8 views

Uploaded by Jack

- geog 3810 final project
- Fentek Energy Calc
- Dividend Policy
- 45205333 ACCA F2 Management Accounting Course Slides
- Non Parametric Tests-Marketing Reasearch
- ppt
- Kang Document 2017
- STAT 200 HomeWork 7
- SAPM Course Outline 2013-14
- Correlation correlation
- Ch 12 - Regression & Correlation.pdf
- Fraenkel6 Im Ch15
- Re Crystallization
- lesson plan - statistics
- chapter 3 notes-alyssa
- Naval Architecture15
- Doc R 1
- Econometrics_ch2.ppt
- Setiya
- Knowledge Mgmnt

You are on page 1of 13

113

http://dx.doi.org/10.5957/JOSR.57.1.120007

Jo

na

ur

and Empirical Methods

Michael J. Briggs,* Paul J. Kopp, Vladimir K. Ankudinov, and Andrew L. Silver

lo

*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

hi

fS

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 Navigation 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.

manuscript received January 11, 2013.

MARCH 2013

0022-4502/13/5701-0001$00.00/0

h

rc

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 functions 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 perpendiculars, 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 Nomenclature 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 physicsbased, 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

ea

es

1. Introduction

underkeel clearance (UKC). Compared with other empirical formulas, it is somewhat more complicated because it includes additional input parameters to account for the effects of the ships

propeller, bulbous bow, stern transom, initial trim, and the channels 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 preliminary comparisons of Ankudinov and PIANC predictions (Briggs

& Daggett 2009). These comparisons of almost 3000 squat measurements 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.

fS

lo

na

ur

Jo

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 maximum 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 prediction 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 reasonable 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

Nomenclature

trim coefficient, Ankudinov

stern transom factor, Ankudinov

initial trim effect factor, Ankudinov

unrestricted channel correction factor,

Romisch

squat at critical speed, Romisch

ship length between perpendiculars, m

mean absolute error between predicted

and measured squat, m

inverse bank slope

trim exponent, Ankudinov

channel effect parameter, Ankudinov

channel effect, trim correction

parameter, Ankudinov

ship forward speed parameter,

Ankudinov

propeller effect in shallow water on trim

parameter, Ankudinov

water depth parameter, Ankudinov

ship hull parameter for shallow water,

Ankudinov

Pearson correlation coefficient

root mean square error, m

ratio between predicted and

measured squat

blockage factor As/Ac

bow squat, m

channel depth factor for R and

C channels, Ankudinov

midpoint ship sinkage, m/m1,

Ankudinov and BNT

KDT

Lpp

MAE

PFnh

PhT

Ph/T

PHu

S

Sb

Sh

Sm

h

rc

R

RMSE

RS

ea

es

n

nTr

PCh1

PCh2

BNT, ft

Ss stern squat, m

SM,j measured ship squat at location j, m

SP,j predicted ship squat at location j for

BNT, Ankudinov, or PIANC, m

S M average ship squat for measured

DGPS, m

S P average ship squat for predicted BNT,

Ankudinov, or PIANC, m

s1 corrected blockage factor, Huuska

T ship draft, m

Tap draft at aft perpendicular

Tfp draft at forward perpendicular

Tr ship trim, m/m1, Ankudinov and BNT

Vcr critical ship speed, m/s1

Ve enhanced ship speed, Yoshimura, m/s1

Vk ship speed, knots

VS ship speed, m/s1

W channel width, measured at bottom, m

WEff effective width of waterway, m

WTop channel width, measured at top, m

sM standard deviation of ship squat for

measured DGPS, m

sP standard deviation of ship squat

for predicted BNT, Ankudinov,

or PIANC, m

r ship volume of displacement, m3

MARCH 2013

KS

KTr

KTT r

KTT 1

KU

hi

As ships underwater amidships

cross-section, m2

B ships beam, m

BS bias or difference between predicted

and measured squat, m

BTr stern transom width, Ankudinov

CB ships block coefficient

CF correction factor for ship

shape, Romisch

CV correction factor for ship

speed, Romisch

Fnh Froude depth number

g gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s2)

