Electrostrictive Polymers for Mechanical Energy Harvesting

Micka el Lallart, Pierre-Jean Cottinet, Daniel Guyomar, Laurent Lebrun

INSA de Lyon, LGEF, Villeurbanne, France
Correspondence to: D. Guyomar (E-mail: daniel.guyomar@insa-lyon.fr)
Received 3 November 2011; accepted 22 December 2011; published online 6 February 2012
DOI: 10.1002/polb.23045
ABSTRACT: This article reviews the developments in electro-
strictive polymers for energy harvesting. Electrostrictive poly-
mers are a variety of electroactive polymers that deform due
to the electrostatic and polarization interaction between two
electrodes with opposite electric charge. Electrostrictive poly-
mers have been the subject of much interest and research
over the past decade. In earlier years, much of the focus
was placed on actuator configurations, and in more recent
years, the focus has turned to investigating material proper-
ties that may enhance electromechanical activities. Since the
last 5 years and with the development of low-power elec-
tronics, the possibility of using these materials for energy
harvesting has been investigated. This review outlines the
operating principle in energy scavenging mode and conver-
sion mechanisms behind this generator technology, high-
lights some of its advantages over existing actuator
technologies, identifies some of the challenges associated
with its development, and examines the main focus of
research within this field, including some of the potential
applications. VC
2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Polym Sci Part
B: Polym Phys 50: 523535, 2012
KEYWORDS: actuators; dielectric properties; electrostrictive
polymers; energy harvesting; ferroelectricity; nanoparticles
INTRODUCTION The performance of energy harvesters is
directly linked to the efficiency of the mechanicalelectrical con-
version within the active materials. For piezoelectric materials,
the efficiency of the conversion can be estimated with the help
of the coupling coefficient. For a given vibration mode, this coef-
ficient expresses the ratio of the converted energy to the input
one. Another key point for electroactive materials concerns the
easiness of their integration within the whole structure.
1,2
For energy harvesters, bulk materials are widely used in the
form of ceramics or single crystals. Beyond various types of
materials, lead zirconate titanate ceramics (PZT) and lead-
based relaxor single crystals are of significant interest. PZT
ceramics are cost effective and available in various yet lim-
ited shapes and with a wide range of properties depending
on their composition. They exhibit medium coupling factors
of 70% at least for the longitudinal 33 mode of vibration.
3,4
Single crystals of lead magnesium niobate-lead titanate or
lead zinc niobate-lead titanate have focused a lot of attention
as they exhibit coupling coefficients as high as 90%, close to
the theoretical values of 100%.
5,6
Because of their high cou-
pling coefficients, these two types of materials seem to be
promising for the energy conversion; however, drawbacks
such as brittleness and high density may prevent their use
in some applications.
An alternative solution to the use of these bulk materials is
the use of electroactive polymers (EAPs). They present the
advantages of being easily processed in various and complex
shapes, easily deposited on large surfaces while being cost
effective and very light.
7
EAPs are divided into two main groups:
7
Electronic EAPs: Dielectric EAP, electrostrictive graft elasto-
mers, electrostrictive papers, electroviscoelastic elastomers,
ferroelectric polymers, liquid crystal elastomers, and so forth.
Ionic EAPs: Carbon nanotubes, conductive polymers, elec-
trorheological fluids, ionic polymer gels, ionic polymer me-
tallic composites, and so forth.
Electrostriction is generally defined as a quadratic coupling
between strain (S
ij
) and polarization (P
m
):
8,9
E
m
e
0
T
mn
:P
n
2:Q
klmn
:T
kl
:P
n
S
ij
s
P
ijkl
:T
kl
Q
ijmn
:P
m
:P
n
_
(1)
where s
P
ijkl
is the elastic compliance, Q
ijkl
is the polarization-
related electrostriction coefficient, e
0
T
jk
is the inverse of the
linear dielectric permittivity, T
kl
is the stress and E
m
the elec-
tric field. Assuming a linear relationship between the polar-
ization and the electric field, the strain S
ij
and electric flux
density D
i
are expressed as independent variables of the
electric field intensity E
k
, E
l
, and stress T
kl
by the constitu-
tive relations according to the equation set:
8,9
S
ij
M
ijkl:
E
k
:E
l
s
E
ijkl
:T
kl
D
i
e
T
ik
:E
k
2:M
ijkl
:E
l
:T
kl
_
(2)
VC
2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
WWW.MATERIALSVIEWS.COM JOURNAL OF POLYMER SCIENCE PART B: POLYMER PHYSICS 2012, 50, 523535 523
JOURNAL OF
POLYMER SCIENCE WWW.POLYMERPHYSICS.ORG REVIEW
where s
E
ijkl
is the elastic compliance under constant electric
field, M
ijkl
is the electric field-related electrostriction coeffi-
cient, and e
T
ik
is the linear dielectric permittivity.
Because of their high deformation abilities and elasticity, EAPs
cover a wide range of application possibilities, as shown in
Figure 1, which depicts the typical strainstress abilities of
conversion materials when compared with typical application
cases. In the same manner, the operating frequency of such
materials suits in a much better way with the mechanical fre-
quency contents of typical systems (Fig. 2).
Because of their low losses that make them a premium
choice for energy-harvesting purposes, this research will be
focused on electronic EAPs and more specifically on electro-
strictive elastomers. The Energy-Harvesting Techniques
section provides an overview of the different methods for
harvesting energy using such materials. The Increase of the
Dielectric Constant and of the Electrostrictive Coefficient
with the Help of Fillers section lies in presenting methods
for enhancing the electromechanical responses of electro-
strictive polymers and thus their energy-harvesting abilities.
Micka el Lallart graduated from the Institut National des Sciences Appliqu ees de Lyon (INSA
Lyon), Lyon, France, in electrical engineering in 2006 and received his PhD in electronics,
electrotechnics, and automatics from the same university in 2008, where he worked for the
Laboratoire de G enie E

