Applied Ocean Research 123 (2022) 103158

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Ocean Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apor

Recursive analysis of added mass, damping coefficient, and wave-exciting

force using time-series data of two-dimensional floating body’s motion only
Takaaki Hanaki ∗, Mina Takaoka, Munehiko Minoura
Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Osaka University, Suita, Osaka 5650871, Japan

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: To achieve the safe operation and control of a ship and floating structure, a sequential understanding of
Seakeeping the wave-induced motions is desirable in actual seas, which vary due to loading and operating conditions.
Time-series analysis However, it is difficult to measure wave elevation and wave-exciting forces as time history and to evaluate
State-space model
seakeeping directly in the actual seas. We propose estimating the wave-exciting forces and the parameters in
Dual Kalman filter
the equation of motion simultaneously based on the dual Kalman filter approach. A two-dimensional problem
Ensemble Kalman filter
is considered to establish a method under the assumption that the displacements, velocities, and accelerations
of a floating body in waves are measurable. The proposed method is verified using the results of numerical
and tank tests.

1. Introduction a ship and floating structure employing a dynamic positioning system,

In recent years, improving fuel efficiency and understanding the
seakeeping of a full-scale ship and floating structure in actual seas
have been expected to reduce the environmental impact and ensure
safe operations (Marine Environment Protection Committee, 2012b,a).
Since the improvement of fuel efficiency in seaways will help to solve
environmental problems such as global warming, it has been stud-
ied by analyzing measurable onboard monitoring data such as ship
speed, wind speed, and the ship’s motion (Orihara and Tsujimoto,
2018). Furthermore, the understanding of seakeeping directly relates
to the safe operation and control of offshore structures in severe sea
states. These estimations and evaluations are carried out in detail using
numerical calculations and tank tests before going into commission.
However, they have not been fully verified on a full-scale ship and
floating structure yet. This is because measuring the time history of
the waves encountered is difficult due to the measurement accuracy
of the equipment. Evaluating seakeeping means ensuring the safety of
the ship or floating structure in service, so it is essential to evaluate
seakeeping by analyzing measured data to realize digital twin tech-
nologies and autonomous ships and floating structures. Therefore, it
is necessary to establish a method to evaluate seakeeping using only
the measurable time history of the motions of a ship or a floating
structure in service. In addition, in real-time operation and control of
a ship and floating structure, the motion characteristics may change
depending on the loading and operating conditions, so it is useful to
continuously understand them. For example, to maintain the position of
it is necessary to determine the hydrodynamic forces acting on the body
and to obtain its motions in the time domain (Detlefsen et al., 2017).
The orbital motion of waves, which can cause variations in the inflow
conditions of azimuth thrusters, was investigated and found to lead to
variations in thrust and torque, suggesting that this effect involves both
orbital motion of the waves and the ship’s motion (Cozijn et al., 2017).
Examples have also been noted where small-scale cylinders for motion
response as a result of waves affect damping (Jin et al., 2018), and
conversely damping plates can be installed to increase the added mass
and damping coefficients and reduce the platform responses (Subbulak-
shmi and Sundaravadivelu, 2021). In any case, it is essential to have an
accurate understanding of the motion characteristics for operations in
actual seas where real-time control needs to be applied.
Wave-induced motion is characterized by hydrodynamic forces such
as radiation forces, wave-exciting forces, and restoring forces, and their
relationship is described by the equation of motion. In other words,
evaluating seakeeping is the same as analyzing a response system
with the wave elevation as input and the ship’s motion as output.
The impulse response function method (IRFM) is generally used to
analyze a response system of the motion of a floating body, using
irregular time-series data in the time domain. As a precursor of the
IRFM, Cummins (1962) proposed to express the radiation force by
the convolution integral of the memory effect function and the ship’s
motion history. The memory effect function is obtained by inverse
Fourier transforming the damping coefficients computed in the fre-
quency domain (Ogilvie, 1964). However, the simulation in the time

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hanaki_takaaki@naoe.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp (T. Hanaki).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2022.103158
Received 12 August 2021; Received in revised form 28 February 2022; Accepted 31 March 2022
Available online 21 April 2022
0141-1187/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Hanaki et al. Applied Ocean Research 123 (2022) 103158

domain using a convolution integral has a high computational cost, (1-DOF; heave only) and the two-degree-of-freedom (2-DOF; sway and
depending on the time step, simulation length, and model degrees of roll) motions in a 2D problem need to be considered to establish an
freedom. The convolution integral can be replaced by a subsystem using estimation method. Assuming linear potential theory, the longitudinal
linear differential equations to improve the efficiency of the analysis. and lateral motions are divided in the equation of motion of a floating
There are two kinds of approximation approaches to the subsystem: body. Here, a 2D floating body is the target of the analysis. Sway,
the time-domain method by Yu and Falnes (1995) and Kristiansen heave, and roll motions are free, as shown in Fig. 1. When a floating
et al. (2005), and the frequency-domain method by Jefferys (1984), body oscillates in the waves, the added mass and damping coefficient of
according to Pérez and Fossen (2008). These models are still widely the floating body differ from the circular frequency of the waves 𝜔. The
used for predicting (Iturrioz et al., 2014) and controlling (Schoen et al., wave-exciting force, the input of the equation of motion, also depends
2011; Abraham and Kerrigan, 2012) the force and motion response of on 𝜔. Cummins (1962) proposed to express the frequency-dependent
offshore floating bodies. radiation force term by the convolution integral of the impulse response
In this paper, the state-space model (SSM) is used as a mathematical function and the velocity of the floating body’s motion. The equation
model to evaluate seakeeping. One of the indices to evaluate seakeeping of motion is then:
is the added mass and damping coefficient. Since it is necessary to know { } ∞
these coefficients accurately when estimating the motion response of a 𝑴 + 𝑨∞ 𝝃(𝑡)̈ + ̇
𝑳(𝑡 − 𝜏)𝝃(𝜏)𝑑𝜏 + 𝑪𝝃(𝑡) = 𝒇 𝑊 (𝑡), (1)
∫0
ship, we consider estimating the added mass and damping coefficients
from time-series data. The traditional method for identifying them where 𝑴 is the mass matrix, 𝑨∞ = 𝑨(∞) is the added mass matrix
experimentally is to apply a wave-exciting force to enable the floating at 𝜔 = ∞, 𝑳(𝑡) is the memory effect function matrix, and 𝑪 is the
body to oscillate regularly. In recent years, Armesto et al. (2014) restoring matrix. Furthermore, 𝒇 𝑊 (𝑡) is the wave-exciting force, and
̇
𝝃(𝑡), 𝝃(𝑡), ̈
and 𝝃(𝑡) are the displacement, velocity, and acceleration of
identified these coefficients by conducting damping tests in calm water
and motion-free tests in regular waves. However, it is impossible to the floating body, respectively. Under the assumption that the memory
reproduce situations where no waves exist or where only a regular effect function 𝐿𝑗𝑘 is causal, 𝐿𝑗𝑘 represents a frequency-dependent part
wave exists in actual seas. Furthermore, the wave-exciting force, which of the radiation force, which is calculated using the added mass and
is the input to the equation of motion, cannot be directly measured damping coefficients as follows:
in actual seas. Therefore, it is necessary to estimate the added mass ∞ ∞
2 2
and damping coefficients from the time history of the ship motion 𝐿𝑗𝑘 (𝑡) = 𝐵𝑗𝑘 (𝜔) cos 𝜔𝑡𝑑𝜔 = − 𝑖𝜔{𝐴𝑗𝑘 (𝜔)−𝐴𝑗𝑘 (∞)} sin 𝜔𝑡𝑑𝜔,
𝜋 ∫0 𝜋 ∫0
only, without using the time history of the wave-exciting force in the
full-scale ship-based method. Considering the problem of identifying (2)
a system from only the time history of motion measured on a ship
where the subscript 𝑗 is the direction in which the force acts, and the
oscillating in irregular waves, one of the most promising methods is the
subscript 𝑘 represents the mode of motion. The inverse relation (Fourier
method based on the dual Kalman filter approach (Wan and Nelson,
transform) of these is expressed as follows:
2001). In this approach, the Kalman filter is applied alternately to
∞
the SSM for estimating the state variables and the SSM for estimating 𝐵𝑗𝑘 (𝜔) = 𝐿𝑗𝑘 (𝑡) cos 𝜔𝑡𝑑𝑡, (3)
the parameters, thereby improving the accuracy and stability of the ∫0
∞
estimation (Wenzel et al., 2006). A method to estimate both the inputs 1
𝐴𝑗𝑘 (𝜔) = − 𝐿𝑗𝑘 (𝑡) sin 𝜔𝑡𝑑𝑡 + 𝐴𝑗𝑘 (∞). (4)
and state variables using outputs (Azam et al., 2015) has also been 𝜔 ∫0
proposed based on this approach. When this approach is applied to the In this paper, the memory effect function is estimated by assimilat-
problem of estimating added mass and damping coefficients, it means ing the mathematical model formulated based on Eq. (1), using the
that the inverse analysis of the wave-exciting force and the estimation time-series data of the displacement, velocity, and acceleration of the
of the added mass and damping coefficients are performed only via the
floating body. The added mass and damping coefficients are obtained
time history of the ship’s motion.
using Eqs. (3) and (4).
The authors have proposed a method to evaluate the motion char-
acteristics of a ship based on a time-series model constructed from
2.2. State-space representation of the equation of motion
the equation of motion (Hanaki and Minoura, 2021). However, al-
though the time-series model-based evaluation can analyze the motion
Considering the memory effect, the equation of motion is described
response system, it cannot directly estimate physically meaningful
as an integral–differential equation shown in Eq. (1). Yu and Falnes
coefficients such as added mass and damping coefficients. To solve
(1995) proposed to substitute the convolution integral with a subsys-
these problems using the dual Kalman filter approach, we estimate the
tem based on an 𝑛th order linear differential equation to solve the
wave-exciting force, and the added mass and the damping coefficient
convolution integral efficiently. Defining the state variables as 𝒙𝑗𝑘 (𝑡) =
from the time history of the ship’s motion. The hydrodynamic forces
[𝑥𝑗𝑘 (𝑡), … , 𝑥𝑗𝑘 𝑇
𝑛 (𝑡)] , the state-space representation of an 𝑛th order linear
acting on a ship hull are computed by the integral of the forces acting 1
on the two-dimensional (2D) cross-section of a ship hull, according to differential equation with input 𝑢𝑗𝑘 (𝑡) and output 𝑦𝑗𝑘 (𝑡) is realized as:
the concept of strip theory. Therefore, a basic 2D problem considering 𝒙̇ 𝑗𝑘 (𝑡) = 𝑗𝑘 𝒙𝑗𝑘 (𝑡) + 𝑗𝑘 𝑢𝑗𝑘 (𝑡), (5)
the seakeeping of a ship is considered here to establish a method for ∞
simultaneous estimation of the input and the parameters. Based on the 𝑦𝑗𝑘 (𝑡) =  𝑇𝑗𝑘 𝒙𝑗𝑘 (𝑡) ≃ 𝐿𝑗𝑘 (𝑡 − 𝜏)𝑢𝑗𝑘 (𝜏)𝑑𝜏, (6)
∫0
mathematical model by Yu and Falnes (1995), a SSM for estimating
parameters and a SSM for inverse analysis of inputs are realized. Since where matrices 𝑗𝑘 , 𝑗𝑘 , and  𝑗𝑘 are defined as:
the SSM for parameter estimation is nonlinear, we use the Ensemble
⎡ ⎤ ⎧ 𝑗𝑘 ⎫ ⎧ ⎫
Kalman filter (EnKF; Evensen, 1994, 2003), which is known as a pow- ⎢ 0 0 ⋯ 0 −𝛼1𝑗𝑘 ⎥ ⎪ 𝛽1 ⎪ ⎪ 0 ⎪
erful nonlinear Kalman filter. The proposed method is verified using ⎢ 𝑗𝑘 ⎥ ⎪ 𝑗𝑘 ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎢ 1 0 ⋯ 0 −𝛼2 ⎥ ⎪ 𝛽2 ⎪ ⎪ 0 ⎪
numerical and experimental results.
⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
𝑗𝑘 =⎢ 0 1 ⋱ ⋮ −𝛼3 ⎥ , 𝑗𝑘 = ⎨ 𝛽3𝑗𝑘
𝑗𝑘
⎬ ,  𝑗𝑘 = ⎨ ⋮ ⎬ . (7)
2. Mathematical formulation ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎢ ⋮ ⋱ ⋱ 0 ⋮ ⎥ ⎪ ⋮ ⎪ ⎪ 0 ⎪
⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
2.1. Motion equation of a two-dimensional floating body ⎢ 0 ⋯ 0 1 𝑗𝑘 ⎥
−𝛼𝑛 ⎦ ⎪ 𝛽𝑛𝑗𝑘 ⎪ ⎪ 1 ⎪
⎣ ⎩ ⎭ ⎩ ⎭
Essentially, ship’s motions couple with six rigid motions in three- The constant matrices 𝑗𝑘 , 𝑗𝑘 , and  𝑗𝑘 are the 𝑛 × 𝑛 state matrix,
dimensional (3D) problems. However, only the one-degree-of-freedom the 𝑛 × 1 input matrix, and the 𝑛 × 1 output matrix, respectively.

