Applied Ocean Research 26 (2004) 241255

www.elsevier.com/locate/apor

Experimental investigation of a fast monohull in forced harmonic motions

A. Maron a, J. Ponce a, N. Fonseca b, C. Guedes Soares b,*
b

a
Canal de Experiencias Hidrodinamicas de El Pardo, Carretera de la Sierra, El Pardo, 28042 Madrid, Spain
Unit of Marine Technology and Engineering, Technical University of Lisbon, Instituto Superior Tecnico, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal

Abstract
The paper presents the results of an experimental investigation of added masses and damping coefficients of a model of a fast monohull. A
model of 4.5 m length between perpendiculars was constructed of fiber glass reinforced plastic (FRP) with four segments connected by a
backbone. The backbone was instrumented with load cells at the positions of the cuts. This configuration, combined with load cells measuring the
force exerted by the forced motion actuators, made it possible to obtain the hydrodynamic coefficients for each of the four hull segments.
The investigation focused on the vertical motions. Thus, the experimental program included forced harmonic heave and pitch motions in calm
water (no incident waves). Subtracting inertial and restoring forces from total measured forces, one obtained the hydrodynamic component, which
then resulted in the hydrodynamic coefficients. The effects of steady forward speed on the radiation forces were investigated by conducting model
tests at four forward speeds. Finally, nonlinear effects were assessed by conducting model tests for three amplitudes of forced heave and forced
pitch motions.
q 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
The calculation of added mass and damping coefficients for
ships advancing through the free surface with harmonic
motions is a classical hydrodynamic problem. Several
seakeeping theories were developed and implemented in
computer programs, and numerical solutions exist for more
than 30 years. However, there are not many comparisons with
experimental data towards the validation of the hydrodynamic
models. Comparisons are usually carried out for ship responses
that are more relevant for engineering applications, such as
induced motions, accelerations, or global structural loads.
Although the hydrodynamic coefficients represent only
intermediate results and not the final seakeeping results that
naval architects need, they also represent the bulk of the
seakeeping calculations. Additionally, fundamental limitations
of theoretical models are more easily detected by directly
comparing experimental and calculated hydrodynamic
coefficients.
Some researchers published comparisons between experimentally measured and calculated hydrodynamic coefficients
for ships with and without forward speed. Gerritsma [1]
presented experimental results for three models of series-60
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: guedess@mar.ist.utl.pt (C.G. Soares).

0141-1187/$ - see front matter q 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.apor.2005.09.001

hulls with different block coefficients, in forced harmonic

motions in calm water and at two forward speeds and discussed
effects of hull shape and forward speed on the hydrodynamic
coefficients.
Gerritsma and Beukelman [2,3] presented experimental
results for a segmented model of a series-60 hull in forced
harmonic motions in calm water, together with numerical
results from zero speed strip theory. In general, agreement
between experiments and numerical values is better for high
frequencies and lower speeds.
Beukelman [4,5] studied experimentally two ship-like
models, one with rectangular cross sections and the other
with triangular cross sections. Part of the results includes heave
and pitch hydrodynamic coefficients from forced motion tests,
for several oscillation frequencies and two Froude numbers.
Comparisons with strip theory results showed that the
numerical results compare well with the experimental data,
except for the damping coefficients of the rectangular model
where the numerical results underestimate the experiments.
The differences were justified by the viscous effects, which
were not accounted in the potential flow numerical model.
Keuning [6] presented results of the distribution of
hydrodynamic coefficients along the ship length of a ship
model moving with high forward speed. More recently Journee
[7] carried out a comprehensive set of experiments on four
Wigley hull models, which, among other ship responses,
included also hydrodynamic coefficients that were used as
benchmark data for validation of seakeeping codes by several
researchers.

A. Maron et al. / Applied Ocean Research 26 (2004) 241255

242

The experimental data presented above was obtained

essentially with the objective of using them in the scope of
linear theory applications. For this reason the amplitudes of
oscillation were small. To obtain new experimental data
regarding added masses and damping coefficients for ships
with high forward speed and large amplitudes of motion, an
experimental program was carried out within the European
research project WAVELOADSadvanced methods to predict wave induced loads for high-speed ships, [8]. Three
models of monohulls were tested in a seakeeping laboratory,
one of them corresponding to the ship presented here. Some
results of the measured hydrodynamic coefficients for the other
models were presented in [8,9], and [10,11].
The experimental program included harmonic forced heave
and pitch motion tests in calm water. Four different forward
speeds were considered, and for each speed three amplitudes of
the forced motions were tested. The objective of the tests was
to obtain the hydrodynamic coefficients associated with the
vertical motions for the whole frequency of oscillation range,
their dependence on the oscillation amplitude and on the
forward speed, and their distribution along the ship length.
The paper describes the experimental procedure used for the
forced motion tests as well as for the analysis of the
experimental data. An analysis was also made of nonlinear
effects and of forward speed effects on measured radiation
forces.
2. Experimental setup
The experimental program was carried out at the El Pardo
Model Basin (CEHIPAR) in Madrid. Most of the tests were
performed in the still water tank, namely, all those for the
model at forward speed. Zero-speed tests were carried out at
the Laboratory of Ship Dynamics, where the tank is wider and,
therefore, wall effects were be minimized. The still water tank
is 320 m long, 12.5 m wide, and 6.5 m deep. The tank is

7.0

5.0

Table 1
Fast monohull main particulars
Frigate
Length overall
Length betw. perp.
Breadth overall
Depth
Draught
Displacement
Trim
Service (max)
Long. posit. of CG
Vert. posit. of CG
Block coefficient
Pitch rad. Of gyr.

