4170 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 57, NO.
12, DECEMBER 2010
Power Processing Circuits for Piezoelectric
Vibration-Based Energy Harvesters
Reinhilde D’hulst, Tom Sterken, Member, IEEE, Robert Puers, Senior Member, IEEE,
Geert Deconinck, Senior Member, IEEE, and Johan Driesen, Member, IEEE
Abstract—The behavior of a piezoelectric vibration-driven en-
ergy harvester with different power processing circuits is evalu-
ated. Two load types are considered: a resistive load and an ac–dc
rectifier load. An optimal resistive and optimal dc-voltage load for
the harvester is analytically calculated. The difference between the
optimal output power flow from the harvester to both load circuits
depends on the coupling coefficient of the harvester. Two power
processing circuits are designed and built, the first emulating a
resistive input impedance and the second with a constant input
voltage. It is shown that, in order to design an optimal harvesting
system, the combination of both the ability of the circuit to harvest
the optimal harvester power and the processing circuit efficiency
needs to be considered and optimized. Simulations and exper-
imental validation using a custom-made piezoelectric harvester
show that the efficiency of the overall system is 64% with a buck
converter as a power processing circuit, whereas an efficiency of
only 40% is reached using a resistor-emulating approach.
Index Terms—Energy efficiency, energy harvester, piezoelectric
devices, power conditioning.
I. I NTRODUCTION
T HE current advances in performance and functionality of
micro- and nanosystems have stimulated the development
of intelligent networks of autonomous systems. The demand
for a small, mobile, and reliable energy supply for each au-
tonomous network node has led to the development of a new
type of generators, as the use of conventional electrochemical
batteries is not always an option because of the need for
replacement and the volume dependence on the amount of
stored energy. Motion energy or vibrations are an attractive
source for powering miniature energy-harvesting generators
[1]. Vibration energy can be converted into electrical energy
through piezoelectric [2], electromagnetic [3], and electrostatic
[4] devices. This paper focuses on piezoelectric devices. The
output power of such devices, made using micromachining
techniques, is limited, ranging from milliwatts down to only a
few microwatts.
Manuscript received May 8, 2009; revised July 29, 2009; accepted
November 8, 2009. Date of publication March 1, 2010; date of current version
November 10, 2010.
R. D’hulst was with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. She is now with VITO.
T. Sterken was with the Interuniversitary Center for Microelectronics, 3001
Leuven, Belgium. He is now with the University of Ghent, 9000 Ghent,
Belgium.
R. Puers, G. Deconinck, and J. Driesen are with the Department of Electrical
Engineering, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium (e-mail:
johan.driesen@esat.kuleuven.be).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIE.2010.2044126
0278-0046/$26.00 © 2010 IEEE
The output voltage of an energy harvester, generally, is not
directly compatible with what is needed to power the load elec-
tronics; moreover, the power transfer from an energy harvester,
generally, can be maximized by optimizing the load impedance
connected to the harvester. Thus, a power processing circuit
needs to be connected between harvester and load. To date in
literature, the work on power processing circuits for vibration-
based energy harvesters can be roughly classified into two
different approaches. In a first approach, the efficiency of the
power processing circuit itself is the major point of attention,
including the design of efficient control circuitry for the inter-
face circuit (see, among others, [5]–[7]). In a second approach,
maximizing the output power transfer from the energy harvester
is the main focus (see, among others, [8]–[10]). In this paper,
it will be shown that, in order to design an optimal harvesting
system, the combination of both the efficiency and the ability of
the processing circuit to harvest the maximum available output
power needs to be optimal. This optimal combination depends
on the harvester design.
Two different load types are considered in this paper: a
resistive load and an ac–dc rectifier load. In literature, much
work has been done concerning the optimal power flow of
the harvester in case the load is a linear resistor (see, among
others, [11]). Since the vibration-based harvester provides a
varying ac power and because electronic loads typically need
a stable dc power supply, it is useful to analyze the harvester
behavior when connected to an ac–dc rectifier. Other load types,
as described in [6], [12], and [13], are not considered in this
paper.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows.
Section II discusses the modeling of piezoelectric energy har-
vesters. Section III describes the behavior of the model with
the two different load types. In Section IV, the design and,
in particular, the efficiency of the power processing circuits
are discussed. In Section V, all findings are illustrated by
simulations and measurements on a custom-made piezoelectric
harvester.
II. H ARVESTER M ODEL
Energy harvesters of the inertial type are considered, i.e., the
motion of the vibration source is coupled to the generator by
means of the inertia of a seismic mass. This mass m is modeled
as being suspended by a spring with spring constant k, while its
motion is damped by a parasitic damping d due to friction and
air. The mass is also damped by the generator, the piezoelectric
transducer, exerting a force Fg . The displacement of the mass
D’HULST et al.: POWER PROCESSING CIRCUITS FOR PIEZOELECTRIC VIBRATION-BASED ENERGY HARVESTERS 4171

Fig. 1. Electrical circuit equivalent of vibration-based harvester model.

