GT2014-25240

UNDERSTANDING COMPLEXITIES
UNDERPLATFORM DAMPER HYSTERESIS
CYCLE: EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH
Muzio M. GOLA - POLITO, Torino , Italy
Chiara GASTALDI - POLITO, Torino , Italy

Politecnico di Torino
M.M. Gola C.Gastaldi
DIMEAS - POLITO

DIMEAS Dip. di Ingegneria Meccanica e Aerospaziale

June 2014

Presentation outline
Purpose and contents
The test rig

Measured and derived quantities

The numerical model
Tuning the numerical model: friction contact parameters estimation

Model validation
Step-by-step analysis of a cycle
Initial conditions

Conclusions and future work

M.M. Gola C.Gastaldi

DIMEAS - POLITO

June 2014

m.gola
2012

Purpose and contents - 1

Due to the nonlinear nature of dry friction, in general dynamic analysis of

structures constrained through frictional contacts is difficult, direct time
integration with commercial finite element codes may not be a suitable
choice given the large computation times. For this reason, ad hoc
numerical codes have been developed in the frequency domain.
Two approaches are possible:

include the damper in the FE

model of the bladed array
M.M. Gola C.Gastaldi
DIMEAS - POLITO

develop a separate routine in order to

compute contact forces as a function
of input displacements.

June 2014

Purpose and contents - 2

A dedicated routine is, preferable (in the authors opinion) since:
it is more effective in capturing those finer details which are essential to
an appropriate description of damper behaviour.
being able to investigate the damper behaviour offline (without
involving the FE model of the whole system) considerably shortens any
damper optimization process.
The dedicated routine developed by the AERMEC group combines
numerical simulation with a trustworthy experimental approach for two
reasons:

experimental observations can be used as a benchmark to draw

the appropriate values of contact parameters (local friction
coefficients and contact stiffness) to be used as input to a numerical
model which represents the dynamics of the damper between the two
platforms (i.e. the dedicated routine).
validated routine becomes a design tool.
M.M. Gola C.Gastaldi
DIMEAS - POLITO

June 2014

Purpose and contents - 3

The purpose of this presentation is to describe, operate and validate

the dedicated routine developed to simulate the damper behaviour
between two adjacent blade platforms.
This will require to briefly overview the test rig, to model it and to
describe the contact parameters estimation technique.
Once the validation purpose has been achieved the simulation of the
platforms behaviour will be removed from the routine. The routine will
therefore be able to, given the relative motion of two points (nodes) on the
platforms surface, substitute the non-linear friction forces with their HBM
equivalent.

M.M. Gola C.Gastaldi

DIMEAS - POLITO

June 2014

Presentation outline
Purpose and contents
The test rig

Measured and derived quantities

Curved-flat damper: hysteresis cycles and force equilibrium
Curved-flat damper: damper kinematics

The numerical model

Tuning the numerical model: friction contact parameters estimation
Step-by-step analysis of a cycle

Initial conditions
Conclusions and future work

M.M. Gola C.Gastaldi

DIMEAS - POLITO

June 2014

The test rig

Purpose and contents
The test rig

Measured and derived quantities

Curved-flat damper: hysteresis cycles and force equilibrium
Curved-flat damper: damper kinematics

The numerical model

Tuning the numerical model: friction contact parameters estimation
Step-by-step analysis of a cycle

Initial conditions
Conclusions and future work

M.M. Gola C.Gastaldi

DIMEAS - POLITO

June 2014

The test rig

The test rig is designed aiming at:
measuring the forces transferred between the two simulated platforms
of neighbouring blades through the under-platform damper
measuring left platform and damper movement relative to the right
platform
The damper is placed
between the platforms
and loaded by dead
weights which reproduce
the effects of the
centrifugal force Fc.
The left part of the test
rig is dedicated to the
motion
transmission
Platforms
through
the
piezoelectric actuators.
The right part hosts the
force sensors.
M.M. Gola C.Gastaldi
DIMEAS - POLITO

June 2014

Presentation outline
Purpose and contents
The test rig

Measured and derived quantities

Curved-flat damper: hysteresis cycles and force equilibrium
Curved-flat damper: damper kinematics

The numerical model

Tuning the numerical model: friction contact parameters estimation
Step-by-step analysis of a cycle

Initial conditions
Conclusions and future work

M.M. Gola C.Gastaldi

DIMEAS - POLITO

June 2014

Measured and derived quantities: Force components

Output: hysteresis relative to the two platforms
Error: uncertainty given by the laser measurement: 0.08 m
uncertainty given by the piezo load cell measurement: 1%
Laser placement: different depending on the direction of the input displacement
I-P

Laser projection points placement

on the platforms.

