Original Article

Proc IMechE Part A:

J Power and Energy
An improved model for tip clearance 2018, Vol. 232(4) 295–314
! IMechE 2017

loss in transonic axial compressors Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0957650917736453
journals.sagepub.com/home/pia

Shubo Ye1, Qingjun Zhao2, Weiwei Cui2, Guang Xi1

and Jianzhong Xu2

Abstract
An improved compressible model for estimating tip clearance loss in transonic compressors is presented with the
emphasis on the effects of blade tip loading distribution and double leakage flow. Tip clearance flow is treated as
three parts along the chord and the progressive relations from upstream to downstream part is revealed to be respon-
sible for the formation of tip clearance flow. Control volume method is applied to simplify the mixing process and
calculate the mixed-out loss for the three parts, separately. Computational study shows that mass flow of the incoming
flow entering the control volume is consistent with that passing through an equivalent area of about half of tip leakage
vortex region. The new model reveals that the second part of tip clearance flow has a larger mixed-out loss capacity than
the two other parts. This difference is attributed to two factors: larger injection flow angle and more enrolled incoming
flow, and both factors tend to increase the mixed-out loss. The success of the model implies that blade design or flow
control strategies turning the tip clearance/main flow interface’s arrival onto blade tip pressure side downstream and the
shock’s impingement point onto blade tip suction side upstream may be beneficial in desensitizing compressor perform-
ance to tip clearance size, without trading off pressure rise.

Keywords
Air-breathing engines, axial flow compressors, compressor aerodynamics, leakage flow