Fig. 2. Electronic equivalent of a velocity-damped inertial energy harvester.

is z(t), and the displacement of the package is y(t). I and U Fig. 3. Optimal output power of an energy harvester with resistive load, nor-
are the outgoing current and voltage, respectively. This system malized to Plim , versus operating frequency and squared coupling coefficient
(ζ = 0.016).
is governed by the following differential equation:
B. Resistive Load
mÿ = mz̈ + dż + kz + Fg . (1)
The harvested power dissipated in a resistive load is
Different configurations and implementations of the piezoelec- analytically calculated using the equivalent circuit in Fig. 1. For
tric generator lead to the same general electromechanical model every operating frequency ω, an optimal load resistance Ropt
of a piezo tranducer [14]–[16] exists. The expression for the optimal load resistance written
 in terms of the natural resonance frequency ωn = k/m,
Fg = Kz + ΓU
(2) the normalized parasitic damping factor ζ = d/2mωn , the
I = Γż − C0 U̇ .
normalized frequency Ω = ω/ωn , and usingthe definition of
Parameter Γ is a measure for the electromechanical coupling the electromechanical coupling factor κ = Γ2 /(kC0 + Γ2 )
of the piezo element, and C0 is the clamped capacitance of the gives [16], [17]
piezo element. K is a measure for the stiffness of the piezo 
1 (1 − Ω2 )2 + 4ζ 2 Ω2
element. Fig. 1 shows an electrical circuit equivalent of the Ropt =    . (4)
ωC0 2 2 + 4ζ 2 Ω2
1−κ2 − Ω
1
harvester model, including the piezoelectric element. In this
electrical circuit, the voltages represent forces, and charges
represent displacements. The stiffness of the piezo element K The corresponding output power dissipated in the optimal load
is neglected in Fig. 1 and is assumed to be incorporated into the resistance is given by the following equation, with Y0 being the
mechanical spring constant k. amplitude of the input vibration:
2
Ω κ
mω 3 Y02 8ζ 1−κ2
Pres =   .
III. O PTIMAL P OWER O UTPUT 
  1 2
 −Ω 2
+ 2ζΩ + (1−Ω
2 2
κ2 ) 2
A. Power Output Limit 1−κ2 2ζΩ 2ζΩ + 1−κ2ζΩ

The output power of both load cases considered, resistive (5)

load and ac–dc rectifier load, is compared to the theoretical
absolute maximum output power of an inertial energy harvester,
i.e., the output power of a harvester with the damping force of
the generator proportional to the velocity of the seismic mass.
An electronic equivalent of this theoretical harvester is shown in
Fig. 2. The output power dissipated in the load dampingRload
reaches a maximum at the resonance frequency ωn = k/m
if the load resistor has an impedance that is identical to the
parasitic damping d. The maximal output power is given by the
following equation, with a being the acceleration imposed on
the system:
a2 m2
Plim = .
8d
The optimal harvested power depends on the electrome-
chanical coupling factor κ. Fig. 3 shows a plot of the optimal
harvester output power, normalized to Plim , versus the
normalized operating frequency Ω and the squared coupling
coefficient κ2 with the damping factor ζ arbitrarily set to 0.016.
At both open- and short-circuit resonance frequencies, the
output power tends to Plim for larger coupling factors.
C. AC–DC Rectifier Load
The output power of an energy harvester connected to an
ac–dc rectifier, with a fixed voltage Ucc at the dc side, is
(3)
analytically calculated as well. The relation between the mass
4172 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 57, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2010

Fig. 5. Maximal harvester power for both load cases versus squared coupling
factor (ζ = 0.016).

Fig. 4. Harvester output power, normalized to Plim , transferred to the optimal

dc load via an ac–dc rectifier versus operating frequency and squared coupling
factor (ζ = 0.016).

displacement amplitude zM and the dc voltage Ucc is given

by (6), with a being the (constant) acceleration of the mass
and ϕ being the phase difference between the applied force
Fig. 6. Schematic overview of the piezo bimorph harvesting structure.
to the mass (i.e., the displacement of the package) and the
displacement of the mass [16], [18]. The phase difference ϕ TABLE I
is not negligible if the electromechanical coupling of the device M EASURED M ODEL PARAMETERS OF B IMORPH H ARVESTING
D EVICE AT AN I NPUT ACCELERATION OF 5 m/s2
is not too weak.

−ma cos(φ) = −mzM ω 2 + kzM + Ucc Γ
(6)
−mazM sin(φ) π2 = −dzM 2
ω π2 + 2Ucc (ΓzM − Ucc C0 ).

