ORIGINAL PAPER Parametric study for model calibration of a friction-damped turbine blade with multiple test data Erhan Ferhatoglu . Daniele Botto . Stefano Zucca Received: 23 October 2022 /Accepted: 5 February 2024 / Published online: 28 March 2024 � The Author(s) 2024 Abstract Model updating using multiple test data is usually a challenging task for frictional structures. The difficulty arises from the limitations of nonlinear models which often overlook the uncertainties inher- ent in contact interfaces and in actual test conditions. In this paper, we present a parametric study for the model calibration process of a friction-damped turbine blade, addressing the experimentally measured response variability in computational simulations. On the experimental side, a recently developed test setup imitating a turbomachinery application with mid-span dampers is used. This setup allows measur- ing multiple responses and contact forces under nominally identical macroscale conditions. On the computational side, the same system is modeled in a commercial finite element software, and nonlinear vibration analyses are performed with a specifically developed in-house code. In numerical simulations, the multivalued nature of Coulomb’s law, which stems from the inherent variability range of static friction forces in permanently sticking contacts, is considered to be the main uncertainty. As the system undergoes vibration, this uncertainty propagates into the dynamic behavior, particularly under conditions of partial slip in contacts, thus resulting in response variability. A deterministic approach based on an optimization algorithm is pursued to predict the limits of the variability range. The model is iteratively calibrated to investigate the sensitivity of response limits to contact parameters and assembly misalignment. Through several iterations, we demonstrate how uncertain initial contact conditions can be numerically incorpo- rated into dynamic analyses of friction-damped tur- bine blades. The results show a satisfactory level of accuracy between experiments and computational simulations. This work offers valuable insights for understanding what influences test rig response and provides practical solutions for numerical simulations to improve agreement with experimental results. Keywords Model updating � Contact � Nonlinear vibration � Variability � Uncertainty List of symbols C Damping matrix K Stiffness matrix M Mass matrix E. Ferhatoglu � D. Botto (&) � S. Zucca Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Turin, Italy e-mail: daniele.botto@polito.it E. Ferhatoglu e-mail: erhan.ferhatoglu@polito.it S. Zucca e-mail: stefano.zucca@polito.it Present Address: E. Ferhatoglu Institute of Aircraft Propulsion Systems, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany 123 Nonlinear Dyn (2024) 112:7847–7873 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-024-09396-z(0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().,-volV) http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6536-2529 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11071-024-09396-z&domain=pdf https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-024-09396-z R Residual vector fc Vector of contact forces fexc Vector of excitation forces m Vector of multiplier coefficients q Vector of generalized coordinates Fclamp Static clamping force Fexc Excitation force applied by shaker |Fexc| Fundamental harmonic amplitude of excitation force applied by shaker h Harmonic number H Maximum number of harmonics considered i Imaginary unit number, ffiffiffiffiffiffiffi �1 p kt Contact stiffness in tangential direction N Normal load on contact elements Nc Number of contact points R Reaction forces measured by de-couplers t Time tini Initial time instant T Contact force in tangential direction u Relative motion in tangential direction Upot Potential energy v Relative motion in normal direction w Slip displacement a Design angle of de-couplers DWdis Dissipated energy g Loss factor l Coefficient of friction x Excitation frequency h Design angle on dampers f Damping ratio h0 Static component of h _h First time derivative of h €h Second time derivative of h hmin Minimum of h hmax Maximum of h BC Boundary condition CF Centrifugal force LC Load cell 1 Introduction Friction is an inevitable phenomenon in jointed assemblies, occurring both intentionally and uninten- tionally depending on the specific application. In turbomachinery applications with underplatform dam- pers, friction is intentionally employed in bladed disks to reduce excessive vibration amplitudes and prevent high cycle fatigue failure of aeroengines [1–4]. Conversely, in structures with bolted joints, uninten- tional friction arises when two or more bodies come into contact during operation, leading to relative motion and sliding [5–7]. Over the past four decades, significant efforts have been devoted to the prediction of the nonlinear dynamic behavior of structures subject to friction in these fields. State-of-the-art numerical solvers have demon- strated remarkable accuracy in predicting dynamic behavior under well-defined macroscale conditions. However, challenges arise when uncertain test condi- tions are encountered at micro scales. Such uncertain- ties contribute to variations in system characteristics and test data, leading to difficulties in updating procedures of the nonlinear models. In the last years, the joint mechanics and turbomachinery communities have highly focused on the variability and repeatabil- ity of nonlinear dynamics in assemblies. The primary concern revolves around identifying uncertainties present in contact interfaces [8–10] and effectively representing them in numerical simulations. This issue poses a challenging problem particularly in friction- damped turbine blades: the tuning of numerical models using multiple test data to better predict the nonlinear dynamics of structures. Throughout the paper, the term multiple refers to several sets of measurement data obtained under nominally identical macroscale conditions, but in different experiments. A common practice in the context of model updating involves fine-tuning the contact parameters [11–17]. This approach is feasible for a single set of contact parameters in cases where the effects of uncertainties on the system behavior variability are negligible. Once the scattering of the experimental data increases, an uncertainty band that accounts for non-repeatability is necessary in computational results. To establish such an uncertainty band, several studies have addressed uncertainties using stochastic approaches and subsequently propagating them to system behavior [18–21]. Monte Carlo Simulations (MCS) [22] are widely used due to their robustness. However, MCS are computationally expensive since it requires a large number of samples. Reduced order models and surrogate modeling approaches are pop- ular techniques to increase the computational effi- ciency. Butlin et al. [23–25] also consider the functional form of constitutive laws as uncertain and 123 7848 E. Ferhatoglu et al. employ probabilistic and/or constrained optimization techniques to determine response bounds. Present study considers the uncertainty arising from the multivalued characteristics of Coulomb’s law, particularly in static friction forces of permanently sticking contacts. To better illustrate this uncertainty, consider a simplified example: a single degree-of- freedom grounded mass-spring system, with the generalized coordinate x, subject to friction. The governing equation for this system, with unit mass, is given by €xþ kxþ T ¼ 0, where k represents the spring stiffness and T represents tangential friction force. For static equilibrium, we know that €x ¼ 0, and Coulomb’s law states that Tj j\lN, indicating T 2 �lN; lNð Þ. This condition implies that the static friction force of a sticking contact can assume an infinite number of values within a range. In other words, the system’s equilibrium lies within the interval of �lN=k; lN=kð Þ. Once an initial condition is selected from this interval, the solution corresponds to one of the infinitely many points, and the system is considered to be in equilibrium. In reality, the actual tangential friction force, and hence static equilibrium, is determined by one particular loading history experienced by the system, which is mostly unknown. Loading history can be arbitrarily different, for instance, due to different application patterns of initial pre-loads and the subsequent load history, which may involve quasi-static loading, random impulsive per- turbations and dynamic loading across various time scales. Consequently, static friction force of perma- nently sticking contacts can have a memory and can take a value within the variability range whose limits are imposed by Coulomb’s law. The variability range is further depicted in Fig. 1 for a more generic case with time-dependent tangential and normal contact forces. The hysteretic uncertainty in static friction forces of fully stuck contacts has been first demonstrated in the contact mechanics community, particularly on qua- sistatic contact problems with friction [26, 27]. Sev- eral researchers have focused on predicting shakedown limits to determine the extent to which contacts retain the memory [28–31]. In the case of vibrating systems, the long-term behavior is influ- enced by whether this memory is preserved or lost. In cases where all contacts experience recurrent sliding and/or lift-off without any permanent sticking, the system eventually loses its memory, leading to a single long-term behavior. When at least one but not all contacts display permanent sticking, multiple long- term behaviors can occur if the contacts are coupled, meaning that the normal forces are influenced by the tangential forces and vice versa. This coupling can arise due to structure geometry, such as contacts aligned at an angle (geometric coupling), or due to the elastic coupling between the normal and tangential directions of different contacts during vibrations. In the field of structural dynamics, Yang and Menq [32, 33] were the first to recognize that the set of multiple static equilibria due to different initial conditions of static friction forces can introduce variability in the steady-state forced response of friction-damped structures. Over the past two decades, several studies [34–39] have shown the possibility of multiple responses in friction-damped turbine blades due to this phenomenon. The effects of such variabil- ity on the dynamics of the system cannot be disre- garded, as it can result in significant differences of up to 20% in resonance frequency and 300% in response amplitudes for nominally identical cases [38, 39]. In the context of this uncertainty, researchers have developed deterministic methods for the characteriza- tion of uncertainty bands. For example, in [32], the authors utilized geometric relations in damper kine- matics to calculate upper and lower limits in the response. Similarly, the authors of [40] emphasized the use of maximum and minimum tangential forces to estimate limiting cases with a simpler yet effective approach. Other methodologies, which are based on nonlinear modes [41] and optimization algorithms Time 0 C on ta ct F or ce s N(t) - N(t) Variability Range Tmin 0 Tmax(t) T(t) Tmin(t) Tmax 0 T0 Fig. 1 Contact forces and variability range of static tangential force in a permanently sticking contact 123 Parametric study for model calibration of a friction-damped turbine blade with multiple test… 7849 [42], have been developed to predict the boundary range of variability. The latter has also been applied to realistic cases, such as an academic turbine blade coupled with underplatform dampers [43], and its efficacy has been validated through test data measured on turbine blades. It should be noted that in order to improve the accuracy of matching the computationally obtained variability range with corresponding exper- imental measurements, model calibration may still be necessary for the aforementioned approaches. The objective of this work is to demonstrate how a friction-damped turbine blade model can be iteratively calibrated using multiple test data with a parametric study. As the main source of the response variability, the epistemic uncertainty present in static friction forces of permanently sticking contacts is taken into account. A key contribution of this paper is the adoption of a non-probabilistic strategy for the model updating process, incorporating an optimization algo- rithm to estimate the limits of the variability range. The model is iteratively tuned with respect to the sensitivity of limits to both contact parameters and the alignment of the test setup. Substantial effort is dedicated to calibrating the model for both linear and nonlinear analyses. It is shown that the compu- tational and experimental results match with a negli- gible amount of error after a thorough updating process of the model. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the test setup, measurement procedures and presents the test data. Section 3 explains the computational background utilized in the numerical side of the study. In Sect. 4, the comparison of the experimental and computational results is illustrated to show how the model calibration is performed. Section 5 concludes the study and summarizes the key points. 2 Test rig: a turbine blade with mid-span dampers The experimental campaign of the current study involves a newly designed test rig that imitates turbine blades coupled with mid-span dampers. The test setup has been extensively described in [44]. To present an understanding of the experimental setup, we provide a brief overview of its main components and measure- ment procedures. 2.1 Main components The complete assembly of the test rig is depicted in Fig. 2a. Central and side blocks serve as bulky host entities, and they are securely fastened to the table. The side blocks carry additional components to measure contact forces. The test rig consists of three Fexc BLADE Shaker Left Block LEFT DAMPER RIGHT DAMPER CF CF Right Block LC1 LC2 R3 R4 LC4 Central BlockFclamp R1 LC3 R2 Shaker Stinger (a) De-couplersDampers Blade (b) Fig. 2 a Entire assembly of the test setup, b Top view of main subcomponents: one blade, two dampers and two de-couplers 123 7850 E. Ferhatoglu et al. main subcomponents: a blade, two bi-conical dam- pers, and two L-shaped de-couplers (see Fig. 2b). 1. The blade is a slender beam specifically developed for academic purposes and designed similarly to those used in industrial applications [45, 46]. It is fixed to the central block through a clamping mechanism that ensures a substantial clamping force (Fclamp) on the blade’s base. This mechanism minimizes the potential friction at the blade root. The blade is excited with a harmonic force, Fexc(t) =|Fexc| cos(xt), by an electromagnetic shaker that is attached to the nearby of the root with a stinger. 2. Dampers are positioned between the blade and de- couplers. The design of the dampers is also based on the geometry of their industrial counterparts [45, 46], considering shape, dimensions, and functionality. A line contact is ensured with specifically machined conical slots on both the blade and the L-shaped de-couplers (see Fig. 2b). Each damper is subjected to a static pulling force generated by dead weights. These pre-loads emulate the centrifugal force (CF) during real working conditions, resulting from the rotational speed of the bladed disk. 3. The de-couplers are connected to two blocks (left and right) via load cells (LC). Their main function is the separation of the contact forces exerted by the dampers into two orthogonal reaction forces (R). These reaction forces are then measured by the load cells. 2.2 Measurement procedures The tests are conducted using force-controlled stepped-sine frequency sweeps. In addition to moni- toring the response of the blade, measurements are taken for the reaction forces and relative displacement between the right damper and the blade. Figure 3a shows the free body diagram of the de- couplers, with T and N representing the tangential and normal contact forces, respectively. The reaction forces measured by load cells are denoted as R3 and R4. The force balance equations can be expressed in horizontal and vertical directions as T cosðhÞ þ N sinðhÞ � R3 cosðaÞ � R4 cosðaÞ ¼ 0 T sinðhÞ � N cosðhÞ þ R3 sinðaÞ � R4 sinðaÞ ¼ 0; ð1Þ where a and h are 45� and 8.53�, respectively. Given that the reaction forces are already measured, contact forces can be easily obtained by solving the coupled Eq. (1). Similarly, the force equilibrium on the damper is also depicted in Fig. 3b. T0 and N0 denote the contact T N R4 R3 θ α α N’ T’T” N” CF (b)(a) Fig. 3 Force equilibrium at the right side. a On the de-coupler: Load cells are replaced by the measured reaction forces (R3 and R4). Damper is replaced by contact forces (T & N). b On the damper: The force de-coupler is replaced by contact forces (T0 & N0). The blade is replaced by contact forces (T00 & N00) 123 Parametric study for model calibration of a friction-damped turbine blade with multiple test… 7851 forces at the de-coupler side of the damper and are equal to T and N in magnitude. T00 and N00 also represent contact forces at the blade side. The balance equations can then be expressed as T 00 cosðhÞ þ N 00 sinðhÞ � T 0 cosðhÞ � N 0 sinðhÞ ¼ 0 �T 00 sinðhÞ þ N 00 cosðhÞ � T 0 sinðhÞ þ N 0 cosðhÞ � CF ¼ 0 : ð2Þ In Eq. (2), the inertia of the damper is considered negligible due to low mass of the damper. The response of the blade was measured by an accelerometer attached to the blade tip, as shown in Fig. 4a. To construct the hysteresis cycles, a differen- tial laser was also utilized to measure the relative displacement between the blade and the damper. It is important to note that due to space limitations in the test campaign, precise measurement of the relative displacement was challenging. Figure 4a and 4b illustrate the laser points and the positions of the laser heads, respectively. One of the laser heads is directed toward a point near the contact slot of the blade, while the other head is pointed on top of the damper. To facilitate the measurement, a reflective tape was attached using an additional indenter wrapped around the damper, as the middle section of the damper is perfectly circular and lacks any indentation to reflect the light back to the laser. Furthermore, one of the laser heads was inclined at an angle of approximately 12�–15� to obtain measurements. It is worth under- lining that the primary objective of this measurement was to gain initial insights into the order of magnitude of contact parameters, and the final values utilized in numerical simulations are iteratively calibrated, as elaborated in Sect. 4. 2.3 Test results The comprehensive discussion on the experimental data obtained from the test rig employed in this study can be found in [44]. For the sake of completeness, we present the most significant test results in this subsec- tion, as they will be utilized in the model calibration process in Sect. 4. 2.3.1 Linear characteristics of the stand-alone blade We initially investigated the linear behavior of the blade using stepped-sine frequency sweep tests focused on the vicinity of the lowest frequency mode. Specifically, we considered the stand-alone blade configuration without dampers. In this setup, the blade is firmly secured to the central host block through the application of a substantial static load (Fclamp, see Fig. 2a). To investigate the impact of potential damping at the blade root on the linear characteristics, the blade was excited using five different amplitudes of harmonic excitation. Figure 5a presents the nor- malized response of the blade for increasing levels of excitation. It is evident that the responses align closely with each other, except for the case with the lowest excitation amplitude. This slight deviation suggests a minor contribution of damping from the blade root. It is important to note that completely preventing damping at the blade root is practically impossible, regardless of the magnitude of the applied clamping force. Furthermore, once the dampers are engaged, the vibration amplitudes will significantly decrease com- pared to the free blade scenario. Consequently, the primary source of damping will predominantly arise from the contacts between the blade and the dampers. (a) Laser Head - 2 Laser Head - 1 Right Damper Blade Accelerometer Laser (b) Fig. 4 a Laser points for the measurement of relative displacement between the blade and the damper, b back view for the position of laser heads 123 7852 E. Ferhatoglu et al. Hence, based on the results presented in Fig. 5a, it is reasonable to conclude that the damping at the blade root can be considered negligible. Figure 5b displays the response of the free blade over a wider frequency range. It shows that the mode of interest is well separated, with a measured natural frequency of 122.25 Hz. 2.3.2 Measurement of multiple nonlinear responses and contact forces Coupled blade-damper configuration is tested around the frequency range near to the lowest frequency mode of the stuck system. The dampers are engaged to the blade by applying pre-loads through dead weights, as explained in SubSect. 2.1. In this study, the nominal pre-load value on the damper was set at 5.6 kg for all tests. Vibration tests are performed by keeping all user- controlled inputs identical in the macroscale test environment. Tomeasure multiple vibration responses and contact forces in different tests, the loading history of the system was deliberately altered prior to the start of each test. The ultimate strategy was to obtain the maximum number of different arbitrarily defined loading histories before each run, while maintaining identical inputs across all runs during the tests. In this way, the range of the variability in the data is increased as extensively as possible. This was accomplished by implementing various loading and unloading sequences. For instance, for certain tests, the pre- loads on the damper were initially increased or decreased to an arbitrary value different from the nominal one utilized during the tests. Shortly before the start of each test, the pre-loads were then set to the nominal value. In other cases, consecutive tests were performed with the dampers remaining loaded, while in different tests, the dampers were completely unloaded and then reloaded. Furthermore, some tests were performed with forward frequency sweeps, while others were carried out with backward sweeps. In the experiments, the data variability is examined for four different subcases, each driven by one of the four different excitation levels: 1 N, 3 N, 5 N, and 10 N. Figure 6 shows the comprehensive view of the experimentally obtained multiple responses of the blade. The data exhibit a significant degree of non- repeatability, varying by up to a factor of 2 particularly in amplitude levels of the case with 5 N excitation level. Figure 7 also presents the multiple contact forces on the de-coupler sides of the left and right dampers. The data are presented at resonance fre- quencies of four demonstrator test cases, and both dynamic and static components are depicted in each subfigure. In contrast to the nonlinear response, the degree of variability observed in the contact forces is relatively smaller. These experimental results will serve as the reference data for the subsequent model calibration process discussed in Sect. 4. It is also worth highlighting that across all excita- tion levels, a disparity exists in the static normal force values between the left and right dampers. This difference indicates a misalignment present in the assembly, as the static pre-load introduced by the dead weights is expected to be equally shared by both sides of the dampers under the assumption of an ideal condition with perfect symmetry. Specifically, with a pre-load of 5.6 kg, each side is expected to receive a static normal load of approximately 27.5 N. However, it is observed that the left damper shows an offset of around 7 N. Further, no additional measurements were conducted to visualize the actual distribution of static forces on contact interfaces. Consequently, the misalignment of the dampers and the application of pre-loads will be correspondingly addressed during the calibration process. 