BEM Tip Loss

WIND ENERGY
Wind Energ. 2005; 8:457–475

Published online 31 March 2005 in Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/we.153
Research Tip Loss Corrections for Wind

Article Turbine Computations
Wen Zhong Shen*, Robert Mikkelsen and Jens Nørkær Sørensen, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark
Christian Bak, Wind Energy Department, Risø National Laboratory, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark
Key words: As an essential ingredient in the blade element momentum theory, the tip loss effect of
blade element rotors plays an important role in the prediction of wind turbine performance. Various tip
momentum theory;
tip loss correction;
loss corrections based on the Prandtl tip loss function are analysed in the article. Compar-
wind turbine isons with measurements and theoretical analyses show that existing tip loss correction
aerodynamics models are inconsistent and fail to predict correctly the physical behaviour in the proxim-
ity of the tip. A new tip loss correction model is proposed that remedies the inconsistency.
Comparisons between numerical and experimental data show that the new model results
in much better predictions of the loading in the tip region. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
Introduction
To take into account the difference between the physics of an actuator disc with infinitely many blades and an
actual wind turbine or propeller with a finite number of blades, Prandtl introduced the concept of tip loss. In
an appendix to the dissertation of Betz,1 Prandtl showed that the circulation of a real rotor tends to zero expo-
nentially when approaching the blade tip. The blade element momentum (BEM) theory was later developed
by Glauert2 as a computational tool to predict aerodynamic loading and power. The theory is based on one-
dimensional momentum theory in which forces are distributed continuously in the azimuth direction, corre-
sponding to an infinite number of blades with no tip loss. In order to make BEM computations more realistic,
Glauert2 showed how the tip loss effect is integrated in a simple manner into the BEM model. He corrected
the induced velocity in the momentum equations by exploiting that the ratio between the average induced
velocity and the induced velocity at the blade position tends to zero by the expression developed by Prandtl.
Further, Glauert assumed that the tip loss only affects the induced velocity but not the mass flux.
A refined tip loss model was later introduced by Wilson and Lissaman,3 who suggested that the mass flow
through the rotor disc should be corrected in the same manner as the induced velocity in the wake. This,
however, leads to a formulation in which the orthogonality of the induced velocity to the relative velocity at
the blade element is not satisfied. In order to satisfy the orthogonality condition, de Vries4 refined further the
tip correction of Wilson and Lissaman by correcting the mass flux in the tangential momentum equation in the
same way as in the axial momentum equation.
Apart from BEM computations, advanced axisymmetric actuator disc (AD) models based on solutions to
the axisymmetric Navier–Stokes/Euler equations have been introduced.5–8 In these models the kinematics is
described by first principle methods. Corrections for tip loss are still needed but have to be introduced in dif-
* Correspondence to: W. Z. Shen, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Fluid Mechanics, Technical University of Denmark,
Building 403, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark. E-mail: shen@mek.dtu.dk
Contract/grant sponsor: EFP-01, Research Programme for Renewable Energy, Danish Energy Agency
Contract/grant sponsor: European Commission; contract/grant number: NNE5-CT-2002-00627.
Received 31 March 2004

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 29 November 2004
Accepted 30 December 2004
458 W. Z. Shen et al.
ferent ways from those used for BEM models. Recently, Mikkelsen et al.7 proposed a technique to model the
tip loss in which the induced velocities are first computed by the Navier–Stokes solver, after which they are
corrected with the Prandtl tip loss function in the rotor plane before applying aerofoil data. The technique,
however, is in principle a variant of the Glauert tip loss correction.
Looking more closely into the various models, we find that they all lack rigorous consistency when the tip
of the blade is approached. By analysing the basic equations of the tip loss correction, we find that the com-
puted axial interference factor always tends to unity when approaching the tip. This implies that the axial veloc-
ity, independently of the pitch setting, tip shape, aerofoil type and operating conditions, always tends to zero
at the tip. Furthermore, comparisons of BEM computations with experiments show that the Prandtl/Glauert tip
loss correction method overestimates the loading close to the tip.
As a first attempt to derive a consistent tip loss correction model and overcome the difficulties of the clas-
sical modelling of the tip region, a new tip loss correction model was recently proposed by the authors.9 Pre-
liminary computations of the NREL experimental rotor10 gave very promising results. The NREL experimental
rotor runs at relatively low tip speed ratios, in the range from 1·5 to 5·4. In the present work we analyse exist-
ing tip loss correction models and describe a more general model that also treats high tip speed ratios.
The article is organized as follows. First we describe the commonly used tip loss correction models and
analyse their inherent inconsistencies. Second, a new tip loss correction model is described. Finally, numeri-
cal results are compared with experimental results for the NREL experimental rotor10 and the Swedish WG
500 turbine.11
Existing Tip Loss Correction Models

