Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2018
Turbomachinery Technical Conference and Exposition
CRITERIA FOR BEST PERFORMANCE OF PRE-OPTIMIZED SOLID DAMPERS
Chiara Gastaldi∗
AERMEC Lab - DIMEAS
Politecnico di Torino
Torino, Italy
Email: chiara.gastaldi@polito.it
ABSTRACT
This paper furthers recent research by these authors. The
starting point is the pre-optimization of solid dampers, which en-
sures that all dampers bound to misbehave are excluded since the
early design stage. The authors now enlarge the scope of their
investigations to explore those damper configurations selected
inside the admissible design area. The purpose of the paper is
to present a set of criteria apt to select a damper configuration
which not only avoids unwanted situations, but in addition guar-
antees high performance under different design conditions.
The analysis starts with the definition of a set of requirements
a high performance damper should meet. In detail the present
investigation seeks to answer the following questions:
– in the low excitation regime, what is the frequency shift and
the stiffening effect each damper can provide?
– for increasing excitation levels, which damper will start slip-
ping sooner?
– in the high excitation regime, which damper provides the
maximum dissipation?
Like pre-optimization, it does not involve nonlinear Finite Ele-
ment calculations, and unlike existing optimization procedures,
is not linked to a specific set of blades the damper may be cou-
pled to. The numerical prediction of the blade-damper coupled
dynamics is here used only for validation purposes.
The approach on which this paper rests is fully numerical, how-
ever real contact parameters are taken from extensive experimen-
tal investigations made possible by those purposely developed
test rigs which are the distinctive mark of the AERMEC Lab of
Politecnico di Torino.
∗ Address all correspondence to this author.
1 Copyright © 2018 ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/11/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
GT2018
June 11-15, 2018, Oslo, Norway
GT2018-75961
Muzio M. Gola
AERMEC Lab - DIMEAS
Politecnico di Torino
Torino, Italy
Email: muzio.gola@polito.it
1 INTRODUCTION
Turbine blades do not benefit significantly from material
hysteresis and aerodynamic damping. As a result, external
sources of damping, e.g. in the form of dry friction devices [1–7]
such as underplatform dampers, are typically added to turbine de-
signs. Being able to 1) predict and 2) tailor the effect the damper
has on the bladed disk is of primary importance in increasing the
engine reliability and reducing the cost of operation and the du-
ration and cost of the design process itself.
The prediction (point 1)) of the damper effect on the blades has
been thoroughly addressed in the last decades. In detail, the com-
putation of the forced response in presence of friction damping
requires ad-hoc solution techniques [8, 9], reduction methods to
decrease the size of the blades’ FE models [7, 10–12], contact
models to take into account the presence of friction [1, 13–17]
and techniques to calibrate them [16, 18–21].
The first efforts in the frame of damper optimization (point 2)
started as early as 1980 [1] and were limited to the selection of
the optimal damper mass. A few years later, however, the first
qualitative comparisons of cylindrical and wedge damper shapes
started to appear [22, 23]. These early works highlighted the
drawbacks of cylindrical and wedge dampers: it was observed
how cylindrical dampers were prone to rolling (i.e. a fatal blow to
their damping capability), while wedge-shaped dampers tended
to detach for high excitation levels. The obvious correction is to
use a flat-curved solid damper having one of the two contact sur-
faces in cylindrical form, thus allowing a perfect mating with the
underplatforms. A notable work is [24], where the curved-flat
damper, already used in the industry since 1985, is mentioned
for the first time in a scientific publication. Flat-curved dampers
 are here preferred on the grounds of contact determinacy, sound
design and mechanical predictability.
Since 2007, the AERMEC lab has devoted time and effort in
the direct experimental investigation and modeling of curved
flat underplatform dampers [16, 25–29]. In [28, 29] geometrical
pre-optimization of a standard curved-flat damper and its conse-
quences on the forced response of blades have been examined.
Paper [28] examined which geometrical limits of the damper
shape not to be exceeded in order to guarantee avoidance of un-
wanted situations (e.g. flat surface lift-off and ensuing damper
rotation or damper jamming). The main product of that paper
was the introduction of pre-optimization maps, defining admissi-
ble design areas limited by forbidden areas and limit lines which
identify those portions of the input parameter space incapable of
guaranteeing the desired design condition. Paper [29] showed
that if the damper configuration is pre-optimized it is enough
to retain only the first harmonic term (plus the static term) in
the multi-HBM calculation, which is of great practical help to
damper designers. The result of the pre-optimization procedure
is briefly recounted in the next Section. Purpose of this paper is
to further the exploration of the design area to single out, among
pre-optimized damper configurations, those which show the best
performance for the mode shape under investigation. To achieve
this goal the paper will first address two preliminary steps:
– Sect. 3 explores and defines a series of requirements a high-
performance damper should meet at different blade excita-
tion levels;
– Sect. 4 explores the effect that different Engine Order ex-
citations (leading to different inter-blade phase angles) have
on platform kinematics for a standard blade bending mode
of vibration. This analysis constitutes the starting point of
the ”Criteria for High Performance” (CHP) procedure.
Section 5 describes the three steps that constitute the CHP pro-
cedure and the tools used in the analysis.
Finally, FRIDA, a state-of-the-art numerical code for the numer-
ical simulation of the blade-damper coupled dynamics is used to
validate the predictions of the CHP procedure on the bladed disk
shown in Fig. 1a.
2 THE STARTING POINT: PRE-OPTIMIZED DESIGN
AREA
The ”pre-optimization” strategy, first presented in [28], can
be defined as an appropriate definition of the damper shape to ex-
clude a-priori all those damper configurations which would lead
to undesirable damper working conditions, e.g. due to jamming,
lift-off or one-side detachment. It ensures that the damper is ca-
pable of reaching gross-slip at both interfaces, if the appropri-
ate platform kinematics (in terms of amplitude and direction) are
made available.
The outcomes of the pre-optimization process are pre-
optimization maps where admissible design areas are identified
