PSI - Issue 78
Predaricka Deastra et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 78 (2026) 2038–2045
2040
u str
m
u IViBa
u f,IViBa
u f,I
k IViBa
b
m IViBa
k
u f
u f,IViBa
c IViBa
u f,I
k f,I
(b)
c
k f
IViBa
k SSSI
u f,IViBa
c f,I
k f, IViBa
u f,I
k IViBa
m f
b
m f, IViBa
c f
c f, IViBa
c SSSI
c IViBa
u IViBa
u g (a)
(c)
Fig. 1. (a) Analytical model of a single-degree-of-freedom structure equipped with an IViBa. (b) TMDI. (c) TID.
damping c f , IViBa . The soil at the inerter’s ground connection is represented by sti ff ness k f , I and damping coe ffi cient c f , I . Two alternative IViBa configurations are illustrated in Fig. 1(b) and (c). The first configuration corresponds to the conventional ViBa, which consists of a spring and a dashpot arranged in parallel—with sti ff ness k IViBa and damping coe ffi cient c IViBa —supporting a secondary mass m IViBa . An inerter with inertance b is connected to the secondary mass, forming a TMDI configuration. The application of the TMDI as an IViBa was first investigated in Cacciola et al. (2020). The second configuration adopts the TID model, which can be regarded as a limiting case of the TMDI, where the secondary mass is negligible ( m IViBa = 0), o ff ering a potentially more compact and lightweight alternative. The equation of motion of the system shown in Fig. 1(a) in absolute coordinate can be written as
M ¨ u ( t ) + C ˙ u ( t ) + Ku ( t ) = ¯ C ˙ u g ( t ) + ¯ K u g ( t )
(1)
Considering the TMDI configuration, the M , C , K , ¯ C and ¯ K matices are given as follows:
M =
; C =
c f + c SSSI + c − c − c c − c SSSI 0 0 0 0
m f 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
− c SSSI
0 0 0 0
0 m
0
0
0 0 m f , IViBa
0 c SSSI + c f , IViBa + c IViBa − c IViBa 0
b + m IViBa − b − b b
c IViBa 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
− c IViBa
0
0
c f , I
K =
; ¯ K =
; ¯ C =
k f + k SSSI + k − k
− k SSSI
0 0 0 0
− k f 0 − k f , IViBa 0 − k f , I
− c f 0 − c f , IViBa 0 − c f , I
− k
k
0
0 k SSSI + k f , IViBa + k IViBa − k IViBa 0
− k SSSI
0 0
0 0
− k IViBa
k IViBa 0
0
0
k f , I
Made with FlippingBook Digital Proposal Maker