h water depth, m

hm mean water depth, Romisch, m

hmT restricted channel water depth,

Romisch, m

hOut height outside underwater trench,

similar to hT, ft

hT height of dredged underwater trench, m

j location along Panama Canal

K channel coefficient, Barrass

Kb correction factor for channel

width, Eryuzlu

KbT bulbous bow factor, Ankudinov

KC canal channel correction factor,

Romisch

KPS propeller sinkage factor, Ankudinov

KPT propeller trim factor, Ankudinov

KR restricted channel correction factor,

Romisch

ships. Finally, the last section provides some conclusions.

Jo

hi

fS

lo

na

ur

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 vertical 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 containership (OOCL Fair). These four ships represent 2978 individual 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

the ships were traveling northward from the Pacific to the Atlantic

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

as a result of maneuvering concerns and bends in the channel

(there are four bends in this section of the Panama Canal) but are

included in the averages. The Elbe had the smallest ship speeds

because it was somewhat overloaded for the drought conditions in

April 1998 and was required to go slower for the shallower depths

and UKC. The Majestic Maersk has the largest ship speeds and the

most variation in speed.

Design Evaluation Tool numerical model

h

rc

ea

es

(1975) is the default option for predicting underway sinkage and

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 slender 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

the sides of the channel are fixed as vertical.

MARCH 2013

Ship ID

Lpp

Tfp

Tap

Vk

Location

Date

(m)

(m)

(m)

(m)

CB

(kt)

T

B

C

C

B

B

S

S

1998

1997

1997

1998

222.0

216.0

284.7

227.0

32.2

32.3

32.2

32.2

11.3

11.7

11.8

9.8

11.3

11.8

11.8

10.6

0.84

0.83

0.63

0.65

5 to 7

9 to 10

7 to 12

6 to 10

Jo

Type

E

G

M

O

ur

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.

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 number, Fnh, by differentiating the velocity potential along the length

of the hull. The Fnh is defined as

Vs

Fnh p

gh

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

hi

fS

lo

na

of slender ships in finite-water depth and infinite and finite-water

width by modeling the underwater area of the hull. This underwater 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

Sb Sm 0:5Tr

Ss Sm 0:5Tr

h

rc

ea

es

Fig. 3 Ship speeds during Panama Canal transits. All ships were northbound, sailing from right to left

stern because it assumes they are equidistant, fore and aft, from

the midpoint of the ship. An Excel spreadsheet was created from

the BNT output to iterate between water depths and ship speeds at

each measurement location.

4

MARCH 2013

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

Jo

1:80:4Fnh

PFnh Fnh

ur

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

Ph=T 1:0

lo

na

Fig. 5 CADET and BNT ship lines hull geometry

4. Ankudinov model

fS

h=T 2

given by

p

9

PCh1 1:0 10Sh 1:51:0 Sh Sh

where the channel depth factor, Sh, is defined by

S

hT

Sh CB

10

h

h=T

and hT is the trench height measured from the bottom. The blockage factor S is a measure of the relative cross-sectional area of the

ship, As, to that of the channel, Ac, defined as

S

As

0:98BT

Ac Wh nh2

11

The 0.98 factor is the result of the radius on the corners of the

hull. The Ac is a projection of the channel sides to the water

surface. However, for the Panama Canal comparisons, the measured Ac was used.

hi

2000) proposed the MARSIM 2000 formula for maximum squat

based on Sm and Tr in shallow water. The Ankudinov method has

undergone considerable revision as new data were collected and

compared. The most recent modifications from a study of ship

squat in the St. Lawrence Seaway by Stocks, Daggett, and Page

(2002) and correspondence between Ankudinov and Briggs in

April 2009 are contained in this study. These new revisions

were programmed and documented in a technical note by Briggs

(2009). The Ankudinov formula has been used extensively in the

CHL Ship Tow Simulator.

