Lindert Blonk R

Co n cep t u al Desig n an d Evalu at io n o f Eco n o m ic
Feasib ilit y o f Flo at in g Ver t ical Axis Win d Tu r b in es
- Public Version -
MSc. Thesis
D. L. Blonk
May 25, 2010
Delft University of Technology SBM - GustoMSC

Wind Energy Research Group Product Development
Group
PREFACE
Document Classification
This is the public version of the thesis report, intended for the Library of the Delft University of
Technology, and herewith intended for public distribution.
Some confidential information has been removed. In some instances, but not all, values or strings of text
have been replaced by the string „conf‟ to indicate a deletion. The deletions mainly concern floater data.
The turbine design technical data, overall cost estimates, HAWT versus VAWT comparison and
conclusions are unchanged from the original document.
ii
PREFACE
PREFACE
This MSc. thesis was performed in cooperation between the Delft University of Technology and
GustoMSC. The graduation committee consists of:
Prof.dr. G.J.W. van Bussel Delft University of Technology

Dr.ir. W.A.A.M. Bierbooms Delft University of Technology
Ir. N.van Nood GustoMSC
I would like to sincerely thank my TUD supervisor Wim Bierbooms for his expert advice, support,
feedback, clear definition of structure and his patience in reviewing my work. Many thanks also to Nils
van Nood, for providing me this interesting thesis project, reviewing and giving me feedback on my
work, and explaining me about the offshore industry. I would also like to thank Prof. Gerard van Bussel
for creating the outline for my research, reviewing my work, and for his contribution to making the Wind
Energy Department an inspiring place to work.
In addition, I would like to thank Michiel Zaaijer for his expert advice on wind turbine design processes,
Carlos Ferreira for his advice on appropriate analysis techniques, and all others at the University that have
given me advice.
Additionally, from GustoMSC, I would like to thank Jan van Kessel for his advice on how to properly
perform a thesis research, William Mcvean for the illustration help, Bas Goris for his help on floater
design and illustrations, Michael Gachet and Riaan van‟t Veer for their advice on hydrodynamic analysis,
and all others that have given me advice.
Most of all, I would like to thank my parents for their support throughout my study, and for always
providing me a solid basis to fall back on in times of need.
i
PREFACE
Page left blank intentionally
ii
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT
An increasing interest arises to harvesting the strong winds in deeper water offshore locations. In deep
waters, a floating foundation is required. A problem is that these floating foundations must be large and
are expensive to build. Another problem is the cost of wind turbine maintenance.
Vertical Axis Wind Turbines are of interest as a potential solution for these issues. VAWT technology
can lower maintenance demands. Also, it can be designed to have a relatively low centre of gravity, and
load reducing alternative anchoring topologies can be used. However, these characteristics come at a
price. Characteristics of VAWT make the generator and rotor heavy and expensive. The question is
whether the benefits of VAWT can outweigh its downsides in the floating wind domain? This thesis is
focused at answering that question.
Two concepts for floating VAWT have been defined. The first is based on a typical floater and popular
VAWT technology; a „Trifloater-mounted-straight-bladed‟ VAWT (1). The second is a novel concept that
was created during this research; a „Taut-moored-curved-bladed‟ VAWT (2). An automated design
model has been created. This model was used to generate designs for the concepts. An aerodynamic BEM
model and hydrostatic model were created to predict forces acting on, and deflections of the floating
system under environmental loads, and this was used as a sub-model to the design model. Lifetime cost
estimates for the designs have been compared to those for a comparable floating HAWT.
Both concepts are variable speed machines. For concept 1, a relatively low Aspect Ratio, and high
floating system allowable pitch angle were found to be optimal. Also, for both concepts, a relatively high
rated wind speed was found to be optimal. For concept 2, hydrostatic analysis shows that the innovative
anchoring system is feasible in the idealized static cases.
It was found that for both selected concept designs, the weight and cost estimates for the wind turbine
alone are significantly higher than that for the comparable floating HAWT, as expected. For concept 2,
the floating foundation dimensions and costs are significantly lower. The combined total lifetime cost
estimate of concept 1 is higher than that for the reference floating HAWT, and for concept 2, the lifetime
cost estimate is slightly lower. There is uncertainty in the maintenance cost analysis; this is advised to be
executed in more detail. Based on the cost analyses performed here, it is unlikely that further development
of concept 1 shall result in a major cost decrease when compared to state-of-the-art floating HAWT. For
concept 2, there are uncertainties regarding technical feasibility, but it shows potential for further cost
improvement and it is advised for further developing research. Finally, recommendations are also given
for lowering the cost of floating HAWT‟s.
1 2
iii
ABSTRACT
iv
CONTENTS
CONTENTS
PREFACE ...................................................................................................................................................... i
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................................. iii
CONTENTS.................................................................................................................................................. v
NOMENCLATURE ................................................................................................................................... vii
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
2 Overview of Floating wind turbine technology and VAWT‟s ............................................................. 3
2.1 Floating wind ................................................................................................................................ 3
2.2 Offshore wind farms ..................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Vertical Axis Wind turbines ......................................................................................................... 8
2.4 Wind energy production basics ..................................................................................................... 9
2.5 VAWT designs............................................................................................................................ 11
2.6 Floating VAWT .......................................................................................................................... 13
2.7 Models for floating wind turbines ............................................................................................... 14
3 Exploratory feasibility study .............................................................................................................. 15
3.1 Chapter introduction ................................................................................................................... 15
3.2 Summary of exploratory feasibility study ................................................................................... 17
4 Concept Generation ............................................................................................................................ 19
4.1 Generation of Concept I; „Cantilevered concept‟ ....................................................................... 19
4.2 Concepts...................................................................................................................................... 19
4.3 Summary of Multi-criteria analysis results ................................................................................. 20
4.4 Generation of concept II; „Guyed concept‟ ................................................................................. 21
5 Definition of Environmental conditions ............................................................................................. 23
6 Design Methodology and Description Cantilevered Concept ............................................................ 25
6.1 Design Methodology ................................................................................................................... 25
6.2 Description of cantilevered concept ............................................................................................ 26
7 Rotor Design ...................................................................................................................................... 30
8 Aerodynamic load prediction ............................................................................................................. 33
8.1 Description of aerodynamic prediction model ............................................................................ 33
8.2 Comparison of results of Aerodynamic model to literature ........................................................ 39
8.3 Aerodynamic load prediction model for standstill conditions .................................................... 42
9 Component Design ............................................................................................................................. 44
9.1 Generator mass............................................................................................................................ 44
v
CONTENTS
9.2 Floater mass ................................................................................................................................ 44

9.3 Blade Mass .................................................................................................................................. 46
9.4 Design of Tower ......................................................................................................................... 47
9.5 Design of blades supports ........................................................................................................... 50
10 Cost estimation of selected components of Cantilevered concept ..................................................... 56
10.1 Generic components.................................................................................................................... 56
11 Parameter study and selection of Cantilevered concept ..................................................................... 58
11.1 Parameter study ........................................................................................................................... 58
11.2 Sensitivity study .......................................................................................................................... 63
11.3 Chosen Design physical data ...................................................................................................... 65
12 Guyed Concept Design Methodology and Description ...................................................................... 68
12.1 Design Methodology ................................................................................................................... 69
12.2 Description of Guyed Concept .................................................................................................... 70
13 Guyed Concept Rotor Design ............................................................................................................ 71
14 Hydrostatic Model .............................................................................................................................. 72
14.1 Model description ....................................................................................................................... 73
14.2 Aerodynamic load prediction ...................................................................................................... 76
14.3 Mechanical load prediction model .............................................................................................. 77
14.4 Hydrodynamic Load Prediction .................................................................................................. 81
15 Guyed Concept Component Design ................................................................................................... 86
15.1 Floater ......................................................................................................................................... 86
15.2 Cables.......................................................................................................................................... 86
15.3 Guyed – Tower ........................................................................................................................... 87
16 Guyed Concept Component Cost estimation ..................................................................................... 88
17 Parameter study and selection of Guyed concept design ................................................................... 89
17.1 Parameter Study .......................................................................................................................... 89
17.2 Chosen Guyed Design physical data ........................................................................................... 91
18 Results of Hydrostatic model for selected Guyed Design .................................................................. 93
19 Levelised Production Cost Estimation for Concepts and Reference HAWT ..................................... 97
19.1 Definition of LPC ....................................................................................................................... 97
19.2 LEC for reference HAWT........................................................................................................... 98
19.3 Hardware costs for the selected concept designs and reference HAWT..................................... 99
19.4 Total LEC Cantilevered concept ............................................................................................... 100
19.5 Total LEC Guyed concept......................................................................................................... 101
19.6 Total Lifetime Cost Estimates................................................................................................... 103
20 Conclusions and recommendations .................................................................................................. 105
vi
NOMENCLATURE
20.1 Conclusions on Design of Floating Vertical Axis Wind Turbines ........................................... 105
20.2 Conclusions on Economic Feasibility of Floating Vertical Axis Wind Turbines ..................... 106
20.3 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 107
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................. 109
Appendix A: Review of Floating wind turbine analysis techniques ......................................................... 111
Appendix B: Claim validation for the exploratory feasibility research .................................................... 111
Appendix C: Concept Generation Multi-Criteria Analysis....................................................................... 111
Appendix E: Deeper water mooring options............................................................................................. 111
Appendix G: Trifloater determination of weighted water plane area and derivation of analytic proof of
insensitivity to loading direction ............................................................................................................... 111
NOMENCLATURE
Abbreviations
conf. confidential
ASR Aspect Ratio
DOWEC Dutch Offshore Wind Energy Converter
DUT Delft University of Technology
EWEA European Wind Energy Association
FLOVAWT Floating Vertical Axis Wind Turbine
HAWT Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine
LEC Levelised Expenditure Cost
LPC Levelised Production Cost
MSC Marine Structure Consultants
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
RPM Rounds per minute
SWL Still water level
TSR Tip Speed Ratio
US United States
VAWT Vertical Axis Wind Turbine
Symbols
Aerodynamic prediction model

 Angle of attack [Rad]
C Airfoil chord length [m]
 Angular position [Rad]
Fx Average streamwise force in streamtube [N]
Fn Force normal to chordline [N]
Ft Force tangent to chordline [N]
a Induction factor [-]
vii
NOMENCLATURE
r Local Radius [m]

*
Fx Non-dimensional streamwise force [-]
N Number of Blades [-]
UR Relative velocity [m/s]
As Streamtube area [m2]
U Undisturbed wind speed [m/s]
U Wind speed in streamtube [m/s]
Environmental conditions
 Density of fluid
z0 Surface roughness length [m]
U Undisturbed wind speed [m/s]
T Wave period [s]
 Wavelength [m]
zref Z- coordinate of reference point [m]
z Z-coordinate (w.r.t .still water level) [m]
Turbine description
Ar Swept area of rotor [m2]
cp Power coefficient [-]
D Diameter [m]
Eyr Annual aerodynamic energy yield [Wh]
Hr Rotor Height [m]
PA Power per meter of swept area [W/m2]
 Tip speed ratio [-]
rtip Radius of tip [m]
Ucut-in Cut- in windspeed [m/s]
Urated Rated windspeed [m/s]
Ucut-out Cut-out windspeed [m/s]
 Rotational velocity [Rad/s]
A Area of cross section [m2]
E Modulus of Elasticity [N/m2]
zr Height with reference to lowest point of rotor [m]
Hydrostatic model
c
Cable Angle with respect to the horizontal [Rad]
L Change in cable length for taut wire method [m]
 Displaced Volume [m3]
xi Horizontal deflection of attachment point i. [m]
viii
NOMENCLATURE
x Horizontal deflection of point O [m]

Lj Length of a straight line between anchor and attachment point [m]
u Local water horizontal acceleration [m/s2]
u Local water horizontal velocity [m/s]
n Mode number [-]
rx, j Ratio of horizontal projection length to total length of a cable of type j. [-]
rx, j Ratio of vertical projection length to total length of a cable of type j. [-]
z1 Vertical deflection of attachment point i. [m]
z Vertical deflection of point O [m]
a Moment arm length [m]
B Buoyancy point
CA Added Mass Coefficient [-]
CD Drag Coefficient [-]
Ci Attachment point of cable number I
F Force [N]
f Frequency [1/s]
H Horizontal reaction force in point A of cable reference frame [N]
h Vertical distance of point B to origin in cable reference frame [m]
H Wave height [m]
hguy,ext Vertical distance for top of rotor to guy cable attachment point. [m]
HS Significant wave height [m]
i Cable Number
Kc Keulegan- Carpenter number [-]
l Horizontal distance of point B to origin in cable reference frame [m]
L0 Initial cable length [m]
l1 Horizontal distance of mooring cable attachment to centerline [m]
l2 Vertical distance from mooring cable attachment to SWL [m]
l3 Vertical distance from SWL to attachment point guy cables [m]
M Moment [Nm]
P Cable force at attachment point [N]
Re Reynolds Number [-]
rL0,g Initial cable slackness guy cable. [-]
rL0,m Initial cable slackness mooring cables [-]
s Distance along cable in Lagrangian coordinates [m]
T Tension in cable [N]
T Tension in cable [N]
ua Flow velocity amplitude [m/s]
V Vertical reaction force in point A of cable reference frame [N]
w Weight of cable per unit of length [N]
W Weight of complete cable [N]
θ Phase angle [Rad]
λ Wavelength [m]
φ Angular deflection of rigid body [Rad]
ω Rotational frequency [Rad/s]
ix
NOMENCLATURE
x
Chapter 1: Introduction
1 Introduction
Following on the success of shallow water offshore wind farms, an increasing interest arises to harvesting
the strong winds in deeper water locations. However, from depths over approximately 60 meters, bottom
founded foundations for wind turbines become prohibitively expensive. In waters deeper than this, a
floating foundation is required. Since these foundations must counteract a horizontal load that is acting on
the wind turbine at great height, these floating foundations must be large and are expensive to build.
Another problem for remote floating windfarms, is cost of wind turbine maintenance.
Vertical Axis Wind Turbines are of interest as a potential solution for these issues. A VAWT consists of
less moving parts than the more common Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine. This characteristic should lower
maintenance demands. Another characteristic of VAWT is that it can be designed to have a relatively low
center of gravity, and relatively low point of aerodynamic loading. Also, load reducing alternative
anchoring topologies can be used. Hence, floater stability requirements can potentially be reduced.
However, simplicity and low height come at a price. For low height VAWT turbines, rotational speeds are
low, which makes the turbine‟s generator expensive. The rotors of VAWT turbines must also be large,
which makes these heavy and expensive. The question is whether the benefits of VAWT can outweigh its
downsides in the floating wind domain. This thesis is focused at answering that question.
To gain insight in floating wind turbines and vertical axis wind turbines, first a literature study has been
conducted. An overview of the most relevant findings of this study is given in Chapter 2.
Next, to gain insight in the potential of VAWT technology in the floating domain and to make a decision
on proceeding with investigating this technology, an exploratory feasibility study has been performed. An
overview of this process is presented in Chapter 3. New insights were gained, but it had to be
acknowledged that based on literature, one can only make a guess to feasibility of the technology.
Specific design data was required to make a thorough evaluation of feasibility.
Therefore it was decided to perform conceptual design for a number of concepts. The concepts have been
defined on basis of literature research and new ideas that were born during the thesis processes. The
concepts have been compared using a multi-criteria analysis, and two have been selected for further
design.
To facilitate the creation of multiple designs for these concepts, automated design models have been
created for both concepts. The design processes have been separated in reporting to avoid confusion by
jumping up and forth between concepts. The design processes are described in Chapter 6 to 10 and 12 to
16. In this range of chapters, the aerodynamic load prediction model is described in Ch. 8, the hydrostatic
model in ch. 14, the mechanical load prediction in 14.3 and hydrodynamic load prediction in 14.4.
Multiple designs are created, and parameter studies for the two concepts are performed in Chapters 11
and 17. One design for each concept is selected for evaluation of economic feasibility.
Cost estimation and economic feasibility of the two selected concept designs are discussed in Chapter 19.
Finally, conclusions and recommendations are given in Chapter 20.
A graphic illustration of the thesis processes and report outline is shown in Figure 1-1 on the next page.
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Literature study to Floating Wind and VAWT
Exploratory Feasibility study

Chapter 3 (Does this technology have potential ?)
Y/N
Chapter 4 Concept Generation
Concepts
Concept 1 Concept 2
‘Cantilevered concept’ ‘Guyed concept’
Chapter 5 to 10
(Concept 1) and
Concept design
chapter 12 to 16
(Concept 2)
Concept Designs
Concept 1 Concept 1 Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 2 Concept 2
Design 1 Design 2 Design N Design 1 Design 2 Design N
Chapter 11
(Concept 1) and Parameter Study and Selection of
chapter 17 Concept Designs
(Concept 2)
Selected Concept Designs
Concept 1 Concept 2
Selected design Selected design
Lifetime Cost Estimation for Selected Concept

Chapter 19
designs and Evaluation of Economic Feasibility
Chapter 20 Conclusions
Figure 1-1: Thesis processes and report outline.
2
Chapter 2: Overview of Floating wind turbine technology and VAWT‟s
2 Overview of Floating wind turbine technology and

VAWT’s
In this chapter, an overview of the literature research is presented. First, the status of (floating) offshore
wind is reviewed in section 2.1 and 2.2. Next, VAWT technology is introduced in 2.3 to 2.6. Analysis
methods are reviewed in section 2.7.
2.1 Floating wind

In some locations where offshore wind energy is desired, the water depths are high compared to for
example North Sea locations. Deeper water locations where high wind resources exist close to large load
centers are: the coast of the US, Japan, the Mediterranean Sea and Norway. [10] For these locations,
floating foundations are considered.
2.1.1 Domain
A study by NREL [18] indicates that a floating foundation becomes more cost effective than the
alternatives from a water depth of around 60 -100 meters (Figure 2-1). Other studies also give values in
this range.
Figure 2-1: Cost of Offshore Wind Turbine Substructures with Water Depth [L.29]
2.1.2 Floating wind stabilization principles

The floating foundation has the function of transferring the turbine loads to the water. The main floater
loads are: the moment that results from the turbine thrust, and the weight of the turbine. The name
„floater‟ implies that floating mass is the most important function, but we find that the moment loads have
a much larger role in the floater design [37] Floating foundations are stabilized by one or more of the
following principles [6]:
3
A: Spar principle („ballast

stabilized‟); Stabilized by the
lever arm of the center of
buoyancy and the center of
gravity.
B: Barge principle („buoyancy
weighted water plane area.
C: Tension leg („Mooring leg
mooring system
The principles are shown in

Figure 2-3. In Figure 2-2, a Figure 2-2: floater stability triangle
stability triangle is shown with
each of the idealized floating
platform concepts in the corners.
In practice, all floaters are hybrid
designs that acquire static
stability from all three methods,
but the floaters generally rely on
one primary source for stability.
Several design examples are
shown in the triangle to classify
these. Figure 2-3: stabilization principles
Figure 2-4: Designs
Several turbine aspects determine floater design such as; turbine weight, maximum allowable motions and
accelerations and maximum stresses in the tower. For example; there is a maximum to the heeling angle
4
(described in 2.7.1) Example reasons are the gearbox lubrication distribution [35], and fatigue loading
[23].
2.1.3 Mooring
To stay stationed, the floating foundations have to be moored to the seabed. The mooring systems can
also aid in stabilization and have influence on the dynamic behavior. The most commonly used mooring
systems for anchoring ships and floating oil production units are catenary moorings, taut-leg moorings
(Figure 2-5), and vertical tension legs [17] (Figure 2-4). Tension legs are generally considered to be a
subset of taut-leg moorings. The main advantages of catenary systems are the low cost of the anchors and
installation.
Figure 2-5: mooring classification
2.1.4 Drijfwind
In the next sections, a selection of the floating wind turbines is presented.
In 2002, a project called „Drijfwind‟ [37] was carried

out by ECN, MARIN, Delft University of
technology, TNO, Lagerwey de Windmaster and
Marine Structure Consultants (MSC, now part of
GustoMSC) The full title is ‟Study to feasibility of
and boundary conditions for floating offshore wind
turbines‟. The chosen reference wind turbine in the
project is a 5 MW HAWT. In the study, a number of
concepts have been evaluated on cost effectiveness.
A foundation relying on the barge principle, using 3
columns, was chosen as most feasible. MSC
performed a concept design for the floating
foundation, called the Tri-floater. „Heave plates‟
were added to the base of the columns to improve
damping of dynamic motions. A dynamic analysis
was performed to predict the dynamic behavior of
the floating wind turbine. The cost of the platform
was estimated to be 7 M€ (2002).
Strong points of the Trifloater design are that its keel Figure 2-6: Front view of the Trifloater design with
depth is low; the floating turbine can be assembled turbine.
5
in a dock in most large harbors. Also, it can be moored using relatively low cost catenary anchoring
cables. The weak point is large, to satisfy stability demands.
2.1.5 Hywind
In 2009, a full-scale (2.3 MW) prototype floating

wind turbine was installed by a consortium of
Statoil-Hydro and Siemens. At time of writing it is
undergoing testing procedures. In the prototype
development track, a dynamic analysis tool was
constructed from an existing aeroelastic wind
turbine code and hydrodynamic code. The new tool
was verified by scale model testing results [27]. The
design acquires stability from the spar principle.
Strong points of the Hywind project are: it is the
only realized large scale floating wind project to
date. The hydrodynamic loading on a spar is
relatively low. Weak points of the spar are the
extreme keel depths of the spar and associated
installation issues, and high cost of the spar and
anchoring system.
Figure 2-7: Hywind
2.1.6 Windfloat
The Windfloat is a 3 column design, similar to the Trifloater, but the turbine is placed on one of the three
floaters, not in the triangle center [36]. The static heeling angle is minimized by using a active ballast
system.
Figure 2-8: The Windfloat Figure 2-9: SWAY concept
6
The strong point of the Windfloat is its ability to minimize overturning of the system. This does come at a
cost; the pump for the active ballasting system will introduce more complexity and maintenance demands.
2.1.7 SWAY
Sway A/S is a Norwegian company that is developing a floating wind turbine, together with the German
wind-turbine company AREVA. The concept in development consists of a „downwind‟ wind turbine and
a spar, which contains ballast at the bottom end [31]. The spar is anchored to the seabed with a single pipe
which leads to a suction anchor. The spar can turn around a subsea swivel. Thus, the tower is always
aligned with the rotor. This characteristic allows for the use of a tension rod system to alleviate tower
stresses, and an aerodynamic tower shape.
The SWAY design is a concept with many benefits. Only one anchor is required, the spar floater can be
stayed to reduce loads, no yaw system is required, and the rotor can be given a pre-tilt angle, so that it is
better aligned with the wind during operation. Weak points are the required sub-sea swivel, swivel for the
power cable, and possible problems during wind-wave misalignment environmental conditions. In spite
of the downsides, this concept shows a large potential to reduce the cost of floating wind energy when
compared to for example the Hywind design.
2.2 Offshore wind farms

In the first decade of the new century, the installed capacity of wind energy has increased exponentially
[28]. Placing wind turbines on an offshore location has a number of advantages, of which the most
important are the increased windspeeds and high availability of locations.
With the rise of offshore wind turbines come new challenges; foundation cost, maintenance costs and
installation costs become an important factor.
The exact costs and revenues of most recently installed offshore windfarms are classified. Data from the
public DOWEC study (2003) and data from the European wind energy association (EWEA) is used
during this study.
2.2.1 DOWEC project
The DOWEC project, a desktop study, started in 1999 and was concluded in 2003.The overall objective:
“The development and integration of the necessary knowledge, design tools, competence and facilities to
build reliable and commercially attractive offshore wind turbines‟‟ [11]
In the project, a „baseline offshore wind farm‟ was designed; the particulars are shown in Table 2-1. The
farm is located off the Dutch coast.
Total capacity 480 MW

No. of turbines 80
Capacity turbines 6 MW
Distance from shore 50 km
Estimated no. of failure per year (per turbine) 1.55
Regular service visits per year (per turbine) 1
Lifetime 20 yrs
Table 2-1: DOWEC baseline wind farm particulars
7
In Figure 2-10, the distribution of the levelised production costs is shown. In this, the hardware
investment costs are 576 M€ [11], which is the sum of foundation, tower, wind turbine, electrical
collection system costs, and the costs for transmission to shore.
Figure 2-10: DOWEC baseline wind farm levelised production costs
2.2.2 EWEA Annual study
The European Wind Energy Association publicizes annual reports including wind energy Levelised
Production Costs (LPC), in the „wind energy fact sheet‟ [11]. The data for most costs is based on research
by the Danish institute Risø. An overview is shown in Figure 2-11.
Figure 2-11: Production cost for selected offshore wind farms (2006 prices) [L.31]
2.3 Vertical Axis Wind turbines

In the next sections, lift and drag type VAWT are reviewed. But, first, some principles of wind turbine
analysis must be presented:
8
2.4 Wind energy production basics

The power in the wind is related to the cube of the windspeed (U), the area of the surface through which
the wind passes (A) and the density of the air:
1
P    A U 3 (1.1)
2
The aerodynamic efficiency of a wind turbine is usually indicated by the power coefficient ( c p )
Pmax
cp  (1.2)
1
   A U 3
2
Vertical axis wind turbines (VAWT) can be divided in two classes; Drag- and lift driven machines.
2.4.1 Drag driven VAWT
Figure 2-12: A drag –based Persian gristmill, 200 B.C.
A drag based VAWT is constructed such that the blade that advances against the wind direction
experiences less drag than the blade that moves from the wind. An example is an anemometer.
Figure 2-13: a translating drag device
9
Drag based machines have a low efficiency, as can be seen in the following calculation for a drag device
in linear movement:
1
P  Dv   U   v  CD  A  v
2
(1.3)
2
v 1
The maximum power coefficient occurs for a velocity ratio of  , so that the maximum power
U 3
coefficient becomes:
Pmax 4
cP ,max   CD (1.4)
1
 AU 3 27
2
With Cd values in the range of 0.2-1.5 [1], the maximum power coefficient is of order 0.15. This is an
indication of the poor performance of drag based turbines. For this reason, drag-based VAWT are not
currently used for large scale electricity generation, and are not further investigated in this thesis.
2.4.2 Lift driven VAWT
George Darrieus applied for a patent on a cross-flow turbine in 1929, which utilized lift to produce power,
with blades rotating around a vertical axis. The theoretical efficiency of these types of turbines is higher
than that of drag based turbines. It was shown by Betz [5] that, assuming a one disk model, the theoretical
maximum aerodynamic efficiency of lift-driven turbines is.
16
c p ,max   0.5926 (1.5)
27
In 1968, South and Rangi, from the National Research Council of Canada, reintroduced the Darrieus rotor
concept. Research followed in several countries to feasibility, design and optimalisation of this
technology. Prototypes were developed, and some turbines operated successfully for several decades. The
main problems that led to the abandonment of the technology were the slightly higher drivetrain cost of
VAWT‟s (when compared to HAWT), and the fact that the design tools were sometimes inadequate due
to the poor understanding of the aerodynamics.
The Darrieus concept is used in curved and straight bladed designs. Another type of lift-driven VAWT is
the articulated straight bladed Giromill. In this type, the blades are cyclically pitched to keep the inflow
angle of the air to the blade constant. We do not treat this concept further because its technical complexity
makes it expensive.
10
2.5 VAWT designs