Date received: 30 July 2016; accepted: 5 September 2017

I. Introduction
The effects of tip clearance on compressor efficiency
have been extensively documented. Freeman1 quotes
a 1.4% drop in efficiency for a 1% (of blade height)
increment of tip clearance, for a representative aero-
engine compressor. Denton2 suggests that nearly one-
third of the loss in rotors is contributed by the flow in
tip region. According to investigations by Storer and
Cumpsty,3 tip clearance loss constitutes about 10%
total loss, which corresponds to approximately 1%
decrement in overall efficiency for well-designed com-
pressors. Recently, the variation of compressor effi-
ciency with rotor tip gap has been assessed by
Sakulkaew4 and Pranay5 using numerical simulations.
The results reveal that within the scope of medium tip
gaps, the efficiency decreases approximately on a
linear basis with increasing tip gap. Nevertheless,
within the scope of small tip gaps, the variation of
compressor overall efficiency is nonmonotonic due
to the competing effects for loss generation associated
with casing shear and mixing out of clearance flow.
Several analytical models of tip clearance flow/loss
have been proposed. Chen6 developed a model that
estimates the trajectory of tip leakage vortex. Chima7
analyzed the path of the vortex core in a transonic
compressor rotor. Good agreement between the cal-
culations, measurements and Chen’s model tends to
verify that tip clearance flow is driven by the pressure
difference across the tip gap. A simple theory, put
forward by Denton,2 estimates tip clearance loss
based on the entropy production due to the mixing
of leakage jet with the mainstream flow. Based on
Rains’ work,8 Storer proposed a simple model for
tip clearance flow.9 By assuming inviscid, incompress-
ible flow, infinitely thin blades, the velocity of the
leakage jet where it leaves the tip gap is described as
1
School of Energy and Power Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University,
Xi’an, China
2
Institute of Engineering Thermophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Beijing, China
Corresponding author:
Qingjun Zhao, Key Laboratory of Light-duty Gas-turbine, Chinese
Academy of Sciences; University of Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Beijing 100190, China.
Email: zhaoqingjun@iet.cn
296
a function of its total pressure and the local static
pressure on the suction side of the tip. Moreover, an
empirical discharge coefficient is used to account for
the vena-contracta effect.
Actually, the entropy production associated with
tip clearance flow is contributed by two processes:
one is stagnation pressure loss in the tip gap due to
casing shear and vena-contracta effects, and the other
is the mixing loss of tip leakage flow with the main-
stream flow in blade passage. In modern high speed
compressors, tip clearance flow rate is much smaller
than the flow rate of main flow, thus compressor effi-
ciency decrement associated with tip clearance flow
can be approximately owed to the mixing loss.
Storer and Cumpsty9 applied control volume analysis
for the mixing of leakage jet with mainstream flow to
determine stagnation pressure loss associated with the
mixing process. The ability of this model demon-
strated that the magnitude of mixing loss mainly
depends on the conservation constraints rather than
the details of the flow process.
As for transonic compressors, the interaction
between tip leakage vortex and passage shock wave
acts as a dominant feature in tip region.10 The inter-
action has been demonstrated to have significant
influence on tip leakage vortex dynamics11,12 and
compressor performance.13–15 Puterbaugh illustrated
the phenomenological features of the interaction,
which appears as a wake-like nature of the vortex in
both upstream and downstream region of the shock.16
A simple model successfully predicts the kinematic
and thermodynamic properties in the interaction
region, proving that the interaction is fundamentally
the result of the change in kinetic energy caused by the
shock-induced pressure rise.15 Adamczyk et al.17
investigated the effects of tip clearance on the per-
formance and endwall flow structure of a transonic
fan rotor. Du et al.18 investigated the flow structures
in tip region of a transonic compressor rotor. Both
numerical and experimental results indicate that tip
leakage flow along the blade chord can be divided
into two parts according to the blade loading distri-
bution, and each part plays a different role in stall
inception mechanism.
Recently, some qualitative guidelines have been
proven to be beneficial in desensitizing compressor
performance to tip clearance size. Seshadri et al.19
stated that moving tip loading towards the trailing
edge would lower the sensitivity of efficiency to tip
clearance increase. Erler et al.20 performed parametric
studies of various design change and concluded two
features associated with reducing sensitivity to tip
clearance, namely high incoming meridional momen-
tum in tip region and reduction/elimination of double
tip leakage. However, very few quantitative models
have been proposed for tip clearance loss estimation,
especially in transonic compressors. Although Storer9
presented an approximate approach for estimating tip
clearance loss based on incompressible flows
Proc IMechE Part A: J Power and Energy 232(4)
assumption, the effects of shock wave and double
leakage flow cannot be ignored in transonic compres-
sors. It is the lack of an improved model that motiv-
ates the present work.
This work attempts to develop a compressible tip
clearance loss model through computational and ana-
lytical study, and to identify the significant factors in
loss generation, explaining the flow mechanism for
performance desensitization to tip clearance size.
This paper is organized by three main parts. First,
we analyze the effects of the in-passage shock,
double leakage flow, tip leakage vortex (TLV) and
shock-induced boundary layer separation (SIBLS)
on blade tip loading and tip clearance flow distribu-
tions. A three-portion model is proposed to model
these effects. Second, we detect the mixing process
and identify the flow mechanism responsible for loss
generation based on control volume analysis. A new
method for determining the enrolled incoming flow is
developed according to the tip leakage vortex fea-
tures, and the effect of double leakage flow on stag-
nation pressure distribution of tip clearance flow is
successfully included in the model. Third, the ability
of the improved model is assessed compared with
computational results and the significant factors
affecting the prediction accuracy are investigated.
Based on the quantitative study on tip clearance
loss, we suggest some blade design and flow control
strategy for tip clearance desensitization and perform-
ance improvement.
Numerical methods and validation
Computational domain setup
A transonic axial compressor rotor, NASA Rotor 37,
was used for the present work. The rotor was origin-
ally designed as an inlet rotor for a core compressor
and tested at NASA Lewis Research Center in the late
1970s.21 The specification of the rotor is summarized
in Table 1. The rotor was re-tested in a single-stage
compressor facility and measured using pneumatic
probes and laser anemometer systems, which was
described in Suder and Celestina.11 These experimen-
tal data were used to validate different CFD codes.22
In the present work, we also apply these experimental
data to validate our numerical methods.
Single blade passage is chosen as the computational
domain and the rotationally periodical surfaces are
generated automatically by meshing software Ansys
TurboGrid. The axial scope of computational
domain is decided according to the measured locations
in Suder and Celestina.11 As shown in Figure 1, the
inflow boundary of the domain is located 4.19 cm
upstream from the blade leading edge at the hub,
and the outflow boundary of the domain is located
10.67 cm downstream from the blade leading edge at
the hub. For the baseline case with tip clearance of
0.356 mm, the hub and casing locations are the same
Ye et al.
Table 1. Design specification of Rotor 37.
Mass flow (kg/s)
Rotation speed (rpm)
Total pressure ratio
Polytropic efficiency
Relative Mach number at rotor tip inlet
Relative Mach number at rotor hub inlet
Figure 1. Computational domain for the present work.
as that documented in Dunham.22 In practical com-
pressor operations, tip clearance size fluctuates
because of the uncertainty in metal expansion effects
of blade, hub and casing.23 In the present work,
what we are concerned about is the additional loss
associated with increasing tip clearance size, and we
obtained tip clearance loss by comparing the stagna-
tion pressure loss of the larger clearance case with
that of smaller clearance case. To avoid the effects of
blade expansion on clearance flow and loss, we keep
the hub and blade fixed, while moving the casing in
the radial direction to obtain the effective magni-
tudes of tip clearance. Three magnitudes of tip clear-
ance were chosen for research, namely the small tip
clearance (0.54% of blade height), medium tip clear-
ance (1.0% of blade height), and large tip clearance
(1.5% of blade height).
The computational mesh topology was chosen to
be J-mesh for the blade passage, as shown in
Figure 2(a). The mesh is divided into several blocks
along the local blade surface curvature to acquire
better mesh quality, and a block of O-grid is included
near the blade surface. We have also tested other
types of mesh topology and found that the J-mesh
can be used to generate better grid (in terms of edge
length ratio, orthogonality and aspect ratio) with an
acceptable node number. Non periodical connection
is applied for the mesh inside the clearance, as shown
in Figure 2(b). To meet the resolution requirements,
the minimum grid spacing on solid walls was less than
1  106 m, and the yþ in the first cell from the solid
walls was less than 1.
297
20.19 Tip swirl speed (m/s) 454
17188.7 Tip clearance (mm) 0.356
2.106 Tip solidity 1.288
0.889 Aspect ratio 1.19
1.48 Hub-tip ratio at rotor inlet 0.7
1.13 Blade number 36
Numerical method and mesh independency
The numerical simulations were performed using a
commercial three-dimensional CFD solver, Ansys
CFX 14.0. This solver is based on finite volume
method and can be used to solve compressible
Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) equa-
tions, with a pressure-based, coupled implicit algo-
rithm. The CFX solver has been demonstrated to
be capable of providing accurate assessments of the
overall performance and secondary flow features of a
15-stage compressor, in case that fine mesh and
second-order accurate advection model are applied.24
Besides, the solver has been applied to numerically
investigate tip leakage flow in both subsonic4 and
transonic axial compressors.10 The computational
results match well with the corresponding measure-
ments in both overall performance and flow structures
in tip region, which also proves that CFX is an ade-
quate tool for computing flow and assess the effects of
tip clearance in axial compressors.
In the present work, a second-order accurate Total
Variation Diminishing (TVD) scheme was used to
evaluate the advection terms except for the turbulence
equations (discretized by the first order upwind
scheme). The viscous term was determined in a central
difference manner. All the governing equations (con-
tinuity, energy, momentum, turbulence equations)
were solved with a convergence criterion of 6 orders
of magnitude reduction. Due to the high Reynolds
number (1.0  106  1.5  106 based on relative
velocity and chord), the boundary layers can be
assumed to be fully turbulent such that the boundary
layer transition model was not used. The circumfer-
ential sides of the single-passage domain were set
as rotational periodicity boundary, and no slip, adia-
batic wall boundary conditions were used for the solid
surfaces. Profiles of total pressure, total temperature,
and flow direction at the inlet of the domain were
consistent with the available experimental data.22