lectrique et Ferro electricit e (LGEF). After working as a post-doctoral

fellow in the Center for Intelligent Material Systems and Structures (CIMSS) in Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg, VA, USA, in 2009, Dr. Lallart has been hired as an associate professor in the
LGEF. His current field of interest focuses on vibration damping, energy harvesting, and
structural health monitoring using piezoelectric, pyroelectric, or electrostrictive devices, as
well as autonomous, self-powered wireless systems.
Pierre-Jean Cottinet graduated from the Institut National des Sciences Appliqu ees de Lyon
(INSA Lyon), Lyon, France, in 2008. He received a PhD degree in Acoustics in 2008 from the
Institut National des Sciences Appliqu ees de Lyon (INSA), France, for his thesis on
electostrictive polymer for energy harvesting and actuation. During 2011, he was at the
Florida State University as a post-doctoral and working on buckypaper in High-Performance
Materials Institute (HPMI). Currently, he is an associate professor at INSA de Lyon, with
research interests concerning electroactive materials (polymers, CNT, etc.) and smart
structures.
Daniel Guyomar received a degree in physics from the Amiens University, Amiens, France,
an engineering and a doctor-engineer degree in acoustics from the Compie` gne University,
France, as well as a PhD degree in physics from the Paris VII University, Paris, France. In
19821983, he worked as a research associate in fluid dynamics at the University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, CA. He was a National Research Council Awardee (19831984)
detached at the Monterey Naval Postgraduate School, California, to develop transient wave
propagation modeling. He was hired by Schlumberger in 1984 to lead several projects
dealing with borehole imaging, and then moved to Thomson Submarine activities in the
field of underwater acoustics. In 1992, Dr. Guyomar co-created the Techsonic Company,
which is involved in research, development, and production of piezoelectric and ultrasonic
devices. He is presently a full-time university professor at the Institut National des Sciences
Appliqu ees de Lyon (INSA), Lyon, France, where he manages the Laboratoire de G enie
Electrique et Ferro electricit e (LGEF). He also works as a consultant for several companies. His
present research interests include the field of piezo-material characterization, piezoactuators,
acoustics, power ultrasonics, vibration control, and energy harvesting.
Laurent Lebrun graduated from the Ecole Nationale Sup erieure dIng enieurs de Caen,
France, in 1991. He received a PhD degree in acoustics in 1995 from the Institut National des
Sciences Appliqu ees (INSA), de Lyon, France, for his thesis on piezoelectric motors. During
2001, he was a visiting scientist at the Materials Research Institute of the Pennsylvania State
University, State College, PA, in the group of Prof. Tom Shrout. Currently, he is a professor at
INSA de Lyon, with research interests concerning electroactive materials (ceramics, single
crystals, and polymers) and smart structures.
REVIEW WWW.POLYMERPHYSICS.ORG
JOURNAL OF
POLYMER SCIENCE
524 JOURNAL OF POLYMER SCIENCE PART B: POLYMER PHYSICS 2012, 50, 523535
Then, the Practical Consideration and Figure of Merit of the
Conversion section discusses practical considerations such
as materials properties, circuit topologies, and so forth.
Finally, the Application of Electrostrictive Polymer Genera-
tors section concerns with the description of potential
application.
ENERGY-HARVESTING TECHNIQUES
The aim of this section is to propose a review of the possible
techniques for harvesting the energy converted by the mate-
rials. Basically, three approaches can be considered for
energy scavenging from vibrations using electrostrictive
polymers:
Electrostatic cycles, inspired from purely capacitive techni-
ques.
1014
Electrostrictive cycles, using charge and discharge opera-
tions.
9,1517
Pseudo-piezoelectric cycles, consisting in applying a bias
voltage on the material and working around this static
regime.
1820
Electrostatic-Derived Cycles
As electrostrictive polymers feature dielectric behaviors, it is
possible to consider harvesting schemes usually used in
purely capacitive approaches.
1014
Typically, there are two
cycles that can be envisaged for such techniques:
Ericsson (voltage constrained) cycle, which consists in:
1. Stretching the polymer.
2. Applying the electric field.
3. Releasing the applied mechanical stress while maintain-
ing the electric field, leading to a decrease of the elec-
tric flux density.
4. Removing the electric field.
Stirling (charge constrained) cycle, whose principles rely on:
1. Stretching the polymer.
2. Applying the electric field.
3. Releasing the applied mechanical stress under constant
electric flux density (open-circuit conditions), resulting
