Ocean Engineering 37 (2010) 1464–1476

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Squat prediction in muddy navigation areas

G. Delefortrie a,n, M. Vantorre b, K. Eloot a,b, J. Verwilligen a, E. Lataire b
a
Flanders Hydraulics Research, Berchemlei 115, 2140 Antwerp, Belgium
b
Ghent University, Maritime Technology Division, Technologiepark 904, 9052 Ghent, Belgium

a r t i c l e in f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Common squat prediction formulae to assess the navigation safety usually do not take into account the
Received 5 May 2010 bottom condition. Nevertheless, the presence of a fluid mud layer is not an uncommon condition in
Accepted 22 August 2010 confined areas where accurate squat predictions are necessary. From 2001 to 2004 an extensive
Editor-in-Chief: A.I. Incecik
experimental research program was carried out to measure the manoeuvring behaviour of deep drafted
Available online 15 September 2010
vessels in muddy areas. A part of the program focused on the undulations of the water–mud interface
Keywords: and their relationship to the ship’s squat. Mostly the sinkage of the ship is damped due to the presence
Mud of the mud layer, but a larger trim can occur due to the water–mud interface undulations. This article
Sinkage presents a mathematical model to predict the squat in muddy navigation areas.
Trim
& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Mathematical model

1. Introduction having a larger density than water, will affect the buoyancy of the
ship and will probably smoothen the squat effect. However, to be
Squat, defined as the sinkage and trim of vessels due to their sure about the mud effect additional research had to be carried
own forward speed, is of particular importance in shallow water out, because the literature offers very limited results on this topic.
areas. Small under keel clearances cause large return currents
which lead to important sinkages and higher risks of bottom
touching as already mentioned by Constantine (1960). 2. State of the art
In shallow navigation areas the presence of a soft fluid mud
layer on the bottom is not exceptional, but its effect is mostly 2.1. General research on squat
neglected in the formulation of squat. As a consequence pilots and
scientists may disagree on the safety of navigation. Mostly pilots Scientific research on squat took off with Constantine (1960)
have to rely on the high frequency echo to determine the water who discussed the different squat behaviour for subcritical,
depth. As the latter detects the top of the mud layer and not the critical and supercritical vessel speeds. In the subcritical domain
solid (or nautical) bottom level, they may still be able to navigate (Frh o1) Tuck (1966) proved that for open water conditions of
safely through a muddy navigation area, even in case the ship is constant depth the sinkage and trim of the vessel to be linear with
navigating at a zero (or even negative) under keel clearance the parameter
according to the echo sounder. In cases where common squat
formulae would predict grounding of a ship navigating in a F2
rh
gðFrh Þ ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi ð1Þ
shallow fairway at a rather high speed, the presence of a mud 2
1Frh
layer may prevent such grounding.
Indeed a limited or even negative under keel clearance referred
to a mud layer does not necessarily lead to impracticable In which Frh represents the depth related Froude number
manoeuvres as mentioned by Delefortrie et al. (2007). When V2
2
initially the ship has a small under keel clearance referred to the Frh ¼ ð2Þ
gh
mud layer, she may hit the mud layer due to squat. This mud,

This theory was later extended to dredged channels by Beck

n
Corresponding author. Tel.: + 32 3 224 69 62; fax: + 32 3 224 60 36.
E-mail addresses: Guillaume.Delefortrie@mow.vlaanderen.be (G. Delefortrie),
Marc.Vantorre@UGent.be (M. Vantorre), Katrien.Eloot@mow.vlaanderen.be
(K. Eloot), Jeroen.Verwilligen@mow.vlaanderen.be (J. Verwilligen),
Evert.Lataire@UGent.be (E. Lataire).
et al. (1975). Naghdi and Rubin (1984) offer some reflections on
Tuck’s theory and introduce a new one. An analogous theory has
been developed by Cong and Hsiung (1991).
Ankudinov and Daggett (1996) however are pessimistic about
the complexity of numerical theories. For this reason, several

0029-8018/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2010.08.003
 G. Delefortrie et al. / Ocean Engineering 37 (2010) 1464–1476 1465

Nomenclature S solid bottom condition (–)

si regression coefficient (i¼0,n) (–)
AEP expanded area ratio of propeller (–) T ship draft (m)
AR rudder area (m2) TEU (number of) twenty feet equivalent unit containers (–)
ai regression coefficient, (i¼0,1) (–) TP thrust (N)
B ship beam (m) U 8000 TEU container ship model (–)
b mud type, Table 2 (–) ukc under keel clearance (–)
bi regression coefficient, (i ¼0,1,2) (–) V ship speed (m/s)
c mud type, Table 2 (–) VT propeller induced speed, Eq. (22) (m/s)
CB block coefficient (–) x longitudinal coordinate, positive towards the stern
ci regression coefficient, (i¼0,1,2) (–) (m)
CS dimensionless sinkage, Eq. (4) (–) zA sinkage aft (m)
CT dimensionless trim, Eq. (5) (–) zF sinkage fore (m)
D 6000 TEU container ship model (–) a increase parameter, Eq. (31) (–)
d mud type, Table 2 (–) g parameter, Eq. (1) (–)
di regression coefficient, (i¼0,r) (–) z amplitude of rising (m)
DP propeller diameter (–) zMAX maximal amplitude of rising (m)
E tanker model (–) m dynamic viscosity (Pa s)
e mud type, Table 2 (–) mcrit critical dynamic viscosity (Pa s)
ei regression coefficient, (i¼0,1) (–) r density (kg/m3)
f mud type, Table 2 (–) r* dimensionless density, Eq. (16) ( –)
f0 regression coefficient (–) P keel penetration parameter, Eq. (21) (–)
Frh depth related Froude number, Eq. (2) (–) Ph keel penetration parameter, Eq. (14) (–)
g mud type, Table 2 (–) F fluidization parameter (–)
gi regression coefficient, (i¼0,h) (–) Fij regression coefficient (i¼0,h) (j ¼0,r) (–)
h total depth (m) mud type, Table 2 (–) Fij0 regression coefficient (i¼0,h) (j ¼0,r) (–)
h* hydrodynamically equivalent depth (m) F00ij regression coefficient (i¼0,h) (j ¼0,r) (–)
i0 regression coefficient (–) F000
00 regression coefficient (–)
i1 regression coefficient (–)
ji regression coefficient, (i¼0, r) (–) Subscripts
ki regression coefficient, (i¼0, r) (–)
LPP ship length (m) n propeller
P propeller pitch (m) 1 related to water
p0 regression coefficient (–) 2 related to mud
q0 regression coefficient (–)