2
T. Hanaki et al. Applied Ocean Research 123 (2022) 103158

Fig. 1. Coordinate system.

The parameters 𝜶 𝑗𝑘 = [𝛼1𝑗𝑘 , … , 𝛼𝑛𝑗𝑘 ] and 𝜷 𝑗𝑘 = [𝛽1𝑗𝑘 , … , 𝛽𝑛𝑗𝑘 ] in a 2.3. State-space model for simultaneous estimation
subsystem are given by approximating the memory effect function with
the impulse response function of the SSM. These are determined as: The formulation of the SSM for estimating parameters and wave-
𝑚 {
∑ }2 exciting forces based on the equation of motion is described in this
𝐽 (𝜶, 𝜷) = 𝐿(𝑡𝑖 ) −  𝑇 𝑒𝑡𝑖  . (8) section. Fig. 2 shows the conceptual diagram of system identification
𝑖=1 and inverse analysis of the input. In the figure, 𝑓 𝑊 (𝑡) is the wave-
Then, at least 𝑚 discrete values of 𝐿(𝑡𝑖 ) are assumed to be known from exciting force, which is the input to the system; 𝜉(𝑡) is the displacement
either numerical calculations or experiments. The approximation is of the floating body, which is the output of the system; and ℎ(𝑡) is the
expected to improve if the order 𝑛 of the linear subsystem is increased, equation of motion, which is the system to be analyzed. The estimation
but a reasonably good approximation is often obtained even if 𝑛 is of the parameters of the system when both the input and output are
a comparatively small integer (Yu and Falnes, 1995). We determined available is called system identification. By contrast, estimating the
the parameters of the SSM to minimize Eq. (8) by the quasi-Newton input of the system when the parameters and output are available is
method with numerical differentiation. Subsystems are designed for called inverse analysis. In this paper, we consider that the input time-
several combinations of each 𝑗 and 𝑘. In this problem, 𝜶 22 , 𝜶 24 , 𝜶 33 , series data is unknown and only the output time-series data is available
𝜶 44 , 𝜷 22 , 𝜷 24 , 𝜷 33 , and 𝜷 44 must be obtained before assimilation and for system identification. In such a case, the parameters are estimated
must be used as initial values for estimation of the parameters. by alternately performing the system identification and the inverse
From the abovementioned procedures, when the state variable vec- analysis of the input in real time. Therefore, we formulate two math-
tor is defined as 𝒙𝑚 = [𝒙22 , 𝒙24 , 𝒙33 , 𝒙42 , 𝒙44 ]𝑇 , the equation of motion ematical models to estimate the input and parameters simultaneously
becomes:
based on the dual Kalman filter approach (Wan and Nelson, 2001).
𝒙̇ 𝜉 (𝑡) = 𝜉 𝒙𝜉 (𝑡) + 𝜉 𝒖𝜉 (𝑡), (9) In the following discussion, we describe two types of SSMs. Note
that the two SSMs are formulated based on the same equation of
𝒚 𝜉 (𝑡) =  𝜉 𝒙𝜉 (𝑡), (10)
motion. Eq. (9) has constant-coefficient matrices  and . The wave-
where exciting force is also assumed to be unknown since it is impossible to
⎧ 𝒙𝑚 (𝑡) ⎫ { } measure it. Therefore, the unknown parameter vector 𝜽 and the wave-
⎪ ⎪ 𝝃(𝑡) exciting force 𝒖𝑓 (𝑡) are defined as new state variable vectors as follows:
𝒙𝜉 (𝑡) = ⎨ 𝝃(𝑡) ⎬ , 𝒚 𝜉 (𝑡) = , 𝒖𝜉 (𝑡) = 𝒇 𝑊 (𝑡), (11)
⎪ ̇ ⎪ ̇
𝝃(𝑡)
⎩ 𝝃(𝑡) ⎭ { }
𝒙𝜉 (𝑡)
⎡ 𝑚 𝟎 𝑚 ⎤ 𝒙𝜃 (𝑡) = , 𝒙𝑓 (𝑡) = 𝒖𝜉 (𝑡) = 𝒇 𝑊 (𝑡), (14)
⎢ ⎥ 𝜽(𝑡)
𝜉 = ⎢ 𝟎 𝟎 𝑰 ⎥, (12)
⎢ −1 ⎥ where the unknown parameter vector 𝜽(𝑡) is defined separately for
⎣ (𝑴 + 𝑨∞ ) 𝑚 (𝑴 + 𝑨∞ )−1 𝑪 𝟎 ⎦ longitudinal (heave) and lateral (sway and roll) motions to be analyzed:
⎡ 𝟎 ⎤ [ ] 𝜽(𝑡) = [𝜶 33 , 𝜷 33 ]𝑇 for longitudinal (heave) motion, and 𝜽(𝑡) =
⎢ ⎥ 𝟎 𝑰 𝟎 [𝜶 22 , 𝜶 24 , 𝜶 44 , 𝜷 22 , 𝜷 24 , 𝜷 44 ]𝑇 for lateral (sway and roll) motions.
𝜉 = ⎢ 𝟎 ⎥ , 𝜉 = . (13)
⎢ ⎥ 𝟎 𝟎 𝑰 First, assuming that the unknown parameters are constant under
⎣ (𝑴 + 𝑨∞ )−1 ⎦ stochastic steady sea and ship states, the time development of unknown
Here, 𝑚 , 𝑚 , and  𝑚 are constant matrices that represent the sub- parameters is expressed as follows:
systems, the detailed formulations of which are shown in Appendix.
̇ = 𝟎.
𝜽(𝑡) (15)
A property of the convolution integral of input and impulse response
function is that the more history of the past floating body’s motion In Eq. (15), the differentiation of the unknown parameters for the time
is taken into account, the larger the linear system becomes. If the is zero, which means that the parameters are independent of the time.
convolution integral is expressed with the 𝑛th order linear differential Then an augmented system is realized by summarizing Eqs. (9), (10),
equation, the order of the entire system is substantially reduced, and and (15) in the following equation:
real-time estimation becomes easier. The introduction of a subsystem [State-space model for parameter estimation]
means reducing the number of parameters to estimate and improving
the estimation stability in system identification problems. 𝒙̇ 𝜃 (𝑡) = 𝜃 𝒙𝜃 (𝑡) + 𝜃 𝒙𝑓 (𝑡) ≡ 𝐹𝑐1 (𝒙𝜉 (𝑡), 𝒙𝜃 (𝑡), 𝒙𝑓 (𝑡)), (16)