2 Copyright © 2018 ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/11/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
within the input parameter space linked to the damper configura-
tion (the design variables are those shown in Fig. 1b). The ad-
missible design areas are limited by ’forbidden areas’ and ’limit
lines’ which identify those portions of the input parameter space
where the damper cannot be operated or would work in an un-
desirable condition. An example of these maps is given in the
top portion of Fig. 21 . As shown, the maps are drawn for two
modes of vibration, considered here as benchmark limit cases:
the IP mode, where two adjacent blades vibrate ”In-Phase” (i.e.
null inter-blade phase angle ϕ = 0◦ ), and the OOP mode, where
two adjacent blades vibrate with a ϕ = 180◦ phase shift between
them (their full description is found in Sect. 4). The complete
mathematical derivation of the forbidden areas and limit lines
shape and location can be found in [28]. However, the bottom
right corner of Fig. 2 shows a brief explanation of the cause be-
hind each undesirable behaviour and its effects on the damper
performance.
The intersection of the IP and OOP design areas is shown in
green in the bottom left corner of Fig. 2, and identifies all those
damper configurations not affected by lift-off, jamming or par-
tial detachment for all bending modes, whichever the inter-blade
phase angle ∀ϕ [30]. It is the starting point of the CHP procedure
described in Sect. 5. As demonstrated in [28], the configuration
of the design areas is strongly dependent on the selected values of
friction coefficients. Here friction coefficients at the left and right
interface were set at µL = µR = 0.3 in accordance with the values
found for realistic turbine operating temperatures [31, 32]. This
choice has a beneficial effect on the size of the pre-optimized de-
sign area, while the adoption of the value at about 0.7 as found in
room-temperature experimental assessments [27,31,32], besides
being unrealistic for real use, does not always guarantee the very
existence of a working area valid for both IP and OOP.
A reader familiar with [28, 29] will notice that the ”force magni-
tude limit lines” are missing from Fig. 2. Such force magnitude
limit lines have been used in previous works as a precautionary
measure. However, the indication was ”incomplete” as it had
to be combined with additional information, not available at this
stage, on the specific blade under investigation. These limit lines
have been here removed, and absorbed by a general formulation
shown in steps 2 and 3 of the CHP procedure (see Sect. 5).
3 DAMPER REQUIREMENTS DEFINITION
Whenever a damper is added to the bladed system, its dy-
namic response is modified into two fundamental ways:
1. the coupled blades resonant frequencies increase since the
damper acts as an additional constraint (with a given stiff-
ness) between the platforms. This effect is maximum in the
1 The 2D maps in Fig. 2 are drawn keeping the design variable h/r at a fixed
value, chosen for assembly requirements of the disk in Fig. 1a. The choice of
h/r has an effect on the position of the lift-off limit lines, but no effect on the
subsequent CHP procedure.
 4 STEP 0: PLATFORM KINEMATICS IDENTIFICATION
The analysis outlined below is the result of an extensive
numerical investigation carried out on different blades vibrat-
ing along bending modes in free (i.e. no dampers), full stick
or generic nonlinear conditions.
Let us consider a generic bending mode. It is sufficient to the
purpose of this treatment to refer to the simple case where the
platforms are symmetric about the blades’ longitudinal axis and
the contact segment length in cross-section is small compared to
other platform dimensions. The displacement of a point L = Li
located on the platform (see Fig.3a) is described by3 :
uLP (t) = u1P · cos(ω · t)
(1)
wLP (t) = w1P · cos(ω · t)
While the displacement of point R, located on the adjacent plat-
FIGURE 1. a. BLADED DISK - CLOSE UP ON TWO ADJA-
form can be defined as:
CENT BLADES. b. CURVED-FLAT DAMPER CONFIGURATION. uRP (t) = u1P · cos(ω · t + ϕ)
(2)
PARAMETERS θR , θL , AND h ARE THE DESIGN VARIABLES OF wRP (t) = w1P · cos(ω · t + π + ϕ)
THE PRE-OPTIMIZATION PROCESS AND OF THE SUBSEQUENT where ϕ is the inter-blade phase angle. Let us now define the
HIGH PERFORMANCE INVESTIGATION. relative platform kinematics, i.e. the right platform is considered
as still:    
1 π +ϕ π +ϕ
low excitation regime (i.e. damper fully stuck to the plat- uP (t) = uLP (t) − uRP (t) = 2 · uP · cos · cos ω · t +
2 2
forms); ϕ  ϕ
2. the blades response diminishes due to the combined effect of wP (t) = wLP (t) − wRP (t) = 2 · w1P · cos · cos(ω · t + )
2 2
the stiffness introduced by the damper (which acts as a con- (3)
straint) and of friction damping. The latter effect is presence
Therefore, in an IP case, such as the one shown in Fig. 3, it is
in the medium-high excitation regime (gross slip2 ).
sufficient to impose ϕ = 0◦ inside Eq. 3:
A high performing damper should guarantee the following.
uP (t) = 0
– A sufficiently high stiffness: dampers are often used to shift (4)
the resonant frequencies so that a potentially dangerous res- wP (t) = 2 · w1P · cos(ω · t)
onance crossing in the operating rotational speed is avoided. while for the OOP case, ϕ = 180◦ is substituted inside Eq. 3:
This shift, whose maximum value is calculated considering uP (t) = 2 · u1P · cos (ω · t)
the damper as fully stuck to the platforms, should be high (5)
wP (t) = 0
enough to guarantee that even if the excitation force causes
the damper to slip (i.e. part of the stiffening effect is lost), The focus of this investigation is on the IP and OOP cases,
the frequency shift is still sufficient. here considered as two ”limit” conditions or benchmarks.
– Reaching easily and for the lowest possible excitation level Furthermore, in the authors’ experience with industrial test
the bilateral (i.e. both contact interface) gross slip condition. cases, Engine Order excitations which result in ϕ < 20◦ (i.e. ≈
– Once in the gross slip regime, ensure maximum dissipation. IP) are quite frequent. Should a case with 30◦ ≤ ϕ ≤ 150◦ , the
These three requirements will be addressed, respectively, by CHP procedure can still be applied with obvious modifications.
steps 1, 2 and 3, of the CHP procedure. Before delving into
their exploration however, the platform kinematics produced by Important Remark: the relations in Eq. 4-5 outlined above
different inter-blade phase angles ϕ (i.e. different Engine Order hold independently of the specific blade under investigation.
excitations) must be addressed. Furthermore, the level of excitation modifies the amplitude of
the relative platform displacement, but not its direction. This
analysis allows decoupling the amplitude of relative motion at
the damper-platform contact from its direction and is the basis
2 Gross slip is defined as a condition where the whole interface is in full slip (as