Steady computations were performed by presetting
the exit pressure according to a radial equilibrium
law initially at near choke operation conditions and
gradually increasing it by a constant increment,
namely 1% of total pressure at the inlet.
In order to ensure the computations independent of
grid distribution, mesh studies were conducted by
increasing and decreasing the mesh size proportionally
298
Figure 2. Computational mesh for single blade passage. (a) J-mesh topology including O-grid for blade passage. (b) Non-periodical
connection grid inside tip clearance.
(a)
Figure 3. Computed overall performance for refining mesh. (a) Isentropic efficiency. (b) Total pressure ratio.
in every direction. Here we present the computed per-
formance of five refined grid with different node num-
bers, namely 1.24, 1.64, 2.09, 2.58, 3.10 million nodes.
We compared both the overall performance (isentropic
efficiency, total pressure ratio) and tip clearance flow
properties (leakage mass flow, leakage flow angle), as
shown in Figures 3 and 4. As for the solution of 3.10
and 2.58 million nodes, the difference of isentropic effi-
ciency is less than 0.1%, and that of total pressure ratio
is less than 0.2%. The difference of leakage mass flow is
less than 0.3%, and that of tip leakage flow angle is less
than 0.1%. Thus we can conclude that the grid of 2.58
million nodes is sufficient for capturing both overall
performance and tip clearance flow properties, with
an acceptable node number and computation cost.
Therefore, we have chosen the grid of 2.58 million
Proc IMechE Part A: J Power and Energy 232(4)
(b)
nodes for detailed computations and analysis. The
grid points of the chosen mesh are distributed as fol-
lows. The passage block has 111 streamwise nodes, 64
circumferential nodes, and 118 nodes from hub to
casing. There are 29 nodes inside the O-grid for blade
passage. The changing tip clearance was modeled using
21 to 59 radial nodes clustered towards the casing. The
inlet block has 29 streamwise nodes, and the outlet
block has 53 streamwise nodes.
Validations and turbulence model effects
To assess the capability of the numerical methods, we
quote the available measurements and introduce the
measurement uncertainties as criterion for perform-
ance comparisons. According to the experimental
Ye et al.
(a)
Figure 4. Computed tip clearance flow properties for refining mesh. (a) Tip clearance mass flow. (b) Tip leakage flow angle.
(a)
Figure 5. Comparison of computed performance using different turbulence models. (a) Adiabatic efficiency. (b) Total pressure ratio.
procedure,25 the measurement uncertainties are: mass
flow 0.3 kg/s, flow angle 1.0 , total pressure
0.01 N/cm2, and total temperature 0.6 K. The
overall performance was calculated by averaging
total pressure and temperature according to the aero-
dynamic measurements acquired at the upstream and
downstream stations. Specifically, the radial distribu-
tions of total temperature were mass averaged across
the annulus, while those of total pressure were energy
averaged by converting them to their enthalpy equiva-
lents and then mass averaging them across the annulus.
Based on the propagation of uncertainty analysis out-
lined by Kline and McClintock,26 Suder25 calculated
the uncertainty band for a 95% confidence interval,
namely total pressure ratio 0.025, total temperature
ratio 0.0037, and adiabatic efficiency 0.01.
We have performed simulations using several turbu-
lence models, and quoted the uncertainty bands calcu-
lated by Suder to assess the turbulence model effects, as
shown in Figure 5. The k! model27 and k" model
predict similar adiabatic efficiency, roughly within the
accuracy range of the measurements. While the shear
stress transport (SST) model28 predicts adiabatic
299
(b)
(b)
efficiency much lower than the experimental data by
about 3.1% at near peak efficiency point. As for total
pressure ratio, the predictions of k  " model are closer
to the experimental data, and those of k  ! model and
SST model locate evidently outside of the accuracy
range of the measurements. Specifically, the k  !
model predicts total pressure ratio larger than the
experimental data by 2.8–3.4%, and the SST model’s
predictions are smaller than the experimental data by
1.4–2.2%. All the three models predict choking mass
flow very well within 0.2% of experimental value of
20.93 kg/s, namely 20.948 kg/s for k  ! model,
20.967 kg/s for k  " model, and 20.951 kg/s for SST
model.
Actually, Rotor 37 was chosen as the ASME spon-
sored blind test case22 to assess the capability of
different CFD codes in predicting the flow field in a
transonic compressor. Most of the CFD codes over-
predict the total pressure and total temperature down-
stream of the rotor, and the predictions of adiabatic
efficiency are either higher or lower than the experi-
mental data. Denton29 discussed the test results and
provided possible explanations for the discrepancy
300
between the simulations and experimental data.
The experimental weighting gives a higher efficiency
than simulations because it neglects the high loss
regions in the annulus boundary layers, where no
aerodynamic probe was arranged. The over-predic-
tion of total pressure ratio and temperature ratio is
probably due to too thin boundary layers at the trail-
ing edge, which implies too low deviation of flow at
the trailing edge.
In the present work, what we are concerned about is
the loss generation in tip region and the effects of vary-
ing tip clearance size. Therefore, we pay more atten-
tion on the flow structure and local flow properties in
tip region. Detailed comparison of tip clearance flow
behavior predicted by different turbulence models are
presented in Appendix 1. Compared with the available
experimental data,11 the k  ! model and k  " model
capture the tip clearance flow behavior and the asso-
ciated mixing process in Rotor 37 better than SST
model, although the SST model generally gives more
accurate predictions of the onset and the amount of
flow separation under adverse pressure gradients. We
finally chose k  ! model for the present work, which
is due to its advantage in predicting boundary layer
separations compared with k  " model. Besides, the
k  ! formulation is the near wall treatment for low-
Reynolds number computations, and the model does
not involve the complex nonlinear damping functions
required for the k  " model and is therefore more
accurate and more robust.
In order to evaluate the variation of tip clearance
loss without including the effects of other source of
loss in the blade passage, we chose the peak efficiency
point at each performance curve for detailed compari-
sons. Figure 6 shows the performance curves of the
cases with difference magnitudes to tip clearance, and
the black dots represent for the operation conditions
applied to calculate total pressure loss with increasing
tip clearance.
(a)
Figure 6. Comparison of computed performance for cases with increasing tip clearance. (a) Adiabatic efficiency. (b) Total
pressure ratio.
Proc IMechE Part A: J Power and Energy 232(4)
Modeling of tip clearance
flow distribution
According to the previous study, tip clearance flow is
driven by the blade tip loading. Specifically, the vel-
ocity of tip clearance flow is determined by total pres-
sure near blade tip pressure side and static pressure
near blade tip suction side.3 Thus we defined the ratio
of relative total pressure at pressure side to static pres-
sure at suction side as the blade tip loading (as shown
in equation (1)), which is responsible for the forma-
tion of tip clearance flow. This section concentrates on
the flow process inside tip gap and reveals the quan-
titative relations between blade tip loading and tip
clearance flow. Computational flow field of Rotor
37 at peak efficiency operations is applied to present
detailed distribution of tip clearance flow and blade
tip loading and discuss the relations between them.
Pt,PS ð  1Þ 
Lt ¼ ¼ ð1 þ Ma2 Þ1 ð1Þ
Ps,SS 2
Figure 7 shows the chord-wise distributions of
clearance flow for different tip gap sizes. The relative
total pressure of clearance flow appears to be step-
type along the chord, with a sudden drop at about
0.4 chord position. Actually, tip leakage flow leaves
blade suction surface near the leading edge, rolling
into tip leakage vortex, and travels towards the pres-
sure surface of the adjacent blade. The low stagnation
pressure region associated with tip leakage vortex
interacts with the blade pressure surface, which evi-
dently reduces the stagnation pressure of tip clearance
flow originating from the rear portion of blade tip.
Although the low stagnation pressure region extends
with increasing tip gap size, the step point of relative
total pressure in Figure 7(a) seems to be non-sensitive
to tip clearance variation. The static pressure of
clearance flow for different tip gap sizes shows
approximately consistent trend, with a step point at
(b)
Ye et al.
(a)
Figure 7. Chordwise distribution of clearance jet for different magnitudes of tip clearance (All the data obtained at the radial
position of 50% tip gap size from the casing). (a) Relative total pressure (normalized by stagnation pressure at the inlet). (b) Static
pressure (normalized by stagnation pressure at the inlet).
Figure 8. Schematic of tip clearance flow along the chord.
0.6–0.7 chord position. The step points in Figure 7(b)
correspond to the impinging points of in-passage
shock on the blade suction surface. As the step
point of stagnation pressure locates prior to that of
static pressure, blade tip loading and thus tip clear-
ance flow can be roughly divided into three parts with
the two step points as boundary locations.
According to the above analysis, a schematic of
tip clearance flow along the chord can be shown in
Figure 8. The two interacting points are denoted by
point E & A. The three portions of tip clearance flow
are represented by segment P1, P2 & P3, and velocity
triangles are shown schematically for three typical
positions, respectively. The flow carried into tip clear-
ance has the same velocity parallel to the camber line
direction as the free-stream flow near the pressure
surface at that chord-wise position, denoted by Vs .
Meanwhile, the flow emerging from the clearance
has a stream-wise component of velocity Vs as well
as a perpendicular component Vl . Regardless of the
effects of vena-contracta and boundary shear layer,
stagnation pressure would be conservative between
301
(b)
the flow carried into the gap and the flow emerging
from the gap. When blade tip loading distribution is
given, we can obtain the Mach number of the tip
clearance flow using equation (1). And then the
static temperature is calculated by equation (2), as
well as other flow properties of tip clearance flow.
The stream-wise component is the same as that near
blade tip pressure side, and thus the perpendicular
component is calculated by equation (3). The mixing
angle between tip clearance flow and the main flow is
expressed as equation (4).
ð  1Þ
Ts ¼ Tt,PS =ð1 þ Ma2 Þ ð2Þ
2
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Vl ¼ V2  V2s ¼ Rg Ts Ma2  V2s,PS ð3Þ
Vl
tan  ¼ ð4Þ
Vs
To identify the distribution features of tip clear-
ance flow, we compared the mass averaged flow prop-
erties of different portions, as shown in Figure 9.
We can see from Figure 9(a) that the velocity of tip
clearance flow turns smaller from Part 1 to Part 3,
which is due to a decrement of blade tip loading
along the chord. It also shows that tip clearance
flow velocity is approximately insensitive to tip clear-
ance size variation, which means blade tip loading
nearly independent of tip clearance size. Figure 9(b)
shows that the second part of tip clearance flow
has a larger angle than the two other parts for
all the tip clearance sizes. It can be explained that,
compared with Part 1, the velocity decrement of
Part 2 is mainly attributed to the decrement
of stream-wise component, while that of Part 3 results
from a decrement of both stream-wise and perpen-
dicular component.
302 Proc IMechE Part A: J Power and Energy 232(4)

