Comprehensive comparative analysis of piezoelectric energy harvesting circuits for battery charging applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, three different ac-dc converter circuits are compared that can be used as energy harvesting circuits from piezoelectric sources, like periodic mechanical vibration of piezo-material cantilever beam, and used to supply voltage to charge battery energy storage devices. The study in particular investigates the effect of introducing the third and fifth harmonics along with the fundamental input on the output voltage, current and power delivered to the load. The model used for the Li-ion battery cell is also included. The comparison is done on an even basis by all circuits being open looped and having the same input parameters and load characteristics, i.e., battery model, for each circuit. The simulations were conducted using PSIM software implementing the three different energy harvesting mechanism their circuitry. The average load voltage and current was observed and the power delivered also recorded and compared. Simulation results are presented that output voltage is within 3.5 and 4.2 V. The study facilitates in understanding the nature of voltage and current response to the different approaches to the ac-dc conversion circuitry and provides an insight on the regime to store this energy produced by piezoelectricity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".