The Ankudinov prediction is one of the most complicated formulas for predicting ship squat because it includes many empirical

factors to account for the effects of ship and channel. The restriction Fnh 0.6 is applied. The maximum ship squat, SMax, is a

function of Sm and Tr given by

Lpp Sm 0:5Tr

Sb

3

SMax

Lpp Sm 0:5Tr

Ss

0:35

12

midpoint sinkage equation, the Tr also includes parameter Ph/T,

coefficient KTr, and channel effect trim correction parameter PCh2

to account for the effects of the ship propellers, bulbous bow, stern

transom, and initial trim.

The vessel trim parameter Ph/T accounts for the reduction in

trim resulting from the propeller in shallow water and is defined as

h

i

ea

es

2:51h=T

Fnh

13

given by

T

S

T

T

T

KTr CnTr

14

B 0:15KP KP KB KTr KT1

h

rc

sinkage equation are described subsequently. The propeller parameter KPS is defined as

0:15 single propeller

5

KPS

0:13 twin propellers

MARCH 2013

Ph=T 1 e

The Sm is defined as

Sm 1 KPS PHu PFnh Ph=T PCh1

(2009) as

Tr. The negative sign is used for bow squat, Sb, and the positive

sign for stern squat, Ss.

B is the block coefficient CB

raised to the nTr power. The exponent is defined as

PCh1

CB

where Pch1 was previously defined in equation 9.

nTr 2:0 0:8

15

Jo

The next two factors define the propeller effect on the vessel

trim. The first factor KPS is the same as the propeller parameter for

the midpoint sinkage and the second factor is the propeller trim

parameter KPT

0:15 single propeller

T

KP

16

0:20 twin propellers

ur

The last group of three factors define the effects of the bulbous

T

T

bow KbT, stern transom KTr

, and initial trim KT1

on the vessel trim.

T

The Kb is given by

0:1 bulbous bow

T

17

Kb

0:0 no bulbous bow

na

T

The KTr

is defined by

8

BTr

<

0:1

0:04

T

KTr

B

:

0:0

stern transom

18

no stern transom

5.1. Barrass

The Barrass ship squat formula has evolved and been revised at

least four times. The one in this article (Barrass 2002, 2009) is

considered the third version for both Sb and Ss. It is a function of

CB, ship speed, Vk, in knots, and channel blockage coefficient, K,

and is defined as

KCB Vk2

Sb CB > 0:7

21

Ss CB 0:7

100

If CB > 0.7, maximum squat occurs at the bow Sb. If CB 0.7,

it occurs at the stern and is equal to the stern squat, Ss. Barrass

channel coefficient, K, is based on analysis of over 600 laboratory

and prototype measurements for all three channel types. It is

defined as

fS

lo

where BTr is the stern transom width and is typically equal to 0.4B,

although values as high as 0.7B have sometimes been used.

T

The KT1

is given by

Tap Tfp

T

19

KT1

Tap Tfp

form ships with CB > 0.7 tend to squat by the bow and fine-form

ships with CB < 0.7 tend to squat by the stern. The CB 0.7 is an

even keel situation with maximum squat the same at both bow

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

stern. With these constraints in mind, the average PIANC values

consisted of predictions for all five PIANC formulas for bow squat

but only Barrass and Romisch for stern squat.

where Tap is the static draft at the stern or aft perpendicular and

Tfp is the static draft at the bow or forward perpendicular.

Finally, the channel effect trim correction parameter PCh2 for

both R and C channels is defined as

20

1K2

22

channels. The blockage factor S was previously defined. If S >

0.25 for C (also for R) channels, the value of K is set to 2 to ensure

the limits required for K.

hi

K 5:74S0:76

Infrastructure empirical formulas

5.2. Eryuzlu

channel width according to the ratio of channel width W to ship

beam B.

