1932

Abstract

This article provides an introduction and overview of the inerter concept and device. Careful attention is given to the distinction between the inerter as an ideal modeling element and devices that approximate the ideal behavior. The background is given to the formal definition of the inerter as a mechanical one-port with terminal forces proportional to the relative acceleration between them. Four major methods of construction are described and modeled. The discussion focuses particularly on the notion of terminals, the distinction between a device and an effect, sign reversals, back driving in geared systems, the conceptual aspects of the modeling step for inerter embodiments, and the problem of reverse engineering to discover a purpose. The article includes an analysis and discussion of the rotational inerter, a brief review of the ideas of passive network synthesis that led to the inerter concept, and an analysis and discussion of several examples of integrated mechanical devices. It concludes with an imaginary dialogue between the author and an interlocutor on the understanding and purpose of the inerter.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-control-053018-023917
2020-05-03
2024-06-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/control/3/1/annurev-control-053018-023917.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-control-053018-023917&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1. 
    Smith MC. 2002. Synthesis of mechanical networks: the inerter. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 47:1648–62
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. 
    Smith MC 2001. Force-controlling mechanical device US Patent 7,316,303
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3. 
    Chen MZQ, Papageorgiou C, Scheibe F, Wang FC, Smith MC. 2009. The missing mechanical circuit element. IEEE Circuits Syst. Mag. 9:110–26
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4. 
    Glover AR, Smith MC, Houghton NE, Long PJG 2009. Force-controlling hydraulic device Int. Patent Appl. PCT/GB2010/001491
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5. 
    Swift SJ, Smith MC, Glover AR, Papageorgiou C, Gartner B, Houghton NE. 2013. Design and modelling of a fluid inerter. Int. J. Control 86:2035–51
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6. 
    Smith MC, Wang FC. 2004. Performance benefits in passive vehicle suspensions employing inerters. Veh. Syst. Dyn. 42:235–57
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7. 
    Zhang SY, Jiang JZ, Neild SA. 2017. Passive vibration control: a structure–immittance approach. Proc. R. Soc. A 473:20170011
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. 
    Chen YC, Wu SY, Wang FC. 2014. Vibration control of a three-leg optical table by mechatronic inerter networks. 2014 Proceedings of the SICE Annual Conference426–31 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9. 
    Siami A, Karimi HR, Cigada A, Zappa E, Sabbioni E. 2018. Parameter optimization of an inerter-based isolator for passive vibration control of Michelangelo's Rondanini Pietà. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 98:667–83
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10. 
    Wang FC, Hong MF, Chen CW. 2010. Building suspensions with inerters. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. C 224:1605–16
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11. 
    Marian L, Giaralis A. 2014. Optimal design of a novel tuned mass-damper–inerter (TMDI) passive vibration control configuration for stochastically support-excited structural systems. Probab. Eng. Mech. 38:156–64
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12. 
    Lazar IF, Neild SA, Wagg DJ. 2014. Using an inerter-based device for structural vibration suppression. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 43:1129–47
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13. 
    Yamamoto K, Smith MC. 2016. Design of passive interconnections in tall buildings subject to earthquake disturbances to suppress interstorey drifts. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 744:012063
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14. 
    Pietrosanti D, De Angelis M, Basili M. 2017. Optimal design and performance evaluation of systems with tuned mass damper inerter (TMDI). Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 46:1367–88
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15. 
    Zhang SY, Jiang JZ, Neild S. 2017. Optimal configurations for a linear vibration suppression device in a multi-storey building. Struct. Control Health Monit. 24:e1887
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16. 
    De Domenico D, Ricciardi G. 2018. An enhanced base isolation system equipped with optimal tuned mass damper inerter (TMDI). Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 47:1169–92
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17. 
    Hu Y, Chen MZQ, Smith MC. 2018. Natural frequency assignment for mass-chain systems with inerters. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 108:126–39
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18. 
    Wang FC, Liao MK, Liao BH, Su WJ, Chan HA. 2009. The performance improvements of train suspension systems with mechanical networks employing inerters. Veh. Syst. Dyn. 47:805–30
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19. 
    Wang FC, Liao MK. 2010. The lateral stability of train suspension systems employing inerters. Veh. Syst. Dyn. 48:619–43
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20. 
    Jiang JZ, Matamoros-Sanchez AZ, Goodall RM, Smith MC. 2012. Passive suspensions incorporating inerters for railway vehicles. Veh. Syst. Dyn. 50:263–76
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21. 
    Jiang JZ, Matamoros-Sanchez AZ, Zolotas A, Goodall RM, Smith MC. 2015. Passive suspensions for ride quality improvement of two-axle railway vehicles. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. F 229:315–29
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22. 
    Hanazawa Y, Suda H, Yamakita M. 2011. Analysis and experiment of flat-footed passive dynamic walker with ankle inerter. 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics86–91 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23. 
