# ADDING INERTIA to model **URL:** \ **Category:** Uncategorized\ **Created:** [December 5, 2023, 4:16pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/adding-inertia-to-model/1951 "2023-12-05T16:16:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 3
**Author:** ![lucas\_bueno](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/calculix.discourse.group/lucas_bueno/32/1595_2.png) [@lucas\_bueno](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/lucas_bueno)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2023, 8:09pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/adding-inertia-to-model/1951/3 "2023-12-05T20:09:46Z")
> [@MauPel](#): > > Is there any work around in order to add Inertia to the system I’ve investigated something in this regard in the past few weeks but with a focus on \*MASS and 1D beams. The results are in [this other thread](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/coupling-distributing-with-beam-elements/1912/15). Here I verified that no matter the eccentricity of the mass, the frequency results remain unchanged, so no rotary inertia is considered in CalculiX formulation. Maybe some valid workaround is to connect a very stiff beam (E=99999GPa for example) between the mass element and the structure you are interested in. However, I did not try this yet. > [@xyont](#): > > it seems possible by eccentricity and rigid body models when only one mass moment of inertia being considered Do the frequency results change when you modify the distance of the point mass? When I tried this with 1D beams, nothing changed. I am curious about what happens if one uses solid elements, my intuition is that if it did not work for expanded solids, it would not work for intrinsic ones… --- _[View the full topic](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/adding-inertia-to-model/1951)._