Ocean Engineering 129 (2017) 451458

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Centrifuge modeling of hydroplaning in submarine slopes

a

MARK
a

Erika Andrea Acosta , Srgio Tibana , Mrcio de Souza Soares de Almeida ,

Fernando Saboya Jr.b,

a
b

COPPE/Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

State University of Norte Fluminense Darcy Ribeiro, Campos, RJ, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O

A BS T RAC T

Keywords:
Hydroplaning
Debris ow
Submarine slopes
Geotechnical centrifuge

A study of landslides on gentle submarine slopes with varied water content levels is presented here. The
simulations were carried out in a beam geotechnical centrifuge submitting the model to an acceleration of 40
times earth's gravity. The simulations aim to determine which parameters inuence the occurrence of the
hydroplaning phenomenon and if these can be properly simulated in centrifuge physical modeling, since most
studies described in the literature have been carried out in an environment of normal earth's gravity. The
analyses presented here are based on measurements of total stresses and pore pressure in dierent points in the
model. Besides, video images and parameters such as the densimetric Froude number are also used to assess
whether the hydroplaning phenomenon has eectively occurred any of the tests performed.

1. Introduction
The occurrence of landslides can be a serious threat to oshore
installations such as wells, rigs, pipelines and communications cables,
among others underwater structures. Therefore, in order to assure safety
operation conditions for structures resting on seabed, it is mister not only
to nd the trigger mechanisms, but also the running path of the debris,
which is generally associated with hydroplaning phenomena.
Submarine landslide initiates when sliding material mixes with the
water and becomes debris ow. This mixture of water and clay nely
ground in an aqueous environment gradually develops to a turbidity
current, which is characterized by turbulent ow. Submarine landslides
and debris ows are highly mobile and can travel distances of hundreds
of kilometers down gentle slopes (Locat, 2002; De Blasio et al., 2004).
These great distances seem to be facilitated by the presence of a thin
layer of slurry, which signicantly increases debris mobility.
Naturally stable slopes may become unstable due to the action of
one or more dierent mechanisms, such as earthquakes and tectonic
activities, gas hydrates, ocean waves and human activities (Lee et al.,
2004; Feeley, 2007), earthquakes being considered the main cause
(Hance, 2003). Many experimental and numerical studies suggest that
hydroplaning is the main cause of high mobility in landslides on gentle
slopes (Mohrig et al., 1998; Harbitz et al., 2003; Barker, 1998; Zhao,
2014). Hu (2007) has developed a numerical model to simulate
submarine sliding using a "block model" principle in order to study
the mechanisms of hydroplaning, taking into account complex inter-

action between sliding block and the surrounding uid. The author has
numerically simulated small scale tests and an actual slide (Storegga
Slide), with excellent results for both.
It is important to note that most previous experimental studies have
been carried out in 1g models (Marr et al., 2001), thus they may not be
representative of real landslides as the stress-strain behavior and gravity
eects are better modeled using the principles of centrifuge modeling
(Taylor, 1995; Madabhushi, 2015; Boylan et al., 2010; Chi, 2011); Gue
et al. (2010) performed a series of submarine slope landslides tests in
centrifuge, and concluded, also based on numerical modeling, that the
correct scaling law for ow distance is determined by

dp=N 3*d m

(1)

where dm is the traveling distance of the model and N is the acceleration

level.
The main aim of this study is to reveal, by means of centrifuge tests
performed at an acceleration of 40g, which mechanisms and parameters, are involved in the generation of hydroplaning during the
mobility of debris ow in such gentle slopes. In order to achieve these
goals, sliding materials of dierent compositions and water content
were tested.
2. Hydroplaning in submarine slopes
When a submarine ow moves through a water body, the movement of the water body in front of the sliding mass induces a uid

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: saboya@uenf.br (F. Saboya).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2016.10.047
Received 8 June 2016; Received in revised form 24 October 2016; Accepted 25 October 2016
Available online 05 November 2016
0029-8018/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Ocean Engineering 129 (2017) 451458

E.A. Acosta et al.