The BEM method is the most widely used technique for computing loads and power of wind turbines. The
method is a one-dimensional approach based on the actuator disc principle (i.e. the forces are distributed evenly
in annular elements without azimuth dependence). In order to simulate a real wind turbine with a finite number
of blades, tip loss effects are introduced into the BEM method by using the Prandtl tip loss function.1
2 È Ê B(R - r) 1 + l2 ˆ ˘
F= cos -1 ÍexpÁ- ˜˙
p Î Ë 2R ¯˚
where l = WR/U• is the tip speed ratio. The Prandtl tip loss function, which takes values in the range from
zero at the tip to one at the root section, is derived by assuming that the wake consists of a system of straight
vortex sheets. A more realistic and much more complicated model was introduced later by Goldstein,12 who
used the inviscid screw surface structure of the wake to compute the circulation along an optimal rotor blade
and compared it with the one obtained with the Prandtl tip loss function. For a four-bladed rotor, good agree-
ment between the model of Goldstein and the Prandtl tip loss function is achieved. For a two-bladed rotor the
results are in good agreement for tip speed ratios greater than l = 7, whereas large differences are found at
smaller tip speed ratios (e.g. at l = 5 the difference is about 6%).
An approximate formula for the Prandtl tip loss function was introduced by Glauert,2 namely
2 È Ê B( R - r) ˆ ˘
F= cos -1 Íexp - (1)
p Î Ë 2 R sin f R ¯ ˙˚
where fR is the flow angle at the tip. In order to make the formula easier to use in practical BEM computa-
tions, the tip loss function was further changed to
2 È Ê B( R - r) ˆ ˘
F= cos -1 Íexp - (2)
p Î Ë 2 r sin f ¯ ˚˙
where f = f(r) is the angle between the local relative velocity and the rotor plane. There are several ways of
making tip loss corrections. In the following we summarize three well-known tip loss correction models and
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Wind Energ. 2005; 8:457–475
Tip Loss Corrections 459
analyse the resulting expressions. Since all models are derivations of the model of Glauert, we discuss this
model and its implications in detail. It should be noted that the following derivation is quite general and in
principle covers all existing tip correction models.
BEM Analysis
In his pioneering work, Glauert2 deduced that the tip loss function F expresses the ratio between the average
induced velocity and the induced velocity at the blade position, F = ā/aB, where aB is the axial interference
2p
factor at the blade section and at the vortex sheet originating from the blade section, and a = 1 2p Ú adq and
0
a = a(r,q) are the average and local axial interference factors respectively. It should be noticed that, for a rotor
with an infinite number of blades, aB and ā become identical. Further, Glauert introduced the tip loss as a cor-
rection to the interference factors aB and aB¢ , using the Prandtl tip function F through the axial and angular
momentum equations respectively.
In the BEM theory the loading is computed using two independent methods, i.e. by a local blade element
consideration using tabulated two-dimensional aerofoil data and by use of the one-dimensional momentum
theorem. First, employing blade element theory, axial load and torque are written respectively as
dT 1
= BFn = rcBVrel2 Cn (3)
dr 2
dM 1
= BrFt = rcBrVrel2 Ct (4)
dr 2
where Fn and Ft denote the loading on each blade in the axial and tangential directions respectively, and Cn
and Ct denote the corresponding two-dimensional tabulated force coefficients. From the velocity triangle at the
blade element (see Figure 1) we deduce that
U• (1 - aB ) Wr(1 + aB¢ )
sin f = , cos f =
Vrel Vrel
Figure 1. Cross-sectional aerofoil element
where the induced velocity is defined as Wi = (-aBU•, -a¢BWr).