authors carried out experimental research as Dand (1972) and
Gourlay (2000) – who offers a solution for squat prediction with
random bottom conditions – to endorse their theories. Jiang and
Henn (2003) present a numerical method valid from subcritical to
supercritical speed. An overview of slender body methods is given
in Gourlay (2008).
More practical methods based on experimental research are
presented by Barrass (1979), however his results could not be
validated by Seren et al. (1983). Barrass (2004) gives an overview
of the work he performed on squat. More general overviews are
given by Dumas (1982); Blaauw and Van der Knaap (1983),
Millward (1990) and PIANC (1997) working group 30.
Interesting full scale measurements were carried out by
Ankudinov et al. (2000), Stocks et al. (2004), Härting et al.
(2009) and Härting and Reinking (2002) among others.
Most discussions focus on ships sailing in open water or in
rectangular shaped canals without drift angle or propulsion. In
some cases the drift angle was considered, as by Von Bovet
(1985), Martin and Puls (1986), de Koning Gans and Boonstra
(2007) and Eloot et al. (2008).
2.2. Research on squat in muddy areas
The research on squat in muddy areas is a topic that has not
been tackled thoroughly. Only three research institutes carried
out experimental research focussing on the hydrodynamic forces.
The oldest results are presented by Sellmeijer and van Oortmerssen
(1983) who also registered undulations in the water mud
interface. The sinkage is less above mud in comparison with the
solid bottom condition and decreases with increasing layer
thickness. The mud density does not seem to have any effect.
Vantorre and Coen (1988) showed that three speed ranges can
be detected for the behaviour of the water mud interface:
 At low speed a small sinkage near the fore body is detected,
which disappears amidships and turns into an elevation abaft;
 At a certain speed value the sinkage at the entrance changes
suddenly into an elevation. The section at which the jump
occurs moves abaft with increasing speed;
 If the speed increases more, the rising of the interface occurs
behind the stern. The amplitude of the elevation can exceed
the mud layer thickness several times.
The latter occurs at a speed, which for inviscid fluids is given
by the theoretical expression
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 
8 r
Vcrit ¼ gh1 1 1 ð1m1 Þ3 ð3Þ
27 r2
m1 being the blockage of the ship in the water layer, meaning the
ratio of the ship’s immersed cross sectional area and the canal’s
cross section. Subscript 1 refers to the water layer, subscript 2 to
the mud layer.
1466 G. Delefortrie et al. / Ocean Engineering 37 (2010) 1464–1476

The sinkage of the vessel is related to these speed ranges, but
experimental results do not always follow the theory. At low
speeds the mud layer causes a very slight increase of sinkage
while at higher speed a sinkage decrease with mud layer is
observed together with an increase of trim.
Brossard et al. (1990) described that the sinkage is identical as
in the solid bottom condition when the ship’s keel does not
penetrate the mud layer. An effect is observed at negative under
keel clearances:
2004 at the Towing Tank for Manoeuvres in Shallow Water—
cooperation Flanders Hydraulics Research, Ghent University. The
formulae are valid within the range of conditions covered by this
experimental research. The shallow water towing tank (88 m  7
m  0.5 m) is equipped with a planar motion carriage, a wave
generator and an auxiliary carriage for ship–ship interaction tests.
Thanks to computerized control and data-acquisition, the facil-
ities are operated in a fully automated manner. The carriage runs
24/7 without the need for permanent surveillance.

 The rigidity of the mud has only a small effect; 3.2. Ship models
 The density gradient significantly affects the sinkage: the
higher the gradient, the smaller the sinkage. It is assumed that Most runs in muddy navigation areas were carried out
the buoyancy is an important factor; with (Table 1) a 6000 TEU container carrier (D), which was the
 Adding currents leads to further reduction of the sinkage. design ship for the Belgian harbours at that time. The mathema-
tical model will be based on the measurements carried out with
The trim of the vessel is only significantly affected by rigid this ship. Additional runs in a selection of conditions were carried
mud. In this case an increase of trim with increasing density out with a scale model of a 8000 TEU container carrier (U) and a
gradient was observed. The sign of the trim changes when scale model of a tanker (E) to assess the influence of the hull form,
penetrating the mud. see 4.4.
Doctors et al. (1996) showed that for the ship hydrodynamics a
shallow water approach can serve as a quite reliable approxima- 3.3. Bottom conditions
tion for analyzing the case of a viscous lower layer, where the
mud viscosity can be interpreted as an effective reduction in the Mud was simulated by a mixture of two types of chlorinated
total depth of the water. paraffin and petrol, so that both density and viscosity could be
In spite of these results, until now no sufficiently correct controlled within certain ranges. For environmental reasons, the
models have been presented to predict the squat in muddy areas. tank was divided into three compartments: a test section, a
‘‘mud’’ reservoir and a water reservoir. Bottom and tank walls
were protected with a polyethylene coating. No viscosity or
3. Experimental setup density gradients were included.
The selected bottom conditions are represented in Table 2. The
3.1. Test facilities density–viscosity combinations were based on measurements of
density and rheology profiles carried out in the outer harbour of
Zeebrugge, Belgium in 1997–1998. A mud layer configuration is
The new squat formulae presented in this article are all
defined by two characters: a letter (b,y,h) denoting the material
derived from experimental research carried out from 2001 until
characteristics and Figs. 1–3 re-presenting the layer thickness.
Tests carried out above a solid bottom are referred to as ‘‘S’’.
Table 1
Ship models (even keel).
The gross under keel clearance relative to the tank bottom was
varied between 7% and 32% of draft, yielding 12% to +21% ukc
Model D U E relative to the mud–water interface. Throughout this paper, the
interface water–mud will be used as a reference for expressing
Scale 1/75 1/80 1/75
the under keel clearance, unless specified otherwise.
LPP (m) 289.8 331.8 286.8
B (m) 40.25 42.8 46.8
T (m) 13.50 14.54 15.5 3.4. Test types
CB 0.59 0.65 0.82
AR (m2) 60.96 83.13 98.34
# blades 5 6 5
Stationary captive motion model tests were carried out in each
DP (m) 8.145 8.46 7.73 combination of mud layer and realistic under keel clearance at
P/DP (–) 0.97 1.00 0.65 different speeds, from 2 kn ahead to 10 kn ahead at least in steps
AEP (–) 0.8 0.96 0.62 of 2 kn (full scale values).