opposed to ”partial” or ”micro” slip [16,17]). If, as in this paper, contact elements
based on Coulomb friction [14] are used to model the interface, the numerical 3 Displacements are adequately captured by their first harmonic contribution
equivalent of ”gross slip” sees ALL contact elements used in slip condition. only: this holds both for linear and nonlinear vibration if pre-optimized dampers
are involved [30].

3 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/11/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 FIGURE 2. TOP: EXAMPLE OF IP AND OOP PRE-OPTIMIZATION MAPS FOR RESIDUAL RADIUS h = 50%r AND FRICTION COEFFI-
CIENTS µL = µR = 0.3. DESIGN AREAS ARE INDICATED ON EACH MAP. BOTTOM LEFT: INTERSECTION OF IP AND OOP DESIGN
AREAS. BOTTOM RIGHT: REPRESENTATION OF FORBIDDEN AREAS AND LIMIT LINES IDENTIFIED ON MAPS.

of the Criteria for High Performance procedure outlined in the
following section.
5 CRITERIA FOR HIGH PERFORMANCE OF SOLID
DAMPERS
As stated above, the CHP procedure is a multi-step process
where each ”step” corresponds to ”key” levels of platform-to-
platform relative motion and to ”key” design parameters:
1. zero amplitude, in the limit: the damper is fully stuck and the
equivalent stiffness introduced by the damper, here termed
K, is at its maximum (see also Sect. 5.1);
2. threshold amplitude at bilateral gross slip onset: its value,
normalized by the centrifugal force on the damper, is here
termed S and further addressed in Sect. 5.2;
3. very large amplitude: the asymptotic dissipated energy per
unit amplitude is here termed D and further addressed in
Sect. 5.3.
All results are delivered, similarly to the pre-optimization maps,

4 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/11/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 FIGURE 4. MIND MAP OF THE CRITERIA FOR BEST PERFOR-
MANCE OF SOLID DAMPERS PROCEDURE.

FIGURE 3. a. ABSOLUTE PLATFORM KINEMATICS FOR IP

MOTION OF THE BLADES SHOWN IN FIG. 1a. b. RELA-
TIVE PLATFORM KINEMATICS (RIGHT PLATFORM CONSID-
ERED STILL) FOR IP MOTION.

in the (θL , θR , h/r) space. For each ”step” a set of level
curves represents the performance of each damper configuration
in terms of the key parameters K, S and D outlined above.
Further details are given in Fig. 4, where a mind map of the
CHP procedure is shown, together with the tools employed,
the damper requirements it helps satisfying and its relation pre-
optimization.
5.1 Step 1: equivalent stiffness
The presence of a damper between a set of blades can be
represented as shown in Fig. 5, where the presence of friction is
taken into account through state of the art contact elements [14],
characterized by a set of calibration parameters: normal and tan-
gential contact stiffness kn and kt and friction coefficient µ. If
the excitation level is low the damper remains stuck between the
platforms and the damper-induced equivalent stiffness is maxi-
mum. In this case, the contact element acts as a simple spring
coupling (i.e. no slip).
As stated in Sect. 4, once the mode under investigation is se-
lected, the direction of the platform relative movement is known:
FIGURE 5. REPRESENTATION OF THE NUMERICAL MODEL
OF A SOLID DAMPER BETWEEN A SET OF PLATFORMS.
it is worth noting that only the component of the contact forces
oriented along the direction of motion will contribute to stiffen-
ing the structure. Therefore, with reference to Fig. 5, in case
of IP motion only the vertical component of the contact force
WR will contribute to creating a constraint, while in case of OOP
motion, only the horizontal component UR will oppose the plat-
forms’ relative motion 4 . Since θL and θR influence the magni-
tude of the force components, different full stick FRFs should be
expected for different damper configurations, all other parame-
ters (e.g. contact parameters) being equal.
5.1.1 Objective The purpose of this first step is to track
the value of the equivalent stiffness and link it to the damper per-
4 In this investigation the components of the right contact force are chosen as
a reference, however the reader should notice that, UR = UL while the vertical
components differ only by a constant offset WR = CF −WL .

