Review Article 4

energies
Review
Floating Offshore Vertical Axis Wind Turbines: Opportunities,
Challenges and Way Forward
Abel Arredondo-Galeana * and Feargal Brennan
Department of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Marine Engineering, University of Strathclyde,

Glasgow G4 0LZ, UK; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]
Abstract: The offshore wind sector is expanding to deep water locations through floating platforms.
This poses challenges to horizontal axis wind turbines (HAWTs) due to the ever growing size of
blades and floating support structures. As such, maintaining the structural integrity and reducing
the levelised cost of energy (LCoE) of floating HAWTs seems increasingly difficult. An alternative
to these challenges could be found in floating offshore vertical axis wind turbines (VAWTs). It is
known that VAWTs have certain advantages over HAWTs, and in fact, some small-scale developers
have successfully commercialised their onshore prototypes. In contrast, it remains unknown whether
VAWTs can offer an advantage for deep water floating offshore wind farms. Therefore, here we
present a multi-criteria review of different aspects of VAWTs to address this question. It is found
that wind farm power density and reliability could be decisive factors to make VAWTs a feasible
alternative for deep water floating arrays. Finally, we propose a way forward based on the findings
of this review.
Keywords: vertical axis wind turbine; VAWT; floating offshore wind; offshore wind

Citation: Arredondo-Galeana, A.;

Brennan, F. Floating Offshore Vertical
Axis Wind Turbines: Opportunities, 1. Introduction
Challenges and Way Forward.
Offshore Wind in Northern Europe, North America and Asia has to date become
Energies 2021, 14, 8000. https://
a great success surpassing most commercial and technical expectations [1]. Driven by
doi.org/10.3390/en14238000
climate change and governmental subsidies [2], the success of the sector has increased
investor confidence and led to ambitious targets, as governments around the world try to
Academic Editor: Davide Astolfi
achieve zero emissions by 2050. In the UK, for example, early in 2019, a detailed Offshore
Wind Sector Deal [3] was committed to 30 GW of electric power with 60% local content by
Received: 22 October 2021
Accepted: 23 November 2021
2030, representing a major component of UK strategic electricity policy. Subsequently, the
Published: 30 November 2021
UK government extended this target to 40 GW by 2030 [4], following the December 2019
national election. In Denmark, tendering for an artificial energy hub island, powered by
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
offshore turbines, is starting in 2022, with a potential capacity of 10 GW by 2030 [5].
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
Ambitious targets, such as the aforementioned ones, are pushing the horizons of
published maps and institutional affil- Offshore Wind and the sector is expanding to deep water locations through floating
iations. platforms. In the UK, 1 GW of wind power is planned by 2030 from floating offshore
wind. Across Europe, a few prototype floating wind farms are already in operation, such
as Hywind Scotland and Kincardine Offshore Wind Farm, both in Scotland, and WindFloat
Atlantic in Portugal. In Asia, the first Chinese tri-floater based wind turbine has been
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
deployed for demonstrative purposes off the coast of Yangjiang [6]. While these examples
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
are tri-floater based, the spar based Hywind Tampen Wind Farm off the coast of Norway
This article is an open access article
will be the biggest floating array with 88 MW in operation.
distributed under the terms and Development of floating wind farms presents unique and novel challenges to horizon-
conditions of the Creative Commons tal wind turbines (HAWTs). This is because reducing the levelised cost of energy (LCoE)
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// and maintaining the structural integrity is increasingly difficult as the blades and the
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ support structures increase in size. These issues become more relevant in modern HAWTs,
4.0/). as turbines can now be rated at 15 MW with blade lengths over 110 m [7]. In particular,
Energies 2021, 14, 8000. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14238000 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2021, 14, 8000 2 of 24
larger blades induce higher gravitational cyclic loading, putting at risk the reliability and
structural integrity of the turbine. In addition to the structural complications, there are fluid
dynamic considerations, such as, wind shear and turbulence, which play an important role
and could alter the expected behaviour of a large-scale floating HAWT [8].
It has been hypothesised that an alternative to these challenges could be found in
floating offshore vertical axis wind turbines (VAWTs) [9]. It is known that VAWTs have
different characteristics from HAWTs [10–12]. For example, lower overturning moment
and centre of gravity, and omnidirectional operation. However, to date, it remains unclear
whether these characteristics could be beneficial in the context of large-scale floating VAWTs
and whether it is worth diversifying turbine technology for floating arrays. To answer
these questions, we compile and review a novel multi-criteria assessment from the offshore
perspective. We address power capture, loading characteristics, floating support structures,
reliability, environmental, manufacturing and decommissioning aspects of floating VAWTs.
When relevant, we compare some of these aspects to those of floating HAWTs.
The structure of the paper is as follows. First, we provide a brief background on VAWT
history and technology. Then, the multi-criteria assessment is presented. The analysis is
finalised with a technology readiness level (TLR) assessment of floating VAWTs versus
floating HAWTs. The way forward and conclusions are included at the end of the paper.
2. Novelty of the Review

The novelty of this review paper lies in the multi-criteria approach used to review
VAWTs in the context of floating offshore technology. This contrasts with more conventional
reviews that focus in one aspect only. An inclusive and multi-criteria approach is required
in the literature to reach a broader range of stakeholders in industry, government and
academia, that can influence decision making processes in the offshore energy mix. Then,
we provide a range of solutions, together with research gap opportunities, to increase the
TRL level of floating VAWTs. To do this we performed a TRL comparison between floating
HAWTs and hypothetical floating VAWTs, where we identify specific areas of the latter
that have a low TRL level. This allows us to focus the range of solutions in areas that will
have an important impact on floating VAWT technology.
We intend that this review will raise awareness within the stakeholder and the research
communities on which aspects could make floating VAWTs a complementary source of
energy in the offshore energy mix. At the same time, we intend to highlight which areas
need to be strengthened in order to make floating VAWTs a feasible alternative. As such,
Figure 1 presents a flow chart that summarises the structure of this review.
Background on
Power capture Loading Floa ng
VAWT technology
characteris cs structures
Environmental O shore
Way forward TRL assessment
impact and reliability
sustainable
manufacturing
Figure 1. Flowchart of review showing the main blocks on: background on VAWT technology, power
capture, loading characteristics, floating structures, offshore reliability, environmental impact and
sustainable manufacturing, TRL assessment and way forward.
3. Background of VAWT Technology

VAWTs can be classified into four main types: Savonious, curved-bladed Darrieus,
straight-bladed Darrieus and H-type turbines [13]. The former is drag-based, whilst the
latter ones are lift-based turbines. Early developers in the 80s focused on the curved-bladed
Darrieus turbine in North America and the H-rotor turbine in Europe and Asia [12,14].
Among the early developments, the largest VAWT was the Eole turbine in Canada. It
Energies 2021, 14, 8000 3 of 24
was a curved-bladed Darrieus turbine rated to 3.8 MW that operated for five years. The
turbine worked with direct drive technology and had steel core blades, contrarily to most
of its predecessors that operated with aluminium blades. High visibility failures of VAWTs
due to fatigue issues in the main bearings and blades led to a loss in investment, which
coincided with HAWT early success.
Trends have changed and recent years have shown a renewed interest in VAWT
technology. VAWT small-scale developers (<0.1 MW), such as 4Navitas [15] and Swift
TG Energy [16], have developed successful commercial onshore multi-bladed prototypes.
Research and development of novel floating VAWT concepts have also been surging,
for example, the cases of Nova [17,18], Deepwind [19], Skwid [20], Vertiwind [21] and
SeaTwirl [22]. The latter is a Swedish company that aims to have an operational floating
VAWT rated at 1 MW by 2023. Hence, efforts are under way towards larger-scale floating
VAWT devices. We summarise some of these latest efforts in Table 1. As an illustrative
example of a floating VAWT, Figure 2 shows the schematic of a floating straight-bladed
Darrieus turbine supported by a tri-floater structure.
Table 1. Summary of floating VAWT research activity over recent years.
Name of Turbine Type of Turbine Country Years Active Reference

Nova V-shape VAWT UK 2009–2010 [17,18]
Deepwind Curved-bladed Darrieus Denmark 2010–2014 [19]
Floating axis Straight/curved-bladed Darrieus Japan 2011–ongoing [23,24]
Skwid Straight bladed Darrieus Japan 2013–2015 [20]
Vertiwind H-rotor France 2011–2018 [21]
SeaTwirl Straight-bladed Darrieus Sweden 2012–ongoing [22]
Figure 2. Schematic of a floating straight-bladed Darrieus turbine supported by a tri-floater structure.
4. Power Capture
In this section, we present an assessment of the power aspects of floating VAWTs and
compare them to those of floating HAWTs from a single-machine and an array perspective.
A priori, it is known that power capture capabilities from the individual machine perspec-
tive, differ significantly between VAWTs and HAWTs due to their principle of operation.
For VAWTs, see for example, Hand et al. [25], and for HAWTs, see for example the Wind
Energy Handbook from Burton et al. [26]. However, from the array perspective these
differences might not be as relevant and we intend to explore this in this section. We start
by describing the concept of power coefficient. Then, we discuss relevant parameters that
can alter the performance of the turbines. Importantly, we discuss the swept area, the wind
shear profile and the orientation of the turbine with respect to the wind. Subsequently, we
Energies 2021, 14, 8000 4 of 24
discuss an example of array performance by quantifying the power density of two wind
farms, one with floating HAWTs and one with floating VAWTs.
4.1. Power Coefficient