The forward voltage loss over the needed rectifier is neglected

in (6) in order to have a fair comparison with the resistive load
case where no rectifier was taken into account either.
The expression for the average output power, dissipated in
the fixed-voltage sink Ucc is
ω
Prect = 2Ucc (ΓzM − Ucc C0 ). (7)
π
Prect varies with Ucc . Similar to the resistive load case, an
optimal voltage Ucc can be found for every operating frequency
[16], [18]. It is however not possible to calculate this optimum
analytically. Fig. 4 shows the plot of a numerically determined
optimal Prect , normalized to Plim , versus normalized frequency
and squared coupling coefficient. For large coupling factors, the
optimal power at both resonance frequencies also tends to Plim .
There is no difference in maximal output power between both
Fig. 7. Predicted and measured output powers of bimorph device versus
discussed load cases for a harvester device with large coupling (a) resistive load and (b) ac–dc rectifier load.
coefficient. However, for weakly coupled harvester devices, a
resistive load tends to capture more power from the harvester upon a substrate to create a cantilever beam configuration, and
device, as can be seen in Fig. 5. a small mass of 1 g is attached to its tip. The harvester is
excited by a shaker connected to a function generator via a
power amplifier. The open-circuit resonance frequency of the
D. Harvester Example
device lies around 301 Hz. The model parameters of the device
To illustrate the previous analysis, a commercially available are measured according to the procedure given in [19] and are
piezo bimorph element is chosen as the energy-harvesting given in Table I. The parameters are measured while imposing
device. Fig. 6 shows a schematic diagram of the harvesting an acceleration of 5 m/s2 to the harvesting device. Fig. 7
structure with its dimensions. The bimorph element is glued shows the output power of the bimorph device as predicted
D’HULST et al.: POWER PROCESSING CIRCUITS FOR PIEZOELECTRIC VIBRATION-BASED ENERGY HARVESTERS
Fig. 8. Electrical circuit schematic of a buck–boost converter without an input
filter capacitor.
by the aforementioned modeling, together with the measured
output power, for both a varying resistive load and a varying
output dc voltage after being rectified by a full-bridge diode
rectifier. The output power measurements are accurate to 1 μW.
The measured forward voltage drop over the rectifier diodes is
0.45 V. In order to have a clear point of comparison for both the
modeled and the measured output power, the output power is
plotted against the amplitude of the voltage on the piezo output
capacitor C0 in Fig. 7(b). The output power is measured at the
dc side of the rectifier and does not incorporate the losses in the
rectifier and, hence, the difference between the modeled and
measured powers. The squared mechanical coupling factor κ2
of the device is 0.03. As was mentioned before (see Fig. 5),
the ac–dc resistive load performs better at lower coupling
factors.
IV. D ESIGN OF P OWER P ROCESSING C IRCUITS
As already stated, a power management circuit is needed to
transform the harvester output voltage to a dc voltage of an
appropriate level, and moreover, the power management circuit
should also provide the optimal load to the harvesting device.
The choice can be made to provide the optimal resistive load
to the harvester, but according to previous analysis, a fixed dc
voltage may allow the harvester to perform nearly optimal as
well, depending on the electromechanical coupling factor of the
harvester. The question is now which power processing circuit
will lead to the optimal harvesting system. For that reason,
efficiency analysis is made for both circuits. An analytic loss
model is set up for both power processing circuits in order to
be able to find the most efficient circuit configuration in a quick
yet accurate way.
A. Processing Circuit Providing Resistive Load
A buck–boost dc–dc converter without an input filter capac-
itor (see Fig. 8), operating in discontinuous conduction mode,
has a “resistive” input impedance and may thus be well suited
to operate as a power processing circuit for harvesting devices
[10], [20]. Fig. 9 shows the input current of the converter.
The input resistance of the circuit Rin is controlled through
the duty cycle of the switching element, generally a MOSFET,
according to (8), with L being the used inductance, fs being
the switching frequency, and δ = Ton fs being the duty cycle of
the switching element. Note that (8) only holds if fs  fh , the
4173
Fig. 9. Input current of a buck–boost converter without an input filter
capacitor.
input vibration frequency of the harvester. The output voltage
Uout of the converter is assumed to be held constant.
2Lfs
Rin = . (8)
δ2
For the efficiency analysis, the losses in the switch (switching
losses as well as conduction losses due to its series resistance
Rsw ), the losses in diode D, in the full-bridge rectifier, and the
losses in the inductor L due to its equivalent series resistance
ResrL are taken into account. The harvester is modeled as a
current source parallel to the output capacitor C0 to simplify the
determination of the voltages and currents in the converter [21]
(see Fig. 8). The current amplitude of the source Ih is defined
by the optimal harvester output Pres power and the optimal
resistive load Ropt
 
2Pres Ropt 1 + ω 2 C02 Ropt
2
Ih = . (9)
Ropt
The current through the inductor is calculated for the two
phases of the switching period (switch closed and switch open)
by evaluating the differential equations describing the circuit.
