Impact-Driven Energy Harvesting: Piezoelectric Versus Triboelectric Energy Harvesters
This work investigated the mechanical and electrical behaviors of piezoelectric and triboelectric energy harvesters (PEHs and TEHs, respectively) as potential devices for harvesting impact-driven energy. PEH and TEH test benches were designed and developed, aiming at harvesting low-frequency mechani...
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
MDPI AG
2020-10-01
|
Series: | Sensors |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/20/20/5828 |
id |
doaj-a4e07eb910c94b97bcd151908bff72ef |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-a4e07eb910c94b97bcd151908bff72ef2020-11-25T03:41:04ZengMDPI AGSensors1424-82202020-10-01205828582810.3390/s20205828Impact-Driven Energy Harvesting: Piezoelectric Versus Triboelectric Energy HarvestersPanu Thainiramit0Phonexai Yingyong1Don Isarakorn2Department of Instrumentation and Control Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok 10520, ThailandDepartment of Instrumentation and Control Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok 10520, ThailandDepartment of Instrumentation and Control Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok 10520, ThailandThis work investigated the mechanical and electrical behaviors of piezoelectric and triboelectric energy harvesters (PEHs and TEHs, respectively) as potential devices for harvesting impact-driven energy. PEH and TEH test benches were designed and developed, aiming at harvesting low-frequency mechanical vibration generated by human activities, for example, a floor-tile energy harvester actuated by human footsteps. The electrical performance and behavior of these energy harvesters were evaluated and compared in terms of absolute energy and power densities that they provided and in terms of these energy and power densities normalized to unit material cost. Several aspects related to the design and development of PEHs and TEHs as the energy harvesting devices were investigated, covering the following topics: construction and mechanism of the energy harvesters; electrical characteristics of the fabricated piezoelectric and triboelectric materials; and characterization of the energy harvesters. At a 4 mm gap width between the cover plate and the stopper (the mechanical actuation components of both energy harvesters) and a cover plate pressing frequency of 2 Hz, PEH generated 27.64 mW, 1.90 mA, and 14.39 V across an optimal resistive load of 7.50 kΩ, while TEH generated 1.52 mW, 8.54 µA, and 177.91 V across an optimal resistive load of 21 MΩ. The power and energy densities of PEH (4.57 mW/cm<sup>3</sup> and 475.13 µJ/cm<sup>3</sup>) were higher than those of TEH (0.50 mW/cm<sup>3</sup>, and 21.55 µJ/cm<sup>3</sup>). However, when the material cost is taken into account, TEH provided higher power and energy densities per unit cost. Hence, it has good potential for upscaling, and is considered well worth the investment. The advantages and disadvantages of PEH and TEH are also highlighted as main design factors.https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/20/20/5828piezoelectric energy harvestingtriboelectric energy harvestinglow-frequency vibration energy harvestingdirect-force generator |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Panu Thainiramit Phonexai Yingyong Don Isarakorn |
spellingShingle |
Panu Thainiramit Phonexai Yingyong Don Isarakorn Impact-Driven Energy Harvesting: Piezoelectric Versus Triboelectric Energy Harvesters Sensors piezoelectric energy harvesting triboelectric energy harvesting low-frequency vibration energy harvesting direct-force generator |
author_facet |
Panu Thainiramit Phonexai Yingyong Don Isarakorn |
author_sort |
Panu Thainiramit |
title |
Impact-Driven Energy Harvesting: Piezoelectric Versus Triboelectric Energy Harvesters |
title_short |
Impact-Driven Energy Harvesting: Piezoelectric Versus Triboelectric Energy Harvesters |
title_full |
Impact-Driven Energy Harvesting: Piezoelectric Versus Triboelectric Energy Harvesters |
title_fullStr |
Impact-Driven Energy Harvesting: Piezoelectric Versus Triboelectric Energy Harvesters |
title_full_unstemmed |
Impact-Driven Energy Harvesting: Piezoelectric Versus Triboelectric Energy Harvesters |
title_sort |
impact-driven energy harvesting: piezoelectric versus triboelectric energy harvesters |
publisher |
MDPI AG |
series |
Sensors |
issn |
1424-8220 |
publishDate |
2020-10-01 |
description |
This work investigated the mechanical and electrical behaviors of piezoelectric and triboelectric energy harvesters (PEHs and TEHs, respectively) as potential devices for harvesting impact-driven energy. PEH and TEH test benches were designed and developed, aiming at harvesting low-frequency mechanical vibration generated by human activities, for example, a floor-tile energy harvester actuated by human footsteps. The electrical performance and behavior of these energy harvesters were evaluated and compared in terms of absolute energy and power densities that they provided and in terms of these energy and power densities normalized to unit material cost. Several aspects related to the design and development of PEHs and TEHs as the energy harvesting devices were investigated, covering the following topics: construction and mechanism of the energy harvesters; electrical characteristics of the fabricated piezoelectric and triboelectric materials; and characterization of the energy harvesters. At a 4 mm gap width between the cover plate and the stopper (the mechanical actuation components of both energy harvesters) and a cover plate pressing frequency of 2 Hz, PEH generated 27.64 mW, 1.90 mA, and 14.39 V across an optimal resistive load of 7.50 kΩ, while TEH generated 1.52 mW, 8.54 µA, and 177.91 V across an optimal resistive load of 21 MΩ. The power and energy densities of PEH (4.57 mW/cm<sup>3</sup> and 475.13 µJ/cm<sup>3</sup>) were higher than those of TEH (0.50 mW/cm<sup>3</sup>, and 21.55 µJ/cm<sup>3</sup>). However, when the material cost is taken into account, TEH provided higher power and energy densities per unit cost. Hence, it has good potential for upscaling, and is considered well worth the investment. The advantages and disadvantages of PEH and TEH are also highlighted as main design factors. |
topic |
piezoelectric energy harvesting triboelectric energy harvesting low-frequency vibration energy harvesting direct-force generator |
url |
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/20/20/5828 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT panuthainiramit impactdrivenenergyharvestingpiezoelectricversustriboelectricenergyharvesters AT phonexaiyingyong impactdrivenenergyharvestingpiezoelectricversustriboelectricenergyharvesters AT donisarakorn impactdrivenenergyharvestingpiezoelectricversustriboelectricenergyharvesters |
_version_ |
1724531992435884032 |