One of the factors that determined the early success of HAWTs over VAWTs was the
power coefficient (CP ). The CP is the percentage of wind energy that a turbine can convert
into electrical energy [26]. It is defined as
P
CP = , (1)
0.5ρAU 3
where P is the extracted electrical power, ρ is the fluid density, U is the freestream velocity
and A is the swept area of the turbine. The denominator in Equation (1) is the available
power through the swept area of the turbine. A typical value for the maximum power
coefficient (CP, max ) of a HAWT is around 0.5, with the Betz limit (CP = 16/27), as the
theoretical upper limit. For a lift-based VAWT, a typical value of CP, max is around 0.4.
These values are only valid for isolated machines, and in the case of HAWTs, only valid
in uniform unidirectional flow. Orientation of the turbines with respect to the flow is
discussed further in Section 4.4.
Table 2 shows examples of a HAWT, a Darrieus and an H-rotor. The table shows the
CP, max and the corresponding tip speed ratio λ for each turbine. Here, λ is defined as
λ = ωr/U, where ω is the angular velocity of the turbine and r is the radius, i.e., λ is the
ratio between the tip speed of the blade and the free-stream velocity. In the table, the HAWT
case corresponds to the NREL 5 MW turbine [27]. The CP, max was computed with the open
source software Q-blade [28] and is confirmed against literature data [29]. The Darrieus
CP, max is that published by Sandia laboratories for the 34 m diameter turbine tested in the
late 80’s [30,31]. Whilst, the CP, max from the H-rotor is obtained from Eriksson et al. [11]
and corresponds to the two-bladed British VAWT 260, rated at 100 kW [32]. The table
shows the superior performance of the HAWT turbine. The CP, max of the VAWT turbines is
similar, except that CP, max of the H-rotor occurs at a lower λ.
Table 2. HAWT and VAWT turbines with characteristic CP, max and corresponding λ. The source of
the data is specified in the last column.
Turbine Power Rating Type of Turbine CP, max λ Data from

NREL 5 MW HAWT 0.49 8.0 Qblade simulation
NREL 5 MW HAWT 0.48 7.9 Zanon et al. [29]
Sandia 34 m 500 KW VAWT-Darrieus 0.40 6.1 Sandia report [30,31]
Musgrove 100 KW VAWT-H-rotor 0.40 3.8 Eriksson et al. [11]
We note that the value of CP, max for VAWTs depends also on the solidity of the turbine
(σ) [33] and on the Reynolds number (Re) [34]. Typically, σ is defined as σ = Nc/r, where
N is the number of blades and c is the mean chord of the blade. Low σ (σ ≤ 0.1), decreases
CP, max and increases its corresponding λ. In contrast, high σ (σ ≥ 0.4), increases CP, max and
decreases its corresponding λ [33]. In terms of Re, low Re decreases CP, max [34]. However,
for large-scale floating offshore VAWTs, we expect high Re (Re > 1 × 105 ) and therefore, a
consistent CP, max over the range of 0.4 to 0.45 [34].
4.2. Swept Area

The swept area of the turbine A can be modified to alter P, as shown by Equation (1).
Different design strategies can be utilised to set A, and hence P of a turbine. As an example,
here, we show A of turbines of similar height in Figure 3. We delimit the A of a HAWT, a
Darrieus and a H-rotor turbine with a dotted blue, black and red line, respectively. The
HAWT A has the dimensions of the 5 MW NREL rotor [35], whilst A of each turbine is
overlapped with the zero defined at mid-height of the turbines. For HAWTs and Darrieus
turbines, the height to diameter ratio (h/d) is fixed to h/d = 1 and h/d = 1.5, respectively.
Energies 2021, 14, 8000 5 of 24
In contrast, h/d for an H-rotor can vary over a wide range. In fact, it is theoretically possible
to size an H-rotor to match the P of a similar height HAWT, by adjusting its diameter only.
From Table 2, we consider a CP, max = 0.4 for the Darrieus and the H-rotor turbine,
and CP, max = 0.48 for a HAWT. We compute P for each turbine by utilising Equation (1). A
reference offshore height and reference offshore wind velocity is defined for each turbine.
For the HAWT, the reference height is the hub height at 90 m, whilst the wind rated
velocity (Ur ) is 11.4 m/s [35]. For the VAWTs, we consider a reference height equal to half
of the height of the turbine plus a 10 m distance to the sea level. By assuming a power
law and a power law coefficient αl = 0.11 [36], we can compute Ur for the VAWTs. This
yields Ur = 11.3 m/s and Ur = 11.2 m/s for the Darrieus and the H-rotor, respectively.
Under these assumptions, the turbines are rated to 5 MW, 4 MW and 5 MW for the HAWT,
Darrieus and H-rotor, respectively.
Hence, in this example, it is shown that an H-rotor of equal or similar height to a
HAWT can match the P of a HAWT, even with a lower CP, max .
Figure 3. Swept areas (A) of HAWT (blue dotted line), Darrieus (black dotted line) and H−rotor
(red dotted line). The rated velocities (Ur ) are 11.4, 11.3 and 11.2 m/s, whilst P is 5, 4 and 5 MW,
respectively. For these computations, we utilised CP, max = 0.48 for the HAWT, and CP, max = 0.40 for
the VAWTs.
4.3. Wind Shear Profile

Although in the previous subsection, we utilised a power law, wind shear profiles
can also be modelled with a log law [37] or with a simplified log law [38]. The charac-
teristic equations of the power law, power log and simplified power log, can be found,
for example in Sathe and Bierbooms [39] or in Golbazi and Archer [38]. For the log law,
the offshore surface roughness is typically z0 = 0.001, whilst onshore, surface roughness
can range between 0.03 ≤ z0 ≤ 0.7 [26]. For the power law, the offshore power law expo-
nent is typically αl = 0.11, whilst onshore, the power law exponents can range between
0.14 ≤ αl ≤ 0.25 [40].
By utilising a reference height of 90 m and a reference velocity of 11.4 m/s, it can be
shown with the power law and the simplified log law, that offshore, around 80% of the
rated wind speed can be reached at 10% of the reference height. In contrast, between 50%
to 70% of the rated wind speed (depending on the flatness of the terrain) is achieved at
the same height in onshore conditions. This means that, in theory, the power extracted
offshore by a floating VAWT can be higher than the power extracted by the same VAWT
onshore. Hence, the shape of the offshore wind profile becomes a significant advantage for
floating VAWT deployments.
4.4. Orientation of Turbine towards Wind

Orientation of the turbine towards the wind direction is important for HAWT perfor-
mance. Yaw misalignment (γ) occurs when the rotor plane of the turbine is not perpen-
Energies 2021, 14, 8000 6 of 24
dicular to the wind direction. In fact, γ reduces the power of a turbine proportionally to
cosk γ, where k = 3 assuming uniform flow and thrust. In reality, k 6= 3, because it is site
and turbine model specific [41]. A common metric to quantify the effects of γ in HAWTs is
the power ratio Pr , which is the ratio between the yaw misaligned P and the yaw aligned
P [41].
Table 3 shows the effect of γ in Pr of a HAWT and a VAWT. For a HAWT, Pr is
computed with cos3 γ and cos2 γ, where the former is assuming uniform loading and thrust
and the latter is the correction suggested by Howland et al. [41]. For a VAWT, Pr = 1.00
because of its γ independence. The table shows that γ is detrimental for the performance
of HAWTs. In fact, when γ = ±30◦ , Pr can drop to about 65% to 75%.
Table 3. Effect of γ in Pr for a HAWT and VAWT. For a HAWT, Pr is computed with cos3 γ and with
cos2 γ. The latter is a correction suggested by Howland et al. [41].
HAWT Uniform Thrust Suggested by Howland et al. [41] VAWT Theoretical

γ [◦ ] Pr = cos3 γ Pr = cos2 γ Pr = 1
±5 0.99 0.99 1.00
±10 0.96 0.97 1.00
±15 0.90 0.93 1.00
±20 0.83 0.88 1.00
±25 0.74 0.82 1.00
±30 0.65 0.75 1.00
To mitigate the drop in Pr , HAWTs can yaw into the wind direction. There is, however,
a mechanical limit on how much a HAWT can yaw. Typical values range over ±30◦ [42].
Assuming cos2 γ and a maximum yaw correction of 30◦ , wind changes higher than 45◦
can reflect in a drop in Pr of about 10%. In the North Sea, wind changes of 90◦ , away from
the average wind direction, are to be expected [43]. These events can yield a HAWT wind
farm inoperative [44] and can extend to half of the total yearly hours [43]. In contrast,
because VAWTs are omnidirectional, they can capture the wind from any direction. This
increases reliability, because no yaw system is required, and eliminates losses in Pr due
to γ. Reliability and simplicity are preferred for floating offshore deployments, where
complex systems, such as yaw systems, might incur higher failure rates and downtimes [45].
Reliability is discussed further in Section 7.
4.5. Wind Farm Power Density