3
T. Hanaki et al.
Fig. 2. Difference between the system identification and inverse analysis.
𝒚 𝜃 (𝑡) =  𝜃 𝒙𝜃 (𝑡) ≡ 𝐻𝑐1 (𝒙𝜉 (𝑡), 𝒙𝜃 (𝑡)),
where
[ ] [ ]
𝜉 𝟎 𝜉 [ ]
𝜃 = , 𝜃 = , 𝜃 = 𝜉
𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 researchers have reported that it is effective to obtain some prior
𝐹𝑐1 (⋅, ⋅, ⋅) is the continuous-time nonlinear system and 𝐻𝑐1 (⋅, ⋅) is the
continuous-time linear system. In the simultaneous estimation of state
variables and parameters, the state equation has the nonlinearity for
parameters as shown in Eq. (16). By adopting the nonlinear Kalman
filter, the state variables and parameters can be simultaneously esti-
mated even if Eq. (16) is nonlinear. Note that the initial values of the
unknown parameters are needed to be set as close to the true values as
possible since this kind of simultaneous estimation problem does not
guarantee global convergence (Kitagawa, 1998).
Second, when the wave-exciting force is unavailable, the input of
the simulation model must be estimated by some approach. If the
time history of the irregular waves incident on a floating body is
available, the wave-exciting force can be numerically computed in
the time domain. Otherwise, it is impossible to formulate the system
between the wave-exciting force and the irregular waves determin-
istically. Therefore, the state equation is formulated to predict that
persistently, under the assumption that the wave-exciting force is the
same as for the previous one-time step in the following equation:
𝒙̇ 𝑓 (𝑡) = 𝟎.
Then, the equation of motion is used as the observation equation.
Therefore, the SSM for input estimation is as follows:
[State-space model for input estimation]
𝒙̇ 𝑓 (𝑡) = 𝑓 𝒙𝑓 (𝑡) ≡ 𝐹𝑐2 (𝒙𝑓 (𝑡)),
𝒚 𝑓 (𝑡) =  𝑓 𝒙𝑓 (𝑡) +  𝑓 𝒙𝜃 (𝑡) ≡ 𝐻𝑐2 (𝒙𝑓 (𝑡), 𝒙𝜃 (𝑡)),
where
[ ]
𝑓 = 𝟎,  𝑓 = (𝑴 + 𝑨∞ )−1 ,
[ ]
 𝑓 = (𝑴 + 𝑨∞ )−1  𝑚 (𝑴 + 𝑨∞ )−1 𝑪 𝟎 .
This formulation is for the inverse analysis of the wave-exciting force
from the floating body’s motion based on the equation of motion using
the Kalman filter. Both 𝐹𝑐2 (⋅) and 𝐻𝑐2 (⋅, ⋅) are continuous-time linear
systems. In Eq. (20), the time differential of the wave-exciting force is
𝟎 because the model assumes that the wave-exciting force is persistent.
As mentioned, Eq. (21) is the same as the equation of motion. We can
estimate the wave-exciting force, which is the state variable of 𝐹𝑐2 (⋅)
from Eq. (21), using the Kalman filter. In other words, the inverse
analysis of the wave-exciting force from the acceleration of the floating
body is performed using the Kalman filter. The contribution of new
knowledge in this paper is based on estimating the parameters using
Eqs. (16) and (17), as well as determining the wave-exciting force using
Eqs. (20) and (21).
Applied Ocean Research 123 (2022) 103158
(17) 2.4. Constraints on the subsystems
System identification using output data only, the so-called blind
identification problem, has been actively studied in recent years. Many
𝟎 . (18)
information of the unknown input data or the system itself to solve this
problem. In our problem, one solution is to estimate the wave-exciting
force deterministically using the wave elevation measured by wave
radar as time-series data with a relatively large amount of noise and
to use it for system identification. The other is to impose the relation
between the added mass and the damping coefficient as a constraining
condition for the state estimation from physical considerations. The lat-
ter is discussed in this paper. For example, the damping coefficient is 0
when the circular frequency of the waves is 0 or ∞. Here, the frequency
response function of the subsystem designed from the memory effect
function is expressed as follows:
{ } (𝑖𝜔)𝑛−1 𝛽𝑛𝑗𝑘 + ⋯ + (𝑖𝜔)𝛽2𝑗𝑘 + 𝛽1𝑗𝑘
𝑖𝜔 𝐴𝑗𝑘 (𝜔) − 𝐴𝑗𝑘 (∞) + 𝐵𝑗𝑘 (𝜔) ≃
(𝑖𝜔)𝑛 + (𝑖𝜔)𝑛−1 𝛼𝑛𝑗𝑘 + ⋯ + (𝑖𝜔)𝛼2𝑗𝑘 + 𝛼1𝑗𝑘
𝑄𝑗𝑘 (𝜔)
≡ ,
𝑃𝑗𝑘 (𝜔)
(23)
which is obtained by approximating the memory effect function. Here,
(19)
𝑃𝑗𝑘 (⋅) and 𝑄𝑗𝑘 (⋅) are defined as the denominator and numerator of
the frequency response function, respectively. Then, the frequency
response function is categorized by the value of 𝜔 as:
⎧ 𝛽 𝑗𝑘
⎪ 1 when 𝜔 = 0
(20) ⎪ 𝛼 𝑗𝑘
{ } ⎪ 1
(21) 𝑖𝜔 𝐴𝑗𝑘 (𝜔) − 𝐴𝑗𝑘 (∞) + 𝐵𝑗𝑘 (𝜔) ≃ ⎨0 when 𝜔 = ∞ (24)
⎪ 𝑄 (𝜔 )
⎪ 𝑗𝑘 𝑐 otherwise (𝜔 = 𝜔𝑐 ),
⎪ 𝑃𝑗𝑘 (𝜔𝑐 )
⎩
(22) where 𝛼1𝑗𝑘 and 𝛽1𝑗𝑘 are the real number coefficients, and the frequency
response function is also a real number when 𝜔 = 0. Therefore, the
relationship 𝐴𝑗𝑘 (0) − 𝐴𝑗𝑘 (∞) ≃ 0 that is obtained from Eq. (24) because
𝐵𝑗𝑘 (0) = 0 is not necessarily true. In other words, we cannot consider
the condition on the endpoint 𝜔 = 0 when using the subsystem of
Yu and Falnes (1995). Similarly, considering 𝜔 = ∞, the frequency
response function only has a real part, the damping coefficient, at
𝜔 = ∞, which is clearly 0. Therefore, as long as the convolution integral
is approximated by a linear differential equation, it is guaranteed that
the frequency response function is equal to 0 at 𝜔 = ∞, as shown in
Eq. (24). Therefore, the relationship that is satisfied by the parameters
constituting the subsystem derived from physical considerations cannot
be given as advance information in the proposed method. For practical
use, we can add a theoretical value of 𝜔 when it is sufficiently small
or large as a condition to be satisfied. For example, for an arbitrary
4
T. Hanaki et al.
𝜔 = 𝜔𝑐 , by multiplying both sides by 𝑃𝑗𝑘 (𝜔𝑐 ), the relation of parameters
is obtained as follows:
[ { } ]
𝑖𝜔 𝐴𝑗𝑘 (𝜔𝑐 ) − 𝐴𝑗𝑘 (∞) + 𝐵𝑗𝑘 (𝜔𝑐 ) 𝑃𝑗𝑘 (𝜔𝑐 ) ≃ 𝑄𝑗𝑘 (𝜔𝑐 ). (25)
This is the condition to be satisfied by the parameters. In fact, to
consider the application to the EnKF, the condition must be separated
into real and imaginary parts. The specific conditions are as follows:
[ { } ] [ ]
ℜ 𝑖𝜔 𝐴𝑗𝑘 (𝜔𝑐 ) − 𝐴𝑗𝑘 (∞) 𝑃𝑗𝑘 (𝜔𝑐 ) + 𝐵𝑗𝑘 (𝜔𝑐 )𝑃𝑗𝑘 (𝜔𝑐 ) = ℜ 𝑄𝑗𝑘 (𝜔𝑐 ) ,
[ { } ] [ ]
ℑ 𝑖𝜔 𝐴𝑗𝑘 (𝜔𝑐 ) − 𝐴𝑗𝑘 (∞) 𝑃𝑗𝑘 (𝜔𝑐 ) + 𝐵𝑗𝑘 (𝜔𝑐 )𝑃𝑗𝑘 (𝜔𝑐 ) = ℑ 𝑄𝑗𝑘 (𝜔𝑐 ) .
Since these equations are linear for the parameters constituting the
subsystem, they can be added to the observation Eqs. (16) and (17).
The constraint conditions can be formulated only for each combination
of 𝑗 and 𝑘, and any number of constraints can be imposed depending on
the value of the circular frequency of the waves. It has been reported
by Hanaki and Minoura (2021) that the accuracy of the state estima-
tion can be improved by pseudo-observing the constraint condition of
parameters.
3. State estimation method
3.1. Ensemble Kalman filter
In recent years, the EnKF (Evensen, 1994, 2003) has been widely
used in the field of sequential data assimilation. The EnKF directly
estimates the error covariance matrix using a Monte Carlo approxima-
tion without linearization of a state equation. Here, the discrete-time
nonlinear state equation and linear observation equation are considered
as follows:
𝒙(𝑡) = 𝑭 𝑑 (𝒙(𝑡 − 𝛥𝑡)) + 𝒗(𝑡),
𝒚(𝑡) = 𝑯 𝑑 (𝒙(𝑡)) + 𝒘(𝑡),
where 𝒙(𝑡) is the state vector, 𝒚(𝑡) is the output vector, and the ob-
servation noise 𝒘(𝑡) follows 𝑁(𝟎, 𝑹). In addition, the system noise 𝒗(𝑡)
essentially follows arbitrary distribution, but this noise also follows
𝑁(𝟎, 𝑸), for simplicity in this paper. Discrete SSMs such as Eqs. (28) and
(29) can be obtained by discretizing continuous SSMs such as Eqs. (16)
and (17), and (20) and (21).
The EnKF consists of a prediction step and a filtering step similar to
the linear Kalman filter. In the prediction step, the prior state estimate
𝒙(𝑖) (𝑡|𝑡 − 𝛥𝑡) is computed for each ensemble member as follows:
𝒙(𝑖) (𝑡|𝑡 − 𝛥𝑡) = 𝑭 𝑑 (𝒙(𝑖) (𝑡 − 𝛥𝑡|𝑡 − 𝛥𝑡)) + 𝒗(𝑖) (𝑡),
where the first half 𝑡 of 𝑡|𝑡 − 𝛥𝑡 corresponds to the time of the state,
and the second half 𝑡 − 𝛥𝑡 corresponds to the last time of the data used.
In addition, 𝒗(𝑖) (𝑡) is the ensemble member of the system noise. In the
filtering step, the error covariance matrix 𝑷̂ (𝑡|𝑡 − 𝛥𝑡) and the Kalman
̂
gain 𝑮(𝑡) are computed as follows:
𝑷̂ (𝑡) = Cov [𝒙(𝑡|𝑡 − 𝛥𝑡), 𝒙(𝑡|𝑡 − 𝛥𝑡)] ,
𝑷̂ (𝑡)𝑪 𝑇
̂ =
𝑮(𝑡) , (32)
𝑪 𝑷̂ (𝑡)𝑪 𝑇 + 𝑅(𝑡)
̂
[ ]
̂
𝑹(𝑡) = Cov 𝒘(𝑖) (𝑡), 𝒘(𝑖) (𝑡) ,
where Cov [⋅, ⋅] calculates the covariance of two random variables.
𝒘(𝑖) (𝑡) is the ensemble of the observation noise, and 𝑹(𝑡) ̂ is the variance
of the observation noise computed from Eq. (33). After the calculation
of the Kalman gain 𝑮(𝑡) ̂ from Eq. (32), the posterior estimate 𝒙(𝑖) (𝑡|𝑡) is
computed for each ensemble member as follows:
( )
𝒙(𝑖) (𝑡|𝑡) = 𝒙(𝑖) (𝑡|𝑡 − 𝛥𝑡) + 𝑮(𝑡)
̂ 𝒚(𝑡) + 𝒘(𝑖) (𝑡) − 𝑪𝒙(𝑖) (𝑡|𝑡 − 𝛥𝑡) .
The estimated state variable determined using the EnKF is the average
of the ensemble members. This state variable is a random variable that
has a mean value and variance.
Applied Ocean Research 123 (2022) 103158
3.2. Dual Kalman filter approach
An algorithm for simultaneous estimation of the wave-exciting force
and parameters is described in this section. The conventional method is
used to estimate the parameters from the wave-exciting force and the
floating body’s motions. This method is useful under the assumption
that the wave-exciting force can be measured. However, it is impossible
to measure only the wave-exciting force since both the radiation and
wave-exciting forces act on a floating body. Therefore, some methods
(26)
were proposed to predict the wave-exciting force and the floating
body’s motions from the waves (Iturrioz et al., 2014) and control
(27) the floating body’s motions using these predictions (Schoen et al.,
2011; Abraham and Kerrigan, 2012). By contrast, when accurate wave
information is not available in actual seas, it is effective to estimate
the wave-exciting force from the motion of the floating body. We
propose to estimate the wave-exciting force and parameters alternately
by running two SSMs in parallel based on a dual-filter approach.
Fig. 3 shows a block diagram of the simultaneous estimation of the
wave-exciting force and parameters. The wave-exciting force 𝒙𝑓 (𝑡 −
𝛥𝑡) is estimated using the state variable 𝒙𝜉 (𝑡 − 𝛥𝑡) and the measured
value 𝑦𝑓 (𝑡 − 𝛥𝑡). Then, the parameters 𝒙𝜃 (𝑡 − 𝛥𝑡) are estimated using
the estimated wave-exciting force 𝒙𝑓 (𝑡 − 𝛥𝑡) and the measured value
𝑦𝜉 (𝑡 − 𝛥𝑡). The estimated parameters 𝒙𝜃 (𝑡 − 𝛥𝑡) are used to calculate the
wave-exciting force 𝒙𝑓 (𝑡) at the next time. This approach of applying
the Kalman filter to two SSMs to estimate the state variables and pa-
rameters is called dual filtering. When the time history of wave-exciting
force is available, the system can be identified using the time history of
input–output by applying the Kalman filter to the SSM of Eqs. (16) and
(17). By contrast, when the parameters are known, the wave-exciting
force acting on the floating body can be inversely estimated by applying
the Kalman filter to the SSM of Eqs. (20) and (21). Since the estimation
(28) processes of the parameters and the wave-exciting force are separate,
the estimation will be stable and robust.
(29)
In addition, the estimation of the input and parameters as state
variables in the same SSM is conceivable. However, this estimation
cannot be performed at the same time step correctly since the wave-
exciting force and parameters change at different rates in time. By
contrast, the dual-filter approach uses two SSMs to estimate these
parameters. The advantage of the dual-filter approach is that both the
input and output time histories are available for parameter estimation
when a relatively good wave-exciting force can be estimated inversely
from the floating body’s motions. When the time history of the input is
unavailable, estimating both the input and parameters from the output
(30) only is reasonable and practical.
4. Experiment and ship model
4.1. Lewis-form body
The symmetrical 2D Lewis-form body is used for the verification of
(31) the proposed method, and the principal properties of the model ship
are shown in Table 1. The shape of the Lewis-form body is obtained
analytically from the values of the ratio of half-breadth to draft 𝐻0 =
1.0 and the sectional area ratio 𝜎 = 0.90.
(33) The added mass and damping coefficients are computed by the two-
dimensional boundary element method (2D-BEM) with the free-surface
Green function, considering a finite water depth ℎ. When ℎ = 450 mm,
the added mass and damping coefficients are shown in Fig. 4. The solid
line and dotted line show the added mass and damping coefficients
computed by the 2D-BEM, respectively. The inverse Fourier transform
of the damping coefficients yields the memory effect function from
(34)
Eq. (2), and the results are shown as markers in Fig. 5. A subsystem
is designed with markers by minimizing Eq. (8). A linear subsystem of
order two to four is usually good enough for the radiation problem to
approximate the integral term (Yu and Falnes, 1995).
5
T. Hanaki et al. Applied Ocean Research 123 (2022) 103158