5 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/11/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


FIGURE 6. a. REPRESENTATIVE SCHEME OF KW IN CASE
OF PURE IP MOTION. b. REPRESENTATIVE SCHEME OF KU IN
CASE OF PURE OOP MOTION.
formance in terms of frequency shift and peak amplitude reduc-
tion.
5.1.2 Tools The application of the equivalent stiffness
concept to the case of solid dampers has been described in [16],
and is here briefly recounted. Consider the incremental formu-
lation of the static damper equilibrium where the contact is as-
sumed to be in full stick condition:
KD · ∆UD = KP · ∆UP (6)
Where KD and KP are contact stiffness matrices expressed as:
KD = TFL−>G KTUG−>L
(7)
KP = TFL−>G KTUP
G−>L
where K = diag (ktR , knR , ktL1 , knL1 , ktL2 , knL2 ), and
TFL−>G ,TUG−>L and TUP are transformations matrices
G−>L
of forces and displacements from the local (i.e. oriented along
the tangential and normal directions to the contact) to the global
reference system (i.e. u,w) and viceversa.
Vector ∆UP represents platform displacements ∆UP =
(∆uRP , ∆wRP , ∆uLP , ∆wLP ) , while the vector of damper
displacements ∆UD = (∆uD , ∆wD , ∆βD ) is expressed as:
∆UD = KD −1 KP · ∆UP
Then the vector of contact forces in local coordinate system can
be expressed as a function of the relative platform displacements:
 
∆Fc = K (∆UP − ∆UD ) = K TUP − TUG−>L KD −1 KP ·∆UP
G−>L
(9)
By pre-multiplying ∆Fc by an appropriate transformation matrix
it is possible to isolate, as an example, the horizontal and vertical
components of the right contact force: Therefore it is possible to
write    
∆UR KU KUW −KU −KUW
= · ∆UP (τ) (10)
∆WR KWU KW −KWU −KW
As shown in Fig. 6a, KW represents the link between the ver-
tical component of the contact force WR and the corresponding
vertical platform displacement wP = wLP − wRP when the con-
tact is full stuck. The cross-directional stiffness KWU accounts
for the generation of the horizontal force component UR , how-
ever UR , being orthogonal to the relative platform displacements
does not contribute to the stiffness of the structure. Conversely,
in case of pure OOP motion (see Fig. 6b) it is only the horizontal
component of the contact force UR = KU · uP = KU · (uLP − uRP )
to oppose motion. A vertical component of the contact force is
indeed present WR = KUW · uP , however its presence does not op-
pose the prescribed motion, and thus does not contribute to the
overall stiffness.
The specific values of KW and KU represent the link between cor-
responding force and displacements in full stick condition and
are therefore a function of the selected contact springs (values
from [27]) and of the damper angles (which affect the results
through the transformation matrices in Eq. 7).
5.1.3 Results In a matter of seconds, through a simple
matrix algorithm, it is possible to map the entire (θR ,θL ) space
and plot the KW and KU level curves (see Fig. 7a-b)5 .
The couple of figures 7a-b show the stiffness of the resultant
spring due to the damper in full stick between the two platforms.
Figure 7a shows that KW values increase as the damper angles
θR and θL diminish, i.e., as the damper becomes more flat. In the
limit case of θL = θR = 0◦ the normal contact springs knR and
knL (both are >> ktR ,ktL ) are perfectly parallel to the direction
of motion and the stiffening effect is maximum. Conversely if
θR = θL = 90◦ , the tangential contact springs ktR and ktL whose
values are much smaller, are oriented along the direction of mo-
tion and the stiffening effect is at is minimum.
The lack of full symmetry about the diagonal is due to the non-
symmetry of the left and right contacts (both in terms of contact
points position and contact spring values). The most desirable
5 Reminder: in all figures, right fuchsia areas on the left and light blue on
the right are the admissible areas where the damper geometry (angles, see Fig.
1) guarantees pre-optimization, respectively for IP and OOP. The dashed green
(8) contour is their intersection, or joint admissible area, which guarantees a well
behaved damper in all conditions.