Table 2
Bottom conditions and tested models.

Mud type Density (kg/m3) Dynamic viscosity (Pa s) Layer thickness

0.75 m ‘‘1’’ 1.50 m ‘‘2’’ 3.00 m ‘‘3’’

‘‘d’’ 1100 0.03 D/E D/E D/E/U

‘‘c’’ 1150 0.06 D D D
‘‘b’’ 1180 0.10 D D D
‘‘f’’ 1200 0.11 – D –
‘‘h’’ 1210 0.19 D/E D/E D
‘‘e’’ 1260 0.29 – D –
‘‘g’’ 1250 0.46 D/E D/E D/E
fresh water 1000 0.0010
sea water 1025 0.0012
‘‘S’’ solid bottom
 G. Delefortrie et al. / Ocean Engineering 37 (2010) 1464–1476 1467

The propeller rate was varied at 6 kn ahead between  60% and
100% of the maximal propeller rate. Some runs were carried out
with a drift or rudder angle or with astern speeds, but these runs
will not be discussed in this article.
3.5. Measurements
The sinkage of the ship was measured at four positions on
the hull: starboard side fore and aft and portside fore and aft.
A positive trim angle is measured when the sinkage at the bow is
larger than at the stern.
As the literature already mentioned the occurrence of undula-
tions of the water mud interface measures were taken to register
them.
A device which follows the level of the mud layer (mufo) and
one which follows the water level (wafo) are assembled on a
2

1.5

ζ + h2 dy = 0.28 B
0.5 (−) dy = 1.30 B
h2
dy = 2.32 B
x
LPP (−)
0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Fig. 3. Undulations of the interface at various lateral distances of the ship D. Mud
f2, + 3.9% ukc, Frh ¼0.38, no propeller action. The ship is represented taking squat
Fig. 1. Positioning the tripods in the towing tank. into account and sails to the left.

Fig. 2. Arrangement of the wave meters in the towing tank.

1468 G. Delefortrie et al. / Ocean Engineering 37 (2010) 1464–1476

tripod (see Fig. 1). In total three tripods were assembled in order
to register the undulations of the interface.
The mufo consists of a floater, which is resistant to the artificial
mud. The density of the floater is situated between the water and
the mud density. The position of the floater is therefore similar to
the amplitude of the interface. The floater is attached to a disk,
which reflects a laser beam. The variations of the laser beam are
measured 20 times per second and register the actual position of
the mud layer.
The wafo is based upon the principles of the potentiometer.
A constant electric current is sent through a string which has a
homogeneous resistance. The voltage is therefore also constant.
A second electrode is a tube made of stainless steel. When the
water level in the tube changes a proportional change of voltage
will be measured.
Three tripods were placed in the towing tank as close as
possible to the passing ship. The lateral distance between the ship
and the mufos is as shown in Fig. 2.
The rising increases with increasing speed, but this increase is
limited once the undulations are behind the ship, see Fig. 5. This is
especially the case with low density mud layers (c, d).
When the vessel navigates above the mud layer the rising will
increase faster with the velocity when the density and viscosity of
the mud layer are closer to water. With thinner mud layers the
rising becomes only significant once the viscosity drops below a
certain critical value, which is located between 0.12 and 0.18 Pa s.
A significant undulation is always observed when the ship
navigates in contact with the mud layer, see Fig. 6. The rising is
mostly located amidships for higher density mud layers. For lower
density and viscosity the rising is located abaft, as shown in Fig. 7.
The transitory situation is a rising occurring in two phases.
2
1.9
1.8

(−)
1.7
Depending on the ship’s velocity the position of the interface
1.6

MAX + h2
was measured 10–20 times per second. The tripods were placed in 1.5

h2
the middle of the tank so that the position of the interface could 1.4
be measured before, while and after the ship was passing. 1.3
1.2
1.1
1
4. Observations 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Frh (-)
4.1. Undulations of the water mud interface
mud F mud H mud B mud C mud D

Fig. 3 gives an example of the measured undulations of the Fig. 6. Maximal rising in function of ship speed. Ship D. Thickness of the mud
water mud interface, which seem to behave as a Kelvin pattern. layer: 1.5 m full scale. No propeller or rudder action.  1.1% under keel clearance
referred to the water mud interface.
The maximal amplitude closest to the ship is represented in Fig. 4.

2 1
1.9
0.75
(−)

1.8
(−)

1.7
0.5
1.6
MAX + h2

LPP
x

1.5
h2

0.25
1.4
1.3
0
1.2
1.1
-0.25
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Frh (-)
Frh (-)
mud G mud H mud B mud C mud D mud F mud H mud B mud C
mud D amidship aft
Fig. 4. Maximal rising in function of ship speed. Ship D. Thickness of the mud
layer: 3 m full scale. No propeller or rudder action. 9.8% under keel clearance Fig. 7. Longitudinal position, at which the rising is maximal, in function of ship
referred to the water mud interface. speed. Ship D. Thickness of the mud layer: 1.5 m full scale. No propeller or rudder
action.  1.1% under keel clearance referred to the water mud interface.