g
Frd
w
wL
wP:
IP
N

Nomenclature
uid stagnation pressure
water mass density
frontal velocity of the ow
soil density
average sliding thickness
slope angle

pf
w
vf

ha

Fluid pressure is resisted by the equivalent downward normal stress

pd , also called debris ow pressure, and produced by the submerged
weight of the sliding mass on the slope. Normal stress can be, therefore,
calculated by:

pressure higher than the hydrostatic pressure. Under these conditions,

uid stagnation pressure is dened as hydrodynamic pressure which
acts in the nose of the sliding mass pf and may be expressed by Mohrig
et al. (1999):

pf =

acceleration of gravity
densimetric Froude number
slurry water content level
liquid limit
plasticity limit
plasticity Index
acceleration level

pd =(d w) ghacos

w vf2
(2)

(3)

where d is the soil density and g is the acceleration of gravity. The term
ha represents the landslide's average thickness and is the slope angle.
There are some conditions to hydroplaning to occur, and it is worth
to mention them in a separate way for clarifying purposes.

where w is the water mass density and vf is the frontal velocity of the
sliding mass.
The excess of pore water pressure which takes place during the
mass movement develops from the stagnation point s to the sliding
surface in point A, as shown in Fig. 1. The point where hydroplaning
begins is represented by A.

Condition I: Hydroplaning occurs when the hydrodynamic pressure

( pf ) acting in front of the sliding mass exceeds the normal stress
produced by the submerged sliding mass on the normal sliding
surface ( pd ).
Condition II: As consequence of Condition I, chances of hydroplaning to occur is related to the lift of frontal head, which can be
visualized from high speed images.
Condition III: This condition is directly related to the densimetric
Froude number which is dened as

pf
Frd = 2
pd

(4)

Mohrig et al. (1998, 1999) calculated Frd for 1 g experiments in

submarine slopes, and concluded that 0.30 should be the minimum
value for Frd in order for hydroplaning to occur.
Condition IV. Following previous studies, Ilstad et al. (2004c)
observed three main conditions in 1gtests of submarine slopes
(Fig. 2): a) the grains are in direct contact with the base, thus total
stresses are higher than pore pressures (Fig. 2a); b) the debris ow is

Fig. 1. Behavior of clay-rich mud ow (Ilstad et al., 2004a).

Fig. 2. Representation of stress patterns observed in 1 g mudow tests (Ilstad et al., 2004a).

452

Ocean Engineering 129 (2017) 451458

E.A. Acosta et al.

in a uidized condition, i.e., the soil behaves as a liquid with the

grains in contact with the base but in suspension, thus total stresses
and pore pressure values are similar but important uctuations are
observed (Fig. 2b); c) the slide occurs as a rigid block over a uid
layer, i.e. total stresses and pore pressure values are close but with
minor uctuations (Fig. 2c). Therefore, the stress pattern "c" in
gure is called herein as condition IV for the hydroplaning to take
place.
The hypothesis assumed here is that conditions I to IV must all
occur so that hydroplaning develops.
3. Materials and methods
3.1. UENF's beam centrifuge
Fig. 3. UENF's beam centrifuge and the empty test box on the swing basket.

UENF's centrifuge used for the tests, Fig. 3, is a medium-size

centrifuge with a capacity of 100g-ton (Saboya et al., 2012). It
comprises an arm of 3.5 m diameter, with a coupling on a rotating
shaft at its center. Two swing platforms, one at each side of the arm,

Fig. 4. Centrifuge model and instrumentation adopted. (a) Aluminum box and centrifuge model, (b) Model set up and instruments positions.

453

Ocean Engineering 129 (2017) 451458

E.A. Acosta et al.