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 Frequency [Hz] 0 15 30 45 60 75 A cc el er an ce [m s-2 N -1 ] (a) |Fexc| = 1 N |Fexc| = 2 N |Fexc| = 3 N |Fexc| = 5 N |Fexc| = 10 N 110 115 120 125 130 135 Frequency [Hz] 0 15 30 45 60 75 A cc el er an ce [m s-2 N -1 ] (b) Fig. 5 Linear response of the blade without dampers: a for cases with five different excitation amplitude levels, b over a wider frequency range for the case with |Fexc|= 1 N 123 Parametric study for model calibration of a friction-damped turbine blade with multiple test… 7853 3 Computational background In this section, the numerical background is presented for the deterministic simulations of limits of multiple dynamic responses and contact forces. 3.1 Finite element model and governing equations The components of the test setup are meshed with a commercial finite element software. Since the central block and side blocks are quite bulky, they are assumed to be rigid and are thus excluded from the model. Additionally, the load cells and auxiliary components are unified to the de-couplers, as they are tightly bolted together. As a result, the model consists of five distinct bodies: the blade itself, two dampers, and two de-couplers. The finite element model of the assembly is depicted in Fig. 8. In the model, the blade is clamped at the root, while the de- couplers are fixed at the far ends of the load cells. The dampers, on the other hand, are free from any imposed boundary conditions. 3D 20-node solid elements are used to mesh all the components, resulting in a total of approximately 2.5 million elements. To obtain reduced-order system matrices, the Craig-Bampton approach [47] is employed in the reduction process. Generalized coordinates of many physical nodes (including excitation, static pre-load, response moni- toring and contact nodes) as well as 150 modal coordinates are retained as the master degrees of freedom in the model. It should be noted that the model shown in Fig. 8 is the final version of the calibration procedure that will be elaborated in Sect. 4. 575 580 585 590 595 600 605 Frequency [Hz] 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 A cc el er an ce [m s-2 N -1 ] (b) |Fexc| = 3 N 575 580 585 590 595 600 605 Frequency [Hz] 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 A cc el er an ce [m s-2 N -1 ] (a) |Fexc| = 1 N 575 580 585 590 595 600 605 Frequency [Hz] 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 A cc el er an ce [m s-2 N -1 ] (d) |Fexc| = 10 N 575 580 585 590 595 600 605 Frequency [Hz] 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 A cc el er an ce [m s-2 N -1 ] (c) |Fexc| = 5 N Fig. 6 Multiple nonlinear responses of the blade for different excitation amplitude levels 123 7854 E. Ferhatoglu et al. Equation (3) is the generic equation of motion that can be written with the reduced-order systemmatrices, i.e., M, C and K, generalized coordinates, i.e., qðtÞ, internal contact forces, i.e., fcðq; _q; tÞ, and external forcing, i.e., fexcðtÞ as M€qðtÞ þ C _qðtÞ þKqðtÞ þ fcðq; _q; tÞ ¼ fexcðtÞ: ð3Þ In this study, the blade is harmonically forced, and its steady state solution is sought using Harmonic Balance Method [48]. Hence, the forcing, nonlinear forces and the response can be written with their harmonic components as fexcðtÞ ¼ < X H h¼0 f̂ h exce ihxt ! ; fcðq; _q; tÞ ¼ < X H h¼0 f̂ h ce ihxt ! ; and qðtÞ ¼ < X H h¼0 q̂heihxt ! : ð4Þ In Eq. (4), f̂ h exc, f̂ h c and q̂h represent the complex amplitude vectors of the hth harmonics. H is the number of harmonics considered in the expansion. i (d) |Fexc| = 10 N 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 N or m al Fo rc e [N ] 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] -10 0 10 20 Ta ng en tia lF or ce [N ] Right Damper 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] -20 -10 0 10 20 Ta ng en tia lF or ce [N ] Left Damper 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 N or m al Fo rc e [N ] (c) |Fexc| = 5 N 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Ta ng en tia lF or ce [N ] Left Damper 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] 19 20 21 22 N or m al Fo rc e [N ] 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] 26 27 28 29 30 N or m al Fo rc e [N ] 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Ta ng en tia lF or ce [N ] Right Damper (b) |Fexc| = 3 N 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 Ta ng en tia lF or ce [N ] Left Damper 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 Ta ng en tia lF or ce [N ] Right Damper 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] 19 20 21 22 N or m al Fo rc e [N ] 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] 26 27 28 29 N or m al Fo rc e [N ] (a) |Fexc| = 1 N 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] 27 28 29 N or m al Fo rc e [N ] 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] 0 2 4 6 8 Ta ng en tia lF or ce [N ] Right Damper 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] -4 -2 0 2 4 Ta ng en tia lF or ce [N ] Left Damper 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] 19 20 21 N or m al Fo rc e [N ] Fig. 7 Multiple contact forces on dampers for different excitation amplitude levels 123 Parametric study for model calibration of a friction-damped turbine blade with multiple test… 7855 and x denote the unit imaginary number and excita- tion frequency, respectively. To obtain the governing algebraic equations in the frequency domain, Eq. (4) can be inserted into Eq. (3) and the final set can be obtained as �ðhxÞ2Mþ ihxCþK � � q̂h þ f̂ h c ¼ f̂ h exc ðh ¼ 0; 1; � � � ;HÞ: ð5Þ As mentioned in Sect. 2.1, the mating pairs of the test setup are deliberately designed to establish contact lines in the friction interfaces. This is achieved through the eccentric circular geometry of the dampers and corresponding contact surfaces of the contact pads and the blade, as depicted in Fig. 9. For each pair, seven contact points are selected. In this study, the normal contact force, N(t), is governed by a linear-elastic unilateral law that can be explicitly expressed as NðtÞ ¼ knvðtÞ 0 � vðtÞ [ 0, in contact vðtÞ� 0, lift - off ; ð6Þ where v(t) and kn represent the relative displacements and contact stiffness value in the normal direction, respectively. The tangential contact force is governed by the elastic Coulomb’s law. The friction force can be expressed with the differential form as dTðtÞ ¼ ktduðtÞ 0 � TðtÞ þ ktduðtÞj j � lNðtÞ; in stick TðtÞ þ ktduðtÞj j[ lNðtÞ; in slip : ð7Þ Herein, T(t) is the tangential contact force, kt is the tangential contact stiffness and uðtÞ represents the relative displacement in the tangential direction. l represents the coefficient of friction in the contact. Due to hysteretic effects, the explicit form of T(t) in terms of uðtÞ and _uðtÞ is not directly available. To address this phenomenon, in this study, we utilize the Jenkins-type point contact model (see Fig. 10), which incorporates an additional internal variable known as slip displacement (wðtÞ). The slip displacement rep- resents a hypothetical coordinate defining the position of the slider within the contact element. Its value is constant when the contact is in the stick state ( _wðtÞ ¼ 0) and changes as the contact slips. This coordinate is treated implicitly within the harmonic balance approach, i.e., it is not represented as a truncated Fourier series. In this study, the complex amplitudes of the nonlinear forces are computed using the alternating time–frequency approach [49] with the well-known predictor–corrector scheme [50], where T(t) is initially predicted using an estimated value of wðtÞ and then corrected according to Coulomb’s law. This prediction-correction procedure continues until Root Blade Load Cells De-couplerDe-coupler Load Cells Right Damper Left Damper Fig. 8 Finite element model of the assembly Blade’s Surfaces Pad’s Surface Pad’s Surface Left Damper Right Damper Contact Points Fig. 9 Contact regions of the dampers with seven points selected on each mating surface kn kt μ w(t) T(t) u(t) v(t) N(t) Fig. 10 Jenkins-type point contact element 123 7856 E. Ferhatoglu et al. the system reaches a steady state with periodicity conditions, typically requiring at least two periods. The tangential contact force can then be expressed by the following expression T tð Þ ¼ kt uðtÞ � wðtÞ½ � lNðtÞ _wðtÞj j= _wðtÞ 0 8 < : in stick in slip lift - off ; ð8Þ where w is unknown at the initial loading instant, and its actual value depends on the loading history. In the literature, it is commonly assumed that the initial slip displacement of contacts is zero, although the actual value may differ. However, in this study, the initial slip displacements of contacts are considered uncer- tain, and their limit values are computed within an optimization algorithm together with the response limits. 3.2 Response variability and computation of limits with an optimization algorithm The uncertainty in slip displacements of sticking contacts and consequently the tangential forces can lead to significant variability in the nonlinear response of turbine blades. To illustrate this phenomenon, consider Eq. (5) for two identical but separate test cases that have nominally same inputs but different loading histories. In this scenario, the system matrices (M, C and K) and forcing parameters (f̂ h exc, h and x) are identical for both cases in Eq. (5). Also assume that both systems exhibit partial slip motion, where some contacts are fully stuck while others experience stick–slip behavior, and there is a normal-tangential coupling among contacts. It was shown that the static components of contact forces, f̂ 0 c , can take different values within a range for fully stuck contact points based on the loading history. Consequently, f̂ 0 c varies between the two cases, leading to different system responses, q̂h, due to the coupling present in Eq. (5). In this study, we computationally predict the limits of experimentally measured multiple responses using a numerical approach based on an optimization algorithm developed in [41]. The algorithm aims to minimize/maximize an objective function, repre- sented by the system’s loss factor, (g), which quan- tifies the damping capability of the system. Minimization of the loss factor is employed to determine the upper limit of the response, while maximization is used to compute the lower limit. The optimization problem is given as: minimize/maximize g with respect to ½ðq̂hÞT;mT�T; subject to R ¼ 0 ð9Þ where the loss factor is defined as the ratio between the total dissipated energy in the system, DWdis, and the maximum stored energy,Upot, [51, 52], i.e., g ¼ DWdis 2pUpot : ð10Þ In Eq. (9),m is the vector of multiplier coefficients, representing the ratio of the initial tangential force to Coulomb’s limit. Coefficients are implicitly defined for each contact element as TnðtiniÞ ¼ mn � lNnðtiniÞ n ¼ 1; 2; � � � ;Ncð Þ; ð11Þ where Nc is the number of contact elements. In this way, the uncertainty in initial tangential forces is addressed in the solution algorithm by considering each mn as an unknown. tini represents the initial time instant in the predictor–corrector scheme. R denotes the residual of Eq. (5) and can be obtained as R ¼ q̂h þ ah f̂ h c � f̂ h exc �Kcq̂ h � � ðh ¼ 0; 1; � � � ;HÞ: ð12Þ ah is the receptance corresponding to each har- monic, i.e., ah ¼ �ðhxÞ2Mþ ihxCþKstuck � ��1 , where Kstuck is the stiffness matrix of fully stuck linear configuration. Lastly, Kc ¼ Kstuck �K. The optimization technique utilized in this study is the interior point method [53, 54], and it is employed with fmincon built-in function of Matlab. The gradients are numerically calculated with forward finite difference method. It is worth mentioning that the optimization algorithm utilized in this study has been successfully demonstrated and applied in [42] with highly accurate results and reasonable computational cost. There may also be other optimization methods that could be more suitable for different applications. Evaluating and comparing different strategies, however, is beyond the scope of this study. In achieving the objectives of the calibration process presented in this study, the fmincon 123 Parametric study for model calibration of a friction-damped turbine blade with multiple test… 7857 algorithm with the interior-point method was deemed sufficient and effective. 