in an increase of the electric field.
4. Removing the electric field.
The associated strain (S)stress (T) and electric displace-
ment (D)electric field (E) cycles are shown in Figure 3.
From this curves, it can be shown that the Stirling cycle per-
mits converting more energy than the Ericsson approach.
However, the latter allows a better control of the electric
field, ensuring that the maximal admissible value is never
reached. The energy balance for the considered techniques is
given in Table 1, where e refers to the permittivity, M to the
electrostrictive coefficient, and T
0
and E
0
to the maximal
stress and applied electric field, respectively.
Electrostrictive Cycles
However, other cycles than those already used in other
energy conversion systems may be considered, taking
advantage of the electrostrictive nature of the materials.
Many cycles have been described in ref. 16, and particularly:
Constant electric field stretching and open-circuit release:
1. Stretching under a given electric field E
0
.
2. Releasing in open circuit (constant charge).
3. Decreasing the electric flux density to the original
position.
FIGURE 2 Comparison of frequency contents of conversion
materials and typical applications.
FIGURE 1 Comparison of stressstrain abilities of conversion materials and typical applications.
JOURNAL OF
POLYMER SCIENCE WWW.POLYMERPHYSICS.ORG REVIEW
WWW.MATERIALSVIEWS.COM JOURNAL OF POLYMER SCIENCE PART B: POLYMER PHYSICS 2012, 50, 523535 525
Constant electric field stretching and release:
1. Stretching under constant electric field E
0
.
2. Increasing electric field to E
1
.
3. Releasing the applied stress.
4. Decreasing electric field to E
0
.
Open-circuit stretching and release:
1. Stretching in open circuit (constant electric flux density)
with an initial electric field E
0
.
2. Increasing electric field to E
1
.
3. Releasing in open circuit (constant electric flux density).
4. Decreasing electric field to E
0
.
The associated energy cycles and energy balances are given
in Figure 4 and Table 2, respectively. In contrast to the previ-
ously discussed cycles (electrostatic based), the pure electro-
strictive cycles require nonzero electrical initial conditions
(leading to nonzero initial strain as well), therefore possibly
wasting energy due to the losses in the material. It can also
be noted that the constant field during stretching and releas-
ing phases and constant electric flux during stretching and
releasing phases use the same principles than the Ericsson
and Stirling cycles of electrostatic devices, respectively (see
previous section), except that initial electrical conditions are
zeros in the latter cases.
In addition, these cycles require driving the electrical condi-
tions of the materials for a significant time period, hence
making them quite complex to implement in an autonomous,
self-powered fashion. A simpler way for harvesting energy
from electrostrictive polymers using diodes is proposed in
refs. 16 and 21. This system therefore permits harvesting
energy in a purely passive fashion, hence making its imple-
mentation quite easy. The principles of this device, depicted
in Figure 5, consist of providing energy to the polymer
when its voltage reaches V
L
(it is considered that the diode
threshold voltages are negligible) and harvesting when it
attains V
H
.
At the beginning of a new cycle, the material voltage is V
H
,
and the stress is increasing, resulting in a decreasing electric
field. Therefore, the two diodes are blocked, and the system
is in open-circuit condition. After a critical value of the
stress, the voltage V
L
is reached and the left diode conducts
so that the electric displacement increases with the stress,
yielding a provided energy density:
W
prov
E
L
2ME
L
T
0
e E
H
E
L
(3)
where E
H
and E
L
are the electric field values associated with
the voltages V
H
and V
L
. As the stress is released, the material
voltage increases and the left diode is blocked. When the
voltage reaches V
H
, the right diode conducts and energy is
extracted, until the stress is minimum. The harvested energy
density is given by:
W
extr
E
H
2ME
L
T
0
e E
H
E
L
(4)
leading to the energy density balance:
16
W
harv
2ME
L
T
0
e E
H
E
L
E
H
E
L
(5)
FIGURE 3 Electrostatic energy-harvesting cycles considering Ericsson and Stirling cycles.
TABLE 1 Energy Balance Considering Electrostatic-Based
Harvesting Techniques
Ericsson
16
Stirling
16
Provided electrical
energy density
1
2
e 2MT
0
E
2
0
1
2
e 2MT
0
E
2
0
Extracted electrical
energy density
1
2
e 4MT
0
E
2
0
1
2
e2MT0
2
e
E
2
0
Harvested energy
density
MT
0
E
2
0
1 2
M
e
T
0
_ _
MT
0
E
2
0
REVIEW WWW.POLYMERPHYSICS.ORG
JOURNAL OF
POLYMER SCIENCE
526 JOURNAL OF POLYMER SCIENCE PART B: POLYMER PHYSICS 2012, 50, 523535
which is maximal when
E
L
1
MT
0
e 2MT
0
_ _
E
H
(6)
yielding:
W
max

