Model Formulation

The model of the single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) VI-EH system is a nonlinear differential equation
(NDE) and the equation of motion of the moving levitated magnet inside the dual-purpose device is
given as

mz  c1 z  k1 z  k3 z 3  my (1)

Z Y
where z  x  y , x  X sin(t ) , y  Y sin(t ) , z  Z sin(t ) and Ta  then the Vibration
Y
Isolator Energy Harvester (VI-EH) model becomes,

mz  c1 z  k1 z  k 3 z 3  m 2Y sin( t ) (2)

The dynamic model of the VI-EH system as described in (2) is representative of the duffing-equation.
Such equations have previously been solved using several mathematical tools like the method of
multiple scales [1], direct numerical integration [2] , nonlinear normal forms (NLNF) [3] and harmonic
balance method [4],[5]. In this study, the output frequency response function (OFRF) will be employed
for the analysis, design and optimisation of the VI-EH system.
The average input mechanical power of the VI-EH system due to the base acceleration is given as

1
Pin  mY 2  3 (3)

However the average output power (power harvested) across the load resistance of the harvesting
circuit is given as

1  k  Z 
2

Pout    t  RL (4)
2  Rc  RL 

where kt  BNl

Considering the average output power, Pout of the VI-EH system when subjected to a harmonic base
excitation with an average input mechanical power of Pin , the energy conversion efficiency  e of the
VI-EH system is given as;
Pout
e  (5)
Pin

The output response of system (3), Z is a function of the excitation frequency,  and the nonlinear
parameter, k3 . Therefore considering (4) and (5), it can be deduced that the average output power, Pout
and energy conversion efficiency,  e are both functions of these parameters. Though the VI-EH system
has a dual-purpose function, its primary function is vibration isolation where the absolute displacement
transmissibility is less than unity i.e. Ta  1 while the secondary function is energy harvesting. This
implies the frequency range of interest is   n 2 which comprises the region of isolation hence
energy harvesting can only happen within this region. The objective here is to maximise e within the
isolation range Ta  1 . The next section discusses the OFRF concept and thereafter the OFRF

1
polynomials of the relative displacement transmissibility, absolute displacement transmissibility and
subsequently the average output power and energy conversion efficiency is derived.

The OFRF Concept

The OFRF of a nonlinear system is derived from a given nonlinear differential equation model wherein
a polynomial relationship between the output frequency response of the system and the parameters
defining the system nonlinearities is derived [6]. The OFRF provides an analytical representation of the
output frequency response of the system in terms of the systems nonlinear parameters and thus describes
the characteristics of the system. This concept is valid for the class of nonlinear systems stable at zero
equilibrium. An extensive study of the OFRF concept can be found in [6]–[13]. It should be noted, in
this study, that the following terms - OFRF ‘Polynomial/approximation/representation’ is used
interchangeably.

Consider the Volterra systems described by the differential equation

M m L p
d li z (t ) m d li y (t )
 
m1 p 0 l1 ,...lm 0
c p , m p (l1 ,lm )
i 1

dt li i  p1 dt li
0 (6)

where L is the order of the derivative and M is the maximum degree of nonlinearity in terms of the
system input and output, y (t ) and z (t ) . The system output response of (2) can be represented by a
polynomial function in terms of the system parameters as
m1 mSN
Z ( j )    ( j1 ,, jSN ) ( j )1j1 SjNSN (7)
j1  0 jSN 0

where Z ( j ) represents the output spectrum of (6), ( j1 ,, jSN ) ( j ) are complex-valued frequency
functions (also called ‘OFRF coefficients’) of the system linear parameters and system input while
1j1 SjNSN is a set of monomials (OFRF structure) in the OFRF representation of the output spectrum.
Let the set of monomials in the OFRF representation of the nth-order output spectrum of (3) be denoted
as M and the frequency function vector be denoted as  ( j ) , therefore the OFRF polynomial is
obtained as

Z ( j )  M ( j )T (8)

where

( j )  0 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7  and


 N (9)
M   Mn
 n1

Determination of the OFRF structure (monomials)

In [8], [12], an algorithm was proposed used to determine the structure of the OFRF which is
employed herein to determine Mn thus

2
  L   n1 n( m p ) L 
Mn    c0,n (l1 ,, ln )       c p,(m- p) (l1 ,, lm )  Mn(m p), p 
l1 ,,ln 0   m p1 p1 l1 ,,ln 0 
(10)
 n L 
     c p ,0 (l1 ,, lm )  Mn, p 
 p2 l1 ,,ln 0 

where the character ‘  ’ is the Kronecker product and

n  p 1
Mn, p   M
i 1
i  M ni , p1 , M n ,1  M n , M1  [1] (11)

