Energy harvesting from aeroelastic vibrations induced by discrete gust loads
Source abstract
Abstract
This article evaluates the amount of energy that can be extracted from a gust using an aeroelastic energy harvester composed of a flexible wing with attached piezoelectric elements. The harvester operates in a subcritical flow region. It is modeled as a linear Euler–Bernoulli beam sandwiched between two piezoceramics. The extended Hamilton’s principle is used to derive the harvester’s equations of motion and an eigenfunction expansion is used to form a three-degree-of-freedom reduced-order model. The degrees of freedom retained in the model are two flexural degrees for the in-plane and out-of-plane displacements, and a torsional degree for the rotational displacement. Wagner and Küssner functions are used to represent the unsteady aerodynamic and gust loading, respectively. The amount of energy extracted from the system is then compared for two different deterministic gust profiles, 1-COSINE and two sharp-edged gusts forming a square gust, for various magnitudes and durations. The results show that the harvester is able to extract more energy from the square gust profile, although for both profiles the harvester extracts more power after the gust has subsided.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Innovative Energy Harvesting Technologies · Vibration Control and Rheological Fluids · Fluid Dynamics and Vibration Analysis
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Italy
School of Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University, USA
School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Australia
References (34)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1243/09544100JAERO24110.1243/09544100JAERO241 ↗
2. 10.1177/1045389X1244075210.1177/1045389X12440752 ↗
3. 10.1088/0964-1726/22/2/02501610.1088/0964-1726/22/2/025016 ↗
4. 10.1088/0964-1726/18/11/11500510.1088/0964-1726/18/11/115005 ↗
5. 10.1063/1.481140810.1063/1.4811408 ↗
6. Bisplinghoff R · 2013
7. 10.1115/IMECE2014-3885110.1115/IMECE2014-38851 ↗
8. 10.1117/12.81578510.1117/12.815785 ↗
9. 10.1109/ACC.2007.428247910.1109/ACC.2007.4282479 ↗
10. 10.2514/6.2010-803710.2514/6.2010-8037 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.jsv.2010.04.00210.1016/j.jsv.2010.04.002 ↗
12. 10.1177/1045389X1246107310.1177/1045389X12461073 ↗
13. 10.1115/1.400278510.1115/1.4002785 ↗
14. De Marqui Jnr C · Journal of Sound and Vibration · 2010 · 327 · 9
15. 10.1002/978111999115110.1002/9781119991151 ↗
16. 10.1063/1.342740510.1063/1.3427405 ↗
17. Federal Aviation Administration · 1993
18. 10.1109/IROS.2012.638551910.1109/IROS.2012.6385519 ↗
19. Fung Yc · 2002
20. 10.1016/j.jsv.2014.03.03410.1016/j.jsv.2014.03.034 ↗
21. 10.2514/4.86188810.2514/4.861888 ↗
22. 10.1115/DETC2013-1321010.1115/DETC2013-13210 ↗
23. 10.1109/TUFFC.2011.573326610.1109/TUFFC.2011.5733266 ↗
24. 10.1016/S0734-743X(00)00033-610.1016/S0734-743X(00)00033-6 ↗
25. Nayfeh AH · 2008
26. Qin Z · 2001
27. Sedaghat A · 2000 · 464
28. 10.1177/1045389X1039024910.1177/1045389X10390249 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2005.12.08410.1016/j.jpowsour.2005.12.084 ↗
30. 10.1002/zamm.1925005010310.1002/zamm.19250050103 ↗
31. 10.1109/TMECH.2013.225506310.1109/TMECH.2013.2255063 ↗
32. 10.1177/002199831244867710.1177/0021998312448677 ↗
33. Wright J · 2008
34. 10.1016/j.jsv.2014.12.02310.1016/j.jsv.2014.12.023 ↗