Wheel shimmy suppression through the piecewise nonlinear energy sink: elimination of detrimental isolas - presented by Prof. Giuseppe Habib

Wheel shimmy suppression through the piecewise nonlinear energy sink: elimination of detrimental isolas

Prof. Giuseppe Habib

Prof. Giuseppe Habib
Slide at 03:19
NODYCON 2025
Shimmy Suppression: TMD and C-NES
Stability of zero-attractor (linear stability)
12000
Without NES
C-NES
10000
Fourth International Nonlinear Dynamics Conference
Cw [Nms/rad]
Cw = 36
Kw [Nm/rad]
8000
(Cw = 36,
6000
Kw = 8820)
Without NES
4000
TMD C-NES
2000
u [m/s]
Cw [Nms/rad]
While TMD obviously extends the
Although both TMD and C-NES
linear stability of the system, C-
suppress the specific system (red dot
NES has less effect on the linear
in the figure), their underlying
stability.
stabilization mechanisms differ
fundamentally.
Consequently, we obtained the linear stability of the TMD and C-NES. As shown in the
6/17/2025
Share slide
Summary (AI generated)

Several researchers have investigated shimmy suppression using Tuned Mass Dampers (TMD) and cubic Nonlinear Energy Sink (C-NES) in common solutions. These devices are typically mounted on the wheel frame. The wheel system equipped with the vibration absorber is derived from the integration of the single wheel system model and the governing equations of the vibration absorber. As a result, we have assessed the linear stabilities of both the TMD and C-NES, as illustrated in the first figure.

While the TMD clearly enhances the linear stability of the system, the C-NES has a comparatively lesser impact on linear stability. In the accompanying figure, I also present both the Generalized Mass Damper (GMD) and the Cubic Energy Sink (CES). For a specific system represented by the red dot in the figure, the mechanisms of stabilization differ between TMD and C-NES. The TMD achieves stabilization by modifying the zero attractor stability, while the C-NES operates through a different mechanism.