Wind farm power density (ρWF ) is a metric that quantifies how much power per square
metre a wind farm produces. VAWTs can be placed next to each other in counter-rotation
in the crosswind direction [46], whilst in the downwind direction a spacing between 4
to 8 diameters could be enough for the wake to recover above 80% [47–49]. In contrast
HAWTs require a distance of 8 and 10 diameters in the cross-wind and in the downwind
directions [50], respectively, to achieve CP, max . Hence, for turbines with similar height,
as with those shown in Figure 3, ρWF of a floating VAWT wind farm can be superior to
that of a HAWT wind farm. Neglecting losses and assuming a wind farm capacity factor
CFWF = 1, ρWF can be defined as
power per wind turbine
ρWF = . (2)
offshore area per turbine
The power per wind turbine is the electrical power of the turbine P, which is given by
Equation (1). The offshore area per turbine is computed assuming a circular footprint of
radius equal to the spacing of the turbines [51] or a radius equal to half the spacing of the
turbines [47]. Because the footprints should not overlap, here we use the latter definition to
estimate the power density of the wind farms of Figure 4. The figure shows a HAWT wind
farm with 10D downwind spacing and 8D crosswind spacing, as specified by Musial [50],
and a VAWT wind farm of H-rotors, where we take a conservative approach in the cross-
wind direction and space the turbines 6D apart. Whilst in the downwind direction, we
Energies 2021, 14, 8000 7 of 24
consider 6D, as the average recovery value that we found in the literature [47–49]. For the
HAWT wind farm, we take an average spacing of 9D, in both directions, to estimate ρWF .
10D
(a)
Wind direction
6D
(b)
Wind direction
Figure 4. Wind farm spacing layout of (a) HAWTs and (b) VAWTs, considering wake recovery
requirements and assuming uniform wind direction.
Utilising D of the HAWT and H-rotor turbines plotted in Figure 3, the computed ρWF
for the HAWT wind farm is 5 W/m2 , whilst for the VAWT wind farm is 12 W/m2 . Hence,
these two layouts show that 16 floating VAWTs placed closer to each other can outperform
9 floating HAWTs placed further apart. We note that the VAWT wind farm would still
outperform the HAWT wind farm by 30% if the downwind direction was increased to
8D [49]. Furthermore, downwind spacing could be decreased to 5D if counter-rotation was
to be employed [46]. This would automatically double ρWF due to the pairs of turbines
working at every node of the wind farm.
Naturally, more populated wind farms are not desirable due to more installation trips.
Indeed, reducing the number of installations reduces the CAPEX cost of the wind farm.
However, because the power density of a VAWT wind farm would increase the annual
energy output (AEP), the wind farm would also decrease its levelised cost of energy (LCoE).
Furthermore, because of the lower centre of gravity of VAWTs (see Section 6.2), towing
speeds could be increased, and possibly, a reduced number of towing vessels could be
used per floating VAWT. Therefore, it could be possible to minimise the impact of more
installations per wind farm, by an increase in AEP due to higher ρWF and omnidirectional
operation of VAWT wind farms.
5. Loading Characteristics
This section presents a summary of the loading characteristics that a VAWT turbine
encounters during a cycle of rotation. We highlight the aspects that become relevant for
floating VAWTs.
Figure 5 shows a mid-height cross section of a two-bladed VAWT and the velocity
triangle of each blade. The direction of the wind is from left to right and the upstream and
downstream half cycles are highlighted with blue and red shaded areas, respectively. The
x-axis points in the wind direction, whilst the y-axis points downwards. The rotation of
the turbine is in the clockwise direction.
Energies 2021, 14, 8000 8 of 24
In the figure, Vtan is the tangential velocity, Vin is the induced velocity, Vrel is the
relative velocity on each blade, r is the radius of the cross-section and θ is the azimuthal
angle with respect to the y-axis. Hence, blade 1 is at θ = 90◦ and blade 2 is at θ = 270◦ . The
force components on each blade are lift and drag (FL , FD ), and the tangential and radial
force components (FT , FR ).
Vtan r Blade 2
FL F FD
= 90o T
x
FR FT
Blade 1 FD FL
Wind
y
Figure 5. Schematic diagram of a cross-section of a two-bladed VAWT.
The flow slows down as it approaches the turbine in the upstream half-cycle and also
due to blade-wake interactions in the downstream half-cycle. This causes an asymmetric
oscillation on the angle of attack of the blade α between the upstream and the downstream
half-cycle. Hence, due to the complex blade-flow interactions, different analytical models
have been developed to estimate the loads of VAWTs. For example, single stream tube
actuator disc models [52], multiple stream tube double disc theories [53,54], actuator cylin-
der models [55,56], potential flow vortex models [57,58], cascade models [59] and recent
adaptations of helicopter unsteady models [60]. Most of the models include corrections
for dynamic stall, wind shear, strut drag and tower shadow. A summary of some of the
models can be found, for example, in Islam et al. [13]. Recent years, have also seen compu-
tational fluid dynamics (CFD) expanding the understanding of the unsteady loading of
VAWTs [34,61,62], albeit at the cost of an increased computational cost.
For floating offshore VAWTs, hydro-aerodynamic coupled models have been suc-
cessfully implemented [63–65], but presently they are scarce in the literature. However,
validation data for coupled systems is not available, hence the models are typically vali-
dated modularly, and against each other.
In this paper in order to gain an insight on the loading characteristics of VAWTs and
assess the potential impact of relevant design parameters in floating VAWTs, we study the
geometric angle of attack α g . We note that α g neglects variations of Vin , however, basic
aerodynamic characteristics, as well as the cyclic nature of the loads can be analysed to
understand potential implications for floating VAWTs. For details on how to calculate α g
the reader is referred, for example, to [13,34]. We note that in the computations of α g , Vin is
assumed to be equal to the freestream velocity.
The first important design parameter that influences α g is λ. Low λ decreases the
magnitude of Vtan and increases α g , while it also makes the α g oscillations asymmetric. In
contrast, high λ, decreases the amplitude of α g and makes the oscillations more symmetric.
These effects are illustrated in Figure 6a which shows α g of one VAWT blade during a
full azimuthal rotation, plotted at λ = 2.5, 3.5 and 4.5. We utilise the dimensions of the
VAWT turbine tested by LeBlanc and Simao Ferreira [66] and provide a Matlab script as
supplementary material to produce Figure 6a. The optimal λ is one that prevents dynamic
stall and that is not detrimental to the fatigue life of the blades (high α oscillations), but
also, one that prevents low power output (low α oscillations).
The oscillations in α g result in torque (Q) and thrust (T) oscillations in a two-bladed
VAWT. Specifically, the Q and T oscillations are due to the oscillations in FT and FR of the
Energies 2021, 14, 8000 9 of 24
blades, respectively. The Q oscillations are typically referred to as the torque ripple [31,67],
whilst examples of T oscillations can be found in [66,68]. Both T and Q oscillations need
to be minimised in floating offshore VAWTs. This is because oscillations in T can amplify
pitching motions, whilst oscillations in Q can induce torsional moments and affect the
fatigue life of the mooring lines.
30 2.5
TSR = 2.5 2-bladed VAWT, Qblade
TSR = 3.5 2-bladed VAWT, Data from [66]
20
TSR = 4.5 2.0 3-bladed VAWT, Qblade
10
1.5
0
1.0
-10
0.5
-20
-30 0.0
0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360
Figure 6. (a) Oscillations of α g at λ = 2.5, 3.5 and 4.5 during one rotation cycle for one VAWT blade.
Turbine dimensions are those used in [66]. (b) CT versus rotor azimuthal angle at λ = 3.5 for a two-
bladed VAWT, simulated with Qblade and experimental data from [66] in black and blue markers,
respectively. The red markers show the simulated CT , with Qblade, for a three-bladed VAWT.
We illustrate the oscillating nature of the loads in a two-bladed VAWT by plotting

the thrust coefficient (CT ) versus the azimuthal angle of the rotor in Figure 6b. We utilise
the open-source software Q-blade to compute CT of a two-bladed turbine with the same
dimensions as the one tested experimentally by LeBlanc and Simao Ferreira [66] for λ = 3.5.
Results of the simulation are plotted with black markers. For reference, we include the
experimental results with blue markers. Two peaks in CT are noted at 90◦ and 270◦ .
In contrast to two-bladed VAWTs, multi-bladed VAWTs smooth out the two peak
loading oscillations [67]. In fact, modern onshore small-scale VAWT manufacturers utilise
multiple blades in their designs. Multi-bladed VAWTs are also applicable for floating
offshore VAWTs, where cost increments due to a third blade could be compensated by an
increase in AEP (see Section 4) and also, by a reduced complexity in the manufacturing
of the blades (see Section 8.2). In Figure 6b, we show with red markers the CT of a three-
bladed VAWT computed with Qblade. As shown in the figure, the oscillating peaks are
smoothed out compared to the peaks of the two-bladed case. Reduced oscillations are a
more desirable scenario for floating arrays to minimise load induced motions and extend
the fatigue life of the turbine.
6. Floating Structures
In this section, we identify the existing types of support structure in the offshore
market. As well as the current trends in floating turbine deployment. Subsequently, we
present a free floating body diagram to highlight the importance of a low centre of gravity
(CoG) and a low overturning moment (OTM), and put this into the context of floating
turbines. Finally, we quantify the potential reduction in OTM with a practical example.
6.1. Types of Floating Structures

