SENSITIVITY OF PIANC SHIP SQUAT FORMULAS IN

UNRESTRICTED CHANNELS
by

Michael J. Briggs
Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
3909 Halls Ferry Rd, CEERD-HN-HH
Vicksburg, MS 39180
United States of America
michael.j.briggs@usace.army.mil

KEY WORDS
Ship squat, PIANC empirical formulas, underkeel clearance, deep draft navigation,
sensitivity study, unrestricted entrance channels

1. INTRODUCTION
PIANC has many empirical formulas for predicting ship squat in entrance channels.
Some of the most widely used are by Barrass (2004), Eryuzlu et al. (1994), Huuska
(1976), Rmisch (1989), and Yoshimura (1986). These formulas are based on limited
laboratory and field measurements, but are used for the newer generation of larger
tankers, containerships, and bulk carriers. 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 in
knots, block coefficient CB, and ship dimensions of length between perpendiculars
Lpp, beam B, and draught T. Ship speed is speed relative to the water and is one of
the most important parameters as one can usually slow down to reduce squat. Chan-
nel parameters include water depth h, type of channel cross-section Ac, side slope n,
and bottom channel width W. Channel types are unrestricted (U) or open channels,
restricted (R) or dredged with a trench, and canal (C) with sides that extend to the
surface. No one formula works best for all types of vessels in all types of channels.
Thus, it is necessary to examine the squat predictions with more than one formula
and compare the results based on the type of ship, channel, and formula constraints.

When performing a design analysis for ship squat, many ship and channel parame-
ters are not known with certainty. Channel cross-sections and dimensions can vary
considerably along the length of the channel and are usually not as simple as the
three idealized shapes. The CB is often just a best estimate based on the ship dis-
placement and dimensions since ship builders do not usually release this proprietary
information.

In this paper, a sensitivity analysis for the five PIANC squat formulas listed above is
performed on the effect of ship speed, draught, block coefficient, and water depth for
an unrestricted or open channel cross-section. These squat results are presented for
full load conditions for the Post-Panamax Susan Maersk containership in an entrance
channel similar to the Port of Savannah. Additional sensitivity comparisons for re-
stricted and canal channel types were presented by Briggs (2009).

PIANC Journal 1 8 Nov 10

The first section in this paper describes the Port of Savannah entrance channel and
the Susan Maersk containership. The next section describes the PIANC empirical
squat formulas. Details of these formulas are contained in Appendix A. The sensitivity
study organization and constraints are described in the next section. Finally, results
and discussion are presented in the last section.

2. SHIP AND CHANNEL PARAMETERS

2.1 Port of Savannah, Georgia
The Port of Savannah, Georgia, is planning for future accommodation of newer and
larger design vessels. The outer reach of this entrance channel can be classified as
an unrestricted or open channel. It is subject to waves, has a length of 14 nm, and a
width varying from 173 to 240 m. It is planned to increase the existing depth from
13.4 m to 15.2 m MLLW. Harbour pilots will continue to take advantage of the 1.1 m
high tide and overdredge allowance as necessary to accommodate larger draft ships.
The offshore 5.8 nm section can be represented as an unrestricted channel cross-
section.

2.2 Susan Maersk containership

The design ship for this port is the Post-Panamax Susan Maersk containership (Fig-
ure 1). It was completed in 1997 with a TEU capacity of 8,680 and a length overall
LOA of 347 m. The fully-loaded ship has an Lpp=331.64 m, B=42.8 m, T=14.48 m, and
CB=0.65. Typical ship speeds Vk can be as fast as 14 kts in the outer channel. Design
underkeel clearance (UKC) is 1.2 m in the outer channel.

Figure 1: Susan Maersk containership (courtesy www.Containerinfo)

3. PIANC SQUAT FORMULAS

In 1997 PIANC Working Group 30 (WG30) included 11 empirical squat formulas in
their design guidance for deep draft channels. In 2005, PIANC WG49 was formed to
update the WG30 report on Horizontal and Vertical Dimensions of Fairways. WG49
consists of representatives from 12 countries and is in the process of updating this
guidance. Current thinking is to reduce the number of these squat formulas to seven
that are the most user friendly and popular in the deep draft navigation commu-

PIANC Journal 2 8 Nov 10

nity. Five of these squat formulas are evaluated in this paper. They include those of
Barrass (2004), Eryuzlu et al. (1994), Huuska (1976), Rmisch (1989), and Yoshi-
mura (1986). Briggs (2006)) programmed these formulas in a FORTRAN program
and Briggs et al. (2010) provided updates based on the WG49 recommendations.

Historically, maximum squat SMax occurred at the bow Sb, especially for full-form
ships such as tankers. For newer, more slender fine-form ships such as container-
ships and passenger liners, SMax sometimes occurs at the stern Ss. All of the PIANC
formulas give predictions of SMax at the bow or stern, but only the Rmisch method
gives predictions for Ss for all channel types. Barrass gives Ss for unrestricted chan-
nels, and for canals and restricted channels depending on the value of CB. According
to Barrass, the value of CB determines whether the maximum squat is at the bow or
stern. Barrass notes that full-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. Rmisch has an
equivalent rule of thumb on the location of maximum squat since he proposes that a
ship will squat by the bow if CB>0.1Lpp/B. For the Susan Maersk, this would occur for
CB>0.77. Therefore, one might expect the Susan Maersk to squat by the stern since
her CB is less than 0.70 to 0.77 in these sensitivity comparisons. Of course, for chan-
nel design, one is mainly interested in the maximum squat and not necessarily
whether it is at the bow or stern.