Fig. 3. Diagram of simultaneous estimation of the inputs and parameters based on the dual-filter approach.

Table 1
Principal properties of the Lewis-form body.
Item Value Unit

Length (𝐿) 0.297 m

Half-breadth (𝑏) 0.10 m
Draft (𝑑) 0.10 m
Water-plane area (𝐴𝑤 ) 0.0594 m2
Weight (𝑊 ) 52.4 N
Ratio of half-breadth to draft (𝐻0 ) 1.0 –
Sectional area ratio (𝜎) 0.90 –

Fig. 5. Memory effect function of the wave radiation force computed by the 2D-BEM
and an approximating state-space model of order three.

Table 2
Experimental conditions of the irregular waves.
Significant wave height (mm) Mean wave period (s)

Case-1 10.0 0.80

Case-2 10.0 0.90
Case-3 10.0 1.00

Fig. 4. Heave added mass and damping coefficients by the 2D-BEM and by Fourier
transform from the memory effect function.
To determine the parameters of matrices 33 and 33 so that Eq. (8)
is minimized, the quasi-Newton method is used in this paper. Here, 𝑛 is
set as 3, which means that the memory effect function is approximated
by the third-order SSM in Eqs. (5) and (6). The solid line shown in Fig. 5
represents the impulse response function of the subsystem, which is in
good agreement with the theoretical result. From the Fourier transform
of the memory effect function, the added mass and damping coefficients
are shown as the dashed lines in Fig. 4. The added mass and damping
coefficients computed from the SSM are in good agreement with the
theoretical results.
4.2. Two-dimensional tank test
Both the diffraction test and motion-free test using the Lewis-
form body in irregular waves were conducted in a 2D tank (length:
14,000 mm, width: 300 mm, and depth: 450 mm) at Osaka University.
Fig. 6 shows the dimensions and location of the model in the tank
and the layout of the tank. Irregular waves were generated based on
the JONSWAP-type spectrum (Stansberg and Contento, 2002), and the
experimental conditions are given in Table 2. In all cases, the significant
wave height was set to 𝐻1∕3 = 10 mm, and the mean wave period was
set to 𝑇01 = 0.8, 0.9, and 1.0 s. The mean wave periods were chosen so
that the floating body would oscillate well. In addition, the parameters
can be estimated only in the frequency range that is significant when
the time-series data of the floating body’s motion is analyzed spectrally.
Therefore, when estimating the memory effect function using irregular
time history, it is necessary to measure the floating body’s motion in a
wide range of circular frequencies of the waves.
The wave-exciting force in the diffraction test and the ship motion
in the motion-free test were measured. In each tank test, the distance
from the wave generator to the floating body was equal so that the
waves encountered would be the same. These tests were conducted
similarly for the three cases, and our proposed method to estimate
wave-exciting force and parameters alternately was verified using these
results. Fig. 7 shows an example of experimental results for Case-
3. The first graph shows the wave elevation 𝜁(𝑡) at 3.0 m from the
floating body in the upstream direction. In Fig. 7, the markers of the
experiment (diffraction test) show the results of the diffraction test,
and those of the experiment (motion-free test) show the results of

6
T. Hanaki et al. Applied Ocean Research 123 (2022) 103158

Fig. 6. Dimensions and location of the tested Lewis-form model in a 2D tank.

