Proceedings of the ASME 2020 39th International

Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering

OMAE2020
August 3-7, 2020, Virtual, Online

OMAE2020-18784

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/OMAE/proceedings-pdf/OMAE2020/84423/V010T10A013/6607178/v010t10a013-omae2020-18784.pdf by Zhejiang University user on 07 December 2023

NEW APPROACH FOR OFFSHORE PILE DECOMMISSIONING WITH HYDRAULIC
PRESSES AND FLOATING PANELS

Patrick Lehn1, Nils Hinzmann, Jörg Gattermann

Institute of Geomechanics and Geotechnics, Technische Universität Braunschweig
Brunswick, Germany

ABSTRACT the pullout resistance. The decommissioning solutions are

Renewable Energies become more and more important in
industries and society all over the world. In Germany, offshore
wind farms generated 49 % of the renewable energies in 2018.
Monopiles are the preferred system for the foundation of offshore
wind turbines in water depths up to 40 m. They are authorized
by the competent authority for 25 years. When reaching the end
of lifetime, the structure inclusive the foundation must be
decommissioned. The decommissioning of monopiles will be
challenging in the future and can lead to unexpected costs and
risks for the owners. Removing the monopiles in it´s entirely
ensures the opportunity to reuse the space for new offshore wind
farms.
The Institute of Geomechanics and Geotechnics of the
Technische Universität Braunschweig (IGG-TUBS) obtained the
funding for the research program on technical solutions with
large-scale tests for decommissioning of offshore monopiles
named DeCoMP.
Several decommissioning methods such as vibratory
extraction, internal dredging, external jet drilling,
decommissioning with overpressure and the use of buoyancy
force are investigated. The proposed paper will present technical
opportunities and issues for extracting the pile with hydraulic
presses in combination with a steel framework. Hydraulic
presses brace the steel framework with the monopile. Further
hydraulic presses, positioned at a certain distance to the pile on
the framework, use the seabed as abutments to push out the
monopile. In addition, results of a feasibility study to remove
monopiles with floatation panels are presented in this paper. This
method is based on floating panels, which are attached to the
monopile above the mud line. These panels are inflated with air
pressure to reach the required amount of buoyancy to overcome
compared to point out possible combinations.
Keywords: Monopile, offshore foundation,
decommissioning, offshore wind.
INTRODUCTION
Germany aims at a turnaround in the energy policy. The
main goal is to switch electricity production from fossil and
nuclear fuels to renewable energies. For this reason, more and
more offshore wind farms (OWFs) have been planned and built
since 2001/2002 in Germany and throughout Europe. [2] In
2018, 49 % of renewable energy was already generated by wind
energy, and the trend is rising. [1]
Part of a construction permit is, among other things, the
obligation to dismantle the installations after the period of
operation, which is usually 20 to 25 years depending on the site.
The site must be dismantled in such a scope that no further
danger is emanated from it. [3] The few piles decommissioned
by now were cut off beneath the seabed. The rest of the
foundation remains in the ground. As a result, the site can no
longer be used at the current state of the art. Empirical values
for dismantling the foundations hardly exist. But since more and
more OWFs will have to be dismantled in the foreseeable future,
the dismantling of the foundations becomes increasingly
important, especially because it can be considered as a complex
and hazardous approach. Special consideration in this context is
given to monopiles, as they form the majority (87 %) of the
various founding structures. [2]
The IGG-TUBS obtained the funding for a research program
on technical solutions with large-scale tests for
DeCommissioning of offshore MonoPiles (DeCoMP). The aim
is to develop and adapt technics to reduce the pile shaft resistance

1
Contact author: p.lehn@tu-braunschweig.de

V010T10A013-1 Copyright © 2020 ASME

to such an extent, that a crane can simply lift the pile out of the TABLE 1: MODEL PILE CHARACTERISTICS
seabed. In addition, two methods will be investigated Model pile
analytically without large-scale experiments. The first approach pile length Lg 65 m
is to overcome the pullout resistance (Ft) by buoyancy bodies. embedded length Le 35 m

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/OMAE/proceedings-pdf/OMAE2020/84423/V010T10A013/6607178/v010t10a013-omae2020-18784.pdf by Zhejiang University user on 07 December 2023

