WIND ENERGY

Wind Energ. 2007; 10:289–291

Published online 14 February 2007 in Wiley Interscience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/we.218

Short
The Lanchester–Betz–Joukowsky
Communication Limit
Gijs A.M. van Kuik*, Delft University Wind Energy Research Institute, Faculty of Aerospace Engi-
neering, Kluyverweg 1, 2629 HS Delft, The Netherlands

Key words: The maximum efficiency of an ideal wind turbine rotor is well known as the ‘Betz limit’,
Betz limit; named after the German scientist that formulated this maximum in 1920. In 1976, Bergey
actuator disc;
efficiency;
showed that the British scientist Lanchester derived the same maximum already in 1915.
power coefficient; Betz and Lanchester were representatives of leading aerodynamic research schools in the
wind turbine first decades of the previous century. A study of early Russian publications on rotor aero-
dynamics now shows that the Russian aerodynamic school also produced the same result;
its leader Joukowsky derived the maximum efficiency for an ideal wind turbine in 1920, the
same year as Betz did. Consequently, in order to honour all, this ideal efficiency should be
named the ‘Lanchester-Betz-Joukowsky limit’ in scientific writing. The well-established and
convenient name Betz limit is to be considered an easy abbreviation of this full name.
Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 2 October 2006; Revised 15 December 2006; Accepted 17 December 2006

Three Independent Discoveries of the Maximum Efficiency

The actuator disc is the oldest mathematical representation of a screw, propeller or wind turbine in fluid
dynamic calculations. The load on a real rotor is replaced by a pressure distribution on an infinitely thin, per-
meable disc with the same diameter. In its most elementary presentation, this load is uniform and normal, with
the disc placed in an axial flow. This actuator disc concept is still used as an easy qualitative diagnostic model,
and any textbook on rotary wing aerodynamics starts with it.
The first performance predictions of wind turbine rotors, based on the actuator disc concept, have been
achieved in the first decades of the 20th century. The result obtained by Betz in 1920 is famous, and known
as the Betz limit:1 no more than 59% of the kinetic energy contained in a stream tube having the same cross
section as the disc area can be converted to useful work by the disc. However, Betz was not the only one to
derive this result. Bergey2 found that in 1915, Lanchester was the first to establish the maximum efficiency of
a wind turbine rotor and the ideal performance of a hovering helicopter rotor or static propeller.3 Betz and Lan-
chester belonged to two leading aerodynamic research schools in the beginning of the previous century: the
German school led by Prandtl, and the British school led by Lanchester himself. Bergey tried to answer the
question whether Betz was aware of Lanchester’s results. It is clear that Lanchester and Prandtl discussed
progress in aerodynamic science, resulting in a visit of Lanchester to Göttingen. However, this was before the
First World War, which was in between the publications of Lanchester and Prandtl’s pupil Betz, and which
made communication almost impossible. According to Bergey there was no reason to believe that Betz was
aware of the publication by Lanchester.

* Correspondence to: G. A. M. van Kuik, Delft University Wind Energy Research Institute, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering,
Kluyverweg 1, 2629 HS Delft, The Netherlands.
E-mail: G.A.M.vanKuik@tudelft.nl

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

290 G. A. M. van Kuik

The third leading aerodynamic research school was the one in Russia, led by Joukowsky.* A study of early
Russian rotor aerodynamic papers revealed that Joukowsky derived the Lanchester–Betz limit in the same year
as Betz did: 1920.4 Furthermore, in 1918 he also derived the performance of an ideal helicopter rotor in hover
or static propeller.5 As for Betz, the question was whether Joukowsky knew the results of Lanchester. In
Joukowsky’s publications on the performance of an ideal static propeller and ideal wind turbine, he did not
refer to recent English documents, although older European literature was cited. It is reasonable to assume
that, as for Betz, the First World War made communication between Russia and Western Europe far from
optimal. Moreover, the Russian revolution will have isolated the Russian researchers for quite some time.
Therefore it is reasonable to draw the same conclusion as Bergey did for Betz: there is no reason to assume
that Joukowsky was aware of Lanchester’s publication.