(a) 1.5 (b) 125

STC

Tip Clearance Flow Angle(degree)

MTC STC
120 MTC

Tip Clearance Flow Velocity

LTC
LTC
1 115

110

0.5 105

100

0 95
Part1 Part2 Part3 Part1 Part2 Part3

Figure 9. Mass averaged properties of different parts of tip clearance flow. (a) Flow velocity (normalized by blade tip speed). (b) Flow
angle (relative to axial direction).

(a) (b)

Figure 10. Radial distribution of tip clearance flow at three typical positions for LTC case. (a) Normalized stagnation pressure.
(b) Velocity normalized by blade tip speed.

Besides, we also detected the radial distribution of 0.2 chord position, and appears to be about 0.98 at
clearance flow within the gap, which is influenced by both 0.55 and 0.85 chord positions. As for other cases
the casing and blade tip boundary layer. Figure 10 with smaller tip clearance size presented in this paper,
compares the radial distribution of stagnation pressure the radial distribution of stagnation pressure is
and velocity inside the clearance at three typical chord- similarly affected by blade tip separation and vena-
wise positions. Both stagnation pressure and velocity contracta effect, and the appropriate value of CD
of the clearance flow keep roughly constant along the turns out to be approximately the same as the large
radial gap except for near casing or blade tip. At 0.2 tip clearance case. Therefore, we imposed the same
chord position, the stagnation pressure shows a sharp value of CD in modeling of the cases with different
drop towards blade tip within the extent of about 0.2 tip clearance size. Similarly, Storer3 introduced a
tip clearance size away from blade tip, while a moder- discharge coefficient of 0.8 in their model, and that
ate variation of stagnation pressure inside tip clearance value was proved to best fit with the experimental
is shown at 0.55 and 0.85 chord position. results. The discrepancy of appropriate value of CD
To account for the effects of stagnation pressure is probably due to different tip clearance size and
distribution in the radial direction, we introduced a blade tip thickness for different axial compressors.
discharge coefficient CD to determine the effective
magnitude of tip clearancee . Quantitatively, the e ¼ CD  ð5Þ
value of CD is calculated by comparing the stagnation R
pressure at mid-gap position to the integral mean Pt ds
CD ¼ ð6Þ
from blade tip to casing, as shown in equation (6). Pt,mid
Based on the computations for large tip clearance
case (1.5% span), the calculated CD is about 0.9 at m_ ¼ Vl e ð7Þ
Ye et al.
Based on the above analysis, we can roughly regard
tip clearance flow as three chord-wise portions, and
reasonably estimate the averaged flow properties of
each portion, on condition that the stagnation pres-
sure near blade tip pressure side and static pressure
near blade tip suction side are given precisely. In this
way, we can evaluate the effects of blade tip loading
on tip clearance flow distribution by using an analyt-
ical model, which has been expressed in terms of equa-
tions (1) to (7). On the other hand, the low stagnation
pressure fluid resulted from the mixing of tip leakage
flow with main flow travels towards blade tip pressure
surface, leading to a decrement of blade tip loading.
The following section will concentrate on the model-
ing of this mixing process.
Modeling of compressible mixing process
Control volume method has been applied in previous
studies to model tip clearance flow/main flow inter-
action15 and to estimate tip clearance loss.9 The bene-
fit of this method is that the averaged outflow
properties can be easily solved by conservation con-
straints without concerning about the detailed mixing
process, as soon as the inflow and mixing flow proper-
ties are appropriately given. As for application in
transonic compressors, there are several issues to
be dealt with. The first issue is how to evaluate the
effects of shock wave on the mixing process and the
associated loss generation. The second one is how to
identify the mass flow rate of the incoming flow
mixed-out with tip clearance flow. The third one is
how to determine the blade tip loading responsible
for the formation of tip clearance flow. This section
tries to figure out reasonable solutions for these issues
based on the three-portion model of tip clearance flow
proposed in the last section.
Fundamental physics of the mixing process
Similar to Puterbaugh’s study,15 we assumed the
interaction between tip leakage vortex and in-passage
shock wave to be inviscid, and the effects of the shock
can be interpreted as a result of the change in momen-
tum brought about by the shock-induced pressure
rise. We simplify the mixing process to a quasi-one-
dimensional diffusion flow with pressure rise and
injected mass flow, both upstream and downstream
of the shock, respectively. Then we modeled the diffu-
sion flow using control volume analysis. The sche-
matic diagram of the control volume model is
shown in Figure 11. Specifically, control volume
1(CV1) represents for the pre-shock mixing region,
mainly associated with the first part of tip clearance
flow, control volume 1(CV2) for the post-shock
mixing region associated with tip leakage vortex,
and control volume 1(CV3) for the mixing region
associated with the third part of tip clearance flow.
The reason for treating CV2 and CV3 separately is
303
Figure 11. Schematic diagram of the control volume model.
that the third part of tip clearance flow neither rolls
into vortex nor mixes out with the tip leakage vortex
downstream of the shock.
It is assumed that the incoming flow from the
upstream boundary and the injected mass flow have
fully mixed at the downstream boundary of the con-
trol volume. The conservation constraints of mass
flow, stream-wise momentum, and total enthalpy are
applied to control volumes, as expressed by equations
(8) to (10). The state equation for ideal gas, as shown
in equation (11), is also used to close the equations.
The averaged flow velocity at the outlet of the control
volume can be obtained by solving a quadratic equa-
tion deduced from the conservation constraints, and
then the loss in total pressure can be easily calculated,
as shown in equation (12). These conservation equa-
tions can be simplified to solve the post-shock param-
eters as the shock induced pressure rise is given.
In transonic compressor rotors, both main flow and
tip clearance flow are supersonic in the upstream
region of the in-passage shock, which means the two
flows and their mixed-out flow must be treated as
compressible fluid. The model solves the complete
governing equations for mixing process of compress-
ible flows, and captures the changes of density and
temperature from the volume inlet to outlet. In this
way, the improved model is essentially compressible.
m1 þ mi ¼ m2 ð8Þ
p1 þ p2
m1 V1  m2 V2 þ p1 A1  p2 A2 þ ðA2  A1 Þ ¼ 0
2
ð9Þ
m1 h01 þ mi h0i ¼ m2 h02 ð10Þ
p ¼ Rg T ð11Þ
m1 ðPt1  Pt2 Þ þ m3 ðPt3  Pt2 Þ
!¼ ð12Þ
mðPt,m  Ps,m Þ
Identification of the enrolled mass flow
The next key issue is how to identify the mass flow
entering the control volumes, which is significant in
304
determining loss generation in the control volume.
The following paragraphs will deal with this issue
based on computational study. Under the assumption
of inviscid flow, stagnation pressure loss is generated
in the mixing process due to the momentum inter-
action of tip clearance flow with the incoming flow,
and thus the mass flow of incoming flow taking part in
the mixing process is consistent with that interacting
with tip clearance flow. Figure 12 shows the relative
total pressure contours in tip region, and we can easily
observe the tip clearance/main flow mixing region
with a relatively lower stagnation pressure. It shows
that the mixing region appears as a three-dimensional
spiral vortex with half round cross profile, and the
vortex structure crosses the blade passage with an
expansion in magnitude. As a result, the mixing
region turns to be dramatically asymmetrical along
the circumferential direction, which means the flow
entering the mixing control volume cannot be
simply approximated to the total free-stream flow
within a certain distance away from the casing.
Instead, we provide a reasonable estimation of the
control volume inflow by relating it with the magni-
tude of the vortex size. In Figure 12, the black arc
represents the separation line between tip clearance
flow and the incoming flow, and the arrows represent
the schematic of the incoming flow. Although the com-
plete mixing vortex appears to be half round on the
cross flow slices, it is just about half of that (namely 1/4
round) resulting from the momentum interaction with
tip clearance flow, which has been discussed in the
authors’ previous study.30 As a result, we can approxi-
mate the incoming flow adding into the control volume
to that occupies half of the local vortex area increment
on the cross flow slice.
In terms of the accumulation effects, the mass flow
of the incoming flow entering the pre-shock control
Figure 12. Relative total pressure contours on cross-flow slices (normalized by the averaged value at the inlet).
Proc IMechE Part A: J Power and Energy 232(4)
volume (CV1) equals to that crosses through half of
the vortex area just before the shock front. As for
the post-shock region, the upstream vortex acts as a
velocity deficit, and the post-shock incoming flow
interacts with tip clearance flow. Therefore, the
flow entering CV2 is composed of two parts: one is
the mixed-out flow exiting CV1, and the other part
corresponds to the additional incoming flow with a
certain mass flow rate, as given in equation (13).
Similarly, the equivalent area of the additional incom-
ing flow equals to half of the vortex area increase from
shock front to the tip clearance/main flow interface’s
arrival onto blade pressure surface, and thus the mass
flow of that can be expressed as equation (14). Based
on the authors’ previous study,30 the vortex radius is
determined by the momentum balance of tip clearance
flow with incoming flow, as shown in equation (15),
and then the vortex area can be calculated by
equation (16).
m1CV2 ¼ m2CV1 þ maCV2 ð13Þ
1CV2 V1CV2 ðAvCV2  A2CV1,CV2 Þ
maCV2 ¼ ð14Þ
2
 
