skip to main content

This content will become publicly available on July 1, 2023

Title: Dimensional Effects of Polymer Piezoelectric Films for Wind Energy Harvesting
Abstract Arrays of flexible polymer piezoelectric film cantilevers that mimic grass or leaves is a prospective idea for harvesting wind energy in urban areas, where the use of traditional technologies is problematic due to low wind velocities. Conversion of this idea into an economically attractive technology depends on various factors including the shape and dimensions of individual films to maximize generated power and to minimize associated costs of production, operation, and maintenance. The latter requirement can be satisfied with rectangular films undergoing flutter in ambient air. Flexible piezoelectric films that displace due to low forces and can convert mechanical energy into electrical energy are ideal for this application. The goal of the presented study is to determine the key dimensions of the piezoelectric film to enhance generated power within the wind range characteristic for urban areas from 1.3 to 7.6 m/s. For this purpose, experiments were conducted in a wind tunnel using piezoelectric polymer films of polyvinylidine fluoride with the length, width, and thickness varying in the ranges of 32–150, 16–22, and 40–64 μm, respectively. Voltage and power outputs for individual samples were measured at wind speeds ranging from 0.5 to 16.5 m/s. Results demonstrated that a single film could produce up to more » 0.74 nW and that the optimal film dimensions are 63 mm × 22 mm × 40 μm (from considered samples) for the wind energy harvesting in urban areas. Further improvement in power production can be expected when using films with reduced thickness, low elastic modulus, and increased length, and by assembling films in arrays. « less
Authors:
; ;
Award ID(s):
1757207
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10321716
Journal Name:
Journal of Fluids Engineering
Volume:
144
Issue:
7
ISSN:
0098-2202
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Direct write Inkjet Printing is a versatile additive manufacturing technology that allows for the fabrication of multiscale structures with dimensions spanning from nano to cm scale. This is made possible due to the development of novel dispensing tools, enabling controlled and precise deposition of fluid with a wide range of viscosities (1 – 50 000 mPas) in nano-liter volumes. As a result, Inkjet printing has been recognized as a potential low-cost alternative for several established manufacturing methods, including cleanroom fabrication. In this paper, we present a characterization study of PEDOT: PSS polymer ink deposition printing process realized with the helpmore »of an automated, custom Direct Write Inkjet system. PEDOT: PSS is a highly conductive ink that possesses good film forming capabilities. Applications thus include printing thin films on flexible substrates for tactile (touch) sensors. We applied the Taguchi Design of Experiment (DOE) method to produce the optimal set of PEDOT:PSS ink dispensing parameters, to study their influence on the resulting ink droplet diameter. We experimentally determined that the desired outcome of a printed thin film with minimum thickness is directly related to 1) the minimum volume of dispensed fluid and 2) the presence of a preprocessing step, namely air plasma treatment of the Kapton substrate. Results show that an ink deposit with a minimum diameter of 482 μm, and a thin film with approximately 300 nm thickness were produced with good repeatability.« less
  2. Quantum dots (QDs) offer several advantages in optoelectronics such as easy solution processing, strong light absorption and size tunable direct bandgap. However, their major limitation is their poor film mobility and short diffusion length (<250 nm). This has restricted the thickness of QD film to ∼200–300 nm due to the restriction that the diffusion length imposes on film thickness in order to keep efficient charge collection. Such thin films result in a significant decrease in quantum efficiency for λ > 700 nm in QDs photodetector and photovoltaic devices, causing a reduced photoresponsivity and a poor absorption towards the near-infrared partmore »of the sunlight spectrum. Herein, we demonstrate 1 μm thick QDs photodetectors with intercalated graphene charge collectors that avoid the significant drop of quantum efficiency towards λ > 700 nm observed in most QD optoelectronic devices. The 1 μm thick intercalated QD films ensure strong light absorption while keeping efficient charge extraction with a quantum efficiency of 90%–70% from λ = 600 nm to 950 nm using intercalated graphene layers as charge collectors with interspacing distance of 100 nm. We demonstrate that the effect of graphene on light absorption is minimal. We achieve a time-modulation response of <1 s. We demonstrate that this technology can be implemented on flexible PET substrates, showing 70% of the original performance after 1000 times bending test. This system provides a novel approach towards high-performance photodetection and high conversion photovoltaic efficiency with quantum dots and on flexible substrates.« less
  3. Abstract The paper presents the results of an investigation of a possibility for energy harvesting from a flexible material such as an ionic polymer–metal composite (IPMC) placed in a steady flow of air characteristic of conditions typical to a densely urbanized area. As electro-active devices require dynamic loading to produce current, their response is usually evaluated in unsteady and turbulent flows, where an electro-active polymer follows the movement of the medium surrounding the device. In our study, we examine the flow conditions at which flutter sets the IPMC strip in motion. Although flutter is often perceived as an unfavorable phenomenonmore »for aerodynamic applications and civil structures, it may be beneficial for harvesting wind energy. Of particular interest is that this phenomenon may occur in a steady flow, which potentially expands the range of favorable flow conditions for energy harvesting. In the paper, the air speed at which flutter occurs and the speed range at which flutter is sustained are provided along with the estimated amount of power produced in an IPMC sample of specified dimensions.« less
  4. Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)
    Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describemore »our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEG channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_pfi_tt/resources/videos/realtime_eeg_analysis/v2.5.1/video_2.5.1.mp4. The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3488.2513. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36844-9_8. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: https://newborncare.natus.com/products-services/newborn-care-products/newborn-brain-injury/cfm-olympic-brainz-monitor. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2015.7405421. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-the-linux/0596005652/. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00003-9.« less
  5. Emerging flexible and stretchable devices open up novel and attractive applications beyond traditional rigid wearable devices. Since the small and flexible form-factor severely limits the battery capacity, energy harvesting (EH) stands out as a critical enabler of new devices. Despite increasing interest in recent years, the capacity of wearable energy harvesting remains unknown. Prior work analyzes the power generated by a single and typically rigid transducer. This choice limits the EH potential and undermines physical flexibility. Moreover, current results do not translate to total harvested energy over a given period, which is crucial from a developer perspective. In contrast, thismore »paper explores the daily energy harvesting potential of combining flexible light and motion energy harvesters. It first presents a multi-modal energy harvesting system design whose inputs are flexible photo-voltaic cells and piezoelectric patches. We measure the generated power under various light intensity and gait speeds. Finally, we construct daily energy harvesting patterns of 9593 users by integrating our measurements with the activity data from the American Time Use Survey. Our results show that the proposed system can harvest on average 0. 6mAh @ 3. 6V per day.« less