Using the above relations, we get
2
U•2 (1 - aB ) U• (1 - aB )Wr(1 + aB¢ )
Vrel2 = =
sin 2 f sin f cos f
Inserting these expressions into equations (3) and (4), we get
2
dT rBcU•2 (1 - aB )
= Cn (5)
dr 2 sin 2 f
dM rBcU• (1 - aB )Wr 2 (1 + aB¢ )
= Ct (6)
dr 2 sin f cos f
Next, applying axial momentum theory, the axial load is computed as
2p
dT
dr
= Ú r(U • - Uwake )UD rdq (7)
0
where UD = U•(1 - a) is the axial velocity in the rotor plane and Uwake = U•(1 - 2a) is the axial velocity in
the ultimate wake. Performing the integration and introducing the definition of the F function, recalling that a
= a(q,r) and F(r) = ā/aB, we get
dT
= 4prrU •2 aB F(1 - e 1a B F) (8)
dr
where
a2
e1 =
aa
Applying the moment of momentum theorem, we get
2p
dM
= Ú rV q wake UD r 2 dq (9)
dr 0
where Vqwake = 2Wra¢ is the induced tangential velocity in the far wake. Performing the integration, we get
dM
= 4pr 3 rWU • aB¢ F(1 - e 2 aB F) (10)
dr
where
aa ¢
e2 =
a a¢
The Tip Loss Correction of Glauert

In the model of Glauert,2 only the induced velocity is corrected, hence e1F and e2F are both assumed to be
unity. Equating equation (5) to equation (8), and equation (6) to equation (10), the final expressions for the
interference factors read
1
aB = (11)
4 F sin f (sCn ) + 1
2
1
aB¢ = (12)
4 F sin f cos f (sCt ) - 1
where s = Bc/2pr. The coefficients (Cn, Ct) are related to the lift and drag coefficients (Cl, Cd) by Cn = Cl cos
f + Cd sin f and Ct = Cl sin f -Cd cos f respectively. (Cl, Cd) depend on the local aerofoil shape and are obtained
using tabulated 2D aerofoil data corrected with 3D rotating effects.
In the following we analyse the tip loss correction of Glauert, introduced in equations (11) and (12), assum-
ing that the Prandtl tip loss function F tends to zero at the tip and that the considered wind turbine blade has
a finite chord length at the tip (i.e. s π 0).
Introducing the tip loss correction equations (11) and (12) into the flow angle relation tan f = U•(1 -
aB)/[Wr(1 + aB¢ )], we get
sCt
1-
U• 4 F sin f cosf U • 4 F sin f cos f - sCt
tan f = = tan f (13)
Wr sCn Wr 4 F sin2 f + sCn
1+
4 F sin2 f
Introducing Cl and Cd into this equation, we obtain the expression
U• 4 F sin f - s (Cl tan f - Cd )
tan f = tan f (14)
Wr 4 F sin f tan f + s (Cl + Cd tan f )
Letting r Æ R, noting that F Æ 0 and s π 0 at the tip, we get two solutions:
tanf T = 0 (15a)
Cd - Cl WR U• Cd - Cl l
tanf T = = (15b)
Cl + Cd WR U• Cl + Cd l
where fT denotes the flow angle at the tip of the blade.
In the following, our discussion is divided into different cases according to whether the drag coefficient Cd
is zero.
1. Assuming Cd π 0, a simple limit value analysis of equations (11) and (12) shows that both equations (15a)
and (15b), in general, exhibit the same tendencies:
aBÆ1
aB¢ Æ - 1
implying that the relative velocity becomes zero at the tip. From a physical point of view the tip vortex is
created at the blade tip and then convected into the wake. Zero velocity at the tip means that the tip vortex
stays at the tip. Thus, whether the solution satisfies equation (15a) or equation (15b), the resulting flow field
becomes unphysical near the tip.
2. On the other hand, since the drag force does not contribute to the induced velocity physically, Cd may be
omitted when calculating induced velocities. In this case, Cd is put equal to zero in equations (11) and (12),
and the expression for the flow angle, equation (14), reads
U• 4 F sin f - sCl tan f
tan f = tan f (16)
Wr 4 F sin f tan f + sCl
To analyse the solution at the tip (r Æ R), four cases are considered.