3 U1 j U1 j
l0 ¼ þ1  ð15Þ
2 U0 U0
1
Av ¼ l20 ð16Þ
2
As for mass injection, the three-part model of tip
clearance flow proposed in the last section is applied
to calculate the injected mass flow for the three control
volumes. In order to clarify the role of different parts of
tip clearance flow, we have compared the streamlines
of the three parts, as shown in Figure 13. The shock
Ye et al.
Figure 13. Forward streamlines of different parts of tip clearance flow (with relative total pressure contours on cross-flow slices).
front in tip region is denoted by a black line in the
figure. For the pre-shock mixing region (CV1), the
first part of tip clearance flow acts as mass injection,
while for the post-shock region, the second part of that
acts as mass injection to the tip leakage vortex region,
namely CV2. It is the third part of tip clearance flow
that acts as mass injection to CV3, where tip clearance
flow does not roll into vortex and the interaction
mainly takes place within one clearance size distance
away from the casing. It should be noticed that the
outer part of the third part of tip clearance flow travels
circumferentially over several blade passage and does
not mix into the main flow in the originating blade
passage, which implies less mixing loss in each passage.
Although the second part originates from blade tip
upstream of the shock, it does not interact with the
incoming flow until arriving at the tip clearance/main
flow interface at a position just post the shock.
Therefore, the second part is treated as an injected
mass into CV2, after a shock-induced deceleration.
Actually, the second part moves upstream as the com-
pressor is throttled towards near stall conditions, then
some of the second part may interact with the pre-
shock incoming flow. So it is a more general way to
treat the second part as two sub-portions: the upstream
one as injection to CV1 and the downstream one to
CV2. The boundary of the sub-portions depends on the
flow angle of the second part. As a result, the injected
mass flow for the control volumes can be expressed by
equations (17) to (19), respectively.
miCV1 ¼ mP1 þ mP2,CV1
miCV2 ¼ mP2,CV2
miCV3 ¼ mP3
Another issue is how to determine the blade tip
loading responsible for each part of tip clearance
305
flow. As shown in Figure 5, both stagnation and
static pressure of tip clearance flow show a step-type
chord-wise distribution, which is consistent with the
corresponding varying trend of flow near blade tip
pressure and suction surface. Thus quantitative rela-
tions for the stagnation and static pressure distribu-
tion are required to complete the model. Figure 14
shows the backward streamlines resulting in tip clear-
ance flow for each part. It shows that the backward
streamlines of the first part passes the incoming flow
region, and thus stagnation pressure for this part is
consistent with that of the post-shock incoming flow.
For the second part, although some of the backward
streamlines comes from the post-shock incoming flow
region, it has to pass the low-stagnation pressure
region before carried into tip clearance, which
can be also judged from the radial distribution of
stagnation pressure inside the clearance shown in
Figure 10(a). As a result, the stagnation pressure for
the second part is the same as the local value near
blade pressure side, which is approximately consistent
with that of the mixed flow exiting CV1. Similarly, the
stagnation pressure for the third part is assumed to be
the same as the mixed flow exiting CV2.
Estimation of blade tip loading distribution
In many cases, especially for high speed compressors,
tip leakage flow interacts with the pressure side of the
adjacent blade, inducing the origination of double
leakage flow, which shows a much lower total pres-
ð17Þ sure than the normal leakage flow. Khalid31 noticed
the reduction of clearance jet total pressure in the
ð18Þ measured plots of total pressure coefficient at blade
tip of a low-speed compressor. Khalid stated that this
ð19Þ reduction of total pressure in tip leakage flow changes
the leakage flow angle and thus leads to variation in
endwall blockage. Sirakov32 also proved the assump-
tion of Storer and Cumpsty in the original model that
306
Figure 14. Backward streamlines of different parts of tip clearance flow (with relative total pressure contours on cross-flow slices).
Figure 15. Comparison of different model’s ability in pre-
dicting chord-wise distribution of tip clearance flow relative
total pressure.
the tip fluid stagnation pressure is equal to the stag-
nation of the upstream and the main flow breaks
down as soon as double leakage flow occurs.
Sirakov’s study showed that the original model by
Storer and Cumpsty underestimated the loss in tip
region by up to 60%. In the improved model, the
stagnation pressure of Part 2 and Part 3 tip clearance
flow is consistent with the mixed-out flow of Part 1 tip
clearance flow with the main flow. In order to identify
the significance of stagnation pressure distribution on
tip clearance loss, we constructed the original model
A, in which all the modeling methods are the same as
the improved model except for the distribution of
stagnation pressure. The original model A applies
the assumption that the stagnation pressure of clear-
ance jet flow is equal to the main flow, as shown
in Figure 15.
Proc IMechE Part A: J Power and Energy 232(4)
On the other hand, the static pressure distribution
on the suction side of blade tip is very different from
the static pressure well away from the endwall, and is
affected by the leakage vortex (TLV)8 and the shock-
induced boundary layer separation (SIBLS).33
Although previous studies3,8 have revealed that the
clearance jet flow has the same static pressure as
blade suction surface at blade tip, the effects of
static pressure distribution at blade tip suction side
on tip clearance loss have seldom been investigated.
In transonic compressor rotors, both TLV and SIBLS
lead to a decrement of static pressure near blade tip
suction side and thus raise the driven force of clear-
ance jet flow. To account for the effects of TLV, we
introduce a discharge coefficient Cps to fit the aver-
aged static pressure of Part 1 tip clearance flow in the
improved model. The value of Cps is calculated by
comparing the area-averaged static pressure on the
first part of tip clearance with the static pressure of
the main flow, as shown in equation (10). We verified
the value of Cps for cases with difference tip clearance
sizes and found that 0.85 is appropriate for all the
cases. Although the value of Cps is only verified by
the computational flow field of Rotor 37, we can still
use it to investigate the influence of TLV-induced
pressure deficit on tip clearance loss. As for the
SIBLS-induced pressure deficit, we apply the empir-
ical correlation by Konig33 to obtain the shock-
induced pressure rise near blade suction side, as
shown in equations (22) and (23). The correlation
shown in equation (23) has been verified by tremen-
dous experimental data of transonic compressor blade
with Mach number ranging from 1.0 to 1.6, and thus
is confidently used in the improved model to account
for the SIBLS effects on static pressure distribution
near blade suction side. In order to identify the sig-
nificance of static pressure distribution on tip clear-
ance loss, we constructed the original model B, in
which all the modeling methods are the same as the
Ye et al. 307