MT
0
E
H

2
e 2MT
0
(7)
The associated energy cycles are given in Figure 6. Despite
its simplicity, such an approach requires that the voltage V
H
is reached by the electrostrictive material, hence necessitat-
ing a minimal stress value to operate, whose value is given
as follows:
T
min

e
2M
E
H
E
L
1
_ _
(8)
TABLE 2 Energy Balance Considering Electrostrictive Harvesting Techniques
Constant Electric Field
Stretching and Open-Circuit Release
16
Constant Electric Field
Stretching and Release
16
Open-Circuit Stretching
and Release
16
Provided electrical energy density
2MT
0
E
2
0
MT
0
E
2
0
E
2
1
_ _

1
2
e E
2
1
E
2
0
_ _
1
2
e 2MT
0
E
2
1

1
2
e
2
e 2MT
0

E
2
0
Extracted electrical energy density
2MT
0
1
MT0
e
_ _
E
2
0
2MT
0
E
2
1

1
2
e E
2
1
E
2
0
_ _
1
2
e2MT0
2
e
E
2
1
eE
2
0
_ _
Harvested energy density
2
M
2
e
T
2
0
E
2
0
MT
0
E
2
1
E
2
0
_ _
e 2MT
0
e
_ _
MT
0
E
2
1

e
e 2MT
0
_ _
MT
0
E
2
0
FIGURE 4 Energy cycles for the electrostrictive energy-harvesting techniques (adapted from ref. 16).
JOURNAL OF
POLYMER SCIENCE WWW.POLYMERPHYSICS.ORG REVIEW
WWW.MATERIALSVIEWS.COM JOURNAL OF POLYMER SCIENCE PART B: POLYMER PHYSICS 2012, 50, 523535 527
If the strain is small, the value of T
min
can thus be approxi-
mated by
T
min

e
2M
V
H
V
L
1
_ _
(9)
Pseudo-Piezoelectric Cycles
The final family for harvesting energy from electrostrictive
materials consists of applying a bias electric field to the sam-
ple, as shown in Figure 7, allowing simpler operations than
charge and discharge cycles (with possibly reduced losses).
In this device, the constant electric field, supposed to be
much larger than the electric field generated by the vibra-
tion, allows the device to operate dynamically in a similar
fashion than piezoelectric materials. Starting from the linear-
ized electrostrictive equations:
S sT M E
DC
E
AC

2
D e E
DC
E
AC
2M E
DC
E
AC
T
(10)
with E
DC
and E
AC
the bias and generated electric fields and s
the elastic compliance of the material, the dynamic behavior
may be expressed as follows:
_
S s
_
T 2M E
DC
E
AC

_
E
AC
_
D e 2MT
_
E
AC
2M E
DC
E
AC

_
T
(11)
Considering that the electric field E
AC
can be neglected facing
the bias electric field E
DC
and as long as the stress magni-
tude remains small enough so that e >> 2MT, the expres-
sions turn to:
_
S % s
_
T 2ME
DC
_
E
AC
_
D % e
_
E
AC
2ME
DC
_
T
(12)
which are similar to those obtained when using piezoelectric
element, with an equivalent piezoelectric coefficient
d 2ME
DC
, which depends on the bias electric field.
The energy cycles (obtained without the previous assump-
tions) are depicted in the top of Figure 8 when considering
that energy is harvested on a purely resistive load (R in
Fig. 7), yielding a harvested energy density (considering
E
DC
<< E
AC
and e >> 2MT):
20
W
harv
% 4p
q
1 eqx
2
_ _
ME
DC

2
xT
2
0
(13)
where q denotes the load resistivity. The maximum energy
density is therefore given by:
20
W
max
% 2p
M
2
e
E
2
DC
T
2
0
(14)
However, to increase the conversion efficiency, it is possible
to use a nonlinear approach similar to the synchronized
switch harvesting on inductor for piezoelectric elements,
2327
which consists of reversing the dynamic voltage each time the
displacement reaches a maximum or a minimum value,
22
leading to the cycles depicted in the bottom of Figure 8, and
allowing a harvested energy density given by:
W
harv
% 4p
q
1 eqx
2
_ _
eqx
3
1 eqx
2
_ _
1 c
e
p
eqx
c
_ _
2
e
2p
eqx
1
_ _
p
1
_
_
_
_
ME
DC

2
xT
2
0
15
with c given as the voltage inversion factor.
23
Although the losses of pseudo-piezoelectric working mode may
be smaller than electrostatic-based and electrostrictive cycles
as the system is working around a bias point (hence no charge
losses appear), the dynamic voltage across the load remains
AC, preventing the use of such a system to power up electronic
components that usually require DC voltage. In ref. 28, an archi-
tecture was proposed to allow a DC voltage output of electro-
strictive materials used as energy harvesters in pseudo-
FIGURE 6 Energy cycles for the passive electrostrictive energy-harvesting device (adapted from ref. 16).
FIGURE 5 Passive energy-harvesting circuit.
FIGURE 7 Pseudo-piezoelectric energy-harvesting device.
REVIEW WWW.POLYMERPHYSICS.ORG
JOURNAL OF
POLYMER SCIENCE
528 JOURNAL OF POLYMER SCIENCE PART B: POLYMER PHYSICS 2012, 50, 523535
piezoelectric mode. This technique consists of filtering the bias
component using a capacitor C
d
and connecting a diode recti-
fier associated with smoothing capacitors C
s
, as depicted in Fig-
ure 9. It has to be noted that in this case, the resistance R
S
is no
longer used for harvesting energy, but consists of preventing a
dynamic short circuit of the material. Assuming E
DC
>> E
AC
and e >> 2MT, the harvested energy density and maximum
energy density using this approach are given by:
28
W
harv
% 8p
q
p
2
eqx
_ _
2
_ _
ME
DC

2
xT
2
0
(16)
W
max
% 4
M
2
e
E
2
DC
T
2
0
(17)
As previously noted, it is also possible to use the nonlinear
approach to increase the performance of the microgenera-
tor,
29
leading to harvested and maximal harvested energy
densities (Fig. 10):
W
harv
% 32p
q
eq 1 c x p
2
_ _
ME
DC