1
2.2
0.75 2
(−)
(−)

1.8
0.5
MAX + h2
LPP
x

1.6
h2

0.25 1.4
1.2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 1
Frh (-) -100% -50% 0% 50% 100%
mud G mud H mud B mud C propeller rate (-)
mud D amidship aft mud G mud H mud B mud C mud D

Fig. 5. Longitudinal position, at which the rising is maximal, in function of ship Fig. 8. Maximal rising in function of the propeller rate. Ship D. Thickness of the
speed. Ship D. Thickness of the mud layer: 3 m full scale. No propeller or rudder mud layer: 3 m full scale. No rudder action. Ship speed: 6 kn full scale.  12%
action. 9.8% under keel clearance referred to the water mud interface. under keel clearance referred to the water mud interface.
 G. Delefortrie et al. / Ocean Engineering 37 (2010) 1464–1476 1469

0.75

0.5

(−)
0.25

LPP
x
0

-0.25
-100% -50% 0% 50% 100%
propeller rate (-)
mud G mud H mud B mud C
mud D aft amidship

Fig. 9. Longitudinal position, at which the rising is maximal, in function of the propeller rate. Ship D. Thickness of the mud layer: 3 m full scale. No rudder action. Ship
speed: 6 kn full scale.  12.2% under keel clearance referred to the water mud interface.

0.16 0.06
0.14
0.05
0.12
0.1 0.04
CS (-)

CS (-)
0.08 0.03
0.06
0.02
0.04
0.02 0.01
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 -100% -50% 0% 50% 100%
Frh (-) propeller rate (-)
solid mud F mud G mud H mud G mud H mud B mud C mud D
mud B mud C mud D
Fig. 12. Sinkage in function of the propeller rate. Ship D. Thickness of the mud
Fig. 10. Sinkage in function of the ship speed. Ship D. Thickness of the mud layer: layer: 3 m full scale. No rudder action.  12.2% under keel clearance referred to the
1.5 m full scale. No propeller or rudder action. 3.9% under keel clearance referred water mud interface.
to the water mud interface.

4.2. Sinkage

0.16 The mean sinkage as measured during the tests will be

represented dimensionless as CS
0.14
0.12 zF þ zA
Cs ¼ 100 ð4Þ
0.1 2LPP
CS (-)

0.08
0.06 The values zA and zF are positive downwards. Figs. 10 and 11
0.04 give an overview of the ship’s sinkage in function of the speed for
0.02 different bottom conditions. The following can be observed:
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Frh (-)
 When the ship navigates above the mud layer the rising of the
interface is significantly larger for mud layers with a viscosity
solid mud F mud G mud H
below a critical viscosity. When the under keel clearance is
mud E mud C mud D
small, this can eventually result in contact between the vessel
Fig. 11. Sinkage in function of the ship speed. Ship D. Thickness of the mud layer: and the mud layer. The mud will yield an increase of buoyancy,
1.5 m full scale. No propeller or rudder action.  1.1% under keel clearance referred which results in a decrease of the sinkage;
to the water mud interface.
 If the ship’s keel penetrates the mud layer, the large rising
amidships, which occurs for higher density mud layers, will cause
an increase of buoyancy. The sinkage will consequently be smaller.
Reversed propeller action in case of navigating ahead yields a
relatively large rising near the propeller, see Figs. 8 and 9. In this
case the pattern of the undulations is rather random. The sinkage, for a same small under keel clearance referred to
The rising does not seem to start abaft the ship in the given the solid bottom, is always larger above a solid bottom than above
experimental speed range, although some experimental speeds a muddy bottom. The same observations were made by Sellmeijer
were higher than those predicted by Eq. (3). A possible explana- and Van Oortmerssen (1983) and Vantorre and Coen (1988),
tion is the higher viscosity of the mud layers in this experimental nevertheless the latter mentioned a slight increase of sinkage at
program and the assumption of inviscid fluids in Eq. (3). low speeds.
1470 G. Delefortrie et al. / Ocean Engineering 37 (2010) 1464–1476

A working propeller generates an additional longitudinal speed
which changes the pressure balance and thus the squat of the
ship. As shown in Fig. 12 the additional sinkage is more or less
quadratic with the propeller rate.
4.3. Trim
 In all cases a larger rising causes a larger asymmetry and thus a
larger trim. This is in accordance with the observations made
by Vantorre and Coen (1988).
 A change of trim sign when penetrating the mud as reported
by Brossard et al. (1990) is not observed.

As the sinkage is not constant along the ship’s hull, the ship As for the sinkage propeller action influences the trimming of
will be dynamically trimmed. For slender hulls this generally the ship. Propeller action yields a larger dynamic trim, especially
results in a larger sinkage at the stern, while full body ships with propeller action astern, see Fig. 15. This coincides with the
mostly have a larger sinkage at the bow. When the ship navigates effect of propeller action on the rising of the water mud interface
in a muddy area, the trim will be influenced as well and its as shown in Fig. 9.
absolute value will usually increase, due to the extra asymmetry
in the buoyancy caused by the rising of the interface.
The dimensionless total trim CT as measured during the tests 0
-0.005
zF zA -0.01
CT ¼ 100 ð5Þ
LPP -0.015
is represented for different navigation conditions in Figs. 13 and -0.02

CT (-)
14, where a negative trim means a larger sinkage abaft. It can be -0.025
stated that, in combination with the observations of the undula- -0.03
-0.035
tions of the interface:
-0.04
-0.045
 A rising will have the largest influence on the trim when it -0.05
takes place amidships. The influence will decrease when the -100% -50% 0% 50% 100%
rising moves abaft; propeller rate (-)
 The trim will be smaller when the top of the rising is wider;
mud G mud H mud B mud C mud D

0.005 Fig. 15. Trim as a function of the propeller rate. Ship D. Thickness of the mud
layer: 3 m full scale. No rudder action.  12.2% under keel clearance referred to the
0 water mud interface.

-0.005
CT (-)

2
-0.01
(−)

-0.015 1.8
MAX + h2

-0.02 1.6
h2

-0.025 1.4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Frh (-) 1.2
solid mud F mud G mud H 1
mud B mud C mud D 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Frh (-)
Fig. 13. Trim in function of the ship speed. Ship D. Thickness of the mud layer: U, -12.2% ukc D, -12.2% ukc D, +10% ukc
1.5 m full scale. No propeller or rudder action. 3.9% under keel clearance referred
U, +10% ukc E, -9.4% ukc E, -4.4% ukc
to the water mud interface.
Fig. 16. Maximal rising in function of ship speed and ship type. Thickness of the
mud layer D: 0.04 m model scale. No propeller or rudder action.