Fig. 7. Example of measured time-series data of Case-3. The wave-exciting force 𝑓 𝑊 (𝑡) was measured by diffraction test, and the heave motion 𝑧(𝑡) was measured separately by
motion-free test. Then the heave velocity and acceleration were obtained by Fourier series expansion from the heave motion.

the motion-free test. The measured wave elevations in both tank tests
are consistent to about 4 s, after which they are no longer the same
because of the radiation wave in the motion-free test. The second graph
shows the wave-exciting force in the diffraction test. The markers show
the experimental results, and the solid line shows the Fourier series
expansion of the experimental data. The third graph shows the motion
displacement at the center of gravity. The comparison of the experiment
with the prediction from the SSM obtained in the previous section
shows that the measured and predicted values are in good agreement.
The fourth and fifth graphs show the estimated values from the Fourier
series expansion and the SSM. We verified the proposed method using
time-series data with these properties.
5. Results and discussion
In this section, we verify our proposed method using the experimen-
tal and simulation data. First, the estimation of a 1-DOF model using
experimental data is discussed. The estimated added mass and damping
coefficient from time-series data are compared with the experimental
results of the forced oscillation test, and its validity is confirmed.
In addition, the estimated wave-exciting force is compared with the
direct measurement in the diffraction test. As a result, we show that
the time history of the input can be estimated from the output only
while updating the parameters. Second, we describe the estimation of
a 2-DOF model using simulated data. By showing an example of the

7
T. Hanaki et al.
application of a 2-DOF model, we show that the same procedure can
be proposed for the case where the number of degrees of freedom
increases.
5.1. Estimation of the 1-DOF model using experimental data
The parameters to determine before estimation by the EnKF are the
variance of the system noise, the variance of the observation noise,
and the number of ensemble members. The variance of the observation
noise is determined generally by considering the properties of the
measuring equipment, with 𝑹 = 8.0739 × 10−5 for this experiment.
There are many ways to determine the variance of the system noise
𝑸, and it is set to the same value of 𝑹 in this paper. Therefore, the
parameter to determine is only the number of ensemble members. The
larger this number, the better the ensemble approximation represents
the probability distribution. As a result, the estimation accuracy will
improve. However, the larger this number, the larger the computational
cost becomes. Therefore, a large number of ensemble members is not
appropriate from a practical point of view.
The added mass and damping coefficients estimated by the EnKF
are compared with those obtained from the forced oscillation test. In
the forced oscillation test, the added mass and the damping coefficients
are obtained from the relationship between the periodic external forces
acting on the floating body and the periodic oscillations. According to
Kashiwagi and Hu (2010), the unnatural variation observed at higher
frequencies can occur because of trapped waves generated in the gap
between the floating body and the sidewall, and the discrepancy in the
damping coefficient between the experiment and the computation using
the BEM can occur due to the effect of vortex shedding. By contrast,
the amplitude of the progressive wave caused by the oscillation of the
floating body is measurable in the forced oscillation test. Using the ratio
of the amplitude of the progressive wave to that of the forced oscillation
𝐴, the damping coefficient can be calculated from the energy relation
in potential theory as follows:
𝜌𝑔 2 2
𝐵33 = 𝐴 . (35)
𝜔3
Since the computation results from the BEM have not included the
effect of trapped waves and vortex shedding, the damping coefficient
in Eq. (35) should be used for verification of the proposed method.
This paper uses the experimental added mass from the forced oscillation
test, and the experimental damping coefficient is determined from the
waves.
The system and the observed noises were determined based on the
mathematical model’s measured data. This section describes the deter-
mination of the number of ensemble members and its different effects
on the analysis results. As an example, the analysis results of Case-3 are
shown. Fig. 8 shows the results of sequential estimation of parameters
that make up the SSM by the EnKF with 𝑁𝑒 = 10, 100, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 1000.
The horizontal axis represents time and the vertical axis represents
each parameter. The area shows the 95% confidence interval of the
random variables expressed by the ensemble approximation. The se-
quential estimation results have converged if the confidence interval is
asymptotically close to the average of the members.
In case (a) with 𝑁𝑒 = 10, the estimated value fluctuates rapidly
around 𝑡 = 0. This fluctuation is caused by minimizing the error
between the observed and the predicted values when it is large. The
number of ensemble members 𝑁𝑒 = 10 is not enough to approximate
the probability distribution of the state variables. Even after 𝑡 = 0,
the estimation of the parameters is sensitively affected by the observed
data. In case (b) with 𝑁𝑒 = 100, the parameters do not fluctuate as
rapidly as in case (a). In addition, the random variables converge to
a constant value as time passes, and the estimation is reasonable. Fur-
thermore, in case (c) with 𝑁𝑒 = 1000, the estimation is smoother than
for cases (a) and (b). However, as the number of ensemble members
increases, it leads to high computational costs. In case (b), a sufficiently
8
Applied Ocean Research 123 (2022) 103158
Table 3
Estimated parameters of the subsystem of heave obtained from the EnKF with 𝑁𝑒 = 100,
for the case of 𝑗 = 3 and 𝑘 = 3. The parameters were sequentially estimated 1000 times,
and the average of the parameters finally obtained for each analysis is shown.
𝛼1 𝛼2 𝛼3 𝛽1 𝛽2 𝛽3
2D-BEM 1130.3213 230.9063 22.0178 105.7441 12.9617 0.5849
Case-1 1118.7779 229.6268 22.1839 107.0172 12.9494 0.5830
Case-2 1093.3195 236.4745 22.6247 107.4617 12.6381 0.5801
Case-3 1092.9484 239.7216 22.5530 106.6844 12.5331 0.5830
stable state is also estimated, and the number of ensemble members for
case (c) is excessive for this analysis. From the viewpoint of reducing
the computational cost, case (b) is appropriate and conceivable here.
In addition, in case (b) with 𝑁𝑒 = 100, the analysis can be effectively
performed in real time, so it is also practical in terms of the required
time. Note that the number of ensemble members is a flexible condition
that should be changed depending on the property of an analysis target.
The estimation of parameters with the Kalman filter follows a
probabilistic and statistical approach. The Kalman filter approach de-
scribes the complex behavior of the time history with the average
(first-order moments) and covariance matrix (second-order moments)
of the random variables by introducing a stochastic term in the dynamic
model and the observed data. Therefore, the average and covariance
matrices are different depending on the added random terms for each
analysis. Performing repeated analyses and evaluating the average and
variance are effective in demonstrating the stability and validity of the
probabilistic and statistical analysis.
We performed 1000 sequential analyses using the measured data
in Case-3. The initial values of the parameters are computed by the
2D-BEM as shown in Fig. 5. Fig. 9 shows histograms of estimated
parameters of the SSM obtained from the EnKF with 𝑁𝑒 = 100. The
dashed line shows the average of the estimated values obtained by the
EnKF. The histogram has a shape similar to a Gaussian distribution.
Since the system noise given to the parameters follows the white
noise, the estimation results also have normality. The average of the
estimation results is almost the same as the most frequent value of the
histogram, so this analysis is stable.
The abovementioned analysis was also performed for Case-1 and
Case-2. Table 3 shows the results of each. The results for Case-1 are in
good agreement with the values obtained by the 2D-BEM, and those for
Case-2 and Case-3 are different from Case-1. This difference depends on
the circular frequency band of the floating body’s motion spectrum. To
clarify these differences, the added mass and damping coefficients are
calculated using the parameters 𝛼1 , … , 𝛼𝑛 , 𝛽1 , … , 𝛽𝑛 shown in Table 3,
and the results are shown in Fig. 10. The single-dotted line in the figure
shows the theoretical value obtained by the 2D-BEM, and the marker
shows the experimental results obtained by the forced oscillation test.
The added mass and damping coefficients estimated by the EnKF are
in better agreement with the results of the forced oscillation test in all
cases. In particular, the added mass in Case-2 and Case-3 satisfactorily
reproduces the phenomenon that the experimental value is smaller than
the theoretical value when the wavelength is long. This is because the
wave period 𝑇01 = 1.0 s of Case-3 is sufficiently long, and the periodic
motion of the floating body at such a low frequency can be measured.
By contrast, the results in Case-1 cannot reproduce the added mass in
the low-frequency region.
Fig. 11 shows the power spectrum obtained by the Fourier transform
of the measured time series of the floating body’s motion. The power
spectrum in Case-1 has a peak value at 𝐾𝑏 = 0.5, and the estimated
value at 𝐾𝑏 < 0.5 shown in Fig. 10 gradually deviates from the result
of the forced oscillation test. By contrast, the power spectra in Case-
2 and Case-3 have a peak around 𝐾𝑏 = 0.4. Therefore, the estimated
values up to about 0.3 < 𝐾𝑏 are relatively consistent with the results of
the forced oscillation test. The power spectrum in Fig. 11 confirms the
region where the added mass and damping coefficients in Fig. 10 can
T. Hanaki et al. Applied Ocean Research 123 (2022) 103158

Fig. 8. Results of sequential estimation of parameters that make up the state-space model of a 1-DOF model. Comparison of the estimations based on the number of ensemble
members. Lines show the mean value of probability variables obtained from the EnKF, and the areas show the 95% confidence interval.