2
xT
2
0
(18)
W
max
%
8
1 c
M
2
e
E
2
DC
T
2
0
(19)
Discussion
The comparison of the maximal harvested energy densities
for each of the exposed technique is depicted in Figure 11,
using parameters of Table 3, which corresponds to typical
parameter values for a poly(vinylidene fluoride-trifluoroethy-
lene-chlorofluoroethylene) [P(VDF-TrFE-CFE)] terpolymer.
This figure shows that the electrostatic-based approaches
permit the highest harvested energies. However, as stated
above, losses during charge and discharge may significantly
reduce the performance of these techniques. The pseudo-
piezoelectric methods, and especially those using the nonlin-
ear switching approaches, allow an harvested energy density
about 510 times less than the electrostatic-based techni-
ques (Fig. 12), but permit reduced losses as the system is
operating around a bias value, hence preventing losses dur-
ing charge and discharge from zero initial conditions. In
addition, working around a bias point permits operating at
much higher frequencies than charge/discharge-based sys-
tems, as the application of high electric fields in a low-cost
fashion may take time.
INCREASE OF THE DIELECTRIC CONSTANT AND OF THE
ELECTROSTRICTIVE COEFFICIENT WITH THE HELP OF FILLERS
The previous analyses show that, whatever the technique
use for EAP-based energy-harvesting purposes, the perform-
ance of the microgenerators are obviously dependent on the
material properties themselves (e.g., permittivity, electrostric-
tive coefficient, and elasticity).
In particular, it can be shown that better performance in
energy harvesting can be obtained by increasing the dielec-
tric constant of the electrostrictive material.
1820
To do so,
one solution consists of processing polymer-based
FIGURE 8 Energy cycles for the pseudo-piezoelectric energy-harvesting device (adapted from ref. 22).
FIGURE 9 Pseudo-piezoelectric energy-harvesting device fea-
turing DC output (adapted from ref. 28).
JOURNAL OF
POLYMER SCIENCE WWW.POLYMERPHYSICS.ORG REVIEW
WWW.MATERIALSVIEWS.COM JOURNAL OF POLYMER SCIENCE PART B: POLYMER PHYSICS 2012, 50, 523535 529
composites by filling the polymer with high K fillers or con-
ductive fillers. Currently, a variety of methods are available
to increase the dielectric permittivity of polymer materials.
These may be classified into two main groups: those involv-
ing composites and those based on new synthetic polymers.
The first approach concerns the dispersion of a filler into the
polymer matrix. The second strategy, on the other hand,
deals with the synthesis of new materials with tailored
characteristics.
In the first case, the content of fillers must be high (tenth of
percents) to obtain a significant increase of the composite
dielectric constant. The main drawback is the large increase
of the Youngs modulus and consequently the loose of
flexibility.
On the contrary, the use of conductive fillers leads to an
increase of the dielectric constant at very low contents
(some percents) especially if the size of the fillers is very
small (some nm), as the required electric field is decreased
to obtain the same polarization than unfilled samples. As an
additional consequence, the variation of the Youngs modulus
is kept low. This filling must be done without reaching the
percolation threshold for with the composite becomes con-
ductive and without decreasing too much the breakdown
voltage. These two parameters not only depend on the fillers
morphology and size and on the polymer matrix but also on
the dispersion and the self-organization of the fillers within
the matrix.
Table 4 summarizes some results obtained by filling polyur-
ethane (PU) and P(VDF-TrFE-CFE) with conductive nanofil-
lers. In the same manner, the filling can be achieved using
conductive polymers dispersed within the dielectric matrix
leading to the development of all-polymer percolative sys-
tems. As an example, coated polyanilines have been dis-
persed in a terpolymer matrix in refs. 35 and 36.
Finally, to overcome the problem of agglomeration that can
exist when fillers are dispersed within the matrix and to bet-
ter control their spatial distribution, Huang and Zhang
37
developed chemical bonding of the filler to the backbone of
the polymer matrix.
The different methods available for enhancing the dielectric
permittivity of polymers are listed in Table 5, which also
gives advantages and drawbacks of each technique. Random
composites represent readily applicable approaches suitable
for increasing the dielectric permittivity of elastomers. In the
long run, the challenge consists in synthesizing a new highly
polarizable polymer. All this research is necessary to achieve
new generations of electrostrictive polymers, operating at
lower electric fields.
PRACTICAL CONSIDERATION AND FIGURE OF MERIT OF THE
CONVERSION
Many of the specific material properties affect all the bulk
energy-harvester properties. In this section, the material
properties are enumerated and the mechanisms through
which they influence the microgenerator performance are
described to summarize the previous two sections. The rela-
tionships between all introduced system parameters are
charted in Figure 13.
Maximum Electric Field
In the different configurations, the harvested energy is pro-
portional to the square of the applied electric field. Theoret-
ically, it is appealing to work with high electric fields to
convert more energy. However, there exist maximum elec-
tric fields (E
max
), which can be defined as the maximum
electric field strength that the sample can withstand
intrinsically without breaking down, that is, without experi-