2.5.1 Sandia
In the 1970„s, a special attention to alternative energy sources arose in the United States, following from
international developments, especially the Arab oil embargo [14]. The American Department of Energy
(DOE) asked Sandia National Laboratories to investigate renewable energy sources. They joined with the
institutions in Canada to work on the re-invention of the Darrieus concept. As a follow-up to a 17 m
diameter VAWT prototype Sandia designed and built the 34-m test turbine. It is a 34 m diameter curved
bladed VAWT. The goal was to perform research in structural dynamics, aerodynamics, and fatigue [2].
Measured results are available for various rotational speeds. The maximum cp measured is 0.409.
Figure 2-14 a: Sandia 34-m Diameter test b: Flowind 17m Diameter EHD
bed design
2.5.2 Flowind
Flowind, based in the US, was one of the most successful companies developing commercial VAWT
turbines. Their most recent design (1992) is the 17-m 3 bladed EHD, where EHD stands for Extra height
over diameter ratio [30] The Flowind designs did have low cost generators due to high rotational
velocities, but turbine efficiency was disappointing. This can partly be attributed to the fixed- speed
operation; the turbine rotates at a fixed speed. This means that it not operating at optimal speed for most
windspeeds, which results in lower aerodynamic efficiency.
11
2.5.3 VERTAX
At time of writing, The UK- based company VERTAX wind [12], is developing its design for a multi-
megawatt (10MW) straight-bladed VAWT (Figure 2-15a). It is a design with three straight blades, and
two direct-drive generators. The developers claim a long lifetime, higher reliability than HAWT turbines,
and lower cost blades due to modular construction.
Figure 2-15:a: VERTAX artist b: NOVA concept artist impression

impression
2.5.4 NOVA
Another recent project is the development of the NOVA concept [19] The development is performed by a
UK-Based consortium. The concept is drastically different from other VAWT concepts, the rotor blades
extend for the center in a „V‟-shape (Figure 2-15b). the NOVA developers claim to achieve high
reliability and low overturning moments with their concept.
2.5.5 Vertical Wind
In Sweden, a research company called „Vertical Wind AB‟ is

developing its VAWT prototypes. The developed concept is a straight
bladed VAWT, where the generator is on ground level. [34] (Figure
2-16). Their design efforts are aided by research of the Uppsala
University. High reliability, low noise production and excellent
turbulent airflow handing are claimed as the main advantages of this
design. The most recent prototype has a power capacity of 220kW, is
connected to the grid, and was installed in 2010.
Figure 2-16: Vertical Wind’s

220 kW prototype
12
2.6 Floating VAWT

2.6.1 Floating offshore windfarms VAWT patent
The floating windfarms cooperation is a United States based company that specializes in floating Vertical
axis wind turbines. Amongst the employees are engineers that were also involved in the development of
the Flowind (section 2.5.2) designs in the 80‟s and 90‟s. The floating windfarms cooperation has patented
[20] a design for a floating curved bladed vertical axis wind turbine in 2008, which is illustrated in Figure
2-17. Guy wires are running from the top of the turbine, which is a unique alternative to the cantilevered
load transferring to water level that was observed in all other floating wind turbine concepts. Observing
the figure one also notices the downside of the guy wires; a large horizontally extending floater is
required for this design. The ratio of wind turbine projected area versus floater size is smallest of all
encountered designs, which is al large threat to economic feasibility for this design. The patent also
describes alternative layouts, where the guy wires have been anchored to the seabed. (Figure 2-17 c)
Figure 2-17:a: Floating windfarms b: Artist impression c:Alternative design employing

patent figure alternative anchoring, system
resting on seabed
2.6.2 Nenuphar SARL
A Lille (France)-based company, called „Nenuphar SARL‟ is also

developing a floating vertical axis wind turbine concept. Little
information is available about this company, except for that they are
employing a „semi‟ straight-bladed vertical axis wind turbine, and have
applied for a patent [25]. An illustration from the patent application is
shown in Figure 2-18. At time of writing, this company is in prototype
(35kW) testing phase. A picture of the prototype was reviewed;
apparently the development has driven to significantly alterations of the
design; the prototype looks more like the VERTAX type design than
like the patent accompanying figure.
Figure 2-18: Nenuphar SARL

patent accompanying figure
13
2.7 Models for floating wind turbines

For design of floating wind turbines, simulation models must be created to estimate loads on components.
For floating HAWT, a number of Aero-Hydro-Servo elastic models have been created, which will not be
discussed further here, because their complexity makes these not suitable for application in a conceptual
design process. Also, these models have been created for horizontal axis wind turbines, and cannot easily
be modified to predict loads for VAWT‟s. For VAWT, aerodynamic models are available in literature, but
no specific models are available for floating VAWT yet; it is expected that in the conceptual design
process, a hydrostatic model must be created for load and deflection estimation.
A review of analysis techniques was performed; this is presented in Appendix A. Here, it is reasoned that
the Blade Element Momentum multiple streamtube model [29], would be a suitable analysis technique
for aerodynamic load prediction. Also, as part of literature research, hydrostatic calculations have been
performed to gain insight in Trifloater stability. This process is described in Appendix A as well.
2.7.1 Convention
The notations for degrees of freedom of a floating wind turbine system are shown in Figure 2-19.
When referring to statics, the magnitude of static pitching angle in a particular situation is sometimes
referred to as the heeling angle.
Figure 2-19: 6 DOF floating configuration
14
Chapter 3: Exploratory feasibility study
3 Exploratory feasibility study
3.1 Chapter introduction

In the literature study, a number of claims have been encountered. In this chapter, it is attempted to
determine the validity of those claims. The aim is to obtain a clearer view of (economic) feasibility, so
that a decision can be made whether to proceed with further investigation of this technology.
To test the different claims, two floating VAWT concepts have been defined as reference, in which the
most promising design choices are expressed. In HAWT technology, the 3 bladed up-wind turbine has
emerged as the most popular design for off- and onshore application, and a concept representing this
technology is also defined. The VAWT concepts are named VAWT-C and VAWT-S, for a curved and
straight bladed rotor blades are used, respectively. A schematic representation of the three concepts can
be seen in Figure 3-1, and the main characteristics are listed in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: Overview of exploratory feasibility study concept characteristics.

HAWT VAWT - C VAWT - S
Rotor 3 straight blades 3 curved blades, curved 3 straight blades.
to a parabolic shape
Drivetrain Black box Black box Black box
Floater Black box Black box Black box
Tower type Tower Rotating central column Tower
Bearing location Hub height On floater level On tower
Power regulation Pitch control Stall control Stall control
15
Figure 3-1: Schematic representation of reference concepts
Figure 3-2: Artist impressions of turbine designs similar to the reference concepts. f.l.t.r: Siemens 2.3
MW HAWT, Cantilevered Darrieus [B.14], VERTAX wind 10MW
The validity of a number of claims has been tested for the reference concepts by analysis and additional
review of literature. The report of the complete process of claim validation is can be found in appendix B.
An overview of the results of the process is presented here in section 3.2.
Note on analyses in Appendix B

Similar, but more advanced analyses are described in later chapters of this thesis, which show more useful
results.
16
3.2 Summary of exploratory feasibility study

In Table 3-2, the findings are labeled with an indicator which shows the level to which the (dis)advantage
has been validated. Hereafter, the advantage – and disadvantage claim validation results are presented in
Table 3-3.
Table 3-2: Key to evaluation of (dis)advantage claim validity

Indicator
Unproven The claim is an unproven hypothesis
Inherent The (dis)advantage is inherent to the concept, for typical designs
Proven The claim to (dis)advantage is based on a proven effect.
FOE First Order Estimate: The (dis)advantage is proven, and a fist order estimate to cost
difference has been made.
Table 3-3: Claim validation results

Claimed Advantages VAWT – C VAWT – H
Compared to HAWT Compared to HAWT
reference concept reference concept
General components production costs
-No cost of a yaw mechanism FOE: -/- 3 % of “”

HAWT turbine costs.
-No cost of pitch mechanism FOE: -/- 6.4% of “”
HAWT turbine costs.
Blade design
The dominant design loading is only clear after the
design phase, the individual effect of these factors can
only be determined after this phase.
- Less gravity induced cyclic fatigue loading. Inherent Inherent
- Reduction in cantilevered blade loading Inherent, from -
troposkien principle
- Simple production procedure - Proven
- Larger swept area FOE: Magnitude FOE: Magnitude
~17% larger than ~17% larger than
equivalent HAWT equivalent HAWT
Operational costs
- No maintenance and unavailability related to yaw Inherent Inherent
mechanism and pitch mechanisms.
- Other components may be more reliable. Unproven Unproven
Impact on Floater cost
- Lower floater cost due to lower turbine center of gravity Unproven, but Unproven
probable
- Lower floater cost due to lower heeling moments Unproven Unproven
Variable production
17
- Increase of production in heel. 0: Unproven 1: Proven, small

gain for realistic
heel angles
Claimed Disadvantages VAWT – C VAWT – H

Compared to HAWT compared to HAWT
General components production costs
- Higher tower cost Unproven, but “”

probable
Drive-train cost
- Higher cost of drivetrain because of higher torque Inherent for typical “”
rating. design
- Higher mechanical brake for required Full Power FOE: 1.5 to 13.5 % “”
capacity mechanical brake higher.
- Higher cost of drive train due to „torque ripple‟ Unproven Unproven
Bearings
-Higher bearing cost, because of cantilevered thrust Probable Unproven
loading in Darrieus concept
Blade
- Longer blade length Inherent Probable
Operational costs
-More maintenance for required full power capacity Probable Probable

mechanical brake
Floater cost
Higher floater cost due to higher turbine weight. Unproven, but Unproven, but
probable probable
Engineering cost
Higher engineering cost due to less developed status of Probable Probable
technology and more complex aerodynamic load
prediction methods.
3.2.1 Conclusion of exploratory feasibility research
From the exploratory feasibility analysis is was concluded that VAWT technology can potentially reduce
cost of a floating wind energy conversion system, but that specific technical data of designs is required to
answer the most important questions, and to quantify the most interesting potential cost differences when
this technology is compared to HAWT technology. Therefore, it was decided to perform conceptual
design for a floating VAWT in order to obtain this required data. In the next chapters, the process of this
conceptual design is described.
18
Chapter 4: Concept Generation
4 Concept Generation
In designing for a technology feasibility analysis, one must deal with a conflict; 1: One would like to
analyse all designs possible within the technology envelop, to be sure that the most feasible has been
covered. 2: For feasibility evaluation, specific designs and site conditions are needed, and limited time is
available.
It is here chosen to cope with this by defining two concepts that show good potential. Next, multiple
designs are created for these and their costs are reviewed.
In this chapter, the generation process of the two concepts is described.
4.1 Generation of Concept I; ‘Cantilevered concept’

The generation of this concept is based on the premise that the wind turbine shall be placed on a „barge‟
type floating foundation such as the Trifloater design.
Several possible configurations for the geometry and location of components exist. To select the
combination of locations and geometries that have the highest potential, a number of concepts are defined
and a comparative analysis is performed. The comparative analysis method is the multi-criteria method.
In this method a number of gradable aspects are defined, and different concepts receive a grade on each of
these aspects. The summation of scores results in a single parameter which gives an indication of the
potential of each concept.
4.2 Concepts
Four concepts are defined as potential floating vertical axis wind turbine on a barge. The concepts are
shown in Figure 4-1. The concepts are shown with 2 blades for convenience, but the number of blades
may be chosen different in the design phase.
Generator
Blade Bearing
Connection
beam
Bearing Bearing
Tower
H max
Generator
Tower
H max
Bearing
Blade
H equator
Tower
Bearing
Generator
Bearing
Generator
H min
H min
Generator
Bearing
H floater
Bearing
I II III IV
Figure 4-1: The four ‘barge-mountable’ concepts
19
Table 4-1: Concepts characteristics

I II III IIII
Blade shape Straight bladed Straight bladed Curved bladed Curved bladed
Connection to Connection Connection Direct Direct
tower beams. (1 or 2 per beams. (1 or 2 per
blade) blade)
Tower rotation Tower static with Tower static with Tower rotating Tower static with
respect to the respect to the with respect to the respect to the
floater floater floater floater
Generator Generator at Generator at Generator at 2 generators, one
location equator height floater height floater height on rotor minimum
, and one on rotor
maximum height
4.3 Summary of Multi-criteria analysis results

The weighing factors for the analysis have been based on a review of the life time cost estimates in the
DOWEC Study and Drijfwind [37] study, and VAWT cost estimates by Parashivoui [21]
For each concept, a score was determined on each aspect. The complete process of score determination is
described in appendix C.
Table 4-2: Combined grading
Aspect I II III IV
multiplied
weighing
weighing
weighing
category
criterion
criterion
factor
factor
factor
Cost blades 0.3 0.15 0.05 6.00 0.27 6.00 0.27 4.00 0.18 4.00 0.18
Cost connection beams 0.3 0.15 0.05 2.00 0.09 2.00 0.09 8.00 0.36 8.00 0.36
Cost tower 0.3 0.20 0.06 6.00 0.36 6.00 0.36 2.00 0.12 6.00 0.36
Cost generator and torque 0.3 0.40 0.12 5.71 0.69 2.86 0.34 5.71 0.69 5.71 0.69
shaft
Cost bearings 0.3 0.10 0.03 6.15 0.18 6.15 0.18 1.54 0.05 6.15 0.18
Floater loads 1: thrust height 0.46 0.60 0.28 5.84 1.61 5.84 1.61 4.16 1.15 4.16 1.15
and magnitude
Floater loads 2: Center of 0.46 0.40 0.18 3.81 0.70 6.66 1.23 6.28 1.16 3.25 0.60
gravity turbine
Estimated reliability (inverse 0.24 0.70 0.17 5.42 0.91 4.34 0.73 5.42 0.91 4.82 0.81
of complexity)
Maintainability 0.24 0.30 0.07 4.35 0.31 6.09 0.44 7.83 0.56 1.74 0.13
total 1.00 5.127 5.25 5.17 4.45
20
4.3.1 Review of analysis results and decision
It is observed that concept I, II, and III receive comparable scores. The multi-criteria analysis has proven
to be a useful tool, to eliminate concept IV.
Now based on reasoning, a concept is selected from the remaining three. It is suspected that in the MC
analysis, the cost influence of the torque shaft in concept II, and cost of the cantilevered rotating tower in
concept III are underestimated by the mechanisms of the comparative method used. It is expected that
more detailed analysis where fatigue and dynamic behavior are incorporated, and a proper cost estimate
analysis, would reveal a higher cost influence of these components. Also, other turbine developers
(VERTAX, and Nenuphar SARL, for example) have arrived at designs similar to concept I, which is seen
as an indicator that in more advanced analysis, this turns out to be a competitive concept. Concept I is
selected for further design.
Because the dominant load transferring method in this concept is by use of cantilevered components, this
concept is further on referred to as the „Cantilevered concept.‟
4.4 Generation of concept II; ‘Guyed concept’

A month after performing the process
Table 4-3: Multi criteria analysis results for concept V.
described in 4.1, an idea for a fifth concept
was borne (Figure 4-2). It was graded
Aspect
Concept V
Concept V
against the criteria of Table 4-2, which
multiplied
weighing
indicated a good potential (Table 4-3). Since
grading
many parts of the design process were
factor
score
expected to be generic, it was decided to
produce designs also for this concept. Its
defining characteristic is the use of guy Cost blades 0.05 4 0.20
cables; the concept is further on referred to Cost connection beams 0.05 8 0.40
as the „Guyed concept‟. Cost tower 0.06 9 0.54
Cost generator and torque 0.12 5.7 0.68
shaft
Concept creation
Cost bearings 0.03 2 0.06
The idea was inspired by the design of
Floating windfarms cooperation (section Floater loads 1: thrust 0.28 8 2.24
2.6.1). The turbine in this design benefits height and magnitude (or:
from low internal loads due to guy wires, Floater restoring moment)
running down from the turbine top. The Floater loads 2: Center of 0.18 8 1.44
downside of the Floating windfarms design gravity turbine
is that the floater must be prohibitively large Estimated reliability 0.17 6 1.02
to accommodate the guy wire fixations. (inverse of complexity)
A change is proposed, in which the guy
wires are connected to the seabed instead of Maintainability 0.07 5 0.35
the floater. At beginning of this research, total 1 6.9
external guy wires were not considered a
feasible option, because of the large motions of a floating wind turbine on for example a Trifloater
floating foundation.
However, later, it was reasoned that it could be a feasible option, when a stiff taut mooring system is used
and the displacements of the floater are sufficiently small (decimetres in order of magnitude). A
dynamically soft(explained in sec. 14.3.5) guy wire system would be used for this concept, to allow
relatively „slack‟ guy cables with low loading. Note; a dynamically stiff guy wire system is common for
21
onshore guyed VAWT‟s, but dynamically soft guy wires have been proposed by VAWT expert I.
Parashivoiu [21]. The relatively soft guy system shall cause large deflections of the rotor top (order of
meters), but this shall be allowed since the floating foundation acts as what would be a flexible joint
onshore, and the system can undergo rotation with relatively small internal stresses.
Bearing
Tower
Blade
Bearing
Bearing
Generator
Floater
V
Suction
Anchor
Figure 4-2: ‘Guyed concept’
Expected strong points

-The strong point of such a concept is that is expected to transfer loading to the seabed, using a relatively
small floater. A smaller floater will have less wave and current loading acting on it, which further reduces
cost of floater and anchoring.
-Low location of generator and brake
Expected Weak Points
-This concept employs a large number of anchors (a minimum of 6, unless guy cables are attached to
adjacent floating turbines). The accompanying installation costs must be accounted for. Also, lack of
redundancy may be a problem.
-It is inherently instable when the guy wires are not attached. Accompanying costs must be accounted for
in installation cost estimates.
-Technical feasibility of this concept is uncertain.
-It is only suited to medium depth (50~200 m) locations, unless alternative anchoring configurations are
employed. (An alternative anchoring configuration is described in appendix E)
Now that the both concepts have been chosen, the design process can begin. First, the design basis:
environmental conditions are defined. Hereafter the design of the Cantilevered concepts is explained.
From Chapter 12 on, the design of the Guyed concept is explained.
22
Chapter 5: Definition of Environmental conditions
5 Definition of Environmental conditions
The site is a hypothetical site, which has the wind and wave conditions that were the design basis for
Drijfwind study [37], from which the Trifloater design was a result. The wind and wave conditions are
typical conditions for a location 50 kilometers northwest off the coast of the Netherlands. While the water
depth for this location is 50 to 70 meters, the water depth of the hypothetical site is chosen to be 100
meters; currently considered a more interesting depth for floating turbines.
Two loading conditions are to be evaluated: the maximum operational and survival case.
5.1.1 Wind conditions
The windspeed at 10 meters height above sea level is assumed to be distributed according to a Weibull
distribution, with a scale parameter A of 9, and a shape parameter k of 1.8. The Wind distribution is
shown in Figure 5-1. The wind shear is represented using the logarithmic function:
 z
ln  
U  ( z )  U  ( zref )   0 
z
(5.1)
z 
ln  ref 
 z0 
Here zref is the reference height (10m).
0.1
Wind probability distribution
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
Figure 5-1: Weibull wind distribution, k=1.8, A=9
23
Chapter 5: Definition of Environmental conditions
The wind conditions for the two design loading conditions are:
Table 5-1: Wind conditions

Condition Survival Maximum operational
Return period 100 yr 0.83 yr
Wind velocity (1minute sustained) 41 m/s 25 m/s
5.1.2 Wave and current conditions
The wave conditions for the two loading conditions are listed in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2: Wave conditions

Condition Survival Maximum operational
Wave height 10 m 5.4 m
Period 10.2 s 7.5 s
Current Velocity 1.05 m/s 0.57 m/s
Error in depth change from 50 to 100 meters

The depth of the hypothetical site is 100 meters. The wave data was determined for a depth of 50 to 70
meters. Waves start to be influenced by the seabed when the depth is smaller than 0.5·  , where  is the
wavelength [32]. In section 14.4.1,  for the larges wave (survival conditions) is calculated to be 156
meters. Thus, for the largest waves at our hypothetical site, there is a difference; the shape of the wave
would differ; the wave shape would be more similar to a sinusoidal wave. The error is expected not to be
of a large magnitude, and the unchanged wave conditions are used.
24
Chapter 6: Design Methodology and Description Cantilevered Concept
6 Design Methodology and Description Cantilevered

Concept
6.1 Design Methodology

General design methodology
The design of a wind turbine and its foundation requires overview; a design choice for an individual
component is likely to require a change in other components of the system. Nevertheless, this design
process is performed in a sequential order. Iterations are performed to arrive at a final design. The
sequential order of the design process is described below.
First, the topology of the system is fixed, and primary design choices are made. Knowledge-based
argumentation was employed to determine an interesting concept to investigate. Secondly, key design
parameters for the system are fixed. The values are based on a best guess for the first iteration, and on the
results of analysis for later iterations. Next, loads on the system are predicted for given environmental
conditions. Now, the components are designed to withstand the loads in the design cases, or components
are upscaled from as-built turbine design on basis of operational loads or size. Finally, the resulting
design is reviewed, and it is investigated what parameter changes can be made to improve it. New
iterations are started with new design parameters until a satisfactory result is obtained. The design process
is illustrated in Figure 6-1.
Automated in Matlab
Inspection
Definition Cost of
of initial Estimations Resulting
parameters Design
Rotor Design Turbine component

design
Tower Design
Blades Support
Aerodynamic Design
Load Prediction
Model Generator Mass
Estimation
Blade Mass
estimation
Floater design
Floater Mass
Estimation
iteration
Figure 6-1: Straight bladed concept Design Processes
25
Notes on the design processes
1) In component design, fatigue analysis and modal analysis should be performed. In wind turbine design,
fatigue analysis dominates the design of many components. It is however also an analysis that can is best
performed in detailed design, because of the required accuracy of load predictions. The fatigue aspect is
covered here by assuming that for the upscaled components, the fatigue calculations were performed
sufficiently by the manufacturers, and that their analysis holds for the upscaled version of the component.
For the designed components, a safety factor is applied. This is a convenient approach for conceptual
design, however it stressed here that a thorough fatigue analysis shall have to be performed for final
design.
2) The second objective of this study dictates that the resulting concept is compared to a horizontal axis
concept. Therefore, a horizontal concept was chosen; a combination of the Trifloater floating foundation
and the NREL Reference 5MW turbine. The FLOVAWT design was performed for equal environmental
conditions as horizontal concept. Also, it was found useful to dictate equal annual (or average) energy
yield for the specified site. This leaves the comparison of energy revenue out of the comparative
economic feasibility analysis, and also allows for intuitive comparison of component dimensions and
forces. The annual energy yield is thus not a result of the iterative design process, but an input parameter.
3) To find economic optima for component dimensions, it is required to perform design and cost
estimation for a number of designs. To facilitate the creation of multiple designs, most design steps and
calculations have been implemented for automatic evaluation in Matlab; a design model has been created.
6.2 Description of cantilevered concept

In Figure 6-2, a side view of the system is
shown. The relative dimensions are those
of the final selected design. In Figure 6-3, a
three dimensional view and the chosen
reference system are shown. In the
calculations, wind is assumed to act
parallel to the x-axis, and as a result, the
system shall pitch by an angle φ.
Figure 6-2 : Cantilevered concept ( aspect ratio of 1.1)
26
θ x
Figure 6-3: 3-D view of Cantilevered concept and reference system
6.2.1 Floating foundation
The chosen floating foundation is the Trifloater design of GustoMSC. The height of the mooring cables
attachment is still water level.
6.2.2 Tower
The tower is a tapered tower. The tower top is on the level of the upper generator. The tower material is
steel.
6.2.3 Generator location
There are two generators. The generators are located one quarter and three quarters of rotor height. This is
not necessarily the optimum from a blade and support structural point of view; it is a guess which is
expected to be relatively close to this optimum.
6.2.4 Blade shape
The rotor blades are straight. This does imply that blade supports are necessary, but also gives low floater
loads when compared to a curved bladed geometry. More detailed reasoning on this choice is available in
Appendix C.
6.2.5 Blade supports
To transfer the loads on the blades to the bearings, supports are needed. Several topologies are possible,
such as a single cantilevered beam, or a framework of axially loaded members. An evaluation of the best
option requires an assessment of aerodynamic loads, structural analysis and cost evaluation. For this
conceptual design, only the axially loaded framework is designed, consisting of three members per blade.
27
6.2.6 Airfoil
Airfoil choice for vertical axis wind turbines is treated by Parashivoiu. [21]. The NACA 0018 profile
emerges as a good choice for providing both aerodynamic efficiency and flatwise strength. The NACA
0018 is chosen as the airfoil for the two concepts.
6.2.7 Drivetrain
Both concepts are based on a permanent-magnet direct- drive generator.

The topology of both concepts lends itself best to direct- drive (gearless)
drivetrains, and direct drivetrains are expected to be an economically
competitive solution; an increasing share of the mayor HAWT
manufacturers, such as Siemens[24] is choosing to equip the turbines
with a direct drive generator.
6.2.8 Blade Material
The blades are made out of glass-reinforced composite material.