4 Correlation of the results and model calibration This section presents the calibration procedure for both linear and nonlinear models. The linear model refers to the model of the assembly without accounting for friction in contact interfaces, whereas the nonlinear model additionally incorporates frictional interaction through contact elements. The ultimate objective of this study is the parametric calibration of the nonlinear model for the prediction of limits of multiple nonlinear responses and contact forces. Several iterations are performed to achieve the best possible agreement between the computational results and their corre- sponding experimental counterparts. Throughout these iterations, all the steps taken to achieve the most accurate results are explained in the subsequent sections, including those that result in mismatched outcomes, in order to provide insights into the effective and ineffective practices during the model updating procedure. By detailing both the successful and unsuccessful outcomes, this study highlights the recommended approaches as well as the pitfalls to avoid when updating the model. It is also worth underlining that the primary objective of the designed test rig is to measure and quantify the variability in the nonlinear response and contact forces. While the test rig is not specifically built for the characterization of the contact parameters, efforts have been made to estimate initial values of the contact parameters based on the available data. As a result, before discussing the calibration of the nonlin- ear model, estimation of the initial values of the contact parameters and the calibration of the linear model are presented. These procedures will be presented separately, and an overview of the entire calibration process is given in Fig. 11. 4.1 Estimation of initial values for tangential contact stiffness and coefficient of friction The initial estimation of the tangential contact stiff- ness (kt) and friction coefficient (l) is based on the measured hysteresis cycles and contact force ratio, respectively. To estimate kt, two arbitrary cases with excitation levels of 1 N and 10 N are considered, as illustrated in Fig. 12a. In the 1 N case, a peak-to-peak straight line is plotted, while in the 10 N case, the stick region is approximated with a manually drawn line. The slope of both lines represents the value of kt, which is found to be 11.5 N/lm. However, it should be noted that the measured relative displacement value is not entirely accurate, and the actual value is greater due to the inclination of the laser heads (see Fig. 4). Consequently, the actual value of kt is considered to be lower than the estimated value of 11.5 N/lm. For the estimation of the friction coefficient, the contact force ratio T(t)/N(t) is used for the 10 N excitation case at the corresponding resonance fre- quency (Fig. 12b). The 10 N excitation case is deliberately chosen because it represents the largest excitation amplitude, bringing the dampers closest to the gross slip condition. For a damper during gross Initial estimate of alignment Initial value of ζ Linear model Initial modelNonlinear test data Linear test data Nonlinear model calibration Updated nonlinear model capable of predicting the uncertainty band of the nonlinear responses and contact forces Linear model calibrationInitial value of kt Initial value of μ Initial value of kn Fig. 11 Overview of the entire calibration process 123 7858 E. Ferhatoglu et al. slip, the contact force ratio, T(t)/N(t), is expected to be equal to the friction coefficient l, however, in our experiments, gross slip is never achieved, as indicated by the fact that the ratio does not remain constant over one full vibration cycle (Fig. 12b). Nevertheless, the maximum value of the curve provides an insight on a lower reference, which is approximately 0.6. Conse- quently, the actual value of coefficient of friction is considered to be greater than this estimated reference value due to the absence of gross slip in the experiments. 4.2 Calibration of the linear model The calibration of the linear model consists of two main steps. First, model updating is performed for the stand-alone blade by correlating experimental and computational results of the natural frequency. In the second step, linear model is calibrated considering linear responses of both free and fully stuck cases. Overview of the linear model calibration process is depicted in Fig. 13. In the first step, a close match is aimed between the numerically predicted natural frequency and the experimentally measured value of 122.25 Hz. To explore the sensitivity of the results, ten different linear models are constructed, considering three specific parameters. These parameters are as follows: 1. Finite element type: Two different 3D finite elements are employed. The first type is a low- order element with eight nodes in a single element, while the second type is a higher-order element with twenty nodes. 2. Mesh density: The density refers to the number of elements that span through the thickness of the blade. Five different mesh densities are consid- ered. For example, if the blade thickness is divided into two elements, it is referred to as a 2 Elements model. Consequently, a higher number of ele- ments corresponds to a more intense mesh density. 3. Boundary conditions: Two distinct configurations are created based on the boundary conditions at the root of the model. In the first configuration, the root is fully clamped, applying constraints to all its nodes. In the second configuration, the constraints are only applied to a subset of clamping nodes, selected arbitrarily but uniformly. Hence, the second configuration has a reduced number of clamped nodes and is referred to as the relaxed configuration. Table 1 presents the iterations based on the modal analysis results obtained from the 10 considered models. The first four models utilize the low-order element type with different mesh densities and clamping conditions. However, these models do not yield satisfactory results, as the error remains around 7%, which is high for linear simulations. Additionally, the results show almost no sensitivity to the clamping conditions. In the fifth model, the element type is changed to the high-order element type, leading to a significant improvement as the results overlap accu- rately. This highlights the necessity of using a higher- 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 Fo rc e R at io ( T / N ) (b) -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Relative Displacement [m] 10-6 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Ta ng en tia l F or ce [N ] (a) |Fexc| = 1 N |Fexc| = 10 N 1 kt1 kt Fig. 12 Measured hysteresis curves and contact force ratio 123 Parametric study for model calibration of a friction-damped turbine blade with multiple test… 7859 Fig. 13 Overview of the calibration process of the linear model Table 1 Computational modal analysis results for different stand-alone blade models Model number Element type Mesh density Boundary condition Natural freq. [Hz] Error (%) 1 Low order 3 Elements Full 137.1 12.2 2 Low order 3 Elements Relaxed 137.0 12.1 3 Low order 4 Elements Full 131.1 7.2 4 Low order 4 Elements Relaxed 131.0 7.1 5 High order 4 Elements Full 122.1 0.12 6 High order 5 Elements Full 122.1 0.12 7 High order 2 Elements Full 122.4 0.12 8 High order 2 Elements Relaxed 121.9 0.29 9 High order 1 Element Full 122.6 0.29 10 High order 1 Element Relaxed 122.1 0.12 123 7860 E. Ferhatoglu et al. order element type for achieving an accurate model. Subsequently, the sixth model investigates the impact of increasing mesh density. The analysis reveals that the natural frequency has already reached a saturation point, indicating no further improvement in model accuracy. Additional models (7–10) were also con- structed for further investigation, but no substantial enhancement is observed. This highlights the strong dependence of modal analysis results on the finite element type employed in the model. Based on these findings, the sixth model, depicted in Fig. 8, is selected for the blade in the subsequent analyses. The second step is to achieve a close alignment between the numerically predicted linear response curves and their experimentally measured counter- parts. Both free (stand-alone blade) and fully stuck (coupled blade-damper-decoupler) configurations are considered. In the numerical simulations of fully stuck configuration, the dampers are coupled to the blade and de-couplers using linear springs with tangential and normal contact stiffness values. The experimental results for this configuration consider one arbitrary response curve with the lowest forcing level (1 N), although this scenario does not precisely represent the fully stuck linear configuration due to slight dissipa- tion in it (see Fig. 12a). Since no measurements were taken with lower excitations, this case is utilized for demonstrative purposes. Nevertheless, despite its limitation, this correlation provides initial insights into the contact stiffness parameters through a qual- itative comparison on the response curves. The final values will be tuned during subsequent iterations of the nonlinear model calibration. To investigate the sensitivity of the results, three iterations are performed, taking into account four parameters: 1. Tangential contact stiffness, kt: The initial esti- mate of kt was given in Sect. 4.1 based on the nonlinear test data. This parameter is also consid- ered here and further calibrated with the fully stuck linear configuration. 2. Normal contact stiffness, kn: A direct measure- ment of kn is not available in the tests. Its initial value is estimated based on the matching accuracy of the resonance frequency of fully stuck linear response curve between tests and simulations. 3. Damping ratio of the linear model (coupled blade- damper-decoupler), f: Rayleigh damping is specified such that f is proportional to the first lowest frequency mode of the fully stuck linear system. The calibrated damping ratio will provide an upper reference value, since a slight dissipation is present in the reference test result. 