Vertical force (N)

O-O-P

Vertical relative displacement (m)

M.M. Gola C.Gastaldi

DIMEAS - POLITO

June 2014

10

Measured and derived quantities: Force components

The readings of the load cells mentioned in the previous section give
only the varying components of the right contact force.
The zero references of the right contact force components are
estimated through a load removal procedure.

force drop
corresponds
to calibration
factor 2%

M.M. Gola C.Gastaldi

DIMEAS - POLITO

June 2014

11

Measured and derived quantities: Force components

Once the complete components of the

5
4
right contact force (N
and
T
)
are
known,
R
R
the
damper
static
equilibrium
is
reconstructed 3 by neglecting damper
inertia (at 2 frequencies where 6 this is
correct) and therefore assuming contact
1
and centrifugal
forces to pass 7through one
point.

Force
1
component
2

St. Deviation
7

NR ,3 TR
N2R ,3 T4R
4

NL , TL

M.M. Gola C.Gastaldi

DIMEAS - POLITO

Error estimation

6
1%
(0.5 N)

Load cell linearity

7
5

2%
(1 N)
6

Error on calibration factor

during load removal

3-5% (0.7-0.9
N)

Analytical error propagation

June 2014

12

Measured and derived quantities: Force components

Damper kinematic reconstruction
Output: Damper right contact point motion with respect to right platform
Pure rolling motion

Pure translation

w
D
D A0 AR
dr= =
2
2 A0 AR
Laser Placement

Damper rotation:

ds=

wA A
0 R

wA +A0 O0 sin
0
sin(45)

Damper vertical movement: wA

0

5
4

3
2

A0 AR = 1 2
A0 O0 = 1
2
7
1
Error: Analytical error propagation procedure. Contributions A A and A O are
0 R
0 0
minimized through photographical method. 0.06mrad(5%) ds 0.5m (5%)
M.M. Gola C.Gastaldi
DIMEAS - POLITO

June 2014

13

The numerical model

Modelling the test rig
Physical parameters
the system

Two contact points on left

surface
as
observed
experimentally

from measured stiffness

distribution of the test rig
(K)

fine tuned (c): the

hysteresis is not sensitive
to this parameters, it was
therefore set to 0.

The Newmark method is adopted to

solve the system equilibrium equations
by assuming the initial state variables.
The state variables are interdependent on friction force, therefore
an iteration scheme (displacement
based Newton-Raphson) is necessary
to find the nonlinear equilibrium point.

A macro-slip, 1D variable
normal load contact model is
used to compute contact
forces as a function of input
displacements.

M.M. Gola C.Gastaldi

DIMEAS - POLITO

Numerical solver

Modelling the contact

June 2014

of

14

Tuning the numerical model: friction contact parameters estimation

Setting the contact parameters: Contact stiffness
5
4

1
1

7
3

4
4

The cycle slope is a composite effect of normal and tangential stiffness values at all
The
slope The
of the
O-O-P hysteresis
cycleis isthat
equal
in all investigated
and constant
contacts.
assumption
made here
all contact
points havecases
the same
normal in
time when the platform starts closing, due to the fact
3 that, in this tract, all contact points
and
tangential
stiffness
values.
The
proportion
k
=
n 2 kt is initially assumed referring to
are:
same slope for tract 5-6 can be obtained for any proportion, it is the
-Johnson*.The
in contact
combination
-linear
in stick
condition value which counts.
However it has been observed that the rotation signal is better approximated by the
initial assumption, which is therefore here employed.

N
N
kn =84 m kt =56 m

M.M. Gola C.Gastaldi

DIMEAS - POLITO

June 2014

15

Tuning the numerical model: friction contact parameters estimation

Setting the contact parameters: Friction coefficients
5
4

1
1

2
3

6
7

4
4

The friction coefficients can be estimated by looking at the ratio of tangential and normal
component of the contact forces in the experimental
rightsurface
T/N
poses
problem
since
there
is the
onlycombination
one
contact
point
on
Initially
= ratio
L2
assumed.
The
result
obtained
is
then
tuned
to
match
theside of
The
left
is, is
on
the no
other
hand,
the thus
result
of
of
the
twothat
contact
L1
the
damper. one.
R 0.45
points.
experimental
Therefore a stage during which only one of the left contact points is actually in contact and
slipping is singled out.
L20.2
L1
R
L2
0.18
0.199
0.450

M.M. Gola C.Gastaldi

DIMEAS - POLITO

June 2014

16

Model validation: OOP case 5 Hz 60m

T/N FORCE RATIO

HYSTERESIS

NUMERICAL
FORCES
DAMPERCONTACT
ROTATION
DISPLACEMENT
POINTFORCES
DR
EXPERIMENTAL
CONTACT
M.M. Gola C.Gastaldi
DIMEAS - POLITO

June 2014

17

Model validation: IP case 5 Hz 60m

T/N FORCE RATIO

HYSTERESIS

NUMERICAL
FORCES
DAMPERCONTACT
ROTATION
DISPLACEMENT
POINTFORCES
DR
EXPERIMENTAL
CONTACT
M.M. Gola C.Gastaldi
DIMEAS - POLITO