6 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/11/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 design angles are in the low-left part of the joint admissible area,
where reaches nearly 30 N/µm for the selected values of contact
springs. The case of Ku is reverse. Fig. 7b shows the highest
values at nearly 45 N/µm.
The effectiveness of the indications given by KW and KU is shown
in Fig. 8. The frequency shift and the amplitude reduction of the
full stick peak (with respect to the free curve, here used as a ref-
erence) are computed for the IP vibration of the set of blades
shown in Fig. 1a and plotted against their corresponding values
of KW : the relation is remarkably linear.
5.2 Step 2: First to slip
All dampers belonging to the pre-optimized design area are
capable of reaching the bilateral gross slip condition, however no
indication of how early the will reach that condition is given in
[28]. If excitation levels were to increase, a ”High-performing”
damper should start to slip, and therefore dissipate energy, as
soon as possible. It must be clarified that the onset of slipping
is here meant to be ”full slip on both contacts”. This assumption
seems just reasonable, in the light of high damping assessment,
but it should be kept in mind that it is necessary due to the fact
that if one surface is still in a stick condition the solution for
damper equilibrium is not unique.
5.2.1 Objective The purpose of this second step is to
evaluate all pre-optimized damper configurations based on how
large is the minimum platforms’ relative displacement required
before they reach bilateral gross slip condition. It should be noted
that the direction of the platforms’ relative motion is already as-
signed, therefore the ”key parameter” of this second step is de-
fined as amplitude to start bilateral gross slip and here termed
S:
SW = 2 · w1P for the IP case;
(11)
SU = 2 · u1P for the OOP case.
The amplitude of platforms’ relative motion is expressed in µm
and here given for the specific Centrifugal Force value CF = 100
N. Since the stick state which anticipate gross slip is described
through linear springs, amplitudes and force limits scale linearly:
therefore SW and SU values are adapted to different centrifugal
force values through a simple linear proportion.
5.2.2 Tools The prediction of the key parameter con-
nected to the second step of the CHP procedure requires the
solution of the damper equilibrium equations. A quasi-static
time marching algorithm, first presented and extensively vali-
dated against direct time integration results in [27], is here ap-
plied. It takes advantage of the piecewise-linearity of the chosen
macroslip contact model to solve the equilibrium equations vir-
tually without corrective iterations. Its other notable features are:
7 Copyright © 2018 ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/11/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
– unlike standard Direct Time Integration (DTI) methods [21,
26], spurious numerical oscillations due to the presence of
contact springs are avoided;
– unlike standard Direct Time Integration methods [21, 26],
the size of the time step is not connected to the value of the
contact springs;
– the error introduced by neglecting the damper dynamic ef-
fects is < 0.1% up to frequencies of 30 kHz;
– considered the lack of iterations, it is, generally speak-
ing, faster than multi-Harmonic Balance Method (mHBM)
[9, 33].
5.2.3 Results The couple of Figures 7c-d show the val-
ues of SW and SU . The numerical values shown on the curves are
expressed in µm for a centrifugal force value CF = 100 N. As
discussed above, this values can be scaled linearly with the CF
value and is not influenced by the blade mode shape.
Reaching bilateral gross slip is crucial in order to develop the
maximum damping available, so the earliest it occurs, the better.
The indications offered by this kind of maps have two possible
uses:
– they can serve to perform a relative comparison between
damper configurations (e.g. lower values of θR should be
preferred in the IP case);
– if additional information on the link between excitation level
and platform displacements amplitude is known to the de-
signer (taking as a reference the linear full stick case) these
maps can be used as a means to predict the magnitude of
excitation necessary to cause the onset of gross slip.
With reference to the second point, the designer should take into
account that macroslip contact models may underestimate SU and
SW since, if microslip is not modeled, the tangential stiffness is
kept constant throughout the stick state [16]. This issue is has
nothing to do with the CHP procedure, it is rather a modeling
choice, easily corrected by substituting the contact model shown
in Fig. 5 with one which takes microslip into account.
5.3 Step 3: Maximum dissipation
Should the excitation level increase, it is vital that the
damper configuration provides the highest possible amount of
dissipation.
5.3.1 Objective The purpose of the third and last step
is to:
– identify the amount of dissipation provided by each pre-
optimized damper for a given magnitude of platforms’ rela-
tive displacement;
– link the amount of dissipation to the specific damper config-
uration (i.e. θL and θR values).
 FIGURE 7. a-b IP AND OOP VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL STIFFNESS IN FULL STICK. c-d IP AND OOP MINIMUM DISPLACEMENT
TO REACH GROSS SLIP. e-f IP AND OOP DISSIPATION PARAMETER AT ADVANCED GROSS SLIP