Loa(m)
Lpp(m)
B(m)
D(m)
T(m)
D(ton)
dT(m)
V(kn)
LCG (m)
VCG (m)
CB
Kyy/Lpp

133.7
122.0
15.19
9.2
4.66
4329.9
0
27
K1.347
4.374
0.49
0.253

equipped with a carriage with a maximum speed of 10 m/s and

2
an acceleration of 1 m/s .
The Laboratory of Ship Dynamics comprises three basic
components: the tank, the wave generator with its associated
power plant, and the computerized planar motion carriage
(CPMC). The tank is 145 m long from the face of the wave
generator to the intersection of the beach with the water free
surface, 30 m wide, and 5 m deep. The wave generator is able
to produce regular waves and irregular waves, both long
crested and short crested. Regarding the CPMC, it can follow
any path in the horizontal plane, either towing a captive model,
as was the case for the experiments presented here, or tracking
a free-running, self-propelled model. It can be used both for
seakeeping and maneuvering studies.
2.1. Characteristics and manufacture of the model
A model of a fast monohull (CEHIPAR model no. 2654)
was constructed of fiber-reinforced plastic to a scale of 1:27.
The full-scale ship is 122 m long between perpendiculars and
has a service speed of 27 kn, which corresponds to a Froude
number of 0.4. Fig. 1 presents the hull bodylines and Table 1
the ship main particulars.
The hull form was modeled up to the main deck, and no
appendages were fitted (Fig. 2). The model was constructed as
four pieces separated by cuts at stations 5, 10 and 15. The gap
between two pieces was 5 mm, and it was sealed using a water

3.0

1.0
-8.0

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0
-1.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

-3.0

-5.0

-7.0

Fig. 1. Fast monohull bodylines.

Fig. 2. Fast monohull model in the workshop.

A. Maron et al. / Applied Ocean Research 26 (2004) 241255

243

Fig. 3. Longitudinal backbone connecting the four pieces of the hull (left) and detail of the vertical load cell at the hinge between the model and one linear actuator
(right).

tight flexible rubber strip glued to the inner part of the hull.
This ensured negligibly small load transmission from piece to
piece. The four pieces were held in position by means of a
longitudinal backbone made of a continuous aluminum beam
of rectangular cross section. The backbone was fixed to each
piece by means of strong aluminum cross beams. Therefore, all
the loads between adjacent pieces were transmitted through
this backbone. This longitudinal beam was fitted with strain
gauges at the three indicated stations to measure vertical shear
forces and moments. The backbone, situated parallel to the
waterline at the height of the neutral axis, was located slightly
above the waterline level. Overall, the model was considered
rigid, meaning that the first natural frequency of flexural
vibration was high. Fig. 3 shows the interior of the model with
the large longitudinal backbone fitted and a detail of the
vertical load cell at the hinge between the model and one of the
two linear actuators. Fig. 4 presents one of the three sets of
strain gages fitted to the backbone.
Regarding the weight of the model, its weight distribution
and its inertial distribution, these characteristics were not
adjusted before tests. The model was used as fabricated. During
the tests, the actual mean ship draft and trim were adjusted by
the linear actuators. These actuators produced the oscillatory
forced motions. Therefore, it was not necessary to adjust the
weight distribution to that of the actual ship, but, to separate
inertia forces from hydrodynamic forces, it was necessary to
accurately know the final weight distribution of the model. This
implied knowing the weight, the centre of gravity, and the
longitudinal inertia for the whole model as well as for each of
the segments. For the whole model the conventional methods
used for standard seakeeping tests were used, but these were
considered inappropriate for the segments due to their
dimensions and the presence of a continuous backbone.
Instead, an alternative method, consisting of oscillating the
model in air with the same actuators and the same configuration
used during the actual tests, was relied on. With this method,
the model was oscillated out of the water at several

frequencies, both in heave and pitch, while the forces on the

actuators and the shear forces and bending moments at each cut
were recorded. The analysis of these signals allowed an
accurate determination of the necessary weight parameters.
The correctness of this procedure was checked by comparing
the values so obtained for the whole model with those obtained
by the conventional methods.
This method had the additional advantage in that any
possible damping due to the mechanics of the system was also
taken into account by considering not only the amplitudes of
the forces, but also their phases. However, these damping
forces turned out to be small.
2.2. Instrumentation of the model
The forced oscillations were produced by means of two
vertical linear actuators. Each actuator consisted of a screw
driven by step motors. The aft actuator was installed at station
7.5, using the usual reference system with station 0 at the aft

Fig. 4. One of the three sets of strain gages fitted at the backbone.

244

A. Maron et al. / Applied Ocean Research 26 (2004) 241255

Fig. 5. Sketch with the instrumentation of the model.

perpendicular and station 20 at the forward perpendicular. This

aft actuator was clamped to the towing carriage so that it
always remained vertical, providing the towing force necessary
to maintain the model at speed.
The forward actuator was located at station 12.5. The
connection to the carriage was through a hinge, allowing
some rotation in the longitudinal vertical plane, such that the
model could pitch. This means that while the connection of
the aft actuator to the model remained in the same relative
position with respect to the carriage, the forward actuator had
a small relative oscillatory motion in the surge direction
(42 mm at full-scale for the maximum pitch of 38). Fig. 5
shows a sketch with the model and the position of the
actuators as well as all the instrumentation used during the
tests.
The two actuators were connected to the backbone beam by
means of hinges. Moving the actuators with a sinusoidal
motion produced the desired motion of the model. For heave,
the motions were of the same amplitude and in phase for both
actuators. For pitch, the motions of the two actuators were 1808
out of phase, and the amplitudes of vertical motions of the
actuators were such that the model rotation was about an axis
located longitudinally at the position of the centre of buoyancy
(1.347 m aft of amidships at full scale).
With regard to instrumentation and measured channels,
basically they were used to measure forces in the actuators,
oscillatory motions, and structural loads. All results and other
quantities refer to the full-scale ship, unless stated otherwise.
The scale transformations were made according to Froude
scaling laws with no scale effect corrections.
The measuring channels were as follows:
Two loads cells installed between the linear actuators and
the backbone were used to measure the total force and
moment exerted by the actuators. These were commercial
load cells chosen because of their favorable characteristics,
especially with regard to their capacity to respond only to
loads applied in the direction of interest (low cross talking).
The load cells measured the loads in the direction of the
actuators. For the aft actuator, the loads were always in the
vertical direction, but for the forward one, and for pitch