8

3:1

W

>

>

< 9:61

< p

B

W=B

24

Kb

>

W

>

: 1

9:61

B

5.3. Huuska/Guliev

h

rc

MARCH 2013

ea

es

based on laboratory experiments. Although it is usually applied to

only unrestricted (U) and restricted (R) channels, it is included in

these comparisons because the Canadian Coast Guard (2001) uses

it for ships in the St. Lawrence Seaway, a channel that is very

similar to the Panama Canal. Therefore, it is included here

although the CB constraint is technically exceeded. It is defined as

h2 Vs 2:289 h 2:972

p

Sb 0:298

Kb

23

T

T

gT

their design guidance for deep draft entrance channels. PIANC

WG49 is updating this guidance to retain only seven formulas that

are the most appropriate and useful. Five of these squat formulas

are evaluated in this article with the main emphasis on a canal (C)

configuration. They include those of Huuska (1976), Yoshimura

(1986), Romisch (1989), Eryuzlu, Cao, and DAgnolo (1994), and

Barrass (2009). The ICORELS formula was not used in this application because it was not intended for canal cross-sections and is

also very similar to the Huuska formula. The original Tuck formula was also not used because it is represented by the BNT

numerical formulation using potential flow theory.

Briggs (2006) programmed these formulas in FORTRAN programs and Briggs et al. (2010b) summarized and illustrated them

with examples. Although some constraints and limitations for

these formulas are exceeded, they are included in the results for

this article because this seems to be the accepted practice within

the deep-draft navigation community to relax these constraints

where reasonable.

All of these PIANC formulas give predictions of bow squat Sb,

but only the Romisch method gives predictions for stern squat, Ss,

for all channel types. Barrass gives Ss for unrestricted channels and

for canals and restricted channels depending on the value of CB.

According to Barrass (2009), the value of CB determines whether

the maximum squat is at the bow or stern. Barrass assumes that full-

(1971) and Huuska (1976) and is given by

Sb

2:4CB BT

F2nh

p

Ks

Lpp

1 F2nh

25

7:45s1 0:76 s1 > 0:03

Ks

1:0

s1 0:03

6. Validation results

26

Jo

defined other values for s1 for the other two channel types, but

they are not presented here because we are only concerned with

C channels in this article.

ur

5.4. Romisch

physical model experiments for a C channel. The Romisch squat is

defined as

na

Sb ; Ss CV CF KDT T

27

lo

speed, CV, ship shape, CF, and squat at critical speed, KDT, defined as

#

4

2 "

Vs

Vs

CV 8

0:5 0:0625

28

Vcr

Vcr

Lpp

1:0

Bow

29

fS

CF

8

< 10BCB 2

Stern

p

KDT 0:155 h=T

30

Each of the parameters in the prediction of ship squat has inherent uncertainties. The channel depth, h, is assumed to have no bias

or variability because it is a deterministic parameter. Uncertainty in

the static and dynamic drafts, T, comes from the estimation of the

draft at the pier, from the draft marks, and the sinkage and trim

estimate, S. According to Kopp and Silver (2004), the error band in

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

error band within 4.5% of the actual value at the bow and stern and

1.5% of the actual value at the bilge. The sinkage estimate is based

on an analytical or empirical method from experimental results.

The uncertainty in the sinkage comes from the scatter of the data

in model tests and how well the calculated results fit the model test

results. This gives a variability of the sinkage parameter of approximately 1% with no bias. Of course, the ship squat empirical estimates are based on many different parameters that are not included

in every formula. Even if included, they are weighted differently

in each formula.

hi

Critical ship speed, Vcr, for a canal is a function of wave celerity, C, and a channel shape correction factor, KC, defined as

p

p Arc cos1 S 1:5

Vcr CKC ghm 2 cos

31

3

3

included in this study. Although all five can predict bow squat, only

the Barrass and Romisch formulas were appropriate for stern squat

predictions for canal channels. Therefore, only these two predictions were used to calculate the PIANC average for stern squat.

