Comparison of Measured Ship Squat with Numerical

and Empirical Methods

Michael J. Briggs,* Paul J. Kopp, Vladimir K. Ankudinov, and Andrew L. Silver
*Research Hydraulic Engineer, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi

Naval Architect, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, Seakeeping Department, West Bethesda, Maryland

Formerly Group Director (now deceased), TRANSAS, Hydrodynamics and Research Department, Washington, DC

Engineer, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, Seakeeping Department, West Bethesda, Maryland

The Beck, Newman and Tuck (BNT) numerical predictions are used in the Coastal
and Hydraulics Laboratory (CHL) Channel Analysis and Design Evaluation Tool
(CADET) model for predicting underkeel clearance (UKC) resulting from ship motions
and squat. The Ankudinov empirical squat prediction formula has been used in the
CHL ship simulator and was recently updated. The World Association for Waterborne
Transport Infrastructure (formerly The Permanent International Association of Navi-
gation Congresses, PIANC) has recommended several empirical and physics-based
formulas for the prediction of ship squat. Some of the most widely used formulas
include those of Barrass, Eryuzlu, Huuska, ICORELS, Romisch, Tuck, and
Yoshimura. The purpose of this article is to compare BNT, Ankudinov, and PIANC
predictions with measured DGPS squat data from the Panama Canal for four ships.
These comparisons demonstrate that the BNT, Ankudinov, and PIANC predictions fall
within the range of squat measurements and can be used with confidence in deep
draft channel design.

Keywords: ship squat; numerical models; empirical formulas; ship measurements

1. Introduction and bottom channel width, W. Channel types include idealized

HISTORICALLY, THE World Association for Waterborne Transport
Infrastructure (formerly The Permanent International Association
of Navigation Congresses, PIANC) has recommended several
empirical and physics-based formulas for the prediction of ship
squat. These include those of Tuck (1966), Guliev (1971), Hooft
(1974), Huuska (1976), ICORELS (1980), Norrbin (1986),
Yoshimura (1986), Romisch (1989), Millward (1992), Eryuzlu,
Cao, and DAgnolo (1994), and Barrass (2009). Most are func-
tions of a limited number of ship and channel parameters in an
effort to minimize the number of free parameters and increase the
ease of use. Typical ship parameters include ship speed, Vk, block
coefficient, CB, and ship dimensions of length between perpen-
diculars, Lpp, beam, B, and draft, T. Channel parameters include
water depth, h, type of channel cross-section, Ac, side slope, n,
cross-sections representing unrestricted (U) or open channels,
restricted (R) or dredged with a trench, and canal (C) with sides
that extend to the surface (PIANC 1997). However, many ship
and channel parameters are not known with certainty. Channel
cross-sections are usually not as simple as the three idealized
shapes and dimensions can vary considerably along the channel
length. All parameters used in this article are listed in the Nomen-
clature section.
The PIANC formulas are usually considered the standard for
predicting ship squat if field or laboratory measurements are not
available. Most of these PIANC formulas were developed over a
decade ago from limited laboratory and field measurements but
are used for the newer generation of containerships, tankers, and
bulk carriers. Some such as Tuck and Romisch are more physics-
based, whereas others like Barrass and Yoshimura are more
empirical in nature. Although many pilots and channel designers
have their favorites, no one formula has demonstrated itself to
be universally better for all ship types and channel shapes. Briggs

477
(2006) has recommended examining squat predictions with more
than one formula and comparing the results based on the type of
ship, channel, and formula constraints. Because there is no one
formula that is universally accepted, an average, range, or maxi-
mum value might be considered in channel design.
The PIANC MarCom Working Group 49 (WG49) is updating
the 1997 PIANC guidance (1997) and expects to publish their
report in 2013. The WG49 has reduced the number of squat pre-
diction formulas to seven of the most popular formulas. These
include the updated versions by Barrass, Eryuzlu, Huuska,
ICORELS, Romisch, Tuck, and Yoshimura.
The Channel Analysis and Design Evaluation Tool (CADET)
is a computer program originally developed by the US Navy to
determine the optimum dredge depth for entrance channels (2005)
used by military vessels. It uses an external program, BNT (based
on the work of Beck, Newman & Tuck 1975), to predict ship
squat. BNT is a potential flow program that predicts sinkage and
trim from vertical force and pitching moment resulting from the
dynamic pressure on the hull. Briggs et al. (2010a) found reason-
able agreement between BNT and PIANC predictions for several
ships including an aircraft carrier, two containerships, a tanker,
and a bulk carrier for two different channels.
The Ankudinov ship squat formula is an empirical formula that
predicts maximum squat resulting from midpoint sinkage and
vessel trim (Ankudinov et al. 2000). It has been used in the
Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (CHL) Ship/Tow Simulator to
account for ship squat in the determination of instantaneous
underkeel clearance (UKC). Compared with other empirical for-
mulas, it is somewhat more complicated because it includes addi-
tional input parameters to account for the effects of the ships
propeller, bulbous bow, stern transom, initial trim, and the chan-
nels depth, blockage, and cross-section. Modifications have
recently been incorporated to improve its accuracy.
Most mariners and pilots are more concerned with the static
UKC and not just ship squat. Static UKC is the safety margin or
what is left after subtracting static draft and trim from the
channel depth. Ship squat and an allowance for vertical ship
motions (for ships exposed to waves) must be subtracted to get
the net UKC. A brief mention of the static UKC is provided for
each ship, but the main focus of the article is comparisons of
ship squat.
The purpose of this article is to compare the BNT, Ankudinov,
and PIANC predictions for four ships with measured ship squat
data from the Panama Canal. This article is an update of prelim-
inary comparisons of Ankudinov and PIANC predictions (Briggs
& Daggett 2009). These comparisons of almost 3000 squat mea-
surements demonstrate that the BNT, Ankudinov, and PIANC
predictions fall within the range of the squat measurements and
can be used with confidence in deep draft channel design. The
second section in this article describes the ship and channel
parameters in the Panama Canal study. Section 3 describes the
CADET/BNT ship squat program. The Ankudinov ship squat
formulas are presented in the next section. Section 5 describes
the five PIANC empirical squat formulas used in this study.