4. Boundary conditions (BC): This parameter was taken into account when tuning the natural frequency of the stand-alone blade and is further calibrated here, also considering the matching accuracy of the response curves. In the relaxed configuration, the constraints are manually applied by grounding the model from the clamp- ing nodes using linear springs with adjustable stiff- ness values (with approximately two orders of magnitudes higher values of contact stiffness used in the coupled blade-damper-decoupler configuration). Table 2 and Fig. 14 present the values of param- eters utilized in the iterations and the corresponding linear response curves, respectively. In the first iteration, the resonance frequencies of the experimen- tal and computational curves exhibit close proximity, but a notable difference is observed in the lower portion of the resonance region for both free and fully stuck linear configurations. The response curves measured in tests have a wider width compared to the computationally predicted curves. To address this disparity, the clamping condition is relaxed, and other parameters are heuristically adjusted in the second iteration. Consequently, the lower width of the exper- imental and computational curves becomes almost equal, but the resonance frequency of the stand-alone blade is shifted to the left. This shift is relevant because the root is no longer fully clamped, and a slight elasticity is introduced through springs. The resonance frequency error of the stand-alone blade is around 2.5%, which cannot be considered negligible. Table 2 Parameters used in the iterations Iteration kt [N/lm] kn [N/lm] f (%) BC Meet criterion? Free Stuck 1 8 8 0.2 Full No No 2 6.16 6.16 0.35 Relaxed No Yes 3 4.65 6.75 0.33 Relaxed Yes Yes 123 Parametric study for model calibration of a friction-damped turbine blade with multiple test… 7861 Additionally, in order to explore the effects of neglected contributions from the sensor mass and shaker stinger on blade dynamics, a lumped mass (for the sensor) and linear springs (for the shaker stinger) are implemented accordingly. Despite an increase in resonance frequency, no further enhancement in accuracy of the linear responses is observed. The outcomes of this iteration indicate that the computa- tional linear response obtained in the second iteration should be shifted to higher frequencies as a whole. In the third iteration, the density of the blade is slightly decreased, and the parameters are further tuned. The matching accuracy of the results can now be consid- ered acceptable, as depicted in Fig. 14 for the third iteration. The assigned density is slightly lower than the actual nominal value of steel, which can be justified by the fact that the manufactured geometry of the blade may not perfectly align with the numerical model due to geometric tolerances. It is important to emphasize that all the calibrations conducted thus far serve to provide initial insights into the parameters that will be used in the calibration of the nonlinear model. The actual values will be tuned considering the sensitivity of uncertainty bands associated with non- linear response and contact forces. 4.3 Calibration of the nonlinear model In the nonlinear model calibration process, three parameters are treated as uncertain: 1. Initial position of slip displacements of perma- nently sticking contacts, wðtiniÞ, hence the initial value of static tangential forces, TðtiniÞ. This uncertainty arises due to different loading histo- ries and is directly addressed in the optimization algorithm that considers and solves also for the unknown multiplier coefficients, m, during the computation of response limits. 2. Contact parameters, i.e., kt, kn and l. The uncer- tainty in these parameters stems from the limited knowledge about their exact values during the tests. The initial estimates are considered based on the test data and linear model calibration. In each iteration of the nonlinear model calibration pro- cess, these parameters are assigned a specific single value. The model is then iteratively cali- brated to determine whether the experimental and simulation results better align, taking into account the sensitivity of the response limits to these parameters. 3. The alignment of the test setup, particularly the dampers and pre-loads. This uncertainty arises due to the lack of precise information regarding the system’s symmetry and the positioning of the dampers. Initially, the configuration of the model is taken into account with a perfect symmetry. In each iteration, a particular configuration is con- sidered, and this configuration is calibrated based on the sensitivity of contact force limits to the test alignment. 580 585 590 595 600 605 610 Frequency [Hz] 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 Ac ce le ra nc e [m s-2 N -1 ] (b) Coupled blade-damper-decoupler 115 118 121 124 127 130 Frequency [Hz] 0 20 40 60 80 A cc el er an ce [m s-2 N -1 ] (a) Stand-alone blade Experimental Comp. - Iter.: 1 Comp. - Iter.: 2 Comp. - Iter.: 3 Experimental Comp. - Iter.: 1 Comp. - Iter.: 2 Comp. - Iter.: 3 Fig. 14 Comparison of experimental and computational linear response curves for three iterations: a free configuration, b fully stuck configuration 123 7862 E. Ferhatoglu et al. Based on these three sources of uncertainty, the response variability in numerical simulations is achieved by the forward propagation of only the first uncertainty into the nonlinear dynamics of the struc- ture. The parameters associated to the second and the third uncertainties are treated as having a single specific value and configuration in each iteration of the calibration process. An overview of the nonlinear model calibration is shown in Fig. 15. The calibration process consists of four iterations. It is important to underline that this process is not straightforward, as it entails addressing multiple uncer- tainties associated with several parameters that need to be considered concurrently. The objective here is to achieve a satisfactory level of accuracy in predicting the limits of both the multiple nonlinear responses and contact forces. The values of the contact parameters and the model alignment configuration are summarized in Fig. 16. The linear damping ratio, f, is set to 0.2% in all iterations. The initial parameters for the first iteration are consistently selected with the findings from the earlier sections on linear model calibration (Sect. 4.2) and nonlinear test data (Sect. 4.1). 4.3.1 Iteration 1 This iteration serves as an initial attempt to gain a general understanding of the overall results. The alignment is considered with a perfect symmetry. Figure 17a–d presents the test results of the multiple nonlinear responses and the predicted limits obtained through optimization for four different excitation levels. The upper limits align closely with the resonance regime of the experimental curves, while the lower limits exhibit a pronounced softening behavior. Further, the resonance frequency of the lower limits shift toward smaller values as the excitation level increases. To comprehend the main cause of this phenomenon, the contact states of the lower limits at the resonance frequencies are investi- gated. It is observed that while many contact points alternate between stick–slip states, full separation occurs at certain contact points. This implies that the optimization algorithm converges to a particular contact configuration where some contact nodes are fully separated, resulting in the system’s loss factor reaching its maximum value for the computation of lower limit. The number of points undergoing full separation increases with larger excitations, leading to higher stiffness loss for the lower limit. Conversely, the surfaces remain in contact for the upper limits, with no damping present even in cases with 1 N and 3 N excitations. The optimization simulations provide the theoretical limits that the experimental curves can reach, successfully capturing the variability range of the test data in terms of amplitudes. However, the Test-analysis correlation on limits of contact force Test-analysis correlation on limits of nonlinear response Meet criterion? Meet criterion? Updated nonlinear model capable of predicting the uncertainty band of the nonlinear responses and contact forces noboth yesno Nonlinear model Nonlinear vibration simulation with optimization Nonlinear response test data Contact force test data Calibrated linear model Contact parameters Alignment Parameter calibration Parameter calibration Fig. 15 Overview of the calibration process of the nonlinear model 123 Parametric study for model calibration of a friction-damped turbine blade with multiple test… 7863 resonance frequency of the upper limit could be slightly shifted to a higher frequency by further tuning of the contact parameters. In addition to capturing the response variability, the optimization algorithm determines the limits of static tangential contact forces. Figure 18 depicts the mea- sured multiple contact forces and the predicted limits from the first iteration for the 10 N excitation case. The dynamic components of the upper limit closely match the experimental data, while those of the lower limit are noticeably smaller. This is relevant because the response curve of the upper limit for |Fexc|= 10 N (see Fig. 17d) closely resembles the experimental curves, indicating that the contact forces are expected to be similar as well. Figure 18 demonstrates that the predicted limits of tangential static forces effectively capture the range of variability observed in the test results, indicating the correct functioning of the optimization algorithm. However, as also mentioned in Sect. 2.3.2, there exists a disparity in the measured static normal force values between the left and right dampers, indicating a misalignment in the assembly. The predicted limits and measured results of static normal forces on the left damper show significant discrepancies, indicating that the symmetric configu- ration does not accurately reflect the actual scenario. The results for other excitation levels follow a similar pattern, but they are not presented here for the sake of brevity. To address the difference in normal forces and account for the misalignment, the pre-loads on the dampers are adjusted accordingly in the next iteration. 4.3.2 Iteration 2 The contact parameters are heuristically tuned to achieve a slight upward shift in the resonance frequency of the upper limits, while still ensuring that the predicted limits effectively capture the measured range of response variability. Through fine calibration, it is found that among the three contact parameters, kt exhibits greater sensitivity in influencing the behavior of the limits. Therefore, kt is slightly modified, while kn and l are set to relatively higher values (refer to the final values in Fig. 16). Additionally, the position of the dead weights on the dampers is altered to mimic the misalignment Right Damper Pad Dead Weight Left Damper Blade Pad Dead Weight Left Damper Blade Pad Dead Weight Right Damper Pad Dead Weight Left Damper Blade Pad Dead Weight Right Damper Pad Dead Weight Left Damper Blade Pad Dead Weight Right Damper Pad Dead Weight Iteration 1: kt = 4.65 N/μm kn = 6.75 N/μm μ = 0.6 Iteration 2: kt = 4.6 N/μm kn = 8.5 N/μm μ = 0.8 Iteration 3: kt = 4.6 N/μm kn = 8.5 N/μm μ = 0.8 Iteration 4: kt = 4.6 N/μm kn = 8.5 N/μm μ = 0.8 Meet criterion? Response Force no no Meet criterion? Response Force yes no Meet criterion? Response Force yes yes Meet criterion? Response Force no no Fig. 16 The value of contact parameters and schematic sketch of the model alignment for different iterations 123 7864 E. Ferhatoglu et al. 570 575 580 585 590 595 600 605 Frequency [Hz] 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 A cc el er an ce [m s-2 N -1 ] (a) |Fexc| = 1 N Experimental Comp.- Upper limit Comp.- Lower limit 570 575 580 585 590 595 600 605 Frequency [Hz] 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 A cc el er an ce [m s-2 N - 1 ] (b) |Fexc| = 3 N 550 555 560 565 570 575 580 585 590 595 600 605 Frequency [Hz] 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 A cc el er an ce [m s-2 N -1 ] (d) |Fexc| = 10 N 570 575 580 585 590 595 600 605 Frequency [Hz] 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 A cc el er an ce [m s-2 N -1 ] (c) |Fexc| = 5 N Fig. 17 Measured multiple nonlinear responses and predicted limits for the 1st iteration nt ia lF orExperimental Comp.- Upper limit Comp.