↓ Skip to main content

Influence of combined fundamental potentials in a nonlinear vibration energy harvester

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Influence of combined fundamental potentials in a nonlinear vibration energy harvester
Published in
Scientific Reports, November 2016
DOI 10.1038/srep37292
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pranay Podder, Dhiman Mallick, Andreas Amann, Saibal Roy

Abstract

Ambient mechanical vibrations have emerged as a viable energy source for low-power wireless sensor nodes aiming the upcoming era of the 'Internet of Things'. Recently, purposefully induced dynamical nonlinearities have been exploited to widen the frequency spectrum of vibration energy harvesters. Here we investigate some critical inconsistencies between the theoretical formulation and applications of the bistable Duffing nonlinearity in vibration energy harvesting. A novel nonlinear vibration energy harvesting device with the capability to switch amidst individually tunable bistable-quadratic, monostable-quartic and bistable-quartic potentials has been designed and characterized. Our study highlights the fundamentally different large deflection behaviors of the theoretical bistable-quartic Duffing oscillator and the experimentally adapted bistable-quadratic systems, and underlines their implications in the respective spectral responses. The results suggest enhanced performance in the bistable-quartic potential in comparison to others, primarily due to lower potential barrier and higher restoring forces facilitating large amplitude inter-well motion at relatively lower accelerations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 32%
Student > Master 8 29%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Professor 1 4%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 18 64%
Computer Science 2 7%
Physics and Astronomy 1 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 4%
Materials Science 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 4 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 December 2016.
All research outputs
#12,173,197
of 15,313,668 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#57,232
of 79,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#271,609
of 386,374 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#3,503
of 4,726 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,313,668 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 79,028 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 386,374 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,726 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.