Fig. 9. Histogram of estimated parameters of the state-space model obtained from the EnKF with 𝑁𝑒 = 100 in Case-3. The parameters were sequentially estimated 1000 times,
and the histogram shows the parameters finally obtained in each analysis. The dashed line shows the average of the estimated values obtained from the EnKF.

be reasonably estimated. Next, we discuss the effects of different wave
periods on the estimation results. When the significant wave height
changes, the same procedure can be used for estimation by normalizing
the measured time-series data of the motion and changing the noise’s
variance. However, when considering the estimation problem in large
wave heights where the linear assumption does not hold, it is necessary
to properly consider the nonlinear term of the hydrodynamic force in
the equation of motion. It should be noted that the method proposed
in this paper is effective only in the range where the linear assumption
is valid.
Finally, the wave-exciting force estimated by the sequential analysis
is described. Fig. 12 shows the wave-exciting forces estimated in Case-
1 to Case-3. The markers show the experimental values obtained in
the diffraction test, and the solid lines show the values estimated
simultaneously with the parameters from the EnKF. As shown in Fig. 7,
the wave elevation deviates after 𝑡 = 4 s in the diffraction test and the
motion-free test. Therefore, the reflected and transmitted waves must
be properly considered to estimate the wave-exciting force from the
measured wave elevation. By contrast, as shown in Fig. 12, the wave-
exciting force estimated by the EnKF from the time series of the floating
body’s motion is in good agreement with that obtained in the diffraction
test. It is necessary to take the reflected and transmitted waves into
account for the estimation of the wave-exciting force from the wave
elevation. However, it is convenient to estimate the wave-exciting force
directly from the time series of the motion without considering the
reflected and transmitted waves. Fig. 12 also shows the time histories
of the probability distributions of the wave-exciting force, which are
in good agreement with the diffraction test results. The simultaneous
estimation based on the dual Kalman filter approach is also effective
for the estimation of the wave-exciting force.

9
T. Hanaki et al.
Fig. 10. Added mass and damping coefficients in heave for a Lewis-form body, at a finite water depth of ℎ = 450 mm. Comparison between theoretical results obtained from the
2D-BEM and estimated results from the EnKF with 𝑁𝑒 = 100.
Fig. 11. Power spectrum of floating body’s motion induced by irregular waves.
5.2. Estimation of the 2-DOF model using simulation data
In this section, as another example of a 2D problem, we describe
the application of the proposed method to the estimation problem of
a coupled 2-DOF model of sway and roll. In this problem, we report
an example of analysis using simulation data without tank tests. We
consider the case of a 2D floating body in a 2D channel under sway
and roll motions. Since longitudinal and lateral motions are not coupled
in linear potential theory, heave motion is not considered here. For
the simulation model, we use the model described in Section 2. A
mathematical spring is introduced to prevent the floating body from
being swept away in the sway direction when waves are incident
on it. In other words, the restoring force coefficient 𝐶22 in the sway
direction is set. In addition, deep water is assumed here. The equation
of motion is considered in a coordinate system with the center of
gravity 𝐺 as the origin, but note that the added mass and damping
coefficients shown so far have their origins on the still water surface.
The center of gravity 𝐺 is assumed to be located at a distance 𝓁𝐺 in the
positive direction (vertically downward) of the 𝑦-axis, and the detailed
relationship between the two coordinate systems is shown in Appendix.
When considering the problem of estimating a 2-DOF coupled model, it
should be noted that the system noise and the observation noise should
be set appropriately for each mode of motion. The system noise depends
on the error between the model and the actual phenomenon, and the
observation noise depends on the measuring equipment. However, in
the case of numerical tests, appropriate values should be set and used.
Here, the variance of the observation noise is set to 𝑅 = 8.0739 × 10−5 ,
which is used in the estimation of the 1-DOF model, and the variance
10
Applied Ocean Research 123 (2022) 103158
of the system noise is determined by a parameter study. The number of
ensemble members is set to 𝑁𝑒 = 300 because the number of parameters
increases compared with that of the 1-DOF model.
First, the simulation data used in the analysis is shown. The simula-
tion data is generated by the spectrum method and is calculated from
an arbitrary incident wave spectrum and the theoretically obtained
frequency response from the 2D-BEM. The spectrum is a JONSWAP-
type spectrum with 𝐻1∕3 = 1.0 cm as the significant wave height and
𝑇01 = 1.0 s as the mean wave period. The simulation data are generated
and the equation of motion is assimilated using the 30-second time
series of sway and roll motions. The specific observed data is shown
in Fig. 13. The broken line in the figure represents sway, and the solid
line represents roll, which is the simulation result by the SSM in the
time domain. In the following, time-series data of the same floating
body is used to estimate the state.
Next, the effect of pseudo-observation of constraints on the state
estimation by the EnKF is discussed. The constraints are observed
according to Section 2.4; three patterns, 𝐾𝑏 = 1.0, 3.0, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 10, are con-
sidered and compared with the estimation results without constraints.
We assume that 𝐾𝑏 = 1.0 is a circular frequency included in the time
series of the displacement of the floating body and that the added mass
and damping coefficients have been verified in advance by the tank test.
By contrast, for 𝐾𝑏 = 3.0 and 10.0, we assume that there is no such
tank test, and the numerical results are used in the range that does not
affect the actual operation (the wave wavelength is sufficiently large).
The parameters of the subsystem given as inputs to the state estimation
are the true values (theoretical values) with random noise added. The
calculation conditions for the state estimation are 𝑸 = 8.0 × 10−5 and
𝑹 = 8.0 × 10−5 . Here, since the number of parameters to be estimated is
5 times larger than that of the 1-DOF model, the number of ensemble
members is set to 𝑁𝑒 = 500.
Figs. 14–16 show the added mass and damping coefficients obtained
using the parameters estimated by the dual filter. The solid line in
the figures shows the estimation result without any constraint. The
dashed, dotted, and single-dotted lines show the estimation results with
the constraint satisfied by the parameters at 𝐾𝑏 = 1.0, 3.0, and 10.0.
Markers show theoretical values obtained from the 2D-BEM. Since the
wave spectrum given as input to the simulation in the numerical test is
significant in the range of about 0.2 < 𝐾𝑏 < 3, added mass and damping
coefficients should be estimated in the circumferential wavenumber
band of the waves shown in Figs. 14–16. However, if focusing on the
solid lines (without constraint) in each figure, we find that the results
deviate further from the true values compared with the initial values.
In this problem, the order of the subsystem is set to 𝑛 = 5, and the
number of equations constituting the equation of state is 24, whereas
the number of unknown parameters is 30. Therefore, the unknown
T. Hanaki et al. Applied Ocean Research 123 (2022) 103158

Fig. 12. Time series of the wave-exciting force acting on the ship hull, which is estimated by the EnKF using the time series of the experimental heave motion. Markers show
experimental results of the diffraction test, lines show mean values of probability variables computed from the EnKF, and areas show the 95% confidence interval.

Fig. 13. Time-series data of numerical test. Sway and roll motion displacements, velocity, and acceleration are obtained by the spectrum method using a JONSWAP spectrum with
𝐻1∕3 = 1.0 cm, 𝑇01 = 1.0 s.

parameters are not uniquely determined even if the same time-series
data is used. To avoid this problem, it is necessary to increase the
amount of information about the parameters by adding constraints on
them. The estimation results (dashed line, dotted line, and single-dotted
line) are all close to the theoretical values when the constraints are
added. Focusing on the difference of wavenumber to be constrained,
it can be confirmed that the estimation is the best agreement with the
theoretical value for the pseudo-observed condition at 𝐾𝑏 = 1.0, while
it deviates the most for the pseudo-observed condition at 𝐾𝑏 = 10.0.
This indicates that pseudo-observation of the conditions satisfied by the
parameters in the filtering step increases the amount of information
available for estimation and thus improves the estimation accuracy.
Constraining at a frequency that is considered in actual operations, such
as 𝐾𝑏 = 1.0, is useful for improving accuracy. By contrast, if there are
no results from such tank tests before the operation, it may be practical
to impose constraints at a large enough frequency, such as 𝐾𝑏 = 10.

11
T. Hanaki et al. Applied Ocean Research 123 (2022) 103158

Fig. 14. Estimation of the added mass and damping coefficients of sway by the EnKF. Comparison of the effects due to the pseudo-observation of constraint conditions in the
filtering step on the estimation results.

Fig. 15. Estimation of the coupling added mass and damping coefficients of sway and roll by the EnKF. Comparison of the effects due to the pseudo-observation of constraint
conditions in the filtering step on the estimation results.

Fig. 16. Estimation of the added mass and damping coefficients of roll by the EnKF. Comparison of the effects due to the pseudo-observation of constraint conditions in the
filtering step on the estimation results.