8 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/11/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 FIGURE 8. a: EXAMPLE OF IP FULL STICK BLADE-DAMPER COUPLED RESPONSE FOR DAMPER CONFIGURATIONS WITH DIF-
FERENT KW VALUES. b. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VERTICAL STIFFNESS KW AND CORRESPONDING IP FREQUENCY INCREASE
(REPRESENTED IN BLUE) AND AMPLITUDE REDUCTION (REPRESENTED IN BLACK).
5.3.2 Tools One possible way of achieving the objec-
tive above is to run the quasi-static numerical tool described in
Sect. 5.2.2 for increasing values of w1P in the IP case and of
u1P in the OOP case. However, a closer analysis of the damper
force equilibrium can lead to a closed form relationship between
the damper angles and the amount of dissipation provided by the
damper in case of large displacements.
This formulation is based onto three fundamental observations.
1. Only the contact force components aligned with the plat-
forms’ relative displacement contribute to dissipation, e.g.
WR or WL in the IP case. This statement has been confirmed
by numerical observation: in [34] it was shown that the area
of platform-to-platform hysteresis cycle (WR vs. wP cycle)
equals the sum of the platform-to-damper hysteresis cycles
at the contacts (i.e. tangential contact force vs. tangential
relative displacement).
2. With reference to Fig. 9b, if wP is sufficiently high, then
the area of the platform-to-platform hysteresis cycle can be
approximated with the area of the rectangular ideal cycle:
En ≈ 2 · w1P · (WRIP− −WRIP+ ) (i.e. the losses due to the pres-
ence of contact springs become negligible for large displace-
ment values). Energy dissipation for a given amplitude of
displacement, here termed D, can therefore be defined as:
En
DW = ≈ WRIP− −WRIP+ for the IP case;
2w1P
(12)
En
DU = 1 ≈ UROOP− −UROOP+ for the OOP case.
2uP
It should be noted that for increasing values of displacement
En will scale linearly with 2w1P but the force excursion will
9 Copyright © 2018 ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/11/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
remain the same.
3. The excursion of the relevant component of the contact force
in case of bilateral gross slip (e.g. (WRIP− −WRIP+ ) in the IP
example) is completely defined by the value of the friction
coefficients and the damper configuration. With reference
to [28] and to Fig. 9a-b, let us consider the damper force
equilibrium (where inertia forces are neglected) in the gross
slip condition. The vertical components of the contact forces
can be defined as:
tan(θL + arctan(µL ))
WRIP− = CF ·
tan(θR − arctan(µR )) + tan(θL + arctan(µL ))
tan(θL − arctan(µL ))
WRIP+ = CF ·
tan(θR + arctan(µR )) + tan(θL − arctan(µL ))
(13)
Similar relations are easily derived for the OOP case,
(UROOP+ and UROOP− ). Equations 12-13 have both been ver-
ified against the quasi-static algorithm from Sect. 5.2.2 and
standard solution techniques implemented in FRIDA.
5.3.3 Results Once again, in a matter of seconds the
complete (θL ,θR ) subspace of interest is mapped for energy dis-
sipation per unit displacement DW and DU , thus offering the
damper designer precious indications of the effectiveness of each
damper configuration in case of high excitation levels. The cor-
responding level curves are shown in Fig. 7 e-f. Values are ex-
pressed in N (i.e. µJ/µm) and are related to a CF= 100 N so that
the actual dissipation can be linearly scaled for different values
of CF.
The reader will notice that, unlike Fig. 7a-d, these level curves

FIGURE 9. a DAMPER FORCE AND MOMENTS EQUILIB-
RIUM FOR IP MOTION AND BILATERAL SLIP. b.PLATFORM-TO-
PLATFORM HYSTERESIS CYCLE IN CASE OF IP MOTION AND
ITS RELATION TO THE DAMPER FORCE EQUILIBRIUM.
show a symmetrical pattern. This is easily explained through the
analysis of Eq. 12-13: DW and DU are a function of platform an-
gles and friction coefficients at the left and right interface which,
unlike contact springs in Sect. 5.1.3, are here set to a common
value of 0.3.
6 VALIDATION OF THE CRITERIA FOR HIGH PER-
FORMANCE OF SOLID DAMPERS
The results of the three-step CHP procedure are shown in
Fig. 7. For each map a ”high performance area” can be defined,
according to the users’ specific requirements. Taking the IP case
as an example, Fig. 10a shows the superposition of the three
areas corresponding to the three steps from Sect. 5. Their inter-
section, here termed ”high performance area”, is shown in yellow
in Fig. 10a. It isolates those damper configurations which:
– ensure a frequency shift above a given threshold (i.e.
fstick / f f ree > 1.2) at low excitation levels (i.e. full stick);
– will reach bilateral gross slip for SW = 2µm for CF=100 N
(lowest value among pre-optimized dampers);
– ensure a dissipation per unit displacement of at least DW =
55 N for a CF= 100 N.
Two, out of the many dampers analyzed inside the ”high perfor-
mance area”, are here shown (see black and green dots termed
A1 and A2 in Fig. 10a). Damper B (see red dot in Fig. 10a),
which falls outside the ”high performance area”, has already
been analyzed, experimentally tested and used for the determi-
10
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/11/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
nation of contact springs in [27, 28]. It is one of the few pre-
optimized damper configurations available at room temperature
(i.e. µR = µL = 0.7).
The performance of Dampers A1, A2 and B are assessed using
FRIDA, a state of the art numerical tool for the prediction of
the blade-damper coupled response, whose complete description
can be found in [27, 33]. The resulting FRFs for increasing ex-
citation levels are shown in Fig. 10b. The excitation level is in-
dicated as the ratio between the centrifugal force on the damper
CF and the excitation force on the blade Fex . High values of
the |CF|/|Fex | ratio result in a fully stuck damper, whereas if
|CF|/|Fex | ≤ 25, bilateral gross slip is achieved. Several inter-
esting remarks can be drawn from the cross comparison of the
dampers’ performances.
– All dampers belong to the pre-optimized area and thus reach
bilateral gross slip and are not affected by the dramatic loss
of stiffness associated with lift-off or partial detachment.
– The predictions on the frequency shift and amplitude re-
duction in full stick condition based on the analysis of the
vertical stiffness KV (step 1) are perfectly verified by the
numerical tool run at |CF|/|Fex | > 500. Differences be-
tween dampers are more prominent if resonance frequencies
are compared, while the amplitude of the |CF|/|Fex | > 500
curves show minor differences.
– As the excitation level increases, e.g. |CF|/|Fex | = 25, the
amplitude of the curves is influenced not only by the elas-
tic constraint introduced by the damper, but by its dissipa-
tion capabilities as well. In this case, differences between
dampers become more prominent. Damper B, slower to
reach the bilateral gross slip condition (see step 2), displays a
curve which is very similar to the full stick one. On the other
hand, Dampers A1 and A2, both belonging to the ”high per-
formance area” display a 30-40 % reduction with respect to
the |CF|/|Fex | > 500 FRF.
– Dampers A1 and A2 perform consistently better than
damper B, as the excitation level increases further to
|CF|/|Fex | = 5 − 10. In detail, the |CF|/|Fex | = 5 curve for
damper B is > 60% higher than the corresponding one plot-
ted for Damper A2. This is to be expected as the dissipation
per displacement DW of damper B (see step 3 and Fig. 7e)
is lower than that computed for Dampers A1 and A2.
Important Remark: The authors verified the performance of
additional dampers, located both inside and outside the ”high
performance area”. As expected, in all cases, the predictions
of the CHP procedure were verified. This should not come as a
surprise as these predictions come from a simplified but correct
application of the same model implemented within FRIDA.
7 CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a viable alternative to standard under-
platform damper optimization techniques, which need FE calcu-
Copyright © 2018 ASME
 FIGURE 10. a (θR , θL ) 2D SPACE WHERE THE HIGH PERFORMANCE AREAS COMING FROM THE THREE CHP STEPS ARE SHOWN.
IN YELLOW THEIR INTERSECTION. b. NUMERICAL PREDICTION OF THE BLADE-DAMPER COUPLED RESPONSE FOR INCREASING
EXCITATION LEVELS: THREE DAMPERS, TERMED A1, A2 AND B, ALSO SHOWN IN FIG. 10a ARE CONSIDERED.

