Shoe Energy Harvester

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

State University of New York at Buffalo
Prepared by:
Babacar Cisse
Michael Gazzo
John McDonough
Dustin Nickerson
Eric Schamberger

Page 1 of 36

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................4
1.0 INITIAL DESIGNS.............................................................................................................................4
2.0 REVISED MODEL..............................................................................................................................4
3.0 REVISED MODEL: INITIAL TESTING............................................................................................5
4.0 REVISED MODEL: CONTINUED TESTING..................................................................................5
5.0 FINAL PROTOTYPE FABRICATION...............................................................................................5
6.0 FINAL PROTOTYPE TESTING.........................................................................................................5
APPENDIX A1: PROTOTYPE RESULTS...............................................................................................7
APPENDIX A2: BILL OF MATERIALS................................................................................................13
APPENDIX A3: DESIGN PROGRESSION..........................................................................................14
APPENDIX A3-1 MODEL 1......................................................................................................................15
APPENDIX A3-2 MODEL 2......................................................................................................................15
APPENDIX A3-3 MODEL 3......................................................................................................................15
APPENDIX A3-4 MODEL 4......................................................................................................................15
APPENDIX A3-5 MODEL 5......................................................................................................................17
APPENDIX A4: FABRICATION PHOTOS..........................................................................................17
APPENDIX A5: SHAKER MOUNT.....................................................................................................20
APPENDIX 6: ANALYSIS PROCEDURE.............................................................................................23
APPENDIX A6-1: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND BEAM BUCKLING.......................................................23
APPENDIX A6-2: POWER CALCULATIONS.............................................................................................24
APPENDIX A6-3: MATLAB...................................................................................................................24
APPENDIX A6-4: EXPERIMENTAL SETUP...............................................................................................26
APPENDIX A7: TESTING PROCEDURE............................................................................................27
APPENDIX A8: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS............................................................................................27
APPENDIX A8-1: FABRICATION ($75/HR).............................................................................................28
APPENDIX 8-2: ASSEMBLY ($50/HR.)....................................................................................................29
APPENDIX 8-3 TOTAL COST...................................................................................................................30
APPENDIX 9: FINAL TEST RESULTS.................................................................................................31

Page 2 of 36

BRASS SINGLE BEAM RELIABILITY:........................................................................................................31

STEEL SINGLE BEAM RELIABILITY:.........................................................................................................32
DOUBLE BEAM RELIABILITY:..................................................................................................................32
BRASS SINGLE BEAM MAX POWER:.......................................................................................................33
STEEL SINGLE BEAM MAX POWER:........................................................................................................34
DOUBLE BEAM MAX POWER (COMBINED):...........................................................................................34

Table of Figures
FIGURE 7: FINAL MODEL............................................................................................................................16
FIGURE 8: FINAL MODEL JOINTS................................................................................................................16
FIGURE 9: STRUCTURE DIAGRAM...............................................................................................................23
FIGURE 10: MATLAB HARVESTER BEHAVIOR RESPONSE........................................................................25
FIGURE 11: HARVESTER VIBRATION BEHAVIOR.........................................................................................25
FIGURE 12: ATTENUATION CIRCUIT TESTING............................................................................................26
FIGURE 13: LDS DACTRON.........................................................................................................................27
FIGURE 14: HAND COMPRESSION..............................................................................................................27
FIGURE 15: HAND COMPRESSION OF HARVESTER....................................................................................27

Table of Tables
TABLE IV: MAIN BEAM FABRICATION ANALYSIS......................................................................................28
TABLE V: OBLIQUE TOP BEAM FABRICATION ANALYSIS..........................................................................28
TABLE VI: SUBSTRATE FABRICATION ANALYSIS........................................................................................28
TABLE VII: SUBSTRATE FLANGES FABRICATION ANALYSIS.......................................................................29
TABLE VIII: ASSEMBLY PINS FABRICATION ANALYSIS..............................................................................29
TABLE IX: BARREL FABRICATION ANALYSIS..............................................................................................29
TABLE X: MAIN/OBLIQUE BEAM BARREL ASSEMBLY..............................................................................29
TABLE XI: PZT APPLICATION....................................................................................................................30
TABLE XII: ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS....................................................................................................30
TABLE XIII: TOTAL ASSEMBLY OF PROTOTYPES........................................................................................30
TABLE XIV: TOTAL COST............................................................................................................................31