Figure 6-4: Direct drive
6.2.9 Number of blades permanent magnet generator
For both concepts, the number of blades is chosen to be three. Blade quantity choice is treated by
Parashivoiu. For large VAWT‟s, the optimal N shifts between two and three. A three bladed rotor is better
from a torque variation and structural dynamics point of view, a two-bladed rotor is better from a
structural point of view. This argumentation is based on curved bladed rotors, but is expected to hold for
straight bladed rotors as well. Here, a number of three is chosen.
6.2.10 Control mechanism
The turbine shall be a variable speed machine. For each wind speed, a rotational velocity is prescribed.
The controller shall regulate the generator torque in order to maintain the desired rotational velocity.
Three regimes are defined; parked, pre-rated and post-rated.
Regime Entry wind Exit wind Characteristic rotational speed

speed [m/s] speed
[m/s]
Parked 0 Ucut-in No rotation 0
Pre-rated Ucut-in Urated Cp=constant   cp max U  / rtip
Post-Rated Urated Ucut-out Power=constant   cp (U  ) U  / rtip
Table 6-1: Control Regimes
28
In Table 6-1, cp (U ) is the desired tip speed ratio, which depends on the wind speed. To determine
cp (U ) , first the desired power coefficient is calculated:
Prated
c p (U )  (6.1)
1
   Ar U 3inf
2
The required tip speed ratio cp (U ) is found from the   c p curve.
An illustration of this power control principle is shown in Figure 6-5. This control behavior in the post
stall regime is considered the only means to regulate power for vertical axis wind turbines. A similar
method has been shown to be technically feasible for horizontal axis wind turbines, in research of NREL
by Muljadi, Pierce and Migliore [16](2000). The algorithm used in the NREL research is more refined,
but relied on the same principle. It expected that this method is used by the recent VAWT developers, but
no literature has been found to confirm this.
Figure 6-5: Power coefficient versus tip-speed ratio.[16]
29
Chapter 7: Rotor Design
7 Rotor Design
Rotor Design
Turbine Key Windspeeds
Rotor ASR and Solidity

Rotor Dimensions
Required Annual Energy Yield Turbine Behavior Curves
Aerodynamic Component Loading for Design Cases

Wind Distribution
Load Prediction
Model
Wind Profile
The chosen procedure for rotor design is the following: First, the aerodynamic load prediction model is
ran for the chosen solidity. This prediction model is described in Chapter 8 and returns a Cp curve. On
basis of this cp curve, the turbine control algorithm is created. Next, with the assumption of uniform wind
speed across the rotor, the power that the rotor shall produce per square meter is for each wind speed is
calculated. (7.1.1) Now, from the required annual energy yield and wind distribution, the required swept
area and other rotor dimensions are calculated. (7.1.2, 7.1.4, 7.1.5)
0.5
Parasitic drag included
0.45 No parasitic drag
0.4
0.35
0.3
Cp
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
TSR
\
Figure 7-1: Example Cp curve
7.1.1 Rotor power per square meter of swept area
The control algorithm dictates that the power coefficient shall be constant at its maximum, until rated
wind speed is reached. From rated windspeed up to cut-out speed, power should be constant.
1
U cut in  U   U rated  PA (U  )    U 3 ,eq  c p ,max
2 (7.1)
U rated  U   U cut out  PA (U  )  PA,rated
30
7.1.2 Swept area
Annual energy yield

The swept area is determined from the required energy yield. The annual aerodynamic energy yield is
equal to:

E yr   p(U  )  PA (U  )dU   Ar  hrsyr (7.2)
0
In which p (U  ) is the wind speed probability distribution, PA (U  ) the aerodynamic rotor power per
square meter of swept area, Ar is the swept area, and hrsyr is the number of hours in a year.
Equation (7.2) is rewritten to find the required swept area:
E yr
Ar   (7.3)
 p(U
0
 )  PA (U  )dU   hrsyr
Equation (7.3) is evolved numerically.
Iteration
To determine the windspeed at equator height from the wind speed profile, equator height is required.
At the beginning of the calculation, this height is unknown. This problem is solved by using an estimated
initial value, and iterating the process rotor design process, until the error on the value is smaller than 1%.
7.1.3 Rotational speed and Tip speed ratio
Tip speed ratio

The control algorithm dictates that up to rated wind 50
sol=0.18,ASR=1.1,A=9592m2,D=93.4m,H(equator)=78.9m,M(max)=74MNm
speed, TSR is constant at the value that gives the 45

RotSpeed, rpm
tsr
maximum power coefficient. From rated power up 40
to cutout wind speed; the following procedure is 35
followed to determine TSR: 30
25
20
15
10
0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Uinf
Figure 7-2: Example Prescribed rotational speed
1: Calculate required Cp:

PA,rated
U rated  U   U cutout  c p (U  )  (7.4)
0.5   U 3
2: Lookup required TSR for this cp from the TSR-Cp table.
31
Rotational velocity
The rotational velocity is a function of wind speed, TSR and rotor radius:   TSR U  / r
7.1.4 Rotor Diameter, Height and Blade chord length
The aspect ratio ASR and solidity  of the rotor are given as input parameters to the design process. The
rotor height and diameter are determined from the aspect ratio and swept area:
H r  ASR  Ar
Hr (7.5)
Dr 
ASR
The airfoil chord follows from the solidity and diameter and number of blades N b :
  rtip   Dr
Cb   (7.6)
Nb 2  Nb
7.1.5 Additional gap height
An additional airgap height is required for the cantilevered concept, as becomes evident from Figure 7-3:
Tower blade tip
O
Φ
hgap,add
Figure 7-3: additional gap height
The additional gap height is determined with the following reasoning: When pitching with an angle  ,
point O would be the lowest point of the rotor for the curved bladed concept or a HAWT turbine. The
rotor of the cantilevered concept must be moved up along the direction of the tower with a distance
hgap,add , so that the lowest point of the straight blade is at the same height as point O.
This distance is equal to:
Dr 1 D
hgap ,add   sin max   r  tan max (7.7)
2 cos max 2
32
Chapter 8: Aerodynamic load prediction
8 Aerodynamic load prediction
Dimensions Aerodynamic Power, Torque

Load Prediction
Environmental conditions Model Axial force
8.1 Description of aerodynamic prediction model

The aerodynamic model is based on the DART „multiple streamtube‟ model, as created by Sandia
National Laboratories [29]. The computer code reported by Strickland was written in a programming
language which was inconvenient to use; therefore the model was recreated in Matlab.
Additions
-Output of axial forces, and axial force coefficient, was added to the aerodynamic model.
-The original DART code was written for curved bladed rotors. A geometry option was added to calculate
results for a straight bladed rotor.
-When the straight bladed option is active, an empirical correction is applied to the performance values to
account for blade support drag
-Output of individual blade forces, was added for design of the blade supports
Description of multiple streamtube model

The multiple streamtube model is part of the „streamwise‟ wind turbine rotor modeling family. Other
models in this family are the actuator disk model for HAWT‟s, and the single streamtube and double disk
multiple streamtube models for VAWT‟s [21] These have in common that they are based on the
conservation of momentum, and equate this in streamwise direction.
For the multiple streamtube model, the rotor is regarded as a single disk, over which a pressured jump
takes place. The rotor area is divided into a number of independent streamtubes, that pass through the
rotor, parallel to the wind direction, as illustrated in Figure 8-1 . The force that the airfoil exerts on the
fluid, in this streamtube, is equated with the momentum loss of the fluid in this streamtube. To understand
the multiple streamtube method for VAWT, it is important to understand that the forces that the airfoil
exerts in the streamtube, are time averaged. Thus, the model does not calculate blade forces for a
particular instant in time, but for a quasi-steady flow situation.
The area of a streamtube is given by eq. (8.1). U is the fluid velocity through the streamtube.
As  h  r   sin  (8.1)
33
Figure 8-1: Streamtube [29]
8.1.1 Momentum theory
The windspeed in the streamtube is taken to be the average of the windspeed in front of the rotor ( U  ),
and behind the rotor ( U e )
U Ue
U (8.2)
2
From the conservation of mass and momentum follows eq. (8.3), where Fx is the average force in the
streamtube, and  is the density of the air.
Fx  2    As U (U  U ) (8.3)
Here, the factor 2 results from the fact that the speed decrease through the rotor is twice the velocity
decrease from undisturbed windspeed to streamtube speed: (U   U e )  2  (U   U ) .
34
For streamwise models, it is also common to express the momentum equation for an investigated area or
volume in terms of the interference or induction factor a  1  (U / U  ) , and undisturbed windspeed:
Fax  2    As U  2  a(1  a) (8.4)
8.1.2 Blade element theory
Below follows a summary of the employed VAWT blade element theory as described by Strickland.
The average force Fx in the streamtube is related to the blade element force Fx by noting that each Nth
blade element spends  /  percent of its time in the streamtube. Thus; the average force is also
written as:

Fx  N  Fx  (8.5)

Here, N is the number of blades. Eliminating Fx and making dimensionless yields:
N  Fx U  U 
  1   (8.6)
2    r    h  sin   U  2
U  U 
It is convenient to denote the left side of eq. (8.6) as Fx* .
Blade element forces

Two forces are introduced; Ft , which is the force tangent to the airfoil chord, and Fn , which is the force
normal to the airfoil chord. The streamwise force Fx is the resultant of these forces.
Fx  ( Fn sin   sin   Ft  cos  ) (8.7)
35
Figure 8-2: Forces on blade element [29]
The forces on the blade element are illustrated in Figure 8-2. The forces Ft and Fn are found by
multiplying the dynamic pressure and area of the airfoil with a force coefficient:
1 h  C
Ft   Ct    U R 2
2 sin 
(8.8)
1 h  C
Fn    Cn    U R 2
2 sin 
C , is the airfoil chord, and U R is the relative velocity:
U  sin   sin 
UR  (8.9)
sin 
The coefficients Ct and C n are found from the more common airfoil lift coefficients C L and C D :
Ct  CL sin   CD cos 
(8.10)
Cn  CL cos   CD sin 
 is the angle of attack between the airfoil chord line and U R . The angle of attack is found using
relation(8.11)., where Ut is the rotation-induced speed.
36
U  sin  sin 
tan   (8.11)
U  cos   U t
With eq. (8.6), (8.7) and (8.8), the non-dimensional streamwise force can be written as:
2
N C  UR   cos  
Fx 
*
    Cn  Ct  (8.12)
4   r  U   sin   sin  
8.1.3 Solution Procedure
To solve the momentum equation, the interference factor is used:

U
a  1 (8.13)
U
Rewriting equation (8.6) in terms of a yields:
a  Fx*  a 2 (8.14)
Equation (8.14) is iteratively solved for each streamtube, following the method described by Strickland:
1) The interference factor a is set equal to zero.

2)  is found from equation (8.11).
3) C n and Ct are obtained from a table of airfoil data.
4) U R is obtained from equation (8.9).
5) Fx* is calculated using equation (8.12).
6) A new value of a is calculated: ai 1  Fx ,i*  ai 2 .
7) U / U  is obtained from equation (8.13)
8) The process is repeated, starting from the calculation of  , until the desired accuracy is achieved.
8.1.4 Power coefficient
The torque produced by a blade element is obtained from:
1 C h
Ts  Ft  r     r  Ct  U R 2 (8.15)
2 sin 
To determine the average torque produced by all blades, the value of Ts must be time averaged and
multiplied by N:
N N Nh
T   Ts (8.16)
N 1 1
37
Here, N is the number steps in the  angle, and N h is the number of elements per blade. The rotor power
coefficient is:
T 
Cp  (8.17)
1
   Ar  U  3
2
8.1.5 Rotor Axial force
To find axial force for the complete rotor, first, the axial force coefficient per streamtube is needed:
Fx
CFax ,i  (8.18)
1
   U  2  Ad
2
From momentum theory, it is known that equation (8.18) is in terms of the induction factor:
CFax,i  4  ai  (1  ai ) (8.19)
The axial force coefficients are weighted with the area of the streamtube for which they have been
evaluated, and these weighed contributions are averaged over the rotor disk area:
N Nh
 A  C s Fax , s
CFax.r  1 1
(8.20)
Ar
To find the axial force of the complete rotor for a particular windspeed and operating condition, the axial
force is selected for the tips speed ratio at which the rotor is operating, and multiplied with the dynamic
pressure on the rotor area:
Fax  0.5    Ar  CFax ,r U  2 (8.21)
8.1.6 Blade Support Drag
For the cantilevered straight bladed concept, the blade support drag is included by subtracting a tip-speed
ratio dependent loss from the power coefficient:
c p  c p ,ms  0.002   3 (8.22)
38
0.5 This relation was introduced by Lazauskas [15]. A plot

0.45 No parasitic drag of aerodynamic efficiency with and without this
0.4
correction is shown in Figure 8-3. For the guyed
0.35
curved bladed concept, no parasitic losses are
0.3
deducted.
Cp
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1 8.1.7 Forces on individual blades

0.05
For the calculation of blade support loads, an addition
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
TSR
5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
to the model was also made to extract individual blade
Figure 8-3: Effect of blade support drag for forces. This procedure is not described here, but a
straight bladed turbine. good explanation is given in [21]
8.2 Comparison of results of Aerodynamic model to literature
8.2.1 Interference factor

A graphic representation of the windspeed in the streamtubes for the Sandia model is shown in Figure
8-4a. The interference factor as calculated by the aerodynamic prediction model, with equal airfoil data
and solidity, in Cartesian coordinates, for the curved bladed turbine, is shown in Figure 8-4b. The
agreement is good. The shape of the isocountours differs slightly. The reason for this cannot be given
with certainty, but the most likely cause is a difference in blade curve geometry. In the research by
Strickland, the used blade geometry is not explicitly described, and by visual inspection, it appears to
deviate from the parabolic curve used for the aerodynamic prediction model.
a=(1-(U/Uinf)), sol=0.3,TSR=3.5
0.45 0.35
0.4
0.3
0.35
0.25
0.3
0.2
z/H
0.25
0.2 0.15
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
y/R
Figure 8-4: a: Windspeed in streamtubes, view looking upstream (Sandia) b: Interference factor as
calculated by the aerodynamic force prediction model.
39
8.2.2 Power and axial force coefficient
The Power coefficient as calculated by Strickland and the aerodynamic prediction model is shown in
Figure 8-5 and Figure 8-6, respectively. Agreement is good.
Figure 8-5: The effect of solidity on power coefficient [29]
Figure 8-6: The effect of solidity on power coefficient (Aerodynamic prediction model)
In Figure 8-7 a and b, the prediction of the Sandia multiple streamtube model (DART) is compared to
experimental results and single streamtube model results. In Figure 8-7 c and d, the results of the
aerodynamic prediction model for equal input are shown.
40
0.5 0.5
0.45 0.45
0.4 0.4
0.35 0.35
0.3 0.3
Cp
0.25
Cp
0.25
0.2 0.2
0.15 0.15
0.1 0.1
0.05 0.05
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
TSR TSR
Figure 8-7:(clockwise from upper left position) a; cp curve Sandia Research, solidity=0.18. b:
Solidity=0.27. c: Prediction by aerodynamic model, solidity=0.18 d: Solidity=0.27
In Parashivoui [21], experimental results and the prediction of a single streamtube model for the axial
force coefficient ( C Fax , here called C D ) are presented. The results are shown in Figure 8-8a. The
prediction of the aerodynamic prediction model is shown in Figure 8-8b. For the low and medium tips
speed ratios, agreement is satisfactory. For high tip speed ratios (   6 , for a solidity of 0.25), the
prediction method is inaccurate. This is indirectly caused by the occurrence of physically impossible
interference factors higher than 0.5. For these induction factors, it would be required to employ Glauert‟s
empirical correction. [5]. However, since the turbine of our interest will operates in low and medium tip
speed ratios only, the model is left unchanged.
41
Figure 8-8: a: Non-dimensional axial force as a function of tip speed ratio. b: Results as calculated by
the aerodynamic prediction model.
8.3 Aerodynamic load prediction model for standstill conditions

Since the Multiple streamtube model as described by Strickland, assumes an operating wind turbine, it
cannot evaluate axial force for zero TSR, Therefore it is chosen to create as separate a simple drag model
for standstill conditions.
8.3.1 Tower
For survival winds, tower drag is too large to be ignored. Here, tower drag is calculated with dynamic
pressure and drag coefficient.
The Reynolds number of the tower in survival conditions is of order 107:
U  Dav ,tower   (3 to 7) 1.2

ReU 41    8.2 to19.3 106 (8.23)
 1.78 10 5
The Drag coefficient of a cylinder is sensitive to changes in Reynolds number in this regime; therefore a
conservative C D of 0.9 is used. This value was obtained from the book; “Fundamentals of Aerodynamics‟
(Anderson) [1]
The tower drag is determined using eq. (8.24). Its point of introduction is taken to be half tower height.
1
Fax ,tower     U  2  Cd  A (8.24)
2
42
8.3.2 Blades
A top-view of the blades in stopped position is shown in Figure 8-9 .
Blade 1
90º
U∞
120 deg
Ψadd
x 150°
Blade 2
Blade 3
U∞
30º
U∞
Figure 8-9: Drag of stopped rotor
For zero yaw, the blades are at an angle of 90, 30 and 150 degrees with respect to the wind.
Drag of the blades is calculated:
1
Fax ,blade ,i    U  2  Cd ,i  c  H (8.25)
2
i 3
Fax , rotor   Fax ,blade ,i (8.26)
i 1
x 10
5
Blade drag Naca 0018, H=120 m, C=3 m, Uinf=41 m/s We use the drag coefficients for
12
NACA 0018, listed for large angles
10
of attack by Parashivoiu (page
409).
8
Results when varying the yaw angle
Drag Blades (N)
are shown in Figure 8-10.

6 Although the total blade drag is
relatively insensitive to yaw for this
4 3-bladed rotor, there is a maximum,
Total and it occurs for a yaw angle of 15
Blade 1
2
Blade 2
degrees. As control over the yaw
Blade 3 angle is limited, the storm drag is
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
evaluated for this worst case yaw
yaw angle.
Figure 8-10: Blade drag for an additional yaw angle ψadd ,
superimposed on the position shown in Figure 8-9
43
Chapter 9: Component Design
9 Component Design
9.1 Generator mass

In a mass comparison of large direct-drive generators, performed by Bang and Polinder [4], it was found
that mass of a direct-drive generator can be described in a linear relation to the torque (Figure 9-1). The
recommended value of 25 kg/kNm is used. Note that for the FLOVAWT, the generator shall be rotating
around the vertical axis, whilst the generators in Figure 9-1 analysis of Bang and Polinder rotated around
a horizontal axis. This difference will have some effect on the weight of the inactive materials, but this is
left out of the analysis here. We use (9.1) to determine generator mass.
mgen  25 103  Tmax (9.1)
Note: As can be seen in Figure 9-1; the mass over torque ratio varies considerably across designs. The
actual weight may differ by 160 percent.
Figure 9-1: Mass of different large direct-drive generators as a function of the Torque [4]
9.2 Floater mass

The floater is based on the GustoMSC „Trifloater‟ design described in the Drijfwind report. Its weight is
upscaled depending on loads that the turbine imposes on it.
The prime design drivers for the Trifloater were the moment that the turbine imposed on it, and the
allowable pitching angle of the floater. The largest forces are the hydrodynamic forces, but these are
dependent on the floater dimensions which are, in turn, dependent on the stability demands. The stability
44
demands are governed by the turbine moment M and allowable heel all . In Figure 9-2, the moment arm,
which has al linear relationship to the righting moment, is shown.
Figure 9-2: Stability of Trifloater for different directions of wind loading.[37]
Following the above reasoning, it is chosen to scale the floater weight with required stability. The relation
of floater weight to stability is assumed to be linear. This linear relationship is not proven, a study where
different floaters are designed for different stability requirements is recommended. Almost all floaters
available in available literature are designed for a 5MW HAWT turbine.
M
The required stability ratio : is introduced as the governing parameter for floater weight (and cost).
all
all shall not be larger than 15 degrees for a Trifloater, based on Figure 9-2. If a spar type floater had been
chosen, all could be chosen larger than 15 degrees.
The ratio M /  all is determined for the two design conditions; the largest becomes the scaling parameter.
M  Fax max,opr  heq M  Fax , surv  heq  Fax ,tower , surv  hFaxtower
   ,    (9.2)

 all opr  all ,opr  all  surv all ,surv
The angles all ,opr and all , surv are defined as an input to the design process and have an effect on tower
weight, blade support weight, additional gap height and floater weight.
The Trifloater weight is now linearly upscaled with the ratio M /  all
45
M  M 
   
 all   all 
m fl  m fl ,ref   conf kg  (9.3)
 M ref   conf MNm 
   conf 
 ref   
Note; a more accurate method for floater weight estimation was derived, where turbine weight is also
included, but this method was not implemented due to time limitations.
9.3 Blade Mass

In lack of blade weight data for Megawatt-scale VAWT turbines, two methods are used for blade weight
estimation; up-scaling of the Flovawt 17-m blade weight, and up-scaling of composite MW-scale HAWT
blade weights.
Sandia 17 –m
D 17 m
swept 536 m2
No. of blades 3
blade weight 4.374
Table 9-1: Sandia 17m blade weight [30]
The dominant load-determining parameter is the swept area. The blade mass is upscaled with area, and
instead of cubic upscaling, a slightly gentler factor of 2.6 has been used because for large structures,
efficiency of structural design usually increases.
2.6 2.6
 A 2  Ar  2
mblades  r   mref   2 
 4374 kg (9.4)
A  536 m 
 ref 
Note that while in HAWT parameter studies it is common to upscale with diameter, this is not possible
for VAWT since the aspect ratio of the target rotor may differ from that of the reference rotor.
HAWT blade:
The second method, is to scale- up blade weight of multi-MW HAWT. It is acknowledged that the
aerodynamic and mechanical blade loading are distinctly different between HAWT and VAWT.
Nevertheless, the blade weight is upscaled with blade length only.
Note: First, and throughout the parameter studies, a highly conservative HAWT combined blade weight
of 110 ton was used. After consideration and comparing to several real 5MW HAWT designs, it was
finally decided to lower the blade weight estimation basis to that of the NREL Reference 5.0 HAWT
blade data (~60 ton), for the final presented designs. The difference between the values did not have an
effect on blade cost estimation, because this is also scaled directly with length, but it did have an effect on
blade support and tower cost. A sensitivity study (section 11.2.4) was conducted to the effect of this
variable on the parameter study, to make sure that the values that followed from the parameter study were
46
still correct, and the final designs have been calculated on basis of a reference HAWT blade weight of 60
ton.
The blade weight following from this method is;
lb lb
mblades , H   mref   60 103 kg (9.5)
rHAWT 63 m
Here, the blade length is equal to Hr.
9.4 Design of Tower

Two loads are considered for the tower design; the aerodynamic loading on blades and the weight loading
of tower mounted equipment when the floater is pitching. The wind loading on the tower and tower
weight are excluded.
F2
l2
t
F1
Dout,i
l1
zi
Dout,i
Figure 9-3: Tower and tower cross-section
The axial aerodynamic loading on the blades results in a moment acting on each tower cross-section:
0  dz  l1  M i , aero  (l1  zi )  F1  (l1  l2  zi )  F2

(9.6)
l1  dz  l2  M i , aero  (l1  l2  zi )  F2
Fax,max Fax,max
F1  , F2  (9.7)
2 2
Now, when the floater is under a pitch angle, the generator, blades and blade support weight also
contributes to the moments occurring in the tower.
47
(mbl  msup  mgen )  9.81 sin all

0  dz  l1  M i , g  ((l1  zi )  (l1  l2  zi )) 
2 (9.8)
(mbl  msup  mgen )  9.81 sin all
l1  dz  l2  M i , g  (l1  l2  zi ) 
2
The contributions have the same sign, and are added.
M i  M i ,aero  M i , g (9.9)
The stresses in the tower material that result from the moment depend on the section modulus S:
Mi
 (9.10)
S
I
S (9.11)
c
In which I is the area moment of inertia, and c is the distance to the zero-stress axis of the cross-section.
The area moment of inertia for a hollow cylinder is [9]:

I  1  (1  2  rtD )   D 4 out
4
(9.12)
64
Now, an appropriate fixed ratio rtD between the thickness t and outer diameter Dout is chosen;
rtD  0.0067 . This value is obtained from HAWT tower design, as performed by M.B. Zaaijer (DUT).
Also, a safety factor (SFt) is included. The required section modulus is:
M
S   G  D3out (9.13)
  allow 
 
 SF 
In which G is constant across the tower:

G  1  (1  2  rtD ) 
4
(9.14)
32
The required outer diameter of the tower is written as a function of the local moment:
1
  3
 M 
Dout ,i  i
 (9.15)
   all   G 
  SF  
  
48
The required area of the cross-section is:

 2 
At ,i   D out  ( Dout  2  rtD  Dout ) 2 (9.16)
4 4
The weight of the tower follows from the material density and material volume:
i n
mt  t Vt  t   At ,i  (zi zi 1 ) (9.17)
i 1
The required tower mass for the two design cases is evaluated, and the largest is selected as tower mass
Safety factor
A Safety Factor is used equal to that in HAWT design. The different loading characteristic between
HAWT and VAWT is acknowledged, but not taken into account here. The tower calculations were
performed for the NREL reference turbine, from which it was derived that the SF used is approximately
3.
Material
The tower material chosen is steel, with a density of 7850 kg/m3, and an allowable stress of 220 Mpa. [9]
heq=90,allowable phi max operating= 5deg, allowable phi survival = 5deg heq=90,allowable phi max operating= 5deg, allowable phi survival = 12deg
Fax blades, max operating= 800000 N Fax blades, survival= 1400000N Fax blades, max operating= 1100000 N Fax blades, survival= 1100000N
120 120
opr opr
surv
surv
opr-nogravity
opr-nogravity
surv-nogravity
surv-nogravity
100 100
80 80
z(m)
z(m)
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
D(m)
D(m)
Figure 9-4: Required tower diameter. a: Equal pitching angles for both design conditions b: Equal
aerodynamic loading for both design conditions
49
9.5 Design of blades supports

An idealized support construction is considered, consisting of 3 freely hinged members, shown in Figure
9-5. Five load cases are evaluated.
Blade
l3
Bearing
Fc Fnb l2
Hr
Fg
Bearing
l1
Figure 9-5: blade support structure
9.5.1 Dimensions
The horizontal length of the support is defined by the radius of the rotor and the tower diameter:
Dt ( out )( heq )
l1  l3  rtip  ( ) (9.18)
2
Note that we approximate the local tower diameter by using the diameter at equator height. We also do
not take into account the extra diameter of the bearings, because it is relatively small compared to the
radius. The length of the diagonal member becomes:
Hr 2
l2  l12  ( ) (9.19)
2
Load cases
The load cases are described in Table 9-2. Here „inward‟ denotes; directed towards the center of rotation
of the rotor.
50
Table 9-2: Blade support load cases

Case Turbine system Aerodynamic load Aero Load
operating pitch angle Symbol
1 operating 0 Maximum outward directed blade force during Fnb,opr,max
maximum operating condition
2 operating 0 Maximum inward directed blade force during maximum Fnb,opr,min
operating condition
3 standstill 0 Maximum inward directed blade force during maximum Fnb,surv,max
survival
4 standstill 0 Maximum outward directed blade force during Fnb,surv,min
maximum survival
5 operating φall,opr Blade force during maximum operating condition when Fnb,opr,θ=0
the blade is at a blade yaw angle of zero degrees. Blade
yaw angle (θ) is defined in the aerodynamic streamtube
model description.
9.5.2 Weight loading
The mass of one blade is calculated; mb  mblades / N . The weight force in the frame is:
Fg  g  mb  cos( ) .
The tension in the members as result of the weight loading is:
l1
P1, g   P2, g 
l2
l2
P2, g   Fg (9.20)
 Hr 
 
 2 
P3, g  0
9.5.3 Centrifugal loading
The centrifugal force of the complete blade that is distributed over the two attachment points is:
Fc  mb  ( Dr / 2)  r 2 (9.21)
Where  r is the angular speed of the rotor.
51
It is assumed that the centrifugal loading is transfers to member 1 and 3 only; the contribution of member
2 is ignored:
P1,c  Fc / 2
P2,c  0 (9.22)
P3,c  Fc / 2
9.5.4 Aerodynamic loading
The aerodynamic blade forces are obtained from the aerodynamic model. The aerodynamic force Fnb is
positive for outward direction. It is again assumed that the horizontal blade loading transfers to member 1
and 3 only;
P1,nb  Fnb / 2
P2,nb  0 (9.23)
P3,nb  Fnb / 2
9.5.5 Required cross-sectional area for cases 1, 2, 3, and 4
The tensile loads in the members are:
Pj  Pj , g  Pj ,c  Pj ,nb (9.24)
Here, j, denotes member number.