lations to evaluate damper performance. This analysis is the sec- below:

ond part of a larger framework, started with the pre-optimization
procedure, previously presented by the authors. Pre-optimization
maps successfully identify the damper configurations which will
not jam, lift-off or detach from one of the platforms indepen-
dently of the encountered blade bending mode. However, pre-
optimization maps give no further indication on the performance
of pre-optimized dampers.
This paper moves forward and shows that an appropriate anal-
ysis of blade platform kinematics and a deep knowledge of the
damper behaviour can be used to map the relationship between
the performance of pre-optimized dampers and their configura-
tion (i.e. shape, platform angles).
The result and the main achievement of this paper is the ”Crite-
ria for High Performance” (CHP), a three-step procedure which
ensures optimal damper performance at increasing excitation lev-
els. In detail it identifies which damper configurations:
– maximize the frequency shift in the low-excitation regime
(i.e. full-stick);
– are the first ones to reach bilateral gross slip for increasing
excitation levels;
– ensure the maximum dissipation at high excitation levels.
The three steps are performed independently and their outcome
is compared a-posteriori. It may happen that a subset of damper
configurations satisfy all three requirements to the maximum ex-
tent (e.g. IP motion). In other cases an engineering compromise
will have to be accepted (e.g. OOP case). In all cases, however,
the CHP will provide the designer with a complete control and
full awareness of his/her choices and the possible consequences.
Additional notable features of the CHP procedure are outlined
– takes into account different bending modes of vibration and
different excitation levels;
– largely based on linear calculations and closed form equilib-
ria;
– no nonlinear FE calculations involved.
In fact, FRIDA, a state-of-the-art in-house tool for the numerical
simulation of blade-damper systems, is used only for validation
purposes. The outcome of the nonlinear dynamics analysis fully
confirms the CHP predictions. Furthermore, it is shown that the
dissipative capabilities of dampers selected through the CHP is
truly maximized: other dampers, albeit pre-optimized, produce
FRFs whose amplitude is 60% higher than their CHP-selected
counterparts. These observations lead the authors to believe that
the CHP procedure presented in this paper will become a great
asset for the damper designer.
REFERENCES
[1] J.H. Griffin. Friction damping of resonant stresses in gas
turbine engine airfoils. J Eng Power, 102(2):329, 1980.
[2] A.V. Srinivasan. Flutter and resonant vibration characteris-
tics of engine blades. J Eng Gas Turb Power, 119(4), 1997.
[3] W. Sextro, K. Popp, and I. Wolter. Improved reliability of
bladed disks due to friction dampers. In ASME Turbo Expo,
volume 4, 1997.
[4] K.H. Koh, J. H. Griffin, S. Filippi, and A. Akay. Character-
ization of turbine blade friction dampers. J Eng Gas Turb
Power, 127(4), 2005.
[5] E.P. Petrov and D.J. Ewins. Effects of damping and varying