Page 3 of 36

Executive Summary
Testing of the Shoe Energy Harvester resulted in a maximum power output of 32.89 mW
with the use of a shorter single spring steel beam, which was covered with four piezo
patches [Appendix 9]. This output shows a substantial increase from the projects
previous prototype which utilized a longer brass substrate [Appendix A1]. These results
demonstrate that spring steel substrates are worth investigating as its power output
exceeds that of any other prototype. This power was produced through destructive
means; in order to generate a large power output the beam must be able to buckle a
large distance. This buckling inheritably causes the piezo to be damaged, and therefore
is not reliable. When the system is equipped with stoppers to limit buckling, the power
output sees a severe drop off, however the structural integrity of the piezo is
maintained.

1.0 Initial Designs

The initial designs leverage a multi-joint structure that acts as a force multiplier and
incorporates a bimorph piezoelectric beam that is buckled with an applied load. When a
compressive load is applied to the structure, the bimorph beam will deflect as the ends
of the beam are forced together. This shortens the beam and produces vibrations
throughout its length. When the applied load is removed the beam recoils back to its
equilibrium position causing further vibrations of higher amplitude. The vibrations due
to buckling are the driver for this model as they excite the piezoelectric material
producing electrical power with each oscillation.

2.0 Revised Model

The group created a design that leverages a multi-joint structure acting as a force
multiplier incorporating a bimorph piezoelectric beam that is buckled with an applied
load. Three design iterations have been reviewed and a final design has been developed
based on key features from Models 1-3 [Appendix A3]. The final design was then
agreed upon for fabrication and testing. The materials have been selected based on
mechanical properties and minimizing overall system weight
Page 4 of 36

3.0 Revised Model: Initial Testing

The components of the shoe energy harvester had been assembled and preliminary
testing has begun to compare the prototype's power output with the theoretical model
[Appendix 6-7]. The initial testing is performed using the MTS machine in the
University at Buffalo's mechanical engineering department. Further testing is conducted
by the group members by compressing the prototype by hand and foot to monitor the
changes in output based on the types of stimulus. The power output is measured with
an oscilloscope over a period of time.

4.0 Revised Model: Continued Testing

The group had tested and collected data from the shoe energy harvester prototype. We
tested three piezo/substrate thickness configurations to find the optimum power output
[Appendix A1]. The members then designed a shaker table fixture that will allow us to
accurately test the prototype [Appendix A5]. New harvester prototype designs have
also been completed [Appendix A3-5]. One design is a scaled down version of the
original single-bimorph beam device while another will incorporate multiple beams.
The new designs will be tested using our shaker table once the fixture fabrication and
assembly is completed. A power storage circuit is also being designed for our future
testing.

5.0 Final Prototype Fabrication

We had fabricated the components in the student machine shop located on the
University at Buffalo campus. Fabrication consisted of creating two single substrates,
one of cartridge brass and the other with spring steel. The double beam design was also
fabricated, which consisted of two brass substrates and a re-designed framework
[Appendix A8].

Page 5 of 36

6.0 Final Prototype Testing

The preliminary testing revealed interesting information worth investigating [Appendix
A9]. The theoretical model showed that brass would be the ideal substrate material for
this application based on geometries and material properties. However, the test data
shows otherwise. More testing of the substrate/PZT geometry should be done to find
the best combination for this application.

Page 6 of 36

Appendix A1: Prototype Results

Page 7 of 36

Page 8 of 36

Page 9 of 36

Page 10 of 36

Page 11 of 36

Page 12 of 36

Note: The 0.0105 PZT / 0.060 substrate configuration testing was cut short due to
brass substrate failure.

Appendix A2: Bill of Materials

Page 13 of 36

Note: Sourced material was purchased through Mc-Master Carr.