encing failure of its insulating properties. The electric field
at which breakdown occurs depends on the respective
FIGURE 10 Energy cycles for the pseudo-piezoelectric DC energy-harvesting device (adapted from ref. 28).
REVIEW WWW.POLYMERPHYSICS.ORG
JOURNAL OF
POLYMER SCIENCE
530 JOURNAL OF POLYMER SCIENCE PART B: POLYMER PHYSICS 2012, 50, 523535
geometries of the polymers and the electrodes on which the
electric field is applied, as well as the rate of increase of
the electric field. Because materials usually contain minute
defects, the practical dielectric strength will be a fraction of
the intrinsic dielectric strength of an ideal, defect-free,
material.
In real cases, the electric field breakdown of EAP varies
from 70 to 200 MV/m. It originates from various types
of phenomenon such as thermal effect, effect of internal
and surface discharges, and effect of path. Moreover, in
the case of real microgenerators, it is important to work
under moderate electric fields to avoid problems inher-
ent with high-voltage insulation and to limit the electric
loss.
FIGURE 11 Comparison of the maximum harvested energy density for each technique (electrostrictive cycles based on constant
electric field or constant electric displacement during stretching/release are not depicted as they are similar to Ericsson and Stir-
ling cycles).
FIGURE 12 Comparison of the normalized harvested energy
densities.
JOURNAL OF
POLYMER SCIENCE WWW.POLYMERPHYSICS.ORG REVIEW
WWW.MATERIALSVIEWS.COM JOURNAL OF POLYMER SCIENCE PART B: POLYMER PHYSICS 2012, 50, 523535 531
Maximum Stress and Strain
The strain and stress capacities also come into account in
the development of a vibration-based microgenerator. These
parameters not only determine the maximum displacements
but also the maximum forces necessary to produce such
elongations. For example, applications that involve human
movement harvesting (Fig. 14) features low stress but high
deformations. Therefore, the material must be flexible (low
Youngs modulus) to avoid interference with the user [thus
minimizing the magnitude of forces and being transparent
with a low cost of harvesting (COH)]. Moreover, it must be
able to feature deformation of more than 50% while mini-
mizing mechanical and dielectric losses to ensure high con-
version efficiency. However, for applications where only low
strain is available (few percents) but with high stress, it is
interesting to have materials with high Youngs modulus to
convert more energy, because the latter is proportional to
the squared stress (assuming a linear strainstress relation-
ship), as depicted in Figure 14.
Frequency Bandwidth
Electrical and mechanical losses are varying with the fre-
quency. These characteristics must be considered during the
development of microgenerators to ensure an optimal extrac-
tion of the energy over a wide frequency bandwidth. Figure
15 shows the Youngs modulus and mechanical losses as a
function of the frequency considering a constant strain in
the case of pure PU material. For frequencies below 100 Hz,
the losses in the material are limited; however, the losses
become higher for frequencies around 1 kHz, limiting the
operation of the system for frequencies below this threshold,
which correspond to the typical vibration frequency contents
(Fig. 2).
Concerning the electrical losses, it is well known that the
mechanisms of polarization strongly depend on the fre-
quency and tend to disappear when the latter is increased,
as shown in Figure 16, which depicts the variation of the
dielectric permittivity and losses versus frequency in the
case of P(VDF-TrFE-CFE) sample. For example, MaxwellWag-
ner type polarization is known to be active at the lowest fre-
quencies, which explains why a decrease in the dielectric
constant was observed when the measurement frequency
was increased. The effective loss tangent shows the highest
value for low frequencies due to the electric conduction.
38,39
Losses then decrease with the frequency except for the fre-
quencies where polarization mechanisms disappear.
33
Maximum Energy Harvesting
For every energy-harvesting technique presented in the
Energy-Harvesting Techniques section, it can be seen that
the electrostrictive coefficient M appears to be an important
parameter to increase the scavenging abilities of the system.
Although the Increase of the Dielectric Constant and of the
Electrostrictive Coefficient with the Help of Fillers section
provides a description of the various methods available to
increase this coefficient, the goal of this part is to present a
figure of merits able to realize a comparison of the different
technique available for harvesting energy.
Ren et al.
9
demonstrated that it is possible to harvest 22.4
mJ/cm
3
using the so-called constant electric field stretching
and open-circuit release methods; however, in case of
pseudo-piezoelectric mode, the harvested energy is equal to
34 nJ/cm
3
.
28
Hence, the energy-harvesting abilities using the
pseudo-piezoelectric behavior seems to be lower than the
electrostrictive cycle-based energy-harvesting approaches.
Although this could be considered a disappointing result,
one should keep in mind that these values were not obtained
for the same excitation and polarization field. For a fair com-
parison between each technique, Lallart et al.
20
proposed a
figure of merit of the scavenging abilities that is able to com-
pare the different methods used for energy harvesting. This
figure of merit consists of dividing the harvested energy den-
sity by the squared mechanical and squared electrical stim-
uli, therefore allowing a normalization of the energy with