The required cross-sections to carry this axial load are calculated with eq. (9.25), where the allowable
stress is determined by the ultimate stress σult,s and the safety factor SFs;  all   ult / SF .
Pj
Ai  (9.25)
 all
The cross-section of the blade support is envisioned to be a rectangular box-shape, shown in Figure 9-6.
The cross-section should fit into an aerodynamic enclosure of NACA00XX shape. A characteristic box
aspect ratio and inner-outer width ratio is chosen;
h hi bi
ASRs   0.15, rt , s    0.97 (9.26)
b h b
52
bi
naca00xx.png
hi
h
Figure 9-7: Box structure blade support
The beam width can be written as a function of the cross sectional area;
A  h  b  hi  bi  0.15  b 2  0.15  rt , s  b rt , s  b  0.15  (1  r 2t ,s )  b 2  K s  b 2

Aj (9.27)
bj 
Ks
9.5.6 Required cross- sectional area for case 5: Pitching system.
The fifth case is unique in the sense that the weight loading now has an out-of-truss-frame component.
The members now undergo moment loading. The out-of-truss-frame component is maximum when the
blade-support assembly is at zero and 180 degree yaw angles. The zero degree yaw angle case is
investigated. The pitching system is illustrated in Figure 9-8.
Figure 9-8: System pitching by an angle of 6 degrees, investigated bending loaded members highlighted.
Dt ( out )( heq )
The local radius along the length of members 1 and 3 is: rl  r  ( ) , where r is the distance to
2
the center of rotation.
The moment due to out-of-truss-frame weight loading in members 1 and 3 is calculated, where the weight
loading is assumed to be distributed equally over the two members:
53
1 m
M 1  M 3   blades  9.81 (l1  rl )  sin  (9.28)
2 N
The stresses in beams that undergo both axial and moment loading are found by relation(9.29), where y is
the distance to the centerline, and I is the area moment of inertia.
P My
  (9.29)
A I
The moment of inertia for the box cross-section is:
h  b3 hi  bi 3
I (  )  12.5 103  (1  r 4ts )  b 4  J s  b 4 (9.30)
12 12
Now, a polynomial in terms of beam width b can be written:
M (b / 2) P
 ( all  ) 
Js b 4
K s  b2
Js  P b
0.5  M   all  J s  b3  
Ks (9.31)
Js  P
0   all  J s  b3   b  0.5  M
Ks
This cubic function is solved for a number of positions along the member. The resulting required local
cross sectional area for case 5 is found using equation (9.27).
Member profile and weight

Along the members, the maximum required cross-sectional area is selected from the results for the 5 load
cases. The member weights are obtained by calculating the volume for each section, and multiplying with
density, as it was done in tower design. The total weight of the supports becomes:
i 3
msup ports  N   m j (9.32)
i 1
54
Safety factor
The Safety factor SFs is chosen to 3
be 5, because of the cyclic nature member 1
member 2
of the loading. It is noted here, that 2.5 member 3
for final design, a fatigue analysis
would be mandatory. Also,
2
buckling should be considered.
beam width(b) [m]

1.5
Material
The chosen material is steel with a
density of 7850 kg/m3, and an 1
allowable stress of 220 Mpa. [9].

Because of the cyclic loading 0.5
characteristic, it would be
interesting to investigate the use of 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
more fatigue-resistant composite radius(rl) [m]
materials; this is left for further
analysis. Figure 9-9: Typical support member profiles
55
Chapter 10: Cost estimation of selected components of Cantilevered concept
10 Cost estimation of selected components of

Cantilevered concept
Cost basis
The costs estimates consist of parametric and Table 10-1: representative split cost for
engineering cost functions. HAWT[conf]
For the parametric cost functions (floater, blades, Component Cost Fraction
generator, power equipment), the cost of an as-built Blades 0.182
component is upscaled following one parameter. Hub 0.025
For the engineering cost functions (tower, blade
supports), masses that follow from design are Gearbox 0.169
multiplied with a price per kilogram. Generator 0.066
Yaw system 0.03
For the cost of the as-built components, HAWT Nacelle cover 0.025
component cost distribution is obtained from conf, Nacelle structure 0.034
HAWT turbine cost is obtained from the annual
Tower 0.157
International Wind Energy Development World
Market Update by BMT Consult ApS [21] (2009) Variable speed system 0.097
and Trifloater cost is obtained from the Drijfwind Pitch System 0.064
Study. Rotor brake 0.015
For the kilogram based cost functions, cost was Couplings 0.01
provided by conf; a cost of 11€/kg is used for truss
Shaft 0.03
structure or profile steel (supports), and 3.5 €/ kg
for the tower steel. Main Bearings 0.03
Rotor lock 0.01
The cost of a Trifloater floating foundation for a Other 0.055
5MW turbine is derived from the Drijfwind study, Total turbine 1
with correction for inflation; conf.
The cost of a 5MW offshore wind turbine including Table 10-2: Estimated Average Turbine Cost for
tower is 7.5 M€, using the conservative 2008[21]
estimate for offshore turbines by Germany Country Turbine Cost (€/kW)
by the World Market Update [21] These Germany 941 to 1,340 Onshore,
estimates are presented in Table 10-2. 1,350 to 1,500 Offshore
Ireland 1,100
Italy 1,270
Portugal 1,061
Switzerland 1,450
United states 977
10.1 Generic components
The parametric cost function for the generator is;
Tmax T Tmax
Cgen  Cref   Cturb,ref  f drivetrain  max  7.5  0.235MEuro  (10.1)
Tmax, ref Tmax, ref 4.2 MNm
56
Chapter 10: Cost estimation of selected components of Cantilevered concept
Tmax,ref , is the maximum torque of the Reference NREL 5MW turbine. In lack of a cost estimate for a
direct-drive generator, the total drive-train cost of a non-direct drive HAWT turbine is used. The cost
fraction f drivetrain of 0.235 is the combined split cost of gearbox and generator.
The parametric costs function for the power equipment is;
Pmax P
C pow  Cturb,ref  f powereq   7.5  0.097 MEuro  max (10.2)
Pmax, ref 5.3MW
Where 0.097 is the split cost share of the „Variable Speed System‟. For Pmax,ref , the maximum
aerodynamic power of the NREL Reference turbine is used, because Pmax is the aerodynamic maximum
power of the target VAWT turbine.
The parametric cost function for the composite blades is:
mbl , H mbl , H
Cbl  Cturb,ref  fbl   7.5  0.182 MEuro  (10.3)
mbl ,ref 110 103 kg
Where mb,ref is the mass of the blades of the NREL reference turbine.
The engineering cost function of the tower is:
Ctow  Csteel ,tow  mtow  3.5  mtow (10.4)
Where C st is the cost of tower steel; 3.5 €/kg. For comparison, this cost estimate is compared to the cost
of tower steel derived from the cost distribution, turbine cost and NREL reference design; this is:
Cst  Cturb,ref  ftow / mtow,ref  7.5  0.157 / (347 103 )  3.3 Euro / kg
The parametric cost function for the floater is:
m fl
C fl  C fl ,ref   conf (10.5)
m fl ,ref
The engineering cost function for the blade supports is:
Csup  Csteel ,sup  msup  11.0  msup (10.6)
Where the cost of support steel is taken equal to the cost of truss structure steel: 11 €/kg.
57
Chapter 11: Parameter study and selection of Cantilevered concept
11 Parameter study and selection of Cantilevered

concept
11.1 Parameter study

Now that the design model is finished, it is used to generate a number of designs. By inspection of
resulting system costs, a design is chosen.
11.1.1 Allowable system pitch angles
The constraint for this parameter is the maximum safe pitch angle of the floater. In Figure 9-2, it was seen
that when pitching more that 15 degrees, the system will become unstable. A Safety margin must be
included and the maximum allowable pitch angle for the floater is chosen to be 12 degrees. Now, with the
allowable system pitch angle fixed at 12 degrees, the effect of varying allowable pitch angle in
operational condition is investigated. It is observed that from an operational allowable pitch angle of 9
degrees, the floater cost does not decrease further; the survival stability requirement has become the
dominant design driver for the floater. For high (>15, physically impossible) angles, the effect of
increasing tower and support cost on total cost becomes visible. The value of 9 degrees is chosen to
proceed with further investigations.
sol= 0.18 ,ASR= 0.9

Urated= 15 m/s, PhiAllOpr= N/A Deg ,PhiAllSur= 12 Deg
60
Floater
Generator
50 Tower
Blades
Supports
40 Power
Total
Cost (Meuro)
30
20
10
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Allowable tilt angle Opr [deg]
Figure 11-1: Effect of allowable system pitch on cost.
58
11.1.2 Aspect ratio
Now the effect of varying aspect ratio (H/D) is investigated. For high ASR, the floater becomes expensive
due to the high equator height; the moment arm of the overturning moment is increasing and stability
demands of the floater are increasing. For low ASR, the generator becomes expensive due to low
rotational speeds and therefore high torque. The increase of blade support cost for low ASR is lower than
expected. This may be attributed to a lower rotational speed, which is squared in the determination of
centrifugal forces, which are an important cause of stresses in the support members.
sol= 0.18 ,ASR= N/A

Urated= 15 m/s, PhiAllOpr= 9 Deg ,PhiAllSur= 12 Deg
30
Floater
Generator
25 Tower
Blades
Supports
20 Power
Total
Cost (Meuro)
15
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
ASR [-]
Figure 11-2: Effect of Aspect Ratio on cost

4.5 4.5
member 1 member 1
4 member 2 4 member 2
member 3 member 3
3.5 3.5
3 3
beam width(b) [m]
beam width(b) [m]
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
radius(rl) [m] radius(rl) [m]
Figure 11-3: Effect of ASR on beam profiles: a: ASR=0.4, b: ASR=1.6
The result of the analysis show that a relatively low ASR results in lowest system cost. A value for ASR
of 0.9 is chosen to proceed with further analysis.
59
11.1.3 Rated wind speed
The rated windspeed is an important parameter for the turbines control algorithm, with a large effect on
system cost. When this parameter is chosen to be low, the turbines required swept area for the prescribed
energy yield increases considerably. The long and large blades undergo a high survival storm wind
loading, which results in high floater stability requirements. The large required rotor also results in high
tower and blade support cost. On the other side of the domain, for high rated wind speed, the turbine
thrust at rated windspeed becomes the dominant floater stability driver, and the floater cost increases
again. Also, cost of power equipment increases for increasing rated wind speed. A value of 15 m/s is
chosen to proceed.
sol= 0.18 ,ASR= 0.9
Urated= N/A m/s, PhiAllOpr= 9 Deg ,PhiAllSur= 12 Deg
50
Floater
45 Generator
Tower
40
Blades
35 Supports
Power
30 Total
Cost (Meuro)
25
20
15
10
0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Urated [m/s]
Figure 11-4: Effect of rated wind speed on system cost
sol=0.18,ASR=0.9,A=24125m2,D=163.7m,H(equator)=106.1m,M(max)=140MNm sol=0.18,ASR=0.9,A=7708m2,D=92.5m,H(equator)=66.5m,M(max)=68MNm
14000 15000
13000 RotPwr, kW 14000 RotPwr, kW
RotThrust, kN RotThrust, kN
12000 13000
RotTorq, kNm RotTorq, kNm
11000 12000
10000 11000
9000 10000
9000
8000
8000
7000
7000
6000
6000
5000
5000
4000
4000
3000 3000
2000 2000
1000 1000
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Uinf Uinf
Figure 11-5: Effect of rated wind speed on Power-Torque-Thrust curve; a: Ur=9 m/s, b:Ur=18 m/s
60
11.1.4 Solidity
The effect of rotor solidity (σ=N*C/R) is investigated next. It is shown that the effect of varying this
parameter is small.
sol= 0.24 ,ASR= 0.9
Urated= 15 m/s, PhiAllOpr= 9 Deg ,PhiAllSur= 12 Deg
25
Floater
Generator
Tower
20
Blades
Supports
Power
15 Total
Cost (Meuro)
10
0
0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24
Solidity [-]
Figure 11-6: Effect of Rotor solidity on system cost. (Solidity is varying, not fixed as suggested by title)
11.1.5 2-D Parameter study
Now, it is investigated whether the sequential order of parameter determination in the previous sections
has resulted in errors. System cost is calculated while varying two parameters. First, ASR and operational
angle:
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
2.5
2
1.5 6 5
1 8 7
0.5 10 9
0 13 12 11
phiallopr [deg]
ASR [-]
Figure 11-7: Effect of operational allowable pitch angle and rated wind speed on system cost
It is observed that the chosen ASR and allowable angle (0.9 [-] and 9 degrees), are near the minimum.
61
Next, ASR and Rated wind speed are varied; it is observed that the chosen values of 15 m/s and 0.9 are
close to the minimum.
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15 22
2.5 20
2 18
1.5 16
1 14
0.5 12
0 10
ASR Urated
Figure 11-8: Effect of ASR and Rated wind speed on system cost
A sensitivity study was conducted to investigate the effect of the used safety factors, blade weight
estimation methods and the chosen wind distribution on cost of the cantilevered concept.
62
11.2 Sensitivity study

11.2.1 Safety factor component stresses
In the design process, a safety factor was chosen, but no because fatigue analysis was performed. Results
of fatigue analyses may indicate that the safety factor must either be chosen higher or lower or, more
correctly, the fatigue analysis may become the dominant design driver for the tower. In Figure 11-9, the
effect of varying tower stress safety factor on total system cost can be seen.
For the support structure, a relatively high safety factor of 5 has been chosen. Again, fatigue analysis may
show that a different safety factor is suitable. The effect of varying this safety factor is shown as well.
In Figure 11-9b, the effect of varying support structure safety factor is investigated.
40 40
SFt=1 SFs=2
35 SFt=1.5 SFs=3
35
SFt=3 SFs=5
SFt=4 SFs=7
30 30
25 25
Cost (MEuro)
20 Cost (MEuro) 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Urated (m/s) Urated (m/s)
Figure 11-9: a Cantilevered concept cost of selected components as a function of rated wind speed. a:
for different tower stress safety factors. b: For different support structure stress safety factors.
11.2.2 Blade weight estimation methods

In Figure 11-10, the effect of different
40
Upscaled 5MW HAWT blades
blade weight estimation methods is
35 Upscaled Flowind 17 m Blades shown, for a HAWT blade weight basis
of 60 ton (110 ton in rest of parameter
30 and sensitivity study, see explanation 9.3
25
and 11.2.4) The effect is large and it
shows that the blade weight and cost
Cost (MEuro)
20 estimation method is a large cause of

uncertainty in the cost analysis. For
15
parameter determination, the difference
10 does not seem to have a large effect.
0
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Urated (m/s)
Figure 11-10: Cantilevered concept cost of selected

components as a function of rated wind speed, for different
blade weight estimation methods.
63
11.2.3 Weibull scale parameter

Now, the effect of varying the Weibull
0.12
Uav=9
Scale parameter is investigated. The
Uav=7 Weibull distributions are shown in Figure
0.1 Uav=8
Uav=10 11-11. Note that the in the legend with
Uav does not denote average windspeed,
Probability of occurence
0.08
but Weibull scale parameter.
0.06
The resulting required swept area of the
rotor for different scale parameters, and
0.04
total system costs, are shown in Figure
11-12. As expected, the required area for
0.02
the different wind distributions varies
significantly. It can be observed that
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 system cost increases by a large amount for
Uinf(m/s), 10m
more unfavorable wind conditions.
Figure 11-11: Weibull distribution for a shape parameter
of 1.8, and various scale parameters.
100
Total Cost(Meuro)for Uav= 7m/s
Uav= 8m/s
90 Uav= 9m/s
Uav= 10m/s
Required Swept Area/1000 (m2) for Uav= 7m/s
80
Uav= 8m/s
Uav= 9m/s
70 Uav= 10m/s
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Urated (m/s)
Figure 11-12: Cantilevered concept cost of selected components as a function of rated wind speed, for
different Weibull scale parameters.
64
11.2.4 Blade weight estimation basis
Here, the effect on system cost of the blade weight 40

Bladeweightref=60ton
estimation is investigated. It is observed that the blade Bladeweightref=110ton
35
weight estimation basis does have a significant effect on
overall cost, but not on the determination of the ASR 30
parameter.
25
Cost (MEuro)
20
15
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
ASR (m/s)
Figure 11-13: Effect of blade weight estimation

basis on parameter study
11.3 Chosen Design physical data

Based on the parameter study, a optimal design has been selected. Its main parameters are shown in Table
11-1, and dimensions, dominant loads, and masses are shown in Table 11-2. Cost data is presented in the
lifetime cost estimation chapter where the two concepts are compared to the reference HAWT (Chapter
19).
Table 11-1: Cantilevered concept design Parameters

Solidity of rotor 0.18
Ucutin (m/s) 4.00
Urated ( m/s) 15.00
Ucutout (m/s) 25.00
ASR 0.90
Allowable system pitch angle Operating (deg) 9.00
Allowable system pitch angle in Survival condition (deg) 12.00
Airfoil NACA 0018
Airfoil Lift & Drag Coefficient Data Reynolds number 5E6
65
Table 11-2: Cantilevered concept design Dimensions, Loads and Masses

Turbine Dimensions Turbine Loads Turbine Mass (ton)
Equator Height (m) 71.9 Maximum Aerodynamic Rotor 919 Floater 1063
loading, operating (kN)
Rotor Height (m) 92.1 Aerodynamic Rotor loading, 866 Tower 378
Survival (kN)
Rotor Diameter (m) 102.4 Aerodynamic Tower Loading, 517 Blade Supports 96
Survival (kN)
Blade Chord (m) 3.1 Maximum Torque, operating 9120 Generator 228
(kNm)
Max Support beam 2.7 Maximum Rotor Power, 7666 Blades 88
Width (m) operating (kW)
Air Gap (m) 15.0 Total turbine inc tower 790
Beginning of rotor (m) 25.9
VGC turbine including 54.10
tower (m)
0.5
1
0.45 No parasitic drag 0.9
0.4
0.8
0.35 0.7
0.3 0.6
CFax
Cp
0.25 0.5
0.2 0.4
0.15 0.3
0.1 0.2
0.05 0.1
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
TSR TSR
Figure 11-14: Selected designs power coefficient and drag coefficient curves, where the power coefficient
curve including parasitic drag has been used in the design process.
a=1-(U/Uinf), sol=0.18,TSR=3.5
0.25 The induction factors over the rotor are shown in
Figure 11-15. Limitations of the model can be
0.2
seen; 3-D effects and wind shear over the rotor
are clearly not included. Nevertheless, values for
power coefficient agree to those found in
0.15
literature to a degree that is satisfactory for this
z/H
0.5
conceptual design process. Please note also that
0.1 wind shear effect has been included for
determination of wind speed at equator height.
0.05 Now, the turbine power and rotational speed
curves are presented next to those of the
0
reference NREL HAWT turbine. (Figure 11-16
-1 -0.8-0.6-0.4-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 & Figure 11-17) Note that the scales differ for
y/R
the first figure.
Figure 11-15: Induction plot for selected design
66
10000
RotPwr, kW
9000 RotThrust, kN
RotTorq, kNm
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Uinf
.
Figure 11-16: Selected design Power-Torque-Thrust curve and that of Reference HAWT
50
RotSpeed, rpm
45 tsr
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Uinf
Figure 11-17: Selected design Rotational speed and TSR curve and that of Reference HAWT
It is observed that the maximum torque and power is considerably higher than that of the Reference
HAWT. This alone does not have to be decisive factor against feasibility of floating VAWT, but it does
indicate an important challenge for VAWT developers. The tower and support structure profile are
presented next. Now that a design has been selected for the Cantilevered concept, the focus can shift to
the Guyed concept.
heq=71.9391,allowable phi max operating= 9deg, allowable phi survival = 12deg
Fax blades, max operating= 918807.9159 N Fax blades, survival= 865920.5025N
100
opr
4.5
90 surv member 1
4
member 2
80
3.5 member 3
70
beam width(b) [m]
3
60
2.5
z(m)
50
2
40
1.5
30
1
20
0.5
10
0
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
D(m)
radius(rl) [m]
Figure 11-18: Tower and support member profiles for selected design
67
Chapter 12: Guyed Concept Design Methodology and Description
12 Guyed Concept Design Methodology and

Description
The second concept to investigate is a vertical axis wind turbine on a taut-moored platform held upright
by guy wires. Such a concept is attractive because it transfers the loading to water and seabed with little
cantilevered moments in the structure, which reduces floater and tower cost. To avoid high loads in the
turbine, the mooring system should be much stiffer than the guy system for it to take the largest portion of
the hydrodynamic loads. The guy cable stiffness should be low enough for the cable frequency to be in
the dynamically soft regime (explained in 14.3.5). The water-piercing part of the floater should be
relatively thin, to minimize wave loads.
Figure 12-1: Illustration of selected Guyed design
The analysis of this concepts is restricted to relatively shallow waters (depth≤100 m), as it is likely that
for deeper water an altered mooring concept would be used. This mooring concept, which employs
multiple submerged buoys to maintain acceptable sag of the cables, is described in Appendix E.
68
12.1 Design Methodology

The main aspects of the design methodology for the guyed concept are the equal to those of the
Cantilevered concept. Rotor dimensions were determined for given input parameters, and mass estimates
are made. A difference is, that there is no readily available floater design. Therefore, a simple floater is
designed depending on the turbine requirements.
Another difference is that the configuration is statically indeterminate; to find the cable reaction forces,
and floater requirements, a static model is required where deformation of the cables is included. Such a
model was created in the form of a rigid body model, where aerodynamic, hydrodynamic and mechanical
forces are included. The results of the model are used as input for floater and cabling design. The
illustration of the guyed concept design process is shown in Figure 12-2.
Automated in Matlab
Inspection
Definition Cost of
of initial Estimations Resulting
parameters Design
Rotor Design Turbine component

design
Central Column
Mass Estimation
Generator Mass
Aerodynamic HydroStatic Model
Estimation
Load Prediction
Aerodynamic
Model
Blade Mass Load Prediction
estimation Model
Mechanical Load
Prediction Model
Hydrodynamic
Foundation design
Load Prediction
Floater Design Iteration Model
Cable Design
iteration
Figure 12-2: Guyed concept Design processes.
69
12.2 Description of Guyed Concept
12.2.1 Floating foundation
The foundation is a taut-moored semi-submerged Central column
platform. It consists of a submerged buoyancy body,

and a surface-piercing cylinder. An extra set of cables
is attached to the bearing above the rotor, called from
here guy cables, and these cables are running to the
seabed, under an angle of 45 degrees.
Weight and horizontally loaded bearing
12.2.2 Central column
The tower or from here called „central column‟, is Horizonally loaded bearing
rotating, and should be predominantly axially loaded.

generator
The chosen material is steel. The tower runs from the
generator, though the lower bearing assembly, to the brake
upper bearing.
Figure 12-3: Optional bearing and generator
configuration
12.2.3 Generator and bearing
location
There is one generator, located underneath the rotor and lower rotor bearing, to allow replacement.
Bearings can be configured as in Figure 12-3, so that the horizontally loaded bearing can be replaced if
needed without removing the complete rotor. It is likely that in final design, more compact and efficient
bearing configurations are created. The rotor starts at a distance above still water level, to prevent splash
water hitting the rotor. This distance is called the airgap (hgap), and is chosen to be 15 m.
12.2.4 Blade shape
A curved bladed rotor best suits the guyed support structure, as becomes evident from Figure 12-4. The
blades follow a parabolic curve:
r ( zr  0.5H r ) 2
 1 (12.1)
0.5  Dr 0.25  H r 2
Here, z r is the vertical distance to the lowers point of the blade; the beginning of the rotor. r is the radius
of the rotor at height z r . Dr and H r are the diameter and height of the rotor, respectively.
12.2.5 Number of mooring and guy cables
The number of cables is envisioned to be the minimum: three guy cables and three mooring cables. This
configuration also has the advantage of being self-equilibrating during installation. There is no
redundancy, which implies a total loss of turbine in case of a cable failure. A cable failure event is
expected to be rare, and the platform is unmanned except during maintenance in calm conditions.
70
Chapter 13: Guyed Concept Rotor Design
Figure 12-4: Guyed floating VAWT concept side view
13 Guyed Concept Rotor Design

The previously described rotor design procedure is used a=1-(U/Uinf), sol=0.18,TSR=4.5
the find required dimensions and rotational speeds for the 0.95 0.35
given annual required energy and wind distribution. 0.9
0.85
0.3
0.8
In this case, there is no additional gap height, as the
0.75
system undergoes only small displacements, and since a 0.7
0.25
curved bladed rotor is used. 0.65
0.6
The lower bearing, generator and beginning of rotor all 0.55 0.2
z/H
are located at airgap height (15 m). This simplification is 0.5

0.45
made because the heights of bearing and generator are not 0.15
0.4
determined during the design process. With this 0.35
simplification an error in the order of meters is made. 0.3
0.1
0.25
The geometry for the aerodynamic model differs, now the 0.2
curved- blade geometry is prescribed. There is no 0.15 0.05
correction for parasitic drag of the struts. 0.1

0.05
0
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
y/R
Figure 13-1: Induction factor for the

selected designs curved bladed rotor
operating at optimal tip speed ratio, with a
NACA 0018 airfoil and Airfoil data for
Re=5.0·10 6(view looking upstream)
71
Chapter 14: Hydrostatic Model
14 Hydrostatic Model
HydroStatic Model
Aerodynamic
Load Prediction
Dimensions
Model Cable reactions
Masses Mechanical Load Displacements

Prediction Model
Design Environmental Conditions Hydrodynamic

Load Prediction
Model
When selecting analysis techniques for modeling the guyed floating VAWT concept, it was found that the
assumptions used in land-based VAWT guy analysis are not valid for the floating situation, because
vertical displacements of the top of the tower cannot be neglected. The assumptions that are used in the
analysis of an offshore tension leg platform cannot be used either, because of the presence of the set of
guy wires at the top of the turbine. Therefore, a new model was developed.
The turbine and floater assembly is considered as a rigid body. The mooring (m) cables are defined as the
cables which run from the floater to the seabed. The guy (g) cables are defined as the cables which run
from the top of the rotor to the seabed. The submerged portion of the turbine/floater assembly gives
produces a buoyancy force which acts on a single point (B) The weight of the turbine/floater assembly is
included as a point mass(M). Although it is envisioned that the system shall have 3 guy and mooring
cables, we use a number of 4 in the analysis because it allows a clear 2-D analysis of the problem.
72
14.1 Model description

The floater – turbine
C4 C4
assembly is considered as
a rigid body, shown in
Figure 14-1. Note that
the x-axis is positive
towards the wind
direction by definition.
FW
The cable numbering is
shown in Figure 14-2.
Point C1 is the mooring
cable attachment point of
cable 1; the downwind
mooring cable. Point C2
is the mooring cable phi
attachment point of cable l3 lW
2; the upwind mooring

cable. Point C3 is the
mooring cable
attachment point of cable Fg
Still Water Level Still Water Level
3 and 4, the cables that lg
O dx
run perpendicular to the l2 C C C C1 C3 C2 O dz
1 3 2
lH lB
viewing plane in Figure
l1
14-1. Point C4 is the guy
FH
cable attachment point of
z z
cables 5,6,7 and 8. FB
x x
Figure 14-1: Rigid body. a: forces and dimensions, b: displacements
l1 is the horizontal distance from the vertical centerline of the floater to the mooring cable attachments.
Not that l1 cannot be chosen zero, because the system must also have some rotational stiffness to
counteract torque loading. l2 is the vertical distance from the mooring cable attachments to still water level
(swl). l3 is the vertical distance from still water level to the guy wire attachment point.
lw is the vertical distance from still water level to the aerodynamic loading point. lg is the vertical distance
from still water level to the weight loading. lB is the vertical distance from still water level to the point of
buoyancy force. lh is the vertical distance from still water level to the hydrodynamic loading point.
For both cables, a value for „initial cable slackness‟ is also prescribed; rL0,m and rL0,g . This variable is the
length of the cable when the system is in initial position (L0), divided by the length of a straight line
between anchor and connection point. Typical values for initial cable slackness are 0.999 for the mooring
cables, and 1.0001 for the guy cables. Another variable; guy extension length (hguy,ext) is also introduced,
this is the distance from the top guy wires attachment point C4 to the top of the rotor.
73
The cables are at an angle  c to the horizontal. In the initial