(a) fT tends to zero at the tip, i.e. the solution satisfies equation (15a). Cl is then obtained from aerofoil data
and will generally not be zero at the tip. From equations (11) and (12) the interference factors at the tip
read
aBÆ1
aB¢ Æ - 1
Table I. Implications of the Glauert tip loss correction model. In case 1, Cd is included, whereas it is neglected in cases
2(a)–2(d)
Parameters Case 1 Case 2(a) Case 2(b) Case 2(c) Case 2(d)
Cd π 0 Cl π 0 F/Cl Æ 0 Cl/F Æ 0 Cl = hF
aT 1 1 1 0 Finite
aT -1 -1 -1 0 Finite
z
Vrel,T 0 0 0 U• Finite
q
Vrel,T 0 0 0 WR Finite
fT Any 0 <0 >0 Any
(b) If F goes to zero at the tip with a speed faster than Cl (i.e. F/Cl Æ 0), or Cl does not tend to zero, from
equation (16) we get tan fT = -WR/U• = -l. From equations (11) and (12) the interference factors at the
tip read
aBÆ1
aB¢ Æ - 1
(c) If F goes to zero at the tip with a speed slower than Cl, (i.e. Cl/F Æ 0), from equation (16) we get tan
fT = U•/(WR) = 1/l. From equations (11) and (12) the interference factors at the tip read
aBÆ0
aB¢ Æ0
implying that the induced velocity is zero at the tip. From aerofoil data, however, Cl will in general be
non-zero, implying a contradiction with the assumption that Cl is zero at the tip.
(d) If F goes to zero at the tip with the same speed as Cl, (Cl = hF, where h is a constant that may depend
on the tip speed ratio l), equation (16) reads
U • 4 F sin f - sCl tan f 1 4 sin f - sh tan f
1= = (17)
WR 4 F sin f tan f + sCl l 4 sin f tan f + sh
From this expression the flow angle is seen to depend on the constant h and the tip speed ratio l. The
corresponding interference factors at the tip can be computed from equations (11) and (12).
The various cases and their implications are summarized in Table I.
From the above considerations it is deduced that 2(d) is the only physically realistic case and that the Glauert
correction is consistent only if Cl tends to zero with the same speed as F tends to zero.
For a rotor with prescribed loading, as in the original case of Prandtl where an optimum circulation was
assumed, a load distribution obeying Cl ~ F may be specified a priori. However, when using aerofoil data, this
may not be the case.
In order to analyse more closely the consequences of using the Glauert tip loss correction in combination
with aerofoil data, an iterative procedure for solving equation (16) is constructed as follows:
1 4 F n sin f n - sCln tan f n
tan f n +1 = tan f n (18)
l 4 F n sin f n tan f n + sCln
where n is the iteration index.
Now we analyse the situation near the blade tip. Choosing a point near the tip such that the Prandtl tip loss
function Fn is sufficiently small but not zero, we start with an arbitrary flow angle f0 which is the initial guess
to the procedure (18). From tabulated aerofoil data we get in general a non-zero lift coefficient Cl. The rela-
tion (18) is then rewritten approximately as (as Fn goes to zero)
1 -sCln tan f n 1
tan f n +1 = tan f n = - tan 2 f n
l sCln l
The solution of the above iteration can be written in the form
2 n -1
tan f 0 ˆ
tan f = -Ê
n
tan f 0 for n ≥ 1
Ë l ¯
Letting n Æ •, it is clear that fn Æ 0 for all initial flow angles f0 satisfying the condition that |tan f0| < l.
Thus, using tabulated aerofoil data, the solution inevitably converges towards zero flow angle and a finite lift
coefficient at the tip. This situation corresponds exactly to case 2(a) above and implies that, independently of
pitch setting, tip shape, aerofoil type or operating conditions, the relative axial velocity always tends to
zero at the tip.
The Tip Loss Correction of Wilson and Lissaman