The formulas for an unrestricted channel application are contained in Appendix A.

Barrass is on his fourth iteration of ship squat formulas. The one in this paper (Bar-
rass 2004, Barrass 2002) is considered his third version and is called B3 for simplic-
ity. The BAW (Uliczka and Kondziella 2006) use Barrass for squat predictions in
German waterways. His formulas are relatively straight-forward and easy to use. The
Eryuzlu et al. (1994) squat formula is based on laboratory experiments. Although it
has some serious constraints (i.e., CB >0.8), it is used exclusively by the Canadian
Coast Guard (2001). Therefore, it is included here even though the CB constraint is
technically exceeded. It is referred to as E2. The Huuska (1976) and Guliev (1971)
squat formula is referred to as the HG formula. The Spanish ROM (Puertos del
Estado 1999) and the Finnish Maritime Institute (FMA 2005, Sirkia 2007) use the HG
for all three channel types. Rmisch (1989) developed his squat formulas from physi-
cal model experiments. His empirical formulas (referred to as R1) are some of the
most difficult to use, but seem to give good predictions for bow and stern squat. Fi-
nally, the Yoshimura (Yoshimura 1986, Overseas Coastal Area Development Institute
2002) formula was developed as part of Japans Design Standard for Fairways in Ja-
pan. It was later enhanced by Ohtsu et al. (2006) to include predictions for R and C
channels.

4. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
The goal of the sensitivity analysis was to quantify the effect of significant input pa-
rameters on the squat predictions for the PIANC empirical formulas in an unrestricted
channel. Table 1 lists the ship and channel parameters that are in the PIANC formu-
las. An interesting observation is what is not explicitly included in some of the formu-
las even though they are used for all ship and channel types. For instance, (a) B3
has no dependence on Lpp, (b) E2 on Lpp or CB, (c) R1 on CB for stern squat, and (d)
Y2 on B. All but B3 are functions of gravity g.

PIANC Journal 3 8 Nov 10

 Formula
Symbol B3 E2 HG R1 Y2
Ship Parameters
Lpp Y Y Y
B Y Y Y Y
T Y Y Y Y Y
CB Y Y Y
Vk Y Y Y Y Y
Channel Parameters
h Y Y Y Y Y
Miscellaneous
g Y Y Y Y
Table 1: Relevant input parameters in PIANC squat formulas

Based on ship, channel, and squat formulas, three sensitivity analysis parameters
were selected for study. Table 2 lists these parameters and ranges for each channel
type. The U channel is one of the simplest and is applicable for all of the PIANC for-
mulas. A channel can be modelled as a U channel even if it is not ideally an unre-
stricted channel. If trench height hT is small enough (i.e., hT/h~0.0) and channel width
W (i.e., W/B>8 to 10) and side slope n (i.e., n>20 to 50) are large enough; then a U
channel is appropriate for this channel reach. The Base Case values are used as the
standard for comparison since they match many of the ship and channel characteris-
tics.
Value
Parameter Minimum Base Maximum
CB 0.60 0.65 0.70
h/T 1.10 1.20 1.30
Vk 5 10 15
Table 2: Sensitivity analysis parameters for Unrestricted channels

The range of CB was selected to match typical standard deviations of CB for contain-
erships (Ohtsu et al. 2006). The CB =0.05 is equivalent to an 8% change in CB.
Since it is known that most containerships squat by the stern, the maximum value of
CB =0.70 was selected to stay within the Barrass threshold. The depth-to-draught ra-
tios h/T represent typical values of UKC for entrance channels, with h/T=1.20 an ac-
cepted value for efficient navigation. Note that the h/T=1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 correspond
with UKC=1.5, 2.9, and 4.3 m, respectively. The h/T=0.10 is equivalent to an 8%
change in h/T. The range of ship speeds Vk includes typical containership speeds in
entrance channels. The Vk=5 kts represents a 50% change in ship speed.

As stated previously according to Barrass and Rmisch, ships with CB<0.7 to 0.77
will tend to squat by the stern. Therefore, the stern Ss squat predictions of B3 and R1
were always larger than the bow predictions and were used in this study in compari-
son with the other three formulas.