improved model except for the distribution of static between tip clearance flow and the incoming flow. In
pressure. The original model B applies the assumption this model, the effects of shock is treated as inviscid
that the static pressure of clearance jet flow is equal to and modeled by a deceleration induced by pressure
the main flow, as shown in Figure 16. rise. A new method for determining the incoming
R flow entering control volumes has been developed
P1 Ps dA based on a new tip clearance vortex size model recently
Cps ¼ ð20Þ proposed by the authors. The method for determining
AP1 Ps,main
blade tip loading for each part of tip clearance flow has
Ps,P1 ¼Cps Ps,main ð21Þ been presented. In this way, we can finally establish an
analytical model to estimate tip clearance loss by com-
Pb 2 bining the mixing model with the three-part tip clear-
¼1þ ðMa2  1Þ  Pc ð22Þ ance flow model presented in the last section. The next
P þ1
section will validate the new model for tip clearance
Pc ¼  0:5  ðMa1  1Þ þ 0:64 ð23Þ loss and discuss possible design strategies for perform-
ance desensitization to tip clearance size variation.

In this section, we have proposed a compressible

mixing control volume model for the interaction
Figure 16. Comparison of different model’s ability in
predicting chord-wise distribution of tip clearance flow
static pressure.
Validations and discussions
The ability of the new model is assessed by comparing
the estimated tip clearance loss with the computational
results for Rotor 37 with different tip clearance size. In
order to obtain the tip clearance loss using the analyt-
ical model, some necessary parameters are provided
according to the computational results: the first one
is the position of the interface arrival onto blade pres-
sure surface, the second one is the impingement point
of the shock onto blade suction surface, and the third
one is the stream-wise distribution of pressure rise in
blade passage. That is to say, the boundaries of three
parts of tip clearance flow and the static pressure rise in
blade passage are known as input to the analytical
model. Actually, these three parameters represent
for the characteristic of compressor operation condi-
tions, and tip clearance loss varies with changing
operating point.
Figure 17 shows the estimated flow parameters of
different parts of tip clearance flow, compared with
the computational averaged values for each part.
The percentage errors between the clearance flow

(a) (b)

Figure 17. Mass averaged properties of different parts of tip clearance flow. (a) Mass flow (normalized by blade passage value).
(b) Flow angle (relative to axial direction).
308 Proc IMechE Part A: J Power and Energy 232(4)

properties predicted by the model and computational attributed to the large proportion of double leakage
values are listed in Tables 2 and 3. In Table 2, It shows flow, which has a large flow angle in the outer part of
that the errors of predicted mass flow of tip clearance tip gap and often travels several blade passages in the
flow are all below 10%, and most of errors in medium circumferential direction. In spite of a larger error of
tip clearance (MTC) and large tip clearance (LTC) clearance flow angle, Part 3 tip clearance flow occu-
cases appear to be within 5%, with relatively larger pies less than 10% of the total tip clearance loss and
errors for small tip clearance (STC) case. In Table 3, thus the impact on loss prediction is limited.
all of the errors of predicted clearance jet flow angles Based on the modeling methods proposed in the
are below 5%, and most of the errors for Part 1 and last chapter, we can validate the improved model
Part 2 tip clearance flow turn out to be within 2%, and explain the reasons for a better prediction in tip
while relatively larger errors for Part 3. The larger clearance loss. Figure 18 compares the predictions by
error in tip clearance mass flow for STC case is different models against the computational results,
mainly due to the increasingly sensitive radial distri- and Table 4 shows the percentage errors of tip
bution of stagnation pressure inside tip gap with clearance loss between model prediction and compu-
decreasing tip clearance size, while the model treats tational results. In order to avoid the effects of non-
this distribution effects using a constant discharge monotonic change of endwall loss (Sakulkaew et al.,4
coefficient CD for cases with different tip gap size. Seshadri et al.19) at tip clearance size below 0.5%
The larger error in clearance flow angle for Part 3 is span, we have chosen the STC case as the reference
condition for tip clearance loss calculation, instead of
the none-clearance case. The original model A does
Table 2. Relative errors of model predicted clearance mass
flow with computational values.
not account for the effects of double leakage flow on
stagnation pressure distribution and thus predicts
Error of mass much smaller clearance jet flow angles for Part 2
flow (%) Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 and Part 3, resulting in the mixing loss less than the
STC case 6.22 5.69 8.25 computations by 21–24%. The original model B
ignores the effects of TLV and SIBLS on static pres-
MTC case 5.22 0.97 2.28
sure distribution and predicts a little smaller clearance
LTC case 2.78 2.10 0.78
jet flow angles for Part 1 and Part 2, but much smaller
angle for Part 3, leading to the mixing loss less than
the computations by 17–22%. The improved model,
Table 3. Relative errors of model predicted clearance flow
including the two aspects of effects, predicts tip clear-
angle with computational values. ance loss by small errors within 3.0%, which is mainly
attributed to a better estimation of clearance jet flow
Error of flow angles. We can conclude from the comparisons that
angle (%) Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 the effects of double leakage flow, TLV and SIBLS are
STC case 1.27 1.95 1.40 comparably significant in tip clearance loss prediction,
MTC case 2.16 0.71 3.17 and the neglect of these effects can lead to an under-
estimation up to about 40%. We can also infer that
LTC case 0.22 0.48 4.63
blade design and flow control strategies in tip region

(a) (b)

Figure 18. Comparison of clearance jet flow angle and tip clearance loss predicted by different models. (a) Clearance jet flow angle
for the three part of tip clearance flow. (b) Tip clearance loss coefficient relative to STC case.
Ye et al. 309