The second is to push out the pile with hydraulic presses which pile outer diameter D 6m
use the seabed as abutment. Plate thickness t 50 mm
In this paper first results of the investigations of both Density steel δs 7,87 t/m³
methods will be presented.
D50 0,6
K0 1
PLC-Design Methods specific weight sand 10 kN/m³
For dimensioning the buoyancy bodies and presses, the
tensile force required for dismantling must be estimated first.
The used CPT-Data to calculate the skin friction are based on
Accordingly, the equation is made up as follows: [4]
CPT-results from the German North Sea. They are notably
simplified to CPT-Data shown in the following table 2 and figure
𝐹𝑡 = 𝐺 + 𝐹𝑠 (1) 1:

where: TABLE 2: MODEL CPT DATA

Fs : sum of shaft resistance Depth CPT cone
G: sum of weight force resistance qc
0m 0 MN/m²
Among other parameters, the pile skin friction depends on 10 m 50 MN/m²
the prevailing stress condition, the installation method and 40 m 80 MN/m²
various soil parameters. [5] Due to the big dimensions and
embedment depth of offshore monopile, it is important that the
pending soil as well as the stress conditions in the soil around the
pile are taken into account. CPT cone resistance qc [MN/m²]
Due to the mutual influence of the factors and the missing of 0 20 40 60 80
consistent regulation and standardization, an exclusively 0
analytical calculation is not normally allowed. [6] Therefore,
empirical values, earth static and empirical methods, pile load
10
tests and numerical calculations are used to estimate the expected
Depth [m]

resistance forces. [7] According to [8] the preferred method

should be a pile load test. But since the OWFs are still in 20
operation and the date of decommissioning has not yet been
reached, this procedure is not applicable.
In this paper the expected pile skin friction is determined by 30
CPT-based calculation methods and by empirical values of the
EAP [8]. The most common CPT methods are:
40
- API- 2GEO (American Petroleum Institute) [9] FIGURE 1: CPT-DATA
- ICP-05 (Imperial College Pile) [10]
- UWA-05 (University of Western Australia) [11] The pile skin friction calculated over the depth is shown in
- Fugro-05 (Fugro N.V.) [12] the following figure 2. The figure 3 shows the results for total
- NGI-05 (Norwegian Geotechnical Institute) [13] resistance.

The procedures have different strengths and weaknesses.

Results of comparisons of the procedures can be found in [14],
[15], [16], [17], and [18].

Modell Set up
The following input parameters were selected for the model
pile and the model soil:

V010T10A013-2 Copyright © 2020 ASME


FIGURE 2: DEVELOPMENT OF SKIN FRICTION
FIGURE 3: TENSILE CAPACITY Fs
V010T10A013-3
The results differ up to 281 %. Since this is only an
estimation and preliminary for dimensioning the mean value of
the results, Fs = 85.42 MN, is used for further calculations. In
addition to this value, the pile weight must be added for the
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/OMAE/proceedings-pdf/OMAE2020/84423/V010T10A013/6607178/v010t10a013-omae2020-18784.pdf by Zhejiang University user on 07 December 2023
tensile capacity Ft. According to [19] and [20] it can be assumed
that no plug formation takes place. Therefore, the soil weight
inside the pile is not considered.
Pile Set-up
The pile set-up takes into account the increase in load
capacity over time. For this preliminary dimensioning, the pile
setup is taken into account with an increase in Fs of 30%. During
the 25-year life cycle of a monopile, it is constantly stressed by
cyclical loads. How these effects influence each other has not yet
been fully demonstrated. In addition, not enough data is available
yet, e.g. from test loads of monopiles after 25 years. It can be
assumed that the increase of pile setup will decrease over time.
The value used must be adjusted to the current state of
knowledge for further, more detailed calculations.
Decom methods
In this paper two concepts of dismantling methods are
presented. On the one hand the dismantling by buoyancy bodies
and on the other hand the dismantling by a press construction. In
the following, execution options are described and roughly
calculated. Further methods such as vibratory extraction, internal
dredging, external jet drilling and decommissioning with
overpressure are described in [21].
Dismantling by buoyancy bodies
The dismantling of offshore piles by using buoyancy bodies
is based on the Archimedean principle. It states that the buoyancy
force is equal to the weight force of the displaced gas or liquid
volume. The buoyancy force of the buoyancy bodies connected
to the pile must therefore be at least as great as the tensile
capacity Ft. This is intended to pull the pile out of the ground and
float to the sea surface afterwards. The floating pile can then be
towed to the coast. First, a calculation for dimensioning the
buoyancy bodies is carried out. Subsequently, the possible
connection of buoyancy body and pile has to be investigated in
order to finally evaluate the procedure.
Dismantling by a press construction
An offshore pile can also be dismantled by a press construction
that uses the seabed as an abutment to push the pile out of the
soil. The stress distribution in the soil induces a mutual influence
of press and pile. Depending on the distance between pile and
press, the pressing force acting on the pile increases the pile skin
friction. It should be noted, that the steel construction becomes
more massive with increasing distance and the costs increase. So
the minimum distance- at which the influence of the presses is in
the low range must be determined.
Copyright © 2020 ASME
Results
Buoyancy bodies
The required air volume to lift the pile needs to correspond
to the pile’s weight, the tensile capacity Ft and the weight of the