Nomenclature
Ac wetted cross-section area of canal, m2 KS channel width correction factor, Huuska SMax maximum ship squat at bow or stern,
As ships underwater amidships KTr trim coefficient, Ankudinov BNT, ft
cross-section, m2 KTT r stern transom factor, Ankudinov Ss stern squat, m
B ships beam, m KTT 1 initial trim effect factor, Ankudinov SM,j measured ship squat at location j, m
BS bias or difference between predicted KU unrestricted channel correction factor, SP,j predicted ship squat at location j for
and measured squat, m Romisch BNT, Ankudinov, or PIANC, m

BTr stern transom width, Ankudinov KDT squat at critical speed, Romisch S M average ship squat for measured
CB ships block coefficient Lpp ship length between perpendiculars, m DGPS, m

CF correction factor for ship MAE mean absolute error between predicted S P average ship squat for predicted BNT,
shape, Romisch and measured squat, m Ankudinov, or PIANC, m
CV correction factor for ship n inverse bank slope s1 corrected blockage factor, Huuska
speed, Romisch nTr trim exponent, Ankudinov T ship draft, m
Fnh Froude depth number PCh1 channel effect parameter, Ankudinov Tap draft at aft perpendicular
g gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s2) PCh2 channel effect, trim correction Tfp draft at forward perpendicular
h water depth, m parameter, Ankudinov Tr ship trim, m/m, Ankudinov and BNT
hm mean water depth, Romisch, m PFnh ship forward speed parameter, Vcr critical ship speed, m/s
hmT restricted channel water depth, Ankudinov Ve enhanced ship speed, Yoshimura, m/s
Romisch, m PhT propeller effect in shallow water on trim Vk ship speed, knots
hOut height outside underwater trench, parameter, Ankudinov VS ship speed, m/s
similar to hT, ft Ph/T water depth parameter, Ankudinov W channel width, measured at bottom, m
hT height of dredged underwater trench, m PHu ship hull parameter for shallow water, WEff effective width of waterway, m
j location along Panama Canal Ankudinov WTop channel width, measured at top, m
K channel coefficient, Barrass R Pearson correlation coefficient sM standard deviation of ship squat for
Kb correction factor for channel RMSE root mean square error, m measured DGPS, m
width, Eryuzlu RS ratio between predicted and sP standard deviation of ship squat
KbT bulbous bow factor, Ankudinov measured squat for predicted BNT, Ankudinov,
KC canal channel correction factor, S blockage factor As/Ac or PIANC, m
Romisch Sb bow squat, m r ship volume of displacement, m3
KPS propeller sinkage factor, Ankudinov Sh channel depth factor for R and
KPT propeller trim factor, Ankudinov C channels, Ankudinov
KR restricted channel correction factor, Sm midpoint ship sinkage, m/m,
Romisch Ankudinov and BNT

478 Comparison of Measured Ship Squat with Numerical and Empirical Methods
Results are presented and discussed in Section 6 for the four
ships. Finally, the last section provides some conclusions.

2. Channel and ship parameters

This validation exercise involves field measurements (Daggett &

Hewlett 1998a, 1998b) made in the Gaillard Cut section of the
Panama Canal (Fig. 1) in December 1997 and April 1998 using the
Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS). The Gaillard Cut
(Fig. 2) is a typical canal cross-section and stretches from
Culebra to Bas Obispo, a distance of approximately 9.1 km from
station location 1670 to 1970 (in hundreds of feet). The channel
width for all transits was 152 m. Ankudinov et al. (2000) reported
that the minimum water depths in the center 91.4-m-section of the
canal were 13.6 to 15 m in the 1997 study and 12.4 to 13.7 m in the
1998 study. Additional details on average depths and static UKC
are presented for the individual ships. The DGPS measurements
were made using dual-frequency equipment mounted at three points
on each ship (bow and port and starboard bridge wings). The ver-
tical accuracy levels were on the order of 1 to 5 cm. According to
Dr. Daggett (personal communication), a larger source of error or
uncertainty is measurement of water levels and depth.
Four of the ships from the 1997 and 1998 studies were selected
for comparison. Table 1 lists the parameters for these vessels that
included a Panamax tanker (Elbe), Panamax bulk carrier (Global
Challenger), Panamax containership (Majestic Maersk), and con-
tainership (OOCL Fair). These four ships represent 2978 individ-
Fig. 2 Ship transiting Gaillard Cut in Panama Canal
ual squat comparisons with measured DGPS data. The ships are
grouped in Table 1 in alphabetical order and by trim location at
the bow or stern.
Figure 3 shows the ship speeds through the Gaillard Cut. All of and UKC. The Majestic Maersk has the largest ship speeds and the
the ships were traveling northward from the Pacific to the Atlantic most variation in speed.
Ocean or from right to left in this figure. When calculating ship
squat, one wants to avoid acceleration and deceleration. These
transits obviously have some periods with nonsteady ship speeds 3. Beck, Newman, and Tuck/Channel Analysis and
as a result of maneuvering concerns and bends in the channel Design Evaluation Tool numerical model
(there are four bends in this section of the Panama Canal) but are
included in the averages. The Elbe had the smallest ship speeds The BNT potential flow program by Beck, Newman, and Tuck
because it was somewhat overloaded for the drought conditions in (1975) is the default option for predicting underway sinkage and
April 1998 and was required to go slower for the shallower depths trim in CADET. Although included with and loosely coupled to
CADET, BNT is completely independent and standalone. Because
channel geometry can vary from reach to reach, CADET supports
the ability to define multiple sets of sinkage and trim data sets for
the same ship and loading condition.
The BNT sinkage and trim prediction program is based on early
work by Tuck (1966, 1967) investigating the dynamics of a slen-
der ship in shallow water at various speeds for an infinitely wide
channel and for a finite width channel such as a canal. Tucks
original formula has been successfully used for tankers for many
years. This work was expanded to include a typical dredged
channel with a finite-width inner channel of a certain depth and
an infinitely wide outside channel of shallower depth by Beck,
Newman, and Tuck (1975).
Figure 4 is a schematic of the simplified channel cross-section
used in BNT. In addition to the automatically specified inside
channel depth, h, the user has the option to include the channel
width, W, and outside channel depth, hOut. The value of hOut
remains the same for all h values. One restriction to BNT is that
Fig. 1 Gaillard Cut in Panama Canal the sides of the channel are fixed as vertical.

Comparison of Measured Ship Squat with Numerical and Empirical Methods 479
 Table 1 Ship parameters for Panama Canal study

Lpp B Tfp Tap Vk

Ship ID Type Location Date (m) (m) (m) (m) CB (kt)

E T B 1998 222.0 32.2 11.3 11.3 0.84 5 to 7

G B B 1997 216.0 32.3 11.7 11.8 0.83 9 to 10
M C S 1997 284.7 32.2 11.8 11.8 0.63 7 to 12
O C S 1998 227.0 32.2 9.8 10.6 0.65 6 to 10

Ship ID: E Elbe, G Global Challenger, M Majestic Maersk, O OOCL Fair; Type: T tanker, B bulk carrier, C containership; Location: B
bow, S stern; Date: 1997 December, 1998 April.