Appendix A3: Design Progression

Project deliverables include detailed engineering drawings of each individual component

of the harvester and a 3D assembly model of each prototype. There have been six models
based on project requirements and DFM.
The group must also produce a working prototype of the harvester based off of the
drawings. There will be three prototypes built by the group.
Analysis will include static/dynamic analysis of the prototype as well as the power
calculation based on the information from data acquisition software. All test data is
organized and reviewed as well.
Detailed progress reports are written by the students in the group, reviewed by the
academic advisors for approval, and then sent to the sponsor for final submission.

Page 14 of 36

Appendix A3-1 Model 1

The first CAD model, shown in Figure 6, consists of a 1018 mild steel structure, brass
substrate material, and piezoelectric sheets covering the substrate. All joints are pin
connected using ground steel pins. This gave us a starting point which we could DFM
and optimize.

Appendix A3-2 Model 2

Total system dimensions for models 1-4 shown for reference. The dimension are based
from the use of 10.20" long brass substrate used in the theoretical model while allowing
the beam enough room to deflect when the system is compressed under loading. The
loading will act normal to the surface of the main beam compressing the structure. The

cut-away sections of the beam sections will allow for ~10

of angle change during
compression before the beams interfere with each other. This translates to a total
y 0.820 at max compression.

Appendix A3-3 Model 3

The primary goal of model 3 is minimizing the inertia of the structure. To save weight
and lower the sprung mass, the main beams, oblique beams, and substrate flanges are
made from 6061 aluminum. The main beams are perforated to remove extra mass. The
holes are 0.750" diameter. All dimensions are the same from previous models and the
changes from model 2 have carried over. The change in material and removing mass
from the main beams brings the total system weight down to 2.36 lb. This will help with
response of the system when the applied force is removed and the bimorph beam
recoils.

Page 15 of 36

Appendix A3-4 Model 4

The final model shown below is a detailed version of model 3 shown in Figures 7-8.

Figure 1: Final Model

Model 4 was developed with prototyping in mind. The hinged joints have to be
machined separately then joined to the beam sections. This model shows the individual
pieces assembled together. A joint comparison is shown in Figure 7.

Figure 2: Final Model Joints

The machined slots ensure proper alignment of all components during assembly. The
joints in the prototype will be epoxied with an epoxy specified for this application. The
epoxy will also allow the aluminum flanges to bond to the brass substrate. No welding
will be necessary for this prototype.
As demonstrated in the design progression concepts from MAE 377, 311 and 364 were
used in order to create a more effective design. These designs were modeled using
CREO design software, design for manufacturability concepts have been applied to
reduce material and structural analysis was used to calculate beam buckling forces.

Page 16 of 36

Appendix A3-5 Model 5

Model 5:
The double beam design uses two brass substrates of the following dimensions:
L=6.00, W=2.85, H=0.02
Each has four PZT patches of:
L=2.85, W=2.85, H=0.0105
Again, the materials were picked based on the results of the optimization.

Appendix A4: Fabrication Photos

Milling Main Beams

Page 17 of 36

Milling Oblique Beams

Milling Block Slots

Page 18 of 36

Milling Barrel Slots

Shearing Flanges
Page 19 of 36

Appendix A5: Shaker Mount

The design of the shaker table fixture gives us flexibility to test different design
geometries. A preloaded scissor jack provides an adjustable testing envelope. The jack is
preloaded to remove any play in the mechanical linkages during loading. We chose this
jack due to its adjustability and loading capabilities. The jack is designed for static
loading up to 3000lb which is more than the shaker will ever produce however, the
engineering has already been done which saves a lot of time and they may be purchased
for around $25.00.
A PCB Piezotronics Model: 208C03 force sensor is mounted between the shaker piston
and the dynamic platen to provide instant feedback to the LDS unit. Threaded rods are
Page 20 of 36

used to move the static preload platen within the test envelope. The rods and platens
will have double nuts to avoid backing off while testing. The shaker will be mounted in
the vertical orientation for testing our device.