0.005
0 0.25
-0.005
0.2
-0.01
CT (-)

-0.015 0.15
CS (-)

-0.02
0.1
-0.025
-0.03 0.05
-0.035
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Frh (-)
Frh (-)
solid mud F mud G mud H
mud E mud C mud D U, -12.2% ukc D, -12.2% ukc D, +10% ukc
U, +10% ukc E, -9.4% ukc E, -4.4% ukc
Fig. 14. Trim in function of the ship speed. Ship D. Thickness of the mud layer:
1.5 m full scale. No propeller or rudder action.  1.1% under keel clearance referred Fig. 17. Sinkage in function of the ship speed and ship type. Thickness of the mud
to the water mud interface. layer D: 0.04 m model scale. No propeller or rudder action.
 G. Delefortrie et al. / Ocean Engineering 37 (2010) 1464–1476 1471

4.4. Effect of the hull form 0.14

0.12
CS = 0.5942γ
Fig. 16 shows the maximal rising of the interface for the three 0.1
R2 = 0.9826
ships above or in contact with the thickest mud layer D. For 0.08
both container carriers the trend is more or less the same, but for 0.06

CT,S (-)
the tanker the rising seems to reach a maximum at low speed. For 0.04
the fuller ship the rising tends to occur fore or amidships, an
0.02
increase of speed will cause a shift towards the stern of the ship, CT = -0.1919γ
0
but not necessarily an increase of amplitude. R2 = 0.9893
-0.02
For a same Froude number the dimensionless sinkage will be
larger for the fuller ship, while both container carriers follow the -0.04
same trend, see Fig. 17. The same can be concluded for the trim, -0.06
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Fig. 18, but the fuller ship has a larger bow sinkage.
γ (-)

Fig. 19. Application of expressions (6) and (7). Ship D. Thickness of mud layer G:
5. Mathematical model 3 m full scale. No propeller or rudder action.  12.2% under keel clearance referred
to the water mud interface.
5.1. Definitions

A mathematical model will be built to predict the ship’s squat 0.8

when sailing straight ahead based on the measurements carried 0.7
0.6 s0
out with the 6000 TEU container carrier. The effect of a rotating
propeller will be taken into account. According to Tuck (1966) the 0.5

s0, t0 (-)
mean sinkage of the vessel in the subcritical speed range can be 0.4 Linear trend
modelled as 0.3 Quadratic trend
0.2
Cs ¼ s0 gðFrh Þ ð6Þ
0.1
With s0 a coefficient to be derived from regression analysis. An 0 t0
analogous relationship is valid for the vessel’s trim -0.1
-0.2
CT ¼ t0 gðFrh Þ ð7Þ
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
T/(h-T) (-)
This relationship is also valid in muddy navigation areas, even
when the ship is penetrating a highly viscous mud layer, as shown Fig. 20. Regression coefficients s0 (6) and t0 (7) in function of the under keel
clearance above a solid bottom. Ship D. No propeller or rudder action.
in Fig. 19.
Eqs. (6) and (7) can consequently be used to predict the squat
in muddy areas. However some physical awareness is needed. parameters. Furthermore even above a solid bottom some
Tuck (1966) developed his expressions for an open shallow water discrepancies occur in function of the under keel clearance,
environment without any mud layer. The critical speed, which is e.g. Fig. 20.
related to the return current, will certainly be affected by the To take account of very shallow water effects Eqs. (6) and (7)
presence of a mud layer. Nonetheless Eqs. (6) and (7) will be used should thus be reformulated as
as a starting point to develop new expressions.  
T
CS ¼ a1 þ a0 gðFrh Þ ð8Þ
hT
5.2. Effect of the water depth " #
 2
T T
Ct ¼ b2 þ b1 þ b0 gðFrh Þ ð9Þ
Instead of trying to find a new expression for the subcritical hT hT
speed in function of the muddy environmental conditions the
coefficients s0 and t0 will be formulated as mud dependent

0.08 5.3. The hydrodynamically equivalent depth

0.06
The effect of the presence of the mud layer can be modelled
0.04
with Eqs. (8) and (9) using a hydrodynamically equivalent depth
CT (-)

0.02 h* instead of the real depth h.

0 With h2 the thickness of the mud layer and h1 the height of the
-0.02 upper lying water layer, the total depth can be written as
-0.04 h ¼ h1 þh2 ð10Þ
-0.06
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 The bottom material can vary from water over soft mud to
Frh (-) consolidated mud. If the mud has large viscosity and density
U, -12.2% ukc D, -12.2% ukc D, +10% ukc values, like sand or clay, the material will hardly move when a
U, +10% ukc E, -9.4% ukc E, -4.4% ukc ship passes by and its top can be considered as the actual seabed.
In this case the hydrodynamically equivalent depth h* is
Fig. 18. Trim in function of the ship speed and ship type. Thickness of the mud
layer D: 0.04 m model scale. No propeller or rudder action. h* ¼ h1 ð11Þ
1472 G. Delefortrie et al. / Ocean Engineering 37 (2010) 1464–1476

On the other hand, if the material is very fluid the mud layer Solid h1 h2 h3
cannot be considered as a solid bottom. In the limit condition of two 0.9
equivalent water layers, the hydrodynamically equivalent depth is 0.8

h* ¼ h1 þh2 ¼ h ð12Þ 0.7

0.6

s0 (-)
0.5
For intermediate situations a parameter F can be defined, so
that 0.4
0.3
h* ¼ h1 þ Fh2 rh ð13Þ
0.2
0.1
Particular values for the parameter F are 0 ( ¼ hard layer of
0
thickness h2) and 1 ( ¼watery layer of thickness h2), F represents
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
consequently the degree of watery behaviour of the bottom layer
T/(h*-T) (-)
and is therefore called the fluidization parameter.
Intuitively the fluidization parameter of the mud covering the Fig. 22. Regression coefficients s0 (6) in function of the hydrodynamic equivalent
seabed depends on the following aspects: under keel clearance above mud h. Ship D. No propeller or rudder action.