motions, the loads were slightly oscillating with time due to

the hinge. However, this effect was negligibly small.
The vertical motions were measured by two linear
potentiometers installed at the bow and stern, allowing
the determination of either pitch or heave motion. These
sensors were redundant as the response of the actuators was
good enough to use the digital command signal as a
measure of the motions.
Strain gauges installed on the backbone at the positions of
the three cross sectional cuts measured the structural loads,
namely, vertical shear forces and vertical bending moments.
The carriage speed measured by encoders was recorded
during each test.
All signals were zeroed prior to each test. Therefore, the
vertical forces and moments did not include the still water
forces of the actuators. This was important because the model
was forced to its draft by the actuators and not by its own
weight.
The signals were conditioned, filtered with a low pass filter,
and simultaneously sampled at a sampling rate of 100 Hz at
model scale. This corresponded to 19.245 Hz at full scale. The
samples were continuously stored in memory and dumped to
disk at the end of each run.
The measured signals were processed to obtain derived
channels, using the procedure explained in Section 3. These
derived channels were time histories of the model excitation,
i.e. heave and pitch forced motions and hydrodynamic
responses. The responses included the vertical force on the
whole ship and on each of the four segments and the vertical
moment on the whole ship and on each of the four segments.
Motions and forces were represented on an orthogonal
coordinate system with its origin at the centre of buoyancy,
the x-axis in the horizontal direction pointing towards the bow,
the y-axis in the horizontal direction pointing to port, and the
z-axis directed upward.
2.3. Experimental program
The experimental program was organized with the objective
of assessing the effects of the forward speed on the vertical

A. Maron et al. / Applied Ocean Research 26 (2004) 241255

245

Table 2
Testing matrix for heave and pitch
T(s)

13.97
13.26
12.49
11.70
10.82
9.88
8.84
8.16
7.65
6.82
6.24
5.21
4.42
3.66

FnZ0.0

FnZ0.20

FnZ0.30

FnZ0.40

Amp1

Amp2

Amp3

Amp1

Amp2

Amp3

Amp1

Amp2

Amp3

Amp1

Amp2

Amp3

#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#

#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#

#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#

#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#

#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#

#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#

#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#

#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#

#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#

#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#

#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#

#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#

motion hydrodynamic coefficients and also on the nonlinear

effects associated with the amplitudes of the motions. In this
way the experimental program included forced harmonic
motion tests in calm water, with three different amplitudes of
the motions and four speeds of advance. The periods of
oscillation varied from 3.66 to 13.97 s. Amplitudes of heave
and pitch motions were, respectively, 0.466, 0.932 and 1.398 m
and 1, 2 and 38. The ship draft was 4.66 m, thus the 1.4 m of
forced heave amplitude was relatively large, as was the 38 of
pitch amplitude that caused about 3.3 m of vertical motion at
the bow. The speeds were 0, 13.45, 20.17 and 26.89 kn, which
corresponded to Froude numbers of 0, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4,
respectively.
Table 2 presents the complete testing matrix although the
results from a few runs could not be used, because during these
runs not all the sensors worked correctly. This matrix was
repeated for heave and pitch, resulting in more than 300 nos.

xk
xgk
xfk

Fk

3. Procedures for analysis of the experimental data

3.1. Analysis of the time records
The recorded time series were processed using software
developed at CEHIPAR. This included the measurements of
total forces at the two actuators and also of vertical shear forces
and moments at the three cross sections. In general,
measurements were more accurate when the signal to noise
ratio was large, thus this was taken into consideration when
setting up the ranges of the various sensors. Some faulty
measurements were identified in the time records, and they
were either removed or interpolated in the time series.
The analogue signals were passed through an antistabilizing hardware filter. Additional software filtering was
carried out to eliminate the model natural vibration frequency.
This was around 8 Hz (full-scale) and, therefore, a cut
frequency of 6 Hz was used, which was well above the
frequency range of interest for these tests. The highest
frequency measured was about 1 Hz, which corresponded to
the third harmonic of the responses time records for forced
motions with a fundamental period of 3.66 s.
The tests at Froude numbers of 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 were carried
out in the same run at in the still water tank. The measured
records were split in three by using the speed signal recorded in
the files. A quality check was made by visual inspection of the
plotted time series. If necessary, part of the record was
discarded. A time series of heave or pitch was derived from

Segment number k
Table 3
Hydrostatic coefficients for heave

Zk

Force coefficients

-Mk-1
-Qk-1

COG
Nk

Mk
zgk

Qk

Fig. 6. Sketch with an arbitrary segment of the model and forces acting on it.

All
Segment 1
Segment 2
Segment 3
Segment 4

Moment coefficients

A (kN/m )

B (kN/m)

A (kN m/m2)

B (kN m/m)

909
461
6
329
113

K12,939
K3611
K4277
K3417
K1633

13,435
23,042
776
K5087
K5297

K93,535
K154,043
K61,876
K50,578
71,808

A. Maron et al. / Applied Ocean Research 26 (2004) 241255

246
Table 4
Hydrostatic coefficients for pitch
Force coefficients
2

All
Segment 1
Segment 2
Segment 3
Segment 4

Moment coefficients

A (kN/m )

B (kN/m)

A (Kn m/m2)

B (kNm/m)

376
299
K36
37
75

K1364
K2724
K600
745
1215

11,081
15,232
K743
434
K3842

K211,913
K120,145
K18,564
K18,345
K54,860

the measurements of vertical motions at the forward and aft

ends of the model.
The next step was to subtract from the measured total forces
and moments the components associated with the mass and
inertia of the model and the segments. Prior to the tests, as
explained in section 2.1, these mass and inertia forces were
determined by oscillating the model air. They are represented
in the form of amplitudes and phases, at the different measuring
channels, as a function of frequency. With this data, it was easy
to subtract the model inertia effects from the total forces. The
resulting time series represented forces and moments due only
to fluid effects.
The time series thus obtained yielded the forces exerted by
the actuators and the vertical shear and bending moments at the
cross sections of the cuts between segments. These were

processed to obtain time series of external forces due solely to

fluid effects, and they are called total forces and moments in
the following.
For the whole ship the total force and moment are given by:
Ft ZKFfwd KFaft

(1)