Page 21 of 36

Fabricated Mount

Page 22 of 36

Page 23 of 36

Appendix 6: Analysis Procedure

This section will demonstrate some of the engineering calculations used by the group.
Appendix A6-1: Structural Analysis and Beam Buckling

Figure 3: Structure Diagram

Equation 1: When considering the weight of a 200lb man the team made the assumption
that the force is evenly displaced over the beam, this allows us to treat the endpoints as
each having their own 100lb point loads. The resting angle is 20 . Therefore the axial
load on the substrate is as follows,
Load
100 lb
=
x 2 sides
sin(20) sin (20)
584.76 lbs, axial load

Equation 2: We now check to make sure the substrate will buckle under this load as
beam buckling is what allows power generation. Using Eulers Column formula,
F=

n 2 EI
,n=1( pin connected)
L2

( 121 )2.85( 0.02 ) +(2.850.04 )0.04 i n )

3

7541962 psi
F piezo =2(

( 2.85 )2 i n2

F piezo =34.8 lbs

Page 24 of 36

( 121 )2.85( 0.02) ( 10) i n

216000000 psi

F brass=
Fbrass =3.00 lbs

Ftotal =

F brass + F piezo
2

Ftotal =18.9lbs
Appendix A6-2: Power Calculations
Average power calculations rely on collecting the root mean square voltage from the
data acquisition software, with this collected data the RMS voltage can be found with
either excel, hand calculations or MATLAB. These iterations allow results to be matched
together to ensure continuity in calculations.
Excel Function: SQRT((SUMSQ(Ai : An)/countA(Bi : Bn)), this function will allow for
the calculation of the rms voltage.
RMS Equation:
Rms=

1
( X 2 + X 22 + X 32 ++ X N 2)
N 1

Where N = # of cycles, and X = each voltage.

Average Power Calculation:
Pavg=

V Rms2
R

This power equation is used to calculate the average power output of the system with
the use of RMS voltage.

Page 25 of 36

Appendix A6-3: MATLAB

The use of MATLAB code allows for whole sets of data to be imported and allows for
the calculation of RMS voltage, average power as well as graphing the physical behavior
of the systems vibrations. These graphs are then compared to the empirical data
collected by the DAQ software as shown in Figures 10-11.

Figure 4: MATLAB Harvester Behavior Response

Figure 5: Harvester Vibration Behavior

As seen above, the system shows a spike when the beam is initially buckled, the small
oscillation in between show the vibration that occurs in between each buckle. The larger
Page 26 of 36

vibration spikes occur at recoil. The residual oscillation helps to produce most of the
power output of the system as the vibration allow for a longer period of power creation
than the initial buckling.
Appendix A6-4: Experimental Setup
The following setup is used to test the shoe energy harvester:
The energy harvester has a peak voltage output greater than 10 volts. Because of this we
have use an attention circuit to ensure we do not exceed the input voltage limits of the
data acquisition equipment. The circuit will act as an attenuation probe for the
experiment while giving us the flexibility to dial in the proper resistor value without
Rs i
having to compensate for a probe. During testing we retain a 1:20 ratio where
s
the smaller resistor value and

Rl

is the larger. As an example for 30k the ratio is as

follows:
Rs
1
=
R s + Rl 20
1.5
1
=
1.5+ R l 20
Rl=28.5 k
The two resistor boxes and the energy harvester are shown below.

Page 27 of 36

Figure 6: Attenuation Circuit Testing

For our data collection we are using the LDS Dactron DAQ unit coupled with RT Laser
Pro software.

Appendix A7: Testing Procedure

For our data collection we are using the LDS Dactron DAQ unit coupled with RT Laser
Pro software.

Figure 7: LDS Dactron

Each PZT patch was tested individually on each beam to measure individual outputs.
Resistor sweeps from 10-100k are done for each patch. We are currently testing the
harvester by compressing the structure by hand shown below.

Page 28 of 36

Figure 8: Hand Compression

Figure 9: Hand Compression of Harvester.

Appendix A8: Economic Analysis

The economic analysis for this project will focus on the manufacturing cost for
prototypes 2 and 3. The component were machined and assembled by the students in
the group at the University at Buffalos machine shop in Jarvis Hall. The components for
each prototype were manufactured at the same time due to the fact they share the same
parts. The components will be analyzed by the time required for machining and
assembly with respect to the appropriate rate for each process. The external machining
rate at the University of Buffalo is $75.00/hr. which includes setup time,
operating/cutting time, overhead, and tool wear costs. The assembly rate is $50/hr.
which is based on labor and overhead cost of a small business in the western New York
area [14]. The bill of materials is given in Appendix A2.
Appendix A8-1: Fabrication ($75/hr)
Table I: Main Beam Fabrication Analysis

Main Beams (4 units/run)

Operation
Rough cut the stock with band saw
Outline and clamp blanks
Facing blanks to proper length
Drilling 12, holes through blanks
Machining slots at ends of blanks
Check tolerances and hand finish surfaces
Total Time

Time (min)
30
30
30
30
30
30
3 hrs.