 the rheological properties (e.g. viscosity) of the mud: a 3m 1.5 m 0.75 m

decrease of the latter means a more fluid mud layer and will 2.5
logically result in an increased fluidization parameter; 2
 the under keel clearance referred to the mud–water interface:
the fluidization parameter increases when the ship’s keel is 1.5
located closer to the mud or penetrates the mud. In these 1
conditions the mud layer is stirred and will behave more fluidly. Φ (-)
0.5
The assumption the mud layer does not affect the critical 0
speed means that the parameter g will always be expressed with h
instead of h*. -0.5
-1
5.4. Effect of the mud layer -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Πh (-)
5.4.1. Without propulsion
The effect of the mud layer on the hydrodynamic force Fig. 23. Fluidization parameter to determine the hydrodynamic equivalent under
balance could be modelled using the fluidization parameter. keel clearance for sinkage prediction above mud layers of low viscosity. Ship D. No
propeller or rudder action.
Figs. 21 and 22 show the effect of using the same concept on the
regression coefficient s0. A reasonable agreement can be observed.
The hydrodynamic equivalent under keel clearances shown in 3m 1.5 m 0.75 m
2.5
Figs. 21 and 22 have been determined with a fluidization
parameter that takes into account the position of the ship’s keel 2
referred to the top of the mud, expressed by 1.5
Th1
Ph ¼ ð14Þ 1
Φ (-)

h1
0.5
and the composition of the mud.
The following interpretations can be derived from Figs. 23 and 24: 0
-0.5
 When penetrating the mud the fluidization parameter is
significantly larger than 1, meaning that for an equal ship’s -1
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Solid b1 b2 b3 Πh (-)
0.8
0.7 Fig. 24. Fluidization parameter to determine the hydrodynamic equivalent under
keel clearance for sinkage prediction above mud layers of high viscosity. Ship D.
0.6 No propeller or rudder action.
0.5
s0 (-)

0.4 speed the sinkage will be smaller due to the presence of the
mud. This can be related to the changed buoyancy, never-
0.3
theless a significant density effect cannot be observed. This is
0.2 in accordance with Sellmeijer and van Oortmerssen (1983).
0.1  On the other hand, if the keel does not penetrate the mud
layer, the sinkage will become larger compared to a solid
0
bottom and this for a same total depth. This is rather relative
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
as the sinkage will always be smaller for larger under keel
T/(h*-T) (-)
clearances above any bottom condition.
Fig. 21. Regression coefficients s0 (6) in function of the hydrodynamic equivalent  The decrease of the fluidization parameter with increasing
under keel clearance above mud b. Ship D. No propeller or rudder action. under keel clearance referred to the top of the mud layer is
 G. Delefortrie et al. / Ocean Engineering 37 (2010) 1464–1476 1473

more or less equal for all mud compositions. On the other
hand, the decrease will start at a larger under keel clearance
for mud layers having a low viscosity, which can be ascribed to
the buoyancy effect of the higher risings in these conditions.
The effect of the mud’s viscosity, as mentioned in 4.1, has thus
a significant influence on the sinkage of the ship. The fluidization
parameter can consequently be written as
Also a new hydrodynamically equivalent depth is needed to
assess the influence of the thrust in muddy navigation areas. For
mud layers having a high viscosity the fluidization parameter
defining h* in Eq. (24) can be written simply as
F ¼ f0 ð26Þ
If the viscosity drops below the critical one, the fluidization
parameter changes to

F ¼ c1 ðr*Þ½Ph þc2 ðmÞ þc0 ð15Þ F ¼ gh Ph þg0 ð27Þ

With r* the dimensionless density

This fluidization parameter does not increase further once
r2 r1
r* ¼ ð16Þ Ph Z0.05. Figs. 26 and 27 show the low density mud D as an
r1
example.
The total trim taking account of propeller action can be written
In Eq. (15) the following restrictions have to be taken into
accordingly
account:
Ph Z 0:15 ð17Þ CT ¼ t0 gðV,hÞ þ tn gðVT ,hÞ ð28Þ

ðPh c2 Þ r 0 ð18Þ Fig. 25 shows the effect of the under keel clearance above a
solid bottom linearly expressed
m 4 mcrit : c2 ¼ 0 ð19Þ  
T
CT ðVT ,h*Þ ¼ i1 þi0 gðVT ,hÞ ð29Þ
Eq. (17) states the fluidization parameter will not decrease h*T
infinitely with increasing under keel clearance, while Eq. (18) allows
a constant fluidization parameter when the keel (almost) penetrates As for the sinkage a new hydrodynamically equivalent depth is
the mud. The parameter c2 takes into account the higher undulations needed to express the propeller effect in muddy areas
for mud layers having a viscosity below the critical one.  
An analogous expression can be built for the trim of the vessel. h h
F ¼ ðj0 þ jr r*ÞP þ F000 þ F0h0 2 þ r* F00r þ F0hr 2 ð30Þ
In this case the fluidization parameter can be written as T T
 
T T However this is only valid for propeller action ahead. Fig. 15
F ¼ ðd0 þ dr r*ÞP þ F00 þ Fh0 þ r* F0r þ Fhr ð20Þ
showed a larger longitudinal speed VT is needed to predict the
h2 h2
which uses an alternative formulation for the position of the
Linear trend
ship’s keel referred to the mud layer 0.14
0.12
Th1
P¼ ð21Þ 0.1
h2 0.08
0.06
sn, tn (-)

No restrictions apply to Eq. (20). Both Eqs. (15) and (20) are 0.04
valid within the experimental scope. 0.02
0
-0.02
5.4.2. With propulsion -0.04
A working propeller generates an additional longitudinal speed -0.06
VT that can be estimated as a function of the thrust generated by -0.08
the propeller 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi T/(h-T) (-)
u
u 1:5TP 
VT ¼ signðTP Þt  ð22Þ Fig. 25. Regression coefficients sn (25) and tn (28) in function of the under keel
rpD2P 
clearance above a solid bottom. Ship D. Effect of propeller action.