The losses in this circuit are as follows.
1) MOSFET loss: The MOSFET loss Pmos is the sum of
the conduction loss Pon , the switching loss Psw , and
the gatedrive loss Pdrv [22]. The conduction loss of the
switch is calculated as the loss in Rsw , the on-resistance
of the switch. As the converter operates in discontinuous
conduction mode, the current is zero at the beginning of
each switching period, so that the switching loss during
on-switching of the switch is negligible. The gate-drive
loss of the switch is given by [23], [24]
Pdrv = Ugs Qg fs (10)
where Ugs and Qg are the gate–source voltage at the ON
state and the gate charge, respectively.
2) Diode loss: The diode loss Pdiode is given by (11),
with UD being the diode forward voltage and iavg_out
being the average output current of the converter. Reverse
4174 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 57, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2010
TABLE II
PARAMETERS OF D EVICES U SED IN P OWER P ROCESSING C IRCUITS
Fig. 10. Efficiency of a buck–boost converter with a resistive input impedance
of 580 kΩ and an input power of 49.4 μW.
recovery of the diode is neglected in this analytic loss
model
Pdiode = UD iavg_out . (11)
3) Inductor loss: The loss PL in the inductor is calculated as
the loss in its equivalent series parasitic resistance ResrL .
4) Bridge rectifier loss: The power loss in the bridge rectifier
Prect is given by the following equation, with iavg_in
being the average input current of the converter:
Prect = 2iavg_in UD . (12)
The efficiency of the converter is then expressed as
PRopt
η= . (13)
PRopt + Pmos + Pdiode + PL + Prect
The efficiency of a converter used as a power processing
circuit for the previously mentioned bimorph harvester device
is calculated for varying switching frequency and inductance.
The optimal resistive load conditions of the bimorph harvesting
device (see Table I) are taken as input for the efficiency calcu-
lations. The device parameters used are listed in Table II. An
output voltage of 3 V is chosen. Fig. 10 shows a plot of the cal-
culated efficiency versus switching frequency and inductance.
The highest efficiency, i.e., 51%, is reached using a switching
frequency of 3 kHz and an inductance of 150 μH. The duty
cycle at this point is 0.125%. Switching frequencies beyond
3 kHz are not suitable anymore, as the switching frequency is
not sufficiently large anymore compared to the vibration source
frequency.
Fig. 11. Electrical circuit schematic of a buck converter with an input filter
capacitor.
B. Processing Circuit Providing Fixed Voltage
A fixed dc voltage can be provided through, e.g., a buck
converter with a sufficiently large input filter capacitor (see
Fig. 11). The input voltage of the converter is controlled
through the duty cycle. Because of the very low power
processed by the circuit, the converter is most likely to operate
in discontinuous conduction mode. Analogous to the previous
section, the harvester is modeled as a current source to simplify
the determination of the voltages and currents in the converter
(see Fig. 11). The input current of the converter Iin is defined by
the optimal harvester output power Prect and the optimal fixed
output voltage Uopt [see (14)]. In the analytic calculations, the
forward voltage drop over the rectifier diodes UD was not taken
into account. In the analytic loss model, however, these voltage
drops are not neglected, and thus, the converter has to provide a
voltage at its input equal to Uopt minus twice the diode voltage
drop UD .
Prect
Iin = . (14)
Uopt + 2UD
The current through the inductor is again calculated for the two
phases in the switching period. By using the expressions for
the inductor current, the input voltage of the converter can be
calculated. The duty cycle δneeded to obtain the optimal Uopt
is then found through iteration.
The losses in this circuit are as follows.
1) MOSFET loss: The switch conduction loss Pon can be
obtained from the rms current through the switch and
the switch on-resistance Rsw . As only discontinuous con-
duction is considered, no switching loss occurs during
on-switching of the switch. The gate-drive loss is given
by (10).
2) Diode loss: The diode loss can be obtained using (11),
with iavg_out being the average output current of the
converter.
3) Inductor loss: The loss in the inductor due to its series
resistance is calculated using the rms inductor current.
4) Bridge rectifier loss: The loss in the bridge rectifier is
Prect = 2Iin UD . (15)
5) Input filter loss: The loss in the input filter capacitor is
calculated as the loss in the series and parallel parasitic
resistors (ResrC and RparC , respectively).
The efficiency of the converter is then calculated using (13).