Mt Z 16:595Ffwd K13:901Faft

(2)

where Ffwd and Faft are the forces exerted by the forward and
aft actuators, and the numbers in the moment equation are the
longitudinal distances of the actuators to the centre of
buoyancy. Therefore, the calculated moment refers to the
centre of buoyancy.
Regarding total forces and moments on each segment, they
were calculated using the time records of the forces on the
actuators and of the cross sectional loads. Fig. 6 presents a
sketch showing an arbitrary segment of the model, the various
forces and moments acting on the segment, and the coordinates
of relevant points. Force Fk is exerted by the actuator k, which is
zero if no actuator is directly fitted to the segment, Qk, QkK1 and
Mk, MkK1 are, respectively, the vertical shear forces and bending
moments at the ends of the segment. The abscissas of the Fk
force (xfk), the centre of gravity of the segment (xgk), and the ends
of the segment (xkK1, xk) refer to the centre of buoyancy of the
Hydrostatic pitch moment due to heave

Hydrostatic heave force due to heave

2.0E+05

3.0E+04
Experimental
2.0E+04

Experimental

1.5E+05

Numerical linear

Numerical linear

1.0E+05

0.0E+00
-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

M (kNm)

F (kN)

1.0E+04

-1.0E+04

5.0E+04
0.0E+00
-2.0
-5.0E+04

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

-1.0E+05
-2.0E+04

-1.5E+05

-3.0E+04

-2.0E+05

Heave (m)

Heave (m)
Hydrostatic pitch moment due to pitch

Hydrostatic heave force due to pitch

1.0E+06

1.0E+04
Experimental

8.0E+03

Numerical linear
6.0E+05

6.0E+03

4.0E+05

M (kNm)

F (kN)

4.0E+03
2.0E+03
0.0E+00
-4.0
-2.0E+03

Experimental

8.0E+05

Numerical linear

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

2.0E+05
0.0E+00
-4.0
-2.0E+05

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

-4.0E+05

-4.0E+03

-6.0E+05
-8.0E+05

-6.0E+03

Pitch (deg)

Pitch (deg)

Fig. 7. Experimental and linear numerical hydrostatic forces and moments.

2.0

3.0

4.0

A. Maron et al. / Applied Ocean Research 26 (2004) 241255

whole ship. The height of the centre of gravity of the segment

(zgk) refers to the baseline.
The total vertical force on the segment is given by
Zk ZKFk C QkK1 KQk

247

phases obtained are relative to the heave or pitch motions.

When positive, they represented a lead of the signal relative to
the motion.

(3)

Instead of calculating the moments Nk relative to the centre

of gravity of the segment, they are calculated relative to the
centre of buoyancy of the ship according to
N0k Z Nk KZk xgk
Z Fk xfk KQkK1 xkK1 C Qq xk C MkK1 KMk

(4)

As a result of this processing one obtained time records of

the total hydrodynamic forces and moments of the whole ship
as well as of each of the four segments. The moments refer to
the ship centre of buoyancy. The time series were further
analysed to obtain mean values, first harmonic amplitudes and
respective phase angles, and second and third harmonics. The

3.2. Calculation of hydrodynamic coefficients

The previous section explains how to obtain time records of
the total hydrodynamic forces associated with the forced
harmonic heave and pitch motions. To derive radiation forces,
one needed to subtract the hydrostatic component. The
hydrostatic forces were measured by oscillating the model in
heave and pitch at a large period of oscillation (250 s). The
forces and moments for the ship and each segment obtained
from these tests were due (almost) solely to hydrostatic
variations. The results compared well with theoretical
hydrostatic calculations, especially around the zero heave
and pitch position.
Heave motion

3(m)

1
0
-1
-2
0

20

40

60

80

100

80

100

80

100

Time(s)
Heave radiation force due to heave
20000

FR33(kN)

10000
0
-10000
-20000
-30000
0

20

40

60

Time(s)
Pitch radiation moment due to heave
200000

FR53(kNm)

100000
0
-100000
-200000
-300000
0

20

40

60

Time (s)
Fig. 8. Measured heave radiation force and pitch radiation moment due to forced harmonic heave motion with amplitude of 1.398 m and period of 4.42 s.

A. Maron et al. / Applied Ocean Research 26 (2004) 241255

248

The results were curves of the variation of forces and

moments with draft or trim. These curves were well
approximated by second order polynomials as follows:
FkjH Z Ak x2j C Bk xj

(5)

where FkjH stands for the hydrostatic force (kZ3) or moment

(kZ5) due to heave (jZ3) or pitch (jZ5) and xj stands for
heave or pitch, respectively. The sensors were zeroed before
tests with the model at design draft and trim, thus Eq. (5)
represents variations of hydrostatic forces and moments with
respect to the initial static condition. The coefficients are given
in Tables 3 and 4 for heave and pitch, respectively.
Fig. 7 presents plots of the polynomials (experimental
results) together with linearly calculated hydrostatic forces and
moments as functions of heave and pitch displacements. Both
sets of results compared well for small displacements;
however, the correlation worsened with the amplitude of

motions. The larger differences happened for the heave force

due to pitch, which appeared to be highly nonlinear. This effect
was due to the asymmetry of the hull about the longitudinal
centre of buoyancy. This demonstrates the nonlinearity of the
hydrostatic forces and moments.
Additionally, it shows that it was important to account for
the exact variation of the hydrostatic forces when subtracting
these forces from the total hydrodynamic forces to obtain the
radiation forces. Otherwise, the hydrodynamic coefficients to
be derived from the radiation forces would have been
contaminated by hydrostatic effects.
Concluding, time records of radiation forces and moments,
for the ship as well as for each of the segments, were obtained
by subtracting the hydrostatic forces and moments from the
time records of the total hydrodynamic forces.
Time series of radiation forces were analysed to obtain
mean values, amplitudes FkjR and phases (fk) of the first
Heave motion

3(m)

1
0
-1
-2
0

20

40

60

80

100

80

100

80

100

Time (s)
Heave radiation force due to heave
4000

FR33(kN)

0
-4000
-8000
-12000
-16000
0

20

40

60

Time (s)
Pitch radiation moment due to heave
100000

FR53(kNm)

50000
0
-50000
-100000
-150000
-200000
0

20

40

60

Time (s)
Fig. 9. Measured heave radiation force and pitch radiation moment due to forced harmonic heave motion with amplitude of 1.398 m and period of 8.84 s.