Floating offshore structures should provide enough buoyancy to support the turbine
and restrain pitching, rolling and heaving motions [69]. Several floating technologies exist
and have been successfully used in the offshore oil and gas sector. Hence, the technology
Energies 2021, 14, 8000 10 of 24
readiness level (TLR) of floating structures is high. The challenge lies in designing a floating
structure that operates in conjunction with the VAWT turbine.
Examples of floating structures are: barges, semi-submersibles, spar buoys and tension
mooring legs (TLPs). Barges are flat floating platforms typically used to transport cargo
offshore. Semi-submersibles are platforms supported by floats. They are typically used for
deep water offshore drilling. The floats are airtight hollow structures designed to provide
buoyancy. They provide an improved stability compared to barges, due to their reduced
water plane. Spar buoys are elongated bodies that are ballasted at the bottom to lower the
CoG and improve stability. Whilst, TLPs are floating structures moored to the seabed by
high axial stiffness tethers. The tethers minimise vertical motions of the platform and are
attached to the seabed through specialised anchors. A technical assessment of some of
these floating structures can be found, for example, in [27].
The stability triangle, shown in Figure 7, is generally used to classify floating structures
according to their stability mechanism [68,69]. The vertices of the triangle are: buoyancy,
ballast and mooring supported structures. Locations between vertices are used to classify
hybrid types of support structures. We utilise the triangle to highlight some floating VAWT
concepts that have been developed recently by both academia and industry. Representative
symbols are used to identify the type of floating VAWT system (semi-sub, spar buoys and
TLPs). The figure shows that most of the identified floating VAWTs are buoyancy and
ballast supported. Hybrid mechanisms, that combine buoyancy and ballast supported
turbines, are the cases, for example, of Deepwind [19] and the floating axis wind turbine
(FAWT) [23,24]. For comparison, some of the already deployed floating HAWT wind farms
are plotted in the figure. We note that most of these large-scale developments have also
leaned towards buoyancy and ballast supported mechanisms. Mooring supported systems,
such as TLPs, remain vastly unexplored for both HAWTs and VAWTs. One exception to
this is Seawind [70], which is a two-bladed HAWT supported by a TLP.
Most of the identified cases in Figure 7 are on the leftward side of the triangle. We
consider that the two main drivers behind this trend are: the installation costs and the
geographic location of the port where the turbine is assembled.
The first driver is evidenced in a recent life-cost analysis for semi-subs, buoy spars and
TLPs [71]. In summary, the main costs related to a floating structure are: manufacturing,
operation and maintenance, and installation. Among these aspects, the greatest differen-
tiator between platforms is the installation cost. For TLPs, the cost is higher because they
typically require suction or driven piles to keep the mooring lines in tension and provide
the required vertical load. Furthermore, they require cargo barges and offshore lift cranes
for installation [71].
The second driver is of a geographical nature, since floating structures of large draft,
such as spar buoys, can only be assembled near shore in certain locations. This is because
offshore assembly increases costs significantly. In the UK, for example, deep water quays
in the range of 20 to 25 m are non-existent [72]. Hence, assembly of semi-subs and spar
buoys is not feasible. Contrarily, quaysides in Norway allow for assembly of semi-subs
and spar buoys with drafts longer than 50 m. Such is the case of the deep water site of
Dommersnes, where Hywind Tampen is being assembled [73]. In addition to water depth
restrictions, the location of the port needs to be in the vicinity of the wind farm. Proximity
to offshore site reduces the duration and cost of the trips to the site. Hence, location and
proximity of the assembly port to the wind farm are major drivers behind the chosen type
of floating platform.
Energies 2021, 14, 8000 11 of 24
Ballast
supported
SeaTwirl
Hywind
Scotland
Hywind
Tampen
Deepwind
Windfloat
Atlantic
Nénuphar
Buoyancy Mooring
supported supported
Figure 7. Stability triangle with buoyancy, mooring and ballast supported structures at the vertices
of the triangle. Examples of floating VAWTs and HAWTs are identified in the figure. The colour bar
in the triangle indicates installation costs, with costs increasing from light green to red.
6.2. Stability
VAWTs have two significant advantages for floating offshore deployments. Firstly,
a lower line of action of the average thrust force (T) and secondly, a lower centre of
gravity (CoG).
We illustrate both points in Figure 8. The figure shows a free floating structure whose
symmetry lines are initially aligned with the vertical y-axis and the horizontal x-axis. The
contour of the structure is highlighted with a black dotted line in this reference frame. The
structure is then tilted around the pitching axis O and the symmetry lines are now aligned
with the x 0 and the y0 -axis. In the figure, the tilted structure is shaded in pink. The figure
shows the weight of the structure (W), the centre of gravity (CoG), the buoyancy force (B),
the centre of buoyancy (CoB), the overturning moment (OTM), the restoring moment (RM)
and the pitching axis O. We note that W acts on CoG, B on CoB and that RM is the moment
due to B and W around O. Similarly, OTM is the moment due to T around O.
We specify, the average thrust force of a HAWT and of a VAWT as T HAWT , and T VAWT ,
respectively. These forces are applied at different points along the y0 -axis, which represent
the height where the thrust force acts. Specifically, the line of action of T HAWT is hub-height,
whilst the line of action of T VAWT is approximately mid-height of the turbine. Assuming
similar height turbines, such as those depicted in Figure 3, the OTM due to T around O is
lower in a VAWT than in a HAWT. This reduces the restoring moment (RM) and structural
requirements needed to balance OTM, and sustain the stability of the structure.
Secondly, a lower CoG increases the restoring moment (RM) experienced by the
floating structure. This is because the position of the CoG remains fixed at the symmetry
line of the structure, assuming there are no free weights that can move [74]. Therefore, the
distance between the CoG and the untilted vertical axis (y-axis) increases with a lower CoG.
This distance is the lever arm of the moment due to W around O. We refer to the moment
and the lever arm distance as MW and lCoG , respectively. Hence, MW = W × lCoG .
Energies 2021, 14, 8000 12 of 24
THAWT
O
Water plane
x
x'
CoG
W
Figure 8. Schematic of a free floating wind platform, with the overturning moment (OTM), due to
average thrust force (T̂), and the restoring moment (RM), due to buoyancy and gravity forces acting
at the centre of buoyancy (CoB) and gravity (CoG), respectively.
The moment due to the buoyancy force is MB = B × lCoB , where lCoB is the distance
from the CoB to the y-axis. We note, that the position of the CoB changes after tilting due
to a change in the underwater shape of the structure. The change in the position of the
CoB is illustrated in the figure, where the CoB moves from the untilted symmetry line (red
dotted circle) to the right hand side of the y-axis. Finally, RM around O is RM = MW + MB .
VAWTs can have heavy equipment, such as the generator and the gearbox positioned
closer to sea level and therefore a lower CoG. The ability to have a lower CoG decreases
the amount of ballast material that a floating structure requires to lower the CoG. This
reduction in material can translate into a reduction in the cost of the floating structure.
We quantify the potential reduction in OTM of VAWTs rated at different P. To this
aim, we compare the OTM of three different large-scale turbines. We consider the HAWT,
Darrieus and H-rotor turbines. The scaling of the HAWT turbines is performed taking as
reference the A of the 5 MW NREL turbine depicted in Figure 3, and scaling A to match
the desired P. We consider CP,max = 0.48 and CP,max = 0.40 for HAWTs and VAWTs,
respectively. The scaling for the VAWTs is performed by considering the scaled-up HAWTs
and keeping the same height and h/d ratio relationships between the HAWT and VAWT
turbines that are utilised in Figure 3.
The dimensions of the turbines are provided in Appendix A and they are grouped
in three clusters: A, B and C, which refer to medium (≤5 MW), large (≤10 MW) and very
large-scale (>10 MW), respectively. The rated velocities (Ur ) for each turbine is provided in
Appendix A. The velocities are computed with a power law and a reference wind velocity
of 11.4 m/s at 90 m above sea level [35]. The reference heights for Ur are hub-height for the
HAWTs, and mid-height plus a distance of 10 m above sea level for the VAWTs. The power
law coefficient is αl = 0.11, as previously specified for offshore sites [36].
Results are shown in Figure 9. The figure shows the estimated OTM versus P of the
turbines of cluster A, B and C. Circular, diamond and rectangular markers are used to
represent the HAWTs, Darrieus and H-rotor turbines. Despite the apparent disadvantages
of VAWTs (lower Ur and lower CP , we note that the H-rotor matches the P of the HAWTs
in clusters A and B, and is only slightly under rated in cluster C. In contrast, the Darrieus
turbines do not match the P of the HAWTs in any of the clusters.
Energies 2021, 14, 8000 13 of 24
C
B
A
Figure 9. Average overturning moments (OTMs) for clusters A, B, C corresponding to medium, large
and very large-scale turbines, respectively. Each cluster considers a HAWT, a Darrieus and a H-rotor
turbines, whose dimensions are provided in Appendix A.
A reduction in OTM is observed for VAWTs in all of the clusters. The reduction in
OTM between HAWTs and the H-rotor increases from cluster A to cluster C, from 5% to
about 20%. Hence, the OTM decreases with increasing H-rotor power. For the Darrieus
rotor, a reduction in OTM is observed in every cluster, ranging over 25% to 30%, although
this comes at the penalty of turbines with a lower rated P. We recall however that due
to omni-directionality and tighter arrays capability, any P deficit in the clusters could be
overcome. Furthermore, HAWTs cannot produce power all the time, as pointed out in
Section 4.4. Hence, the annual average power output of a HAWT is much less than the
rated power [44].
Lastly, it is worth noting that the reduction in OTM of the H-rotor is more significant if
h/d < 1, provided that A is sized according to the required P. We note that in the examples
of Figure 9, h/d = 1 for the H-rotor.
7. Offshore Reliability
Up to this point, we have reviewed power capture capabilities of floating VAWTs
from an individual and array perspective. We subsequently studied some of their loading
characteristics. Then, we reviewed the available floating platforms and highlighted that
floating VAWTs have an improved stability due to a lower CoG, and a lower OTM. In this
section, we focus on the reliability of aspect in the context of a floating platform.
Reliability of wind turbines is crucial to reduce operation and maintenance (O&M) costs
associated to failure rates and downtimes [75]. This has led to several studies to investigate the
failure rates and downtimes of onshore and offshore wind turbines [45,76–78]. However, to
date, offshore reliability databases are scarce, due to the competitive nature of the business.
In addition to scarce data, the available information has high variability. This is because of
the different sample sizes and locations [45].
Despite these shortcomings, some insight can be gained from offshore reliability
databases and relevant conclusions applicable to floating VAWTs can be obtained. Here,
we review three offshore databases reported by Dinwoodie and McMillan, Carroll et al.
and Dao et al. [45,76,77]. These studies show that the highest offshore failure rates typically
occur in pitching systems, generators, gearboxes, yaw systems and blade-hub assemblies.
Figure 10 shows the box and whisker plot of the yearly percentage failure rate of these
subcomponents, as reported in the aforementioned databases. The minimum and maxi-
mum points of each box correspond to the Dinwwoodie and McMillan, and the Dao et al.
databases, respectively, with the exception of the yaw category, where this pattern is in-
verted. Figure 10 shows that the failure rate of these components account for about 50% of
the total failure rate of an offshore HAWT wind farm.
Energies 2021, 14, 8000 14 of 24
Figure 11 shows the associated downtime hours related to the same subcomponents
presented in Figure 10. The longest downtimes are due to the generator, the gearbox, and
the blades-hub categories. It is noted that the variability is high in these three categories.
In contrast, pitch and yaw systems show lower downtimes and less variability. By
multiplying the mean failure rates and the mean downtimes of Figures 10 and 11, and by
normalising the results, we produce the severity matrix shown in Figure 12. The matrix
highlights the impact of a failure in a floating HAWT. In the matrix, the severity of the
failure is ranked as low (0 < low < 0.2), medium (0.2 < medium < 0.5) and high
(high ≥ 0.5). The matrix shows that failures in the generator and gearboxes have a high
severity, whilst failures in the pitch, yaw and blade/hub systems are less severe.
We use the outputs of the severity matrix to derive some conclusions for floating
VAWTs. We observe that VAWTs can minimise or eliminate the medium to low risk
associated to yaw and pitch systems. Furthermore, the ease of accessibility to the generator,
together with novel direct drive technology [79] could result in mitigation of the severity
of the failures associated with generator and gearbox. Lastly, we note that although
mechanical breaks are not identified as a primary source of failure and downtime rate,
the lower λ of VAWTs can reduce the wear of the breaks and therefore mitigate any
break-related fatigue issues.
The potential reduction in downtimes and failure rates of floating VAWTs, in com-
bination with a higher ρWF , could help to decrease the levelised cost of energy (LCoE)
of a wind farm, by lowering operational expenditures and increasing the annual energy
production (AEP).
25
20
15
10
ch or x w b
Pit rat rbo Ya -hu
en
e
Ge
a
d es
G Bla
Figure 10. Box plot of components with higher failure rates for HAWT offshore wind farms. Data
from Dinwoodie and McMillan, Carroll et al. and Dao et al. [45,76,77].
60
50
40
30
20
10
ch or x w b
Pit rat rbo Ya -hu
en
e
Ge
a
des
G Bla
Figure 11. Box plot of downtime of components with higher failure rates for HAWT offshore wind
farms. Data from Dinwoodie and McMillan, Carroll et al. and Dao et al. [45,76,77].
Energies 2021, 14, 8000 15 of 24
Figure 12. Severity risk matrix of normalised failure rates times downtime rates for pitch, generator,
gearbox, yaw and blade/hub in an offshore HAWT wind farm, as computed from box plots of
Figures 10 and 11.
8. Environmental Impact and Sustainable Manufacturing