In his early work, Tuck (1966) calculated the dynamic pressure
of slender ships in finite-water depth and infinite and finite-water
width by modeling the underwater area of the hull. This under-
water area was defined by the 21 equally spaced stations along the
ships length. Therefore, the ships geometry file, draft, speeds,
and water depths are used in the BNT squat calculations. Within
this analysis, the fluid is assumed to be inviscid and irrotational
and the hull long and slender. Input hull definition is provided in
terms of the waterline beam and sectional area at these 21 stations
between the forward and aft perpendiculars (Fig. 5). Typically,
generic ship lines from a ship database are used and adapted for
a particular ship because ship lines are proprietary and not readily
available for newer ships.
The dynamic pressure is obtained for each depth Froude num-
ber, Fnh, by differentiating the velocity potential along the length
of the hull. The Fnh is defined as
Vs
Fnh p 1
gh
where g is gravitational acceleration and VS is ship speed in m/s.
The sinkage and trim predictions are obtained from the dynamic
pressure by calculating the vertical force and pitching moment,
which are translated to vertical sinkage and trim angle. Channel
depths should be the same order as the draft of the ship to satisfy
the shallow-water approximations assumed in Tuck (1966).
The BNT program numerically calculates midship sinkage, Sm,
and trim, Tr, as a function of Fnh. Because English units are used
in CADET, sinkage is measured in feet positive for downward
movement. Trim in feet is the difference between sinkage at the
bow and stern positive for bow down. The equivalent bow Sb and
stern Ss squat are given by
Sb Sm 0:5Tr
2
Ss Sm  0:5Tr

This is a simplistic representation of the squat at the bow and

stern because it assumes they are equidistant, fore and aft, from
the midpoint of the ship. An Excel spreadsheet was created from
Fig. 3 Ship speeds during Panama Canal transits; all ships were north- the BNT output to iterate between water depths and ship speeds at
bound, sailing from right to left each measurement location.

Fig. 4 BNT channel geometry variables

480 Comparison of Measured Ship Squat with Numerical and Empirical Methods
 The ship hull parameter for shallow water, PHu, was recently
modified by Ankudinov and Briggs (2009) as
!
BT
PHu 1:7CB 2 0:004C2B 6
Lpp

The ship forward speed parameter, PFnh, is given by

1:80:4Fnh
PFnh Fnh 7

p
which is a numerical approximation to the term F2nh 1  F2nh
that is in many of the PIANC empirical squat formulas.
The water depth effects parameter, Ph/T, is defined as
0:35
Ph=T 1:0 8
h=T 2
The channel effects parameter, PCh1, for an R or C channel is
given by
p
PCh1 1:0 10Sh  1:51:0 Sh Sh 9
Fig. 5 CADET and BNT ship lines hull geometry where the channel depth factor, Sh, is defined by
  
S hT
Sh CB 10
h=T h
4. Ankudinov model and hT is the trench height measured from the bottom. The block-
age factor S is a measure of the relative cross-sectional area of the
Ankudinov and Jakobsen (1996) and Ankudinov et al. (1996, ship, As, to that of the channel, Ac, defined as
2000) proposed the MARSIM 2000 formula for maximum squat
based on Sm and Tr in shallow water. The Ankudinov method has As 0:98BT
S 11
undergone considerable revision as new data were collected and Ac Wh nh2
compared. The most recent modifications from a study of ship The 0.98 factor is the result of the radius on the corners of the
squat in the St. Lawrence Seaway by Stocks, Daggett, and Page hull. The Ac is a projection of the channel sides to the water
(2002) and correspondence between Ankudinov and Briggs in surface. However, for the Panama Canal comparisons, the mea-
April 2009 are contained in this study. These new revisions sured Ac was used.
were programmed and documented in a technical note by Briggs
(2009). The Ankudinov formula has been used extensively in the 4.2. Vessel trim
CHL Ship Tow Simulator.
The Ankudinov prediction is one of the most complicated for- The Tr was also recently modified by Ankudinov and Briggs
mulas for predicting ship squat because it includes many empirical (2009) as
factors to account for the effects of ship and channel. The restric-
Tr 1:7PHu PFnh Ph=T KTr PCh2 12
tion Fnh  0.6 is applied. The maximum ship squat, SMax, is a
function of Sm and Tr given by In addition to the two parameters already described for the
  midpoint sinkage equation, the Tr also includes parameter Ph/T,
Sb Lpp Sm  0:5Tr
SMax 3 coefficient KTr, and channel effect trim correction parameter PCh2
Ss Lpp Sm 0:5Tr to account for the effects of the ship propellers, bulbous bow, stern
transom, and initial trim.
The SMax can be at the bow or stern depending on the value of
The vessel trim parameter Ph/T accounts for the reduction in
Tr. The negative sign is used for bow squat, Sb, and the positive
trim resulting from the propeller in shallow water and is defined as
sign for stern squat, Ss. h i
2:51h=T

Ph=T 1  e 13
Fnh
4.1. Midpoint sinkage Sm
The trim coefficient, KTr, is a function of many factors and is
The Sm is defined as
 given by
Sm 1 KPS PHu PFnh Ph=T PCh1 4   T
KTr CnTr
B  0:15KP KP  KB KTr KT1
S T T T
14
The ship, water depth, and channel parameters in this midpoint The first factor in this equation CnTr
B is the block coefficient CB
sinkage equation are described subsequently. The propeller param- raised to the nTr power. The exponent is defined as
eter KPS is defined as
 PCh1
0:15 single propeller nTr 2:0 0:8 15
KPS 5 CB
0:13 twin propellers where Pch1 was previously defined in equation 9.

Comparison of Measured Ship Squat with Numerical and Empirical Methods 481
 The next two factors define the propeller effect on the vessel form ships with CB > 0.7 tend to squat by the bow and fine-form
trim. The first factor KPS is the same as the propeller parameter for ships with CB < 0.7 tend to squat by the stern. The CB 0.7 is an
the midpoint sinkage and the second factor is the propeller trim even keel situation with maximum squat the same at both bow
parameter KPT and stern. Of course, for channel design, one is mainly interested in
 the maximum squat and not necessarily whether it is at the bow or
0:15 single propeller
KP
T
16 stern. With these constraints in mind, the average PIANC values
0:20 twin propellers consisted of predictions for all five PIANC formulas for bow squat
but only Barrass and Romisch for stern squat.
The last group of three factors define the effects of the bulbous
bow KbT, stern transom KTr
T T
, and initial trim KT1 on the vessel trim.
T 5.1. Barrass
The Kb is given by

0:1 bulbous bow The Barrass ship squat formula has evolved and been revised at
Kb
T
17 least four times. The one in this article (Barrass 2002, 2009) is
0:0 no bulbous bow
considered the third version for both Sb and Ss. It is a function of
T
The KTr is defined by CB, ship speed, Vk, in knots, and channel blockage coefficient, K,
8   and is defined as
< BTr 
0:1 0:04 stern transom
KTr
T
B 18 KCB Vk2 Sb CB > 0:7
: 21
0:0 no stern transom 100 Ss CB  0:7
where BTr is the stern transom width and is typically equal to 0.4B, If CB > 0.7, maximum squat occurs at the bow Sb. If CB  0.7,
although values as high as 0.7B have sometimes been used. it occurs at the stern and is equal to the stern squat, Ss. Barrass
T
The KT1 is given by channel coefficient, K, is based on analysis of over 600 laboratory
 and prototype measurements for all three channel types. It is
Tap  Tfp
T
KT1  19 defined as
Tap Tfp
K 5:74S0:76 1K2 22
where Tap is the static draft at the stern or aft perpendicular and
Tfp is the static draft at the bow or forward perpendicular. The limits on K are designed so that K 2 for C (also for R)
Finally, the channel effect trim correction parameter PCh2 for channels. The blockage factor S was previously defined. If S >
both R and C channels is defined as 0.25 for C (also for R) channels, the value of K is set to 2 to ensure
PCh2 1:0  5Sh 20 the limits required for K.