Comparison of the Derivations

The paper of Bergey2 presents the derivations and equations of Lanchester and Betz, which will not be repeated
here. Instead, the logic of the three derivations is discussed. Each derivation is a mixture of the balances of
mass, momentum and energy, applied to the volume of the flow in the stream tube passing through the disc.
All find in the same way the result that the induction in the wake is twice the induction at the disc. The momen-
tum balance defines the force at the disc as the change in momentum of the mass passing through the disc.
Multiplication of this force by the velocity at which it acts (the velocity at the disc) gives the work done. The
energy balance equates this to the change in kinetic energy of the mass passing through the disc. The result is
the famous induction ratio, first derived by Froude.6 From here on, the derivations follow a different route.
Betz substitutes the induction result in the expression for the mass flow through the disc, which in turn is
substituted in the equation for the work done at the disc. Differentiation with respect to the wake velocity gives
the optimal value of 1/3 of the undisturbed velocity, after which the maximum amount of work done by the
disc load is found. Division by the energy flow through the disc in case of no load gives the efficiency limit.
Lanchester follows, after having obtained the result for the velocity induction, a different approach in the
use of the mass balance. With the induction result, he finds the relation between the wake velocity and the
amount of work done per unit of mass per second, by differentiation with respect to the wake velocity. This
is substituted in the expression for the work done per unit of mass per second times the local velocity, giving
an optimal value 1/3 of the ratio of wake to undisturbed velocity. Then Lanchester defines the mass flow through
the disc, combines this with the previous result and finds the maximum amount of work done. Division by the
kinetic energy flow through the disc in case of no load gives the efficiency limit.
The derivation of Joukowsky starts the same in finding the ratio of induction in the wake and at the disc.
He then defines three dimensionless parameters: (i) the aerodynamic efficiency as the work done per second
by the disc force divided by the kinetic energy contained in the undisturbed flow, (ii) the thrust coefficient as
the load divided by 2 times the undisturbed dynamic pressure times the disc area and (iii) the disc velocity
coefficient as the velocity at the disc divided by the undisturbed velocity. With the mass balance and the induc-
tion result substituted in the expression for the power, Joukowsky derives the relation between thrust coeffi-
cient and velocity coefficient, and between efficiency and velocity coefficient. The maximum efficiency and
the associated values for the thrust and velocity are found after differentiation with respect to the thrust coef-
ficient. Joukowsky also presents a graph of the efficiency and velocity coefficient as a function of the thrust
coefficient.
The sequence of steps in Joukowsky’s paper is the same as in Betz’s paper. However, the use of the non-
dimensionless parameters for efficiency, thrust and velocity makes his derivation to look modern. The only
difference with current derivations is that the non-dimensional velocity at the disc is used as parameter, instead
of the induction coefficient, and a factor 2 in the definition of the thrust coefficient.

* The French spelling of his name is used here. Many papers use Zhukovski as transcription of the Russian spelling.

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Wind Energ 2007; 10:289–291
DOI: 10.1002/we
The Lanchester–Betz–Joukowsky Limit 291

Retrospect
Within a period of 5 years, three leading aerodynamic researchers derived the same result. Only the paper of
Betz has a title that reflects the content, whereas Lanchester and Joukowsky provided their papers with too
general, modest titles. Furthermore, the paper of Betz has been published in a journal, whereas the papers of
both others were part of the Transactions of their respective scientific institutes, with a possibly more limited
distribution. This could explain why history has attached the name of Betz to the maximum efficiency of a
wind turbine. Bergey already proposed to rename this limit to the Lanchester–Betz limit in order to recognize
the contribution of both men to our understanding of wind turbine performance. Now the same holds for
Joukowsky, so it should be called from now on, the Lanchester–Betz–Joukowsky limit. However, this name
is too long to be used easily and to push aside the well-established name Betz limit. It is proposed to use ‘Betz
limit’ in the daily life of a wind energy engineer, and the full name ‘Lanchester–Betz–Joukowsky limit’ in sci-
entific writing.

Acknowledgements
In a recent publication by Sørensen and Okulov,7 some results of Joukowsky’s work on rotor aerodynamics
were shown as published by Margoulis.8 I thank Valery Okulov of the Institute of Thermophysics,
Novosibirsk, Russia, for sending me this paper, which inspired me to look for more Russian publications. I
also thank Scott Schreck of NREL, Golden, CO, USA, for sending me a NASA translation of the work of
Shefter.9 Both publications helped me to find the title of Joukowsky’s original publication. I thank the New
York Public Library for finding this paper in Joukowsky’s Collected Works.

References
1. Betz A. Das Maximum der theoretisch möglichen Ausnützung des Windes durch Windmotoren. Zeitschrift für das
gesamte Turbinenwesen 1920; 26: 307–309.
2. Bergey KH. The Lanchester-Betz limit. Journal of Energy 1979; 3: 382–384.
3. Lanchester FW. A contribution to the theory of propulsion and the screw propeller. Transactions of the Institution of
Naval Architects 1915; 57: 98–116.
4. Joukowsky NE. Windmill of the NEJ type. Transactions of the Central Institute for Aero-Hydrodynamics of Moscow
1920. Also published in Joukowsky NE. Collected Papers Vol VI. The Joukowsky Institute for AeroHydrodynamics,
Moscow: vol VI, 405–409, 1937 (in Russian).
5. Joukowsky NE. Fourth paper published in the Transactions of the Office for Aerodynamic Calculations and Essays of
the Superior Technical School of Moscow 1918 (in Russian). Also published in Gauthier-Villars et Cie. (eds). Théorie
Tourbillonnaire de l’Hélice Propulsive, Quatrième Mémoire. 123–146: Paris, 1929 (in French).
6. Froude RE. On the part played in propulsion by differences of fluid pressure. Transactions of the Institute of Naval
Architects 1889; 30: 390–405.
7. Sørensen JN, Okulov VL. Modeling of the far wake behind a wind turbine. Wind Energy, Proceedings of the
EUROMECH Colloquium, Peinke, Schaumann, Barth (eds), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2007.
8. Margoulis W. Propeller theory of professor Joukowsky and his pupils, translated from ‘L’Aeronautique’ August 1921,
NACA TM 79 1922.
9. Shefter IA. Wind-powered machines. NASA TT F-15149, 1974. Translation of Vetroenergeticheskiye agregaty, Moscow,
‘Mashinostroyeniye’ Press 1972.

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Wind Energ 2007; 10:289–291
DOI: 10.1002/we