- Lower limit 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 N or m al Fo rc e [N ] 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] -20 -10 0 10 20 Ta ng en tia lF or ce [N ] Right Damper 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] -20 -10 0 10 20 Ta ng en tia lF or ce [N ] Left Damper 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] 18 21 24 27 30 N or m al Fo rc e [N ] Fig. 18 Measured multiple contact forces and predicted limits for the 1st iteration (|Fexc|= 10 N) 123 Parametric study for model calibration of a friction-damped turbine blade with multiple test… 7865 present in the actual system. This calibration is performed based on the deviation ratio between the test and simulation results of normal contact forces. First, the ratio between the average values of the normal static components of the upper and lower limits and those obtained using the test data (Fig. 18) are calculated. Subsequently, the pre-load on the dampers is shifted by proportioning this ratio to the horizontal length of the damper, either toward the blade side or the decoupler side. For instance, as the ratio is approximately 20% ( 25:5� 21ð Þ=21� 100) for the left damper, the preload is shifted toward the blade side by 20% of the horizontal length of the damper to reduce the normal force values of predicted limits. Analogously, for the right damper, the preload is slightly shifted toward the decoupler side to increase the limit values of the static components. Note that the contact forces given in Fig. 18 are for the de-coupler side of the dampers. Simplified schematic of the alignment of the pre-loads are shown in Fig. 16. Figure 19 shows the measured multiple nonlinear response and the predicted limits. The trend of the limits for different excitation levels remains similar to the previous iteration, effectively capturing the range of variability with acceptable accuracy. This outcome indicates that changing the position of the pre-loads does not significantly impact the response behavior; instead, its influence is more prominent on the contact forces, as depicted in Fig. 20, particularly on the normal contact forces. More specifically, for 10 N excitation case in Fig. 20a, the computed normal force curves corresponding to the upper limit closely align with the test data. The deviation between the normal static components of the test data and limits is also compensated on both dampers. Further, the variability range of the static tangential forces is effectively 540545550555560565570575580585590595600605 Frequency [Hz] 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 A cc el er an ce [m s-2 N -1 ] (d) |Fexc| = 10 N 570 575 580 585 590 595 600 605 Frequency [Hz] 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 A cc el er an ce [m s-2 N -1 ] (c) |Fexc| = 5 N 570 575 580 585 590 595 600 605 Frequency [Hz] 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 A cc el er an ce [m s-2 N -1 ] (b) |Fexc| = 3 N 570 575 580 585 590 595 600 605 Frequency [Hz] 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 A cc el er an ce [m s-2 N -1 ] (a) |Fexc| = 1 N Experimental Comp.- Upper limit Comp.- Lower limit Fig. 19 Measured multiple nonlinear responses and predicted limits for the 2nd iteration 123 7866 E. Ferhatoglu et al. captured on the left damper, while there is a slight discrepancy for the right damper. To compare the contact forces obtained also with other excitation amplitudes, Fig. 20b presents the results for the 1 N forcing level. The results for this case are not as satisfactory as those for the 10 N case. The static components of the computational results deviate significantly from their experimental counterparts, which cannot be considered negligible. This implies that further tuning, particularly regarding the align- ment of the pre-loads, is necessary to enhance the matching accuracy between the computed and exper- imental results. 4.3.3 Iteration 3 The contact parameters that provided accurate results in the previous iteration are retained with the same values for this iteration. The focus in this iteration is on adjusting the pre-loads on the dampers to better represent the misalignment in the model, particularly introducing an inclination angle on the application of the pre-loads. The inclination angles for the pre-loads are determined through a heuristically performed sensitivity analysis, which involves performing sev- eral analyses with different inclination angles. The objective is to achieve the highest possible matching accuracy for all excitation cases. Based on the sensitivity analysis, the inclination angles are set to 3 degrees for the left damper and 5 degrees for the right damper, both inclined toward the left side (see Fig. 16). The position of the pre-loads remains the same as in the previous iteration. The optimization algorithm successfully computes the variability in the measured nonlinear response, as depicted in Fig. 21. This shows that contact parame- ters have been accurately calibrated. The results of the contact forces for all excitation levels are presented in Fig. 22. The key observations from the results are as follows: 1. The dynamic components of the contact forces and their amplitudes exhibit good consistency between the experimental tests and simulations for all excitation levels. 2. The predicted limits of the multiple static tangen- tial forces align accurately with the experimental data. Although small deviations are still present, they can be considered negligible, as the overall agreement between the experimental and compu- tational results is coherent. This demonstrates that the optimization algorithm successfully predicts not only the limits of the nonlinear response but (a) |Fexc| = 10 N (b) |Fexc| = 1 N nt ia lF orExperimental Comp.- Upper limit Comp.- Lower limit 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] 27 28 29 30 N or m al Fo rc e [N ] 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] -8 -4 0 4 8 Ta ng en tia l F or ce [N ] Right Damper 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 Ta ng en tia lF or ce [N ] Left Damper 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] 18 19 20 21 N or m al Fo rc e [N ] 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 N or m al Fo rc e [N ] 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] -20 -10 0 10 20 Ta ng en tia lF or ce [N ] Right Damper 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] -20 -10 0 10 20 Ta ng en tia lF or ce [N ] Left Damper 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] 16 18 20 22 24 N or m al Fo rc e [N ] Fig. 20 Measured multiple contact forces and predicted limits for the 2nd iteration 123 Parametric study for model calibration of a friction-damped turbine blade with multiple test… 7867 also the limits of the static tangential forces, which was the main objective of the calibration process. 3. Some unavoidable discrepancies are observed in the static components of the normal forces between the tests and simulations. The largest deviation, approximately 7%, is observed on the left damper for the 5 N excitation case (see Fig. 22c). It is important to note that the presented model updating procedure simultaneously consid- ers the results of 20 different cases (16 for contact forces and 4 for responses) by employing multiple parameters to achieve maximum agreement between predictions and tests for a complex structure. Therefore, it is natural to expect slight deviations in certain results, while the overall results can be considered satisfactory in terms of accuracy, particularly when considering the predicted limits of the measured multiple nonlin- ear response and static tangential contact forces. Consequently, based on the results of this iteration, it can be inferred that the comprehensive model calibration can be deemed successful using the selected contact parameters and alignment configura- tion of the test assembly. 4.3.4 Iteration 4 To further improve the matching accuracy of the normal contact forces, an additional iteration is carried out, despite the satisfactory results obtained in the previous iteration. In this iteration, the left damper is rotated, as illustrated in an exaggerated manner in Fig. 16. The rotation is modeled by introducing initial 560 565 570 575 580 585 590 595 600 605 Frequency [Hz] 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 Ac ce le ra nc e [m s- 2 N -1 ] (d) |Fexc| = 10 N 570 575 580 585 590 595 600 605 Frequency [Hz] 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 A cc el er an ce [m s-2 N -1 ] (c) |Fexc| = 5 N 570 575 580 585 590 595 600 605 Frequency [Hz] 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 A cc el er an ce [m s-2 N - 1 ] (a) |Fexc| = 1 N Experimental Comp.- Upper limit Comp.- Lower limit 570 575 580 585 590 595 600 605 Frequency [Hz] 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 A cc el er an ce [m s-2 N -1 ] (b) |Fexc| = 3 N Fig. 21 Measured multiple nonlinear responses and predicted limits for the 3rd iteration 123 7868 E. Ferhatoglu et al. gaps into the contact elements. These gaps are distributed proportionally along the contact line with linearly increasing values. By introducing this rotation and modeling the corresponding initial gaps, the aim is to achieve a more accurate representation of the misalignment in the model and consequently improve the matching accuracy of the normal contact forces. A sensitivity analysis is conducted to explore the impact of various rotation angles on the results in separate analyses. For demonstration, the case with a rotation angle of 0.35 degrees is presented here. It should be noted that the contact parameters remain unchanged from the previous iteration. In this iteration, as depicted in Fig. 23, there is a noticeable difference in the resonance frequencies of the limits compared to the experimental data. Unlike the previous three iterations, the resonance frequen- cies of the limits, including the upper limit, are considerably lower than their experimental counter- parts. Only for the 10 N excitation case, the resonance frequency remains similar to the previous iterations. The shift in frequencies is attributed to the occurrence (a) |Fexc| = 1 N (b) |Fexc| = 3 N (d) |Fexc| = 10 N(c) |Fexc| = 5 N nt ia lF orExperimental Comp.- Upper limit Comp.- Lower limit 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 N or m al Fo rc e [N ] 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] -20 -10 0 10 20 Ta ng en tia lF or ce [N ] Right Damper 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] -20 -10 0 10 20 Ta ng en tia lF or ce [N ] Left Damper 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 N or m al Fo rc e [N ] 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] -20 -10 0 10 20 Ta ng en tia lF or ce [N ] Left Damper 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 N or m al Fo rc e [N ] 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 N or m al Fo rc e [N ] 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] -20 -10 0 10 20 Ta ng en tia lF or ce [N ] Right Damper 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] 27 28 29 30 N or m al Fo rc e [N ] 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 Ta ng en tia lF or ce [N ] Right Damper 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 Ta ng en tia lF or ce [N ] Left Damper 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] 19 20 21 22 N or m al Fo rc e [N ] 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] -16 -8 0 8 16 Ta ng en tia lF or ce [N ] Left Damper 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] -20 -10 0 10 20 Ta ng en tia lF or ce [N ] Right Damper 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] 19 20 21 22 23 24 N or m al Fo rc e [N ] 0 /2 3 /2 2 Phase Angle [rad] 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 N or m al Fo rc e [N ] Fig. 22 Measured multiple contact forces and predicted limits for the 3rd iteration 123 Parametric study for model calibration of a friction-damped turbine blade with multiple test… 7869 of full separation at some contact nodes. The initial gaps introduced due to the rotation of the left damper remain open at low vibration levels at small excitation cases, leading to full separation at certain contact points. As the forcing levels increase, more mating points come into contact, resulting in a shift of the resonance frequency of the upper limit curve to higher values, as observed from Fig. 23a to Fig. 23d. Further, as the nonlinearity level increases due to the stick– slip-separation phenomenon at higher excitations, the optimization algorithm faces challenges in finding the minimum value of the loss factor. This results in a jumping behavior of the upper limit curves, as shown in Fig. 23c and 23d. It is important to note that the algorithm converges even for jumping responses, however the obtained value of the loss factor may not represent the global minimum. Since the nonlinear responses do not already match well in this iteration, the contact forces are not provided as part of the analysis. In summary, after an extensive calibration process involving multiple iterations with several parameters, the third iteration resulted in the highest level of agreement between the experimental tests and the computational simulations. The specific values of the contact parameters and the alignment configuration used in the third iteration were presented in Fig. 16, reflecting the culmination of the calibration efforts to achieve an accurate representation of the system’s behavior. 