5. The World Association for Waterborne Transport

5.2. Eryuzlu
Infrastructure empirical formulas
Eryuzlu, Cao, and DAgnolo (1994) developed a formula for Sb
In 1997, PIANC (1997) included 11 empirical squat formulas in based on laboratory experiments. Although it is usually applied to
their design guidance for deep draft entrance channels. PIANC only unrestricted (U) and restricted (R) channels, it is included in
WG49 is updating this guidance to retain only seven formulas that these comparisons because the Canadian Coast Guard (2001) uses
are the most appropriate and useful. Five of these squat formulas it for ships in the St. Lawrence Seaway, a channel that is very
are evaluated in this article with the main emphasis on a canal (C) similar to the Panama Canal. Therefore, it is included here
configuration. They include those of Huuska (1976), Yoshimura although the CB constraint is technically exceeded. It is defined as
(1986), Romisch (1989), Eryuzlu, Cao, and DAgnolo (1994), and    
Barrass (2009). The ICORELS formula was not used in this appli- h2 Vs 2:289 h 2:972
cation because it was not intended for canal cross-sections and is Sb 0:298 p Kb 23
T gT T
also very similar to the Huuska formula. The original Tuck for-
mula was also not used because it is represented by the BNT where the factor Kb is a correction factor accounting for relative
numerical formulation using potential flow theory. channel width according to the ratio of channel width W to ship
Briggs (2006) programmed these formulas in FORTRAN pro- beam B.
grams and Briggs et al. (2010b) summarized and illustrated them 8
>
> 3:1 W
with examples. Although some constraints and limitations for < p < 9:61
W=B B
these formulas are exceeded, they are included in the results for Kb 24
>
> W
this article because this seems to be the accepted practice within : 1  9:61
the deep-draft navigation community to relax these constraints B
where reasonable. 5.3. Huuska/Guliev
All of these PIANC formulas give predictions of bow squat Sb,
but only the Romisch method gives predictions for stern squat, Ss, The next empirical squat formula was developed by Guliev
for all channel types. Barrass gives Ss for unrestricted channels and (1971) and Huuska (1976) and is given by
for canals and restricted channels depending on the value of CB.
2:4CB BT F2nh
According to Barrass (2009), the value of CB determines whether Sb p Ks 25
the maximum squat is at the bow or stern. Barrass assumes that full- Lpp 1  F2nh

482 Comparison of Measured Ship Squat with Numerical and Empirical Methods
 The channel width correction factor Ks is defined as 6. Validation results

7:45s1 0:76 s1 > 0:03
Ks 26 As mentioned previously, only five of the PIANC formulas were
1:0 s1  0:03 included in this study. Although all five can predict bow squat, only
where the corrected blockage factor s1 S for C channels. Huuska the Barrass and Romisch formulas were appropriate for stern squat
defined other values for s1 for the other two channel types, but predictions for canal channels. Therefore, only these two predic-
they are not presented here because we are only concerned with tions were used to calculate the PIANC average for stern squat.
C channels in this article. Depending on the value of CB, only bow or stern squat predictions
were calculated as dictated by the constraints of each formulation.
Again, the PIANC values were used to calculate an average bow
5.4. Romisch (five averages) or stern (two averages) squat prediction at each
Romisch (1989) developed formulas for both Sb and Ss from location for each ship to compare with the measured DGPS values.
physical model experiments for a C channel. The Romisch squat is
defined as 6.1. Uncertainty analysis
Sb ; Ss CV CF KDT T 27 Each of the parameters in the prediction of ship squat has inher-
ent uncertainties. The channel depth, h, is assumed to have no bias
The factors in this equation are correction factors for ship or variability because it is a deterministic parameter. Uncertainty in
speed, CV, ship shape, CF, and squat at critical speed, KDT, defined as the static and dynamic drafts, T, comes from the estimation of the
 2 " 4 # draft at the pier, from the draft marks, and the sinkage and trim
Vs Vs
CV 8  0:5 0:0625 28 estimate, S. According to Kopp and Silver (2004), the error band in
Vcr Vcr the static draft is assumed to be known within a range of  1%. The
critical points of the bow, stern, and bilge are assumed to have an
8  error band within 4.5% of the actual value at the bow and stern and
< 10BCB 2
CF Bow 29 1.5% of the actual value at the bilge. The sinkage estimate is based
: Lpp on an analytical or empirical method from experimental results.
1:0 Stern The uncertainty in the sinkage comes from the scatter of the data
p in model tests and how well the calculated results fit the model test
KDT 0:155 h=T 30 results. This gives a variability of the sinkage parameter of approx-
imately 1% with no bias. Of course, the ship squat empirical esti-
Critical ship speed, Vcr, for a canal is a function of wave celer- mates are based on many different parameters that are not included
ity, C, and a channel shape correction factor, KC, defined as in every formula. Even if included, they are weighted differently
   in each formula.
p p Arc cos1  S 1:5
Vcr CKC ghm 2 cos 31
3 3
6.2. Error metrics
where the mean water depth, hm, is a function of the projected
width at the top of the channel, WTop, defined as Statistical and error metrics used to quantify uncertainty in the
predictions are described in this section. The first two metrics are
AC AC the means and the standard deviations for the measured and pre-
hm 32
WTop W 2nh dicted squat data.
Two simplistic goodness-of-fit measures to characterize the agree-
However, because the hm was provided for the Panama Canal ment between the model squat predictions and measured DGPS
data, that value was used in the Romisch formula. data are the ratio RS between predicted and measured data and the
bias or difference between the two data sets. The RS is defined as
5.5. Yoshimura SP; j
RS 35
SM; j
The last squat formula was developed by Yoshimura (1986) and
included by the Overseas Coastal Area Development Institute of The bias BS is given by
Japan (2009) as part of Japans Design Standard for Fairways in
Japan. It was enhanced by Ohtsu et al. (2006) to include predic- Bs SP; j  SM; j 36
tions for C (also for R) channels. It is defined as where SP,j is the predicted squat at the bow or stern at location
"     #
1:5T BCB 15T BCB 3 Ve 2 j and SM,j is the measured squat at location j.
Sb 0:7 33 Three better error metrics include the root mean square error
h Lpp h Lpp g (RMSE), Pearson correlation coefficient (R), and the mean abso-
lute error (MAE). They are defined as
where the enhanced ship speed term, Ve, is a function of ship
v
speed, Vs, in m/s given by uN
u 
u ( SP; j  SM; j 2
Vs tj1
Ve 34 RMSE 37
1  S N