11 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/11/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 contact area at blade-disk joints in forced response analysis
of bladed disk assemblies. J Turbomach, 128(2), 2006.
[6] T. Berruti and V. Maschio. Experimental investigation
on the forced response of a dummy counter-rotating tur-
bine stage with friction damping. J Eng Gas Turb Power,
134(12), 2012.
[7] M. Krack, A. Herzog, L. Panning von Scheidt, J. Wal-
laschek, C. Siewert, and A. Hartung. Multiharmonic analy-
sis and design of shroud friction joints of bladed disks sub-
ject to microslip. In DETC2012. ASME, 2012.
[8] T. Cameron and J.H. Griffin. An alternating frequency/time
domain method for calculating the steady-state response of
nonlinear dynamic system. J Appl Mech, 56(1), 1989.
[9] A. Cardona, T. Coune, A. Lerusse, and M. Geradin. A mul-
tiharmonic method for nonlinear vibration analysis. Int J
Numer Meth Eng, 37(9):1593–1608, 1994.
[10] R. R. Craig and M. C. C. Bampton. Coupling of substruc-
tures for dynamic analyses. AIAA J, 6(7):1313–1319, 1968.
[11] E.P. Petrov. A high-accuracy model reduction for analysis
of nonlinear vibrations in structures with contact interfaces.
J Eng Gas Turb Power, 133(10):102503, 2011.
[12] S. Zucca. On the dual craig–bampton method for the forced
response of structures with contact interfaces. Nonlin Dyn,
87(4):2445–2455, 2016.
[13] B.D. Yang and C.H. Menq. Characterization of 3d con-
tact kinematics and prediction of resonant response of
structures having 3d frictional constraint. J Sound Vib,
217(5):90925, 1998.
[14] E.P. Petrov and D.J. Ewins. Analytical formulation of
friction interface elements for analysis of nonlinear multi-
harmonic vibrations of bladed disks. J Turbomach, 125(2),
2003.
[15] F. Thouverez S. Nacivet, C. Pierre and L. Jezequel. A dy-
namic lagrangian frequency–time method for the vibration
of dry-friction-damped systems. J Sound Vib, 265(1):201–
219, 2003.
[16] C. Gastaldi and M.M. Gola. On the relevance of a microslip
contact model for under-platform dampers. Int J Mech Sci,
115-116:145–156, 2016.
[17] C.W. Schwingshackl L. Salles C. Wong L. Pesaresi, J. Ar-
mand. An advanced underplatform damper modelling ap-
proach based on a microslip contact model. In Proceedings
of ISROMAC, 2017.
[18] J. Szwedowicz, W. Sextro, R. Visser, and P. A. Masserey.
On forced vibration of shrouded turbine blades. In Vol. 4:
Turbo Expo. ASME, 2003.
[19] J. Szwedowicz, C. Gibert, T. P. Sommer, and R. Kellerer.
Numerical and experimental damping assessment of a thin-
walled friction damper in the rotating setup with high pres-
sure turbine blades. J Eng Gas Turb Power, 130(1), 2008.
[20] C.W. Schwingshackl, E.P. Petrov, and D.J. Ewins. Ef-
fects of contact interface parameters on vibration of turbine
12
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/11/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
bladed disks with underplatform dampers. J Eng Gas Turb
Power, 134(3), 2012.
[21] C. Gastaldi and M.M. Gola. A random sampling strategy
for tuning contact parameters of underplatform dampers. In
Vol. 7B: Turbo Expo. ASME, 2015.
[22] W. Sextro L. Panning and K. Popp. Optimization of in-
terblade friction damper design. In Vol. 4: Turbo Expo.
ASME, 2000.
[23] W. Sextro L. Panning and K. Popp. Optimization of the
contact geometry between turbine blades and underplat-
form dampers with respect to friction damping. In Vol. 4:
Turbo Expo. ASME, 2002.
[24] L. Panning, K. Popp, W. Sextro, F. Götting, A. Kayser, and
I. Wolter. Asymmetrical underplatform dampers in gas tur-
bine bladings: Theory and application. In Vol. 6: Turbo
Expo. ASME, 2004.
[25] M. Pizzolante T. Berruti, C.M. Firrone and M.M. Gola. Fa-
tigue damage prevention on turbine blades: Study of under-
platform damper shape. Key Eng Mat, 347:159–164, 2007.
[26] M.M. Gola and C. Gastaldi. Understanding complexities in
underplatform damper mechanics. In Vol. 7A: Turbo Expo.
ASME, 2014.
[27] C. Gastaldi. Vibration control and mitigation in Turboma-
chinery. PhD thesis, Politecnico di Torino, 2017.
[28] C. Gastaldi and M.M. Gola. Pre-optimization of asym-
metrical underplatform dampers. J Eng Gas Turb Power,
139:012504, 2016.
[29] C. Gastaldi, T.M. Berruti, and M.M. Gola. The relevance of
damper pre-optimization and its effectiveness on the forced
response of blades. In Vol. 7B: Turbo Expo. ASME, 2017.
[30] A. Bessone, F. Toso, and T. Berruti. Investigation on the dy-
namic response of blades with asymmetric under platform
dampers. In Vol. 7B: Turbo Expo. ASME, 2015.
[31] D. Botto, M. Lavella, and M.M. Gola. Measurement of
contact parameters of flat on flat contact surfaces at high
temperature. In Vol. 7: Turbo Expo. ASME, 2012.
[32] C.W. Schwingshackl, E.P. Petrov, and D.J. Ewins. Mea-
sured and estimated friction interface parameters in a non-
linear dynamic analysis. Mech Sys Signal Proc, 28:574–
584, 2012.
[33] C. Gastaldi and T. M. Berruti. A method to solve the
efficiency-accuracy trade-off of multi-harmonic balance
calculation of structures with friction contacts. Int J Nonlin
Mech, 92:25–40, jun 2017.
[34] M.M. Gola and C. Gastaldi. Under-Platform Damper
Measurements at Politecnico di Torino, pages 181–204.
Springer, 2017.
Copyright © 2018 ASME