that tend to relieve these effects will be benefit for tip increment as tip clearance size rises. The mixing loss
clearance desensitization and performance in CV3 only takes about 10% of the total loss. Due to
improvement. CV3’s small proportion, the effect of the flow angle
Figure 19 presents the improved model’s prediction underestimation mentioned in Figure 17(b) on total
of mixing loss coefficient taking place in each control mixing loss is limited.
volume, separately. It shows that the mixing loss In order to explore possible blade design strategies
increases approximately linearly with increasing tip to reduce tip clearance loss, we have performed
clearance size, no matter in which control volume. mixing loss distribution analysis based on the new
The mixing loss in CV1 and CV2 occupies most of model. Specifically, the mixing loss caused by unit
the total mixing loss, and shows a much faster injected mass flow and unit injection area is compared
among the three parts of tip clearance flow, as shown
Table 4. Comparison of the relative errors of the predicted in Figure 20. It shows that unit mass flow injected to
tip clearance loss by different models. CV3 generates much less mixing loss than that
injected to the two other control volumes, and the
Error of Original Original Improved injection to CV2 tends to result in the most loss. It
loss (%) model A model B model can be also judged that the mixing loss resulted from
MTC case 21.2 17.4 2.95 unit mass flow injection is approximately insensitive
LTC case 23.3 21.1 0.74 to tip clearance size variation, within the scope of the
present study. Actually, the boundary positions of the
three parts change as blade tip loading varies, leading
to a redistribution of the injection flow areas. To fur-
ther evaluate the loss generation capacity of the injec-
tion flow, we defined loss density as the mixing loss
associated with injected flow on unit area of tip clear-
ance. Figure 20(b) shows the loss density distribution.
It shows a similar distribution as that of the unit
injected mass flow, with the largest loss density asso-
ciated with the injection to CV2.
According to the above analysis, we can infer that
blade design and flow control strategies that lead to
less mass injection to CV2 will be most beneficial in
reducing tip clearance loss. Under the constraints of
the same pressure rise, it means turning the boundary
point of the two pre-shock parts downstream or that
of the second and third parts upstream. In other
words, it is probably a promising way of changing
tip clearance loss that we can shift the tip clearance
Figure 19. Mixing loss coefficient (normalized by the dynamic flow/main flow interface’s arrival onto blade tip pres-
pressure averaged over the whole inlet) for each part of tip sure side or the shock’s impingement point onto blade
clearance flow. tip suction side. Besides, the effects of double leakage

(a) (b)

Figure 20. Mixing loss distribution analysis. (a) Loss coefficient on unit injected mass flow. (b) Loss coefficient on unit injection area.
310
flow, TLV and SIBLS are the important reasons for
more tip clearance loss generation in transonic com-
pressors, and the relief in these effects will be promis-
ing in tip clearance desensitization and performance
improvement.
Conclusions
In this paper, computational and analytical study was
carried out to establish an improved model for tip
clearance loss in transonic compressors. Tip clearance
flow along the chord is divided into three parts
according to different flow features when mixing
with the incoming flow in the blade passage.
Control volume method is applied to model the
mixing process and calculate the mixing loss, using
conservation constraints to relate the mixed-out flow
with the incoming flow and mass injection. The suc-
cess of the model’s ability implies new blade design
strategies for reducing tip clearance loss. The main
conclusions in the present work are listed as follows:
1. In terms of the blade tip loading distribution, tip
clearance flow in transonic compressors can be
treated as three parts along the blade tip chord,
and these parts show a progressive relation from
upstream to downstream. The upstream part
mixes with incoming flow and results in low stag-
nation pressure fluid, which moves toward the
blade pressure side and determines the origination
of the downstream part of tip clearance flow.
2. The mass flow of incoming flow interacting with
tip clearance flow depends on the flow structure in
the mixing region. For the first and second part of
tip clearance flow, tip leakage vortex size deter-
mines the incoming flow taking part in the
mixing process. The area of upstream accumulated
incoming flow entering the control volume is
approximately consistent with half of the vortex
region.
3. Double leakage flow leads to a decrement of stag-
nation pressure of the clearance jet flow down-
stream of its originating point. Tip leakage
vortex reduces the static pressure of the forward
part of clearance jet flow, and shock-induced
boundary layer separation on suction surface at
blade tip reduces the static pressure of the post-
shock part of clearance jet flow. All of the three
factors lead to increment in driven force of clear-
ance jet flow, resulting in larger mixing angle and
loss. The overall contribution of the three aspects
of effects on tip clearance loss is up to 40% for the
present transonic compressor.
4. The second part of tip clearance flow shows a
larger mixed-out loss capacity for both unit
injected mass flow and unit injection area, com-
pared with the two other parts. It is attributed
to two reasons: one lies that the post-shock tip
leakage vortex size is evidently larger than
Proc IMechE Part A: J Power and Energy 232(4)
the pre-shock vortex size, the other is that the
second part of tip clearance flow injects into
blade passage with a larger angle than the two
other parts. Both the reasons contribute to a
larger mixed-out loss.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial
support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article: This work was sponsored by National
Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.
51406195) and National Key Research and Development
Program of China (No. 2016YFB0901402). These supports
are greatly acknowledged.
References
1. Freeman C. Tip clearance effects in axial turbomachines.
Von Karman Institute Lecture Series 1985–05. 1985.
2. Denton JD. Loss mechanisms in turbomachines.
J Turbomach 1993; 115: 621–656.
3. Storer JA and Cumpsty NA. Tip leakage flow in axial
compressors. J Turbomach 1991; 113: 252–259.
4. Sakulkaew S, Tan CS, Donahoo E, et al. Compressor
efficiency variation with rotor tip gap from vanishing to
large clearance. J Turbomach 2013; 135: 031030–1–
031030-10.
5. Pranay S, Shahrokh S and Geoffrey TP. Robust
compressor blades for desensitizing operational tip
clearance variations. ASME Paper GT2014-26624, 2014.
6. Chen GT, Greitzer EM, Tan CS, et al. Similarity ana-
lysis of compressor tip clearance flow structure.
J Turbomach 1991; 113: 260–269.
7. Chima RV. Calculation of tip clearance effects in a
transonic compressor rotor. J Turbomach 1998; 120:
131–140.
8. Rains DA. Tip clearance flows in aixal flow compressors
and pumps. PhD Thesis, California Institute of
Technology, USA, 1954.
9. Storer JA and Cumpsty NA. An approximate analysis
and prediction method for tip clearance loss in axial
compressors. J Turbomach 1994; 116: 648–656.
10. Biollo R and Benini E. Shock/boundary-layer/tip-clear-
ance interaction in a transonic rotor blade. J Propul
Power 2009; 25: 668–677.
11. Suder KL and Celestina ML. Experimental and com-
putational investigation of the tip clearance flow in a
transonic axial compressor rotor. J Turbomach 1996;
118: 218–229.
12. Huang AC, Greitzer EM, Tan CS, et al. Blade
loading effects on axial turbine tip leakage vortex
dynamics and loss. J Turbomach 2013; 135: 051012–1–
051012-11.
13. Thompson DW, King PI, Hah C, et al. Experimental
and computational investigation of stepped tip
gap effects on the flowfield of a transonic axial flow com-
pressor rotor. J Turbomach 1998; 120: 477–486.
Ye et al. 311