3.3. Test program

Table 1
Index tests of the sediments tested.
Test

% of Sand

% of Clay

W (%)

WL (%)

IP (%)

A
B
C

0
20
20

100
80
80

59.8
48.3
72.4

59.8
48.3
46.7

21.4
19.0
19.0

With the purpose of determining the occurrence of hydroplaning, a

comprehensive test program was planned, which main characteristics
are presented in Table 1. A preliminary test program was carried out in
order to assess the procedures and measurements that were performed.
In these tests, the particle size distribution (percentage of sand) and
water content of the slurry (w) were varied in function of the liquid
limit (wL). Kaolin clay and sand were used in the experiments, with the
latter having density of grains ranging from 2.58 to 2.59 g/cm3. Each
sediment suspension was prepared in a slurry mode 40 min before the
test. The volume of sediment paste in a single run was approximately
3.5 l.

enable the simultaneous testing of two models. An aluminum test box,

shown in Fig. 4, with an angle of inclination of 6 at its bottom was
used in the present series of tests. In preliminary tests a layer of sand
was used to represent the seabed, but due to instrumentation diculties at the bottom, it was then replaced by an acrylic ramp with
sandpaper xed on it, as shown in Fig. 4.

3.4. Test methodology

Once the slurry batch was prepared, it was poured into the slurry
(mud) container and water was added up in the box, as shown in Fig. 4.
The centrifuge test was then set to 40g of acceleration when the
sediment was released through a trapdoor, the moment at which the
sliding started. The "ideal" pull out velocity of the oodgate was not
investigated. However, by analyzing high speed images, it is clear that it
was fast enough to smoothly release the mud, which takes some time to
start owing.
Following the tests the hydroplaning was assessed by means of the
real-time test high speed monitoring videos helping, thus, backanalysis of the results to be obtained.

3.2. Instrumentation
The instrumentation consisted of EPL total stress cells and EPB
pore pressure transducers (PPTs) installed at the base of the test box,
both manufactured by Measurement Specialties Ltd. The tests were
carried out with six lines of instrumentation, each line comprising a
pair of transducers to monitor the changes in pore pressure and total
stress above the surface of the seabed during the landslide. Fig. 4 shows
a visual representation of the testing layout and the compartments
made inside the container and the instrumentation location.

Fig. 5. Images of the sliding material in test A.

Fig. 6. Images of the sliding material in test B.

Fig. 7. Images of the sliding material in test C.

454

Ocean Engineering 129 (2017) 451458

E.A. Acosta et al.

images obtained for test A from the moment in which the trapdoor is
opened until the moment in which the sliding material reaches the end
of the ramp. It can be observed that the sediments spread both laterally
and down the test box. Even so, a lifting of the frontal portion of the
debris ow can be observed with water penetrating under the debris
head and, consequently, leading to the formation of hydroplaning.
Results of test B presented in Fig. 6 show that the sliding does not
reach the end of the ramp, although a turbidity stream condition
(elutriation) is generated. Fig. 7 shows the results for test C where a
sliding mass was poured at water content corresponding to 1.5 times
the state of liquid limit. It can be seen the mass ows initially dense
followed by a suspension stream at the end of the ramp.
By roughly analyzing the running time of three tests, it is clear that
test B, which did not reach the end of the ramp, has own much slower
than tests A and C. Tests A and C have shown similar sliding velocities,
but test C was slightly faster than test A.

Table 2
Test results.
Test

Mud
density
d (kN/
m)

Fluid
stagnation
pressure pf
(kPa). Eq. (2)

Debris flow
pressure pd
(kPa) Eq.
(3)

Densimetric
Froude number
Frd Eq. (4)

Hydroplaning

A
B
C

16.72
17.33
15.68

2958.6
10.2
1383.6

18.43
17.06
17.65

0.44
0.03
0.31

Yes
No
Yes

4. Test results
As mentioned before, the literature presents dierent parameters to
be analyzed in order to determine the occurrence of the hydroplaning
phenomenon. Hereafter each of these parameters will be analyzed for
the performed tests in order to nd out if hydroplaning actually
occurred.
4.1. Image analysis

4.2. Analysis of test results

The images obtained from high speed camera videos, taken at
550 fps, are presented in Figs. 57, respectively for tests A, B and C. A
camera supporting acceleration up to 100g was attached to centrifuge
swing basket, which allowed the standing visualization in real time.
The required lighting was reached by using powerful set of led lamps
strategically placed to avoid shadow in images. In these Figures it can
be seen the time elapse recorded by the camera at the moment the
picture was taken. It is important to mention that this recorded time is
not synchronized with the time shown in instruments data, once the
reference times are dierent for both. Fig. 5 presents the results of the

100
96

In order to determine the uid stagnation pressure, it is necessary

to calculate the frontal velocities of the model and the prototype
considering the conventional the submarine slope scaling law dened
by Eq. (1). The results of uid pressure and normal stress of the sliding
mass are calculated according to Eqs. (2) and (3), respectively. Besides,
the conditions for the occurrence of hydroplaning are also discussed
considering the densimetric Froude number which was determined by
Eq. (4). The results are indicated in Table 2.

