4.6 Article

Nonlinear model and optimization method for a single-axis linear-motion energy harvester for footstep excitation

期刊

SMART MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES
卷 27, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1361-665X/aae6e7

关键词

kinetic energy harvesting; magnetic spring; optimization; footstep

资金

  1. The National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa
  2. Telkom South Africa
  3. Innovus of Stellenbosch University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We propose and develop an electrical and mechanical system model of a single-axis linear-motion kinetic energy harvester for impulsive excitation that allows its generated load power to be numerically optimized as a function of design parameters. The device consists of an assembly of one or more spaced magnets suspended by a magnetic spring and passing through one or more coils when motion is experienced along the axis. The design parameters that can be optimized include the number of coils, the coil height, coil spacing, the number of magnets, the magnet spacing and the physical size. We use the proposed model to design optimal energy harvesters for the case of impulse-like motion like that experienced when attached to the leg of a human. We generate several optimized designs, ranked in terms of their predicted load power output. The three best designs are subsequently constructed and subjected to controlled practical evaluation while attached to the leg of a human subject. The results show that the ranking of the measured output power corresponds to the ranking predicted by the optimization, and that the numerical model correctly predicts the relative differences in generated power for complex motion. It is also found that all three designs far outperform a baseline design. The best energy harvesters generated an average power of 3.01 mW into a 40 Omega test load when driven by footsteps whose measured peak impact was approximately 2.2g. With respect to the device dimensions, this corresponds to a power density of 179.380 mu W cm(-3).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据