This additional speed changes the pressure distribution along

the ship’s hull and thus the squat. The factor 1.5 in Eq. (22) has
Solid d1 d2 d3
been determined experimentally for an under keel clearance of 0.14
26% above a solid bottom so that the total sinkage in this
0.12
condition can be written as
0.1
Cs ¼ s0 ½gðV,hÞ þ gðVT ,hÞ ¼ CS ðV,hÞ þ CS ðVT ,hÞ ð23Þ
0.08
sn (-)

The effect of the under keel clearance on the thrust dependent 0.06
term needs however a new set of regression coefficients ei, see
0.04
Fig. 25
  0.02
T
CS ðVT ,h*Þ ¼ e1 þ e0 gðVT ,hÞ
h*T 0
¼ sn gðVT ,hÞ ð24Þ 0 5 10 15 20 25
T/(h*-T) (-)
The total sinkage, including propeller action is then
Fig. 26. Regression coefficients sn (25) in function of the hydrodynamic equivalent
CS ¼ s0 gðV,hÞ þsn gðVT ,hÞ ð25Þ under keel clearance above mud D. Ship D. Effect of propeller action.
1474 G. Delefortrie et al. / Ocean Engineering 37 (2010) 1464–1476

d1 d2 d3 0.18
1.2 R2 = 0.9502
0.16
1
0.8 0.14
0.12

CS model (-)
0.6
0.4 0.1
Φ (-)

0.2 0.08
0 0.06
-0.2
0.04
-0.4
-0.6 0.02
-0.8 0
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Πh (-) CS measurement (-)

Fig. 30. Comparison between measured and modelled sinkage values: all runs.
Fig. 27. Fluidization parameter to determine the hydrodynamic equivalent under
Ship D.
keel clearance for sinkage prediction above the light mud layer D. Ship D. Effect of
propeller action.

0
-1.6
-0.01
R2 = 0.9289
-0.02

CT model (-)
-1.8
-0.03
α (-)

-2 -0.04

-0.05
-2.2
-0.06
-0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01
-2.4 CT measurement (-)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
T/(h-T) (-) Fig. 31. Comparison between measured and modelled trim values: all runs.
Ship D.
Fig. 28. Increase of propeller induced longitudinal speed due to astern rotation.
Ship D. Influence of the under keel clearance above a solid bottom.
measurement model
0.18
0 0.16
-0.01 0.14
0.12
-0.02
CT (VT) (-)

CS (-)

0.1
-0.03 0.08
Increasing propeller rate 100%
-0.04 0.06
0.04 -60%
-0.05
0.02
-0.06
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
γ (VT) (-) Frh (-)
26% ukc 15% ukc 10% ukc 32% ukc Linear trend
Fig. 32. Comparison between measured and modelled sinkage values. 10% under
Fig. 29. Evaluation of formula (29). Solid bottom condition, influence of propeller keel clearance above a solid bottom. Ship D. Runs with propeller action are
action, both ahead and astern. Ship D. labelled.

effect of propeller action astern on the trim. For trim Eq. (22) When Eq. (32) is used to correct VT, Eq. (29) can be used to
should be replaced by predict the trim for any propeller rate above a solid bottom,
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi see Fig. 29.
 1:5TP  The correction coefficient a depends also on the composition
VT ¼ aUsignðTP Þ   ð31Þ
rpD2  of the mud layer. The hydrodynamically equivalent depth in
Eq. (32) is a function of a fluidization parameter. For mud
With a ¼1 for positive values of the propeller’s thrust. For an
layers below the critical viscosity this parameter can be
astern rotating propeller the increase a depends on the under keel
determined as
clearance, see Fig. 28
T h2 00
TP o0 : a ¼ k1 þ k0 ð32Þ F0 ¼ p0 P þ F0000 þ ðF h0 þ r*F00hr Þ ð33Þ
h*T T
 G. Delefortrie et al. / Ocean Engineering 37 (2010) 1464–1476 1475

measurement model 6. Conclusions and recommendations

0

-0.01 60% For a same small under keel clearance referred to the solid
bottom the sinkage will be mostly smaller when a mud layer is
-0.02 100% present. This is not always the case for the ship’s trim. The squat
of the ship can be related to the observed undulations of the water
CT (-)

-0.03 mud interface, that become dominant once the viscosity of the
mud layer is below a critical one.
-0.04
A mathematical model predicting fairly well the ship’s squat
for container carriers has been built taking into account the
-0.05
-60% bottom conditions and propeller action. Therefore, the principle of
-0.06 a hydrodynamically equivalent depth has been used. For several
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 fluidization parameters a different formulation is needed depend-
Frh (-) ing on the viscous characteristics of the mud layers. This can be
linked to a critical viscosity as observed with the undulations of
Fig. 33. Comparison between measured and modelled trim values. 10% under keel the water mud interface. As this critical viscosity lies somewhere
clearance above a solid bottom. Ship D. Runs with propeller action are labelled. between 0.11 and 0.19 Pa s a linear interpolation between the
formulae should be applied within this viscosity range.
measurement model Future efforts will be undertaken to include more parameters
0.14
(drift angle,y) in the mathematical model and to investigate how
0.12 the mud layer affects the critical speed regimes.

0.1
Acknowledgements
CS (-)

0.08

0.06
The data presented in this article were obtained during the
Increasing propeller rate 100%
0.04 research project Determination of the nautical bottom in the
-60% harbour of Zeebrugge: Nautical implications, which was carried
0.02 out co-operatively by Ghent University and Flanders Hydraulics,
0 commissioned by T.V. Noordzee & Kust (Ostend, Belgium) in the
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 frame of the optimisation of the maintenance dredging contract
Frh (-) for the harbour of Zeebrugge, financed by the Department
Maritime Access, a division of the Mobility and Public Works
Fig. 34. Comparison between measured and modelled sinkage values. Ship D. department of the Flemish Government.
Thickness of the mud layer ‘‘c’’: 3 m full scale.  7.2% under keel clearance referred
to the water mud interface. Runs with propeller action are labelled.
References
measurement model
0 Ankudinov, V., Daggett, L., 1996. Squat predictions for manoeuvring applications.
In: Proceedings of MARSIM 1996 (International Conference on Marine
-0.005 Simulation and Manoeuvrability), Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 467–495.
-0.01 Ankudinov, V., Daggett, L., Hewlett, J., Jakobsen, B. 2000. Prototype measurement of
ship sinkage in confined water. In: Proceedings of MARSIM 2000 (International
-0.015 Conference on Marine Simulation and Manoeuvrability), Orlando, USA, p 233.
60% Barras, C., 1979. The phenomena of ship squat. International Shipbuilding Progress
CT (-)