By increasing the number of constraints to be observed, the estimation
accuracy can be improved further, but it should be noted that the effect
of the constraints on the estimation results is relatively large.
Finally, examples of estimated wave-exciting forces are shown in
Fig. 17. The markers represent the simulated values obtained by the
spectrum method, the lines represent the estimated values obtained by
the EnKF, and the blue areas represent the 95% confidence intervals
of the random variables. Figs. 17(a)–(c) show the estimation results of
the wave-exciting force when the constraint is imposed at different 𝐾𝑏
values. The wave-exciting forces show almost the same behavior for all
the constrained frequencies, indicating that the constraint at 𝐾𝑏 = 10 is
sufficient to estimate the state variables with good accuracy. Therefore,

12
T. Hanaki et al. Applied Ocean Research 123 (2022) 103158

Fig. 17. Time series of wave-exciting force acting on the ship hull, which is estimated by the EnKF using time series of simulated sway and roll motions. Markers show observations,
lines show mean values of probability variables obtained by the EnKF, and areas show the 95% confidence interval.

it is appropriate from a practical point of view to consider a sufficiently
large 𝐾𝑏 as a constraint for pseudo-observation. However, since this
convergence depends on the initial value, a further detailed study is
needed.
6. Conclusion
In this paper, we propose a method for estimating the time history
of a wave-exciting force acting on a floating body, and the added
mass and damping coefficients, which represent the motion charac-
teristics of the floating body, alternately in real time from the time
history of its motion. To establish the estimation method based on
the dual Kalman filter approach, we considered a 2D problem. The
Cummins equation describing the motion of a floating body in waves
is an integral–differential equation, which becomes a first-order si-
multaneous differential equation by introducing the Yu and Falnes
approximation system. SSMs are formulated to describe a temporal
development of the wave-exciting force and the parameters based
on this differential equation. The response system between the wave
elevation and the wave-exciting force is not deterministically unknown
when the time history of wave elevation is unavailable, as in actual
seas. Therefore, the wave-exciting force is assumed to be persistently
predicted. The dual-filter-based algorithm for simultaneous estimation

13
T. Hanaki et al. Applied Ocean Research 123 (2022) 103158

of the wave-exciting force and added mass and damping coefficients is CRediT authorship contribution statement
developed. The accuracy and consistency of the method using the EnKF
for the state estimation method have been demonstrated by comparing Takaaki Hanaki: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Vali-
its values with the values obtained using not only the 2D-BEM but also dation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Investigation, Writing – original
the diffraction and forced oscillation tests. As a result, the following draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Project administra-
conclusions are deduced. tion, Funding acquisition. Mina Takaoka: Validation, Formal analysis,
Investigation. Munehiko Minoura: Conceptualization, Methodology,
• The SSM was formulated based on the Cummins equation. Ac-
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Supervision.
cording to Yu and Falnes (1995), a linear subsystem of order
two to four is usually good, and order 𝑛 is determined as 3 for
Declaration of competing interest
the 1-DOF model and 5 for the 2-DOF model. It was confirmed
that the added mass calculated by the approximate designed
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
linear differential equation agrees well with the numerical results
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
obtained by the 2D-BEM.
influence the work reported in this paper.
• The convergence depending on the number of ensemble mem-
bers was investigated. A large number of ensemble members are
enough to approximate the probability distribution of the state Acknowledgments
variables accurately, but the convergence speed of the parameters
becomes slower. The results obtained using the number of mem- This work was supported by the Fundamental Research Developing
bers 𝑛𝑒 = 100 were in good agreement with the results obtained Association for Shipbuilding and Offshore, Japan (REDAS), managed by
by the forced oscillation test and the wave-exciting force test. the Shipbuilders’ Association of Japan from April 2021 to March 2022.
This number was determined based on its computational cost and
accuracy of approximating the probability distribution. Appendix. A state-space model for representing subsystems
• Estimation of parameters using a Kalman filter follows a prob-
abilistic and statistical approach, and the estimated parameters The equation of motion of a floating body is shown in Eq. (1) but
and wave-exciting force are random variables. The probability is considered concretely without matrix representation. The equation
distributions of these parameters are estimated and shown to have of motion is considered in the coordinate system with the center of
the average and the variance following Gaussian distributions due gravity 𝐺 as the origin. The analysis of the added mass, damping
to the probability term of the white noise added to the SSM, coefficient, restoring force coefficient, and wave-exciting force often
which confirms the stability and validity of the proposed analysis takes the origin of the coordinate system on the still water surface.
method. If the center of gravity 𝐺 is located at a distance 𝓁𝐺 in the positive
• Using the experimental data from the 2D tank test, the added direction of the 𝑦-axis (vertically downward), the equation of motion is
mass and damping coefficients of the 1-DOF model were esti- as follows:
mated for three types of conditions with different mean wave { ′ } ∞
periods and compared with the results of the forced oscillation 𝑚 + 𝑎′22 (∞) 𝜉̈2 (𝑡) + 𝐿′22 (𝑡 − 𝜏)𝑢22 (𝜏)𝑑𝜏
∫0
test. The estimation results for all the cases agreed well with { } ∞
𝑔
the reference results in the measurable frequency band. This is + 𝑎′24 (∞) + 𝓁𝐺 ′ ′
𝑎22 (∞) 𝑏𝜉̈4 (𝑡) + 𝐿′24 (𝑡 − 𝜏)𝑢24 (𝜏)𝑑𝜏 = 𝑓2′ (𝑡)
∫0 𝑏
also confirmed by the spectral analysis of the time-series data
(A.1)
of the floating body’s motion. However, when considering the
{ ′ } ∞
𝑔 ′ 𝑔
estimation problem in large significant wave heights where the 𝑚 + 𝑎′33 (∞) 𝜉̈3 (𝑡) + 𝐿′33 (𝑡 − 𝜏)𝑢33 (𝜏) + 𝑐33 = 𝑓2′ (𝑡) (A.2)
linear assumption does not hold, it is necessary to consider the ∫0 𝑏 𝑏
nonlinear term of the hydrodynamic force in the system model. { ′ ′ ′
} ∞
𝑎42 (∞) + 𝓁𝐺 𝑎22 (∞) 𝜉̈2 (𝑡) + 𝑏 𝐿′22 (𝑡 − 𝜏)𝑢22 (𝜏)𝑑𝜏
• The results of the wave-exciting force are in qualitative agreement ∫0
∞
with the reference results. The wave-exciting force is estimated
+ 𝐿′42 (𝑡 − 𝜏)𝑢42 (𝜏)𝑑𝜏
directly from the motion of the floating body, which makes ∫0
{ ′ }
estimation easy because the reflection and transmission of waves + 𝐼𝑧𝑧 + 𝑎′44 (∞) + 2𝓁𝐺 ′ ′ ′2
𝑎24 (∞) + 𝓁𝐺 𝑏22 (∞) 𝑏𝜉̈4 (𝑡)
do not need to be considered. ∞
𝑔 ′ 𝑔 𝑔 ′ ′
• Using the simulated data, the added mass and damping coef- + 𝐿′44 (𝑡 − 𝜏)𝑢44 (𝜏)𝑑𝜏 + 𝑐 𝑏𝜉 (𝑡) = 𝑓4′ (𝑡) + 𝓁𝐺 𝑓2 (𝑡), (A.3)
∫0 𝑏 44 4 𝑏 𝑏
ficients of the 2-DOF model were estimated. The effectiveness
of the pseudo-observation of the constraint conditions that the where
parameters satisfy was discussed. It may be practical to impose 𝑚 𝑘 𝓁
𝑚′ = , 𝑘′𝑧𝑧 = 𝑧𝑧 , 𝓁𝐺 ′
= 𝐺 (A.4)
constraints at a large enough frequency, such as 𝐾𝑏 = 10, from 𝜌𝑏2 𝑏 𝑏
the viewpoint of actual operations. 𝑎 𝑗𝑘 (𝜔) 𝑏𝑗𝑘 (𝜔) 𝐿𝑗𝑘 (𝑡)
𝑎′𝑗𝑘 (𝜔) − 𝑖𝑏′𝑗𝑘 (𝜔) = −𝑖 , 𝐿′𝑗𝑘 (𝑡) = , (A.5)
𝜌𝑏2 𝜖𝑗 𝜖𝑘 𝜌𝜔𝑏2 𝜖𝑗 𝜖𝑘 𝜌𝑏2 𝜖𝑗 𝜖𝑘
The advantage of the proposed method is that the input and pa-
𝑐𝑗𝑘 𝑓𝑗 (𝑡)
rameters of the motion equation are estimated simultaneously using ′
𝑐𝑗𝑘 = , 𝑓𝑗′ (𝑡) = . (A.6)
the time history of the output only. This implies that the method is 𝜌𝑔𝑏𝜖𝑗 𝜖𝑘 𝜌𝑔𝑏𝜖𝑗
applicable in actual seas where the time history of wave-exciting forces Here, the symbol 𝜖𝑗 means 𝜖𝑗 = 1 for 𝑗 = 2, 3 and 𝜖𝑗 = 𝑏 for 𝑗 = 3. The
cannot be measured. In this paper, the system model is formulated in input of the convolution integral is defined as follows:
a 2D problem to establish the method and is verified by numerical
′ ̇
and tank tests. To solve a 3D problem with six degrees of freedom, 𝑢22 (𝑡) = 𝜉̇ 2 (𝑡) + 𝓁𝐺 𝑏𝜉4 (𝑡) (A.7)
it is expected that the system model can be simply realized in the six- 𝑢24 (𝑡) = 𝑏𝜉̇ 4 (𝑡) (A.8)
degree-of-freedom equation of motion, the feasibility of which needs
to be discussed in more detail. In addition, wave radar has made it 𝑢33 (𝑡) = 𝜉̇ 3 (𝑡) (A.9)
possible to measure the encountered wave spectra onboard in recent 𝑢42 (𝑡) = ′ ̇
𝜉̇ 2 (𝑡) + 2𝓁𝐺 𝑏𝜉4 (𝑡) (A.10)
years. Our proposed method becomes more practical using such newly
available data. 𝑢44 (𝑡) = 𝑏𝜉̇ 4 (𝑡). (A.11)