In the work by Wilson and Lissaman3 the concept of circulation was employed in order to reformulate the tip
loss correction relations. Since circulation basically is generated by lift, they only considered the lift force in
their analysis. For the tangential interference factor aB¢ the obtained form is the same as that of the Glauert
tip loss correction. For the axial induction factor aB, however, the mass flux is corrected in the same way as
for the induced velocity. Thus e1 and e2F in equations (8) and (10) are both put equal to one and the final for-
mulae read
aB¢ F sCl
= (19)
1 + aB¢ 4 cos f
(1 - aB F)aB F sCl cos f
= (20)
2
(1 - aB ) 4 sin 2 f
A similar analysis to the one done for the Glauert tip correction shows that, if the chord at the tip is not zero,
the axial interference factor aB tends to one and the flow angle f tends to zero when approaching the tip,
whereas the lift coefficient Cl does not tend to zero. Thus a similar inherent inconsistency exists for this model.
The Tip Loss Correction of de Vries

De Vries4 pointed out that the tip loss correction of Wilson and Lissaman does not satisfy the orthogonality
between the induced velocity and the relative velocity at the blade element. As a consequence, de Vries put e1
equal to one and derived an expression for e2 that satisfied the orthogonality condition. It should be mentioned
that he also derived high-order tip loss corrections in which expressions for e1 and e2 were computed by assum-
ing distributions of a = a(q,aB). The final formulae become
aB¢ F(1 - aB F) sCl
= (21)
(1 + aB¢ )(1 - aB ) 4 cos f
(1 - aB F)aB F sCl cos f
= (22)
2
(1 - aB ) 4 sin 2 f
In practice, the tip loss correction of de Vries gives almost the same results as those obtained by the original
correction of Wilson and Lissaman. Further, it contains the same inherent inconsistency as the other two cor-
rection models.
New Tip Loss Correction Model

For a real rotor with a finite number of blades the axial velocity at the tip in the rotor plane, where the tip
vortex is generated and convected into the wake, is usually not zero. Thus the flow angle at the tip, fR, is in
general not zero. When applying blade element theory, two-dimensional aerofoil data give likewise a non-zero
force near the tip, as the angle of attack generally is finite. From a physical point of view, however, the force
should tend to zero at the tip owing to pressure equalization, where air is transported from the pressure side
to the suction side of the blade. This shows that a correction is needed for the aerofoil data near the tip.
Generally, in BEM computations, aerofoil data are corrected for three-dimensional and rotational effects.13
However, such corrections are of another nature than what is needed near the tip, where the flow is largely
attached and rotational effects are negligible. In order to include three-dimensional tip loss effects, we propose
to compute the resulting force coefficients (denoted Cnr and Ctr ) as
Cnr = F1Cn (23)
Ctr = F1Ct (24)
where the function F1 is introduced as a correction to the two-dimensional aerofoil data in the tip region.
Equating equation (5) to equation (8), and equation (6) to equation (10), putting e1 and e2 equal to one, as
in the tip correction model of de Vries, and using equations (23) and (24), we get
aB¢ F(1 - aB F) sCt
= F
(1 + aB¢ )(1 - aB ) 4 sin f cos f 1
(1 - aB F)aB F sCn
2
= F1
(1 - aB ) 4 sin2 f
where Cn and Ct are the force coefficients obtained directly from two-dimensional aerofoil data.
To determine a correction function, we note that F1 has to obey the following behaviour. First, in the case
of a rotor with an infinite number of blades, no correction is needed and it attains a value F1 = 1. Likewise, in
the case of a rotor running at an infinite tip speed, F1 should also be equal to one. Finally, when approaching
the tip, F1 should tend to zero in the same manner as F, i.e. it should basically follow equation (17). Alto-
gether, these features lead to a form of F1 that is similar to the one proposed by Glauert2 for F (equation (1)):
2 È B(R - r) ˆ ˘
F1 = cos -1 ÍexpÊ - g (25)
p Î Ë 2 R sin f R ¯ ˙˚
where g is a coefficient that is to be determined. In general, the coefficient g depends on number of blades, tip
speed ratio, chord distribution, pitch setting, etc. For simplicity, the function is set to be dependent only on the
number of blades and the tip speed ratio, assuming the following form:
g = exp[ - c1 (Bl - c2 )]
where c1 and c2 are two coefficients that have been determined from experimental data. Since there are two
coefficients, only data at two different tip speed ratios are needed. In order to cover a broad spectrum of tip
speed ratio, we employ the data of the NREL rotor at a wind speed of 10 m s-1, corresponding to a tip speed
ratio of 3·79, and the Swedish WG 500 rotor at a tip speed ratio of 14. Comparing computed and measured
distributions of normal force near the tip, a simple curve fit shows that c1 ª 0·125 and c2 = 21. In order not to
degenerate the formula in the case where l tends to infinity, the coefficient g is shifted with a small constant
of 0·1. Thus the final form of the g function reads
g = exp[-0◊125( Bl - 21)] + 0◊1 (26)
The coefficient g can take more complicated forms than equation (26), but the general tendency would be
similar. In future work we expect to obtain a more general form of the g function, when more experimental
and numerical (CFD) data with different chord distributions and pitch settings are available.
In accordance with the F function of Glauert,2 the function F1 can also be put in the form
2 È B(R - r) ˆ ˘
F1 = cos -1 ÍexpÊ - g (27)
p Î Ë 2 r sin f ¯ ˙˚
The F1 function gives the change in loading near the tip when two-dimensional aerofoil data are applied.
In the new model, putting e1 and e2 equal to one, the final formulae of the interference factors become
2 + Y1 - 4Y1 (1 - F) + Y 12
aB = (28)
2(1 + FY1 )
1
aB¢ = (29)
(1 - aF)Y2 (1 - a) - 1
where Y1 = 4F sin2 f/(sCnF1) and Y2 = 4F sin f cos f/(sCtF1), with Cn and Ct being the force coefficients obtained
directly from two-dimensional aerofoil data.
It should be noted that the induced velocity in the new model is perpendicular to the relative velocity (i.e.
tan f = Wr aB¢ /(U•aB)) if only Cl is responsible for the induction, in accordance with vortex theory. Including
the drag in the computation of the induced velocity will jeopardize the orthogonality.
When the axial interference factor aB becomes larger than approximately 0·3, the momentum theory is no
longer valid and the so-called Glauert correction2 is needed. In the present work the Glauert correction is intro-
duced into equation (8) by replacing the local thrust coefficient CT = 4aBF(1 - aBF) by a linear relation when
aB becomes greater than a critical value ac. This results in the expression
Ï4 aB F(1 - aB F) for aB £ ac
CT = Ì 2 2 (30)
Ó4[ac F + (1 - 2 ac F)aB F] for aB ≥ ac
where we put ac = 1/3.
Numerical Results
In this section, computations using all four tip loss correction models will be carried out and compared with
experimental data. For low tip speed ratios (l < 5·4) the NREL experimental rotor is chosen, whereas the
Swedish WG 500 rotor is chosen for high tip speed ratios (l > 5·4).
NREL Experimental Rotor