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/OMAE/proceedings-pdf/OMAE2020/84423/V010T10A013/6607178/v010t10a013-omae2020-18784.pdf by Zhejiang University user on 07 December 2023

system of buoyancy bodies to be constructed. The weight of the floating
construction is considered with 10% of Fs. This factor takes into bodies
account that a larger construction must be produced with
increasing resistance. The following buoyancy formula is used
steel
to determine the required air volume:
framework

𝐹𝐵 = 𝑉𝐷 ∗ δ𝐹 ∗ 𝐺 (2) three level

where: scour protection

FB: buoyancy force
δ𝐹 : density Fluid
G: gravity two rings
seabed
𝑉𝐷 : displacement volume 1
monopile

For the used model pile, an air volume of 12,528 m³ is

FIGURE 4: INITIAL PHASE OF THE BUOYANCY METHOD
required. The buoyancy bodies are made of coated fabric
membranes, which have a low weight combined with a high
As shown in figure 4, on each level a variable inflatable
tensile strength. This is necessary because the air in the buoyancy
rubber ring is positioned between the buoyancy body
bodies must at least correspond to the effective water pressure.
construction and the pile. When the rubber ring is inflated, the
In a depth of 30 m the buoyancy bodies require an internal
buoyancy body construction is braced with the pile. Due to the
pressure of at least 3 bar. At this pressure, buoyancy bodies
high coefficient of static friction between the rubber and the
contain approx. three times the amount of air compared to
steel, the entire force can be transmitted evenly across the pile’s
atmospheric pressure at the same volume. In case of a failure of
surface, regardless of a variation in diameter.
the body, e.g. through a crack, this amount of air would lead to
Compressors located on the ship are controlling the pressure
dangerous scenarios when reaching the sea surface. For this
and thus also the volume of the buoyancy bodies while the pile
reason, several small buoyancy bodies will be formed and
is pulled out of the soil. This allows to adjust the pulling speed
connected to the pile with a steel framework construction. The
in real time, resulting in increased safety. Furthermore, after or
dimensions of the buoyancy bodies are given in the table 3.
during the extraction of the pile, certain groups can be emptied
The construction consists of two rings of buoyancy bodies
in order to maneuver the pile horizontally to the sea surface.
arranged in three depth levels around the pile. The buoyancy
The pile is pulled out of the soil in two continuously
bodies are divided into four groups per level, each of them is
progressing lifting processes. In the first lifting process the pile
connected to a ship by a hose.
is pulled approx. 17 m out of the soil. Then the levels are released
and repositioned. The second lifting process lifts the pile
TABLE 3: BUOYANCY BODY CHARACTERISTICS
completely out of the soil. Afterwards the pile can either be
height 8.32 m raised onto a transport ship or towed to the coast together with
diameter 5.66 m the construction by tugboat.
volume per Body 209.34 m³
space between pile and body 1m
space between each layer 0.5 m
space between sea-level and highest point of 5m
layer
space between the bodies 0.2 m

V010T10A013-4 Copyright © 2020 ASME

 where:
σz: stress [kN/m²]
P: press force [kN]
z: depth [m]

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/OMAE/proceedings-pdf/OMAE2020/84423/V010T10A013/6607178/v010t10a013-omae2020-18784.pdf by Zhejiang University user on 07 December 2023

