Pilot Revalidation

21st August 2009

Effect of hull form, ship speed,

channel width and h/T on ship squat

Jonathan Duffy
Australian Maritime College
 Model scale experiments

• One method to measure ship squat is to conduct model scale

experiments.

• Model scale experiments may be broadly categorized as follows:

• Captive
• Semi-captive
• Free running
Model scale experiments

AMC towing tank

Model scale experiments

Shallow water test in the AMC towing tank

Model scale experiments

Semi-captive model set up

 Effect of hull form on ship squat

• Dand and Ferguson (1973) tested ships with block coefficients ranging from 0.82 to
0.90. They concluded that the block coefficient had little effect on squat (mean
sinkage and trim) within this range.

• Seren, Ferguson and McGregor (1981) investigated the effect of bulbous bow
geometry on ship squat. They found that the design of the bulbous bow has little
effect on ship squat.

• Millward (1990) conducted model scale experiments to investigate the effect of hull
form on ship squat. He found that the maximum sinkage occurred at the bow for full
form ships, whilst for fine form ships a stern down trim could be expected at higher
speeds.

• Millward concluded that if the longitudinal centre of buoyancy (LCB) is some distance
forward from midships then the ship will trim by the bow and if the LCB is located aft
of midships the ship will trim by the stern. If the LCB is close to midships the trim
effect is likely to be small.

• Barrass (1979) stated that predominantly the running trim of a ship will be bow down
for a CB>0.7 and will be stern down for a CB<0.7.
Effect of hull form on ship squat

•Comparison of squat measurements on models

with different block coefficients in shallow water
(L/h=10), Collinson (1994)

•It was found that, generally, the squat was higher

for ships with high block coefficients.
Principal particulars of MarAd L series bulk carrier and S-175 containership

Ship LBP/B B/T CB LCB (%LBP)

MarAd L series bulk carrier 5.0 4.4 0.85 2.5 (fwd midships)

S-175 containership 6.9 3.3 0.57 1.4 (aft midships)

MarAd L series bulk carrier and S-175 containership models

MarAd L series bulk carrier model

S-175 containership model

 Effect of hull form on ship squat

Effect of hull form on sinkage, vertical lateral banks, h/T=1.2, Ch’ng (1991)

•MarAd L series bulk carrier with cylindrical bow (C B=0.85) and bulbous bow (CB=0.85) and

S-175 containership (CB=0.57).

•Port lateral bank is 1.25 beams from the ship and the starboard bank is 5.1 beams from the
ship
 Effect of hull form on ship squat

Effect of hull form on trim, vertical lateral banks, h/T=1.2, Ch’ng (1991)

•MarAd L series bulk carrier with cylindrical bow (C B=0.85) and bulbous bow (CB=0.85) and S-175

containership (CB=0.57).
•None of the models were fitted with propellers or rudders.
•Port lateral bank is 1.25 beams from the ship and the starboard bank is 5.1 beams from the ship.
•t’=((sA-sF)/L)*100
 Effect of ship speed on squat

0.87m
Static UKC=1.1m •Froude number = v/(g.LBP)0.5
Static UKC=2.3m
Static UKC=3.4m
Static UKC=4.5m

•Where appropriate dimensional values

0.5m have been included in green text that

correspond to a bulk carrier, CB=0.85,

LBP=250m, B=45m, T=11.3m.

•Sinkage increases approximately with the

4.8kn
7.7k 9.6kn square of the ship speed, i.e. if the speed
n
is doubled the sinkage is quadrupled.
1.25m
Static UKC=1.1m
Static UKC=2.3m
Static UKC=3.4m
Static UKC=4.5m •Data taken from Schoenhoff (2005)

0.63m

4.8kn
7.7k 9.6k
Model scale experiments – Effect of channel width
 Effect of channel width on heave force due to squat
Effect of Width on Heave Force for h/d=1.2

0.35
•W is channel width, B is ship beam
Fnh=0.3
0.3 Fnh=0.4 •For a 250m long ship the Fnh values
Non Dimensional Force (Bis system)

Fnh=0.5
Fnh=0.6 correspond to:
0.25

0.2
–Fnh=0.3 is 6.7 kn

0.15
–Fnh=0.4 is 9 kn

0.1
–Fnh=0.5 is 11 kn

0.05
–Fnh=0.6 is 13.5 kn

0 •The heave force is greatest for cases with

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
W/B low channel width to beam ratios
Effect of Width on Heave Force for h/d=1.4
•For h/T=1.2 at 11 knots the heave force
0.25

Fnh=0.3 increases by over 150% when changing

Fnh=0.4
Fnh=0.5
0.2
W/B from 10.3 to 3
Non Dimensional Force (Bis system)

Fnh=0.6

0.15
•For h/T=1.4 at 6.7 knots the heave force
increases by approx. 48% when changing
0.1
W/B from 10.3 to 5

0.05
•Data from Duffy (2008)

0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
W/B
 Effect of channel width on pitch moment due to squat
Stern down Effect of Width on Pitch Moment for h/d=1.2

0.025
•W is channel width, B is ship beam
Non Dimensional Pitch Moment About Midships (Bis system)

Fnh=0.3
Fnh=0.4
0.02
Fnh=0.5 •For a 250m long ship the Fnh values
Fnh=0.6

correspond to:
0.015

0.01
–Fnh=0.3 is 6.7 kn
0.005

–Fnh=0.4 is 9 kn
0

–Fnh=0.5 is 11 kn
-0.005

–Fnh=0.6 is 13.5 kn
-0.01
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Bow down W/B •The bow down pitch moment
Stern down Effect of Width on Pitch Moment for h/d=1.4
experienced at W/B=10.3 is reduced as
0.01
Non Dimensional Pitch Moment About Midships (Bis system)

0.008
Fnh=0.3
Fnh=0.4
W/B is reduced.
Fnh=0.5
0.006
Fnh=0.6
•The pitch moment becomes stern down
0.004

0.002
for extreme combinations of ship speed
0 and W/B
-0.002

•Data from Duffy (2008).