N
Then the set of monomials is obtained as M   Mn
n 1

System Analysis
In this section, the OFRF method is used in the analytical study of system (2). System (2) is a particular
instance of (6) for L  2 and M  3 with system parameters obtained as c10 (2)  m , c10 (1)  c1 ,
c10 (0)  k1 , c30 (000)  k3 , c01 (0)  m 2Y , else cp ,m p  0 . Applying the algorithm for obtaining the
OFRF structure (monomials) as presented in (10) and (11) to system (2) up to 7th-order i.e. N=15 , yields
the following monomials;
N
M   M n  1, k3 , k32 , k33 , k34 , k35 , k36 , k37  (12)
n1

Determination of the frequency function vector

The frequency function vector ( j ) is computed by applying the method described in proposition 4
outlined in [6]. Fifteen simulation studies were conducted where system (2) was excited with same base
input but the nonlinear stiffness parameter, k3 takes different values from a training set
k3   0 : 0.1:1.4  106 . The output spectra of the system are evaluated from the 15 sets of numerically
simulated (Runge-Kutta method) system outputs to obtain the results Z ( j ) |k (i ) for i  1, 2,3......,15
3

and the estimates of the OFRF coefficients are evaluated using the least square method as
 Z ( j ) 
0 ( j )  k3 (1) 
   
 1 ( j )   Z ( j ) k3 (2) 
  1  
( j )       T    T    
 (13)
 ( j  )   Z ( j ) 
 6   k3 (14) 
 ( j  )   
 7   Z ( j ) k (15) 
 3 

where

3
 1 k3 (1) k32 (1)  k36 (1) k37 (1) 

1 k (2) k 2 (2)  k36 (2) k37 (2) 
   3 3
(14)
       
 
2
1 k3 (15) k3 (15)  k36 (15) k37 (15)

Therefore, the OFRF of system (2), when subjected to a specific input, is obtained as
Z ( j , k3 )  0 ( j )  1 ( j )k3  2 ( j )k32  3 ( j )k33    6 ( j )k36  7 ( j )k37

 R (15)
Z ( j , k3 )   r ( j )k3r where R  7
 r 0

where (j ) are the frequency functions dependent on the system input and linear characteristic
parameters, c1 and k1 .

Using the algorithm proposed in [12] , the square magnitude of the output response of (15) can be
computed as

  R  R 
  Z ( j, k3 )  Z ( j, k3 )   r ( j )k3r  r ( j )k3r 
2
 Z ( j , k3 )

  r 0  r 0 




  t 
 Z ( j , k3 )  00*   k3t   t* 
2

 
t 1   0

 (16)



 Z ( j , k3 )
2
 0  1k3   k     k   k
2 13 14


2 3 13 3 14 3



R
   r ( )k3r where R  14
2
 Z ( j , k3 )


 r0

Eq.(16d) can be substituted in (4) thus;


1  kt  RL 
2

 out P (  , k )   Z2
3
2 R R R 
 L  c L

1  kt  RL   
2 
 R
     r ( )k3r  (17)
  
2 RL  Rc  RL   r 0  
 
  R   
2
   ( )    ( )k r  where  ( )  1   kt  RL 
  r 3 
2 RL  Rc  RL 
  r 0 

Similarly, substituting (3) and (17) in (5) yields


1  kt  RL   R 
2 

 
  
  r ( )k3r 

 ( , k )  2 RL  Rc  RL   r 0 
 e 3
1
 m Y3 2

 

 kt  RL   R 
2
       r ( )k3r 
  
   
(18)
 2mRL  2Y   Rc  RL   r 0
2



 R   kt  RL 
2
 
   ( )    r ( )k3  where  ( ) =
 r   

2  
  r 0  2mRL  2Y   Rc  RL 




4
From (17) and (18), the following representations for Pout and e can be made.
 
R
 P ( , k ) 
 out 3 
r 0

r ( )  k3r where r ( )  ( )  r ( )
 (19)
 R
e ( , k3 )   r ( )k3r where r ( )   ( )  r ( )
 r 0

Eq. (19) shows the OFRF approximations for the average output power, Pout and the energy conversion
efficiency, e of the VI-EH system respectively. The OFRF for the absolute displacement
transmissibility, Ta , can also be derived as in (13) thus
R
Ta ( , k3 )   r ( )  k3r (20)
r 0

where r ( ) , r ( ) and r ( ) are frequency functions dependent on the system input and linear
characteristic parameters.