The efficiency of a buck converter is calculated for varying
switching frequency and inductance, using the optimal dc-load
D’HULST et al.: POWER PROCESSING CIRCUITS FOR PIEZOELECTRIC VIBRATION-BASED ENERGY HARVESTERS
Fig. 12. Efficiency of a buck converter with an input voltage of 4.9 V and an
input power of 39.8 μW.
conditions of the bimorph harvesting device as input (see
Table I). An output voltage of 3 V is chosen. Fig. 12 shows
a plot of the calculated efficiency versus switching frequency
and inductance. The highest efficiency, i.e., 60.3%, is reached
using a switching frequency of 3 kHz and an inductance of
150 μH. The duty cycle in the optimal point is 0.18%.
The conclusion drawn from Figs. 10 and 12 is that the opti-
mal efficiency of a buck converter with a fixed input voltage is
considerably higher than the efficiency of a buckboost converter
emulating a resistive input impedance. It must be noted that the
theoretical optimal efficiencies are rather low because of the
very low given power budget.
C. Influence of Control Circuitry
The analytically calculated efficiencies mentioned are the
open-loop efficiencies. Adding adequate control circuitry to the
power processing circuits might lead to an increased efficiency
of the design. In the rectifier load case, the input voltage of the
converter should always be regulated toward the optimal value.
By using hysteretic (thermostatlike) control, this is a control
strategy where the converter is switched on only when the
voltage on the filter capacitor rises above a previously set limit,
the overall efficiency of the circuit is dramatically increased,
since the circuit dissipates only a portion of the time, as shown
in [5].
Such type of control, switching on and off of the circuit, is
not suitable for power processing circuits providing resistive
load, as the input of these converters is not buffered. This
indicates that the difference in efficiency between both types
of converters can be increased even more by adding control
circuitry.
The analytic calculations show that the overall output power
of the example piezoelectric harvesting system (i.e., the har-
vester with its power conditioning circuit) is comparable for
both load cases, although the output power of the harvester
itself is much higher when the load is resistive, compared to the
rectifier load. By adding a control circuitry, the overall output
power of the harvesting system using the buck converter as
interface circuit will be higher compared to the output power of
the system with a buck–boost converter providing the optimal
resistive load.
4175
TABLE III
C OMPARISON OF PS PICE S IMULATION R ESULTS AND T HEORETICAL
E FFICIENCY C ALCULATIONS
V. S IMULATIONS AND M EASUREMENTS
Both power management circuits have been implemented in
PSpice and have been simulated together with the electronic
circuit equivalent of the bimorph piezo energy harvester. The
used MOSFET model is a 2N7002, and the diode model is a
BAS16W. The energy harvester is driven at its short-circuit res-
onance frequency. The switching frequency and the inductance
value of both power management circuits are taken from the
optimal efficiency point in previous calculations.
A comparison of the simulation results with the theoreti-
cal calculations is given in Table III. Circuit1 represents the
buck–boost converter emulating a resistive load, Circuit2 is the
buck converter providing a fixed input voltage to the harvester.
First, the simulations show that both circuits are very well able
to capture the available power out of the harvester. Second,
the simulated losses in the circuits are consistent with the
analytic calculated ones, except that the gate-drive losses of
the MOSFET are slightly lower in simulations because the gate
charge Qg is lower than given in the datasheet of the MOSFET
due to the very low drain–source currents. The simulations also
show that the modeling of the losses in the diode bridge rectifier
is not so accurate.
The simulation results also indicate that, although the output
power of the harvester when connected to the resistive load
is considerably higher than the output power of the harvester
with rectifier load, the overall output power of both processing
circuits is comparable.
Both dc–dc converters have been built on a printed cir-
cuit board using commercially available discrete devices. The
used MOSFET is a 2N7002, and the diode is a BAS16W.
The inductors are ferrite drum core inductors in an SMD
1210-package. A PIC18F4550 microcontroller is used to gen-
erate the pulsewidth-modulated (PWM) gate-drive signals, and
an HCPL3180 is the gate driver. The microcontroller and the
gate-drive circuitry are powered from an external source, as
the optimization toward low power consumption of the control
components is beyond the scope of this paper. The minimal
PWM frequency generated by the microcontroller is 3 kHz,
with a minimal duty cycle of 0.2%. An inductor with an induc-
tance value of 470 μH leads to a duty cycle that is larger than
the minimal 0.2% for both circuits, and hence, this inductance
value has been used in the practical realization. As can be seen
in Fig. 10, the theoretical efficiency of the buck–boost con-
verter providing the resistive load with an inductance value of
4176 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 57, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2010
TABLE IV
M EASUREMENTS ON B OTH P OWER P ROCESSING C IRCUITS
470 μH is 51%. The efficiency of the buck converter with the
same inductor is 60%, as shown in Fig. 12.