8
undeformed situation, L j is the distance between the anchor
and the cable attachment point, where j is either m for
mooring or g for guy cable.
L j , x is the horizontal length, and L j , z is the vertical length of 5
C4
6
a cable of type j. It is convenient to define the ratios of cable

projection lengths so total length; Guy Cables
Lm, x Lm, x Lg , x Lg , z 7
rxm  , rxm  , rxg  and rzg 
Lm Lm Lg Lg y
4
It is noted here that we used an angle of 45 degrees

throughout the simulations, for which these ratios are all x
equal. C1 C3 C2
1 2
The rigid body in two dimensions undergoes three
displacements; x , z and  . The displacement of the Mooring cables
cable attachment points C1, C2, C3 and C4 can be calculated
by translations and rotations: 3
Figure 14-2: Cable numbering
These translations and rotations are shown in equations (14.1).
x1  x  (1  cos  )  l1  sin   l2

x2  x  (1  cos  )  l1  sin   l2
x3  x  (sin  )  l2
x4  x  sin   l3
(14.1)
z1  z  (sin  )  l1  (1  cos  )  l2
z2  z  (sin  )  l1  (1  cos  )  l2
z3  z  (1  cos  )  l2
z4  z  (1  cos  )  l3
For the calculation of the moment equilibrium, it is required to define the moment arms a. The arms are
defined such that if the force acting on it is positive, the sign of a determines whether the contribution to
the moment is positive. The moment is evaluated around the point O, which is situated on the crossing of
the centerline of the configuration, and still water level
74
The moment arms for the cable forces are:
ax1  l2  (z1  z )

ax 2  l2  (z2  z )
ax 4  l3  (z4  z )
az1  l1  (x1  x) (14.2)
az 2  l1  (x1  x)
az 3  (x3  x)
az 4  (x4  x)
The moment arms for the Aero- and Hydrodynamic loads are also defined;
axw  cos   lw
axh   cos   lh
(14.3)
azg  lg  sin 
azB  lB  sin 
The tension force in the cable at the attachment point is Pi, where i is the cable number. Since the
deformations are small, the simplification is made that the cable force acts always in its initial direction.
For the moment equilibrium, the term for restoring moment of the surface area of the water-piercing
cylinder is neglected, because it expected to be orders of magnitude smaller than the restoring forces of
the cables.
Now, the equilibrium equations can be written:
The equilibrium equation of forces in x-direction is:
F x  rxm ( P1  P2 )  rxg  ( P5  P6 )  Fa  Fh (14.4)
The equilibrium equation of forces in z-direction is:
F z  rzm  ( P1  P2  P3  P4 )  r zg  ( P5  P6  P7  P8 )  Fg  FB (14.5)
The equilibrium equation of moment is:
M  r xm  ( P1 )  ax1  rzm  ( P1 )  az1  rxm  ( P2 )  ax 2

 rzm  ( P2 )  az 2  rzm  ( P3  P4 )  az 3
(14.6)
 rxg  ( P5  P4 )  ax 4  rzg  ( P5  P6  P7  P8 )  az 4
( Fw )  axw  ( Fh )  axh  ( Fg )  azg  ( FB )  azB
Equations (14.4), (14.5) and (14.6) must be solve simultaneously, which is done using a numeric method.
The function „Fsolve ‟ of MATLAB is used to solve the system of nonlinear equations.
75
14.2 Aerodynamic load prediction

For the Aerodynamic load prediction, the previously described Aerodynamic model is used. Since the
rotors Axial force coefficient (CFax) curve is known, the axial force coefficient for the maximum operating
case is selected and multiplied with the dynamic pressure at equator height to find the axial force.
For the drag in survival condition, the previously described StormDrag model is used, with a fixed
characteristic tower diameter of 4 m. The rotor geometry in StormDrag is unchanged from the straight-
bladed geometry. It is expected that this results in a significant underestimation of drag for low (<1)
aspect-ratio rotors, but small underestimation for high (>1.5) aspect ratio rotors, and the model is left
unchanged.
76
14.3 Mechanical load prediction model
Displacement of cable attachment Mechanical Load Reaction Force

Prediction Model
Cable Trajectory
Two methods were investigated for obtaining cable force and displacement; the taut wire method and the
elastic catenary method. Both methods considered the cable as one element. The methods were compared,
and the elastic catenary method was selected for mechanical load prediction.
14.3.1 Taut wire method
The simplest version of cable analysis is the taut wire method. Here, in the cables are considered as
straight, axially loaded members that can only support tension and have no own weight. The cable
elongations are:
Li , x Li , z
Li  xCi  zCi (14.7)
Li Li
In which i indicates the cable number, and Ci indicates the respective cable attachment point number. The
cable force for a deflection of the cable connection point is:
E j  Aj
Pi  Li (14.8)
Lj
In which i indicates the cable number, and j indicates the cable type (mooring or guy). If the tension is
negative, since the wires cannot support compression, the force P must be set to zero.
14.3.2 Elastic catenary method
In „Cable Structures‟ [13], a method is described for analysis of an elastic catenary cable. This method
can cope with large deformations of the cable („sag‟), and includes cable weight. The coordinate system is
shown in Figure 14-3. For the sub-system of the cable, we adopt the coordinate system of [13] to be able
to use the unchanged derived equations.
The cable is suspended between point A and B which have the Cartesian coordinates (0,0) and (l,h)
respectively. The span of the cable is l, and the relative vertical displacement of the ends is h. The
unstrained cable length is L0 . The weight of the entire cable is W. The Lagrangian coordinate s along the
cable is defined as zero in A, and L0 in B.
77
Figure 14-3: Coordinates for the elastic catenary
The vertical reaction is V, and the horizontal reaction is H, as shown in Figure 14-4. T(s) is the tension in
the cable.
Figure 14-4: Forces on a segment of the strained cable profile
The solutions for T, H and V are equations (14.9), (14.10) and (14.11), respectively.
1
  s  
2 2
T (s)   H 2  V  W   (14.9)
  L0  
 
HL0 HL0  V   V W  
l   sinh 1    sinh 1   (14.10)
EA0 W  H  H 
 1
2 2 
1
WL0  V 1  HL0   V  
2 2
  V W   
h     1      1      (14.11)
EA0  W 2  W    H     H   
 
A numerical method is used to simultaneously solve (14.10) and (14.11) to find H and V. The MATLAB
function „fminsearch‟ was used.
78
For presentation to the numerical method; the inverse hyperbolic sine is replaced by its logarithmic
 1

representation; sinh 1 x  ln  x  1  x 2  2 
 
14.3.3 Comparison of taut wire and elastic catenary method
For comparison of the two methods, a cable of length L0  l0 2  h0 2 was defined, with l0  100m and
h0  100m . (Note again that that negative is up in the used coordinate system). The cross-section is
A0  2.00 E  2 m2, and the weight W  2.16E5 N . The horizontal coordinate of point B (l) was
varied, while the vertical coordinate remained constant, and the resulting cable tension at the attachment
point B is shown in Figure 14-5.
6
x 10 W=216426N,L0=141.4214m
7
Elastic caternary
Taut wire
4
TB [N]
0
99 99.1 99.2 99.3 99.4 99.5 99.6 99.7 99.8 99.9 100 100.1 100.2 100.3 100.4 100.5
l [m]
Figure 14-5: Cable tension for two methods
We can see that the methods agree well in the elasticity dominated region (TB > 4 MN, for the cable of
this cross-section). Outside of this region, the taut wire method is inaccurate. As we will show later, in
some cables the resulting tensions are too low to be in the elasticity dominated region. For accurate load
prediction, it is therefore preferable to use the elastic catenary method.
14.3.4 Cable sag
The z-coordinate of the cable in the cable coordinate system is found using eq. (14.12) (Equation 1.26 of
[13]). The z-coordinate is subtracted from the z-coordinate (at equal x- coordinate) for a straight line
between A and B to find the sag of the cable. The relative position of the blade strike point is obtained
using (14.13), where Lx is the horizontal projection length of the cable and D is the diameter of the
rotor.
79
 1 1

Ws  V s  HL0    V   2
2
  V  W  s / L0 2  2 
z (s)     1      1      (14.12)
EA0  W 2  L0  W    H    
 H   
 
 1 2 
 Lx   2  3  D  
sstrike  L0     (14.13)
 Lx 
 
 
The blade strike point is the point where the turbine blades hit the guy cable if the sag of the cable is too
high. By visual inspection the horizontal position of the blade strike point is selected to be at 2/3 rotor
radius.
14.3.5 Cable natural transverse frequency
The natural transverse frequencies of the guy cables are expected to be in the dynamically soft regime.
The dynamically soft regime is defined here as the range of frequencies of which the natural frequency is
lower than the range of turbine 3P frequency at operational values; the range that is crossed during turbine
startup.
The natural transverse frequencies are highest for the cables in which the largest loads occur. Since these
(upwind) cables are later shown to be in the elastic regime. The natural transverse frequencies are
approximated using the equation for taut cables described by Reuter for the Sandia turbine [22];
1
n   P 2 c
c   c  , fc  (14.14)
Lc  w 2 
Here, n is the mode number, Lc is cable length, Pc is cable length and w is cable linear weight
80
14.4 Hydrodynamic Load Prediction

Hydrodynamic
Environmental conditions Forces
Load Prediction
Dimensions Model
In the hydrodynamic analysis the forces are predicted

that will be imposed by the waves and current on the
Surface piercing cylinder

submerged part of the floating foundation shown in hB2,t
Figure 14-6. The floating foundation consists of a large Still water level
submerged buoyancy body and a surface piercing
cylinder which is relatively thin to minimize wave loads. ØDB2
The water depth is 100 m. hB1,b hB1,t h B2,b

It is assumed that the displacements of the taut moored
floating platform are small compared to the motions of
water particles so that the floater can be considered as a ØD B1
Buoyancy
fixed structure in wave and current. The time that the
Body
will system needs to deform when a load is applied, is
assumed to be small and is neglected. This
simplification allows a quasi-static approach to be used
for the wave force. The wave force is calculated at an
Figure 14-6: Submerged part of floating
instant of time, and this force is applied to the
foundation
hydrostatic model.
The Des Norske Veritas document: „Recommended

Practice DNV-rp-c205‟ [33] describes choice of
analysis procedures for hydrodynamic load prediction.
A guide for this choice is shown in Figure 14-7.
The diameters of the floater shall be varied during the
design process, but characteristic dimensions are:
DB1=3 m and DB2=9 m . The wave heights for the two
environmental cases are 10.8 and 19.3 (maximum
waveheight). The wavelengths are 87 m and 156 m. As
this case is in regime III and V of Figure 14-7, the used
analysis technique should include drag and inertia
effects. There are various methods to calculate these
quantities, for this analysis the Morisons method is
selected.
Note: As this is a method for long, slender cylinders,

Morison‟s method results in an overestimation of the
force on the Buoyancy body because three-dimensional Figure 14-7: Different wave force regimes
effects are ignored. (Chakrabarti, 1987). D = characteristic
dimension, H = wave height, λ = wave length.
81
The sectional force in x- direction fN is calculated by using the Morison equation (14.15).
1
f N (u , u )    (1  C A )  A  u     CD  D  u  u (14.15)
2
Here, u is the local horizontal water particle velocity, CA is the added mass coefficient for inertia effects,
A is the area of the cross-section of the cylinder, CD is the drag coefficient, and D is the diameter of the
cylinder. The sectional force fN is integrated over the length of the submerged cylinders to find the
hydrodynamic loading FH and its point of introduction hFh.
In section 14.4.1 to 14.4.3, the input for the Morison equation is determined.
14.4.1 Wave Force
The design wave conditions are represented in Table 14-1.
Table 14-1: Design wave conditions

Condition Survival Maximum
operational
Return period years 100 ½
Significant wave m 10 5.4
height
Wave period s 10.2 7.5
Current velocity m/s 1.05 0.57
The maximum wave height is obtained using

the statistical relationship H max  1.93  H s
A value slightly higher than the more common
1.86 was used on recommendation of
GustoMSC hydrodynamic expert R van „t
Veer, because this is more accurate for North
Sea sites. It is assumed that the maximum
wave has the average wave period of ~10 s.
The wavelength is found with the dispersion
relation. Here, T is the wave period.
g T 2
  1.56  T 2
2 
Figure 14-8: Regular wave
For the local velocity and acceleration of the water particles, Airy wave theory for deep water is used
[33]:
 H
u ( , z )   e k  z  cos  (14.16)
T
2   2  H k z
u ( , z )   e  sin  (14.17)
T2
82
The phase angle is the product of the wave angular velocity and time;    t . The wave angular
2 
velocity is:   .
T
14.4.2 Current Force
The current is implemented by assuming that the current speed does not vary with depth; that the current
profile is uniform over the investigated depth. The current speed is added to the wave-induced speed and
the combined speed is implemented in the Morison equation.
u ( )  ucurrent  uwave ( ) (14.18)
14.4.3 Drag and added mass coefficients
Drag Coefficient
The drag coefficient depends on the point of separation of the flow on the cylinder, which depends on the
case Reynolds number.
Figure 14-9: Drag coefficient for fixed cylinder for steady flow for various roughnesses [33].
In Table 14-2, The Reynolds number ( Re  u  D / v ) for various combinations of characteristic

diameters, flow speeds and kinematic viscosities is presented, where U is the magnitude of horizontal
water particle velocity in operating and survival condition.
Table 14-2: Reynolds number for various conditions. Viscosity data from [33]
D[m] U[m/s] Temp[C] v[m2/s] Re
3 4 0 1.83·10-6 6.5·106
3 4 20 1.05 11.4
3 8 0 1.83 13.1
3 8 20 1.05 22.8
9 2 0 1.83 9.8
9 2 20 1.05 17.1
9 4 0 1.83 19.7
83
9 4 20 1.05 34.3
Ref [33] shows that a typical value for surface roughness of a submerged body with marine growth is
5·10-2 m. Thus, in Figure 14-9, the line for k/D=1·10-2 is most appropriate. A value of 1.07 for the drag
coefficient is selected for use throughout the analysis.
Added mass coefficient

For determination of the added mass coefficient the Keulegan-Carpenter number KC is introduced:
T
K C  ua  (14.19)
D
The flow velocity amplitude ua for the

maximum wave predicted by the Airy
wave theory is approximately 8 m/s,
yielding a characteristic KC of 9 for the
buoyancy body and 27 for the surface
piercing cylinder. From Figure 14-10,
choosing data for a rough cylinder, we find
that an appropriate value for CA is 0.8 for
the buoyancy body and 0.2 for the surface
piercing cylinder.
Figure 14-10: Added mass coefficient as a function of KC

number for smooth (solid line) and rough (dotted line)
cylinder. [33]
14.4.4 Example Results
Figure 14-11a shows the velocity of the water particles as predicted by the Airy wave theory for deep
water, for the maximum wave.
10 10
5 5
0 0
-5 -5
z(m)
z(m)
-10 -10
-15 -15
-20 t=0 -20 t=0

t=2.5 t=2.5
t=5 t=5
-25 -25
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
u(m/s) Sectional Force Fn(N) 5
x 10
Figure 14-11: a: Horizontal component of water particle velocity. b:Horizontal sectional force in x-
direction for the maximum wave
We choose the characteristic dimensions of DB1 = 9 m, DB2 = 3 m, hB1,t = -8 m , hB1,b = -18 m and hB1,t = 5
These variable were shown in Figure 14-6. Figure 14-11b shows the resulting forces for the maximum
84
wave and current. Remember that the „jump‟ observed at z=-8 is caused by the different diameter of the
cylinders.
Changes in water surface elevation are not included; Forces are evaluated for up to 5 meters above still
water level. The larges forces, or magnitude of Morison‟s forces, occur for t=0. The total integrated force
over the cylinders (FH) at t=0 is 2.23 MN, and its point of introduction is located at a depth of 6.08 m.
14.4.5 Buoyancy Force
The floater geometry was shown in Figure 14-6. The displaced volume is:

 B1   D 2 B1  (hB1,b  hB1,t )
4

B2   D 2 B 2  (hB 2,b ) (14.20)
4
 tot   B1   B 2
From the Archimedes principle follows the Buoyancy force:
FB    g  tot (14.21)
In which  is the density of sea water; 1027 [kg/m3], for a water temperature of 10 Degrees. The height at
which the buoyancy force is introduced is:
hB 
 (h
B1,t  0.5  (hB1,b  hB1,t ))   B1  0.5  hB 2,b   B1 
(14.22)
tot
This buoyancy height is used as input to the hydrodynamic model.
The hydrostatic model including hydrodynamic, mechanical and aerodynamic loading prediction has been
implemented in Matlab, and is used as a sub model of the design model. Results of the model, for the
selected design, are presented in Chapter 18.
85
Chapter 15: Guyed Concept Component Design
15 Guyed Concept Component Design
15.1 Floater
The function of the floater is to counteract the system weight and vertical cable force. The floater should
also have sufficient additional buoyancy to give pretension to the cables. The method for calculating
displaced volume was explained in Section 14.4.5. After reviewing the results of the hydrostatic model
and iterating, the water piercing cylinder diameter DB 2 and height hB 2 are set to fixed values of 4m and 8
m, respectively. Also, the buoyancy body height hB1 is set to 20 m.
To vary the floater volume with vertical cable force for different rotor designs, the diameter of the
buoyancy body DB1 set at a base value of 10m for a typical design, and is upscaled with the square root of
the total vertical cable force for other designs.
Floater weight is estimated using a mass per cubic meter of displacement value. This value was given by
conf : m fl  conf kg  .
15.2 Cables
Two constraints are used to design the cable; the cable strength should be sufficient to sustain the extreme
loading, and the cable sag of all cables in the two design conditions should be sufficiently low not to hit
the rotor. Fatigue and modal analysis are not included in the design process; frequencies are only
investigated for the finished design.
For the cable strength constraint, the ultimate load in the cable is first found. This is taken to be the
ultimate loading in any of the cables of the same type (mooring or guy), since we assume omni-
directional environmental conditions. The required area is found:
Pmax, j
Ac  (15.1)
  all ,c 
 
 SFc 
For the cable sag constraint, first it is reviewed whether the constraint is already met using the area
determined in (15.1), and starting values for initial cable slackness. If the sag is too high, initial slackness
is decreased („more pretension‟). This is done until it results in acceptable sag and the required cable is re-
evaluated with the new cable tensions.
86
Chapter 15: Guyed Concept Component Design
Material
For this conceptual study, steel wire material is used for both cable types. The application of polyester
tendon pipes, which are used for deep-water oil production tension leg platforms, is advised for further
study.
The steel wire has a tensile strength of 1800Mpa and a density of 7800kg/m3
Safety Factor
The used safety factor is 4.0.
15.3 Guyed – Tower

The weight of the rotating tower, or „central column‟, is obtained by upscaling the central column weight
of the Flovawt 17-m turbine.[2] The tower model described for the cantilevered concept was not used,
because different design constraints are governing the design of a rotating central column than the design
constrains of the cantilevered tower.
3
 H 
The tower mass is upscaled with length; mcc  13.43 kg   
 49 m 
87
Chapter 16: Guyed Concept Component Cost estimation
16 Guyed Concept Component Cost estimation
16.1.1 Floater
Costs for floating structure steel were provided by the design department. For simple structures, this is 1.2
€/kg. For more complex structures, the costs are approx. 11€/kg. The latter is used, because the floater
includes the extensions to the mooring cables, and a varying diameter. C fl  11.0  m fl
16.1.2 Guyed-Anchors
The anchors are suction anchors that have a capacity for vertical loading. The cost of a suction anchor
was obtained from conf. . A linear relation of anchor cost and ultimate load in vertical direction is
assumed to scale anchor cost;
Fz ,max,moor
Canch ,moor  4  Cref  conf
Fz ,max,ref
(16.1)
Fz ,max, guy
Canch , guy  4  Cref  conf
Fz ,max,ref
16.1.3 Cables
Steel wire costs were obtained from conf, and are used to calculated cable cost: Corrosion protection is
not included.
Ccab  Csteel ,cab (mc,mooring  mc, guy )  conf Euro / kg  (mc ,mooring  mc ,guy ) (16.2)
88
Chapter 17: Parameter study and selection of Guyed concept design
17 Parameter study and selection of Guyed concept

design
17.1 Parameter Study

First, the effect of rotor aspect ratio is investigated. The Angle of the guy wires was fixed at 45 degrees,
and the guy extension length was fixed at 10 meter. The turbine design model was used to calculate
parameters for different values of ASR.
sol= 0.18 ,ASR= N/A

Urated= 14
12
Floater
Generator
Central Column
Blades
Cables
10
Power
Total
Anchors
8
Cost (Meuro)
0
1 1.5 2 2.5
ASR [-]
For increasing ASR, generator cost is decreasing mainly due to lower torque, and blade and central
column cost are increasing due to increased height. It appears values for ASR in the range 1.2 – 2.0 are
optimal.
89
Next, Rated wind speed is varied while the ASR is fixed at 1.8
sol= 0.18 ,ASR= 1.8

Urated= N/A
20
Floater
Generator
18 Central Column
Blades
Cables
16 Power
Total
Anchors
14
12
Cost (Meuro)
10
0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Urated [m/s]
Figure 17-1: System cost of selected components for varying rated wind speed.
With increasing rated wind speed, the required swept area decreases. As a result of the lower masses, and
lower wind loading in survival conditions and as a result the floater costs decrease. Also, blade and
column cost decrease. As a result of the lowering required diameter and therefore torque, first the
generator cost decreases. For higher wind speeds, the result of higher torque and power rating becomes
visible and the costs of generator and power equipment increase again.
A rated wind speed of 14-15 m/s seems to be the economic optimum.
22
20
18
16
14
12
10 1
1.5
22 20 18 2
16 14 12 10 2.5
8
ASR
Urated
Figure 17-2: System total cost of selected components for varying ASR and Rated wind speed
90
17.2 Chosen Guyed Design physical data

A design was created with an aspect ratio of 1.8, rated wind speed of 14 m/s and solidity of 0.18.
The turbine behavior is shown below in Figure 17-3a to d.
sol=0.18,ASR=1.8,A=9469m2,D=72.5m,H(equator)=80.3m,M(max)=65MNm sol=0.18,ASR=1.8,A=9469m2,D=72.5m,H(equator)=80.3m,M(max)=65MNm
10000 50
RotPwr, kW RotSpeed, rpm
9000 RotThrust, kN 45 tsr
RotTorq, kNm
8000 40
7000 35
6000 30
5000 25
4000 20
3000 15
2000 10
1000 5
0 0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Uinf Uinf
0.5 1
0.45 No parasitic drag 0.9
0.4 0.8
0.35 0.7
0.3 0.6
CFax
Cp
0.25 0.5
0.2 0.4
0.15 0.3
0.1 0.2
0.05 0.1
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
TSR TSR
Figure 17-3: a: Power-Thrust-Torque curve, b: Rotational speed curve, c: Power coefficient curve, d:
Axial force curve
It is noted that the prescribed control behavior (Rotor speed), is based on a simplified algorithm. In final
design, the algorithm would be more advanced, and the spikes that are seen for rotor speed torque and
power at rated wind speed would be more rounded. The turbine physical data is presented in Table 17-1.
The results of the hydrostatic model for this design are presented in Chapter 18. Cost data is described in
Chapter 19.
91
Table 17-1: Guyed concept dimensions, loads and masses.

Turbine Dimensions Turbine Loads Mass (ton)
Equator Height (m) 78 Maximum Aerodynamic 790 Floater 188
Rotor Load, operating (kN)
Rotor Height (m) 129 Aerodynamic Blade load, 850 Tower 0

Survival (kN)
Rotor Diameter (m) 72 Aerodynamic Tower Load, 410 Blade 0
Survival (kN) Supports
Blade Chord (m) 2.2 Maximum Torque, 5770 Generator 141
operating (kNm)
Support beam Width 0.00 Maximum Rotor Power, 6860 Blades 123
(m) operating (kW)
Airgap (m) 15.00 Central 247
column
Beginning of rotor (m) 15.00 Cables 86
VGC turbine including 62
tower (m)
Diameter mooring 138
cables (mm)
Diameter guy cables 54
(mm)
92
Chapter 18: Results of Hydrostatic model for selected Guyed Design
18 Results of Hydrostatic model for selected Guyed

Design
Now, the predictions of the hydrodynamic
model for different cases are shown in more 150
detail for the selected design. First, the
deflections for zero aerodynamic and
hydrodynamic loading, but including
100
buoyancy, are calculated and shown in
Figure 18-1, where the gray dotted lines are
a straight line between anchor and cable
50
attachment, and the blue lines are the
cables. The mooring cables have been
given an initial slackness factor of 0.999.
(Cables are slightly stretched in initial 0
position). The guy cables have been given

an initial slackness factor of 1.0001.
In Table 18-1, deflections and forces are -50
shown for the unloaded case and the two
design cases.
It can be seen that the additional buoyancy -100
forces the mooring lines to extend slightly -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
more; the vertical displacement is 19 cm.