14. Copenhaver WW, Mayhew E, Hah C, et al. The effect Appendix

of tip clearance on a swept transonic compressor rotor.
J Turbomach 1996; 118: 230–239. Notation
15. Ciorciari R, Lesser A, Blaim F, et al. Numerical inves- A flow area (m2)
tigation of tip clearance effects in an axial transonic
c blade chord (m)
compressor. J Therm Sci 2012; 21: 109–119.
Cp specific heat ratio (J/kg/K)
16. Puterbaugh SL and Brendel M. Tip Clearance Flow-
Shock Interaction in a Transonic Compressor rotor. CD discharge coefficient
J Propul Power 1997; 13: 24–30. h0 total enthalpy (J/kg)
17. Adamczyk JJ, Celestina ML and Greitzer EM. The role l0 size of the tip leakage vortex structure
of tip clearance in high-speed fan stall. J Turbomach (m)
1993; 115: 28–38. m mass flow (kg/s)
18. Du J, Lin F, Chen J, et al. Flow structures in the tip Ma relative Mach number
region for a transonic compressor rotor. J Turbomach Pt stagnation pressure (Pa)
2013; 135: 031032–1–031032-11. P0 stagnation pressure loss (Pa)
19. Seshadri P, Shahpar S and Parks GT. Robust compres- P static pressure (Pa)
sor blades for desensitizing operational tip clearance
Rg gas constant (J/kg/K)
variations. ASME Paper GT2014-26624, 2014.
s blade row pitch (m)
20. Erler E, Vo HD and Yu H. Desensitization of axial
compressor performance and stability to tip clearance V averaged velocity (m/s)
size. ASME Paper GT2015-42746, 2015. Vl component of leakage flow velocity
21. Moore RD and Reid L. Performance of single-stage vertical to the main flow direction (m/s)
axial flow transonic compressor with rotor and stator Vs component of leakage flow velocity in
aspect ratios of 1.19 and 1.26, respectively, and with the main flow direction (m/s)
design pressure ratio of 2.05. NASA TP-1659, 1980. Uj tip leakage flow velocity in the direction
22. Dunham J. CFD validation for propulsion system com- normal to tip clearance /main flow
ponents. AGARD-AR-355, 1998. interface (m/s)
23. Seshadri P, Parks G, Jarrett J, et al. Towards robust U0 incoming flow velocity in the direction
design of axial compressors with uncertainty quantifi-
normal to tip clearance /main flow
cation. In: 54th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC struc-
interface (m/s)
tures, structural dynamics, and materials conference,
AIAA 2013-1815.  density (kg/m3)
24. Belamri T, Galpin P, Braune A, et al. CFD analysis of  adiabatic index
15 stage axial compressor: Part 2 – Results. ASME  averaged mixing angle of leakage with
Paper GT2005-68262, 2005. main flow ( )
25. Suder KL. Experimental investigation of the flow field in  magnitude of tip clearance (m)
a transonic, axial flow compressor with respect to the  blade stagger angle ( )
development of blockage and loss. PhD Thesis, Case ! stagnation pressure loss coefficient
Western Reserve University, USA, 1996.
26. Kline SJ and McClintock FA. Describing uncertainties
in single sample experiments. Mech Eng 1953; 75: 3–8.
27. Wilcox DC. Reassessment of the scale-determining Subscripts
equation for advanced turbulence models. AIAA J
1988; 26: 1299–1310.
CV1 for the control volume 1
28. Menter FR. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence
CV2 for the control volume 2
models for engineering applications. AIAA J 1994; 32: CV3 for the control volume 3
1598–1605. 1 for the incoming flow entering the
29. Denton JD. Lessons from Rotor 37. J Therm Sci 1997; control volume
6: 1–13. 2 for the mixed-out flow exiting the con-
30. Ye S, Zhao Q, Xiang X, et al. Modeling for tip clear- trol volume
ance effects on stall-onset condition in transonic axial 3 for the tip clearance flow injected to the
compressors. ASME Paper GT2016-57081, 2016. control volume
31. Khalid SA, Khalsa AS, Waitz IA, et al. Endwall block- m at the mid-span of the rotor
age in axial compressors. J Turbomach 1999; 121: v for tip leakage vortex
499–509. PS on the pressure surface of the rotor
32. Sirakov BT and Tan CS. Effect of unsteady stator
SS on the suction surface of the rotor
wake-rotor double-leakage tip clearance flow inter-
action on time-average compressor performance.
J Turbomach 2003; 125: 465–474.
33. Konig WM, Hennecke DK and Fottner L. Impoved Appendix 1. Turbulence model
blade profile loss and deviation angle models for comparisons
advanced transonic compressor bladings: Part 2—A
model for supersonic flow. J Turbomach 1996; 117: Figure 21 presents the span-wise distributions of total
81–87. pressure ratio and total temperature ratio within 20%
312 Proc IMechE Part A: J Power and Energy 232(4)

(a) (b)

Figure 21. Comparisons of span-wise distribution at near peak efficiency conditions. (a) Total pressure ratio. (b) Total temperature
ratio.

Figure 22. Comparisons of relative Mach number contours at 95% span for near peak efficiency conditions.

of the span away from the casing for near peak effi-
ciency conditions. It shows that k  " model and k  !
model solutions agree with the experimental data25
better than SST model. Especially for 0.975 span pos-
ition, which is probably in the core part of tip leakage
flow dominated region, the k  ! model’s predictions
of both total pressure ratio and total temperature
ratio match very well with the experimental data,
within the accuracy range of the measurements.
Although there is no available experimental data in
span-wise position very close to the casing, the three
turbulence models predict a similar trend of total
pressure and temperature ratio towards the casing.
Furthermore, we have checked the blade tip flow
field at near peak efficiency conditions and compared
the computational contours of Mach number with the
Ye et al.
available measurements on the same span-wise sur-
face (95% span), as shown in Figure 22. It shows
that the computations are capable of capturing the
tip clearance flow features, such as the distortion of
the in-passage shock and the development of regions
of low Mach number. Specifically, the simulation
using SST turbulence model predicts an evidently
larger shock-induced boundary layer separation
(SIBLS) and thus leads to more separation loss and
lower efficiency.
In order to validate the ability of the computations
in predicting the radial extent of influence of the tip
leakage flow, we have compared the relative Mach
number downstream of the rotor with the available
experimental results.11 Figure 23 presents the cross-
channel Mach number distributions at 138% of
rotor chord. The computations predict similar distri-
butions of Mach number except that SST model pre-
dicts a distortion of tip leakage flow mixing region
along the downstream of blade pressure side.
Whether this kind of distortion exists in real flow
filed is hard to judge because of a lack of experimental
data in radial locations very close to casing. Overall,
the radial extent of tip leakage flow mixing region
Figure 23. Comparison of relative Mach number contours at 138% chord cross-channel plane for near peak efficiency conditions.
313
keeps approximately unchanged (about 0.1span
away from the casing) for different turbulence models.
Figure 24(a) presents the area-averaged values of
relative Mach number, which can be applied to quan-
titatively illustrate the radial extent of the tip leakage
flow dominated region downstream of the rotor. The
inflection points of the area-averaged values, which
locate at about 0.85–0.9span, represent for the radial
extent of tip leakage flow mixing. It appears that all
the three models predict approximately the same
inflection position of area-averaged Mach number,
although the SST model predicts larger Mach num-
bers than experimental data at most of the span-wise
positions. Besides, the mid-pitch values of Mach
number are also provided to indicate the casing
boundary layer thickness, as shown in Figure 24(b).
Again the three models predict approximately the
same inflection position of about 0.94–0.95 span,
and the SST model predicts larger Mach number.
The over-prediction of Mach number by SST model
is mainly due to the lower pressure rise in tip region,
as mentioned above.
As a conclusion, the k  ! model and k  " model
capture the tip clearance flow behavior and the
314
(a)
Figure 24. Comparisons of relative Mach number at 138% rotor chord for near peak efficiency conditions. (a) Area-averaged
relative Mach number. (b) Mid-pitch relative Mach number.
associated mixing process in Rotor 37 better than SST
model, although the SST model generally gives more
accurate predictions of the onset and the amount of
flow separation under adverse pressure gradients. We
finally chose k  ! model for the present work, which
is due to its advantage in predicting boundary layer
Proc IMechE Part A: J Power and Energy 232(4)
(b)
separations compared with k  " model. Besides, the
k  ! formulation is the near wall treatment for low-
Reynolds number computations, and the model does
not involve the complex nonlinear damping functions
required for the k  " model and is therefore more
accurate and more robust.