R: distance [m]

Simplified, the presses are assumed to be a single load

(Figure 7). The interdependency of two presses on the pile is also
simplified by determining the stress on the pile at a point
between two presses. The total resistance is finally determined
by linear interpolation of these points. The results in relation to
the distance between the presses are shown in the figure 8. For
2 3
further investigation, a model with finite element method (FEM)
should be used.
FIGURE 5: PHASE TWO AND THREE OF THE BUOYANCY
METHOD

FIGURE 6: LAST PHASE OF THE BUOYANCY METHOD

This method has some advantages: on the one hand it has a FIGURE 7: STRESS DISTRIBUTION UNDER THE PRESS-
CONSTRUCTION
high flexibility. Furthermore, it can be reused for several
projects. It can be assembled on land and requires just a little
additional work offshore. Smaller boats are sufficient to pull the
pile. The entire construction and the pile are also floatable. 150000
Furthermore, a scour protection on the site has not to be
125000
Additional force [kN]

decommissioned for this method. It is a fast, controlled, and safe

decommissioning method.
100000
Press construction
For dismantling the foundation with a Press construction, a 75000
pressing force is required which is at least equal to Ft. In this
example, 12 presses with a pressing force of 11 MN each at a 50000
stroke of 30 cm were selected. The presses are placed at a
distance around the pile. The pile skin friction, which is 25000
increased by the stress distribution in the soil from press to pile,
is roughly determined using the Boussinesq formulae under the 0
assumption of elastic, isotropy and weightless conditions. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3𝑧 3
Distance between pile and presses [m]
𝜎𝑧 = 𝑃 ∗
2𝜋𝑅 5
(3)
FIGURE 8: INCREASE OF THE UNIT FRICTION

V010T10A013-5 Copyright © 2020 ASME

 To stay below 20% increase in the tensile capacity Ft, a press
distance to the pile of 3.5 m is chosen for further calculation.

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/OMAE/proceedings-pdf/OMAE2020/84423/V010T10A013/6607178/v010t10a013-omae2020-18784.pdf by Zhejiang University user on 07 December 2023

Stress [kN/m²]
0 20 40 60 80 100
0

10
Depth [m]

15

20

25

30
2
35
FIGURE 10: THE PILE IS PUSHED OUT BY PRESSES
FIGURE 9: STRESS ON PILE CAUSED BY A SINGLE LOAD (3,5
m DISTANCE)
The advantages of the design are that any high press forces
can be used and the speed can be easily regulated. The entire
From the calculations results that two additional presses are
construction has very large dimensions. Due to the small stroke
required for the force transfer. A foundation is also required to
of the presses, many individual lifting operations are necessary
transfer the press force into the soil. Deep foundations and
until the pile is completely lifted out, which will take a lot of
heavyweight foundations are excluded as they require additional
time. All in all, this method is to be classified as rather unsuitable
work on site for construction and dismantling. Flat foundations
compared to other decommissioning methods.
offer the advantage of being prefabricated and easy to dismantle.
However, the press force cannot be transferred into the soil
CONCLUSION
through individual flat foundations under each press, as the
In a few years more and more offshore foundations will have
required dimensions are too big. Therefore, a ring-shaped strip
to be dismantled. The currently preferred method, in which a
foundation around the pile is chosen. The press forces should be
large part of the foundation remains in the ground, has some
distributed over the entire foundation area if possible.
disadvantages, such as the fact that the site can no longer be used.
A steel framework construction similar to a jacket has to be
For this reason, research is being carried out on further methods
made for the transfer of force, including further presses which
for dismantling the foundations. In this paper two alternative
brace the structure to the pile.
methods have been shown and roughly calculated for a model
First, the presses on the seabed are extended and the pile is
pile.
pushed out with the height of the stroke. Then the brace on the
The first approach is to use buoyancy bodies which are non-
pile is released and the presses on the seabed are retracted. The
positively connected to the pile by a truss construction.
bracing with the pile is re-established. The process is then
Advantage of this method is that no large installation vessels are
repeated until the pile is completely pushed out of the ground
required. Furthermore, the construction is floating and can be
(Figure 10).
towed to its destination by tugboats. In addition, the construction
can be used for different pile diameters and Ft, as it is modularly
expandable.
The second approach is the possibility to overcome Ft by a
press design. Due to the greater distance between the presses and
the pile, which is required to avoid a sharp increase in the pile
skin friction, and due to the time required for the entire process,
this approach has economic weaknesses compared to other
methods.