Comparison of Measured Ship Squat with Numerical and Empirical Methods 483
 differences between the two data sets. Although unbounded,
CovSP ; SM
R p smaller values indicate better agreement. The R error statistic
Var SP Var SM provides an indication of the correlation that may exist between

N
   data sets. It is bounded between 1 (perfect negative correlation)
(
j1
SP; j  SP SM; j  SM and 1 (perfect positive correlation). It is an indication of linearity
ss 38 between the data sets because an uncorrelated value of R 0 can
N
 N

( SP; j  SP 2 ( SM; j  SM 2
indicate a nonlinear or random scatter relationship between data
j1 j1 sets. Therefore, small values of R indicate that the data sets are
uncorrelated, but this does not mean they are unrelated, just not
linearly related.
N
( j SP; j  SM; j j
j1 6.3. Squat comparisons
MAE 39
N Figures 6 to 9 show time series comparisons of the BNT,
 
where SP is the mean of the predicted squat, SM is the mean of the Ankudinov, and PIANC squat predictions to the measured DGPS
measured squat, and N is the number of measurement points. values for the four ships along the Gaillard Cut. The top plot
Values of RS > 1.0 indicate overprediction, RS < 1.0 under- shows the RS for these three predictors at each location. The
prediction, and RS 1.0 perfect match. Similarly, values of BS > bottom plot shows the measured and predicted bow or stern squat
0.0 indicate overprediction, BS < 0.0 underprediction, and BS for each ship. A spline smoothing was applied to each of the three
0.0 a perfect match. The RMSE and MAE measure the actual predictors to illustrate the general trend of the data. The degree of
smoothness was automatically selected using cross validation of
the data. The entire data set was used in all the statistical and
Table 2 Mean and standard deviations for measured and metric calculations, however.
predicted squat data In lieu of error bars on the plots, the statistical and error
metrics are listed in Tables 2 to 5 to improve readability of the
Ship ID No. Statistic DGPS BNT Ankudinov PIANC plots. Table 2 compares the squat means and standard deviations
 for the measured DGPS and predicted BNT, Ankudinov, and
E 1015 S 0.42 0.27 0.54 0.35
s 0.083 0.052 0.073 0.055 PIANC data. Table 3 lists the minimum, average, and maximum

G 633 S 1.11 0.76 1.33 1.00 values of RS for BNT, Ankudinov, and PIANC squat predictions
s 0.132 0.045 0.057 0.048 for each ship. Table 4 lists minimum, average, and maximum BS

M 649 S 0.84 0.45 0.74 0.74 between measured and predicted bow and stern squat for each
s 0.307 0.172 0.201 0.318 ship. Finally, Table 5 lists the RMSE, R, and MAE statistics for

O 681 S 0.58 0.45 0.59 0.55 each of the four ships.
s 0.099 0.077 0.058 0.053
Total 2978
6.3.1. Elbe tanker. Figure 6 shows the bow squat for the Elbe

S Sample mean or average; s sample standard deviation. Panamax tanker. The average water depth ranged between 13.0

Table 3 Ratios of predicted to measured squat

BNT Ankudinov PIANC

Ship No. of Squat Minimum Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum
ID Measurements Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio

E 1015 0.45 0.64 0.84 0.96 1.29 1.78 0.60 0.83 1.11
G 633 0.53 0.69 0.90 0.96 1.21 1.61 0.72 0.92 1.21
M 649 0.30 0.54 0.89 0.46 0.91 1.70 0.45 0.89 1.62
O 681 0.54 0.78 1.16 0.78 1.04 1.48 0.70 0.96 1.33

Ratio RS predicted squat divided by measured squat: 1.0 is perfect match; < 1.0 is underprediction; > 1.0 is overprediction.

Table 4 Bias between measured and predicted squat

BNT (m) Ankudinov (m) PIANC (m)

No. of squat
Ship ID measurements Minimum Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum

E 1015 0.28 0.16 0.04 0.02 0.11 0.22 0.21 0.08 0.03
G 633 0.65 0.35 0.08 0.05 0.22 0.48 0.38 0.10 0.17
M 649 1.62 0.39 0.05 1.28 0.1 0.29 1.01 0.10 0.41
O 681 0.35 0.13 0.07 0.17 0.01 0.19 0.21 0.04 0.14

Bias BS predicted squatmeasured squat: 0.0 is perfect match; < 0.0 is underprediction; > 0.0 is overprediction.

484 Comparison of Measured Ship Squat with Numerical and Empirical Methods
Table 5 Error statistics between measured and predicted squat 0.6 to 1.1 with an average underprediction of 0.8. The BS ranged
from an underprediction of 21 cm to an overprediction of 3 cm
Ship ID No. Statistic Units BNT Ankudinov PIANC with an average underprediction of 8 cm. The RMSEPIANC
0.09 m and MAEPIANC 0.08 m were very small, again showing
E 1015 RMSE m 0.17 0.13 0.09
a strong correlation of RPIANC 0.76.
R 0.75 0.77 0.76 
MAE m 0.16 0.12 0.08
In general, the SP and the BS values tended to confirm each
G 633 RMSE m 0.37 0.25 0.16 other. The BNT predictions were smaller than measured values
R 0.41 0.37 0.40 but followed the same trends and were closer to the PIANC
MAE m 0.35 0.22 0.13 predictions. The Ankudinov formula overpredicted by 30% and
M 649 RMSE m 0.44 0.21 0.21 12 cm, whereas the PIANC underpredicted by 20% and 9 cm. The
R 0.84 0.82 0.83 PIANC had the best error metrics followed by Ankudinov and
MAE m 0.39 0.15 0.16 BNT. The Ankudinov and BNT predictions were approximately
O 681 RMSE m 0.15 0.07 0.08 50% and 100% larger than the PIANC values, although relatively
R 0.70 0.75 0.74 small maximum differences of 8 cm.
MAE m 0.13 0.06 0.06
Total 2978
6.3.2. Global Challenger bulk carrier. Figure 7 shows the bow
RMSE root mean square error; R Pearson correlation coefficient; squat for the Global Challenger Panamax bulk carrier. This ship
MAE mean absolute error. was trimmed 12 cm by the stern (i.e., deeper draft at the stern).
The water depth ranged between 12.9 and 13.2 m with an average

and 13.2 m with an average static UKC of 1.8 m. Table 2 shows static UKC of 1.4 m. Table 2 shows the mean SM 1:11 m for

the mean SM 0:42 m for the DGPS data with a standard the DGPS data (largest of the ships) with a standard deviation

deviation sM 0.083 m. Comparing the BNT predictions, the sM 0.132 m. For the BNT predictions, the SP 0:76 m, an