    Lazar IF, Neild SA, Wagg DJ. 2016. Vibration suppression of cables using tuned inerter dampers. Eng. Struct. 122:62–71
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24. 
    Luo J, Jiang JZ, Macdonald JHG. 2018. Cable vibration suppression with inerter-based absorbers. J. Eng. Mech. 145:04018134
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25. 
    Evangelou S, Limebeer DJN, Sharp RS, Smith MC. 2006. Control of motorcycle steering instabilities. IEEE Control Syst. Mag. 26:578–88
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26. 
    Evangelou S, Limebeer DJN, Sharp RS, Smith MC. 2007. Mechanical steering compensators for high-performance motorcycles. J. Appl. Mech. 74:332–46
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27. 
    Xin D, Yuance L, Chen MZQ. 2015. Application of inerter to aircraft landing gear suspension. 2015 34th Chinese Control Conference2066–71 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28. 
    Li Y, Jiang JZ, Neild S. 2016. Inerter-based configurations for main-landing-gear shimmy suppression. J. Aircraft 54:684–93
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. 
    Firestone FA. 1933. A new analogy between mechanical and electrical systems. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 4:249–67
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30. 
    Hähnle W. 1932. Die Darstellung elektromechanischer Gebilde durch rein elektrische Schaltbilder. Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen aus dem Siemens-Konzern1–23 Berlin: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31. 
    Darrieus G. 1929. Les modèles mécaniques en électrotechnique, leur application aux problèmes de stabilité. Bull. Soc. Fr. Électr. 9:794–809
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32. 
    Goldstein H. 1980. Classical Mechanics San Francisco: Addison-Wesley. 2nd ed.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33. 
    Kravitz T, Symonds P 2017. Front suspension. Sky Sports http://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/f1/11092922/ted-and-pat-8211-suspension
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34. 
    Smith MC 2015. Inerters. The Princeton Companion to Applied Mathematics NJ Higham605–9 Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35. 
    Scheibe F, Smith MC. 2009. Analytical solutions for optimal ride comfort and tyre grip for passive vehicle suspensions. Veh. Syst. Dyn. 47:1229–52
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36. 
    Wang FC, Hong MF, Lin TC. 2011. Designing and testing a hydraulic inerter. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. C 225:66–72
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37. 
    Gartner BJ, Smith MC 2013. Damping and inertial hydraulic device US Patent Appl. 13/577,234
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38. 
    Liu X, Jiang JZ, Titurus B, Harrison A. 2018. Model identification methodology for fluid-based inerters. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 106:479–94
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. 
    Shearer JL, Murphy AT, Richardson HH. 1967. Introduction to System Dynamics San Francisco: Addison-Wesley
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40. 
    Newcomb RW. 1966. Linear Multiport Synthesis New York: McGraw-Hill
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41. 
    Anderson BDO, Vongpanitlerd S. 1973. Network Analysis and Synthesis Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42. 
    Bott R, Duffin RJ. 1949. Impedance synthesis without use of transformers. J. Appl. Phys. 20:816–16
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43. 
    Hughes TH, Smith MC. 2014. On the minimality and uniqueness of the Bott–Duffin realization procedure. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 59:1858–73
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44. 
    Hughes TH. 2017. Why RLC realizations of certain impedances need many more energy storage elements than expected. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 62:4333–46
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45. 
    Morelli A, Smith MC. 2019. Passive Network Synthesis: An Approach to Classification Philadelphia: Soc. Ind. Appl. Math.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46. 
    Gartner BJ 2016. Shock absorber with inertance US Patent 9,334,914
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47. 
    McBeath S 2011. Shocks to the system. Racecar Engineering51–54
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48. 
    Wang FC, Chan HA. 2008. Mechatronic suspension design and its applications to vehicle suspension control. 2008 47th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control3769–74 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49. 
    Wang FC, Chan HA. 2011. Vehicle suspensions with a mechatronic network strut. Veh. Syst. Dyn. 49:811–30
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50. 
    Pires L, Smith MC, Houghton NE, McMahon R. 2013. Design trade-offs for energy regeneration and control in vehicle suspensions. Int. J. Control 86:2022–34
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51. 
    Jiang JZ, Smith MC, Houghton NE. 2008. Experimental testing and modelling of a mechanical steering compensator. 2008 3rd International Symposium on Communications, Control and Signal Processing249–54 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52. 
    Smith MC, Swift SJ. 2016. Design of passive vehicle suspensions for maximal least damping ratio. Veh. Syst. Dyn. 54:568–84
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53. 
    Willems JC. 2007. The behavioral approach to open and interconnected systems. IEEE Control Syst. Mag. 27:646–99
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-control-053018-023917
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-control-053018-023917
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error