The output voltage of both circuits is set to 3 V, and the
piezo bimorph harvester is driven at its open circuit resonance
frequency with an acceleration of 5 m/s2 . A summary of the
main measurements on both circuits is given in Table IV.
The output power of the harvester, connected to Circuit1, is
measured to be about 48 μW. This value is consistent with the
theoretical optimal output of the harvester as shown in Fig. 7.
From this measurement, it can be concluded that the input
resistance emulated by the buck–boost converter is correctly
seen by the energy harvester. The efficiency of the converter
is rather low, about 40%, without taking the gate-drive losses
into account.
Using Circuit2, the voltage at the output of the harvester,
after rectification, is set to 4.8 V, the measured output voltage
is about 39 μW, and this value is also quite consistent with
the theoretical value as shown in Fig. 7. The efficiency of the
converter is about 64%, without taking the power loss in the
gate driver into account.
The measured and calculated power losses are also shown
in Table IV. The differences between the measured and the
modeled power loss are about 15% for Circuit2 and 25% for
Circuit1, without taking the gate-drive losses into account.
The higher measurement losses are probably due to parasitic
effects that have not been taken into account in the model, e.g.,
parasitic capacitances that become relatively important because
of the high frequencies present.
From the measurements, it can be concluded that, for this
particular harvester configuration, the open-loop efficiency of
the standard buck-converter processing circuit is considerably
higher than the efficiency of the buck–boost converter, as was
predicted by theoretical calculations and simulations. More-
over, the measurements show that the overall power output
of the piezoelectric harvesting system with the standard buck
converter as power processing circuit is higher, even though the
harvester power output with the converter providing the optimal
resistive load is higher.
VI. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, the behavior of a piezoelectric vibration-driven
energy harvester has been assessed with two different power
processing circuits. An optimal linear resistive load, as well
as an optimal dc voltage load of the energy harvester, can
be analytically calculated for every operating frequency. To
determine which load leads to the optimal overall efficiency
of a system consisting of an energy harvester connected to
a power processing circuit, two power processing circuits are
designed: the first one emulating a resistive input impedance
and the second one with a constant input voltage. A buck–boost
dc–dc converter without input filter capacitor, operating in
discontinuous conduction mode, is shown to have a resistive
input impedance. A buck converter with input filter capacitor is
used to evaluate the rectifier load case. An analytic loss model
of both converters is set up to determine the optimal operating
point of the converters. If the model parameters of a certain
energy harvester are known, the output power of the energy
harvester after power processing can be calculated using the
analytic loss models of the converters.
Generally, it can be concluded that, in order to design an
optimal harvesting system, it is not sufficient to employ the
power processing strategy that is able to harvest the maximal
amount of energy out of the harvester. The efficiency of the
power processing circuit is equally important. This has been
illustrated by means of a piezo bimorph taken as harvester
device. The harvester generates more power if connected to
the optimal resistive load than if connected to the optimal dc
load. However, the loss calculations show that the efficiency
of the converter emulating a resistive input impedance is much
lower (51%) than the efficiency of the buck converter (60%)
at their optimal operating points. The efficiency of the latter
processing circuit can be increased even more by adding control
circuitry. Hence, for this example, it can be concluded that the
efficiency of the overall system of a harvesting device with
power processing circuit will be better if the processing circuit
has a fixed dc voltage as input. This conclusion is validated
through simulations and experimental measurements. An out-
put power of 19 μW was measured after power processing
with the resistor-emulation approach, whereas a 25-μW output
power was measured with the fixed-voltage approach.
R EFERENCES
[1] S. Roundy, P. K. Wright, and J. Rabaey, “A study of low level vibrations
as a power source for wireless sensor nodes,” Comput. Commun., vol. 26,
no. 11, pp. 1131–1144, Jul. 2003.
[2] S. Roundy and P. K. Wright, “A piezoelectric vibration based generator for
wireless electronics,” Smart Mater. Struct., vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 1131–1142,
Oct. 2004.
[3] S. P. Beeby, R. N. Torah, M. J. Tudor, P. Glynne-Jones, T. O’Donnell,
C. R. Saha, and S. Roy, “A micro electromagnetic generator for vibration
energy harvesting,” J. Micromech. Microeng., vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 1257–
1265, Jul. 2007.
[4] P. D. Mitcheson, T. Sterken, C. He, M. Kiziroglou, E. M. Yeatman, and
R. Puers, “Electrostatic microgenerators,” Meas. Control, vol. 41, no. 4,
pp. 114–119, May 2008.
[5] M. D. Seeman, S. R. Sanders, and J. M. Rabaey, “An ultra-low-power
power management IC for energy-scavenged wireless sensor nodes,” in
Proc. IEEE Power Electron. Spec. Conf., Rhodes, Turkey, Jun. 2008,
pp. 925–931.