SP 0:27 m, an average underprediction of 15 cm, with a average underprediction of 35 cm with a sP 0.045 m. The RS
sP 0.052 m. The RS ranged from 0.5 to 0.8 with an average ranged from 0.5 to 0.9 with an average underprediction of 0.7
underprediction of 0.6 times the measured bow squat. The BS times the measured bow squat. The BS ranged from an
ranged from underpredictions of 28 to 4 cm with an average underprediction of 65 cm to an overprediction of 8 cm with an
underprediction of 16 cm. The RMSEBNT 0.17 m and MAEBNT average underprediction of 35 cm. The RMSEBNT 0.37 m and
0.16 m were relatively small, showing a strong correlation of MAEBNT 0.35 m were twice as large as the Elbe values, show-

RBNT 0.75. For the Ankudinov predictions, the SP 0:54 m, ing a weak linear correlation of only RBNT 0.41. For the

an average overprediction of 12 cm, with a sP 0.073 m. The RS Ankudinov predictions, the SP 1:33 m, an average overpre-
ranged from 1.0 to overpredictions up to 1.8 with an average of diction of 22 cm with a sP 0.057 m. The RS varied from 1.0
1.3 times the measured squat. The BS ranged from underprediction to 1.6 times the measured squat with an average overprediction
of 2 cm to overpredictions of 22 cm with an average overpredic- of 1.2. The BS ranged from underpredictions of 5 cm to
tion of 11 cm. Again, the RMSEAnk 0.13 m and MAEAnk 0.12 m overpredictions of 48 cm with an average overprediction of
were relatively small, showing a strong correlation of RAnk 0.77. 22 cm. The RMSEAnk 0.25 m and MAEAnk 0.22 m were

Finally, for the PIANC predictions, the SP 0:35 m, an average twice as large as the Elbe values, showing the weakest correlation
underprediction of 7 cm with a sP 0.055 m. The RS ranged from of only RAnk 0.37 for all ships. Finally, for the PIANC

Fig. 6 Panamax Elbe tanker values for (a) ratio RS and (b) measured and predicted bow squat Sb; ship northbound, sailing from right to left;
DGPS black open circle; BNT solid line; Ankudinov dash line; PIANC dotdash; spline fit for predictors

Comparison of Measured Ship Squat with Numerical and Empirical Methods 485
Fig. 7 Panamax Global Challenger bulk carrier values for (a) ratio RS and (b) measured and predicted bow squat Sb; ship northbound, sailing from
right to left; DGPS black open circle; BNT solid line; Ankudinov dash line; PIANC dotdash; spline fit for predictors


predictions, the SP 1:00 m, an average underprediction of
11 cm with a sP 0.048 m. The RS were closer to the measured
bow squat, especially above the location at station 1850. They
ranged from 0.7 to 1.2 times the measured squat with an average
underprediction of 0.9. The BS ranged from an underprediction of
38 cm to an overprediction of 17 cm with an average under-
prediction of 10 cm. The RMSEPIANC 0.16 m and MAEPIANC
0.13 m were relatively small, again showing a very weak correla-
tion of only RPIANC 0.40.
Again, the S P and the BS values tended to confirm each other.
The BNT underpredicted the measured squat but followed the
same trends as the two other predictors. In general, the Ankudinov
formula overpredicted and BNT and PIANC underpredicted bow
squat. The PIANC formulas overpredicted the measured squat for
a short section from location 1920 to 1970. Thus, the Ankudinov
formula averaged 20% and 21 cm overprediction and the PIANC
10% and 9 cm underprediction. For design purposes, overpredic-
tion is more conservative and potentially safer. The error metrics
for the Global Challenge were twice as large as the Elbe with the
worst correlation of all the ships. However, the worst RMSEBNT
0.37 m for the BNT predictions was not a huge overprediction.
6.3.3. Majestic Maersk containership. As mentioned previously
in Section 6, according to Barrass (2009), maximum squat will
occur at the bow for a ship with a CB > 0.7 and at the stern for one
with a CB < 0.7. Therefore, bow squat was reported for the first
two ships previously discussed. The next two ships will illustrate
squat by the stern because they have a CB < 0.7. Thus, the average
PIANC value used in the plots is based on the average of only the
Barrass and Romisch predictions.
Figure 8 illustrates the stern squat for the Majestic Maersk
Panamax containership. The water depth ranged between 12.9

Fig. 8 Panamax Majestic Maersk containership values for (a) ratio RS and (b) measured and predicted stern squat Ss; ship northbound, sailing from
right to left; DGPS black open circle; BNT solid line; Ankudinov dash line; PIANC dotdash; spline fit for predictors

486 Comparison of Measured Ship Squat with Numerical and Empirical Methods
Fig. 9 OOCL Fair containership values for (a) ratio RS and (b) measured and predicted stern squat Ss; ship northbound, sailing from right to left;
DGPS black open circle; BNT solid line; Ankudinov dash line; PIANC dotdash; spline fit for predictors
and 13.2 m with an average static UKC of 1.3 m. Table 2 shows

that the mean SM 0:84 m for the DGPS data (largest of the
ships) with a standard deviation sM 0.307 m (largest of the

four ships). For the BNT predictions, the SP 0:45 m, an
average underprediction of 39 cm, with a sP 0.172 m. The RS
ranged from 0.3 to 0.9 with an average underprediction slightly
larger than half of the measured squat. The BS ranged from an
underprediction of 5 cm to 1.6 m (station 1940.73) with an
average underprediction of 39 cm. The extreme underprediction
at station 1940.73 is probably an error in the measured data
because they all appear to look unusually large in this section
of the canal from 1940 to 1950. The RMSEBNT 0.44 m and
MAEBNT 0.39 m were largest of the four ships, but had
the strongest correlation of RBNT 0.84. For the Ankudinov

predictions, the SP 0:74 m, an average overprediction of
10 cm, with a sP 0.201 m. The RS ranged from 0.5 to 1.7 times
the measured stern squat with an average underprediction of
0.9. The BS ranged from a worst underprediction of 1.3 m (sta-
tion location 1940) to an overprediction of 29 cm with an aver-
age underprediction of 10 cm. The RMSEAnk 0.21 m and
MAEAnk 0.15 m were relatively small and second only to
the Elbe with the strongest correlation of RAnk 0.82. Finally,

for the PIANC predictions, the SP 0:74 m, an average
underprediction of 10 cm, with a sP 0.318 m. The RS ranged
from 0.4 to 1.6 with an average underprediction of 0.9 times
the measured squat. The BS ranged from an underprediction
of 1.0 m to overprediction of 41 cm with an average under-
prediction of 10 cm. The RMSEPIANC 0.21 m and MAEPIANC
0.16 m were similar to the Ankudinov predictions with the stron-
gest correlation of RPIANC 0.83.