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

(five averages) or stern (two averages) squat prediction at each

location for each ship to compare with the measured DGPS values.

width at the top of the channel, WTop, defined as

AC

AC

WTop W 2nh

32

5.5. Yoshimura

RS

speed, Vs, in m/s given by

Ve

Vs

1 S

34

SP; j

SM; j

35

Bs SP; j SM; j

36

j and SM,j is the measured squat at location j.

Three better error metrics include the root mean square error

(RMSE), Pearson correlation coefficient (R), and the mean absolute error (MAE). They are defined as

v

uN

u

u ( SP; j SM; j 2

tj1

37

RMSE

N

h

rc

included by the Overseas Coastal Area Development Institute of

Japan (2009) as part of Japans Design Standard for Fairways in

Japan. It was enhanced by Ohtsu et al. (2006) to include predictions for C (also for R) channels. It is defined as

"

#

1:5T

BCB

15T BCB 3 Ve 2

Sb

0:7

33

Lpp

Lpp

g

h

h

MARCH 2013

ea

es

data, that value was used in the Romisch formula.

predictions are described in this section. The first two metrics are

the means and the standard deviations for the measured and predicted squat data.

Two simplistic goodness-of-fit measures to characterize the agreement between the model squat predictions and measured DGPS

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

hm

CovSP ; SM

R p

Var SP Var SM

SP; j SP SM; j SM

ss

N

N

( SP; j SP 2 ( SM; j SM 2

N

Jo

(

j1

j1

38

j1

ur

MAE

( j SP; j SM; j j

j1

39

lo

na

N

where SP is the mean of the predicted squat, SM is the mean of the

measured squat, and N is the number of measurement points.

Values of RS > 1.0 indicate overprediction, RS < 1.0 underprediction, and RS 1.0 perfect match. Similarly, values of BS >

0.0 indicate overprediction, BS < 0.0 underprediction, and BS

0.0 a perfect match. The RMSE and MAE measure the actual

Table 2 Mean and standard deviations for measured and

predicted squat data

No.

1015

633

649

681

Total

DGPS

S

s

S

s

S

s

S

s

0.42

0.083

1.11

0.132

0.84

0.307

0.58

0.099

BNT

Ankudinov

PIANC

0.27

0.052

0.76

0.045

0.45

0.172

0.45

0.077

0.54

0.073

1.33

0.057

0.74

0.201

0.59

0.058

0.35

0.055

1.00

0.048

0.74

0.318

0.55

0.053

Ankudinov, and PIANC squat predictions to the measured DGPS

values for the four ships along the Gaillard Cut. The top plot

shows the RS for these three predictors at each location. The

bottom plot shows the measured and predicted bow or stern squat

for each ship. A spline smoothing was applied to each of the three

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

metric calculations, however.

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

plots. Table 2 compares the squat means and standard deviations

for the measured DGPS and predicted BNT, Ankudinov, and

PIANC data. Table 3 lists the minimum, average, and maximum

values of RS for BNT, Ankudinov, and PIANC squat predictions

for each ship. Table 4 lists minimum, average, and maximum BS

between measured and predicted bow and stern squat for each

ship. Finally, Table 5 lists the RMSE, R, and MAE statistics for

each of the four ships.

2978

hi

Statistic

fS

Ship ID

smaller values indicate better agreement. The R error statistic

provides an indication of the correlation that may exist between

data sets. It is bounded between 1 (perfect negative correlation)

and 1 (perfect positive correlation). It is an indication of linearity

between the data sets because an uncorrelated value of R 0 can

indicate a nonlinear or random scatter relationship between data

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.

6.3.1. Elbe tanker. Figure 6 shows the bow squat for the Elbe

Panamax tanker. The average water depth ranged between 13.0

S Sample mean or average; s sample standard deviation.