System design and optimisation

In designing the natural frequency and the linear damping coefficient of the system at n  55.6 rad.s-1
and c1  2.7 Nsm-1 respectively, two design equality constraints can be established thus;

 f1 (c1 , k1 , k3 ) : k1  24.87  0
 (21)
 f 2 (c1 , k1 , k3 ) : c1  2.7  0

The OFRF polynomials for the system performance indices of interest Ta , Pout ,e  are obtained subject
to the bound constraint k3  1.4  106 Nm -3 . Given the derived OFRF polynomial approximations, the
optimisation problem can be formulated accordingly;
max e (c1 , k1 , k3 )
c1 , k1 , k3 

 f (c , k , k ) : k  24.87  0
 1 1 1 3 1
 f (c , k , k ) : c  2.7  0
 2 1 1 3 1 (22)
 
 f 3 (c1 , k1 , k3 ) : k3 1.4 10  0
s.t. 6

 R
 f 4 (c1 , k1 , k3 ) :  r ( )  k3r 1  0
 r 0

In this study, four levels of base acceleration inputs, 0.25g, 0.5g, 0.75g and 1g , are considered. For
each input, the maximum e obtainable by the VI-EH system, subject to the set of constraints on the
system, is computed using a MATLAB optimisation algorithm ‘fmincon’ and the results presented in
table 1.

5
 Results and discussions
Table 1 shows the maximum energy conversion efficiency attainable subject to the system constraints.

Base excitation level Absolute disp trans () Max. Energy Nonlinear stiffness
conversion efficiency value ()
()

6
References
[1] T. D. Equation and N. Oscillators, The Duffing Equation. .
[2] A. Erturk and D. J. Inman, “Broadband piezoelectric power generation on high-energy orbits
of the bistable Duffing oscillator with electromechanical coupling,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 330,
no. 10, pp. 2339–2353, 2011.
[3] A. Cammarano, S. Neild, S. Burrow, D. Wagg, and D. Inman, “Optimum resistive loads for
vibration-based electromagnetic energy harvesters with a stiffening nonlinearity,” J. Intell.
Mater. Syst. Struct., vol. 25, no. 14, pp. 1757–1770, 2014.
[4] S. Souayeh and N. Kacem, “Computational models for large amplitude nonlinear vibrations of
electrostatically actuated carbon nanotube-based mass sensors,” Sensors Actuators, A Phys.,
vol. 208, pp. 10–20, 2014.
[5] A. Jallouli, N. Kacem, G. Bourbon, P. Le Moal, V. Walter, and J. Lardies, “Pull-in instability
tuning in imperfect nonlinear circular microplates under electrostatic actuation,” Phys. Lett. A,
vol. 380, no. 46, pp. 3886–3890, 2016.
[6] Z. Q. Lang, S. a. Billings, R. Yue, and J. Li, “Output frequency response function of nonlinear
Volterra systems,” Automatica, vol. 43, pp. 805–816, 2007.
[7] Z.-Q. Lang and S. . Billings, “Output frequencies of a class of nonlinear systems,” Int. J.
Control, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 713–730, 1997.
[8] Z.-Q. LANG and S. A. BILLINGS, “Output frequency characteristics of nonlinear systems,”
Int. J. Control, vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 1049–1067, Feb. 2007.
[9] X. J. Jing, Z. Q. Lang, and S. A. Billings, “Output frequency properties of nonlinear systems,”
Int. J. Non. Linear. Mech., vol. 45, no. 7, pp. 681–690, 2010.
[10] J. C. Peyton Jones and K. Choudhary, “Output frequency response characteristics of nonlinear
systems. Part II: overlapping effects and commensurate multi-tone excitations,” Int. J. Control,
vol. 85, no. 9, pp. 1279–1292, 2012.
[11] Z. Q. Lang, P. F. Guo, and I. Takewaki, “Output frequency response function based design of
additional nonlinear viscous dampers for vibration control of multi-degree-of-freedom
systems,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 332, no. 19, pp. 4461–4481, 2013.
[12] X. J. Jing, Z. Q. Lang, and S. A. Billings, “Output frequency response function-based analysis
for nonlinear Volterra systems,” Mech. Syst. Signal Process., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 102–120,
2008.
[13] Y. Zhu and Z. Q. Lang, “Design of Nonlinear Systems in the Frequency Domain: An Output
Frequency Response Function-Based Approach,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., pp. 1–
14, 2017.