The SP and the BS values confirmed one another because
they were identical. Although the BNT model underpredicted
the measured values, it showed the same trends as the mea-
sured data and the other predictors. From station 1670 to 1850,
both Ankudinov and PIANC tended to underpredict stern squat
with Ankudinov predictions slightly better. Around station
1880 to 1960, the PIANC formula overpredicted stern squat.
In general, both Ankudinov and PIANC tended to underpredict
Comparison of Measured Ship Squat with Numerical and Empirical Methods
stern squat by 10% with minimum and maximum predictions
about the same.
6.3.4. OOCL Fair containership. Figure 9 shows the stern squat
for the OOCL Fair containership because CB < 0.7. This ship had
the most trim with a value of 0.8 m by the stern. The water depth
ranged between 13.0 and 13.2 m with an average static UKC of

2.9 m. Table 2 shows that the mean SM 0:58 m for the DGPS
data (largest of the ships) with a standard deviation sM 0.099 m.

For the BNT predictions, the SP 0:45 m, an average
underprediction of 13 cm, with a sP 0.077 m. The RS ranged
from 0.5 to 1.2 with an average underprediction of 0.8 times
the measured squat. The BS ranged from underpredictions of
35 to 7 cm with an average underprediction of 13 cm. The
RMSEBNT 0.15 m and MAEBNT 0.13 m were the smallest of
the four ships with a strong linear correlation of RBNT 0.70. For

the Ankudinov predictions, the SP 0:59 m, a nearly identical
value that overpredicts by 1 cm with a sP 0.058 m. The RS
ranged from 0.8 to 1.5 times the measured stern squat with an
average ratio of 1.0 (near exact match with measured data). The
BS ranged from underprediction of 17 cm and overpredictions
of 19 cm with an average of 1 cm (near exact match). The
RMSEAnk 0.07 m and MAEAnk 0.06 m were the smallest of
the four ships with a strong linear correlation of RAnk 0.75. The
Ankudinov predictions with the smallest RMSE and MAE errors
were the best fit of the three predictors for the OOCL Fair.

Finally, for the PIANC predictions, the SP 0:55 m, an average
underprediction of 3 cm, with a sP 0.053 m. The RS varied from
underpredictions of 0.7 to overpredictions of 1.3 with an average
of 1.0 (near exact match) times the measured stern squat. The BS
ranged from an underprediction of 21 cm to an overprediction of
14 cm with an average underprediction of 4 cm. The RMSEPIANC
0.08 m and MAEPIANC 0.06 m were similar to the Ankudinov
predictions with a strong linear correlation of RPIANC 0.74.