This section wraps up the reviewed features of floatings VAWTs, by analysing some of
their environmental, manufacturing and decommissioning aspects. Subsequently, we carry
out the TRL assessment to identify areas of opportunity and research gaps in the field of
floating VAWTs.
8.1. Environment
Wind farms can influence their surrounding environment through electromagnetic
interference, visual acceptability, bird collisions, noise, microclimates, etc. [80]. Offshore,
some of these aspects become less critical, such as visual acceptability or noise. However,
other aspects, such as bird collisions, remain a concern due to the growing size of HAWT
turbines. Marine bird species such as seagulls, grebes, seaducks, migrating waterfowls and
passerines [81] are at higher risk of collisions during migration or foraging activities.
Although it has been stipulated that VAWTs may have a lower impact on bird colli-
sion [82,83], further research on this area is still needed [84]. There are, however, some miti-
gation strategies that have been proposed to reduce bird collisions in wind farms [81,85–87].
Among the proposed strategies, reduction of wind farm footprint and parallel alignment
to flight paths are possibilities for offshore VAWTs. As mentioned in Section 4.5, offshore
VAWTs have the ability to be placed closer to each other in both cross-wind and downwind
directions. This ability would allow a reduced wind farm footprint and potential alignment
of the turbines parallel to the flying paths of birds.
In addition to physical collisions, wake interference is also an issue for birds and light
aircraft [88]. The wake of HAWTs can cause undesired rolling moments and therefore bird
and light aircraft collisions. As HAWTs grow in size, the dimensions of the wake and the
likelihood of wake interference grow as well. It is possible to mitigate wake interference
effects by having more compact arrays in counter-rotation and by reducing the height of
VAWT turbines. The loss of power due to lower turbine heights, could be compensated by
a higher ρWF and in the case of H-rotors, also by an increase in their diameter.
8.2. Sustainable Manufacturing

VAWT blades have uniform spanwise cross-sections, in contrast to non-uniform
spanwise cross-sections of HAWT blades. As an example we illustrate in Figure 13a the
side-view of the NREL 5 MW HAWT blade with 4 cross-sections highlighted throughout
the span from root to tip. Whilst, Figure 13b shows the cross-section of an H-rotor with a
symmetric NACA profile. The figure highlights the simplicity of VAWT blades compared
to that of HAWT blades.
Although blade segmentation has been proposed for large HAWT blades, the non-
uniform cross sections and high cyclic loading due to gravity pose significant structural
challenges to the blade manufacturing process. Hence, HAWT blades are typically manu-
factured in a mould and in one single piece. In comparison, segmentation and modular
assembly of VAWT blades is simpler because of the uniform cross-section and because of
Energies 2021, 14, 8000 16 of 24
the reduced gravity cyclic loading on the blade. Modularity in manufacturing can translate
into significant cost reductions [10,89].
Modular assembly opens up the possibility for new materials for blades in VAWTs.
For example, lighter materials based on sailing textiles, such as those proposed by company
Actblade [90]. Lighter materials can reduce the weight of the blade and any gravity-
induced pitching motion on the floating structure. They can also reduce the loading on the
supporting struts of the blades. Simultaneously, novel materials can provide a sustainable
recycling framework.
a) HAWT blade
Root cross-section
Tip cross-section
b) VAWT blade
Root and tip cross-sections

Figure 13. (a) Cross-sections of HAWT blade NREL 5 MW and (b) cross-sections of VAWT blade with
symmetric NACA profile.
In terms of decommissioning of HAWT blades, creative solutions have emerged, for

example, the Meidoorn playground in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, or innovative house
designs [91].
The recycling of HAWT blades, however, involves a more creative design process for
using the root and leading-edges of the blade. Additionally, the blade needs to be cut into
unorthodox shapes to accommodate the creative part of the design process. This increases
the cost of decommissioning and inevitably, some parts of the blade are left unutilised.
In contrast, VAWT blade shapes, both straight and curved, can be re-utilised in a more
straight forward manner. For example, in playground parks or as housing material.
Examples of playground and housing for VAWT blade recycling are shown in Figure 14a
and Figure 14b, respectively. However, we note that the potential applications are vast and
an interesting area to investigate.
Energies 2021, 14, 8000 17 of 24
a) Playground
VAWT blade swing
b) Sustainable housing
VAWT blades
Figure 14. (a) VAWT blade—swing (b) VAWT blade—roof and door materials.
9. Technology Readiness Level (TRL)

In this section, we compare the technology readiness level (TLR) of large-scale offshore
floating HAWTs with offshore floating VATWs.
The reference cases for floating HAWTs are the Hywind Scotland and Hywind Tam-
pen windfarms. Both farms have floating offshore HAWTs rated at 6 MW and 8.8 MW,
respectively. In contrast, no reference cases exist for large-scale floating offshore VAWTs.
Therefore, the assessment for floating VAWTs is performed based on individual turbine
components, lessons learnt and reports published by small-scale developers, and research
consortia [9,14,17,19,23,24,92].
In Table 4, we utilise four main categories for the TRL classification: nacelle and hub,
blades, tower and full system. Each category is divided into some of the main individual
components suggested by the CATAPULT Offshore Renewable Guide [93]. A TRL level is
assigned to each component. We follow the TRL scale suggested by the European Marine
Energy Centre (EMEC), that varies between 1 to 9, where 9 is technology that is commer-
cially ready [94]. Results of the assessment are shown in Table 4. Two floating HAWTs and
two hypothetical large-scale floating VAWTs rated at 5 and 10 MW are considered. The table
shows a high TRL level (7–8) for the large-scale floating HAWTs at the individual turbine
components, as well as at the full integral system. This is because Hywind Scotland, with
turbines rated at 6 MW, is already at an operational level. The TRL level at the individual
turbine component of floating VAWTs is ranked at an average value of 6. This is because
most of the turbine components have been proven to be operational onshore. We recall,
for example, that the largest onshore VAWT ever built was rated at 3.8 MW [14]. The TRL
level of some of the subcomponents, however, such as the main bearing, power take-off
and control systems, depends on the specific design of the VAWT turbine (variable speed,
constant speed, floating axis, etc.) and is ranked accordingly at a TRL level of 3.
The biggest gap between floating offshore HAWTs and VAWTs is identified at the
integral level (bottom row of Table 4). This is because large-scale floating VAWTs have
not been implemented yet. We note that this trend might change in the near future [22].
Furthermore, rapid progress between TRL levels is nowadays possible given that the
individual turbine components and the knowledge, and technology readiness of floating
structures is high. With adequate investment and technological innovations, the TRL level
of floating VAWTs can be brought to the same level as that of floating HAWTs.
Energies 2021, 14, 8000 18 of 24
Table 4. TRL assessment of 5 MW and 10 MW floating offshore HAWT and VAWT at subcomponent
and at full integral level. The TRL level is ranked between 1 to 9, and N/A is used when the
subcategory does not apply to the type of turbine.
Floating HAWT Floating VAWT

Turbine Component Subcomponent
5 MW 10 MW 5 MW 10 MW
Bed plate 8 7 6 6
Main bearing 8 7 3 3
Main shaft 8 7 6 6
Gearbox 8 7 6 6
Generator 8 7 6 6
Nacelle and hub
Power take-off 8 7 3 3
Control system 8 7 3 3
Yaw system 8 7 N/A N/A
Yaw bearing 8 7 N/A N/A
Spinner 8 7 N/A N/A
Blades 8 7 6 6
Blades Blade bearings 8 7 6 6
Pitch system 8 7 6 6
Steel 8 7 6 6
Tower Tower internals 8 7 6 6
Full system Turbine + floating structure 8 7 3 2
In the next section, we outline a range of innovative technology solutions and delineate
potential areas of further research that can help in bridging the gap between large-scale
floating VAWTs and HAWTs.
10. Way Forward to Increase TRL