As a first consideration of the various tip corrections, the NREL rotor (NREL-S809) is chosen. The radius of
the rotor is 5·03 m and it rotates at 71·93 RPM. The blade sections consist of S809 aerofoils with a chord length
of 0·3 m at the tip. The experiments were carried out in the world’s biggest wind tunnel at NASA Ames. The
wind speed ranges from 7 to 25 m s-1, corresponding to l between 5·4 and 1·5. Further details can be found
in Reference 10.
As a pre-step to the BEM computations, two-dimensional aerofoil data were established from wind tunnel
measurements.14 In order to construct a set of aerofoil data to be used for a rotating blade, the correction formula
for rotational effects by Snel and van Holten13 is used for incidences up to 16°. For higher incidences (>40°),
two-dimensional lift and drag coefficients of a flat plate are usually too big and are reduced by a factor of 85%.
For incidences between 16° and 40° the force coefficients are found by linear interpolation of the values at
16° and 40°. The final lift and drag coefficients at radial positions of 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 90% along
the blade are plotted in Figure 2.
The BEM computations are carried out using 30 blade elements distributed uniformly along the blade. Com-
parative BEM computations without tip loss correction and with the tip loss corrections of Glauert,2 Wilson
and Lissaman3 and de Vries4 are first computed. In Figure 3 the axial interference factor aB is plotted as a func-
–1
–2
–20
–20
Figure 2. Distributions of lift and drag coefficients for the NREL rotor at different radial positions
tion of radius. It is seen that the aB-values are almost identical in the inner part of the blade but diverge when
approaching the tip. When using the model of Glauert, it is seen that the axial interference factor, indepen-
dently of wind speed, tends to one, as predicted by our theoretical analysis. This value is much bigger than
the value obtained without correction (aB = 0·17) or with the new tip loss correction model (aB = 0·23). Com-
puted normal force distributions are compared with experimental data in Figure 4. We find that all three clas-
sical models fail to predict the behaviour of the normal force in the tip region. In Figure 5, results using the
new tip loss correction are compared with experimental data and with results using the tip loss correction
of Glauert. The figure shows that the distribution of normal forces at r/R = 95% predicted by the new tip cor-
rection is in good agreement with experimental data for all wind speeds.
Figure 3. Axial interference factor at blade section, aB, for flow past the NREL experimental rotor at a wind speed of
7 m s-1 computed by BEM code with Glauert’s tip correction, with new tip correction and without tip correction
Finally, power curves computed with the new and with Glauert’s tip loss correction are plotted against mea-
surements in Figure 6. The new model predicts slightly better results than the Glauert model as compared with
experimental data. Both models overpredict the power curve at wind speeds from 10 to 14 m s-1. A likely expla-
nation is that the aerofoil data are subject to inaccuracies originating from the somewhat crude correction for
rotating effects and for the influence of Reynolds number. The power curve, however, is an integrated quan-
tity consisting of contributions from all the local tangential forces. Thus only qualitative comparisons between
experiments and computations are possible, since the results are influenced by various factors such as distur-
bances from the hub and inaccuracies of the post-stall aerofoil data along the blade.
Swedish WG 500 Rotor