[6] S. Xu, K. D. T. Ngo, T. Nishida, G. B. Chung, and A. Sharma, “Low
frequency pulsed resonant converter for energy harvesting,” IEEE Trans.
Power Electron., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 63–68, Jan. 2007.
[7] M. Marzencki, Y. Ammar, and S. Basrour, “Design, fabrication and char-
acterization of a piezoelectric microgenerator including a power man-
agement circuit,” in Proc. Symp. DTIP MEMS/MOEMS, Stresa, Italy,
Apr. 25–27, 2007.
[8] G. K. Ottman, H. F. Hofmann, and G. A. Lesieutre, “Optimized piezoelec-
tric energy harvesting circuit using step-down converter in discontinuous
conduction mode,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 696–
703, Mar. 2003.
[9] D. Guyomar, A. Badel, E. Lefeuvre, and C. Richard, “Towards energy har-
vesting using active materials and conversion improvement by nonlinear
D’HULST et al.: POWER PROCESSING CIRCUITS FOR PIEZOELECTRIC VIBRATION-BASED ENERGY HARVESTERS
processing,” IEEE Trans. Ultrason., Ferroelectr., Freq. Control, vol. 52,
no. 4, pp. 584–595, Apr. 2005.
[10] E. Lefeuvre, D. Audigier, C. Richard, and D. Guyomar, “Buck-boost
converter for sensorless power optimization of piezoelectric energy har-
vester,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 2018–2025,
Sep. 2007.
[11] P. Mitcheson, T. Green, E. Yeatman, and A. Holmes, “Architectures
for vibration-driven micropower generators,” J. Microelectromech. Syst.,
vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 429–440, Jun. 2004.
[12] Y. Hu, H. Xue, T. Hu, and H. Hu, “Nonlinear interface between the
piezoelectric harvesting structure and the modulating circuit of an energy
harvester with a real storage battery,” IEEE Trans. Ultrason., Ferroelectr.,
Freq. Control, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 148–160, Jan. 2008.
[13] L. Garbuio, M. Lallart, D. Guyomar, C. Richard, and D. Audigier, “Me-
chanical energy harvester with ultralow threshold rectification based on
SSHI nonlinear technique,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 4,
pp. 1048–1056, Apr. 2009.
[14] A. Tabesh and L. Frechette, “An accurate analytical model for electro-
mechanical energy conversion in a piezoelectric cantilever beam for
energy harvesting,” in Proc. 7th Int. Workshop Micro Nanotechnol.
Power Gener. Energy Convers. Appl. PowerMEMS, Freiburg, Germany,
Nov. 2007, pp. 61–64.
[15] A. Badel, A. Benayad, E. Lefeuvre, L. Lebrun, C. Richard, and
D. Guyomar, “Single crystals and nonlinear process for outstanding
vibration-powered electrical generators,” IEEE Trans. Ultrason., Ferro-
electr., Freq. Control, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 673–684, Apr. 2006.
[16] R. D’hulst, T. Sterken, P. Fiorini, R. Puers, and J. Driesen, “Energy
scavengers : Modeling and behavior with different load circuits,” in Proc.
33rd IEEE IECON, Taipei, Taiwan, Nov. 2007, pp. 2169–2174.
[17] N. duToit, B. Wardle, and S. Kim, “Design considerations for MEMS-
scale piezoelectric mechanical vibration energy harvesters,” Integr. Fer-
roelectr., vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 121–160, Jul. 2005.
[18] Y. C. Shu and I. C. Lien, “Analysis of power output for piezoelectric
energy harvesting systems,” Smart Mater. Struct., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1499–
1512, Dec. 2006.
[19] M. Renaud, T. Sterken, A. Schmitz, P. Fiorini, C. Van Hoof, and R. Puers,
“Piezoelectric harvesters and MEMS technology: Fabrication, model-
ing and measurements,” in Proc. 14th TRANSDUCERS, Lyon, France,
Jun. 2007, pp. 891–894.
[20] R. D’hulst, P. Mitcheson, and J. Driesen, “CMOS buck-boost power
processing circuitry for PowerMEMS harvesters,” in Proc. 6th Int. Work-
shop Micro Nanotechnol. Power Gener. Energy Convers. Appl. Power-
MEMS, Berkeley, CA, Nov. 29–Dec. 1, 2006.
[21] G. K. Ottman, H. F. Hofmann, A. C. Bhatt, and G. A. Lesieutre, “Adaptive
piezoelectric energy harvesting circuit for wireless remote power supply,”
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 669–676, Sep. 2002.
[22] R. Sodhi, S. Brown, Sr., and D. Kinzer, “Integrated design environment
for DC/DC converter FET optimization,” in Proc. 11th ISPSD, Toronto,
ON, Canada, May 1999, pp. 241–244.