BNT

Ankudinov

No. of Squat

Measurements

Minimum

Ratio

Average

Ratio

Maximum

Ratio

Minimum

Ratio

E

G

M

O

1015

633

649

681

0.45

0.53

0.30

0.54

0.64

0.69

0.54

0.78

0.84

0.90

0.89

1.16

0.96

0.96

0.46

0.78

Average

Ratio

1.29

1.21

0.91

1.04

Maximum

Ratio

Minimum

Ratio

Average

Ratio

Maximum

Ratio

1.78

1.61

1.70

1.48

0.60

0.72

0.45

0.70

0.83

0.92

0.89

0.96

1.11

1.21

1.62

1.33

ea

es

Ship

ID

PIANC

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

Ankudinov (m)

PIANC (m)

h

rc

BNT (m)

Ship ID

No. of squat

measurements

Minimum

Average

Maximum

Minimum

Average

Maximum

Minimum

Average

Maximum

E

G

M

O

1015

633

649

681

0.28

0.65

1.62

0.35

0.16

0.35

0.39

0.13

0.04

0.08

0.05

0.07

0.02

0.05

1.28

0.17

0.11

0.22

0.1

0.01

0.22

0.48

0.29

0.19

0.21

0.38

1.01

0.21

0.08

0.10

0.10

0.04

0.03

0.17

0.41

0.14

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

8

MARCH 2013

Ship ID

E

Statistic

Units

1015

RMSE

R

MAE

RMSE

R

MAE

RMSE

R

MAE

RMSE

R

MAE

m

m

m

m

m

m

Jo

No.

633

649

ur

O

681

BNT

0.17

0.75

0.16

0.37

0.41

0.35

0.44

0.84

0.39

0.15

0.70

0.13

Ankudinov

0.13

0.77

0.12

0.25

0.37

0.22

0.21

0.82

0.15

0.07

0.75

0.06

PIANC

0.09

0.76

0.08

0.16

0.40

0.13

0.21

0.83

0.16

0.08

0.74

0.06

na

Total

2978

MAE mean absolute error.

squat for the Global Challenger Panamax bulk carrier. This ship

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

static UKC of 1.4 m. Table 2 shows the mean SM 1:11 m for

the DGPS data (largest of the ships) with a standard deviation

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

average underprediction of 35 cm with a sP 0.045 m. The RS

ranged from 0.5 to 0.9 with an average underprediction of 0.7

times the measured bow squat. The BS ranged from an

underprediction of 65 cm to an overprediction of 8 cm with an

average underprediction of 35 cm. The RMSEBNT 0.37 m and

MAEBNT 0.35 m were twice as large as the Elbe values, showing a weak linear correlation of only RBNT 0.41. For the

Ankudinov predictions, the SP 1:33 m, an average overprediction of 22 cm with a sP 0.057 m. The RS varied from 1.0

to 1.6 times the measured squat with an average overprediction

of 1.2. The BS ranged from underpredictions of 5 cm to

overpredictions of 48 cm with an average overprediction of

22 cm. The RMSEAnk 0.25 m and MAEAnk 0.22 m were

twice as large as the Elbe values, showing the weakest correlation

of only RAnk 0.37 for all ships. Finally, for the PIANC

hi

fS

lo

the mean SM 0:42 m for the DGPS data with a standard

deviation sM 0.083 m. Comparing the BNT predictions, the

SP 0:27 m, an average underprediction of 15 cm, with a

sP 0.052 m. The RS ranged from 0.5 to 0.8 with an average

underprediction of 0.6 times the measured bow squat. The BS

ranged from underpredictions of 28 to 4 cm with an average

underprediction of 16 cm. The RMSEBNT 0.17 m and MAEBNT

0.16 m were relatively small, showing a strong correlation of

RBNT 0.75. For the Ankudinov predictions, the SP 0:54 m,

an average overprediction of 12 cm, with a sP 0.073 m. The RS

ranged from 1.0 to overpredictions up to 1.8 with an average of

1.3 times the measured squat. The BS ranged from underprediction

of 2 cm to overpredictions of 22 cm with an average overprediction of 11 cm. Again, the RMSEAnk 0.13 m and MAEAnk 0.12 m

were relatively small, showing a strong correlation of RAnk 0.77.