A. Maron et al. / Applied Ocean Research 26 (2004) 241255

249

Heave Radiation Force due to Heave

0.35

2nd Harmonic / 1st Harmonic

Fn= 0 A=0.466 m
Fn=0.2 A=0.466 m

0.30

Fn=0.3 A=0.466 m
0.25

Fn=0.4 A=0.466 m
Fn= 0 A=0.932 m

0.20

Fn=0.2 A=0.932 m
Fn=0.3 A=0.932 m

0.15

Fn=0.4 A=0.932 m
0.10

Fn= 0 A=1.398 m
Fn=0.2 A=1.398 m

0.05

Fn=0.3 A=1.398 m
Fn=0.4 A=1.398 m

0.00
2

10

12

14

16

Oscillation period (s)

Fig. 10. Second harmonics of heave radiation forces due to harmonic forced heave motion.

where u and xaj stand for, respectively, frequency and

amplitude of the forced harmonic motion.

harmonic, and amplitudes of the second and third harmonics.

Phases were with respect to the forced harmonic motions.
Finally, added masses, added inertias, and linear damping
coefficients were calculated from the first harmonics of the
radiation forces. Added masses represented the amplitudes of
the radiation forces (1st harmonics) in phase with the
acceleration of the motion normalized by the amplitude of
the acceleration, while damping coefficients represented the
amplitude of the radiation forces in phase with the velocity of
the motion normalized by the amplitude of the velocity. In this
way added masses Akj and damping coefficients Bkj were
calculated as follows:
FkjR
cos 4k
xaj u2

(6)

FkjR
Bkj ZK a sin 4k
xj u

(7)

Akj Z

3.3. Analysis of nonlinear effects

Added masses and damping coefficients are usually
assumed to represent linear radiation forces associated with
forced harmonic motions. In this way, the hydrodynamic
coefficients are usually derived from first harmonics of the
radiation forces. This means that hydrodynamic coefficients
represent the actual radiation forces acting on the hull if the
mean values and higher harmonic content of the measured time
records are negligible compared to the first harmonics.
Additionally, it is usually assumed by seakeeping theories
that the hydrodynamic coefficients are independent of the
amplitude of the forced motions or, in other words, that they
are linear with respect to the amplitude of the motions. The
objective of this section is to present an analysis of the validity
of these assumptions.
Heave radiation force due to heave, A = 1.398m

Heave radiation force due to heave, Fn = 0.4

0.16

0.16
T = 13.26s

0.14

0.14
0.12

2nd harm. / 1st harm.

2nd harm. / 1st harm.

T = 11.70s
T = 8.84s

0.10

T = 6.82s

0.08

T = 5.21s

0.06
0.04

0.10
T = 13.26s

0.08

T = 11.70s

0.06

T = 8.84s
0.04

T = 6.82s

0.02

0.02
0.00
0.5

0.12

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Heave amplitude

3.0

3.5

0.00
0.0

T = 5.21s

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Froude number

Fig. 11. Second harmonics of heave radiation forces due to heave. Left graph presents results as a function of the amplitude of heave motion for a Froude number of
0.4. Right graph presents results as a function of Froude number for the heave amplitude of 1.398 m.

A. Maron et al. / Applied Ocean Research 26 (2004) 241255

250

Pitch Radiation Moment due to Heave

0.50

Fn= 0 A=0.466 m

2nd Harmonic / 1st Harmonic

Fn=0.2 A=0.466 m
0.40

Fn=0.3 A=0.466 m
Fn=0.4 A=0.466 m
Fn= 0 A=0.932 m

0.30

Fn=0.2 A=0.932 m
Fn=0.3 A=0.932 m
0.20

Fn=0.4 A=0.932 m
Fn= 0 A=1.398 m
Fn=0.2 A=1.398 m

0.10

Fn=0.3 A=1.398 m
Fn=0.4 A=1.398 m

0.00
2

10

12

14

16

Oscillation period (s)

Fig. 12. Second harmonics of pitch radiation moment due to harmonic forced heave motion.

compared to the first harmonics varied with the period of

oscillation and amplitude of the motions and was almost
independent of the Froude number. Regarding the dependence
of the period of oscillation, second harmonics were relatively
large for small periods. They were smaller for the intermediate
periods of oscillation, and then they increased slightly for long
periods. Fortunately, the intermediate period range is the one of
interest for seakeeping calculations. This means that, for small
amplitude motions, second harmonic effects on radiation forces
could have been neglected for seakeeping calculations. For this
ship and for the smaller amplitude of heave, second harmonics
in the intermediate period range were always smaller than 5%
of first harmonics.
On the other hand, the importance of second harmonics
increased sharply with the amplitude of motion. For the larger
motion amplitude and shorter periods of oscillation, second
harmonics were at times higher than 20% of first harmonics,
while for the intermediate range the values we around 78%.
To illustrate the dependence of heave amplitude, Fig. 11 (left
graph) shows the ratio second to first harmonics of heave
First Harmonic of Heave Radiation Force due to Heave
12000

1st Harm / heave amp (kN/m)

As an example of the typical behaviour of the radiations

forces, Figs. 8 and 9 present measured time records of the
harmonic forced heave motion and the resulting heave
radiation force and pitch radiation moment. These results are
for the ship advancing with a speed of 26.9 kn (Froude number
of 0.4), heave amplitude of 1.398 m, and two periods of
oscillation, namely, 4.42 s in Fig. 8 and 8.84 s in Fig. 9. The
first period corresponded to a high frequency of oscillation,
while the second corresponded to the period of a regular wave
of length equal to the ships length between perpendiculars. As
explained above, radiation forces were obtained by subtracting
from the total measured forces the inertial and hydrostatic
contributions.
The graphs show that while the imposed motion was purely
harmonic, the resulting radiation forces were non-harmonic.
Two characteristics stand out: first, the measured signals of the
forces include higher harmonic components besides the first
harmonic and, second, the non-zero mean value is important.
To obtain a global and quantified picture of these effects on the
radiation forces, all time histories were Fourier analysed to
yield the first three harmonics and the mean values. The
analysis of the higher harmonic content of radiation forces is
documented in this section, while the analysis of mean values,
as they are related to forward speed effects, are analysed in
Section 3.4.
Fig. 10 presents the ratio between second and first
harmonics of heave radiation forces due to heave motion as a
function of the period of oscillation. The graph presents results
from all tests, namely, for all Froude numbers and all
amplitudes of the forced motions. To obtain a clear picture
of the effects of motion amplitude on the magnitude of second
harmonics, the results for each motion amplitude are grouped
by similar symbols. For instance, open symbols represent
results for amplitude of 0.466 m, while black symbols stand for
an amplitude of 0.932 m.
Second harmonics existed for all motion amplitudes, Froude
numbers, and periods of oscillation. Their importance

Fn=0.3 A=0.466 m
10000

Fn=0.3 A=0.932 m
Fn=0.3 A=1.398 m

8000
6000
4000
2000
0
2

10

12

14

16

Oscillation period (s)

Fig. 13. First harmonics of heave radiation force due to harmonic forced heave
motion normalised by the motion amplitude.