[23] S. Musunuri and P. L. Chapman, “Optimization of CMOS transistors for
low power DC-DC converters,” in Proc. IEEE 36th Power Electron. Spec.
Conf., Recife, Brazil, Jun. 2005, pp. 2151–2157.
[24] Y. Katayama, M. Edo, T. Denta, T. Kawashima, and T. Ninomiya, “Op-
timum design method of CMOS IC for DC-DC converter that integrates
power stage MOSFETs,” in Proc. IEEE 35th PESC, Jun. 2004, vol. 6,
pp. 4486–4491.
Reinhilde D’hulst received the M.Sc. degree in
electrical engineering and the Ph.D. degree from
the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (K.U.Leuven),
Leuven, Belgium, in 2004 and 2009, respectively.
As a member of the Electrical Energy research
group (ELECTA), Department of Electrical Engi-
neering, K.U.Leuven, she worked on power process-
ing circuits for energy harvesters. She is currently
with VITO, the Flemisch Institute for Technological
Research, where she conducts research on power
electronics in a smart grid environment.
4177
Tom Sterken (M’02) received the Diploma degree in
electrical engineering from the University of Ghent,
Ghent, Belgium, in 2001 and the Ph.D. degree
from the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven,
Belgium, in 2009.
From 2002 to 2008, he was with the Interuniver-
sitary Center for Microelectronics, Leuven, working
on the design, modeling, and fabrication of miniature
power generators based on MEMS technology. This
research resulted in his Ph.D. degree. He is currently
with the Centre for Microsystems Technology group,
University of Ghent, where he is working on ultrathin chip packaging and
stretchable electronics.
Robert Puers (SM’95) was born in Antwerp,
Belgium, in 1953. He received the B.S. degree in
electrical engineering from University of Ghent,
Ghent, Belgium, in 1974 and the M.S. and Ph.D.
degrees from the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
(K.U.Leuven), Leuven, Belgium, in 1977 and 1986,
respectively.
In 1980, he joined ESAT, K.U.Leuven, as a Re-
search Assistant, where he became the Director
(NFWO) of the clean room facilities for silicon
and hybrid circuit technology at the ESAT–MICAS
laboratories in 1986. He was a pioneer in the European research efforts
in silicon micromachined sensors, microelectromechanical systems (MEMS),
and packaging techniques, for biomedical implantable systems as well as for
industrial devices. He is currently a full Professor with K.U.Leuven, teaching
courses in “microsystems and sensors” and “biomedical instrumentation and
stimulation” and also a basic course in “lectronics, system control, and infor-
mation technology.” He is the author or coauthor of more than 350 papers on
biotelemetry, sensors, MEMS, and packaging in reviewed journals or interna-
tional conferences. He is the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Micromechanics
and Microengineering of the Institute of Physics (IOP).
Dr. Puers is a Fellow of the IOP (U.K.) and a council member of the Interna-
tional Microelectronics and Packaging Society. He is the General Chairman of
the Eurosensors conferences.
Geert Deconinck (SM’01) received the M.Sc. de-
gree in electrical engineering and the Ph.D. degree in
engineering from the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
(K.U.Leuven), Leuven, Belgium, in 1991 and 1996,
respectively.
He was a Postdoctoral Fellow of the Fund
for Scientific Research—Flanders from 1997 to
2003. He is currently a full Professor (hoogleraar)
with K.U.Leuven. He is also a Staff Member of
ESAT/ELECTA (Electrical Energy and Computing
Architectures), K.U.Leuven, where he performs re-
search on designing dependable system architectures for industrial automa-
tion and control, assessing their dependability attributes and characterizing
infrastructure interdependences.
Dr. Deconinck is a member of the IEEE SMC Technical Committee on
Infrastructure Systems and Services, the Royal Flemish Engineering Society,
and the Institute of Engineering and Technology. He is a senior member of the
IEEE Reliability Society, IEEE Computer Society, and IEEE Power and Energy
Society. He is the Chairman of the TI society BIRA on industrial automation.
Johan Driesen (M’97) was born in Belgium in
1973. He received the M.Sc. degree and the Ph.D.
degree in electrical engineering from the Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven (K.U.Leuven), Leuven,
Belgium, in 1996 and 2000, respectively. His Ph.D.
focused on the finite-element solution of coupled
thermal–electromagnetic problems and related appli-
cations in electrical machines and drives, micro-
systems, and power quality issues.
From 2000 to 2001, he was a Visiting Researcher
with the Imperial College of Science, Technology
and Medicine, London, U.K. In 2002, he was with the University of California,
Berkeley. He is currently an Associate Professor with K.U.Leuven, where he
teaches power electronics and drives. Currently, he conducts research on distrib-
uted energy resources, including renewable energy systems, power electronics,
and its applications, for instance, in renewable energy and electric vehicles.