S. Roundy, P.K. Wright, A piezoelectric vibration based generator for wireless
electronics, Smart Mater. Struct. 13 (1131) (2004).
[2] Steven R. Anton, Henry A. Sodano, A review of power harvesting using piezoelectric
materials (2003–2006), Smart Mater. Struct. 16 (R1) (2007).
[3] Huidong Li, Chuan Tian, Z. Daniel Denga, Energy harvesting from low frequency
applications using piezoelectric materials, Appl. Phys. Rev. 1 (041301) (2014).
[4] Alperen Toprak, Onur Tigli, Piezoelectric energy harvesting: state-of-the-art and
challenges, Appl. Phys. Rev. 1 (031104) (2014).
[5] Y.B. Jeon, R. Sood, J.H. Jeong, S.G. Kim, MEMS power generator with transverse
mode thin film PZT, Sens. Actuators, A 122 (2005).
[6] H.W. Kim, S. Priya, K. Uchino, R.E. Newnham, Piezoelectric energy harvesting
under high prestressed cyclic vibrations, J. Electroceram. 15 (2005) 27.
[7] H. Kim, S. Priya, K. Uchino, Modeling of piezoelectric energy harvesting using
cymbal transducers, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys., Part. 1 (2006) 45.
911
Current Applied Physics 18 (2018) 905–911
[8] B. Yang, K.S. Yun, Piezoelectric shell structures as wearable energy harvesters for
effective power generation at low-frequency movement, Sens. Actuators, A 188
(2012).
[9] S.R. Platt, S. Farritor, K. Garvin, H. Haider, The use of piezoelectric ceramics for
electric power generation within orthopedic implants, IEEE ASME Trans.
Mechatron. 10 (2005).
[10] L. Moro, D. Benasciutti, Harvested power and sensitivity analysis of vibrating shoe-
mounted piezoelectric cantilevers, Smart Mater. Struct. 19 (2010).
[11] N.S. Shenck, J.A. Paradiso, Energy scavenging with shoe-mounted piezoelectrics,
IEEE Micro. 21 (2001).
[12] T. Ogawa, R. Sugisawa, Y. Sakurada, H. Aoshima, M. Hikida, H. Akaishi, Energy
harvesting devices utilizing resonance vibration of piezoelectric buzzer, Jpn. J.
Appl. Phys. 52 (2013).
[13] M. Renaud, P. Fiorini, R. Van Schaijk, C. Van Hoof, Harvesting energy from the
motion of human limbs: the design and analysis of an impact-based piezoelectric
generator, Smart Mater. Struct. 18 (2009).
[14] S.J. Hwang, H.J. Jung, J.H. Kim, J.H. Ahn, D. Song, Y. Song, H.L. Lee, S.P. Moon,
H. Park, T.H. Sung, Designing and manufacturing a piezoelectric tile for harvesting
energy from footsteps, Curr. Appl. Phys. 15 (6) (2015) 669–674.
[15] Adnan M. Elhalwagy, Mahmoud Yousef M. Ghoneem, Mohamed Elhadidi,
Feasibility study for using piezoelectric energy harvesting floor in buildings' interior
spaces, International Conference – Alternative and Renewable Energy Quest, AREQ
2017, February 2017, pp. 1–3 Spain.
[16] Xiaofeng Li, Vladimir Strezov, Modelling piezoelectric energy harvesting potential
in an educational building, Energy Convers. Manag. 85 (2014) 435–442.
[17] J. Dicken, P.D. Mitcheson, I. Stoianov, E.M. Yeatman, Power-extraction circuits for
piezoelectric energy harvesters in miniature and low-power applications, IEEE
Trans. Power Electron. 27 (11) (Nov. 2012) 4514–4529.
[18] Y.C. Shu, I.C. Lien, Analysis of power output for piezoelectric energy harvesting
systems, Smart Mater. Struct. 15 (2006) 1499–1512.
[19] G.D. Szarka, B.H. Stark, S.G. Burrow, Review of power conditioning for kinetic
energy harvesting systems, IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 27 (2) (Feb. 2012)
803–815.
[20] http://www.veranu.eu/it/.
[21] https://www.murata.com/.