Figure 18-1: Rotor position and cable position in
Tension in the mooring cables is much unloaded case. (Deflections not exaggerated)
higher can that in the guy cables. This can
be explained by the additional buoyancy. If 150
one imagines that the system is moving
upwards from initial position, the strongest
reaction forces occur in the mooring cables, 100
since these have little slackness and are

already in the elastically dominated regime.
Also, the cross-section of the mooring 50
cables is large compared to the guy cables;

the deflections of the system are small. The
0
force that occurs in the guy cables as a
result of the upward deflection is relatively
small, since these cables have some
-50
slackness and are not yet in the elastically
dominated regime. Therefore, the resulting
forces in deflected position are much larger -100
in the mooring cables than in the guy -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
cables. The same principle works when

current and wave forces are applied, the Figure 18-2: Rotor position and cable position, maximum
mooring cables take the majority of these operating condition
loads.
93
In operating condition (Figure 18-2), is can be seen that the largest cable force occur in the windward
cables, as expected. The lowest cable force, and the largest cable sag, occurs in the leeward cables.
Because of the vertical component of wind and hydro induced cable forces, the vertical displacement is
less than for the unloaded case; 13 cm. During the survival wind case, defections in x-direction and the
system pitch angle are largest: 23 cm and 0.297 degrees, respectively.
Table 18-1: Deflections of and forces in rigid body and cables

dx(m) dz(m) phi(de Moment P (N) Cable sag
g) lower at strike
bearing point x-
(Nm) coordinate(
m)
Unloaded
150
Point O 0.000 0.019 0.000 0.00E+00 Cable 1 3.58E+06 -0.21

Att 1 0.000 0.019 Cable 2 3.58E+06 -0.21 100
Att 2 0.000 0.019 Cable 3 3.58E+06 -0.21

50
Att 2 0.000 0.019 Cable 4 3.58E+06 -0.21
Att 4 0.000 0.019 Cable 5 3.73E+05 -1.55 0
Cable 6 3.73E+05 -1.55

Cable 7 3.73E+05 -1.55 -50
Cable 8 3.73E+05 -1.55

-100
Max operating -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Point O -0.084 0.013 -0.268 9.0E+06 Cable 1 2.49E+06 -0.23 150
Att 1 -0.047 -0.006 Cable 2 4.53E+06 -0.21

Att 2 -0.047 0.032 Cable 3 3.48E+06 -0.21 100
Att 2 -0.047 0.013 Cable 4 3.48E+06 -0.21 50
Att 4 -0.809 0.011 Cable 5 2.35E+05 -2.32

0
Cable 6 8.51E+05 -0.99
Cable 7 3.70E+05 -1.56 -50
Cable 8 3.70E+05 -1.56

-100
Survival -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Point O -0.233 -0.010 -0.297 -0.3E+06 Cable 1 9.88E+05 -0.44

150
Att 1 -0.192 -0.030 Cable 2 6.58E+06 -0.24

Att 2 -0.192 0.011 Cable 3 3.13E+06 -0.21 100
Att 2 -0.192 -0.010 Cable 4 3.13E+06 -0.21

50
Att 4 -1.037 -0.012 Cable 5 2.15E+05 -2.52

Cable 6 1.03E+06 -0.96 0
Cable 7 3.64E+05 -1.58

-50
Cable 8 3.64E+05 -1.58
-100
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
94
Table 18-2: Deflections of and forces in rigid body and cables for the no wind or no hydrodynamic
loading cases.
Survival wind, no wave and current forces
Point O -0.055 0.008 -0.007 -0.429 -1.10E+07 Cable 1 3.02E+06 -0.22
150
Att 1 0.005 -0.021 Cable 2 3.81E+06 -0.21
Att 2 0.004 0.038 Cable 3 3.41E+06 -0.21 100
Att 2 0.005 0.008 Cable 4 3.41E+06 -0.21

Att 4 -1.217 0.004 Cable 5 2.05E+05 -2.64 50
Cable 6 1.21E+06 -0.97

0
Cable 7 3.68E+05 -1.57
Cable 8 3.68E+05 -1.57 -50
-100
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Survival wave and current forces, no wind
Point O -0.155 0.008 0.003 0.169 1.70E+07 Cable 1 1.33E+06 -0.34

150
Att 1 -0.179 0.020 Cable 2 6.13E+06 -0.23
Att 2 -0.179 -0.003 Cable 3 3.41E+06 -0.21 100
Att 2 -0.179 0.008 Cable 4 3.41E+06 -0.21

50
Att 4 0.303 0.008 Cable 5 4.92E+05 -1.27
Cable 6 2.98E+05 -1.87
0
Cable 7 3.69E+05 -1.56
Cable 8 3.69E+05 -1.56 -50
-100
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Also, it is investigated what predictions result for decreasing floater buoyancy. In Figure 18-3, the green
dotted line represents initial rotor position. It can clearly be seen that choosing floater volume too low,
results in unacceptable deflections.
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Figure 18-3: a: Survival case deflection of system when the diameter of the floater buoyancy body is
reduced to 80% of the design diameter, b: 70% floater buoyancy body diameter, mid-iteration snapshot
(sinking system).
95
18.1.1 Investigation of bearing loads
Moment lines can be drawn for the different 160

loading cases. These are shown for the two Max Operating
design cases in Figure 18-4. The main interest is 140 Survival
the bearing system positioned at 15 m above still z = 15m
water level. The bearing assembly should have a 120
distance in rigid body to O (m)

capacity to transmit a moment of 9 MNm while
rotating. If the special of Table 18-2 are are also 100
included, the moment capacity of the bearing
assembly should be 17 MNm. This is much less 80
than for instance tower base loading for a HAWT
cantilevered concept (~90 MNm), but much more 60
than the main bearing loading for a 5MW HAWT

40
The turbine of the guyed concept therefore be
considered as a „semi-cantilevered‟ VAWT .
20
The vertical loads on the bearings, in survival

0
case, are: -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Moment (MNm) 7
x 10
Figure 18-4: Moment line for different loading cases
Fz ,upper   i 5 rgz  Pi  1.39 MN
i 8
Fz ,lower  g  (mblades  mcentralcolumn )   i 5 rgz  Pi  3.8  1.39  5.2MN

i 8
Choosing the conservative cases and assuming that the lower bearings are spaced 10 meters apart, the
additional horizontal bearing loading per lower bearing that results from the moment can be calculated;
Fx,add  17MN /10m  1.7MN (18.1)
18.1.2 Investigation of Guy cable transverse natural frequency
The guy cable natural frequencies are prescribed to be in the dynamically soft regime. The highest natural
frequency will occur in the cable that is under the highest tension.
The first transverse mode natural frequency of the most taut guy cable in maximum operating condition is
0.30 Hz. This is below the most important 3P excitation frequency, which is 0.60 Hz for the maximum
operational case. The 3P frequency is three times the rotational frequency of the turbine.
Investigation of the first mode of guy cable natural frequency, for one condition, is only a small part of
the modal analysis. Analysis of dynamics of the complete system may show natural frequencies that are
closer to excitation frequencies.
96
Chapter 19: Levelised Production Cost Estimation for Concepts and Reference HAWT
19 Levelised Production Cost Estimation for Concepts

and Reference HAWT
19.1 Definition of LPC

In the concept comparison analysis in appendix C, a relative levelised Production Cost (LPC) distribution
was composed. This is represented in Figure 19-1.
Note that maintenance and retrofit of the floating foundation is not included. .
The definition of Levelised Production Cost for an energy producing system is shown in eq. (19.1).
 ( I t  M t  Ft )  (1  r )  t
T
LPC  t 0 (19.1)
 E  (1  r )  t
T
t 0 t
Where,
It= Investment expenditures in the year t.
Mt= Operation and maintenance expenditures in the year t.
Ft= Fuel expenditures in the year t.
Et= Electricity generation in the year t.
r= Real interest rate.
T= Life of the system
Because this study is based on equal Energy yield (and lifetime) for all concepts, it is convenient to use
only the numerator of eq. (19.1), and this variable is called here the Levelised Expenditure Cost (LEC);
LEC  t 0 ( I t  M t  Ft )  (1  r ) t
T
(19.2)
One can regard the total LEC as a single sum that would have to be invested at the beginning of the
project, to account for all expenditures during the project.
97
19.2 LEC for reference HAWT
retrofit and
overhaul, 5%
other, 8%
Floating
operation foundation,
and 36%
maintenance
, 19%
assembly turbine and

transport tower, 24%
installation,
8%
Figure 19-1 DOWEC study LPC cost distribution, where the foundation LEC has been replaced by the
Drijfwind study floating foundation cost.
The total LEC is estimated by scaling on basis of the turbine and tower cost of the distribution in Figure
19-1. This basis is scaled with the cost of the reference floating HAWT turbine and tower. This yields the
following amounts;
Cturb , HAWT
7.5 Meuro
LECtot , HAWT    31.24MEuro
(24%) 0.24
LECturbine&tower , HAWT  7.5Meuro
LECopr &ma int, HAWT  19%  LECtot , HAWT  5.94Meuro (19.3)
LECinstallation , HAWT  8%  LECtot , HAWT  2.5Meuro
LECother , HAWT  (5%  8%)  LECtot , HAWT  4.1Meuro
Note that assembly transport and installation costs are the unchanged installation costs for a fixed bottom
foundation.
The HAWT floating foundation cost was calculated by using the Drijfwind data with inflation correction
and applying the moment of the NREL reference turbine when lowered to equal air gap height to that of
the VAWT concepts, and using an allowable pitch angle for HAWT of 8 degrees:
LEC floater &anchoring ,HAWT  9.5Meuro (19.4)
If the floating foundation costs had been calculated from the shown LPC distribution, these would be
11.24 M€.
98
19.3 Hardware costs for the selected concept designs and reference
HAWT
19.3.1 Hardware costs reference HAWT
The costs of the HAWT turbine were calculated by using the cost distribution presented by conf, and the
turbine cost estimate as presented by the International wind energy development report (2009), that were
also used for cost estimations of selected components during the design process. The cost of nub, nacelle,
couplings, shaft, rotor lock and „other‟, are summed and further on called „miscellaneous‟. The
distribution can be seen in Table 19-1, Section 19.3.3.
19.3.2 Hardware costs concept designs
For the selected components, costs have already been determined during the design process. The costs of
three items have not yet been determined; bearing, mechanical brake and „miscellaneous‟. For this
conceptual design process, miscellaneous costs are taken to be equal to those of the Reference HAWT
(1.42M€)
Brake
The standards dictate that a mechanical brake must be present that brakes the full power of the turbine
when there is a failure in the electrical system. A very simple guess is used for this component;
Parashivoiu [21] indicates mechanical brake cost as up to 15% of turbine cost. This is expected to be
somewhat conservative; therefore 10% is used here.
Considering that his estimations are based on curved bladed onshore VAWT, the mechanical brake costs
are calculated as 10% of the guyed concept turbine cost.
Bearings
The bearings costs are upscaled from the HAWT bearing costs.
The dominant loading for the HAWT bearing is assumed to be the weight loading. The weight of the rotor
of the reference HAWT is 110 ton.
Fdom, HAWT  110E3  9.81 (19.5)
For the cantilevered concept, the up-scaling parameter is the rotor weight.
(mblade sup ports  mblades )  9.81
Cbearing ,Canti  Cbearing , HAWT  (19.6)
Fdom
For the guyed concept, the dominant bearing load magnitudes have been determined in section 18.1.1.
These are added to estimate bearing cost:
Fz ,upper  Fz ,lower  2  Fx ,add
Cbearings , guyed  Cbearing , HAWT  (19.7)
Fdom, HAWT
99
19.3.3 Total Hardware costs
Table 19-1: Hardware cost estimate distribution for both concepts and reference HAWT (M€)
Legend From literature
From design model
From separate cost estimation
Hardware Cost estimates Cantilevered Guyed Reference
VAWT VAWT floating
selected selected HAWT
concept design concept
design
Floater 2.06
Floater & anchoring Anchors 9.07 2.05 9.50
Cables 0.29
Subtotal floating foundation 9.07 4.41 9.50
Drivetrain 3.83 2.37 1.76
Wind turbine & tower Power Equipment 1.05 0.95 0.73
Blades 2.00 2.83 1.37
Blade supports 1.05 0.00 0.00
Tower/central column 1.32 0.86 1.18
Bearings 0.32 2.08 0.23
Brake 1.10 1.10 0.12
Yaw & pitch mechanisms 0.00 0.00 0.71
Miscellaneous 1.42 1.42 1.42
Subtotal turbine & tower 12.09 11.61 7.50
total 21.16 16.02 17.00
19.4 Total LEC Cantilevered concept

For the Trifloater mounted cantilevered concept, installation costs are taken to be equal to that of the
reference HAWT turbine. The „other‟ costs are also assumed to be unchanged. The hardware costs are the
costs as calculated in section 19.3. The maintenance costs are reduced, according to the reasoning
described in 19.4.1.
LEC floater &anchoring ,Canti  C floater &anchoring ,Canti

LECturbine&tower ,Canti  Cturbine &tower ,Canti
LECopr &ma int,Canti  75%  LECopr &ma int, HAWT (19.8)
LECinstallation ,Canti  LECinstallation ,HAWT
LECother ,Canti  LECother , HAWT
100
19.4.1 Cantilevered concept maintenance costs
Failure occurrence
This concept lacks a blade pitch and nacelle yaw system. These mechanisms are cause of to a statistical
share of 22.6 % of HAWT maintenance cost. [conf] The VAWT concept shall either employ a brake of
larger rating than the HAWT turbine, or aerodynamic braking devices must be used. These shall introduce
additional maintenance. This cost is estimated to be 5% of reference HAWT maintenance cost.
If the per-generator maintenance costs of the HAWT can be expected, the additional maintenance cost for
the second generator is 8.39 percent of the HAWT maintenance cost.
Table 19-2: Comparison of Cantilevered concept’s maintainable items to Reference HAWT

Component Relative Maintenance cost
extra generator 8.4 %
extra main bearing 0.64 %
extra braking mechanism 5.0 %
no yaw mechanism -12.9 %
no pitch mechanisms -9.7 %
no gearbox -16.2 %
-25 %
Maintainability
A review of maintenance procedure cost is outside the scope of this analysis. Maintainability is discussed
qualitatively here, but the maintenance costs remain based solely on number of components.
It is expected that both a VAWT and HAWT floating turbine would have to be towed to shore for
replacement of the rotor weight supporting bearing, or generator. This operation would require a crane
vessel, and relative motion between crane vessel and floating wind turbine is expected to be too large to
conduct this operation at open sea, even in calm conditions, unless new relative motion limiting measures
such as motion compensated cranes are developed for this purpose. Occurrence of the replacements is
expected to be rare.
The heights of generators and bearings are comparable to that of the HAWT concept; the maintainability
for small maintenance is also assumed equal to that of the reference HAWT.
19.5 Total LEC Guyed concept

For the guyed concept, hardware costs are used as calculated in section 19.3. The „other‟ costs are
assumed to remain unchanged. The installation cost estimate is increased when compared to the other
concepts, according to the reasoning in 19.5.1. The maintenance cost estimate is decreased, which is
described in 19.5.2.
101
LEC floater &anchoring ,Guyed  C floater &anchoring ,Guyed

LECturbine&tower ,Guyed  Cturbine&tower ,Guyed
LECopr &ma int,Guyed  67%  LECopr &ma int, HAWT (19.9)
LECinstallation,Guyed  200%  LECinstallation, HAWT
LECother ,Guyed  LECother , HAWT
19.5.1 Installation costs of Guyed concept.
Installation of the guyed concept is envisionaged to be the following procedure:
1: Six suction anchors are installed on the seabed and cables are connected to the anchors. Buoys are
attached to the cables to hold the attachment points at still water level
2: A pre-ballasted floater-turbine assembly is towed to site, held stable by a purpose-built barge, or a
conventional barge with crane. The above-water portions of the guy wires are hanging down from the top
parallel to the central column.
3: Mooring cables are attached.
4: Ballast is gradually removed, which brings the mooring cables up to the required pretension. For a 3-
mooring cable configuration, this process is self-equilibrating.
5: Guy cables are attached, and are brought up to the required pretension with cable tensioning
mechanisms.
6: The power umbilical (electrical cable) is connected.
When this process is compared that of a Trifloater mounted HAWT, it involves considerably more
actions. The actions that are to be performed are also more complicated. The installation costs per turbine
for the guyed concept shall be significantly higher. The exact cost difference between these procedures is
outside of the scope of this analysis, but an estimate of twice (200%) the cost of the reference HAWT is
used.
19.5.2 Maintenance costs of Guyed concept.
Failure occurrence
Again, this concept lacks the maintenance costs of yaw and pitch mechanisms, and has additional
maintenance costs due to braking mechanisms and, in this case, 2 additional bearings.
Table 19-3: Comparison of Guyed concept’s maintainable items to Reference HAWT

guyed concept Relative maintenance Cost
Two extra main bearings 1.3 %
extra braking mechanism 5.0 %
no yaw mechanism -12.9 %
no pitch mechanisms -9.7 %
no gearbox -16.2 %
-33 %
102
Maintainability
A review of maintenance procedure cost is outside the scope of this analysis. Maintainability is discussed
qualitatively here, but the maintenance costs remain based solely on number of components.
Because of the relatively low generator height above water level and small displacements of the system,
the generator could be replaced in situ, under very calm conditions. The brake and the second bearing of
the lower bearing assembly, which is only loaded in horizontal direction, could also be replaced in situ.
For replacement of the upper bearing, a large crane vessel would be required. It is also possible that, if
these turbines were to be employed in large numbers, purpose built tower climbing equipment would be
developed to perform the bearing replacement without requirement of a crane vessel.
19.6 Total Lifetime Cost Estimates

The LEC costs for the developed
concepts and reference HAWT are 35.00
shown in Figure 19-2. It is
observed that the wind turbine and
30.00
tower costs are significantly higher
for the VAWT concepts, but when
the concepts are compared in terms 25.00
of total LEC costs, the difference is
smaller. It can also be observed
that, even with substantially 20.00
Meuro
increased installation costs, the

guyed concept cost is slightly
lower than that of the reference 15.00
floating HAWT.
10.00
It should be noted though, that the
HAWT total costs are based on a
gearbox HAWT, on a Trifloater, 5.00
both technologies that were state-
of-the art in 2002. Now in 2010,
recent advances in HAWT 0.00
Reference
technology, such as commercial Cantilever Guyed (Gearbox-
direct-drive systems, tension leg ed VAWT VAWT drivetrain)
floating supports, and perhaps concept concept HAWT on
Trifloater
hydraulic drive systems [7], may
Other 4.06 4.06 4.06
significantly reduce the total LEC
Maintenance 4.47 4.01 5.94
cost of floating HAWT when
compared to the estimate that was Installation 2.50 5.00 2.50
calculated here. Floater & anchoring 9.07 4.41 9.50
Wind Turbine & Tower 12.09 11.61 7.50
Figure 19-2: Total levelised expenditure cost estimation for the

two concept designs and reference HAWT
103
The analyses have shown that the differences in total lifetime cost between floating HAWT and VAWT,
are relatively small. But also, that it is unlikely that a typical proposed floating VAWT such as the
cantilevered concept shall result in a mayor cost decrease compared to state-of-the-art floating HAWT.
Two comments are stated here because of their importance:
1: It was assumed in the analysis that the reference HAWT has a relatively large allowable system pitch
angle of 8. In literature, the estimates for this HAWT parameter vary across a large range. If future
research shows that the allowable system pitch angle for HAWT must be chosen much smaller, as was
done in for example the Hywind project, the floating foundation cost of the reference HAWT would be
significantly higher than that of the cantilevered design here, and the lifetime cost difference could
hypothetically be closed.
2: The maintenance costs and other non-hardware costs resulted from simple analyses; more detailed
analysis could show either an increase of decrease of the total cost differences.
Finally, on the guyed concept; the guyed concept is an interesting new concept in the floating wind
domain. There are many uncertainties, but it also shows potential for further cost reduction due to its early
stage of development. It is recommended for further research development.
104
Chapter 20: Conclusions and recommendations
20 Conclusions and recommendations

Now that all analyses have been performed, conclusions and recommendations are given. Conclusions are
given on design (Section 20.1), and on economic feasibility (Section 20.2). Finally, recommendations are
given in Section 20.3.
20.1 Conclusions on Design of Floating Vertical Axis Wind Turbines

For both VAWT concepts, the aerodynamic model did predict a slightly lower aerodynamic efficiency
than that for the reference HAWT. Equal energy yield to a reference HAWT was prescribed, thus, either
the rotor size (swept area) must be larger, or the rated wind speed must be chosen higher, or both. In this
design process, the economic optimum for both concepts was found for a slightly lower size and a
significantly higher rated windspeed (15 and 14 m/s, where 11-13 m/s is common for HAWT). This is
due to the lack of pitch ability of VAWT‟s; the maximum rotor axial force, which is the dominant
foundation load, occurs for the maximum operational condition or survival condition for typical designs,
where this occurs at rated windspeed condition for typical HAWT. For VAWT, this means that the rated
windspeed can be increased, within a certain range, with little to no cost increase of the floating
foundation.
Concept 1 is based on a typical floating wind turbine foundation and popular VAWT technology; this is
called the „cantilevered‟ concept.
For the cantilevered concept, the allowable pitch angle of the system was primarily determined by the
constraint of allowable pitch of the floating foundation.
Because of the large cost effect of stability requirements, a low (~0.9) aspect ratio of the rotor resulted in
the lowest total cost of the floating system.
Out-of-support-frame-bending loads, due to pitching of the floating system, were found to be the
dominant source of stresses in the blade support system. Also, when the system is under a pitching angle,
additional bending moments in the tower are produced by the weight of the generator and rotor. The
resulting additional required tower material is substantial; it can be up to 50% higher than for tower that is
always vertical.
The guyed concept is a floating VAWT with two sets of mooring lines; one set above, and one set below
the rotor.
Analysis predicts that in the idealised static cases, this concept is technically feasible. It also predicts that
the transverse frequency for the upper cables is in the dynamically soft regime; a requirement for
feasibility of such a system. Bearing loads are calculated to be significantly (~9 times) higher than those
for the reference floating HAWT, but, it may be possible to reduce these by further optimalisation of
mooring attachment placement.
The required floater size is small, when compared to the Reference floating HAWT.
105
20.2 Conclusions on Economic Feasibility of Floating Vertical Axis

Wind Turbines
The designs were required to produce a predefined annual energy yield, equal to that of a reference
comparable 5MW HAWT floating turbine on a specified reference site
During the design process, cost estimates for the most important components have been made. The
designs that resulted in the lowest combined costs of these selected components have been selected for
more detailed evaluation of economic feasibility. Maintenance and installation cost estimates have been
performed. A lifetime cost evaluation has been created, which is shown below in Figure 20-1. It should be
noted that the cost of HAWT technology may have been overestimated, because latest technologies, such
as direct drive generators, hydraulic transmission, and single anchor tension leg floaters (e.g. SWAY),
have not been included. Not enough literature was available yet to use this technology as reference.
Total Levelised Investment Cost
35.00
Other
30.00
Maintenance
25.00
Million Euro
Installation
20.00
Floater & anchoring
15.00
Wind Turbine & Tower
10.00
5.00
0.00
Cantilevered Guyed Reference
VAWT VAWT (Gearbox-
concept concept drivetrain)
HAWT on
Trifloater
Figure 20-1: Lifetime costs for the two designs and Reference HAWT
Taking the likely overestimation of HAWT cost into account, and under the assumptions used in this
research, the cantilevered concept, the „typical‟ floating VAWT, does not show potential to produce
energy at a much lower cost than floating HAWT technology.
Although the more radical and novel design; the „guyed concept‟ shows slightly lower cost estimates than
the reference HAWT, its feasibility is threatened by the high uncertainty in redundancy, installation and
maintenance costs, and uncertainty of technical feasibility. However, there is room for further cost
reduction in the guyed concept design; this design is advised for further developing research.
In general, it was shown that, using typical components, bridging the turbine hardware cost gap from
VAWT to HAWT is a mayor challenge. Maintenance costs may decrease, but in this analysis, it was not
sufficient to compensate for the hardware cost difference.
106
It was also shown, that floating foundation requirements cannot be economically reduced to a
significantly lower level than those for comparable floating HAWT‟s, under the assumptions used in this
analysis.
Summarising; in the floating offshore domain, the cost gap between VAWT and HAWT technology
seems to be smaller than for the onshore situation, but in this analysis, if ignoring the novel concept of
which technical feasibility has not yet been proven, the gap is not closed.
20.3 Recommendations
20.3.1 Recommendations on General Floating Wind Turbine Design
In almost all encountered literature on floating HAWT design, the question is raised again but not
thoroughly answered; „How far is a floating HAWT system allowed to pitch?‟ This allowable system
pitch angle (sometimes referred to as „heel angle‟) is a parameter with a large costs influence on floating
wind energy systems, and no specific literature on the subject is available. It is recommended that a
thorough study is executed to find the constraints of this parameter. When its constraints have been
determined, this allowable pitch angle for a floating HAWT turbine should be treated as an economic
optimum within the range allowed by the constraints. The costs of the wind turbine and tower shall
increase when increasing maximum allowed pitch angle. However, for a spar or barge (Trifloater) type
floating foundation, the costs of the foundation are shall decrease due to lower stability requirements. In
the design process for the cantilevered VAWT design, the allowable pitch parameter was treated as an
economic optimum in an integrated design process of turbine and floater. For a spar or Trifloater type
HAWT, the best design method would also be to design the turbine and floater in an integrated design
process, where variables such as allowable pitch but also other variables such as the turbine shaft tilt
angle are treated as economic optima.
20.3.2 Recommendations on (Floating) VAWT Design
In the conceptual design process, simple blade scaling methods have been employed during the design
process. It is advised to perform more thorough structural blade design for both concepts. Also, steel
material was used for the blade support design. Investigation of the weight and cost effects of employing
fatigue-resistant composite materials for the blade supports is recommended.
Blade airfoil shape choice was limited to a choice based on recommendations in literature. It is
recommended to explore the effects of airfoil shape optimalisation.
Recently, a new analysis method employing vortex wake modeling for VAWT aerodynamic load
prediction has become available in the work of Ferreira [26]. This method gives more accurate load
predictions than streamwise BEM models, and has also led to insights in blade design which could lower
turbine and drivetrain loads. It is advised that this analysis method is employed in further design of
VAWT concepts.
Especially for the guyed concept, the dynamic behaviour is a large unknown. The developed system of
equations of the rigid-body hydrostatic model can be used as a basis for a dynamic model. Important
required steps are the linearization of cable stiffness‟s and expansion of the aerodynamic model to
107
produce blade forces in the time domain. For employing the cables in a dynamic analysis, a procedure for
linearizing cable stiffness for the used single element elastic catenary cable is described in „Cable
structures‟ [13].
On maintenance, it is advised to perform more thorough analyses of failure rates and maintenance
procedures.
Finally, it is recommended to analyze the effect on lifetime cost of employing a hydraulic transmission
[7] for VAWT. The high torque capabilities of such a drive train are especially suited to Vertical Axis
Wind Turbines.
Concluding statement
It is hoped that the conclusions and recommendations resulting from this thesis research, can contribute to
the process of reducing the cost of floating wind energy conversion systems, and herewith can be a
(small) contribution to making offshore wind energy an affordable source of renewable energy, available
to all.
108
Bibliography
Bibliography
[1] J. D. Anderson, Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, McGraw-Hill, 2007.
[2] Thomas D. Ashwill, Measured data for the Sandia 34-meter vertical axis wind turbine, Tech.
report, SANDIA, 1992.
[3] Conf
[4] Polinder H Bang, D.J., Review of generator systems for Direct-drive wind turbines, EWEC
proceedings (2008).
[5] T. Burton et al, Wind Energy Handbook, John Wiley and Son‟s, 2001.
[6] S. Butterfield et al, Engineering Challenges for Floating Offshore Wind Turbines,, Conference
proceedings 2005 Copenhagen Offshore Wind Conference (2005).
[7] Chapdrive, Description of Chapdrive hydraulic transmission, http://ww.chapdrive.com, accessed
may 2010, (2010).
[8] Conf
[9] J.M. Gere and S.P. Timoshenko, Mechanics of Materials, Van Nost. Reinhold, U. S, 1984.
[10] A.R. Henderson et. al., Floating support structures enabling new markets for offshore wind
energy, European Wind Energy Conference 2009 (2009).
[11] H.B. Hendriks and M. Zaaijer, DOWEC Executive summary of the public research activities,
Tech. report, TUDelft and ECN, 2004.
[12] P. C. Hunter, Multi-Megawatt vertical axis wind turbine, Vertax Wind presentation for How
conference (2009).
[13] H. M. Irvine, Cable Structures, The MIT Press, 1981.
[14] Sandia National Laboratories, Vertical Axis Wind Turbine: The history of the DOE program,,
Tech. report, Sandia National Laboratories, 1996.
[15] L. Lazauskas, Three pitch control systems for vertical axis wind turbines compared, Wind
Engineering Vol. 16 (1992).
[16] E. Muljadi et al, Soft-stall control for variable-speed stall-regulated wind turbines, Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 85 (2000).
[17] W. Musial, Feasibility of floating platform systems for wind turbines, (2004).
[18] W. Musial and S. Butterfield, Energy from offshore wind, Offshore Technology Conference
Houston Texas (2006).
[19] NOVA, NOVA description at http://www.nova-project.co.uk, accessed may 2010, (2010).
[20] Y.H. Pao of Floating Offshore Windfarms Cooperation, Offshore vertical axis wind turbine and
associated systems and methods, 2009.
[21] I. Paraschivoiu, Wind turbine design with the emphasis on Darrieus concept, Polytechnic
international Press, 2002.
[22] R.C. Reuter, Vertical axis wind turbine tie-down design with an example, Tech. report, Sandia
Laboratories, 1977.
[23] W. Musial S. Butterfield and J. Jonkman, Engineering challenges for floating offshore wind
turbines, (2007).
[24] Siemens, New Siemens direct drive wind turbine ready for sale, Tech. report, Siemens, 2010.
[25] F. Silvert, Patent application: Darrieus type floating wind turbine, has rotor with blades fitted
directly to lower end of hub and indirectly fitted to end by drift arm, electricity generator driven directly
or indirectly by rotor, and wedging device, 2006.
[26] C.J. Simao Ferreira, The near wake of the VAWT - 2D and 3D views of the VAWT aerodynamics,
Ph.D. thesis, Delft University of Technology, 2009.
[27] B. Skaare, Integrated dynamic analysis of floating offshore wind turbines, (2007).
109
Bibliography
[28] H. Steen et al, EWEA: Wind Energy: The facts, (2009).