In order to develop the TRL level at integral level and at subcomponent level for
floating VAWTs, we have identified some potential avenues of research, which we introduce
in the following paragraphs.
Fluid and structure interactions: Although progress has been made towards under-
standing full system dynamics of two-bladed floating VAWTs [68], much remains unknown
in terms of VAWT system dynamics of multi-bladed rotors subject to directional waves
and extreme wave loading. Furthermore, turbulent effects in floating VAWTs remain vastly
unexplored. It has been stipulated that two-bladed VAWTs could benefit from turbulent
fluctuations [34], however, it is not clear which turbulent length scales could be beneficial.
HAWT recent studies have shown that turbulence intensity and scale positively affect
power generation [95]. Hence this needs to be addressed for floating VAWTs. A better
understanding of wave and turbulent effects in floating offshore VAWTs can lead to quan-
tification of these effects in the fatigue life of the turbine. This is of paramount importance
in order to design systems that can survive the offshore environment for extended peri-
ods of time. Better understanding of wave and floating VAWT interactions can lead to
innovative floating structures of variable mass that modify their natural frequencies and
avoid resonance. Lastly, it is expected that encounters between gusts and floating VAWTs
will alter the performance and dynamics of the turbine. Recent advances in gust and
aerofoil encounters [96,97] hint that gust loading on the blade could decrease its fatigue
life. However, it remains unknown what the gust influence is in the aerodynamics and
system dynamics of a floating VAWT. An improved understanding of these fluid and
structure interactions can help in adapting or developing VAWT technology for the floating
offshore environment.
Mechanical design: Secondly, cyclic loading of two-bladed VAWTs needs to be ad-
dressed. Loading oscillations are of particular concern due to their negative impact in the
fatigue life of the structures. Proven solutions to two-bladed VAWT cyclic loading are the
use of compliant couplings or the addition of a third blade [31]. More recent solutions are
Energies 2021, 14, 8000 19 of 24
innovative designs that eliminate the main bearing. For example Salter’s multi-bladed ring
vertical turbine [98] or Akimoto’s floating axis turbine [23,24]. Although Salter’s turbine
was originally designed as a tidal turbine (see Figure 15), the concept can be adapted to a
floating VAWT. The original tidal design is rated to 200 MW, with variable pitch, contra-
rotation and power generation from a ring-cam bearing. The turbine is multi-bladed and
the blades are supported by two rings at both ends. In contrast, Akimoto’s floating axis
turbine utilises the axis of the turbine as a spar buoy to sustain the weight of the turbine.
The axis of the turbine rotates, and a set of external rollers convert the rotational motion of
the shaft to electrical power.
Figure 15. Bearingless vertical axis tidal turbine array by Salter. Source: [99].
Advanced materials: Finally, the use of advanced materials focused on blade morph-
ing and variable stiffness mooring can help in mitigating cyclic loading issues of floating
VAWTs. Smart materials that bend in response to external loads have the ability to atten-
uate the energy absorbed by the structure by means of deformation. This deformation
mitigates the change in loads sensed by the blades and therefore prolongs the fatigue life
of the turbine. The effectiveness in load alleviation of morphing blades has been recently
demonstrated [100–102]. Hence, it is foreseen that flexible material blades can extend the
fatigue life of offshore floating VAWTs.
We summarise in Table 5 the areas of research, subcategories and specific topics that
we have identified as areas of further research that can help in improving the TRL level of
floating VAWTs.
Table 5. Summary of areas of research, subcategories and specific topics to increase the TRL level of
offshore floating VAWTs. In the table VAWT refers to floating VAWT.
Area of Research Subcategory Specific Topics

VAWT turbulence interactions Turbulence scale and intensity
Fluid and structure interactions VAWT wave interactions Directional waves, extreme waves
VAWT gust encounters Fatigue life, control strategies
Salter’s turbine
Mechanical design Bearingless solutions
Akimoto’s turbine
Morphing blades Smart materials
Advanced materials
Variable stiffness moorings Smart materials
Energies 2021, 14, 8000 20 of 24
11. Conclusions
Deployment of HAWTs in deep water locations is happening through floating plat-
forms. This, however, poses challenges that have not been encountered before in HAWT
development. Maintaining the structural integrity of the turbine, while simultaneously,
reducing the levelised cost of energy, becomes increasingly difficult as turbines grow in
size. In particular, thrust forces and gravity cyclic loading due to larger blades are of
notable concern.
Hence, in this paper, we analyse whether VAWTs could become a feasible alternative
for deep water floating arrays and overcome some of the structural and economical chal-
lenges associated with large-scale floating turbines. To this aim, a review is performed over
different aspects of VAWTs in the context of floating turbines. We highlight some of the
opportunities and challenges for floating VAWTs. Different characteristics are assessed:
power capture, loading characteristics, stability, type of floating structure, reliability, en-
vironment, manufacturing and decommissioning, and technology readiness level (TRL).
Some of these aspects are compared to those of floating HAWTs, where appropriate.
Our analysis shows that an increased wind farm power density and an increased
reliability could be decisive factors to make VAWTs a feasible alternative for floating
arrays. Additionally, circular economy considerations such as ease of manufacturing of the
blades and simpler routes to blade recycling, constitute a sustainable framework for VAWT
offshore technology. Hence, the authors of this paper believe that VAWTs are a feasible
alternative for deep water floating deployments.
It is noted, however, that the TRL level of VAWTs needs to be increased to become a
fully viable alternative. Hence, adequate investment and government policies are needed.
Industry trends show that a large-scale floating VAWT (∼1 MW) might be in operation in
Sweden by 2023 [22]. This is a promising outlook, but further interest from stakeholders
across the globe needs to be raised.
Finally, we identify areas of research and development that can help in increasing
the TRL level of VAWTs. These are: (1) an increased understanding of wave, turbulent
and gust loading interactions, (2) bearingless VAWT solutions and (3) advanced materials
with particular application to blade morphing and variable stiffness moorings. Efforts
in these areas in conjunction with the advantages that VAWTs already have for floating
deployments can transform traditional views and make floating VAWTs a reality for deep
water arrays.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, experimental tests, investigation, writing