As a second consideration of the various tip loss corrections, the Swedish WG 500 rotor equipped with two
STORK blades is chosen. The blade radius of the rotor is 2·675 m. The blade sections consist of a series of
NACA 44XX aerofoils with a chord length of 0·125 m at the tip. The experiments were carried out in the 12
m ¥ 16 m wind tunnel at CARDC Low Speed Aerodynamics Institute in China. Further details can be found
in References 11 and 15.
From wind tunnel measurements,15 two-dimensional aerofoil data corrected for rotational effects are avail-
able for incidences up to 40°. For incidences higher than 40°, two-dimensional flat plate data are used. The
final lift and drag coefficients at radial positions of 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 90% along the blade are plotted
in Figure 7.
The BEM computations are carried out using 40 blade elements distributed uniformly along the blade. First,
results of normal force (i.e. normal to the aerofoil section) are compared with experimental data11 in Figure 8.
We find that the three classical models fail to predict the normal force in the tip region.
Next, BEM computations with the new tip loss correction are performed. The resulting forces are compared
with experimental data and with results obtained with the tip loss correction of Glauert in Figure 9. It is seen
that the normal force distribution predicted by the new tip loss correction is in good agreement with experi-
mental data for the three considered tip speed ratios.
Figure 4. Comparison of normal forces computed by BEM code with various classical tip corrections for flows past the
NREL experimental rotor at different wind speeds: (a) 7 m s-1 (l = 5·4); (b) 10 m s-1 (l = 3·8); (c) 13 m s-1 (l = 2·9);
(d) 15 m s-1 (l = 2·5)
Finally, thrust coefficient and power coefficient curves computed with the new tip loss correction and that
due to Glauert are plotted against measurements in Figure 10. The new model is seen to predict slightly better
results than the Glauert model as compared with experimental data. It should be noted, however, that, as in
the case of the NREL rotor, the power curve is the integral of local tangential forces acting on the rotor, and
only qualitative comparisons are possible.
Concluding Remarks
A new tip loss correction model for aerodynamic computations of wind turbines and propellers has been devel-
oped. The correction is mathematically consistent and is valid for a wide range of tip speed ratios. Experi-
mental results from the NREL experiment at low tip speed ratios (l < 5·4) and the Swedish WG 500 rotor at
high tip speed ratios (l > 5·4) are chosen to validate the tip loss correction models. Comparisons between
experimental data and the various correction models show that the new model better predicts the aerodynamic
force distribution in the vicinity of the tip. A continuation of the work will be to derive a more general form
Figure 5. Comparison of normal forces computed by BEM code with new tip correction and with Glauert’s tip
correction for flows past the NREL experimental rotor at different wind speeds: (a) 7 m s-1 (l = 5·4); (b) 10 m s-1
(l = 3·9); (c) 13 m s-1 (l = 2·9); (d) 15 m s-1 (l = 2·5)
of the introduced g function and to extend the technique to cope with tip loss corrections for actuator disc and
actuator line models.16
Acknowledgements
This work was supported partially by EFP-01, the Research Programme for Renewable Energy under the
Danish Energy Agency and by the European Commission in the Research Programme of ENERGIE4-G2
in the STABCON project (contract NNE5-CT-2002-00627). The authors would like to thank Martin O. L.
Hansen for discussing different issues during the preparation of the manuscript, and the reviewers for their
helpful comments, especially for pointing out an error in the proof of the inconsistency in the original
manuscript.
Figure 6. Power performance of the NREL experimental rotor
Appendix: Nomenclature
a,a¢ axial and tangential induced velocity interference factors
aB, aB¢ axial and tangential induced velocity interference factors at blade section
ā, a ¢ average axial and tangential induced velocity interference factors
ac critical axial induced velocity interference factor
B number of blades