-0.004

-0.006

-0.008

-0.01
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Bow down W/B

 Effect of h/T on ship squat
0.87m •Data for MarAd L
•Initial trim = 0 deg.
•Data from Schoenhoff (2005)
0.5m
•For a 250m long ship the Fn
values correspond to:
–Fn=0.05 is 4.8 knots

–Fn=0.067 is 6.4 knots

Static UKC=1.1m Static UKC=2.3m Static UKC=3.4m Static UKC=4.5m

–Fn=0.081 is 7.8 knots

1.24m

–Fn=0.103 is 10.0 knots

•For this case at 6.4 knots

0.62m sinkage at FP increases by
30% when decreasing h/T
from 1.4 to 1.1.
 Effect of h/T on ship squat

0.75m
•Data for MarAd L
•Initial trim =0.25 deg.
0.5m
•Data from Schoenhoff (2005)

•For a 250m long ship the Fn

values correspond to:
–Fn=0.05 is 4.8 knots

–Fn=0.067 is 6.4 knots

Static UKC=1.1m Static UKC=2.3m Static UKC=3.4m Static UKC=4.5m

1.12m
–Fn=0.081 is 7.8 knots

–Fn=0.103 is 10.0 knots

•For this case at 6.4 knots

0.5m
sinkage at FP increases by
30% when decreasing h/T
from 1.4 to 1.1.
 Effect of L/h on ship squat

•Squat results for different ship length to

water depth ratios for Model 5154
(tanker, CB=0.82)

•For a 250m long ship the draught

equates to 13.8m and the L/h values
correspond to the following water
depths:
–L/h=6, h=41m
–L/h=8, h=31m
–L/h=10, h=25m
–L/h=12, h=21m

•The squat is greatest at the lowest

under keel clearance.

•Data from Collinson (1994)

14kn 19kn
 Effect of L/h on ship squat

•Trim results for Model 5154 (tanker,

CB=0.82) in shallow water, with various
length/depth ratios

•For a 250m long ship the draught

equates to 13.8m and the L/h values
correspond to the following water depths:
–L/h=6, h=41m
–L/h=8, h=31m
–L/h=10, h=25m
–L/h=12, h=21m

•The trim due to squat is greatest at the

lowest under keel clearance.

•Data from Collinson (1994)

14kn
19kn
Ratio of squat in shallow water to squat in deep water

•Variation of shallow/deep water squat

for Model 5549 (tanker, CB=0.829),
Collinson (1994).

•The ratio varies from 0.346 to 10.921 in

the data shown.
 Effect of ship speed and blockage on squat
2.5

SUPER-CRITICAL
2

Fnh1

1.5
Fnh

TRANS-CRITICAL
1

0.5

Fnh2
SUB-CRITICAL

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
S/So

Critical zones for a ship in a channel, Tuck and Taylor (1970)

 Effect of ship speed and blockage on squat

Semi-captive model experiment conducted in the AMC towing

tank, bulk carrier model in the trans-critical region
Effect of ship speed and blockage on squat

Effect of ship speed on squat, Duffield (1997)

 References

• Barrass, C.B. 1979, ‘The phenomena of ship squat’, International Shipbuilding Progress, vol. 26, pp. 44-47.

• Ch'ng, P.W. 1991, An investigation into the influence of bank effect on ship manoeuvring and its mathematical modelling
for a ship-handling simulator, Master of Engineering Thesis, School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Univ.
of New South Wales.

• Collinson, R.G. 1994, A review of methods of predicting the squat of a ship in shallow water, Masters Thesis, University
of Liverpool.

• Dand, I.W. & Ferguson, A.M. 1973, ‘The squat of full ships in shallow water’, Trans. RINA, vol. 115, pp. 237-255.

• Duffield, R. 1997, Investigation into steady and unsteady state squat, Bachelor of Engineering (Nav. Arch.) Thesis,
Australian Maritime College.

• Duffy, J.T. 2008, Modelling of ship-bank interaction and ship squat for ship-handling simulation, PhD Thesis, Australian
Maritime College.

• McDonnell, S. 2003, An investigation into ship squat and ship-bank interaction for full form ships, Bachelor of
Engineering (Nav. Arch.) Thesis, Australian Maritime College.

• Millward, A. 1990, ‘A preliminary design method for the prediction of squat in shallow water’, Marine Technology, vol. 27,
no.1, pp. 10-19.

• Schoenhoff, T. 2005, Investigation into the effect of initial trim on steady state ship squat, Bachelor of Engineering (Nav.
Arch.) Thesis, Australian Maritime College.

• Seren, D.B., Ferguson, A.M. & McGregor, R.C. 1981, ‘Squat – an examination of two practical prediction methods’, The
Naval Architect, September, pp. E228-E230.

• Tuck, E.O. & Taylor, P.J. 1970, ‘Shallow-water problems in ship hydrodynamics’,
Proceedings of 8th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Washington DC, pp. 627-659.