June 2014

18

Model validation: IP case 5 Hz 60m

T/N FORCE RATIO

HYSTERESIS

NUMERICAL
FORCES
DAMPERCONTACT
ROTATION
DISPLACEMENT
POINTFORCES
DR
EXPERIMENTAL
CONTACT
M.M. Gola C.Gastaldi
DIMEAS - POLITO

June 2014

19

Step-by-step analysis of a cycle: OOP 5 Hz 60m

Once its validity has been proven, the numerical model offers an insight into the damper
behavior which the measurements alone are not capable of producing.
E.g.
By considering
thesummary
hysteresis
relativecondition
to each contact
point it
is numerical
possible tocontact
determine
Moreover
a complete
of cycle
the damper
is presented:
the
force
the
stick, damper
slip or lift-off
condition
eachstate
contact
(which is(divided
independent
vectors,
rotation,
contactat
points
andpoint
displacement
in the from
stick the
and others
slip
condition)
component).

M.M. Gola C.Gastaldi

DIMEAS - POLITO

June 2014

20

Step-by-step analysis of a cycle: OOP 5 Hz 60m

Yang and Menq1 represented the cycle as the tangential contact forces trajectory on the contact
Ti
plane. For each interface two projective lines ( =i Ni ) represent the positive and negative
CF
slip conditions, and the region between the lines is the stick condition. The four single-slip line
segments define the stick-slip configuration of the damper.

PROS

CONS

Clearly identify stick-slip condition

Does not allow L1 L2

Lift-off not represented

1. Yang, B.D. and C.H. Menq, 1998. Characterization of contact kinematics and application to the design of wedge dampers in turbomachinery
blading: Part 1 - Stick-slip contact kinematics. Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 120(1), pp. 410-417.

M.M. Gola C.Gastaldi

DIMEAS - POLITO

June 2014

21

Influence of friction contact parameters

The damper behaviour evolves significantly and in a repeatable manner with time due to
changing friction parameters.

The numerical model, properly tuned is capable of correctly reproducing this evolution

M.M. Gola C.Gastaldi

DIMEAS - POLITO

L1

L2

0.14
0.14
0.14
0.22
0.32
0.40

0.13
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22

0.13
0.13
0.14
0.13
0.32
0.32

June 2014

22

Influence of friction contact parameters

Moreover care must be exercised fine-tuning friction parameters because there are ranges where
extremely small variations, well below the friction uncertainty limits, produce large changes in
damper behaviour.

These findings cast doubts on the idea of estimating damper effectiveness by simply looking at
the configuration of the limit lines shown in the tangential forces diagram since:
in some particular situations a small variation of friction coefficients does not modify
significantly the limit lines but, at the same time, has a huge effect on damper hysteresis in
terms of damping capability, rotation, etc;
friction coefficient values evolve with time and kind of input motion, therefore one set of limit
lines is not sufficient to offer a trustworthy characterization of damper behaviour.
M.M. Gola C.Gastaldi
DIMEAS - POLITO

June 2014

23

Influence of Initial conditions

Yang and Menq1 pointed out that, for the same input motion, different initial states and initial
values of the friction forces at the beginning of simulation may result in different friction force
trajectories when their steady states are reached.

These findings cast doubts on the idea of estimating damper effectiveness by simply looking at
the configuration of the limit lines shown in the tangential forces diagram since:
in some particular situations a small variation of friction coefficients does not modify
significantly the limit lines but, at the same time, has a huge effect on damper hysteresis in
terms of damping capability, rotation, etc;
friction coefficient values evolve with time and kind of input motion, therefore one set of limit
lines is not sufficient to offer a trustworthy characterization of damper behaviour.
M.M. Gola C.Gastaldi
DIMEAS - POLITO

June 2014

24

m.gola
2012

Conclusions - 2

OOPh hysteresis cycles show a steady change in shape with time, evolving toward a
substantially stuck condition with a very small cycle area. The damper seems to
wedge inside the platform. Correspondingly, the coefficient of friction in sliding
shows large variations with increasing normal load, as shown by the vector force
diagrams at contact points.
This may not be true for a quasi static condition (5 Hz). However, cycles show a large
variability in shape and area evolution, although with the same initial conditions.

The IPh motion of the three-point damper shows a large rolling with liftoff of the
double support contact; accordingly the force jumps to and from these contacts.
The cross curved-flat damper shows a behavior on OOPH motion similar to the threepoint damper, however it becomes stuck even more quickly.

On the contrary, it shows a much more favourable behaviour in IPh, i.e. with larger
cycle areas. The coincident position of contact points on left and right surfaces
reduces to zero both the excursion of the application point on the flat contact and
damper rotation.
Finally the wide
M.M. Gola
...M.M.
Gola C.Gastaldi
DIMEAS - POLITO

August
June 2014
2012

25

m.gola
2012

Three-point damper: details

Fc

r=5 mm

r=5 mm
r=5 mm
14 mm

IP

OoP

M.M. Gola
...M.M.
Gola C.Gastaldi
DIMEAS - POLITO

August
June 2014
2012

26