c chord
CT thrust coefficient
Cl,Cd lift and drag force coefficients
Cn,Ct normal and tangential force coefficients
F Prandtl tip loss function
F1 new tip loss function of aerofoil data
M moment
R radius of blade
r radial distance from rotor centre
T thrust
U• wind speed
Vrel relative velocity
Vrelz axial relative velocity
Vrelq tangential relative velocity
W angular velocity of rotor
f flow angle
fR, fT flow angle at tip
l tip speed ratio
–1
–2
–20
–20
Figure 7. Distributions of lift and drag coefficients for the Swedish WG 500 rotor at different radial positions
Figure 8. Comparison of normal forces computed by BEM code with various classical tip corrections for flows past the
Swedish WG 500 rotor at different tip speed ratios: (a) 5·44; (b) 8·24; (c) 14
Figure 9. Comparison of normal forces computed by BEM code with new tip correction and with Glauert’s tip
correction for flows past the Swedish WG 500 rotor at different tip speed ratios: (a) 5·44; (b) 8·24; (c) 14
Figure 10. Thrust and power performance of the Swedish WG 500 rotor
References
1. Prandtl L, Betz A. Vier Abhandlungen zur Hydrodynamik und Aerodynamik. Göttinger Nachr.: Göttingen, 1927; 88–92.
2. Glauert H. Airplane propellers. In Aerodynamic Theory, Durand WF (ed.). Dover: New York, 1963; 169–360.
3. Wilson RE, Lissaman PBS. Applied aerodynamics of wind power machines. Oregon State University Report NSF/RA/N-
74113, 1974.
4. De Vries O. Fluid dynamic aspects of wind energy conversion. AGARD Report AG-243, 1979; chap. 4: 1–50.
5. Sørensen JN, Myken A. Unsteady actuator disc model for horizontal axis wind turbines. Journal of Wind Engineering
and Industrial Aerodynamics 1992; 39: 139–149.
6. Sørensen JN, Shen WZ, Munduate X. Analysis of wake-states by a full-field actuator disc model. Wind Energy 1998;
1: 73–88.
7. Mikkelsen R, Sørensen JN, Shen WZ. Modelling and analysis of the flow field around a coned rotor. Wind Energy
2001; 4: 121–135.
8. Masson C, Smaili A, Leclerc C. Aerodynamic analysis of HAWTs operating in unsteady conditions. Wind Energy 2001;
4: 1–22.
9. Shen WZ, Mikkelsen R, Sørensen JN, Bak C. Evaluation of the Prandtl tip correction for wind turbine computations.
Proceeding of 2002 Global Windpower Conference and Exhibition, Paris, 2002. http://www.ewea.org/
10. Giguere P, Selig MS. Design of a tapered and twisted blade for the NREL combined experiment rotor. NREL Report
SR-500-26173, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, 1999.
11. Ronsten G, Dahlberg J, Meijer S, He DX, Chen M. Pressure measurements on a 5·35 m HAWT in CARDC 12 16 m
wind tunnel compared to theoretical pressure distributions. Proceedings of European Wind Energy Conference and
Exhibition (EWEC 89), Glasgow, 1989; 729–735.
12. Goldstein S. On the vortex theory of screw propellers. Proceedings of the Royal Society 1929; 123A: 440–465.
13. Snel H, van Holten T. Review of recent aerodynamic research on wind turbines with relevance to rotorcraft. AGARD
Report CP-552, 1995; chap. 7: 1–11.
14. Hand MM, Simms DA, Fingersh LJ, Jager DW, Cotrell JR, Schreck S, Larwood SM. Unsteady aerodynamics experi-
ment phase VI: wind tunnel test configurations and available data campaigns. NREL Report TP-500–29955, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, 2001.
15. Björck A, Ronsten G, Montgomerie B. Aerodynamic section characteristics of a rotating and non-rotating 2·375 m wind
turbine blade. FFA Report TN-1995-03, Aeronautical Research Institute of Sweden, 1995.
16. Sørensen JN, Shen WZ. Numerical modelling of wind turbine wakes. Journal of Fluids Engineering 2002; 124:
393–399.

BEM Tip Loss

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BEM Tip Loss

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WIND ENERGY

Wind Energ. 2005; 8:457–475

Research Tip Loss Corrections for Wind

Received 31 March 2004

Existing Tip Loss Correction Models

Figure 1. Cross-sectional aerofoil element

where the induced velocity is defined as Wi = (-aBU•, -a¢BWr).

The Tip Loss Correction of Glauert

The Tip Loss Correction of Wilson and Lissaman

The Tip Loss Correction of de Vries

New Tip Loss Correction Model

NREL Experimental Rotor

Swedish WG 500 Rotor

Figure 6. Power performance of the NREL experimental rotor

You might also like