A. Maron et al. / Applied Ocean Research 26 (2004) 241255

251

Fig. 14. Mean values of the radiation heave forces due to harmonic heave motion.

radiation force due to heave as function of heave amplitude for

five different periods of oscillation spread along the tested
range at a Froude number of 0.4. The importance of second
harmonics increased with the amplitude of heave, while, as will
be shown below, the ratio of first harmonics over the amplitude
of motion remained constant.
The graph on the right of Fig. 11 shows the second
harmonics divided by the first harmonics as a function of
Froude number for the same five different periods of oscillation
presented above. Heave amplitude is 1.398 m. The ratios are
approximately constant with Froude number, which shows that
the speed of the ship did not influence the magnitude of the
second harmonics of the radiation forces.
Fig. 12 presents the same kind of results as shown in Fig. 10,
but here for the pitch radiation moment due to forced harmonic
heave motion as function of the period of oscillation. These
forces represent the coupling induced by the heave motion into
pitch. The analysis of the graph leads to similar conclusions as
presented above although here the importance of second
harmonics compared to first harmonics was larger. For instance,
the ratio of second to first harmonics for the larger heave
amplitude and intermediate period range was around 0.12.
The results presented lead to the conclusion that, for the ship
investigated, second harmonics of radiation forces were
negligibly small if the amplitude of motion is small and if
one is interested in the intermediate frequency range of

oscillation. However, for large amplitudes of motions these

higher order effects became important.
While second harmonics of the radiation forces increased
with the motion amplitude, the first harmonics, which were
used to determine added masses and damping coefficients, are
linear with respect to the motion amplitude. This can be
observed in the graph of Fig. 13 that shows the first harmonics
of heave radiation force due to harmonic forced heave motion
normalised by the motion amplitude. The results are given as a
function of the oscillation period for a Froude number of 0.30
and three heave amplitudes.
3.4. Stationary speed effects
When a ship advances with constant speed, the hydrodynamic interaction between the hull and the fluid differs from the
zero speed condition. As a consequence, the vertical
equilibrium of the ship changes, resulting in a different draft
and trim compared to the zero speed condition. This difference
is known as dynamic sinkage and trim.
Most seakeeping theories disregard this effect, and the
hydrodynamic characteristics of the hull advancing in waves
are usually calculated by assuming the draft and trim
correspond to the static zero speed condition. However, [11,
12] presented results of vertical motions and structural loads in
regular waves for a containership where the effects of the

Table 5
Quasi-steady speed effect coefficients for forces in heave
A (kN m/m3)

All
Segment 1
Segment 2
Segment 3
Segment 4

B (kN m/m2)

C (kNm/m)

D (kN)

13.45 kn

20.17 kn

26.9 kn

13.45 kn

20.17 kn

26.9 kn

13.45 kn

20.17 kn

26.9 kn

13.45 kn

20.17 kn

26.9 kn

115
54
36
12
13

21
K14
29
2
5

K66
K85
36
K28
12

86
101
33
K45
K3

K113
K17
45
K132
K9

K171
K86
72
K159
2

585
288
38
279
K20

K13
188
K86
K168
53

731
599
K11
82
60

K1238
K552
K343
K387
45

K734
K405
K46
K184
K99

K649
K328
K74
K146
K101

A. Maron et al. / Applied Ocean Research 26 (2004) 241255

252

Table 6
Quasi-steady speed effect coefficients for moments in heave
A (kN m/m3)

All
Segment 1
Segment 2
Segment 3
Segment 4

B (kN m/m2)

C (kN m/m)

D (kN)

13.45 kn

20.17 kn

26.9 kn

13.45 kn

20.17 kn

26.9 kn

13.45 kn

20.17 kn

26.9 kn

13.45 kn

20.17 kn

26.9 kn

509
1454
125
K452
K619

K11.38
K636
K47
K226
K230

K4752
K3947
K618
277
K464

5026
3963
177
1066
K180

1449
K952
381
1839
181

K2210
K4811
332
2416
K148

2700
8677
K960
K7500
2483

9672
8217
K768
3908
K1684

26,818
26,811
1803
K813
K983

K6317
K6317
K107
11,274
K3707

K13,284
K13,284
K1131
3048
4888

K9970
K9970
K1423
2378
4912

dynamic sinkage and trim were accounted for. In principle,

these effects increase with forward speed. Thus, it seems likely
that they are important also for high-speed ships.
Regarding the forced motion tests conducted here, forward
speed effects did not result in a modified sinkage and trim,
because the model was forced to follow a predefined harmonic
trajectory about the zero speed static condition. Forward speed
effects caused the heave force and pitch moment to be
proportional to the steady forward speed and to the
instantaneous heave and pitch displacements. These effects
were obviously included in the radiation forces and, to a
smaller extend, in the hydrodynamic coefficients derived from
these tests.
Starting with the analysis of the radiation force time
histories, Fig. 14 shows the mean values of the heave radiation
forces due to heave as a function of the oscillation period and
for all Froude numbers and amplitudes of motion. To show the
effects of Froude number on the magnitude of mean values, the
results for each Froude number are grouped by similar
symbols. For instance, black symbols represent results for a
Froude number of zero, while open symbols stand for a Froude
number of 0.2. Additionally, black circles represent the first
harmonics of the radiation forces for a Froude number of 0.4
and heave amplitude of 0.932 m, and the continuous line is a
polynomial fit. The latter results are included for comparative
purposes.
The graph shows that the mean value of the radiation forces
is independent of the oscillation period. It is also independent
of the amplitude of motion, and it increases with the speed of
the ship. At the higher Froude numbers, the magnitude of mean
values is of the same order as the amplitude of the first
harmonic. Negative force represents a downward force on the
actuators, and this occurred because the ship model was forced
to follow a harmonic motion about the zero speed static
position. Had the model advanced freely, it would have
achieved a dynamic sinkage to compensate this steady effect.