5 Summary and conclusion This study presents a deterministic model calibration process using multiple test data of a friction-damped 540545550555560565570575580585590595600605 Frequency [Hz] 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 A cc el er an ce [m s-2 N -1 ] (b) |Fexc| = 3 N 540545550555560565570575580585590595600605 Frequency [Hz] 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 Ac ce le ra nc e [m s-2 N -1 ] (a) |Fexc| = 1 N Experimental Comp.- Upper limit Comp.- Lower limit 540545550555560565570575580585590595600605 Frequency [Hz] 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 Ac ce le ra nc e [m s-2 N -1 ] (d) |Fexc| = 10 N 540545550555560565570575580585590595600605 Frequency [Hz] 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 Ac ce le ra nc e [m s-2 N -1 ] (c) |Fexc| = 5 N Fig. 23 Measured multiple nonlinear response and predicted limits for the 4th iteration 123 7870 E. Ferhatoglu et al. turbine blade coupled with mid-span dampers. An optimization algorithm is employed to predict the limits of the measuredmultiple nonlinear response and contact forces. This algorithm specifically addresses the epistemic uncertainty associated with the static tangential forces of permanently sticking contacts. The model is iteratively tuned, taking into account the sensitivity of the limits to both contact parameters and the alignment of the test setup. The adoption of this non-probabilistic approach constitutes a novel contri- bution to the field, because the challenges associated with model updating procedures for friction-damped turbine blades with multiple test data are typically addressed using statistical and stochastic techniques in the community. The main findings and interpretations of the current study can be summarized as follows: • The limits of the variability in the nonlinear response are primarily influenced by the contact parameters, except when an initial gap is intro- duced in the contact elements. • The variability limits of the contact forces are mainly affected by the alignment of the damper’s positioning and the application of preload. • Despite small discrepancies observed in a few cases, the overall accuracy of the results can be considered satisfactory. • The optimization algorithm effectively addresses the uncertainty associated with the static tangential forces in permanently sticking contacts. • The calibration of the linear model is crucial for gaining initial insights into the values of tangential and normal contact stiffness. This study sheds light on various practical aspects involved in the process of matching computational and experimental results through several iterations of the model. As a result, it provides a framework for designers engaged in the calibration procedures of frictional turbine blade models with multiple test data. Funding Open access funding provided by Politecnico di Torino within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. Data availability Data will be made available on reasonable request. Declarations Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. References 1. Griffin, J.H.: Friction damping of resonant stresses in gas turbine engine airfoils. J. Eng. Power 102(2), 329–333 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3230256 2. Cowles, B.A.: High cycle fatigue in aircraft gas turbines— an industry prospective. Int. J. Fract. 80(2–3), 147–163 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00012667 3. Srinivasan, A.V.: Flutter and resonant vibration character- istics of engine blades. ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 119(4), 742–775 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2817053 4. Krack, M., Salles, L., Thouverez, F.: Vibration prediction of bladed disks coupled by friction joints. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 24(3), 589–636 (2017). https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11831-016-9183-2 5. Gaul, L., Lenz, J.: Nonlinear dynamics of structures assembled by bolted joints. Acta Mech. 125(1), 169–181 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01177306 6. Hartwigsen, C.J., Song, Y., McFarland, D.M., Bergman, L.A., Vakakis, A.F.: Experimental study of non-linear effects in a typical shear lap joint configuration. J. Sound Vib. 277(1–2), 327–351 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jsv.2003.09.018 7. Roettgen, D.R., Allen, M.S.: Nonlinear characterization of a bolted, industrial structure using a modal framework. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 84, 152–170 (2017). https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ymssp.2015.11.010 8. Brake, M.R.W., Schwingshackl, C.W., Reuß, P.: Observa- tions of variability and repeatability in jointed structures. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 129, 282–307 (2019). https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2019.04.020 9. Krack, M., Panning, L., Wallaschek, J., Siewert, C., Har- tung, A.: Robust design of friction interfaces of bladed disks with respect to parameter uncertainties. In: Turbo Expo: Power for Land, Sea, and Air. American Society of 123 Parametric study for model calibration of a friction-damped turbine blade with multiple test… 7871 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3230256 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00012667 https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2817053 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-016-9183-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-016-9183-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01177306 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2003.09.018 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2003.09.018 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2015.11.010 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2015.11.010 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2019.04.020 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2019.04.020 Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 44731, pp. 1193–1204 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1115/GT2012-68578. 10. Petrov, E.P.: Analysis of sensitivity and robustness of forced response for nonlinear dynamic structures. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 23(1), 68–86 (2009). https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ymssp.2008.03.008 11. Sanliturk, K.Y., Ewins, D.J., Stanbridge, A.B.: Underplat- form dampers for turbine blades: theoretical modeling, analysis and comparison with experimental data. ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 123(4), 919–929 (2001). https:// doi.org/10.1115/1.1385830 12. Sever, I.A., Petrov, E.P., Ewins, D.J.: Experimental and numerical investigation of rotating bladed disk forced response using underplatform friction dampers. ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 130(4), 042503 (2008). https:// doi.org/10.1115/1.2903845 13. Schwingshackl, C.W., Petrov, E.P., Ewins, D.J.: Measured and estimated friction interface parameters in a nonlinear dynamic analysis. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 28, 574–584 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2011.10.005 14. Gastaldi, C., Gola, M.M.: On the relevance of a microslip contact model for under-platform dampers. Int. J. Mech. Sciences 115–116, 145–156 (2016). https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ijmecsci.2016.06.015 15. Pesaresi, L., Salles, L., Jones, A., Green, J.S., Schwing- shackl, C.W.: Modelling the nonlinear behaviour of an underplatform damper test rig for turbine applications. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 85, 662–679 (2017). https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2016.09.007 16. Lacayo, R., Pesaresi, L., Groß, J., Fochler, D., Armand, J., Salles, L., Schwingshackl, C., Allen, M., Brake, M.: Non- linear modeling of structures with bolted joints: a compar- ison of two approaches based on a time-domain and frequency-domain solver. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 114, 413–438 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2018.05. 033 17. Li, D., Xu, C., Liu, T., Gola, M.M., Wen, L.: A modified IWAN model for micro-slip in the context of dampers for turbine blade dynamics. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 121, 14–30 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2018.11.002 18. Sinou, J.J., Didier, J., Faverjon, B.: Stochastic non-linear response of a flexible rotor with local non-linearities. Int. J. Non-Linear Mech. 74, 92–99 (2015). https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2015.03.012 19. Panunzio, A.M., Salles, L., Schwingshackl, C.W.: Uncer- tainty propagation for nonlinear vibrations: a non-intrusive approach. J. Sound Vib. 389, 309–325 (2017). https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jsv.2016.09.020 20. Sun, Y., Yuan, J., Pesaresi, L., Denimal, E., Salles, L.: Parametric study and uncertainty quantification of the nonlinear modal properties of frictional dampers. J. Vib. Acoust. 142(5), 051102 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1115/1. 4046953 21. Yuan, J., Fantetti, A., Denimal, E., Bhatnagar, S., Pesaresi, L., Schwingshackl, C., Salles, L.: Propagation of friction parameter uncertainties in the nonlinear dynamic response of turbine blades with underplatform dampers. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 156, 107673 (2021). https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ymssp.2021.107673 22. Metropolis, N., Ulam, S.: The monte carlo method. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 44(247), 335–341 (1949). https://doi.org/10. 1080/01621459.1949.10483310 23. Butlin, T.: Anti-optimisation for modelling the vibration of locally nonlinear structures: an exploratory study. J. Sound Vib. 332(26), 7099–7122 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jsv.2013.06.028 24. Butlin, T., Ghaderi, P., Spelman, G., Midgley, W.J.B., Umehara, R.: A novel method for predicting the response variability of friction-damped gas turbine blades. J. Sound Vib. 440, 372–398 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv. 2018.10.013 25. Butlin, T., Spelman, G., Ghaderi, P., Midgley, W.J.B., Umehara, R.: Predicting response bounds for friction- damped gas turbine blades with uncertain friction coupling. J. Sound Vib. 440, 399–411 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jsv.2018.08.037 26. Mitsopoulou, E.N., Doudoumis, I.N.: A contribution to the analysis of unilateral contact problems with friction. Solid Mech. Arch. 12(3), 165–186 (1987) 27. Klarbring, A.: Examples of non-uniqueness and non-exis- tence of solutions to quasistatic contact problems with friction. Ing. Arch. 60(8), 529–541 (1990). https://doi.org/ 10.1007/BF00541909 28. Barber, J.R., Klarbring, A., Ciavarella, M.: Shakedown in frictional contact problems for the continuum. Comptes Rendus Mécanique 336(1–2), 34–41 (2008). https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.crme.2007.10.013 29. Ponter, A.R.: Shakedown limit theorems for frictional contact on a linear elastic body. Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids 60, 17–27 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euromechsol.2016. 05.003 30. Flicek, R.C., Brake, M.R., Hills, D.A., Barber, J.R.: Pre- dicting the shakedown limits of joints subject to fretting and high cycle fatigue. In: The Mechanics of Jointed Structures, pp. 561–582. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-319-56818-8_31 31. Flicek, R.C., Brake, M.R.W., Hills, D.A.: Predicting a contact’s sensitivity to initial conditions using metrics of frictional coupling. Tribol. Int. 108, 95–110 (2017). https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2016.09.038 32. Yang, B.D., Menq, C.H.: Characterization of contact kine- matics and application to the design of wedge dampers in turbomachinery blading: part 1—stick-slip contact kine- matics. J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 120(2), 410–417 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2818138 33. Yang, B.D., Menq, C.H.: Characterization of contact kine- matics and application to the design of wedge dampers in turbomachinery blading: part 2—prediction of forced response and experimental verification. J. Eng. Gas Tur- bines Power 120(2), 418–423 (1998). https://doi.org/10. 1115/1.2818139 34. Zucca, S., Botto, D., Gola, M.M.: Range of variability in the dynamics of semi-cylindrical friction dampers for turbine blades. In: Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo 2008: Power for Land, Sea, and Air. Volume 5: Structures and Dynamics, Parts A and B. Berlin, Germany, pp. 519–529 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1115/GT2008-51058 35. Firrone, C.M., Zucca, S., Gola, M.M.: The effect of underplatform dampers on the forced response of bladed disks by a coupled static/dynamic harmonic balance 123 7872 E. Ferhatoglu et al. https://doi.org/10.1115/GT2012-68578 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2008.03.008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2008.03.008 https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1385830 https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1385830 https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2903845 https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2903845 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2011.10.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2016.06.015 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2016.06.015 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2016.09.007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2016.09.007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2018.05.033 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2018.05.033 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2018.11.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2015.03.012 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2015.03.012 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2016.09.020 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2016.09.020 https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4046953 https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4046953 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2021.107673 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2021.107673 https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1949.10483310 https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1949.10483310 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2013.06.028 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2013.06.028 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2018.10.013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2018.10.013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2018.08.037 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2018.08.037 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00541909 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00541909 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crme.2007.10.013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crme.2007.10.013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euromechsol.2016.05.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euromechsol.2016.05.003 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56818-8_31 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56818-8_31 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2016.09.038 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2016.09.038 https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2818138 https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2818139 https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2818139 https://doi.org/10.1115/GT2008-51058 method. Int. J. Non-Linear Mech. 46(2), 363–375 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2010.10.001 36. Zucca, S., Firrone, C.M., Gola, M.:Modeling underplatform dampers for turbine blades: a refined approach in the fre- quency domain. J. Vib. Control 19(7), 1087–1102 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1177/1077546312440809 37. Zucca, S., Firrone, C.M.: Nonlinear dynamics of mechani- cal systems with friction contacts: coupled static and dynamic multi-harmonic balance method and multiple solutions. J. Sound Vib. 333(3), 916–926 (2014). https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jsv.2013.09.032 38. Ferhatoglu, E., Zucca, S., Botto, D., Auciello, J., Arcangeli, L.: Nonlinear vibration analysis of turbine bladed disks with Midspan Dampers. J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 144(4), 041021 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4053107 39. Gastaldi, C., Gross, J., Scheel, M., Berruti, T.M., Krack, M.: Modeling complex contact conditions and their effect on blade dynamics. J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 143(1), 011007 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4049186 40. Ferhatoglu, E., Zucca, S.: Determination of periodic response limits among multiple solutions for mechanical systems with wedge dampers. J. Sound Vib. 494, 115900 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2020.115900 41. Ferhatoglu, E., Groß, J., Krack, M.: Frequency response variability in friction-damped structures due to non-unique residual tractions: obtaining conservative bounds using a nonlinear-mode-based approach. Mech. Syst. Signal Pro- cess. 201, 110651 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp. 2023.110651 42. Ferhatoglu, E., Zucca, S.: On the non-uniqueness of friction forces and the systematic computation of dynamic response boundaries for turbine bladed disks with contacts. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 160, 107917 (2021). https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ymssp.2021.107917 43. Ferhatoglu, E., Gastaldi, C., Botto, D., Zucca, S.: An experimental and computational comparison of the dynamic response variability in a turbine blade with under-platform dampers. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 172, 108987 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2022.108987 44. Ferhatoglu, E., Botto, D., Zucca, S.: An experimental investigation on the dynamic response variability of a tur- bine blade with mid-span dampers. J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power GTP-22-1373. 145(1), 011002. https://doi.org/10. 1115/1.4055494. 45. Szwedowicz, J., Secall-Wimmel, T., Dünck-Kerst, P.: Damping performance of axial turbine stages with loosely assembled friction bolts: the nonlinear dynamic assessment. J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power (2008). https://doi.org/10.1115/ 1.2838998 46. Drozdowski, R., Völker, L., Häfele, M., Vogt, D.M.: Experimental and numerical investigation of the nonlinear vibrational behavior of steam turbine last stage blades with friction bolt damping elements. In: Turbo Expo: Power for Land, Sea, and Air, vol. 56796, p. V008T26A007. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (2015). https://doi.org/10. 1115/GT2015-42244. 47. Craig JR, R.R., Bampton, M.C.C.: Coupling of substruc- tures for dynamic analyses. AIAA J. 6(7), 1313–1319 (1968). https://doi.org/10.2514/3.4741 48. Krack, M., Gross, J.: Harmonic Balance for Nonlinear Vibration Problems, vol. 1. Springer International Publish- ing, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030- 14023-6 49. Cameron, T.M., Griffin, J.H.: An alternating frequency/time domain method for calculating the steady-state response of nonlinear dynamic systems. J. Appl. Mech. 56(1), 149–154 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3176036 50. Siewert, C., Panning, L., Wallaschek, J., Richter, C.: Mul- tiharmonic forced response analysis of a turbine blading coupled by nonlinear contact forces. J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 132(8), 082501 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1115/1. 4000266 51. Siewert, C., Panning, L., Gerber, C., Masserey, P.A.: Numerical and experimental damping prediction of a non- linearly coupled low pressure steam turbine blading. In: Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo 2008: Power for Land, Sea, and Air. Volume 5: Structures and Dynamics, Parts A and B. Berlin, Germany. pp. 531–542 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1115/GT2008-51073. 52. Chen, J., Zang, C., Zhou, B., Petrov, E.P.: High-fidelity calculation of modal damping caused by friction at blade roots for single blades and tuned bladed disc assemblies. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C J. Mech. Eng. Sci. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/0954406220935144 53. Byrd, R.H., Hribar, M.E., Nocedal, J.: An interior point algorithm for large-scale nonlinear programming. SIAM J. Optim. 9(4), 877–900 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1137/ S1052623497325107 54. Byrd, R.H., Gilbert, J.C., Nocedal, J.: A trust region method based on interior point techniques for nonlinear program- ming. Math. Program. 89, 149–185 (2000). https://doi.org/ 10.1007/PL00011391 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 123 Parametric study for model calibration of a friction-damped turbine blade with multiple test… 7873 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2010.10.001 https://doi.org/10.1177/1077546312440809 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2013.09.032 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2013.09.032 https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4053107 https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4049186 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2020.115900 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2023.110651 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2023.110651 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2021.107917 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2021.107917 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2022.108987 https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4055494 https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4055494 https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2838998 https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2838998 https://doi.org/10.1115/GT2015-42244 https://doi.org/10.1115/GT2015-42244 https://doi.org/10.2514/3.4741 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14023-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14023-6 https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3176036 https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4000266 https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4000266 https://doi.org/10.1115/GT2008-51073 https://doi.org/10.1177/0954406220935144 https://doi.org/10.1137/S1052623497325107 https://doi.org/10.1137/S1052623497325107 https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00011391 https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00011391 Parametric study for model calibration of a friction-damped turbine blade with multiple test data Abstract Introduction Test rig: a turbine blade with mid-span dampers Main components Measurement procedures Test results Linear characteristics of the stand-alone blade Measurement of multiple nonlinear responses and contact forces Computational background Finite element model and governing equations Response variability and computation of limits with an optimization algorithm Correlation of the results and model calibration Estimation of initial values for tangential contact stiffness and coefficient of friction Calibration of the linear model Calibration of the nonlinear model Iteration 1 Iteration 2 Iteration 3 Iteration 4 Summary and conclusion Open Access References