V010T10A013-6 Copyright © 2020 ASME

 Further in-depth research is needed to determine an optimal Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics, Balkema, Rotterdam, p.
procedure for dismantling OWFs. 711-716, 2005
[13] Clausen, et al.: Bearing Capacity of Driven Piles in
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Sand, the NGI Approach, Proceedings of the International

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/OMAE/proceedings-pdf/OMAE2020/84423/V010T10A013/6607178/v010t10a013-omae2020-18784.pdf by Zhejiang University user on 07 December 2023

The research presented in this paper was carried out within Symposium on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics, Balkema,
the research project DeCoMP ('large-scale model investigations Rotterdam, p. 677-681, 2005
for decommissioning of Monopiles', funding code 0324316) [14] Labenski, et al.: Simulation of the plug inside open steel
funded by the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy pile piles with regard to different installation methods,
on the basis of a decision by the German Bundestag. Vilnius, 2016
[15] Lesny: Gründung von Offshore-Windenergieanlagen –
Werkzeuge für Planung und Bemessung, 2008
[16] Lüking, et al.: Tragverhalten von offenen
Verdrängungspfählen unter Berücksichtigung der
Pfropfenbildung in nichtbindigen Böden, Kassel, 2010
[17] Lüking, et al.: Vergleich von halbempirischen direkten
CPT-Verfahren zur Ermittlung der Pfahltragfähigkeit mit
den Erfahrungswerten der EA-Pfähle basierend auf
Probebelastungsergebnissen, Pfahlsymposium 2017,
Mitteilung des Institutes für Grundbau und Bodenmechanik,
REFERENCES
TU Braunschweig, 2017
[1] Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie, 2018:
[18] Yang, et al.: A new and openly accessible database of
“Erneuerbare-Energien”,
tests on pile driven in sands. 2015
https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Dossier/erneuerbare-
[19] Becker, et al., Zur Ermittlung der Pfahltragfähigkeit
energien.html
von offenen Profilen nach EA-Pfähle und EAU, 2015
[2] Wind Europe, Offshore Wind in Europe, Key trends and
[20] Schenk, Pfahlgründungen. GrundbauTaschenbuch, 2.
statistics 2017
Auflage, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin 1966
[3] Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (BSH)
[21] Hinzmann, et al., Large-Scale tests with hydraulic and
2013: "Standard Design, Minimum requirements
pneumatic overpressure for monopile decomissioning of
concerning the constructive design of offshore structures
offshore wind turbines (2020), OMAE 2020, American
within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)", Standard,
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Hamburg und Rostock
[4] Hinzmann, et al., Scale Model Investigations On Vibro
Pile Driving (2018), OMAE 2018, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
[5] Kempfert, Pfahlgründungen (2018), Grundbau-
Taschenbuch, Teil 3, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 2018.
[6] Möller, Geotechnik, Grundbau, 2016, 3. Auflage, Ernst
& Sohn, Berlin.
[7] Thomas, Zum Pfahltragverhalten unter zyklisch axialer
Belastung, 2012, Heft Nr. 25, Kassel University Press,
Kassel
[8] Empfehlungen des Arbeitskreises 'Pfähle'. EA-Pfähle. 2.
Auflage. Deutschen Gesellschaft für Geotechnik e.V. Berlin:
Ernst & Sohn, 2012
[9] DIN EN ISO 19902; Erdöl- und Erdgasindustrie –
Gegründete Stahlplattformen (ISO 19902:2007); Deutsches
Institut für Normung, Berlin, 2008
[10] Jardine, et al.: J.R.; ICP Design Methods for Driven
Piles in Sands and Clays, Thomas Telford, London, 2005
[11] Lehane, et al.: The UWA-05 Method for Prediction of
Axial Capacity of driven Piles in Sand, Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Frontiers in Offshore
Geotechnics, Balkema, Rotterdam, p. 683-689, 2005
[12] Kolk, et al.: Design Criteria for Pipe Piles in Silicia
Sands, Proceedings of the International Symposium on

V010T10A013-7 Copyright © 2020 ASME