The first harmonic results (black circles) are positive by

definition.
The mean values of the radiation forces are highly speed
dependent. For this reason it was interesting to assess the
steady forces associated with the hull advancing at constant
speed as a function of hull draft and trim. To estimate these
forces, tests (similar to those used to calculate hydrostatic
forces and moments) were carried out by oscillating the model
in heave and pitch at a long period (250 s) at the different
speeds. The hydrostatic forces and moments obtained from
zero speed tests were subtracted from similar forces obtained
by the present tests with the model advancing at constant speed
(inertial forces were zero in this case). This resulted in curves
of the variation of quasi-steady radiation forces and moments
with draft and trim, i.e. quasi-steady forces and moments due to
forward speed effects. These curves were approximated by
polynomials of third order as follows:
FkjQS Z Ak x3j C Bk x2j C Ckj xj C Dkj

(8)

where FkjQS represents the quasi-steady force in the k-direction

due to a displacement xj in the j-direction. The coefficients are
given in Tables 58.
The importance of the quasi-steady radiation forces was
assessed by comparing them with hydrostatic restoring forces
in Fig. 15. This figure presents comparisons between measured
hydrostatic restoring forces and moments for the ship with the
quasi-steady radiation forces due to forward speed effects. The
results are presented as functions of heave and pitch
displacements. The quasi-steady radiation forces are presented
for the three non-zero Froude numbers.
The analysed speed effects were important compared to the
hydrostatic restoring forces and moments. The magnitude of
the speed effects reached up to about ten percent of the
hydrostatic forces for the forces in heave due to heave motion.
Regarding the coupling forces, the relative magnitudes of the

Table 7
Quasi-steady speed effect coefficients for forces in pitch
A (kN m/m3)

All
Segment 1
Segment 2
Segment 3
Segment 4

B (kN m/m2)

C (kN m/m)

D (kN)

13.45 kn

20.17 kn

26.9 kn

13.45 kn

20.17 kn

26.9 kn

13.45 kn

20.17 kn

26.9 kn

13.45 kn

20.17 kn

26.9 kn

K11
K5
3
K7
K3

K11
K10
2
K2
K1

K22
K2
7
K24
K2

K11
K14
9
0
K7

K28
K46
22
8
K13

K254
K159
58
K144
K9

K136
186
K69
K177
K77

K49
333
K12
K226
K144

K905
557
K91
K1343
K28

K930
K78
K643
K203
K6

K2304
K86
K1442
K717
K60

K5218
K230
K3636
K1838
487

A. Maron et al. / Applied Ocean Research 26 (2004) 241255

253

Table 8
Quasi-static speed effect coefficients for moments in pitch
A (kN m/m3)

All
Segment 1
Segment 2
Segment 3
Segment 4

B (kN m/m2)

C (kN m/m)

13.45 kn

20.17 kn

26.9 kn

13.45 kn

20.17 kn

26.9 kn

13.45 kn

20.17 kn

26.9 kn

13.45 kn

20.17 kn

26.9 kn

5
K189
1
88
106

K435
K515
77
K14
17

458
10
15
425
8

K533
K869
88
K67
315

K2213
K2816
442
K298
459

K5032
K8332
816
2311
173

13992
7585
K80
3555
2932

25,939
15,350
K70
5887
4772

47,702
23,948
1640
22,965
K852

3984
5840
K9928
5547
2525

6220
8040
K18,683
14,642
2221

K30,281
11,499
K47,911
27,647
K21,516

speed effects were much larger, and for some cases, they were
even larger than the hydrostatic coupling. Finally, for the
hydrostatic pitch moment due to pitch motion, the speed effects
were between 20 and 35% of the hydrostatic moment.
The graphs in Fig. 15 also show that the quasi-steady
radiation forces due to forward speed oscillate nonlinearly with
the harmonic heave or pitch forced motions. This behaviour is
also illustrated by the time histories in Fig. 16, which show the
periodic variation of these forces with forced harmonic pitch
motion. The simulations were produced by applying the
polynomials in Tables 58. Besides the nonlinear variation of
the quasi-steady radiation forces due to forward speed, it is
interesting that these forces oscillate with the harmonic forced
motion. Hydrostatic restoring effects were removed, and these

results represent only forward speed effects for various pitch

angles.
Bertram (1998) [12] suggested an improvement for
seakeeping calculations of ships with forward speed. To
account for these effects more consistently than most other
seakeeping theories, he suggested using a modified hull for
numerical calculations. This modified hull would result from
the solution of the steady forward speed problem without
incoming waves and oscillatory motion, thus accounting for
the steady dynamic sinkage and trim. The assumption here is
that the steady forward speed effects vary little with sinkage
and trim. However, our results showed otherwise as seen in
the graphs of Fig. 16. Although the mentioned suggestion is
an improvement, as shown by [12] and by [13], other steady

Hydrostatic heave force due to heave

2.5E+04

Hydrostatic pitch moment due to heave

2.0E+05

Exp. with speed effects

Speed corr., Fn = 0.2
Speed corr., Fn = 0.3
Speed corr., Fn = 0.4

1.5E+04

Exp. with speed effects

Speed corr., Fn = 0.2
Speed corr., Fn = 0.3
Speed corr., Fn = 0.4

1.5E+05
1.0E+05

5.0E+03

M (kNm)

F (kN)

D (kN)

-5.0E+03

5.0E+04
0.0E+00
-5.0E+04

-1.5E+04
-1.0E+05
-2.5E+04
-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

-1.5E+05
-2.0

2.0

-1.0

Heave (m)

1.0

2.0

Hydrostatic pitch moment due to pitch

Hydrostatic heave force due to pitch

8.0E+05

1.0E+04

Exp. with speed effects

Speed corr., Fn = 0.2
Speed corr., Fn = 0.3
Speed corr., Fn = 0.4

5.0E+03

0.0E+00

-5.0E+03

Exp. with speed effects

Speed corr., Fn = 0.2
Speed corr., Fn = 0.3
Speed corr., Fn = 0.4

6.0E+05
4.0E+05

M (kNm)

F (kN)

0.0

Heave (m)

2.0E+05
0.0E+00
-2.0E+05

-1.0E+04
-4.0E+05
-1.5E+04
-4.0

-2.0

0.0

Pitch (deg)

2.0

4.0

-6.0E+05
-4.0

-2.0

0.0

Pitch (deg)

Fig. 15. Comparisons between hydrostatic forces and quasi-static speed effects.

