Performance Comparison Vibration Energy Harvesting
27 Each of the energy harvesters was being claimed to demonstrate better performance in
one way than another. The most common comparison merit is the electrical output power density. Although power density comparison can give an idea of the performance
of an energy harvester, it does not explain the influence of the excitation source. As according to Equation 2-14, the output power of a resonant device is closely
dependent on the amplitude of an excitation source. However, to make the comparison meaningful, all the energy harvesters have to be excited at a fixed vibration
characteristic e.g. adjust acceleration level at resonant frequency of the tested devices to give a fixed vibration amplitude, which is impossible as the size of the energy
harvesters range from micro to centimetre scales depending on the fabrication technology. Micro-scale devices are more sensitive to micro-scale vibration amplitudes
a few nano- to micrometer, while centimetre scale devices do not show their optimum performances if excited at these same levels, therefore it is not appropriate to make a
comparison in terms of power density.
There are other alternative ways to compare the energy harvesters in a more universal metric, for example, a normalised power density NPD suggested by Beeby
et al
[6], in which the power density is divided by the source acceleration amplitude squared.
Volume figure of merit, FoM
V
, suggested by Mitcheson
et al
[51], measures the performance as a percentage comparison to its maximum possible output for a particular
device. The maximum possible output is proportional to the resonant frequency of the device to the power of three and the overall size of a device with an assumption that the
device with a proof mass has the density of gold, occupying half of the total volume and the other half is room for displacement,
2-17
A few recently published experimental results of fabricated energy harvesters are listed and summarised in Table 2.1. The table is divided into three sections according to the
mechanism of power conversion. Each of the micro-generator is identified by the first author and the year of the publication.
3 3
4
16 1
Output Power
M easured
Vol Y
FoM
AU V
28
Table 2-1: Comparison of a few key experimental energy harvesters.
Micro-generator Power
W Freq
Hz Volume
cm
3
Input Acceln
ms
2
NPD kgsm
3
FoM
V
Piezoelectric
Glynne-Jones, 2000 [52]
3 80.1
70 NA
NA NA
Roundy, 2003 [53] 375
120 1.0
2.5 60
1.65 Tanaka, 2005 [54]
180 50
9 1
20.5 0.26
Jeon, 2005 [15] 1.0
1.4 × 10
4
2.7 × 10
-5
106.8 3.2
1.10 Fang, 2006 [26]
2.16 609
6.0 × 10
-4
64.4 0.9
1.44 Reilly, 2006 [55]
700 40
4.8 2.3
28.2 1.25
Lefeuvre, 2006 [56] 3.0 ×
10
5
56 34
0.8 1.42 ×
10
4
81.36 Ferrari, 2006 [57]
0.27 41
0.188 8.8
0.018 0.01
Mide, 2010 [58] 8.0 ×
10
3
50 40.5
9.8 2.1
0.16
Electromagnetic
Ching, 2000 [59] 5
104 1
81.2 7.6 ×
10
-4
7.82 × 10
-4
Li, 2000 [60] 10
64 1.24
16.2 0.03
0.01 Williams, 2001 [61]
0.33 4.4 ×
10
3
0.02 382.2
1.1 × 10
-4
4.8 × 10
-5
Glynne-Jones, 2001 [62]
5.0 × 10
3
99 4.08
6.9 26.1
1.49 Mizuno, 2003 [63]
4.0 × 10
-4
700 2.1
12.4 1.24 ×
10
-6
2.26 × 10
-8
Huang, 2007 [64] 1.44
100 0.04
19.7 0.09
0.07 Beeby, 2007 [6]
46 52
0.15 0.6
884 24.8
Torah, 2008 [65] 58
50 0.16
0.6 1.0 ×
10
3
29.4 Ferro Solution, 2008
[66] 1.08 ×
10
4
60 133
1 84.4
0.36 Perpetuum, 2009 [67]
9.2 ×10
4
22 130.7
9.8 7.33
0.85
29
Electrostatic
Tashiro, 2002 [68] 36
6 15
12.8 0.015
0.017 Mizuno, 2003 [63]
7.4 ×10
-6
743 0.6
14 6.3 ×
10
-8
1.9 × 10
-9
Arakawa, 2004 [69] 6.0
10 0.4
4.0 0.96
0.68 Despesse, 2005 [70]
1.0 × 10
3
50 18
8.8 0.7
0.06 Miao, 2006 [71]
2.4 20
0.6 2.2 ×
10
3
8.0 × 10
-7
0.02 Basset, 2009 [72]
0.06 250
0.07 2.5
0.15 4.9 ×
10
-3
Device size does not include the electrical possessing and storage circuits NA = Data is not available from literature