Analytic model for ultrasound energy receivers and their optimal electric loads

Abstract

In this paper, we present an analytic model for thickness resonating plate ultrasound energy receivers, which we have derived from the piezoelectric and the wave equations and, in which we have included dielectric, viscosity and acoustic attenuation losses. Afterwards, we explore the optimal electric load predictions by the zero reflection and power maximization approaches present in the literature with different acoustic boundary conditions, and discuss their limitations. To validate our model, we compared our expressions with the KLM model solved numerically with very good agreement. Finally, we discuss the differences between the zero reflection and power maximization optimal electric loads, which start to differ as losses in the receiver increase.

Analytic model for ultrasound energy receivers and their optimal electric loads II: Experimental validation

“…In the preliminary experiments that we performed with a transducer with low losses [5], we saw small differences between the power maximization and the zero reflection condition predictions calculated by numerically solving the KLM model. This difference was further confirmed theoretically with the analytic receiver model that we presented in [6], and we found that the optimal loads by the two conditions start to disagree once the losses increase.…”

Performance Enhancement of an Ultrasonic Power Transfer System Through a Tightly Coupled Solid Media Using a KLM Model

“…This approach made our transmitting medium infinite, and the emitter did not influence the receiver and vice versa. From an acoustic point of view, we could achieve distance-independent energy transmission by avoiding the standing wave between the emitter and receiver [14].…”

“…As shown in Figure 1, the transducers were mechanically pressed to the metal wall using Neoprene rubber with low specific acoustic impedance on the backside to minimize the emission losses. For the approach illustrated in Figure 1, the energy transmission depends heavily on the properties of the piezoceramic material [10], the acoustic impedance of the media [11], and the media attenuation [12], as well as the transmission frequency [13] and the attached electric loads [14]. In [14], the zero reflection and power maximization condition for a similar power link were compared to each other with water as the transmission medium.…”

“…For the approach illustrated in Figure 1, the energy transmission depends heavily on the properties of the piezoceramic material [10], the acoustic impedance of the media [11], and the media attenuation [12], as well as the transmission frequency [13] and the attached electric loads [14]. In [14], the zero reflection and power maximization condition for a similar power link were compared to each other with water as the transmission medium. In this work, we evaluated the attached electric loads at the receiver for power maximization with aluminium as the transmitting medium using the KLM model of the receiver and subsequently validated our predictions by comparing our theoretical predictions to the measurements.…”

Analysis and prediction of shock formation in acoustic energy transfer systems

“…In particular, AET has been proposed to recharge and communicate with low-power (e.g., 1µW-10mW) implanted medical devices [9][10][11], which eliminates the need for surgery to replace batteries [11][12][13][14][15][16][17]; to develop battery-free underwater sensing networks to observe ocean conditions, track migration and habitats of marine animals, and monitor oil spills [8,[18][19][20][21][22]. These applications present the need to developing mathematical and numerical models capable of assessing the efficiency of AET systems [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]. In general, most of the current approaches neglect nonlinear effects associated with acoustic wave propagation [38] and the electro-elastic response of the piezoelectric transmitters and receivers [39,40].…”