Test A-P1

Total Stress
Pore pressure
Effective Stress

92
90

Stress (kPa)

92
88
84

88
86

80
5

0
-5
500

-5

505

510

515

520

525

530

535

540

545

550

-10
500

555

505

510

515

520

96

Test A-P5

Total Stress
Pore Pressure
Effective Stress

94
92
90
88
86

0
-5
-10
500

525

530

Time (ms)

Time (ms)

Stress (kPa)

Stress (kPa)

Test A-P3

Total Stress
Pore Pressure
Effective Stress

94

505

510

515

520

525

530

535

540

545

550

555

Time (ms)
Fig. 8. Total stress, eective stress and pore pressure behavior for test A.

455

535

540

545

550

555

Ocean Engineering 129 (2017) 451458

E.A. Acosta et al.

Test B-P1
104

94

Total Stress
Pore Pressure
Effective Stress

100

92
90

92

Stress (kPa)

Stress (kPa)

96

Test B-P2

Total Stress
Pore Pressure
Effective Stress

88
84

88
86

80

84

10
5
0
-5
-10

5
0
-5
-10

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

60

70

80

90

Time (ms)

Test B-P4
94

Total Stress
Pore Pressure
Effective Stress

92

120

130

140

120

130

140

92
88

Stress (Kpa)

Stress (kPa)

110

Test B-P5

Total Stress
Pore Pressure
Effective Stress

96

90
88
86
84

84

10
5
0

5
0

-5

-5

-10

-10

100

Time (ms)

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

Time (ms)

-15

60

70

80

90

100

110

Time (ms)

Fig. 9. Total stress, eective stress and pore pressure behavior for test B.

signicant uctuations; once again evidencing the phenomenon of

hydroplaning.

4.3. Total stress and pore pressure data

The rst step in the analysis of total stress and pore pressure data
was to develop a signal processing to eliminate the inherent noise using
a short-time Fourier transform (software Origin Pro 8.1). For the sake
of simplication, it is important to emphasize that results for some
instrumented pairs are not shown when they do not present any
signicant dierence from their vicinity pairs in terms of total and pore
pressure recording.
Fig. 8 shows total stress and pore pressure data for test A generated
by the debris ow movement at positions P1, P3 and P5 in which
instrumentation was installed. It may be observed that readings
obtained for total stress and pore pressure were virtually the same
before and after the landslide. This behavior is very similar to that
presented by Ilstad et al. (2004b) for a sliding mass under a layer of
uid, a phenomenon that denes the occurrence of hydroplaning.
Data for test B, a mixture of 20% sand and 80% clay with water
content equal to the liquid limit is shown in Fig. 9 for positions P1, P2,
P4 and P5. A behavior with uctuations is seen, which indicates that
the material is disintegrating (amygdale) and as evidenced by the
uidized head (Fig. 2b). This behavior is typical of material with weak
inter-particle interaction forces that are not strong enough to resist the
frontal shearing stress, leading the ow to be dissolved and mixed with
water. This mechanism results in the same pattern of total stress and
pore pressure distribution at dierent instrument positions, but with
fast and erratic uctuations.
Test C, Fig. 10, presents the same sand and clay content as test B,
but with water content 50% greater than the liquid limit. But in
contrast to test B, both tests, C and A, show similar behavior with total
stress and pore pressure readings approximately the same and without