2.0

4.0

A. Maron et al. / Applied Ocean Research 26 (2004) 241255

254

4
Series1

Pitch (deg)

2
0
0

Time

Time

-2
-4

Pitch moment due to

pitch (kNm)

1.0E+05
0.0E+00
-1.0E+05
Fn = 0.2

-2.0E+05

Fn = 0.3
Fn = 0.4

-3.0E+05

Heave force due topitch

(kN)

0.0E+00
0

-4.0E+03

Time

-8.0E+03

Fn = 0.2
Fn = 0.3
Fn = 0.4

-1.2E+04

Fig. 16. Quasi-steady radiation pitch moment and heave force induced by forced pitch motion of 38 amplitude for three Froude numbers.

effects apparently of the same order of importance are being

neglected. Finally, besides the mentioned steady forward
speed effects, a full representation of the radiation problem
solution must include also the interaction of steady and
unsteady flows.
4. Conclusions
The paper presents results from an experimental
investigation of hydrodynamic forces induced by forced
harmonic heave and pitch motions on a fast monohull.
Several forward speeds were considered as well as three
amplitudes of motion. The objective of the experimental
program was to obtain added masses and damping
coefficients for this ship and, in particular, to assess the
influence of speed and amplitude of motions on these
coefficients. This paper presents and discusses the hydrodynamic forces obtained from the measured time signals as
well as the first harmonics of the radiation forces that were
used to extract added masses and damping coefficients.
From the analysis of the time histories of radiation forces, it
was observed that the hydrostatic forces were nonlinear and
needed to be accurately measured or calculated. Otherwise, the
radiation forces would have been contaminated by hydrostatic
effects.

Regarding nonlinear effects on the radiation forces, time

records showed that second harmonics were small for small
amplitudes of the forced motions and intermediate frequencies
of oscillation. However, they became important at larger
amplitudes of motion. The measured radiation force time
histories were characterised by relatively large mean values,
which were due to quasi-steady forward speed effects. For the
Froude numbers of 0.3 and 0.4, the mean values were of the
same order as the first harmonics of the radiation forces, thus
they could not be neglected.
Further analysis is necessary to reach general conclusions
on the behaviour and importance of higher order effects of
radiation forces acting on ship hulls advancing with constant
speed and forced harmonic motions. However, for this
monohull, the analysis presented here indicated that higher
order effects were important for large amplitudes of motion and
high forward speeds.
Acknowledgements
The work presented was developed within research project
BE-4406, Advanced Methods to Predict Wave Induced Loads
for High-Speed Ships (WAVELOADS). This project was
partially funded by the Commission of the European

A. Maron et al. / Applied Ocean Research 26 (2004) 241255

Community under the BRITE/EURAM program, contract

BRPR-CT97-0580.
References
[1] Gerritsma J. Ship motions in longitudinal waves. Int Shipbuild Prog 1960;
7(66):4295.
[2] Gerritsma J, Beukelman W. The distribution of hydrodynamic forces on a
heaving and pitching ship model in still water Proceedings of the fifth
symposium on naval hydrodynamics, Washington, DC 1964 p. 21951.
[3] Gerritsma J, Beukelman W. Analysis of the modified strip theory for the
calculation of ship motions and wave bending moments. Int Shipbuild
Prog 1967;14(156):31937.
[4] Beukelman W. Added resistance and vertical hydrodynamic coefficients
of oscillating cylinders at speed, T.H. Delft, Rep. No. 510; 1980.
[5] Beukelman W. Vertical motions and added resistance of a rectangular and
triangular cylinder in waves. T.H. Delft. Rep. No. 594; 1983.
[6] Keuning JA. Distribution of added mass and damping along the length of
a ship model moving at high forward speed. Int Shipbuild Prog 1990;37:
12350.
[7] Journee JMJ. Experiments and calculations on four wigley hulforms,
Delft Univ. of Technology, Ship Hydromechanics Laboratory, Report No.
909; 1992.

255

[8] Schellin TE, Beiersdorf C, Chen X, Fonseca N, Guedes Soares C, Maron A,

et al. Numerical and experimental investigation to evaluate wave-induced
design loads for fast ships. Trans SNAME 2003;111:43761.
[9] Papanikolaou AD, Zaraphonitis G, Maron A, Karayannis T. Viscous
damping on vertical plane motions of ships with forward speed in waves
Proc. 4th int. coll. on seakeeping performance of ships. Osaka:
Cosmosquare International Education and Training Center; 2000 p. 1722.
[10] Fonseca N, Guedes Soares C, Maron A. Investigation of the
hydrodynamic characteristics of a fast-ferry advancing in regular waves
Proceedings of the international conference on fast sea transportation,
FAST05, June. Russia: St. Petersburg; 2005.
[11] Fonseca, N., Guedes Soares, C. Experimental and numerical hydrodynamic coefficients of a containership in heaving and pitching. Maritime
Transportation and Exploitation of Ocean and Coastal Resources,
Guedes Soares, Garbatov and Fonseca (Eds), Taylor & Francis, London,
2005, pp. 147155.
[12] Bertram V. Numerical investigation of steady flow effects in threedimensional seakeeping computations Proceedings 22nd symposium on
naval hydrodynamics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1998 p.
7386.
[13] Fonseca, N. and Guedes Soares, C. Comparison between experimental
and numerical results of the nonlinear vertical ship motions and loads on a
containership in regular waves. International Shipbuilding Progress,
2005, 52, No.1, pp. 5791.