Finally, for the PIANC predictions, the SP 0:35 m, an average

underprediction of 7 cm with a sP 0.055 m. The RS ranged from

from an underprediction of 21 cm to an overprediction of 3 cm

with an average underprediction of 8 cm. The RMSEPIANC

0.09 m and MAEPIANC 0.08 m were very small, again showing

a strong correlation of RPIANC 0.76.

In general, the SP and the BS values tended to confirm each

other. The BNT predictions were smaller than measured values

but followed the same trends and were closer to the PIANC

predictions. The Ankudinov formula overpredicted by 30% and

12 cm, whereas the PIANC underpredicted by 20% and 9 cm. The

PIANC had the best error metrics followed by Ankudinov and

BNT. The Ankudinov and BNT predictions were approximately

50% and 100% larger than the PIANC values, although relatively

small maximum differences of 8 cm.

h

rc

ea

es

R

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 blue solid line; Ankudinov red dash line; PIANC green dotdash. Spline fit for predictors

MARCH 2013

na

ur

Jo

lo

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 blue solid line; Ankudinov red dash line; PIANC green dotdash. Spline fit for predictors

10% and 9 cm underprediction. For design purposes, overprediction 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.

fS

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 underprediction of 10 cm. The RMSEPIANC 0.16 m and MAEPIANC

0.13 m were relatively small, again showing a very weak correlation 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

hi

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

h

rc

ea

es

R

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 blue solid line; Ankudinov red dash line; PIANC green dotdash. Spline fit for predictors

10

MARCH 2013

na

ur

Jo

lo

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 blue solid line; Ankudinov red dash line; PIANC green dotdash. Spline fit for predictors

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.

hi

fS

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 (station location 1940) to an overprediction of 29 cm with an average 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 underprediction of 10 cm. The RMSEPIANC 0.21 m and MAEPIANC

0.16 m were similar to the Ankudinov predictions with the strongest 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 measured 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

h

rc

ea

es

MARCH 2013

11

6.4. Discussion

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the Headquarters, US Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources (IWR), the Naval Surface

Warfare Center, Carderock Division, and TRANSAS for authorizing 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 article 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.

fS

lo

na

ur

Jo

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 comparisons 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 Majestic 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 discrepancies 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 predictions 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 expensive higher-order computational fluid dynamics predictions.

Therefore, variations in the generic ship lines that are most representative 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 formulas 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.

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 predictions 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.

References

hi

ANKUDINOV, V., DAGGETT, L., HUVAL, C., AND HEWLETT, C. 1996 Squat

predictions for maneuvering applications, Proceedings, International Conference 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 Prototype measurement of ship sinkage in confined water, Proceedings, International 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 Engineer 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 Development 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 Chapter 26: Prediction of squat for underkeel clearance. In: Kim, Y. C., ed.,

MARCH 2013

h

rc

12

ea

es

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

7. Conclusion

Center, Potomac, MD.

MILLWARD, A. 1992 A comparison of the theoretical and empirical prediction 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. Overseas 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, 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.

1986

Mathematical model for the manoeuvring ship

YOSHIMURA, Y.

motion in shallow water, Journal of the Kansai Society of Naval Architects,

Japan, 61, 200, 4151.

hi

fS

lo

na

ur

Jo

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 requirements for large vessels in shallow waterways, Proceedings, 28th International 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 Hydrodynamics 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,