-0.02
26, 44–47.
100%
-0.025 Barras, C. 2004. Thirty-two years of research into ship squat. Squat workshop 2004,
Elsfleth, Germany, pp. 1–25.
-0.03 Beck, R., Newman, J., Tuck, E., 1975. Hydrodynamic forces on ships in dredged
-0.035 channels. Journal of Ship Research 19 (3), 166–171.
Blaauw, H., Van der Knaap, F., 1983. Prediction of squat of ships sailing in restricted
-0.04 -60% water. In: Proceedings of the International Harbour Congress, pp. 81–93.
-0.045 Brossard, C., Delouis, A., Galichon, P., Granboulan, J., Monadier, P., 1990. Navigability
in channels subject to siltation. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Coastal
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Engineering Conference, Delft, The Netherlands, pp. 3088–3101.
Frh (-) Cong, L., Hsiung, C., 1991. Computing wave resistance, wave profile and sinkage
and trim of transom stern ships. Marine and Offshore Operations, 99–112.
Fig. 35. Comparison between measured and modelled trim values. Ship D. Constantine, T., 1960. On the movement of ships in restricted waterways. Journal
Thickness of the mud layer ‘‘c’’: 3 m full scale.  7.2% under keel clearance referred of Fluid Mechanics 9 (2), 247–257.
Dand, I., 1972. On full form ships in shallow water: some methods for the
to the water mud interface. Runs with propeller action are labelled.
prediction of squat in subcritical flows. National Physical Laboratory, Ship
Division, Ship Report 160.
While more viscous mud layers can use a simpler expression de Koning Gans, H., Boonstra, H., 2007. Squat effects of very large container ships with
drift in a harbor environment. In: Proceedings of the International Maritime-port
F ¼ q0 P þ F00000
0
ð34Þ Technology and Development Conference, Singapore, pp. 613–620.
Delefortrie, G., Vantorre, M., Verzhbitskaya, E., Seynaeve, K., 2007. Evaluation of
safety of navigation in muddy areas through real time manoeuvring simulation.
5.5. Results Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering 133 (2), 125–135.
Doctors, L.J., Zilman, G., Miloh, T., 1996. The influence of a bottom mud layer on the
steady-state hydrodynamics of marine vehicles. In: Proceedings of the 21st
The overall comparison between measured and modelled Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, pp. 727 – 742.
values is shown in Figs. 30 and 31. Some outliers occur, but the Dumas, R., 1982. Le surenfoncement des navires dû a leur mouvement. Revue
Technique du Service des Phares et Balises 53, 26–58 In French.
overall accuracy is fairly well. Eloot, K., Verwilligen, J., Vantorre, M., 2008. An overview of squat measurements
Some spot checks in different conditions are shown in Figs. 32–35. for container ships in restricted water. In: Varyani, K.S. (Ed.), International
1476 G. Delefortrie et al. / Ocean Engineering 37 (2010) 1464–1476
Conference on Safety and Operations in Canals and Waterways SOCW 2008,
15–16 September 2008 Glasgow, UK, pp. 106–116.
Gourlay, T., 2000. Mathematical and computational techniques for predicting the squat
of ships. Ph.D. thesis, University of Adelaide, Department of Applied Mathematics.
Gourlay, T., 2008. Slender-body methods for predicting ship squat. Ocean
Engineering 35 (2), 191–200.
Härting, A., Reinking, J., 2002. SHIPS: a new method for efficient full-scale ship
squat determination. In: Proceedings of the PIANC 30th International
Navigation Congress, Sydney, Australia, pp. 84–91.
Härting, A., Laupichler, A., Reinking, J., 2009. Considerations on the squat of
unevenly trimmed ships. Ocean Engineering 36, 193–201.
Jiang, T., Henn, R., 2003. Numerical prediction of ship’s squat and trim in shallow
water. In: Proceedings of MARSIM 2003 (International Conference on Marine
Simulation and Manoeuvrability), Kanazawa, Japan.
Martin, H., Puls, D., 1986. Vertical forces, trim moments and changes of
draught and trim of ships in shallow water. Schiffbauforschung 25 (3),
155–159.
Millward, A., 1990. A preliminary design method for the prediction of squat in
shallow water. Marine Technology 27 (1), 10–19.
Naghdi, P., Rubin, M., 1984. On the squat of a ship. Journal of Ship Research 28 (2),
107–117.
PIANC, 1997. Approach channels – A guide for design. Final report of the joint
Working Group PIANC and IAPH, in cooperation with IMPA and IALA.
Supplement to PIANC Bulletin, No. 95, 108 p.
Sellmeijer, R., van Oortmerssen, G., 1983. The effect of mud on tanker manoeuvres.
The Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Spring Meetings 1983, paper no. 7.
Seren, D., Ferguson, A., McGregor, R., 1983. Squat—an examination of two practical
prediction methods. The Naval Architect 5, 228–230.
Stocks, D., Daggett, L., Page, Y., 2004. Maximization of ship draft in the St.Lawrence
Seaway. Squat workshop 2004, Elsfleth, Germany.
Tuck, E., 1966. Shallow water flow past slender bodies. Journal of Fluid Mechanics
26 (1), 81–95.
Vantorre, M., Coen, I., 1988. On sinkage and trim of vessels navigating above a
mud layer. The Royal Society of Flemish Engineers, International Harbour
Congress.
Von Bovet, G., 1985. Tiefgangs- un Trimmwinkeländerungen von Schiffen under
Berücksichtigung endlicher Wassertiefe un Einflub auf die Steuerbarkeit.
Schiffbauforschung 24 (1), 3–11 (in German).