Again, the SP and the BS values were nearly identical. The BNT
underpredicted the measured data, but not by as much as some of
the other ships. The Ankudinov predictions were about the same
as the PIANC predictions in this case and both excellent.
487
6.4. Discussion
On average for the ships in this Panama Canal data set, the
BNT underpredicts squat by 30% to 35% for the bow and 20%
to 45% for stern squat. The Ankudinov formula overpredicts
squat by 25% for the bow and underpredicts by 5% for the
stern. The PIANC underpredicts squat by 15% for both bow
and stern. All of the 2978 data points were used in the compar-
isons although there are a lot of turns or bends in this section of
canal. Ships experience acceleration, deceleration, and roll
while turning, which affect squat but is not accounted for in
these squat predictors.
Portions of the Majestic Maersk measurements look to be
inordinately large from station 1940 to 1950. According to
Dr. Daggett, who participated in field measurements of the Majes-
tic Maersk, they conducted an acceleration test in this range
starting from a dead in the water condition to full ahead to
see is if such an acceleration would cause extreme squat at the
stern as the ships wheel dug into the water. They observed a
steadily increasing heel to starboard, which affected both ship
squat and UKC. The ship heeled over three to five times and rolled
up to a 3 heel. He also noted that there was quite a variation in
ship speed for this ship throughout the measurements. These
unusual ship responses would explain some of the observed dis-
crepancies between measurements and predictions.
These comparisons indicate that the Ankudinov formulas are
conservative in most instances because they tend to overpredict
ship squat. The BNT predictions are generally lower than the
measured values. Possible reasons for the smaller BNT predic-
tions might be that the actual ship lines were not used as a result
of proprietary issues. The use of generic ship lines, although
appropriate, can misrepresent the water line beam and sectional
area curves of the ships during transit. A sensitivity study by Kopp
(2011) showed that there can be a 3% to 8% variation in predicted
squat as a result of 10% variations in fore and aft sectional areas.
BNT has shown better agreement with US Navy projects when
actual ship lines and measured model-scale data are available for
comparison. As previously mentioned, Briggs et al. (2010a) found
good agreement between BNT and PIANC predictions for a range
of ship and channel types. Additionally, the BNT results have
been found to be comparable to those produced by more expen-
sive higher-order computational fluid dynamics predictions.
Therefore, variations in the generic ship lines that are most repre-
sentative of the ships in this study could have a significant effect
on the predicted squat. It should be noted that CADET is not
restricted to using the BNT model results because the user can
always import other specific or model test squat data. The PIANC
predictions are based on averages of all five of the PIANC formu-
las for bow squat but only two (Barrass and Romisch) for stern
squat. In some instances, one or more of the PIANC formulas
might match measured data much better than the averages.
7. Conclusion
This article has compared BNT, Ankudinov, and PIANC ship
squat predictions with DGPS measurements of four ships in the
Gaillard Cut section of the Panama Canal. These ships included a
Panamax containership, Panamax bulk carrier, Panamax tanker,
and a containership. In general, the BNT underpredicted bow and
488 Comparison of Measured Ship Squat with Numerical and Empirical Methods
stern squat by factors of 0.67 and 0.66, respectively. The
Ankudinov formulas overpredicted measured bow squat by a
factor of 1.25 and underpredicted stern squat by a factor of
0.98. PIANC underpredicted bow and stern squat by 0.93 and
0.88, respectively. Thus, the BNT predictions were generally
smaller than the measurements but showed the same trends as
the other predictors. The Ankudinov predictions are slightly
larger than the PIANC predictions, although the Ankudinov pre-
dictions match canal channel types like the Panama Canal better
than PIANC. Thus, all three predictors appear to give reasonable
predictions of ship squat and can be used with confidence in
deep draft channel design.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the Headquarters, US Army Corps of Engi-
neers, Institute for Water Resources (IWR), the Naval Surface
Warfare Center, Carderock Division, and TRANSAS for authoriz-
ing publication of this article. It was prepared as part of the
Improved Ship Simulation work unit in the Navigation Systems
Research Program (CHL) and the IWR NETS program. This arti-
cle is dedicated to Dr. Vladimir Ankudinov, who died March
2012. We acknowledge the assistance of the CHL Prototype
Measurements Branch and Larry Daggett, Waterway Simulation
Technology, for providing channel, ship, and DGPS data. We also
thank the reviewers for their useful suggestions.
References
ANKUDINOV, V., DAGGETT, L., HUVAL, C., AND HEWLETT, C. 1996 Squat
predictions for maneuvering applications, Proceedings, International Con-
ference on Marine Simulation and Ship Maneuverability (MARSIM 96),
September 913, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 467 495.
ANKUDINOV, V., DAGGETT, L. L., HEWLETT, J. C., AND JAKOBSEN, B. K. 2000 Pro-
totype measurement of ship sinkage in confined water, Proceedings, Inter-
national Conference on Marine Simulation and Ship Maneuverability
(MARSIM 00), May 8 12, Orlando, FL.
ANKUDINOV, V., AND BRIGGS, M. J. 2009 Email and telecoms with updates
to equations 2, 4, 5, 10, and 18 in CHETN-IX-19, April 22 and 29.
ANKUDINOV, V. K., AND JAKOBSEN, B. K. 1996 Squat predictions at an early
stage of design, Proceedings, Workshop on Ship Squat in Restricted Waters,
October 4, Washington, DC, pp. 48 69.
BARRASS, C. B. 2002 Ship squata guide for masters, private report.
Available at: www.ship-squat.com/research_papers.htm. Accessed July 3, 2007.
BARRASS, C. B. 2009 Ship Squat and Interaction. Witherby Seamanship
International Ltd., Bell & Bain Ltd., Glasgow, UK.
BECK, R. F., NEWMAN, J. N., AND TUCK, E. O. 1975 Hydrodynamic forces on
ships in dredged channels, JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH, 19, 3, 166 171. Sept.
BRIGGS, M. J. 2006 Ship squat predictions for ship/tow simulator. Coastal
and Hydraulics Engineering Technical Note CHETN-I-72, US Army Engi-
neer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
BRIGGS, M. J. 2009 Ankudinov ship squat predictionsPart I: theory and
FORTRAN programs. Coastal and Hydraulics Engineering Technical Note
ERDC/CHL CHETN-IX-19, US Army Engineer Research and Develop-
ment Center, Vicksburg, MS.
BRIGGS, M. J., AND DAGGETT, L. 2009 Ankudinov ship squat predictions
Part II: laboratory and field comparisons and validations. Coastal and
Hydraulics Engineering Technical Note ERDC/CHL CHETN-IX-20, US
Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
BRIGGS, M. J., KOPP, P. J., SILVER, A. L., AND MATHIS, I. 2010a Comparison
of PIANC and CADET ship squat predictions, Proceedings, PIANC 125th
Congress, May 1114, Liverpool, UK.
BRIGGS, M. J., VANTORRE, M., ULICZKA, K., AND DEBAILLON, P. 2010b Chap-
ter 26: Prediction of squat for underkeel clearance. In: Kim, Y. C., ed.,
 Handbook of Coastal and Ocean Engineering. World Scientific Publishers,
Singapore, pp. 723774.
CANADIAN COAST GUARD. 2001 Safe waterways (a users guide to the
design, maintenance and safe use of waterways), Part 1(a) guidelines for
the safe design of commercial shipping channels. Software user manual
version 3.0, Waterways Development Division, Fisheries and Oceans
Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
DAGGETT, L., AND HEWLETT, C. 1998a Study of ship squat in the panama
canal. Waterway Simulation Technology, Inc., Columbia, SC.
DAGGETT, L., AND HEWLETT, C. 1998b Study of ship sinkage in the Panama
Canal, Phase IIlow water conditions. Waterway Simulation Technology,
Inc., Columbia, SC.
ERYUZLU, N. E., CAO, Y. L., AND DAGNOLO, F. 1994 Underkeel require-
ments for large vessels in shallow waterways, Proceedings, 28th Interna-
tional Navigation Congress, PIANC, Paper S II-2, May 2227, Sevilla,
Spain, pp. 1725.
GULIEV, U. M. 1971 On squat calculations for vessels going in shallow
water and through channels, PIANC Bulletin, 1, 7, 1720.
HOOFT, J. P. 1974 The behavior of a ship in head waves at restricted water
depth, International Shipbuilding Progress, 21, 244, 367378.
HUUSKA, O. 1976 On the evaluation of underkeel clearances in Finnish
waterways. Report No. 9, Helsinki University of Technology, Ship Hydro-
dynamics Laboratory, Otaniemi, Finland.
ICORELS (INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE RECEPTION OF LARGE SHIPS)
1980 Report of Working Group IV, PIANC Bulletin, 35, suppl, 39 pp.
KOPP, P. J. 2011 BNT sensitivity study for the Tanker Elbe (Unpublished
Memorandum). David Taylor Model Basin, Carderock Division, Naval
Surface Warfare Center, Potomac, MD.
KOPP, P. J., AND SILVER, A. L. 2004 Program documentation for the channel
analysis and design evaluation tool (CADET). NSWCCD-50-TR-2005/004,
Comparison of Measured Ship Squat with Numerical and Empirical Methods
David Taylor Model Basin, Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare
Center, Potomac, MD.
MILLWARD, A. 1992 A comparison of the theoretical and empirical predic-
tion of squat in shallow water, International Shipbuilding Progress, 39, 417,
6978.
NORRBIN, N. H. 1986 Fairway design with respect to ship dynamics and
operational requirements. SSPA Research Report No. 102, SSPA Maritime
Consulting, Gothenburg, Sweden.
OHTSU, K., YOSHIMURA, Y., HIRANO, M., TSUGANE, M., AND TAKAHASHI, H.
2006 Design standard for fairway in next generation, Proceedings, Asia
Navigation Conference, October 2021, Jeju, South Korea.
OVERSEAS COASTAL AREA DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE OF JAPAN 2009 Technical
standards and commentaries for port and harbour facilities in Japan. Over-
seas Coastal Area Development Institute of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, 998 pp.
PIANC. 1997 Approach channels: a guide for design. Final Report of the
Joint PIANC-IAPH Working Group II-30 in cooperation with IMPA and
IALA, Supplement to Bulletin No. 95, PIANC, Brussels, Belgium.
ROMISCH, K. 1989 Empfehlungen zur Bemessung von Hafeneinfahrten,
Wasserbauliche Mitteilungen der Technischen Universitat Dresden, 1, 3963.
STOCKS, D. T., DAGGETT, L. L., AND PAGE, Y. 2002 Maximization of ship
draft in the St. Lawrence Seaway, Volume I: squat study. Prepared
for Transportation Development Centre, Transport Canada, Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada.
TUCK, E. O. 1966 Shallow-water flows past slender bodies, JFM, 26,
Part 1, 8195.
TUCK, E. O. 1967 Sinkage and trim in shallow water of finite width,
Schiffstechnik, 14, 73, 9294.
YOSHIMURA, Y. 1986 Mathematical model for the manoeuvring ship
motion in shallow water, Journal of the Kansai Society of Naval Architects,
Japan, 61, 200, 4151.
489