h

rc

ea

es

MARCH 2013

13

- geog 3810 final projectUploaded byapi-245426452
- Fentek Energy CalcUploaded byTeo Keng Chau
- Dividend PolicyUploaded byrayhan555
- 45205333 ACCA F2 Management Accounting Course SlidesUploaded byDivya Juggoo
- Non Parametric Tests-Marketing ReasearchUploaded bycalmchandan
- pptUploaded byDeepak Chaudhary
- Kang Document 2017Uploaded bynestor mospan
- STAT 200 HomeWork 7Uploaded byOmarNiemczyk
- SAPM Course Outline 2013-14Uploaded byIshaan Makker
- Correlation correlationUploaded byAnouar Attn
- Ch 12 - Regression & Correlation.pdfUploaded byfadosani
- Fraenkel6 Im Ch15Uploaded byAmeer Bakhsh
- Re CrystallizationUploaded byZubair Ahmad
- lesson plan - statisticsUploaded byapi-448318028
- chapter 3 notes-alyssaUploaded byapi-234771201
- Naval Architecture15Uploaded byThiet Pham
- Doc R 1Uploaded byIndrani Dasgupta
- Econometrics_ch2.pptUploaded byMuhammad Hassan Khan
- SetiyaUploaded bynove
- Knowledge MgmntUploaded byDeepti Tuteja
- 15.IJESROCT201715Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- Correlation Zero OrderUploaded bylogan159
- Investigate The Relationship Between Customers' Cultural Capital And Decision To Buy Foreign Goods(Case Study Border Market Marivan)Uploaded byAJER JOURNAL
- first sem final review statsUploaded byapi-261956805
- 4 & 5 Flood Storm Return & Reggression and Correlation HandoutsUploaded byAngelo John R. Javinez
- UTRAN CACUploaded byNeoRa Rams
- 14511-25801-1-SM.pdfUploaded byMaleja Wild Spirit
- Load Prediction in Communicatons NetworkUploaded byKongluan Lin
- Discriminant Analysis (Retail Outlet)Uploaded byJigar Priydarshi
- fismanUploaded byMuhammad Irka Irfa D

- Engleza marinareascaUploaded byAndrei Radulescu
- Passage Planning Guideline for Oceangoing Cargo ShipsUploaded byBurak Sağlam
- Panama Canal and Seuz Canal RestrictionsUploaded byIgnatius Samraj
- Mini Guide Suez CanalUploaded byRalf Tholen
- Ship Construction Naval ArchitectureUploaded bySiddhrajsinh Zala
- SFT Design Manual A4_English_2016Uploaded byjulius_x
- Defensas Maritimas - Complete FlotationUploaded byFelipe Fernandes
- Practical Guide to Draft SurveysUploaded byArun Raj
- Maritime - Draft Survey ProcedureUploaded byAdrian Sidharta
- ExampleUploaded byMaharAl-hasan
- Proiect SIPN TerminatUploaded byMirceaOprea
- MICHLET users manual (thin ship theory)Uploaded bySam Samsam
- ( Vol C ),2015 Guidance for Inclining Test,2015_2Uploaded byAlde MU
- Draft+Survey+Any+Bulk+CarrierUploaded byNilesh Dalvi
- RV Pandaw 1947 CruiseUploaded bytravellinkasia
- Leaflet for Inclining TestUploaded byPierluigiBusetto
- voy estUploaded byrayjopaul
- 33290281-Seamanship-Inspect-and-Report-defects-and-damage-to-cargo-spaces-and-hatch-covers-and-ballast-tanks.pdfUploaded byAjay Singh
- script:-Hydrostatic Curves & CalculationsUploaded byaimri_cochin
- texto mamalonUploaded byJesús Solis
- Hull DeformationUploaded bystowcontures
- Measurments of Petrolium Onboard Marine VesselsUploaded bySamir Alshaar
- Spray Booth Design EnglishUploaded byFabrizio Dandreamatteo
- Da Heng Shan -Q88Uploaded byIllang Cool
- BSCW.pdfUploaded bySoe Sintthu
- Chap 5Uploaded byClarence Pietersz
- Draught SurveyingUploaded bynoshi88
- Analisis Cfd PusherUploaded byGiancarlo Rivera Leon
- MSC NapoliUploaded byMats Karlsson
- Part 5 Anchoring,Moor,Berthing,EtcUploaded byaungthein_san