Impact of Geometry on the Performance of Cantilever-Based Piezoelectric Vibration Energy Harvesters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims at comparing micromachined cantilever structures with the purpose of providing design guidelines towards high performance energy harvesters such that they provide a good output power, resonant frequency and volume tradeoff, while considering microfabrication process limitations. Increasing the power output of piezoelectric energy harvesters by tapering the beams has been presented as promising solution in the literature. This paper investigates the power output of several geometric variations of cantilever beams, and examines the advantages of balancing the strain distribution throughout the beam. A comparison of the impact of different geometries is presented, and recommendations are given. Namely, eight rectangular and trapezoidal T-shaped designs are fabricated and benchmarked. Their resonant frequencies and power outputs are compared for the same available area (1800 μm× 800 μm). Measurements show that the trapezoidal designs can have a higher output power depending on the beam length to mass length ratio, in comparison to the rectangular T-designs that have lower frequencies. Resonant frequencies ranging from 2.9 to 7.2 kHz and power outputs ranging from 2.2 to 7.1 nW are reported.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".