respect to the external condition. The results obtained in
TABLE 4 Effect of Nanofillers on Material Properties
Polymer Fillers
Content
(vol %)
Dielectric
Constant
Frequency Measurement
of Permittivity (Hz) M
33
(m
2
/V
2
) 10
15
Frequency
Measurement
of M
33
(Hz) Reference
PU No 6.8 0.1 1 0.1 33
PU SiC 0.5 10.9 0.1 2.5 0.1 34
PU CB 1 15.4 0.1 4 0.1 33
P(VDF-TrFE-CFE) No 65 0.1 1.1 0.1 20
P(VDF-TrFE-CFE) CB 1 95 0.1 2.4 0.1 20
P(VDF-TrFE-CFE) PANI 23 2,000 100 0.15 1 35
P(VDF-TrFE-CFE) PANI 12.7 600 100 0.02 1 35
SiC, silicon carbide; CB, carbon black; PANI, polyaniline.
TABLE 3 Simulation parameters
Parameter Value
Elastic compliance s 2.5 10
9
Pa
1
Relative permittivity e/e
0
50
Electrostrictive coefficient M 2 10
18
V
2
/m
2
Inversion coefficient c 0.8
REVIEW WWW.POLYMERPHYSICS.ORG
JOURNAL OF
POLYMER SCIENCE
532 JOURNAL OF POLYMER SCIENCE PART B: POLYMER PHYSICS 2012, 50, 523535
ref. 20 demonstrate the validity of this new figure of merit
and the potential as tools in helping the development of effi-
cient microgenerators.
Passive Material
Portable applications are powered with lower voltages com-
patible with battery output. Hence, to generate the high elec-
tric field (typically 5 V/lm) required for working in the
pseudo-piezoelectric behavior or to realize energy cycles, a
step-up voltage converter has to be a part of the generator
circuit as shown in Figure 17. Current challenges in the field
of energy harvesting using electrostrictive polymers concern
the development of systems able to ensure the generation of
high electric fields at a small energy cost. This can be
TABLE 5 Comparison Between the Different Methods for Enhancing the Dielectric Permittivity
Type of fillers Advantages Drawbacks
Random composite Dielectric High dielectric permittivity Large percentage of filler
Increase in elastic modulus
Conductive High dielectric permittivity for
low percentage of filler
Increase in conductivity
Decrease of maximum voltage possible to apply
Polymer blend No fillers Very high dielectric permittivity Process of realization complex
No problem of conductivity
No mechanical reinforcement
FIGURE 13 Relation between electrostrictive microgenerators
and properties of materials.
FIGURE 14 Illustration of the properties of young modulus for
different applications.
FIGURE 15 Mechanical properties of pure PU versus
frequency.
FIGURE 16 Dielectric properties of pure P(VDF-TrFE-CFE) ver-
sus frequency.
JOURNAL OF
POLYMER SCIENCE WWW.POLYMERPHYSICS.ORG REVIEW
WWW.MATERIALSVIEWS.COM JOURNAL OF POLYMER SCIENCE PART B: POLYMER PHYSICS 2012, 50, 523535 533
realized by the hybridization of electrostrictive polymer with
other electroactive materials such as piezoelectric generators
able to deliver high voltage.
In summary, this section highlighted important material
properties and their relationships to microgenerators per-
formance. The presentation of a figure of merit able to
assess the performance of electrostrictive polymers in terms
of energy scavenging has also been introduced. This criterion
is related to the energy density per cycle per squared strain
magnitude and per squared bias or applied electric field,
allowing to evaluate the energy-harvesting abilities inde-
pendently from extrinsic parameters such as dimensions, ex-
citation, or bias electric field.
APPLICATION OF ELECTROSTRICTIVE POLYMER
GENERATORS
Virtually, any application where there is a need of electrical
energy is a potential application for electrostrictive polymer
generators. However, electrostrictive polymer power genera-
tion is much more competitive for some applications when
compared with others. For example, electrostrictive polymers
are well suitable for harvesting energy for human motion.
Natural muscle, the driving force for human motion, is typi-
cally of low frequencies and intrinsically linear, both charac-
teristics where electrostrictive polymers offer advantages.
Many other interesting generator applications exist for elec-
trostrictive polymers. Remote and/or wireless devices are
growing in use, and these devices can ideally harvest their
own energy to eliminate the need of battery replacement.
Electrostrictive polymers are well suited for these applica-
tions if mechanical energy is available from oscillatory or vi-
bratory motions such as that might occur in portable devices
carried by people, animals, plane, and so forth.
CONCLUSIONS
The further development of electrostrictive polymers as a via-
ble micro-generators technology requires much work, and to
this end, numerous exciting challenges lie ahead. First, the de-
velopment of improved electrostrictive polymer is essential.
Continued research into the effect of the incorporation of
dielectric and dielectric fillers could lead to the simultaneous
enhancement of electromechanical activities and the reduction
of operating voltage. Such improvements would serve to
broaden application spectrum of these types of microgenera-
tors. For example, significant reduction of operating voltage
could enable applications of realistic autonomous system.
EAPs and in particular electrostrictive polymers were
reviewed in this article as exciting candidate materials for
the development of a new age of microgenerator material.
The different principles of operation of these materials were
presented. The advantages of electrostrictive polymers over
conventional microgenerator technologies in a number of
metrics, in addition to some of the unique characteristics,
which they can offer, were discussed. Electrostrictive poly-
mers were examined at both the material and the microgen-
erators configuration level. Important material parameters,