[29] J.H. Strickland, A performance prediction model using multiple streamtubes, Tech. report, Sandia
National Labatories, 1975.
[30] H.J. Sutherland, Final project report: High-energy rotor development, test and evaluation, Tech.
report, Sandia, 1996.
[31] Sway, Sway technology description, http://www.sway.no, accessed jan 2010, (2010).
[32] J. Tempel, Design of support structures of offshore wind turbines, Ph.D. thesis, Delft University
of Technology, 2006.
[33] Des Norske Veritas, Recommended practice - environmental conditions and environmental loads,
Tech. report, Det Norske Veritas, 2007.
[34] VerticalWind, Vertical Wind technology description, http://www.verticalwind.se, accessed may
2010, (2010).
[35] E. Wayman, Coupled dynamics and economic analysis of floating wind turbine systems, Master‟s
thesis, 2006.
[36] Weinstein, The Windfloat, presentation Principle Power, (2009).
[37] M.J. Wolf et al, Studie naar haalbaarheid van en randvoorwaarden voor drijvende offshore
windturbines (Drijfwind), Tech. report, TNO, ECN, TUD, MARIN, Lagerweij de windmaster, 2002.
110
Appendices
Appendix A: Review of Floating wind turbine analysis

techniques
The appendices are in a separate, attached document: „Conceptual Design and Evaluation of Economic
Feasibility of Floating Vertical Axis Wind Turbines: APPENDICES‟
Appendix B: Claim validation for the exploratory

feasibility research
In separate, attached document
Appendix C: Concept Generation Multi-Criteria

Analysis
-Appendix D was omitted and E and G were not changed to avoid inconsistencies in cross-references.
Appendix E: Deeper water mooring options

Appendix G: Trifloater determination of weighted

water plane area and derivation of analytic proof of
insensitivity to loading direction
111
Co n cep t u al Desig n an d Evalu at io n o f Eco n o m ic
Feasib ilit y o f Flo at in g Ver t ical Axis Win d Tu r b in es –
APPENDICES
Introduction
Introduction
This is the document containing the appendices that accompany the main document:
Conceptual Design and Evaluation of Economic Feasibility of Floating Vertical Axis Wind Turbines
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... i
Contents ......................................................................................................................................................... i
1 Appendix A: Literature research: Review of Floating wind turbine analysis techniques .................... 1
1.2 Appendix Nomenclature and Bibliography .................................................................................. 5
2 Appendix B: Claim validation for the exploratory feasibility research ............................................... 7
2.1 Site definition ................................................................................................................................ 7
2.2 Concept description ...................................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Claim validation .......................................................................................................................... 11
2.4 Appendix Nomenclature and Bibliography ................................................................................ 19
3 Appendix C: Concept Generation Multi-Criteria Analysis. ............................................................... 21
3.1 Weighing factors ......................................................................................................................... 21
3.2 Grading ....................................................................................................................................... 24
3.3 Appendix Bibliography ............................................................................................................... 29
4 Appendix E: Deeper water mooring options ...................................................................................... 30
5 Appendix G: Trifloater determination of weighted water plane area and derivation of analytic proof
of insensitivity to loading direction ............................................................................................................ 31
i
Appendix A: Literature research: Review of Floating wind turbine analysis techniques
1 Appendix A: Literature research: Review of

Floating wind turbine analysis techniques
First, a short review of modeling techniques and results for floating HAWT projects is presented.
Hereafter, possible modeling techniques suitable for floating VAWT conceptual design are discussed.
Note on dynamic models for floating wind turbines

The practices in offshore technology and wind energy sector are a challenge to combine. For complex
submerged structures, a hydrodynamic diffraction analysis in the frequency domain is usually carried out
[L.21]. For wind turbines, because of nonlinearities in the aerodynamics and controls, time-domain
dynamic analysis is used. The strategies to cope with this differed in the various projects. In some floating
HAWT projects, a time- domain model was created. In others, a quasi static approach was used for
situations where the blades rotated, and diffraction analysis in frequency domain for situations where the
blades were not rotating (storm conditions).
1.1.1 Drijfwind
For the Drijfwind project a diffraction model was created, witch a constant value for the turbine thrust, to
evaluate motions in a number of conditions. More details on the calculation methods can be found in
reference [L.15]. The natural periods of the Trifloater are listed in Table 1-2. The conditions are listed in
Table 1-1. The resulting static heeling angle for the maximum operational condition was found to be 8.3
degrees.
Condition Maximum Survival

operational
Return period (yrs) 1/12 100
Significant wave height (m) 5.4 10
Wave period (s) 7.5 10.2
Wind velocity (m/sec) 25 41
Table 1-1: Drijfwind design conditions
Motion Natural period (s)

heave 16.5
roll 25.9
pitch 25.9
Table 1-2: Trifloater natural periods
The resulting dynamic deflections of the system are shown in Table 1-3. We see that in operational
condition, the excursions form the static heeling angle are quite small, considering that the maximum
operational conditions correspond to a 8 Beaufort seastate. It should be noted however, that the motions
are sensitive to wave conditions and another, more exposed site choice, such as off the coast of Spain or
the US, might result in much higher motions.
1
Motion Maximum Survival

operational
Heave (m) 2.4 9.0
Roll (deg) 1.4 3.1
Pitch (deg) 1.5 3.9
Table 1-3: Trifloater motions, anchoring effects included
1.1.2 Hywind
StatoilHydro and Risø have developed a time domain model for design of the Hywind prototype, [L.7] by
combining advanced aero-servo elastic and hydrodynamic code that was already available to the
developers. Also, a second dynamic model was created by R. Savenije [L.41] to serve as reference and a
basis for future floating wind models.
1.1.3 Modeling floating VAWT

For the floating VAWT concept design, hydro static modeling is expected to be used for the complete
system, and aerodynamic modeling is expected to be required for wind load estimation on the rotor and
tower. A short review is presented of potential aerodynamic models (1.1.4), and hydrostatic analyses
(1.1.5).
1.1.4 Aerodynamic models VAWT
For VAWT, several aerodynamic models have been developed. These are listed in Table 1-4, and the
advantages of each are shown (values according to own estimate).
VAWT aerodynamic load prediction
Possibility to include curved bladed

Possibility to include time varying
Possibility to include vertical wind
Possibility to include straight bladed
Modeling time consumption

Accuracy (in steady wind)
Calculation cost
rotor geometry
rotor geometry
Reference
Models.
inflow
(time)
shear
-Single streamtube [L.12] - X V N/A N/A ++ ++

-Multiple [L.22] + V V V V + ++
streamtube
-Vortex method [L.42] ++ V V V V - +
-Double multiple [L.12] + V V V V 0 ++
stream tube
-CFD [L.12] ++ V V V V -- --
Table 1-4: VAWT models
2
The multiple streamtube is selected as suitable candidate for aerodynamic load prediction. This model
type is described in more detail in aerodynamic load prediction chapter of the final report
1.1.5 ‘Classic’ hydrostatic model of wind turbine on Trifloater type floating

foundation
Now, a hydrostatic analysis is presented for investigation of floater stability, with the Trifloater as an
example. Mooring cables and current loads are not yet included.
Stability and hydrodynamics of a Trifloater have been thoroughly evaluated in the Drijfwind report. For
this study, the goal of the hydrostatic analysis will not be to improve in accuracy on the models or to
improve on the floater design, but to obtain insight in floater stability, and to be able to compare different
turbine types when mounted on a Trifloater.
The floater and turbine are considered as one rigid body. It is assumed that the height of the center of
rotation is the height of the mooring cable attachments.
1.1.6 Mass and displacement

First, the total mass, and location of center of gravity is determined:
mb m fl mt (1.1)
m fl hgfl mt ht
hgb (1.2)
mb
Here, h is the height to still water level, positive for positive z, t denotes turbine, fl denotes floater, and b
is for rigid body. The mass and center of gravity for the Trifloater is given.
The displaced volume is found using the Archimedes principle:

mb
(1.3)
1.1.7 Moment equilibrium

The moment acting on the rigid body is determined by the aerodynamic force: the axial wind load Fw
and its point of introduction; hw .
The forces and moments on the rigid body are shown in Figure 1-1.
3
Figure 1-1: Forces and moments on rigid body, the Keel is the lowest point of the body.
The equation of rotational equilibrium is:
M Mh g y 0 (1.4)
or
Ms g y (1.5)
Where M s is called the restoring moment. The distance y is not a constant, but changes with rotation of
body.
Equations (2.34) and (2.38) from „Offshore Hydrodynamics‟ [L.10] are introduced now as eq (1.7) and
eq. (1.6), respectively. The derivation and explanation of eq. (1.6) and (1.7) are not presented here, but
are available in the publically, digitally available reference of Journee. [L.10] ].
Ms g GN sin (1.6)
GN KB BN KG (1.7)
KB is the distance from the lowest point in the Trifloater geometry in unloaded position, or keel, to the
center of buoyancy. KG is the distance from the keel to the center of gravity. BN is a function of the
displaced volume and water plane area moment of inertia It :
It
BN (1.8)
For the Trifloater, the water plane area moment of inertia is produced by the three columns. The
determination of I t is described in appendix G. In this calculation, it is also shown by means of analytical
proof that the Trifloater is equally stable for all loading directions, under the assumptions used.
The values of the variables of equation (1.7) are given in the Drijfwind study and are listed in Table 1-5.
4
Table 1-5: Trifloater data

KB 5.3 m
BN 27.6 m
50.4 m
KG
The pitch angle of the rigid body can now be determined:
M
arcsin( ) (1.9)
g GN
To gain insight in floating foundation stability , these calculations have been performed for the Trifloater
Verification to Drijfwind Data.

A calculation was performed using the hydrostatic model described in section 1.1.5, and results are
compared to that of Drijfwind. [L.15]. The Drijfwind study static deflection calculation parameters are
presented in Table 1-6.
Mass total configuration (m) ton 2479

Draught (T) m 12
Moment arm(h) m 100
Max thrust( Fax ) MN 1.0
Table 1-6: Trifloater parameters
The calculation results are given in Table 1-7. It can be observed that the heeling angles are significant.
GN m 28.10
Moment( M h ) MNm 100
Heeling angle(φ) deg 8.4
φ calculated in [L.15] deg 8.3
Table 1-7: calculation results
1.2 Appendix Nomenclature and Bibliography

Nomenclature
Symbols
Fx Axial force
B Center of buoyancy
G Center of gravity
Density
Displaced volume
D Drag
T Draught
5
E Energy
g Gravity constant
Φ floater pitch or „heel angle‟
K Keel
m Mass
N
Metacenter
M Moment
h moment arm
It Weighted water plane
U Wind speed
Bibliography
[L.7] Skaare, B. et al, Integrated Dynamic Analysis of Floating Offshore Wind Turbines, paper Risø, 2007
[L.8] Jonkman, J.M., Dynamics Modeling and Loads Analysis of an Offshore Floating Wind Turbine,
PhD. Dissertation, University of Colorado, 2007
[L.9] Wayman, E., Coupled dynamics and economic analysis of floating wind turbine systems, M.S.
thesis, 2006
[L.10] Journee, Introduction in offshore hydromechanics, Reader Delft University of Technology, march
2001
[L.12] Paraschivoiu, I., Wind turbine design with the emphasis on Darrieus Concept, Polytechnic
international Press, 2002
[L.13] Simão Ferreira, C.J. et al, An analytical method to predict the variation in performance of a H-
Darrieus in skewed flow and its experimental validation, paper Wind Energy Section, Delft University of
Technology, 2006
[L.14] Mertens, S., Wind Energy in the Built Environment; Concentrator Effects of Buildings, PhD.
Dissertation, Delft University of Technology, 2006
[L.15] Bulder et al, Drijfwind, TNO, ECN, TUD, MARIN, Lagerweij de windmaster, 2002
[L.20] Hau, E., Wind turbines Fundamentals, Technologies, Application, Economics.
, Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York, 2006
[L.21] Journée, J.M.J. et al, Offshore Hydromechanics, Delft University of Technology, 2001
[L.22] Strickland, J.H., A performance Prediction Model Using Multiple Streamtubes, Sandia Labatories
,1975
[L.30] Skaare, B., Integrated Dynamic Analysis of Floating Offshore Wind Turbines, Risø, 2007
[L.41] Savenije, R. Modeling the dynamics of a spar-type floating offshore wind turbine, Msc. Thesis,
Delft University of Technology 2009
[L.42] C.J. Simao Ferreira, The near wake of the VAWT - 2D and 3D views of the VAWT aerodynamics,
Ph.D. thesis, Delft University of Technology, 2009.
6
Appendix B: Claim validation for the exploratory feasibility research
2 Appendix B: Claim validation for the exploratory

feasibility research
In this appendix chapter, the procedure of claim validation for the exploratory feasibility research is
described. The three reference concepts are represented in Figure 2-1
Figure 2-1: Three reference concepts
First, the reference site conditions are defined.
2.1 Site definition

In the Drijfwind study [B.15], site characteristics have been defined for the calculations. These
characteristics are used, and a selection is described below.
-Location: North Sea

-Water depth: >50 m.
-average wind speed (h = 10m) 9 m/s
-Weibull wind distribution
shape parameter (k-factor) 1.8
Table 2-1: Site conditions

condition survival maximum operational
return period 100 years 1/12 year
significant wave height 10 m 5.4 m
zero-up crossing period 10.2 s 7.5 s
range 8-12 s 6.5-8.5 s
wind velocity (1 minute 41 m/s 25 m/s
sustained)
7
2.2 Concept description

In this section, the concepts characteristics are described
2.2.1 Rotor height above water
Figure 2-2 Rotor (Generic)
The height of the rotor is important to determine loads on the floater later in the analysis. To estimate the
driving design considerations for rotor height, we reference to the design process for offshore HAWT
technology.
Driving design constraint Rotor height, onshore to floating:

1: From onshore to bottom founded offshore, we see that the driving motivation for the design parameter;
Rotor height, generally moves from an economic optimum to the constraint that the rotor should not touch
the water. This shift is because for offshore fixed bottom, the costs of the support structure are higher than
for the onshore situation.
2: From bottom founded offshore to floating, the floater takes over the functions of the support structure.
It does this at higher cost, as described in the Drijfwind[B.15] and the NREL[B.1] studies.
Rotor height, from HAWT to VAWT

We assume that the design constraint (rotor shall not touch the water) results in equal for VAWT
and HAWT. The VAWT-S concept shall require an additional gap height ( ) to make sure the blade
tips stay above gap height, even when the system is under a heel angle. This additional height is not yet
calculated here.
Table 2-2: Concept minimum rotor height above water

Site Driving design consideration for rotor height
Category
Onshore Optimum of power production and tower cost Economic
optimum
Offshore (bottom founded) The rotor should not hit the water in any Constraint
conditions
Offshore (Floating) The rotor should not hit the water in any Constraint
conditions
8
Table 2-3: rotor height above water

HAWT VAWT-C VAWT-S
hgap(Undetermined) hgap (Undetermined) hgap+hadd (Undetermined)
2.2.2 Transfer of thrust loading to floater
Elimination of external support structures from design options

Onshore, external support structures are used for wind turbines in some cases to transfer thrust loads to
the ground. The most popular external support structure is; external guying wires, as seen in the Sandia
designs. With some calculations we can show that this form of external support structure is not likely to
be economically feasible in a floating offshore setting, when these wires are to be attached to the floater.
First, we note that the guying wires should be connected to the same floater that serves as a base for the
wind turbine. In Parashivoiu [B.12], we find that the guying wires must be angled 35 degrees to the
horizontal. , is defined as the maximum height of the turbine to a base plane, the top of the floater,
xbg, is defined as the horizontal distance from the base of the turbine to the guying wire support.
wire 35
H max
xbg 1.43 H max
tan(35)
This means that for a turbine with a height of 100 m, the floater should extend, and have a high stiffness,
143 m in each direction parallel to a guying wire. It is assumed here that this is an economically infeasible
structure, and therefore such an option is not further taken into account.
Internal thrust load transfer designs

For the HAWT concept, we choose a single tower, as is used in the V90. For the curved bladed tower, we
choose a rotating central column (or “rotating tower”). The bearings for this column are located on floater
base level. For the VAWT-S, we choose a single, non rotating tower. The means of thrust transfer to the
floater shall be named „tower‟ in the rest of the chapter.
Table 2-4 Concepts thrust load transfer method

HAWT VAWT-C VAWT-S
Tower Rotating central column Tower
9
2.2.3 Rotor geometry
All concepts shall have 3 blades.
Geometries
VAWT –C: Parabolic blade shape.
Figure 3.1.5: Curved blade shape (modified from [B.12]).
2
Blade shape: 1
y z
In which , and
R 0.5 H
S 2
Swept area:
2 H R 3
VAWT – S: Straight bladed
Aspect ratio
The aspect ratio is the ratio of height of rotor to diameter.
ASR = H/D
Aspect ratio is variable in this analysis. An indication of typical values for the ASR is given below.
VAWT - C
1.3 to 1.5. As considered to be optimal by Paraschivoiu [B.12]
VAWT - S
For the straight-bladed turbine, no indication of aspect ratio is defined in this section.
2.2.4 Drive train
The drive train is treated as a black box in this analysis. Its function is to convert the torque to electric
power that satisfies the grid requirements.
10
All options are left open for drive-train design, and it is noted that there are no physical limitations in all
concepts that would make a direct drive or gearbox system technically infeasible.
2.2.5 Bearing location
The bearings are located on hub height for the HAWT concept, on or in the floater for the VAWT – C
concept and on the tower for the VAWT – S concept, as can be seen in figure 3.1.9.
2.2.6 Power regulation
HAWT designers can choose between pitch and stall control to limit the power of the rotor. The trend of
the latest decennia is to choose pitch control, also in offshore application. This is the mechanism we
choose for the HAWT concept. The VAWT-C is inherently stall controlled. For the straight bladed, pitch
regulation is technically feasible, but very complex and expensive. We choose stall regulation.
HAWT VAWT-C VAWT-S

Pitch controlled Stall controlled Stall controlled
2.2.7 The floater
The floater is treated as a black box here, which performs the functions;
Functions floater:
- Positioning of the turbine
- To counteract the loads that the turbine imposes on the floater.
2.3 Claim validation

In the next sections, the validity of the encountered claims is analysed.
2.3.1 ‘Lower efficiency -> Larger Swept Area’

In the literature study, it was found that the aerodynamic efficiencies of VAWT differ from those in
HAWT turbines. To compensate this difference, the swept area of the VAWT-C and VAWT-S must be
changed accordingly.
First, we investigate the effect of turbine efficiency on average production;
Effect of efficiencies on average production

Average production:
Pavg P (U ) p (U )dU
0
Here, P(U) is the power curve, and p(U) is the wind speed probability distribution.
11
The assumption is made in this section, that the availability is 100% for all concepts
First, we normalise the power output of 3 turbines to swept area; figure 3.1.2.
We have chosen the Vestas V90 turbine [B.26] and the NREL reference turbine [B.24] as representative
HAWT offshore turbines.
The Sandia 34-m test bed turbine [B.2] was chosen as VAWT representative turbine. The power curve
shown is that for a fixed rotational velocity of 34 RPM.
As an extra step to allow correct comparison, the HAWT power curves are adjusted to equal maximum
power output of the Sandia VAWT. Note that this section concerns aerodynamic efficiency; the structural
and drivetrain changes that would accompany this adjustment are not taken into account here.
Table 2-5 Extrapolation of NREL HAWT

[B.m/s]
0-11 Original power curve
11-12.5 P=77.8(V-11)+356
12.5-25 Fixed, 503 W/m2
Table 2-6: Extrapolation of Vestas V90 HAWT

[B.m/s]
0-12 Original power curve
12-13.5 P= 6.5(V-12) +399.8
13.5-27 Fixed, 503 W/m2
Power curves normalised to swept area

600
500
400
W/m2
300 VAWT: Sandia

34m, 34 rpm
HAWT: Vestas
200 V90
HAWT: NREL
100 Reference Turb.
HAWT: NREL
Reference Extra
0
Figure 2-3: Power curves of different turbines, normalized to swept area
The wind probability distribution is as defined in section 2.1
12
0.1
Wind probability distribution
0.08
0.06
0.04 Weibull, V=9,

k=1.8
0.02
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
With eq. 3.1, the average production of the 5 turbines is now found and listed table Table 2-7. Note that
wind shear effects are not yet included here.
Table 2-7
difference to Sandia difference to Sandia
turbine average power output,( ) turbine turbine
W/m2 W/m2 %
Sandia 34 m 155 0 0,0%
V90 172 35 11,3%
NREL 163 14 4,8%
V90 Extra 178 45 14,6%
NREL Extra 181 51 16,5%
VAWT efficiency as researched by others

Although we use average power output to compare the aerodynamic efficiencies, the general parameter
used is the power coefficient: cp. In a feasibility report of Global Energy Concepts [B.25], we find: “The
maximum aerodynamic efficiency of any VAWT will be lower than Available HAWT designs. This
difference is likely to be between 15 and 25%”. Effect on average production is not evaluated.
13
Figure 2-4: Efficiencies of different turbine types [B.20]
In Hau [B.20], maximum efficiencies are described and illustrated. This illustration was reproduced here
c p , HAWT 0.48
in Figure 2-4. A ratio is calculated, based on this figure: 1.20
c p ,VAWT 0.40
Required swept area estimate.
The Sandia turbine is compared to the NREL turbine.
As we desire equal average production of all turbines as basis of comparison, we increase the swept areas
of the VAWT-C and VAWT-S according to the efficiency difference.
Pav , HAWT
AVAWT AHAWT 1.17
Pav ,VAWT
We assume here that the power curve is equal to that of the Sandia, curved bladed VAWT. More on
Straight bladed efficiency shall follow in later stadia.
HAWT VAWT-C VAWT-S

AHAWT 1.17 AHAWT 1.17 AHAWT
14
2.3.2 ‘No cost of yaw mechanism’

The absence of a yaw mechanism is inherent to VAWT technology. The capital cost of a HAWT yaw
system is about 3% of total turbine cost, and associated maintenance costs. Energy loss as a percentage of
lifetime energy capture is of similar order. This is used as a first-order indication of the cost difference.
[source conf]
2.3.3 ‘No cost of pitch mechanism’

The absence of a pitch mechanism is inherent to stall controlled VAWT turbines. We find that the pitch
mechanism would generally contribute 6.4% to HAWT turbine cost. [source conf]
2.3.4 ‘Less gravity induced cyclic fatigue loading’

This is an inherent quality of vertical axis rotation. In HAWT technology, gravity loading is an important
loading for fatigue calculations, and becomes increasingly important for larger turbines, due to scaling
effects.
2.3.5 ‘Curved bladed VAWT; No cantilevered blade loading’

Curved bladed rotors are usually designed to approximate the Troposkien shape as shape described as:
„This shape assumes a perfectly flexible cable of uniform density and cross-section in rotation about the
vertical axis at a constant angular velocity under the action of centrifugal forces‟ [B.12]. The parabolic
shape is close to this shape. Ideally, a rotor with this shape would have tension forces only. In practical
design however, the blades are required to possess some rigidity.
2.3.6 ‘Straight bladed VAWT; Simple production procedure’

In a Straight – bladed VAWT all sections of the blade are moving at the same speed. If the bladed
designer chooses to neglect the effect of vertical wind shear, and the varying cantilevered loading, he can
use the same blade aerodynamic cross-section throughout the entire blade.
2.3.7 ‘Lower floater cost due to lower turbine center of gravity’

Height of center of gravity.
For the VAWT – C concept, it is very likely that the center of gravity is lower than that of HAWT
turbines, since the drive-train is based on floater level, as can be seen in figure 3.1.10. For the VAWT – S
, it is not so evident.
Effect of height center of gravity on floater cost.

