Modeling of Piezoelectric Energy Harvester: A Comparison Between Euler-Bernoulli Theory and Timoshenko Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Harvesting vibration energy using piezoelectric materials has gained considerable attention over the past few years. Typically, a piezoelectric energy harvester is a unimorph or bimorph cantilevered beam which undergoes base vibration. The focus of this paper is to compare the Euler-Bernoulli model and the Timoshenko model, which are both used for modeling the vibration-based energy harvester. Procedures of deriving the electro-mechanical equation of motion are provided, following exact expressions for the electrical output in two models. Parametric case studies are carried out in order to compare the frequency response of two models. Simulation results show that there is a great difference between Euler-Bernoulli model and Timoshenko model at low length-to-thickness aspect ratio. Such difference diminishes and becomes negligible as aspect ratio increases. It is shown that for the design of piezoelectric energy harvester with small aspect ratio, Timoshenko model can be more accurate than Euler-Bernoulli model in predicting the system behavior.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".