original draft, writing review and editing, data curation, A.A.-G.; conceptualization, methodology,
investigation, writing review and editing, supervision, project administration, funding acquisition,
F.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was in part funded by Scottish Enterprise.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: All data that support the findings of this study are included within
the article.
Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge the input of project partners, NSRI, Subsea UK,
Wood Group.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Energies 2021, 14, 8000 21 of 24
Appendix A
This appendix shows the dimensions of the turbines in clusters A, B and C used to
plot Figure 9. Cluster A corresponds to turbines in Figure 3.
Table A1. HAWT turbine specifications.
HAWT Parameter 5 MW 10 MW 15 MW
Hub height (m) 90 113 125
Diameter (m) 126 169 195
Height (m) 153 198 223
Blade length (m) 61.5 83 95
Swept Area (m2 ) 12,469 22,444 29,926
Rated wind speed (m/s) 11.4 11.7 12.0
Thrust (N) 5.7 × 105 11 × 105 15 × 105
OTM (Nm) 5.1 × 107 12 × 107 19× 107
Table A2. Darrieus turbine specifications (Here, blade length is half the circumference of an ellipse
with the height provided on the table).
Diameter (m) 101 135 156
Height (m) 161 213 244
Blade length (m) 200 268 309
Swept Area (m2 ) 11,970 21,534 28,670
Thrust (N) 4.3 × 105 8.2 × 105 11 × 105
OTM (Nm) 3.7 × 107 9.1 × 107 14 × 107
Table A3. H-Rotor turbine specifications.
Diameter (m) 126 169 195
Height (m) 136 179 205
Blade length (m) 126 169 195
Swept Area (m2 ) 15,589 28,561 38,025
Thrust (N) 5.5 × 105 1 × 105 14 × 105
OTM (Nm) 4.07 × 107 10 × 107 16 × 107
References
1. Rodrigues, S.; Restrepo, C.; Kontos, E.; Teixeira Pinto, R.; Bauer, P. Trends of offshore wind projects. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2015, 49, 1114–1135. [CrossRef]
2. Higgins, P.; Foley, A. The evolution of offshore wind power in the United Kingdom. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 37, 599–612.
[CrossRef]
3. Policy Paper. Offshore Wind: Sector Deal. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/offshore-wind-sect
or-deal (accessed on 19 August 2021).
4. Press Release. New Plans to Make UK World Leader in Green Energy. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/ne
ws/new-plans-to-make-uk-world-leader-in-green-energy (accessed on 19 August 2021).
5. Danish Energy Agency. Energy Island in the North Sea. Available online: https://ens.dk/en/our-responsibilities/wind-power/
energy-islands/energy-island-north-sea (accessed on 14 July 2021).
6. China’s First Floating Wind Turbine Heads Offshore. Available online: https://www.offshorewind.biz/2021/07/13/chinas-first
-floating-wind-turbine-heads-offshore/ (accessed on 14 July 2021).
7. V236-15.0 MW at a Glance. Available online: https://www.vestas.com/en/products/offshore-platforms/ (accessed on 14 July 2021).
8. Li, L.; Liu, Y.; Yuan, Z.; Gao, Y. Wind field effect on the power generation and aerodynamic performance of offshore floating wind
turbines. Energy 2018, 157, 379–390. [CrossRef]
Energies 2021, 14, 8000 22 of 24
9. Griffith, D.T.; Barone, M.F.; Paquette, J.; Owens, B.C.; Bull, D.L.; Simao-Ferriera, C.; Goupee, A.; Fowler, M. Design Studies for
Deep-Water Floating Offshore Vertical Axis Wind Turbines; Sandia Report; Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM): Albuquerque, NM, USA,
2018. [CrossRef]
10. Tjiu, W.; Marnoto, T.; Mat, S.; Ruslan, M.H.; Sopian, K. Darrieus vertical axis wind turbine for power generation II: Challenges in
HAWT and the opportunity of multi-megawatt Darrieus VAWT development. Renew. Energy 2015, 75, 560–571. [CrossRef]
11. Eriksson, S.; Bernhoff, H.; Leijon, M. Evaluation of different turbine concepts for wind power. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2008,
12, 1419–1434. [CrossRef]
12. Mohan Kumar, P.; Sivalingam, K.; Lim, T.C.; Ramakrishna, S.; Wei, H. Review on the Evolution of Darrieus Vertical Axis Wind
Turbine: Large Wind Turbines. Clean Technol. 2019, 1, 205–223. [CrossRef]
13. Islam, M.; Ting, D.S.K.; Fartaj, A. Aerodynamic models for Darrieus-type straight-bladed vertical axis wind turbines. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2008, 12, 1087–1109. [CrossRef]
14. Möllerström, E.; Gipe, P.; Beurskens, J.; Ottermo, F. A historical review of vertical axis wind turbines rated 100 kW and above.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 105, 1–13. [CrossRef]
15. 4navitas. Available online: https://www.4navitas.com/ (accessed on 12 June 2021).
16. Swift TG Energy. Available online: http://www.swifttgenergy.com/ (accessed on 13 June 2021).
17. Shires, A. Design optimisation of an offshore vertical axis wind turbine. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Energy 2013, 166, 7–18. [CrossRef]
18. Collu, M.; Brennan, F.; Patel, M. Conceptual design of a floating support structure for an offshore vertical axis wind turbine: The
lessons learnt. Ships Offshore Struct. 2014, 9, 3–21. [CrossRef]
19. Paulsen, U.S.; Madsen, H.A.; Kragh, K.A.; Nielsen, P.H.; Baran, I.; Hattel, J.; Ritchie, E.; Leban, K.; Svendsen, H.; Berthelsen, P.A.
DeepWind-from Idea to 5 MW Concept. Energy Procedia 2014, 53, 23–33. [CrossRef]
20. Floating Wind & Current Hybrid Power Generation [Skwíd]. Available online: https://www.cleanenergy-project.de/wp-conten
t/uploads/2013/06/www.modec.com_fps_skwid_pdf_skwid.pdf (accessed on 18 November 2021).
21. Ademe. Vertiwind. Available online: https://www.ademe.fr/sites/default/files/assets/documents/en_vertiwind.pdf
(accessed on 12 June 2021).
22. SEATWIRL. The Future of Offshore Wind. Available online: https://seatwirl.com/ (accessed on 13 June 2021).
23. Akimoto, H.; Tanaka, K.; Uzawa, K. Floating axis wind turbines for offshore power generation—A conceptual study. Environ.
Res. Lett. 2011, 6, 044017. [CrossRef]
24. Akimoto, H.; Iijima, K.; Takata, Y. Feasibility Study of the Floating Axis Wind Turbine: Preliminary Model Experiments. In
Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Trondheim, Norway, 25–30 June
2017. [CrossRef]
25. Hand, B.; Kelly, G.; Cashman, A. Aerodynamic design and performance parameters of a lift-type vertical axis wind turbine:
A comprehensive review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 139, 110699. [CrossRef]
26. Burton, T.; Jenkins, N.; Sharpe, D.; Bossanyi, E. Wind Energy Hand Book, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2011.
27. Jonkman, J.; Matha, D. Quantitative Comparison of the Responses of Three Floating Platforms; National Renewable Energy Laboratory:
Golden, CO, USA, 2010.
28. Marten, D.; Wendler, J.; Pechlivanoglou, G.; Nayeri, C.; Paschereit, C. QBlade: An open source tool for desing and siulation of a
horizontal and vertical axis wind turbines. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Adv. Eng. 2013, 3, 264–269.
29. Zanon, A.; De Gennaro, M.; Kühnelt, H. Wind energy harnessing of the NREL 5 MW reference wind turbine in icing conditions
under different operational strategies. Renew. Energy 2018, 115, 760–772. [CrossRef]
30. Ashwill, T.D. Measured Data for the Sandia 34-meter Vertical Axis Wind Turbine; Td Sandia Natl. Lab.: Albuquerque, NM, USA, 1992.
31. Sutherland, H.J.; Berg, D.E.; Ashwill, T.D. A Retrospective of VAWT Technology; Td Sandia Natl. Lab.: Albuquerque, NM, USA;
Livermore, CA, USA, 2012.
32. Morgan, C.A.; Gardner, P.; Mays, I.D.; Anderson, M.B. The demonstration of a stall regulated 100 kW vertical axis wind turbine.
In Proceedings of the European Wind Energy Conference, Glasgow, Scotland, 10–13 July 1989.
33. Brusca, S.; Lanzafame, R.; Messina, M. Design of a vertical-axis wind turbine: How the aspect ratio affects the turbine’s
performance. Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. 2014, 5, 333–340. [CrossRef]
34. Rezaeiha, A.; Montazeri, H.; Blocken, B. Characterization of aerodynamic performance of vertical axis wind turbines: Impact of
operational parameters. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 169, 45–77. [CrossRef]
35. Jonkman, J.; Butterfield, S.; Musial, W.; Scott, G. Definition of a 5-MW Reference Wind Turbine for Offshore System Development;
National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2009. [CrossRef]
36. Schwartz, M.; Heimiller, D.; Haymes, S.; Musial, W. Assessment of Offshore Wind Energy Resources for the United States; National
Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2010. [CrossRef]
37. Vorpahl, F.; Schwarze, H.; Fischer, T.; Seidel, M.; Jonkman, J. Offshore wind turbine environment, loads, simulation, and design.
Wires Energy Environ. 2013, 2, 548–570. [CrossRef]
38. Golbazi, M.; Archer, C.L. Surface roughness for offshore wind energy. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1452, 012024. [CrossRef]
39. Sathe, A.; Bierbooms, W. Influence of different wind profiles due to varying atmospheric stability on the fatigue life of wind
turbines. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2007, 75, 012056. [CrossRef]
40. Jung, C.; Schindler, D. The role of the power law exponent in wind energy assessment: A global analysis. Int. J. Energy Res. 2021,
45, 8484–8496. [CrossRef]
Energies 2021, 14, 8000 23 of 24
41. Howland, M.F.; González, C.M.; Martínez, J.J.P.; Quesada, J.B.; Larrañaga, F.P.; Yadav, N.K.; Chawla, J.S.; Dabiri, J.O. Influence of
atmospheric conditions on the power production of utility-scale wind turbines in yaw misalignment. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy
2020, 12, 063307. [CrossRef]
42. Verelst, D.R.S.; Larsen, T.J.; van Wingerden, J.W. Wind tunnel tests of a free yawing downwind wind turbine. J. Phys. Conf. Ser.
2014, 555, 012103. [CrossRef]
43. Geos, F. Wind and Wave Frequency Distributions for Sites around the British Isles; Offshore Technology Report; HSE Books: Norwich,
UK, 2001.
44. Leithead, W. Wind energy. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2007, 365, 957–970. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Dao, C.; Kazemtabrizi, B.; Crabtree, C. Wind turbine reliability data review and impacts on levelised cost of energy. Wind Energy
2019, 22, 1848–1871. [CrossRef]
46. Müller, S.; Muhawenimana, V.; Wilson, C.A.; Ouro, P. Experimental investigation of the wake characteristics behind twin vertical
axis turbines. Energy Convers. Manag. 2021, 247, 114768. [CrossRef]
47. Dabiri, J.O. Potential order-of-magnitude enhancement of wind farm power density via counter-rotating vertical-axis wind
turbine arrays. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2011, 3, 043104. [CrossRef]
48. Abkar, M. Theoretical Modeling of Vertical-Axis Wind Turbine Wakes. Energies 2019, 12, 10. [CrossRef]
49. Ouro, P.; Lazennec, M. Theoretical modelling of the three-dimensional wake of vertical axis turbines. Flow 2021, 1, E3. [CrossRef]
50. Musial, W. Offshore wind energy facility characteristics. In Proceedings of the BOEM’s Offshore Wind and Maritime Industry
Knowledge Exchange Workshop, Baltimore, MD, USA, 5–6 March 2018.
51. MacKay, D. Sustainable Energy—Without the Hot Air; UIT Cambridge Ltd.: Cambridge, UK, 2008.
52. Templin, R.J. Aerodynamic Performance Theory for the NRC Vertical-Axis Wind Turbine; Technical Report LTR-LA-160; National
Aeronautical Establishment: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1974.
53. Strickland, J.H. A performance prediction model for the darrieus turbine. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Wind Energy Systems, Cambridege, UK, 7–9 September 1976.
54. Paraschivoiu, I. Double-Multiple Streamtube Model for Darrieus in Turbines; NASA Lewis Research Center Wind Turbine Dynamics:
Cleveland, OH, USA, 1981.
55. Madsen, H.; Larsen, T.; Vita, L.; Paulsen, U. Implementation of the Actuator Cylinder flow model in the HAWC2 code for
aeroelastic simulations on Vertical Axis Wind Turbines. In Proceedings of the 51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including
the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, Grapevine, TX, USA, 7–10 January 2013. [CrossRef]
56. Ning, A. Actuator cylinder theory for multiple vertical axis wind turbines. Wind Energy Sci. 2016, 1, 327–340. [CrossRef]
57. Meng, F.; Schwarze, H.; Vorpahl, F.; Strobel, M. A free wake vortex lattice model for vertical axis wind turbines: Modeling,
verification and validation. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2014, 555, 012072. [CrossRef]
58. Giles, A.D. Wind Panel Manual: Modelling the Aerodynamics of Wind Turbines; University of Strathclyde: Glasgow, UK, 2017.
59. Hirsch, I.H.; Mandal, A. A Cascade Theory for the Aerodynamic Performance of Darrieus Wind Turbines. Wind Eng. 1987,
11, 164–175.
60. Bensason, D.; Fouest, S.L.; Young, A.; Mulleners, K. Greenberg’s force prediction for vertical-axis wind turbine blades. arXiv 2021,
arXiv:2111.00871.
61. Hansen, J.T.; Mahak, M.; Tzanakis, I. Numerical modelling and optimization of vertical axis wind turbine pairs: A scale up
approach. Renew. Energy 2021, 171, 1371–1381. [CrossRef]
62. Su, J.; Li, Y.; Chen, Y.; Han, Z.; Zhou, D.; Zhao, Y.; Bao, Y. Aerodynamic performance assessment of φ-type vertical axis wind
turbine under pitch motion. Energy 2021, 225, 120202. [CrossRef]
63. Collu, M.; Borg, M.; Shires, A.; Brennan, F.P. FloVAWT: Progress on the Development of a Coupled Model of Dynamics for
Floating Offshore Vertical Axis Wind Turbines. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering, Nantes, France, 9–14 June 2013. [CrossRef]
64. Hand, B.; Cashman, A.; Kelly, G. A Low-Order Model for Offshore Floating Vertical Axis Wind Turbine Aerodynamics. IEEE
Trans. Ind. Appl. 2017, 53, 512–520. [CrossRef]
65. Cheng, Z.; Madsen, H.A.; Gao, Z.; Moan, T. A fully coupled method for numerical modeling and dynamic analysis of floating
vertical axis wind turbines. Renew. Energy 2017, 107, 604–619. [CrossRef]
66. LeBlanc, B.P.; Ferreira, C.S. Experimental Determination of Thrust Loading of a 2-Bladed Vertical Axis Wind Turbine. J. Phys.
Conf. Ser. 2018, 1037, 022043. [CrossRef]
67. Delafin, P.L.; Nishino, T.; Wang, L.; Kolios, A. Effect of the number of blades and solidity on the performance of a vertical axis
wind turbine. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2016, 753, 022033. [CrossRef]
68. Borg, M.; Collu, M. A comparison between the dynamics of horizontal and vertical axis offshore floating wind turbines. Philos.
Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2015, 373, 20140076. [CrossRef]
69. Butterfield, S.; Musial, W.; Jonkman, J.; Sclavounos, P. Engineering Challenges for Floating Offshore Wind Turbines. In
Proceedings of the Copenhagen Offshore Wind Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, 26–28 October 2005.
70. Seawind. Available online: https://seawindtechnology.com/ (accessed on 27 June 2021).
71. Laura, C.S.; Vicente, D.C. Life-cycle cost analysis of floating offshore wind farms. Renew. Energy 2014, 66, 41–48. [CrossRef]
72. Ultra-Deep Water Port: Feasibility Study. Available online: https://www.gov.scot/publications/ultra-deep-water-feasibility-stu
dy-report/pages/5/ (accessed on 3 September 2021).
Energies 2021, 14, 8000 24 of 24
73. Next Step for Hywind Tampen. Available online: https://www.equinor.com/en/news/20210422-next-step-hywind-tampen.h