Evaluation of this aspect requires analysis to dominant design cases for floaters, and hydro mechanical
aspects. This shall be performed in more detailed analysis in later chapters.
2.3.8 ‘Lower floater cost due to lower heeling moments’

The heel motion of the floating concept is illustrated in figure 3.1.3
Lower heeling moments

It is not likely that the heeling moments VAWT turbines impose on the floater are much lower than for
HAWT.
15
Maximum heeling moment is determined by the maximum thrust force and the loading point of this thrust
force.
-HAWT (pitch controlled): Maximum trust normally occurs for at rated wind speed, just before the blades
start to pitch. In some cases a margin is added to account for pitch mechanism failure.
-VAWT (stall controlled): Maximum thrust force occurs in the stall wind regime The wind speed at which
this occurs is dependent on turbine design. Maximum thrust can also occur in storm conditions.
The difference between power limiting principles implies a different maximum thrust force for the
turbines; it is likely to be higher for a stall controlled turbine.
Effect of heeling moments on floater cost

It is likely that the heeling moments are a dominant design loading for floating wind turbines.
An example where this is the case can be seen in the Drijfwind concept study [B.15];
Here, the constraints to the motions of the HAWT wind turbine, listed below, are seen to govern the
floater design.
Maximum allowable heel: 10°

Maximum acceleration at rotor height 5 m/s2
The maximum heel occurs in the extreme operating conditions:
Wind speed: 25 m/s

Thrust turbine: 1000 kN
Significant wave height 5.4 m
Wave period 7.5 – 12 s
The outcome of the static and dynamic analysis is
16
Static heel: 8.3°

Dynamic heel: 1.5°
Combined extreme heel angle : 9.8°
The maximum acceleration occurs in survival conditions:

Maximum acceleration at rotor height 2.16 m/s2
For this concept, the static component of heeling moment is the governing floater loading. The floater
cost would therefore be influenced by varying the heeling moments.
It should be noted that changing the allowable heel will also have a positive effect on floater cost.
2.3.9 Increase of production in heel

When the floating concept is in heel, the turbine experiences a skewed inflow
It was proven that a straight bladed wind turbine has increased production in skew, by Ferreira et al.
[B.13]. This is shown in figure 4.1.5, for a turbine with a high ratio of diameter to height, D/H, of 1.51.
Figure 4.1.5: Power coefficient as a function of skew angle. From [B.13]
Ferreira also explains: “Consider the region 0° to 20°. The theory predicts that, due to increase of area of
back passing blades that perceive unperturbed flow. … Torque and thrust should increase; but for small
angles …. , this region will be ‟hit‟ by the tip vortex of the front passing blades. Due to blade-vortex
interaction, the lift generated by the blades in this region will be lower, resulting in that, although torque
and thrust do increase with skew angle, they do not increase as much as predicted by theory.”
The magnitude of the positive effects may be considerably smaller for a large scale, popular D/H (inverse
ASR) VAWT, but the VAWT – S should have a slightly increased production when heeling.
17
2.3.10 ‘Higher tower cost ’
Tower loading
The tower loading has different characteristics for the three concepts.
HAWT; the tower is loaded with constant thrust force with small time time-dependent variations due to
turbulence.
VAWT-C; the material in the rotating central column experiences full load-reversal each rotation, plus
turbulence variations.
VAWT-H; the tower is loaded with a cyclically varying thrust load, plus turbulence variations, but the
load is not reversing.
Length
The tower length is also likely to differ for the concepts, from swept area and blade shape effects.
2.3.11 ‘Higher cost of drivetrain because of higher torque rating’
VAWT turbines generally rotate at a slower RPM, because of the inherent characteristic of having a lower
optimal tip speed ratio, TSR, as was seen in figure 2.3
If the power rating remains equal for all concepts, the torque rating of the VAWT concepts should be
higher, following from the relation 4.1, in which is the rotational velocity.
P T
The cost of drivetrain equipment is to a large degree dependent on the torque rating.
The weight and cost increase approximately linear with torque rating. This is further explained in the
paper by Bang and Polinder, ref [B.27].
2.3.12 ‘Higher Cost of Mechanical Brake’
VAWT
Option 1: A mechanical brake that brakes the full (maximum) power of the rotor. Cost estimate: 10-15 %
of cost turbine. [B.12]
Option 2: For variable speed systems: Electrical braking to lower the speed of the rotor, and a mechanical
brake to stop the rotor. It is not sure if this is allowed for certification. Cost estimate : ~1.5 % of cost
turbine; similar to HAWT [conf]
Option 3: An aerodynamic braking device is positioned on the rotor, for slowing the rotor down to low
speed, and a mechanical brake is used to stop. Cost estimate: unknown.
HAWT:
Option 1: The blades pitch, to increase aerodynamic drag and to lower the speed of the rotor. A
mechanical brake is used to stop the rotor. Cost estimate: 1.5% of cost turbine [conf]
Blade design
18
2.3.13 ‘Longer blades’

The VAWT concepts need higher blade length for a swept area equal to that of a HAWT.
Also, since the swept area of the VAWT concepts is higher, the blades have more additional length for
typical designs.
2.3.14 ‘Cyclic varying loading’

The VAWT blades experience a cyclically varying loading.
2.3.15 ‘Higher cost of floater due to higher turbine weight’

For the VAWT concepts, we have reasons to expect that the weight will be higher than that of HAWT
equivalent:
-Higher torque drivetrain equipment. Cost and weight increase, approximately linear with torque.
-Longer blade length.
-More complex and varying loads; higher fatigue demands. A higher weight may result from this.
The magnitude of these effects is not yet quantified.
2.3.16 ‘Higher engineering cost due to less developed status of technology and
more complex aerodynamic load prediction methods’
The development of VAWT turbines is not as far advanced as that of large scale HAWT turbines. Also, in
previous VAWT designs, it was found that the aerodynamic loads on the structure are difficult to predict.
An erroneous load prediction was the reason for limiting power output in the Eole project. The major
obstacle in the analysis is the modeling of the aerodynamic phenomenon „dynamic stall‟, which occurs in
each cycle. This phenomenon cannot be eliminated, but advances in CFD modeling, decreasing
calculation cost and more accurate analytical models should result in more accurate load prediction that of
analyses in the 1980‟s.
2.4 Appendix Nomenclature and Bibliography

Nomenclature
Abbreviations
ASR Aspect Ratio
HAWT Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine
RPM Rounds per minute
TSR Tip Speed Ratio
VAWT Vertical Axis Wind Turbine
FLOVAWT Floating Vertical Axis Wind Turbine
Bibliography
[B.1] Henderson et al, Floating Support Structures Enabling New Markets for Offshore Wind Energy,
conference paper NREL, 2009
[B.2] Ashwill, Thomas D., Measured data for the Sandia 34-meter vertical axis wind turbine, SANDIA,
1992
19
[B.3] Butterfield, S. et al, Engineering Challenges for Floating Offshore Wind Turbines, NREL,
conference proceedings 2005 Copenhagen Offshore Wind Conference
Copenhagen, Denmark
[B.4] Musial, W., Feasibility of floating platform systems for wind turbines, conference paper NREL,
2004
[B.5] Weinstein, A., The Windfloat, presentation Principle Power, may 2009
[B.6] Musial, W., Future for offshore wind energy in the United States, conference paper NREL, june
2004
[B.7] Skaare, B. et al, Integrated Dynamic Analysis of Floating Offshore Wind Turbines, paper Risø, 2007
[B.8] Jonkman, J.M., Dynamics Modeling and Loads Analysis of an Offshore Floating Wind Turbine,
PhD. Dissertation, University of Colorado, 2007
[B.9] Wayman, E., Coupled dynamics and economic analysis of floating wind turbine systems, M.S.
thesis, 2006
[B.10] Journee, Introduction in offshore hydromechanics, Reader Delft University of Technology, march
2001
[B.11] Sandia National Laboratories Staff, Vertical Axis Wind Turbine: The History of
the DOE Program, Brochure Sandia National Laboratories
[B.12] Paraschivoiu, I., Wind turbine design with the emphasis on Darrieus Concept, Polytechnic
international Press, 2002
[B.13] Simão Ferreira, C.J. et al, An analytical method to predict the variation in performance of a H-
Darrieus in skewed flow and its experimental validation, paper Wind Energy Section, Delft University of
Technology, 2006
[B.14] Mertens, S., Wind Energy in the Built Environment; Concentrator Effects of Buildings, PhD.
Dissertation, Delft University of Technology, 2006
[B.15] Bulder et al, Drijfwind, TNO, ECN, TUD, MARIN, Lagerweij de windmaster, 2002
[B.16] Hau, E., Wind turbine Fundamentals, Technologies, Application, Economics, Springer Heidelberg
New York
[B.17] Hunter, Peter C., Multi-Megawatt Vertical Axis Wind Turbine, Vertax Wind presentation for How
conference, 2009.
[B.18] Tempel, J. v.d., Design of support structures for offshore wind turbines, PhD. Dissertation, Delft
University of Technology, 2006
[B.19] Motta, M. et al, The Influence of Non-logarithmic Wind Speed Profiles on Potential Power Output
at Danish Offshore Sites, Risoe, Published online 29 November 2004 in Wiley Interscience
(www.interscience.wiley.com)
[B.20] Hau, E., Wind turbines Fundamentals, Technologies, Application, Economics.
, Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York, 2006
[B.21] Journée, J.M.J. et al, Offshore Hydromechanics, Delft University of Technology, 2001
[B.22] Strickland, J.H., A performance Predition Model Using Multiple Streamtubes, Sandia Labatories
,1975
[B.23] Burton, T., Wind Energy Handbook, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2001
[B.24] Jonkman, J. et al, Definition of a 5-MW Reference Wind Turbine for Offshore System
Development, report, NREL, feb 2009
[B.25] Malcolm, D. J., Market, cost and technical analysis of vertical and horizontal axis wind turbines –
task #2: VAWT vs. HAWT technology, report, Global energy Concepts, LLC, 2003
[B.26] Vestas Wind Systems A/S Sales representatives, V90-3.0 MW Brochure, Vestas Wind Systems
A/S, Vestas Wind Systems, 2008
[B.27] Bang, D., Polinder, H., Review of Generator Systems for Direct-Drive
Wind Turbines, Delft University of Technology, EWEC proceedings, 2008
20
Appendix C: Concept Generation Multi-Criteria Analysis.
3 Appendix C: Concept Generation Multi-Criteria

Analysis.
To select the concept with most potential, a multi-criteria analysis was performed. The process of
weighing factor and grade determination is shown in this appendix. The final overview of combined
scores was presented in Chapter 4 of the thesis report.
3.1 Weighing factors

As common in wind farm design, design choices are driven by the costs of energy. We choose the
weighing reasoning from the levelised production cost (LPC). An estimate for the cost distribution of a
floating wind turbine is created, based on the Drijfwind [4] and the DOWEC [2] studies. From this
estimate, the weighing factors are derived. The Drijfwind study is used for the floater cost and the
DOWEC study is used for other wind farm costs. The estimated cost distribution is shown in Figure 3-2.
The original cost distribution of the DOWEC study is shown in Figure 3-1.
The studies are from the same time period, 2002 and 2003, therefore time-variant price differences should
not have a large effect. The sites are also similar. However, the studies were performed with a goal
different from ours; the DOWEC study is based on fixed-bottom foundations, and both studies were
based on HAWT technology. The following differences exist between Floating VAWT windfarms and
the topic of the reference studies:
-The studies have been performed for HAWT turbines, actual VAWT turbine costs will differ.
-The electric collection system costs are based on a fixed bottom foundation, these costs shall differ for
floating foundations.
-The installation costs are based on a fixed bottom foundation and shall differ for floating foundations.
-The maintenance costs are based on a fixed bottom foundation; for floating foundations, the turbine
landing procedure will differ, there will be top movement during maintenance and other factors will
differ.
-The DOWEC study used 6 MW rated HAWT turbines and the Drijfwind study used 5 MW rated HAWT
turbines.
In the multi-criteria analysis, we neglect the effect of these differences.
21
foundation
retrofit and other 13%
9%
overhaul 7%
turbine and tower

operation and 33%
maintenance 27%
assembly
transport
installation 11%
Figure 3-1: DOWEC study LPC distribution
retrofit and
overhaul, 5% other, 8%
foundation,
36%
operation and
maintenance,
19%
assembly
turbine and
transport
tower, 24%
installation, 8%
Figure 3-2: DOWEC LPC distribution, where the foundation costs have been replaced by the Drijfwind
floating foundation cost.
22
Since turbine concept choice affects floater cost and maintenance costs, the effects on these are included
in the weighing. Some factors are not included in the weighing: Installation, assembly, transport, retrofit,
overhaul, and other costs are omitted from the concepts selection to simplify. The category weighing
factors become:
Table 3-1: 1st level weighing factors

Concept aspects Share of LPC
distribution Weighing
Turbine cost 0.24 30%
Effect on floater 0.36
cost 46%
Effect on O&M 0.19
cost 24%
total 0.79 100%
Now, the above turbine aspects are subdivided in gradable aspects.
3.1.1 Weighing turbine cost

The turbine is subdivided in components, so that the components of the concepts can be graded.
A reference cost distribution is created. The relative cost of components estimate is based on the
indication by Parashivoiu [3] for Darrieus VAWT. Components of the concepts can receive a grade
depending on whether they are expected to be more or less expensive than the reference Darrieus VAWT.
Table 3-2: estimated cost distribution reference VAWT

Parashivoui Estimated reference cost
indication distribution for a VAWT
Component Cost share Component Weighing
Blades 15% Blades 15%
Blade support 25% Connections, beams/struts 15%
system
Bearing 10%
Base structure 20% Tower 20%
Power train 20% Generator & electronics 40%

equipment
Control system 20%
100% 100%
3.1.2 Weighing floater cost

In projects such as Drijfwind and Hywind, we have seen that the most important aspects of the turbine on
floater cost are its center of gravity and the thrust load. Since floater design is not a modular but
integrated process it is not possible to directly translate separate load magnitudes into cost. In the above
mentioned projects we have seen that the main variable determining floater size and weight is the thrust
loading height and magnitude. We produce the following estimate:
23
Effect on floater cost

Thrust loading height and magnitude 60%
Turbine center of gravity 40%
Table 3-3: Effect of concept on floater cost weighing
3.1.3 Weighing O&M cost

The probability of failure occurrence is a measure for the amount of maintenance visits needed. A lower
score indicates a higher probability of failure occurrence. The maintainability indicates how difficult it is
to reach or replace maintenance intensive components. The following estimate is produced:
Effect on O&M weighing

Reliability 70%
Maintainability 30%
Table 3-4: effect of concept on O&M cost weighing
3.2 Grading
Now that the weighing factors have been defined, we can proceed with the grading. Each aspect of the 4
concepts receives a grade. The complete overview is given in chapter 4 of the final report.. The grades
can vary from 0 to 10, and are chosen such that the average of the 4 grades is 5.
3.2.1 Thrust loading height
We define the height of point of thrust on mid-rotor (equator), level. This means that the vertical wind
shear effect is neglected, but this error should approximately scale equally for the different concepts.
The equator height is made up of the splash gap and rotor height:
H
H eq H min (3.1)
2
An indication for the relation of splash gap height to rotor height is taken from the Drijfwind project:
H min, Drijfwind 25.5 m

H Drijfwind 108.5 m (3.2)
H min, Drijfwind
rmin, Drijfwind 0.24
H Drijfwind
We use this relative splash gap height as equal for all concepts.
Because of the different geometry of the straight-and curved bladed rotors, the curved bladed rotor is
higher that the straight bladed counterpart.
If we assume that the optimal tip speed ratio is equal, and therefore the diameters are equal, and also that
the swept areas should be equal;
Dconcept1 Dc 2 Dc 3 Dc 4
(3.3)
Aconcept1 Ac 2 Ac 3 Ac 4
24
Now, for a rectangular straight bladed rotor and a parabolic curved bladed rotor we have:
Astraight D H straight
2
Acurved , p D H curved (3.4)
3
3
H curved H straight
2
The be able to compare the concepts to each other, heights are expressed in terms of the rotor height of
the straight bladed concepts; H straight
I II III IV
3 3
0.24 H straight H straight 0.24 H straight H straight 0.24 H straight 2
H straight 0.24 H straight
2
H straight
1.24 H straight 1.24 H straight 1.74 H straight 1.74 H straight
We invert this number (lower receives a higher score), and normalize it to the mean score value of 5 to
grade the concepts:
I II III IV
5.84 5.84 4.16 4.16
Table 3-5: thrust height scores
3.2.2 Center of gravity of turbine
We make an indicatory analysis to estimate the difference in center of gravity between the concepts.
In this calculation, keel level is taken as zero. The characteristic distances of the main components to keel
level are determined, and these are multiplied with the assumed weights of the components shown in
Table 3-6. The assumed weight distribution of the components is assumed equal to the cost distribution of
the components.
rotor and connection beams 0.30

generator 0.40
tower 0.20
bearings: omitted
Table 3-6: assumed turbine components relative weight
Rotor
To determine the relative heights of the equator to keel level, we need floater height. We use the floater
height of the Drijfwind project:
24m
rfl , Drijfwind 0.22 (3.5)
108m
25
Equator height above Equator height above

keel keel
straight (I,II) curved (III,IV)
H straight H straight
Keel to Floater level 0.22 0.22
Splash gap 0.25 0.25
Half of rotor height 0.50 0.75
0.97 1.22
Table 3-7: equator heights
The centers of gravity of the rotor and, when applicable, the connection beams, are on equator height.
These equator heights are in Table 3-7.
Rotor Cg contribution I II III IV

equator height 0.97 0.97 1.22 1.22
Multiplied with estimated relative weight (0.30) 0.29 0.29 0.37 0.37
Generator
For concepts II and III, the generator is on floater height. For concepts I and IV, the generator is at
equator level. In concept I and IV, the option is open to use two generators, as in the VERTAX design.
Note that even if it is chosen to use two generators, their combined center of gravity will still be at
equator level. The equator heights were determined in section 3.2.1.
Generator Cg contribution I II III IV

generator height 0.97 0.22 0.22 1.22
Tower
Although it is likely that the towers vary in weight, they are assumed equal in the concept choice analysis.
These weights depend mainly on fatigue calculations not feasible here. The score is based on the mid-
tower location.‟
Tower Cg contribution I II III IV

Mid-tower height 0.60 0.60 1.10 1.10
The contributions are added to give the scores:
I II III IV
Rotor Cg contribution 0.29 0.29 0.37 0.37
Generator Cg contribution 0.39 0.09 0.09 0.49
Tower Cg contribution 0.12 0.12 0.22 0.22
Total 0.80 0.50 0.67 1.07
Score 4.41 7.07 5.23 3.28
26
3.2.3 Cost blades

The blades of the curved bladed rotors will be longer, but the blades of the straight-bladed rotors will be
subject to higher bending stresses. Quantification requires fatigue calculations and detailed design not
feasible here. We assume equal rotor cost for this analysis.
3.2.4 Cost connection beams

The straight-bladed concepts do have blade-weight supporting connection beams. The curved bladed
concepts do not. We choose the following grading:
I II III IV
Score 2 2 8 8
Table 3-8: connection beam grading
3.2.5 Cost generator

In this stage, a direct drive generator was chosen for all concepts. One can argue that gearboxes would be
more easily facilitated in concepts II and III, but it is assumed here that the increased reliability of a direct
drive drivetrain with a lower number of maintenance visits outweighs the cost difference on a remote
floating wind turbine in all concepts. Since we assume that tip speed, diameter and power output are
equal, the torque is equal for all concepts.
TSR U
P T ( ) T constant ;
D/2 (3.6)
TI TII , III , IV
In the paper, „Review of Generator Systems for Direct-Drive Wind Turbines‟[1], we find that wind
turbine generator cost and weight have a linear relation to torque. The costs for the generator itself are
therefore taken as equal for all concepts. For concept II, we add include the estimated negative impact on
cost of the torque shaft.
I II III IV
Score 5.71 2.86 5.71 5.17
Table 3-9: generator and torque shaft grades
3.2.6 Cost tower

As mentioned above we neglect most differences between towers here, but for cost we do include the
loading characteristic. The main difference between the towers is the loading characteristic. The tower is
non-rotating for concept I, II en IV. The tower in concept III rotates, and therefore each material element
in the tower experiences full load reversal in each rotation. This will lead to higher fatigue and tower
cost. The tower, actually a cantilevered axle, in concept III will be a very expensive component.
Therefore, concept II receives a lower grade.
I II III IV
Score 6 6 2 6
Table 3-10: tower grades
27
3.2.7 Cost bearing
The bearing loading conditions for concept I, II and IV are similar. In concept II, the bearings are still
required to counteract the thrust force, but now it acts cantilevered, with the tower as lever arm.
In the following derivation the bearing forces are expressed as function of thrust force for the static case:
Fx 0 T R1 R2 0
M 0 T h R1 b R2 b 0
R1 T R2
T h (T R2 ) b R2 b 0
T (h b)
R2
2 b
Now, inserting characteristic values used in sections above:

h
h 83 m
2 b 25 m
83 12.5
R2 T 2.8 T
b
25
b
R1 T 2.8 T 3.8 T
Thus, the horizontal bearing loads are an order of four larger for concept III. We include this in the
grading. The vertical loads are also higher, since the tower weight is carried by the bearings for this
concept.
I II III
IV
Score 6.15 6.15 1.54 6.15
Table 3-11: bearing grading
3.2.8 Reliability
We estimate the reliability by counting the number of maintenance prone components and giving a grade.
I II III IV
Generator 1 or 2 1 1 2
Blades 2 or 3 2 or 3 2 or 3 2 or 3
Blade connections 4 to 6 4 to 6 4 to 6 4 to 6
Torque shaft 0 1 0 0
Bearings 2 3 2 2
Total. no. of 9 to 13 11 to 14 9 to 12 10 to 13
components
Grade 6 3 5 6
Table 3-12: Reliability grading
28
3.2.9 Maintainability
Based on heights of the maintenance prone components, mainly the generator, the concepts are graded as
below. Especially in concept IV, the (top) generator will be very difficult to reach.
I II III IV
Raw score 5 7 9 2
Grade ( Normalized to 5) 4.35 6.09 7.83 1.74
Table 3-13: Maintainability grading
3.3 Appendix Bibliography

[1] Polinder H Bang, D.J., Review of generator systems for Direct-drive wind turbines, EWEC
proceedings (2008).
[2] H.B. Hendriks and M. Zaaijer, DOWEC Executive summary of the public research activities,
Tech. report, TUDelft and ECN, 2004.
[3] I. Paraschivoiu, Wind turbine design with the emphasis on Darrieus concept, Polytechnic
international Press, 2002.
[4] M.J. Wolf et al, Studie naar haalbaarheid van en randvoorwaarden voor drijvende offshore
windturbines (Drijfwind), Tech. report, TNO, ECN, TUD, MARIN, Lagerweij de windmaster, 2002.
29
Appendix E: Deeper water mooring options
-Appendix D was omitted and E and G were not changed to avoid inconsistencies in cross-references-
4 Appendix E: Deeper water mooring options

In deeper waters, buoys would be applied to minimize cable sag and reduce weight loads on mooring
cables. The buoys are starting from a minimum water depth where waves have small influence compared
to the wave influence on SWL. The deflections of the system could become large, and here will still be
currents producing a hydrodynamic load on the buoys, therefore technical feasibility of this option should
be investigated.
Also, it may be an option to share anchors between different floating turbines, and constrain buoy
movement in three dimensions as illustrated. In the illustration, a 2-D view is shown in the y=0 plane for
a 4-guy wire and 4 mooring wire per turbine configuration. The 2-D view in the x=0 plane would be
equal, so that the buoys are constrained in 3 dimensions.
30
5 Appendix G: Trifloater determination of weighted

water plane area and derivation of analytic proof of
p(1) r
120 deg 120 deg
p(2)
x
p’(2)
Figure 5-1: Three columns, top view
From Journee it is known that the weighted waterplane around the axis of rotation x, of one column is:
I x ,n D4 p2 A (5.1)
64
The total weighted waterplane of the three columns is:
n 3
Ix I x,n (5.2)
The three column Trifloater is now rotated with an angle in the horizontal plane around the vertical
axis. Because of symmetry conditions, we can suffice with the range 0> > . p can be written for the
6
three columns:
31
p1 r cos( )
p2 r sin( ) (5.3)
6
p3 r sin( )
6
The weighted water plane is written as function of γ:
I x,1 D 4 A r 2 cos2 ( ) (5.4)

64
When the weighted water planes of the three columns are added, an expression for the weighted water
plane area of the three columns can be written:
Ix ( ) 3 D 4 A r 2 cos 2 ( ) r 2 sin 2 ( ) r 2 sin 2 ( ) (5.5)

64 6 6
In order to prove that I x is constant for all , the angle-dependent part of equation (5.5) is selected.
f ( ) cos2 ( ) sin 2 ( ) sin 2 ( ) (5.6)

6 6
With sin(2 ) 2 sin cos , the derivative of f becomes:
f ' ( ) 2 cos ( sin ) 2 sin( ) cos( ) ( 1) 2 sin( ) cos( )

6 6 6 6
sin(2 ) sin( 2 ) sin( 2 ) (5.7)
3 3
Now, with sin( ) sin cos cos sin , it is shown that the derivative is zero for all angles:
f '( ) sin(2 ) sin( ) cos(2 ) cos( ) sin(2 ) sin( ) cos(2 ) cos( ) sin(2 )
3 3 3 3 (5.8)
sin(2 ) 2 cos( ) sin(2 ) 0
3
1
Because cos( )
3 2
Hence, within the assumptions of the hydrostatic analysis, the Trifloater is equally stable for all loading
directions
32

Lindert Blonk R

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Lindert Blonk R

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Co n cep t u al Desig n an d Evalu at io n o f Eco n o m ic

Feasib ilit y o f Flo at in g Ver t ical Axis Win d Tu r b in es

May 25, 2010

Delft University of Technology SBM - GustoMSC

Prof.dr. G.J.W. van Bussel Delft University of Technology

Page left blank intentionally

Page left blank intentionally

9.2 Floater mass ................................................................................................................................ 44

Aerodynamic prediction model

r Local Radius [m]

x Horizontal deflection of point O [m]

Page left blank intentionally

Chapter 2 Literature study to Floating Wind and VAWT

Exploratory Feasibility study

Chapter 4 Concept Generation

Lifetime Cost Estimation for Selected Concept

Figure 1-1: Thesis processes and report outline.

2 Overview of Floating wind turbine technology and

2.1 Floating wind

2.1.2 Floating wind stabilization principles

A: Spar principle („ballast

The principles are shown in

Figure 2-4: Designs

Figure 2-5: mooring classification

In the next sections, a selection of the floating wind turbines is presented.

In 2002, a project called „Drijfwind‟ [37] was carried

In 2009, a full-scale (2.3 MW) prototype floating

Figure 2-8: The Windfloat Figure 2-9: SWAY concept

2.2 Offshore wind farms

2.2.1 DOWEC project

Total capacity 480 MW

Figure 2-10: DOWEC baseline wind farm levelised production costs

2.2.2 EWEA Annual study

2.3 Vertical Axis Wind turbines

2.4 Wind energy production basics

2.4.1 Drag driven VAWT

Figure 2-12: A drag –based Persian gristmill, 200 B.C.

Figure 2-13: a translating drag device

2.4.2 Lift driven VAWT

2.5 VAWT designs

Figure 2-15:a: VERTAX artist b: NOVA concept artist impression

2.5.5 Vertical Wind

In Sweden, a research company called „Vertical Wind AB‟ is

Figure 2-16: Vertical Wind’s

2.6 Floating VAWT

Figure 2-17:a: Floating windfarms b: Artist impression c:Alternative design employing

2.6.2 Nenuphar SARL

A Lille (France)-based company, called „Nenuphar SARL‟ is also

Figure 2-18: Nenuphar SARL

2.7 Models for floating wind turbines

Figure 2-19: 6 DOF floating configuration

3 Exploratory feasibility study

3.1 Chapter introduction

Table 3-1: Overview of exploratory feasibility study concept characteristics.

Figure 3-1: Schematic representation of reference concepts

Note on analyses in Appendix B

3.2 Summary of exploratory feasibility study

Table 3-2: Key to evaluation of (dis)advantage claim validity

Table 3-3: Claim validation results

-No cost of a yaw mechanism FOE: -/- 3 % of “”

- Increase of production in heel. 0: Unproven 1: Proven, small

Claimed Disadvantages VAWT – C VAWT – H

- Higher tower cost Unproven, but “”