5. Global analysis of test data

The test results with respect to the four items described above
which dene the occurrence of hydroplaning, are summarized in
Table 3.
Results of tests A and C (Figs. 8 and 10), in which the four
parameters were assessed, along with images taken (Figs. 5 and 7),
indicate a lifted front head of the debris mass allowing, thus, the
intrusion of a thin layer of trapped water, resulting in hydroplaning.
Also, the densimetric Froude number and the ow's stagnation
pressure conrm the occurrence of hydroplaning.
It is important to mention that in some readings, the pore water
pressure was higher than the total stress for small pressure variation,
around 24 kPa. This was attributed to sensor readings, as they have
dierent principles of functioning and such small stress dierences
were not taken into account in the interpretation of the tests.
The parameters measured and calculated for test B indicate that
hydroplaning has not apparently occurred. The images from the video
(Fig. 6) also conrm this condition, since the landslide does not reach
the end of the ramp as debris ow mobility is related to the formation
of hydroplaning. Another important factor is the frontal behavior of the
debris ow, which presents uctuations in total stress and pore
pressure data (Fig. 9), with a tendency to the typical behavior of
sand-rich debris ow.
In general, pore pressure increases in all tests as the landslide
moves from position 1 to position 5, which results in a decrease in
eective stress and, consequently, in a reduction of the slurry's shear
456

Ocean Engineering 129 (2017) 451458

E.A. Acosta et al.

96
94

96

Test C-P1

Total Stress
Pore Pressure
Effective Stress

94

92

Test C-P2

92

Stress (kPa)

90

Stress (kPa)

Total Stress
Pore Pressure
Effective Stress

88
86
84
82

90
88
86

80
5
0
-5
130

140

150

160

170

180

190

-5
130

200

140

150

102
100

94

98

92

96

Stress (kPa)

Stress (kPa)

96

Test C-P4

Total Stress
Pore Pressure
Effective Stress

90
88

180

190

200

Test C-P6

Total Stress
Pore Pressure
Effective Stress

94
92
90

86

0
-5
130

170

Time (ms)

Time (ms)

98

160

-5
140

150

160

170

180

190

-10
130

200

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

Time (ms)

Time (ms)

Fig. 10. Total stress, eective stress and pore pressure behavior for test C.

values of uid pressure, normal stress and densimetric Froude number.

In this study while using the same mixture, that is, the same sand and
clay content, but with dierent water content levels results evidenced
the occurrence of hydroplaning when the mixture's water content level
is higher than its liquid limit (Test C), situation in which the mixture
behaves as uid slurry. However, for a water content level equal to the
liquid limit (Test B), the material gained consistency and the phenomenon of hydroplaning was thus not generated.

Table3
Summary of the results obtained for the determination of hydroplaning.
Conditions for the occurrence of
hydroplaning

Test A

Test B

Test C

I Is the stagnation pressure higher

than the normal stress of the sliding
mass?
II Observing the images from the
video, is it possible to observe the
phenomenon of hydroplaning?
III Is the densimetric Froude number
higher than 0.30?
IV Does the behavior of the total stress
and pore pressure series present
evidence of hydroplaning?

Yes

No

Yes

Yes (see
Fig. 5)

No (see
Fig. 6)

No (see
Fig. 7)

Acknowlegdemnt

Yes

No

Yes

Yes (see
Fig. 8)

No (see
Fig. 9)

Yes (see
Fig. 10)

The Authors are grateful to Brazilian Petroleum Company Petrobras

Research Division CENPES for the scholarship given to the rst
Author and the nancial support by the Research Project
0050.0069829.11.2.
References

resistance, as stated by the principle of eective stress. From this study,

it can be concluded that a frontal velocity of vf =1.26 m/s seems to be
enough for hydroplaning to occur, based on the three tests performed.

Barker, H.R., 1998. Physical Modelling of Construction Processes in the Mini-Drum

Centrifuge (PhD thesis). University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Boylan, N., Gaudin, C., White, D.J., Randolph, M.F., 2010. Modelling of submarine slides
in the geotechnical centrifuge. In: Springman, Laue and Seward, (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 7th International Conference on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, Taylor &
Francis Group, London, pp. 10951100
Chi, K., Zakeri, A., Hawlader, B., 2011. Centrifuge modeling of subaqueous and subaerial
landslides impact on suspended pipelines. In: Proceedings of the Pan-Am CGS
Geotechnical Conference, Toronto, Canada.
De Blasio, Elverhoi, F.V., Issler, A., Herbitz, D., Bryn, P, C.B., Lien, R., 2004. Flow
models of natural debris ows originating from overconsolidated clay materials. Mar.
Geol. 213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2004.10.018.
Feeley, K., 2007. Triggering Mechanisms of Submarine Landslides. Research Report,
Department of Civil Engineering, Northeastern Univ, Boston
Gue, K., Soga, K., Bolton, M., Thusyanthan, N.I., 2010. Centrifuge modeling of submarine