14
T. Hanaki et al. Applied Ocean Research 123 (2022) 103158

To model the motion of a floating body in a state-space representa- References

tion, we approximate the convolution integral in the equation of motion
by a subsystem as in Eqs. (5) and (6). The output 𝑦𝑗𝑘 (𝑡) of the subsystem Abraham, E., Kerrigan, E.C., 2012. Optimal active control and optimization of a wave
is the approximate value of the integral term, and the input 𝑢𝑗𝑘 (𝑡) of energy converter. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 4 (2), 324–332.
Armesto, J.A., Guanche, R., Iturrioz, A., Vidal, C., Losada, I.J., 2014. Identification of
the subsystem is the velocity of the floating body. Therefore, if we
state-space coefficients for oscillating water columns using temporal series. Ocean
represent the convolution integral by the subsystem, the equation of Eng. 79, 43–49.
motion becomes: Azam, S.E., Chatzi, E., Papadimitriou, C., 2015. A dual Kalman filter approach for state
𝑔 estimation via output-only acceleration measurements. Mech. Syst. Signal Process.
𝑚′22 𝜉̈2 (𝑡) + 𝑚′24 𝑏𝜉̈4 (𝑡) = − 𝑇22 𝒙22 (𝑡) −  𝑇24 𝒙24 (𝑡) + 𝑓2′ (𝑡) (A.12)
𝑏 60, 866–886.
′ ̈ 𝑇 𝑔 ′ 𝑔 ′ Cozijn, H., Choi, J.W., You, Y.-J, 2017. Thruster-Wave Interaction During
𝑚33 𝜉3 (𝑡) = − 33 𝒙33 (𝑡) − 𝑐33 𝜉3 (𝑡) + 𝑓3 (𝑡) (A.13)
𝑏 𝑏 DP Stationkeeping: Model Tests in Open Water and under a Ship Hull.
𝑔 OMAE2017-62168.
𝑚′42 𝜉̈2 (𝑡) + 𝑚′44 𝑏𝜉̈4 (𝑡) = −𝑏 𝑇22 𝒙22 (𝑡) −  𝑇42 𝒙42 (𝑡) −  𝑇44 𝒙44 (𝑡) − 𝑐44
′
𝑏𝜉4 (𝑡)
𝑏 Cummins, W.E., 1962. The Impulse Response Function and Ship Motions. David Taylor
′ 𝑔 ′ 𝑔
+ 𝓁𝐺 𝑓 (𝑡) + 𝑓4′ (𝑡), (A.14) Model Basin, Washington DC.
𝑏 2 𝑏 Detlefsen, O., Theilen, L., Abdel-Maksoud, M., 2017. Methods of Position-
where Keeping Capability for Offshore Supply Vessels with Voith-Schneider Propellers.
OMAE2017-61893.
𝑚′22 = 𝑚′ + 𝑎′22 (∞) (A.15) Evensen, G., 1994. Sequential data assimilation with a nonlinear quasi-geostrophic
model using Monte Carlo methods to forecast error statistics. J. Geophys. Res.
𝑚′24 = 𝑎′24 (∞) + 𝓁𝐺 ′ ′
𝑎22 (∞) (A.16) Oceans 99 (C5), 10143–10162.
𝑚′33 = ′ ′
𝑚 + 𝑎33 (∞) (A.17) Evensen, G., 2003. The ensemble Kalman filter: Theoretical formulation and practical
implementation. Ocean Dyn. 53 (4), 343–367.
𝑚′42 = 𝑎′24 (∞) + 𝓁𝐺 ′ ′
𝑎22 (∞) (A.18) Hanaki, T., Minoura, M., 2021. Identification of ship motion parameters by time-series
analysis of coupled longitudinal motion. In: The 31st International Ocean and Polar
𝑚′44 = ′
𝐼𝑧𝑧 + 𝑎′44 (∞) + 2𝓁𝐺′ ′ ′2
𝑎24 (∞) + 𝓁𝐺 𝑏22 (∞). (A.19)
Engineering Conference. International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers.
In this case, the SSM to represent the subsystem in the equations of Iturrioz, A., Guanche, R., Armesto, J.A., Alves, M.A., Vidal, C., Losada, I.J., 2014. Time-
domain modeling of a fixed detached oscillating water column towards a floating
motion is as follows:
multi-chamber device. Ocean Eng. 76, 65–74.
𝒙̇ 𝑚 (𝑡) = 𝑚 𝒙𝑚 (𝑡) + 𝑚 𝒖𝑚 (𝑡) (A.20) Jefferys, E.R., 1984. Simulation of wave power devices. Appl. Ocean Res. 6 (1), 31–39.
Jin, R., Xiong, Y., Wang, Y., 2018. Motion response analysis of thress spar platform
𝒚 𝑚 (𝑡) =  𝑚 𝒙𝑚 (𝑡), (A.21) with small-scale cylinders under bichromatic waves. In: The 28th International
Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference. International Society of Offshore and
where Polar Engineers.
⎧ 𝒙22 (𝑡) ⎫
Kashiwagi, M., Hu, C., 2010. 3D effects on measured results using a 2D model in a
⎪ ⎪ narrow wave channel. Int. J. Offshore Polar Eng. 20 (02).
⎪ 𝒙24 (𝑡) ⎪ ⎧ 𝑦22 (𝑡) + 𝑦24 (𝑡) ⎫ Kitagawa, G., 1998. A self-organizing state–space model. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 120,
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
𝒙𝑚 (𝑡) = ⎨ 𝒙33 (𝑡) ⎬ 𝑚
, 𝒚 (𝑡) = ⎨ 𝑦33 (𝑡) ⎬, 3–1215.
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ Kristiansen, E., Hjulstad, Å., Egeland, O., 2005. State-space representation of radiation
⎪ 𝒙42 (𝑡) ⎪ ⎩ 𝑏𝑦22 (𝑡) + 𝑦42 (𝑡) + 𝑦44 (𝑡) ⎭ forces in time-domain vessel models. Ocean Eng. 32 (17–18), 2195–2216.
⎪ 𝒙44 (𝑡) ⎪ Marine Environment Protection Committee, 2012a. Guidelines on survey and cer-
⎩ ⎭
tification of the energy efficiency design index (EEDI). Resolution MEPC, 214,
⎧ 𝑢22 (𝑡) ⎫ 63.
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 𝑢24 (𝑡) ⎪ Marine Environment Protection Committee, 2012b. Guidelines on the method of
⎪ ⎪ calculation of the attained energy efficiency design index (EEDI) for new ships.
𝒖𝑚 (𝑡) = ⎨ 𝑢33 (𝑡) ⎬ , (A.22) Resolution MEPC, 212, 63.
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 𝑢42 (𝑡) ⎪ Ogilvie, T.F., Recent progress toward the understanding and prediction of ship motions.
⎪ 𝑢44 (𝑡) ⎪
In: 5th ONR Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics.
⎩ ⎭ Orihara, H., Tsujimoto, M., 2018. Performance prediction of full-scale ship and analysis
using on-board monitoring. Part 2: Validation of full-scale performance predictions
⎡ 22 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 ⎤
⎢ ⎥ in actual seas. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 23 (4), 782–801.
⎢ 𝟎 24 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 ⎥ Pérez, T., Fossen, T., 2008. Time-vs. frequency-domain identification of parametric
𝑚 = ⎢ 𝟎 𝟎 33 𝟎 𝟎 ⎥, (A.23) radiation force models for marine structures at zero speed. Model. Identif. Control
⎢ ⎥ 29 (1), 1–19.
⎢ 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 42 𝟎 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ Schoen, M.P., Hals, J., Moan, T., 2011. Wave prediction and robust control of heaving
⎣ 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 44 ⎦ wave energy devices for irregular waves. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 26 (2),
′  627–638.
⎡ 22 𝟎 𝓁𝐺 22 ⎤ Stansberg, D.C.T., Contento, D.G., 2002. The specialist committee on waves. In: 23rd
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 𝟎 𝟎 24 ⎥ International Towing Tank Conference, vol. 61.
𝑚 = ⎢ 𝟎 33 𝟎 ⎥, Subbulakshmi, A., Sundaravadivelu, R., 2021. Effects of damping plate position on
⎢ ⎥ heave and pitch responses of spar platform with single and double damping plates
⎢ 42 𝟎 2𝓁𝐺 42 ⎥
′
⎢ ⎥ under regular waves. Ocean Eng. 224, 108719.
⎣ 𝟎 𝟎 44 ⎦ Wan, E.A., Nelson, A.T., 2001. Dual extended Kalman filter methods. In: Kalman
Filtering and Neural Networks. p. 123.
⎡  𝑇22  𝑇24 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 ⎤
Wenzel, T.A., Burnham, K.J., Blundell, M.V., Williams, R.A., 2006. Dual extended
⎢ ⎥
𝑚 = ⎢ 𝟎 𝟎  33 𝟎 𝟎 ⎥. (A.24) Kalman filter for vehicle state and parameter estimation. Veh. Syst. Dyn. 44 (2),
⎢ 𝑇 ⎥ 153–171.
⎣ 𝑏 22 𝟎 𝟎  𝑇42  𝑇44 ⎦
Yu, Z., Falnes, J., 1995. State-space modeling of a vertical cylinder in heave. Appl.
These are the definitions of the specific matrices in Eqs. (9)–(13). Ocean Res. 17 (5), 265–275.

15