tml (accessed on 3 September 2021).
74. Tupper, E.C. Introduction to Naval Architecture, 5th ed.; Butterworth-Heinemann: Jersey City, NJ, USA, 2013.
75. Martin, R.; Lazakis, I.; Barbouchi, S.; Johanning, L. Sensitivity analysis of offshore wind farm operation and maintenance cost and
availability. Renew. Energy 2016, 85, 1226–1236. [CrossRef]
76. Dinwoodie, I.; McMillan, D.; Quail, F. Analysis of offshore wind turbine operation and maintenance using a novel time domain
meteo-ocean modeling approach. In Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo 2012: Turbine Technical Conference and Exposition,
Copenhagen, Denmark, 11–15 June 2012.
77. Carroll, J.; McDonald, A.; McMillan, D. Failure rate, repair time and unscheduled O&M cost analysis of offshore wind turbines.
Wind Energy 2016, 19, 1107–1119. [CrossRef]
78. Artigao, E.; Martín-Martínez, S.; Honrubia-Escribano, A.; Gómez-Lázaro, E. Wind turbine reliability: A comprehensive review
towards effective condition monitoring development. Appl. Energy 2018, 228, 1569–1583. [CrossRef]
79. Kails, K.; Li, Q.; Mueller, M. A modular and cost-effective high-temperature superconducting generator for large direct-drive
wind turbines. IET Renew. Power Gener. 2021, 15, 2022–2032. [CrossRef]
80. Manning, P.T. The Environmental Impact of the Use of Large Wind Turbines. Wind Eng. 1983, 7, 1–11.
81. Drewitt, A.L.; Langston, R.H.W. Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis 2006, 148, 29–42. [CrossRef]
82. Islam, M.; Mekhilef, S.; Saidur, R. Progress and recent trends of wind energy technology. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013,
21, 456–468. [CrossRef]
83. Dabiri, J.O.; Greer, J.R.; Koseff, J.R.; Moin, P.; Peng, J. A new approach to wind energy: Opportunities and challenges. AIP Conf.
Proc. 2015, 1652, 51–57. [CrossRef]
84. Santangeli, A.; Katzner, T. A call for conservation scientists to evaluate opportunities and risks from operation of vertical axis
wind turbines. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2015, 3, 68. [CrossRef]
85. Hüppop, O.; Dierschke, J.; Exo, K.M.; Fredrich, E.; Hill, R. Bird migration studies and potential collision risk with offshore wind
turbines. Ibis 2006, 148, 90–109. [CrossRef]
86. Marques, A.T.; Batalha, H.; Rodrigues, S.; Costa, H.; Pereira, M.J.R.; Fonseca, C.; Mascarenhas, M.; Bernardino, J. Understanding
bird collisions at wind farms: An updated review on the causes and possible mitigation strategies. Biol. Conserv. 2014, 179, 40–52.
[CrossRef]
87. Wang, S.; Wang, S.; Smith, P. Ecological impacts of wind farms on birds: Questions, hypotheses, and research needs. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 44, 599–607. [CrossRef]
88. Tomaszewski, J.M.; Lundquist, J.K.; Churchfield, M.J.; Moriarty, P.J. Do wind turbines pose roll hazards to light aircraft? Wind
Energy Sci. 2018, 3, 833–843. [CrossRef]
89. Howell, R.; Qin, N.; Edwards, J.; Durrani, N. Wind tunnel and numerical study of a small vertical axis wind turbine. Renew.
Energy 2010, 35, 412–422. [CrossRef]
90. ACT Blade: The Lightest and Most Controllable Wind Turbine Blade. Available online: https://www.innoenergy.com/discover-
innovative-solutions/product-portfolio/act-blade/ (accessed on 24 May 2021).
91. Bank, L.C.; Arias, F.R.; Yazdanbakhsh, A.; Gentry, T.R.; Al-Haddad, T.; Chen, J.F.; Morrow, R. Concepts for Reusing Composite
Materials from Decommissioned Wind Turbine Blades in Affordable Housing. Recycling 2018, 3, 3. [CrossRef]
92. Blonk, D.L. Conceptual Design and Evaluation of Economic Feasibility of Floating Vertical Axis Wind Turbines. Master’s Thesis,
TU Delft, Delft, The Netherlands, 2010.
93. CATAPULT. Offshore Renewable Energy. Interactive Guide. Available online: https://guidetoanoffshorewindfarm.com/guide
(accessed on 16 July 2021).
94. EMEC. The European Marine Energy Centre LTD. Available online: http://www.emec.org.uk/services/pathway-to-emec/techn
ology-readiness-levels/ (accessed on 16 July 2021).
95. Gambuzza, S.; Ganapathisubramani, B. The effects of free-stream turbulence on the performance of a model wind turbine.
J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2021, 13, 023304. [CrossRef]
96. Young, A.M.; Smyth, A.S.M. Gust–Airfoil Coupling with a Loaded Airfoil. AIAA J. 2021, 59, 773–785. [CrossRef]
97. Jones, A.R.; Cetiner, O.; Smith, M.J. Physics and Modeling of Large Flow Disturbances: Discrete Gust Encounters for Modern Air
Vehicles. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 2022, 54, 469–493. [CrossRef]
98. Salter, S.H.; Taylor, J.R.M. Vertical-axis tidal-current generators and the Pentland Firth. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part A J. Power
Energy 2007, 221, 181–199. [CrossRef]
99. Zhao, R.; Creech, A.C.W.; Borthwick, A.G.L.; Venugopal, V.; Nishino, T. Aerodynamic Analysis of a Two-Bladed Vertical-Axis
Wind Turbine Using a Coupled Unsteady RANS and Actuator Line Model. Energies 2020, 13, 776. [CrossRef]
100. Arredondo-Galeana, A.; Young, A.M.; Smyth, A.S.; Viola, I.M. Unsteady load mitigation through a passive trailing-edge flap.
J. Fluids Struct. 2021, 106, 103352. [CrossRef]
101. Hoerner, S.; Abbaszadeh, S.; Cleynen, O.; Bonamy, C.; Maître, T.; Thévenin, D. Passive flow control mechanisms with bioinspired
flexible blades in cross-flow tidal turbines. Exp. Fluids 2021, 62, 104. [CrossRef]
102. Pisetta, G.; Le Mestre, R.; Viola, I.M. Morphing blades for tidal turbines: A theoretical study. Renew. Energy 2021, in press.
[CrossRef]

Review Article 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review Article 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review Article 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

energies

Department of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Marine Engineering, University of Strathclyde,

Citation: Arredondo-Galeana, A.;

Energies 2021, 14, 8000. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14238000 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

2. Novelty of the Review

3. Background of VAWT Technology

Table 1. Summary of floating VAWT research activity over recent years.

Name of Turbine Type of Turbine Country Years Active Reference

Figure 2. Schematic of a floating straight-bladed Darrieus turbine supported by a tri-floater structure.

4.1. Power Coefficient

Turbine Power Rating Type of Turbine CP, max λ Data from

4.2. Swept Area

4.3. Wind Shear Profile

4.4. Orientation of Turbine towards Wind

HAWT Uniform Thrust Suggested by Howland et al. [41] VAWT Theoretical

4.5. Wind Farm Power Density

We illustrate the oscillating nature of the loads in a two-bladed VAWT by plotting

6.1. Types of Floating Structures

8. Environmental Impact and Sustainable Manufacturing

8.2. Sustainable Manufacturing

Root and tip cross-sections

In terms of decommissioning of HAWT blades, creative solutions have emerged, for

9. Technology Readiness Level (TRL)

Floating HAWT Floating VAWT

10. Way Forward to Increase TRL

Area of Research Subcategory Specific Topics

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, experimental tests, investigation, writing

Table A1. HAWT turbine specifications.

Table A3. H-Rotor turbine specifications.

73. Next Step for Hywind Tampen. Available online: https://www.equinor.com/en/news/20210422-next-step-hywind-tampen.h

You might also like