6. Conclusions
The concept of hydroplaning oers an explanation for the mobility
of debris ows in gentle slopes. The phenomenon is characterized by
the presence of a thin layer of slurry which signicantly increases
debris mobility, thus increasing pore pressure, reducing eective stress
and, consequently, reducing the sliding debris ow's shear resistance.
Another aspect worth mentioning is the fact that the water content
level has an inuence on the formation of hydroplaning, altering the
457

Ocean Engineering 129 (2017) 451458

E.A. Acosta et al.

landslide ows. In: Springman, Laue and Seward, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, Taylor & Francis
Group, London, pp. 11131118
Hance, J.J., 2003. Development of a Database and Assessment of Seaoor Slope Stability
based on Published Literature (MSc thesis). University of Texas, Austin.
Harbitz, C., Parker, G., Elverhoi, A., Marr, J., Mohrig, D., Har, A., 2003. Hydroplaning
of subaqueous debris ows and glide blocks: analytical solutions and discussion. J.
Geophys. Res. 108 (B7), 2349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2001JB001454.
Hu,, H., 2007. A Block Model for Submarine Slides involving Hydroplaning (PhD thesis).
University of Texas, Austin.
Ilstad, T., Marr, Elverhoi, Harbitz, B., 2004a. On the frontal dynamics and morphology of
submarine debris ows. Int. Mar. Geol., 213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.margeo.2004.10.020.
Ilstad, T., Marr, Elverhoi, Harbitz, B., 2004b. Subaqueous debris ow behaviour and its
dependence on the sand/clay ratio: a laboratory study using particle tracking. Mar.
Geol., 213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2004.10.017.
Ilstad, T., Marr, Elverhoi, Harbitz, B., 2004c. Laboratory studies of subaqueous debris
ows by measurements of pore-uid pressure and total stress. Mar. Geol., 213.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2004.10.016.
Lee, H.H., Orzech, K., Locat, J., Konrad, J.M., Boulanger, E., 2004. Seismic
strengthening, a conditioning factor inuencing submarine landslide development.

In: Proceedings of the 57th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, pp. 814. [CDROM].
Locat, J.,M. (Ed.), 2002. Submarine Mass Movements and Their Consequences. Kluwer,
Dordrecht, 540.
Madabhushi, G., 2015. In: Centrifuge Modeling for Civil Engineers. CRC Press/Taylor &
Francis, Boca Raton, FL.
Marr, J.G., Har, P.A., Shanmugam, G., Parker, G., 2001. Experiments on subaqueous
sandy gravity ows: the role of clay and water content in ow dynamics and
depositional structures. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 113 (11), 13771386.
Mohrig, D., Elverhoi, A., Parker, G., 1999. Experiments on the relative mobility of muddy
subaqueous and subaerial debris ows and their capacity to remobilize antecedent
deposits. Mar. Geol. 154, 117129.
Mohrig, D., Whipple, K.X., Hondzo, M., Ellis, C., Parker, G., 1998. Hydroplaning of
subaqueous debris ow. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 110 (3), 387394.
Saboya, F., Jr., Cardoso, P.A., Reis, R.M., Tibana, S., Ramires sobrinho, R., Arauna, J.T.,
Jr., 2012. Centrifuge test to evaluate the geotechnical performance of anchored
buried pipelines in sand. J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. ASCE 3, 8497.
Taylor, R.N., 1995. Geotechnical Centrifuge Technology. In: Professional, B.A., (Ed.),
London, UK.
Zhao, T., 2014. Investigation of landslide Induced Debris Flows by the DEM and CFD
(PhD thesis). University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, 260.

458