both mechanical and electrical, are highlighted and various
approaches to optimize these properties for the development
of superior energy harvester devices were addressed. Such
approaches included the incorporation of dielectric fillers
and conductive fillers. In conclusion, electrostrictive polymer
generators have been studied extensively under laboratory
conditions where they have shown promising performance.
However, in practical applications, they have not yet achieved
their full potential.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1 Taylor, G. W.; Burns, J. R.; Kammann, S. A.; Powers, W. B.;
Welsh, T. R. IEEE J. Oceanic Eng. 2001, 26, 539547.
2 Ottman, G. K.; Hofmann, H. F.; Bhatt, A. C.; Lesieutre, G. A.
IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2002, 17, 669676.
3 Choi, W. J.; Jeon, Y.; Jeong, J.-H.; Sood, R.; Kim, S. G. J.
Electroceram. 2006, 17, 543548.
4 Sodano, H. A.; Park, G.; Inman, D. J. Strain 2004, 40, 4958.
5 Ren, K.; Liu, Y.; Geng, X.; Hofmann, H. F.; Zhang, Q. M. IEEE
Trans. Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics Frequency Control 2006, 53,
631638.
6 Sebald, G.; Seveyrat, L.; Guyomar, D.; Lebrun, L.; Guiffard,
B.; Pruvost, S. J. Appl. Phys. 2006, 100, 124112.
FIGURE 17 Schematic representation of autonomous electrostrictive l-generator.
REVIEW WWW.POLYMERPHYSICS.ORG
JOURNAL OF
POLYMER SCIENCE
534 JOURNAL OF POLYMER SCIENCE PART B: POLYMER PHYSICS 2012, 50, 523535
7 Bar-Cohen, Y. Ind. Robot Int. J. 2003, 30, 331337.
8 Damjanovic, D. Rep. Prog. Phys. 1998, 61, 12671324.
9 Ren, K.; Liu, Y.; Hofmann, H.; Zhang, Q. M.; Blottman, J.
Appl. Phys. Lett. 2007, 91, 132910.
10 Meninger, S.; Meninger, S. A low power controller for a
MEMS based energy converter, Masters Dissertation, Massa-
chusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts, 1999.
11 Koh, S. J. A.; Zhao, X.; Suo, Z. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2009, 94,
262902.
12 Mahmoud, M. A. E.; Abdel-Rahman, E. M.; El-Saadany, E.
F.; Mansour, R. R. Smart Mater. Struct. 2010, 19, 025007.
13 McKay, T.; OBrien, B.; Calius, E.; Anderson, I. Appl. Phys.
Lett. 2010, 97, 062911.
14 Lee, C.; Ye, M.; Bin, Y.; Rama, K.; Chun-Huat, H. Sens.
Actuators A 2009, 156, 208216.
15 Liu, Y. Proc. SPIE 2004, 5385, 1728.
16 Liu, Y.; Ren, K. L.; Hofmann, H. F.; Zhang, Q. IEEE Trans.
Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics Frequency Control 2005, 52,
24112417.
17 Jean-Mistral, C.; Basrour, S.; Chaillout, J.-J. Smart Mater.
Struct. 2010, 19, 085012.
18 Lebrun, L.; Guyomar, D.; Guiffard, B.; Cottinet, P.-J.; Putson,
C. Sens. Actuators A 2009, 153, 251257.
19 Cottinet, P.-J.; Guyomar, D.; Guiffard, B.; Putson, C.; Lebrun,
L. IEEE Trans. Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics Frequency Control
2010, 57, 774784.
20 Lallart, M.; Cottinet, P.-J.; Lebrun, L.; Guiffard, B.; Guyomar,
D. J. Appl. Phys. 2010, 108, 034901.
21 Madden, J. D. W.; Vandesteeg, N. A.; Anquetil, P. A.; Mad-
den, P. G. A.; Takshi, A.; Pytel, R. Z.; Lafontaine, S. R.; Wier-
inga, P. A.; Hunter, I. W. IEEE J. Oceanic Eng. 2004, 29,
706728.
22 Guyomar, D.; Lallart, M.; Cottinet, P.-J. Phys. Lett. A 2011,
375, 260264.
23 Guyomar, D.; Badel, A.; Lefeuvre, E.; Richard, C. IEEE
Trans. Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics Frequency Control 2005, 52,
584595.
24 Qiu, J.; Jiang, H.; Hongli, J.; Kongjun, Z. Frontiers Mech.
Eng. China 2009, 4, 153159.
25 Shu, Y. C.; Lien, I. C.; Wu, W. J. Smart Mater. Struct. 2007,
16, 22532264.
26 Qiu, J.; Jiang, H.; Ji, H.; Zhu, K. Frontiers Mech. Eng. China
2009, 4, 153159.
27 Guyomar, D.; Sebald, G.; Pruvost, S.; Lallart, M.; Khodayari,
A.; Richard, C. J Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 2009, 20, 609624.
28 Cottinet, P.-J.; Lallart, M.; Guyomar, D; Guiffard, B.; Lebrun,
L.; Sebald, G.; Putson, C. IEEE Trans. Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics
Frequency Control 2011, 58, 3042.
29 In the case of pseudo-piezoelectric DC energy harvesting,
the nonlinear interface can be either added in parallel or in se-
ries with the active material.
24
However, only the parallel case
will be presented here for the sake of simplicity. All the other
developed interface for piezoelectric energy-harvesting systems
may also be used,
3032
but will not be presented here, as their
application is straightforward.
30 Makihara, K.; Onoda, J.; Miyakawa, T. Smart Mater. Struct.
2006, 15, 14931498.
31 Lallart, M.; Garbuio, L.; Petit, L.; Richard, C.; Guyomar, D.
IEEE Trans. Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics Frequency Control 2008,
55, 21192130.
32 Lallart, M.; Guyomar, D. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2010, 97, 014104.
33 Wongtimnoi, K.; Guiffard, B.; Bogner-Van de Moorte` le, A.;
Seveyrat, L.; Gauthier, C.; Cavaill e, J.-Y. Compos. Sci. Technol.
2011, 71, 885892.
34 Guiffard, B.; Seveyrat, L.; Sebald, G.; Guyomar, D. J. Phys.
D: Appl. Phys. 2006, 39, 30533057.
35 Huang, C.; Zhang, Q. M.; Su, J. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2003, 82, 3502.
36 Bobnar, V.; Levstik, A.; Huang, C.; Zhang, Q. M. J. Non--
Cryst. Solids 2007, 353, 205209.
37 Huang, C.; Zhang, Q.-M. Adv. Mater. 2005, 17, 11531158.
38 Putson, C.; Lebrun, L.; Guyomar, D.; Muensit, N.; Cottinet,
P.-J.; Seveyrat, L.; Guiffard, B. J. Appl. Phys. 2011, 109, 024104.
39 Chu, B.; Zhou, X.; Ren, K.; Neese, B.; Lin, M.; Wang, Q.;
Bauer, F.; Zhang, Q. M. Science 2006, 313, 334336.
JOURNAL OF
POLYMER SCIENCE WWW.POLYMERPHYSICS.ORG REVIEW
WWW.MATERIALSVIEWS.COM JOURNAL OF POLYMER SCIENCE PART B: POLYMER PHYSICS 2012, 50, 523535 535