Page 29 of 36

Table II: Oblique Top Beam Fabrication Analysis

Oblique Top Beam (4 units/run)

Operation
Rough cut stock into blanks with band saw
Outline and clamp blanks for machining
Facing blanks to proper length
Machining slots at ends of blanks
Check tolerances and hand finish surfaces
Total Time

Time (min)
30
30
30
30
30
2.5 hrs.

Note: Oblique Bottom Beam, requires the same process for the top beams
Total Time = 2.5 hrs.
Table III: Substrate Fabrication Analysis

Substrates (4 units/run)
Shear stock to proper size
Notch blanks to allow for assembly
Total Time

30
30
1 hr.

Table IV: Substrate Flanges Fabrication Analysis

Substrate Flanges (16 units/run)

Operation
Shear stock to proper size
Notch blanks to allow for assembly
Grinding/deburring to allow for assembly
Total Time

Time (min)
30
30
30
1.5 hrs.

Table V: Assembly Pins Fabrication Analysis

Assembly Pins (12 units/run)

Cut stock to length
Grind a chamfer on ends for assembly
Total Time

30
30
1 hr.

Table VI: Barrel Fabrication Analysis

Barrels (44 units/run)

Operation

Time (min)
Page 30 of 36

Drilling center holes on lathe

Facing/Deburring/Cutting to length on lathe
Machining assembly slots
Total Time

120
120
120
6 hrs.

Appendix 8-2: Assembly ($50/hr.)

Table VII: Main/Oblique Beam Barrel Assembly

Epoxy Barrels to Main and Oblique Beams

Operation
Time (min)
Preparation (clean and degrease components)
30
Apply epoxy to all surfaces
30
Assemble and align all parts with pins
60
Total Time
2 hrs.

Table VIII: PZT Application

PZT Application (16 Patches on 4 Substrates)

Operation
Time (min)
Setup and Preparation: Sand and clean
60
substrates, degrease all surfaces
PZT Application: Epoxy PZT onto substrates
180
Total Time
4 hrs.
Note: Each side of the PZT has to be done separately. PZT is applied to one side of the
substrate and allowed to cure overnight then the other side is done. This is a two day
process in total.
Table IX: Electrical Connections

Electrical Connections (16 Patches on 4 Substrates)

Operation
Time (min)
Page 31 of 36

Prepare wiring
Soldering all connections
Total Time

30
60
1.5 hrs.

Table X: Total Assembly of Prototypes

PZT Application (16 Patches on 4 Substrates)

Operation
Time (min)
Assemble all component assemblies to
30
complete prototype
Total Time
4 hrs.

Appendix 8-3 Total Cost

Based on the manufacturing estimates given for this project the total cost is $1712.50 not
including the materials. The material cost from the bill of materials totals $1784.48.
Therefore,

Table XI: Total Cost

Prototype Phase
Total Fabrication Time
Total Assembly Time
Total Time
Material Cost
Total Cost

Total Prototype Cost

Total Time (hrs.)
60
180
4 hrs.

Fabrication Cost ($)

1312.250
400.00
1712.50
$1784.48
$3496.98

The price is very high but there are many contributing factors including the cost of PZT
material the number of prototypes produced. We are not effectively leveraging
economies of scale when purchasing materials or manufacturing components for two
prototypes.

Page 32 of 36

Appendix 9: Final Test Results

Brass Single Beam Reliability:

Page 33 of 36

Steel Single Beam Reliability:

Double Beam Reliability:

Page 34 of 36

Brass Single Beam Max Power:

Page 35 of 36

Steel Single Beam Max Power:

Double Beam Max Power (combined):

Page 36 of 36