5. RESULTS
The results section is divided into presentations and discussions of predicted maxi-
mum squat SMax for each of the five PIANC formulas. Results in this section are for
analysis of CB, h/T, and Vk in a U channel. Figure 2 shows the range of SMax for each

PIANC Journal 4 8 Nov 10

of the Base Case predictions (CB=0.65 and h/T=1.20) as a function of Vk. Although
Vk=5 kts, a finer increment of 1 kt was used in the plots to show the finer detail and
resolution due to ship speed. The Barrass predictions were the largest and Rmisch
the smallest, with the other three in the middle. The SMax varies from a low of about
0.1 m to a high value of almost 1.5 m.
1.6
Base Case Ship Squat, Unrestricted Channel, CB=0.65, h/T=1.2
B

E
H
1.2
B Barrass B
E Eryuzlu Y
H Huuska E
SMax, m

R Romisch H

0.8 Y Yoshimura B R
Y

E
H
Y R
B

E
0.4 H
Y R
B
H R
E
Y
B R
H
Y
E
R
0.0
5 10 15
Vk, knots
Figure 2: Base Case maximum squat for Susan Maersk containership in Unrestricted
channel, CB=0.65, h/T=1.2

5.1 Barrass (B3)

Figure 3 shows the effect of CB on the Barrass stern squat Ss,B3 at h/T=1.20 for the
range of ship speeds. Even though shown at h/T=1.20, the B3 predictions are not af-
fected by h/T as they are the same for all h/T (see Appendix A). This is due to the
fact that the h/T ratio is not explicitly included in the B3 formula. Both h and T are in-
cluded in the S blockage factor, but the values of S are not allowed to exceed the
threshold values of 0.1S0.25. Table 3 lists the percentage variation in Ss,B3 from
the Base Case value at CB=0.65 for each ship speed.

1.6
Effect of CB on Barrass Squat, All h/T

1.2
SB3, m

0.8

CB=0.60
0.4 CB=0.65
CB=0.70

0.0
5 10 15
Vk, knots
Figure 3: Effect of CB on Barrass stern squat in Unrestricted channel, all h/T

PIANC Journal 5 8 Nov 10

 5.2 Eryuzlu (E2)
Figure 4 shows the effect of h/T on the Eryuzlu squat SE2 at CB=0.65 for the range of
ship speeds. Again, although shown for CB=0.65, the E2 is not dependent on CB. This
is due to the fact that it is not explicitly included in the E2 formula (see Appendix A).
The percentage variation in SE2 from the Base Case value at h/T=1.2 is again listed
in Table 3.
1.6
Effect of h/T on Eryuzlu Squat, All CB

1.2
SE2, m

0.8

0.4 h/T=1.1
h/T=1.2
h/T=1.3

0.0
5 10 15
Vk, knots
Figure 4: Effect of h/T on Eryuzlu squat in Unrestricted channel, all CB

Parameter Ship Speed (kts)

Formula Free Fixed 5 10 15
B3 CB=0.60 -6% -8% -8%
CB=0.70 6% 8% 8%
E2 h/T=1.1 9% 8% 8%
h/T=1.3 -9% -8% -7%
HG CB=0.60 -8% -8% -8%
h/T=1.2
CB=0.70 8% 8% 8%
h/T=1.1 8% 10% 12%
CB=0.65
h/T=1.3 -8% -8% -10%
R1 h/T=1.1 0% 9% 14%
CB=0.65
h/T=1.3 -11% -3% -9%
Y2 CB=0.60 -8% -9% -9%
h/T=1.2
CB=0.70 8% 9% 9%
h/T=1.1 0% 7% 6%
CB=0.65
h/T=1.3 -8% -4% -5%
Notes:
1. Negative sign is decrease or reduction from Base Case
Table 3: Sensitivity results for Unrestricted channel

5.3 Huuska (HG)

Unlike the B3 and E2 predictions, the Huuska/Guliev squat SHG predictions are func-
tions of both CB and h/T. Figure 5 has five curves that illustrate these effects on the
SHG for the range of ship speeds. The inner three curves 2, 3, and 4 show the influ-

PIANC Journal 6 8 Nov 10

ence of CB for a fixed h/T=1.2 (red lines and square symbols). The outer three curves
1, 3, and 5 (solid lines and symbols) illustrate the affect of h/T at a fixed CB=0.65. Ta-
ble 3 lists the percentage variation in SHG predictions for all ship speeds relative to
the Base Case values at CB=0.65 and h/T=1.2.

1.6
Effect of CB and h/T on Huuska Squat

1.2
SHG, m

0.8

0.4 CB=0.65, h/T=1.1

h/T=1.1, CB=0.65
CB=0.60, h/T=1.2
h/T=1.2, CB=0.60
h/T=1.2, CB=0.65
CB=0.65, h/T=1.2
h/T=1.2, CB=0.70
CB=0.70, h/T=1.2
h/T=1.3, CB=0.65
CB=0.65, h/T=1.3
0.0
5 10 15
Vk, knots
Figure 5: Effect of CB and h/T on Huuska squat in Unrestricted channel

5.4 Rmisch
Rmisch stern squat Ss,R1 is a function of h/T only and is shown in Figure 6. This fig-
ure is similar to Figure 4 for Eryuzlu, with three curves shown for CB=0.65. The per-
centage variation in Ss,R1 predictions for all ship speeds relative to the Base Case
values at CB=0.65 are listed in Table 3.

1.6
Effect of h/T on Romisch Squat, All CB

1.2
h/T=1.1
h/T=1.2
h/T=1.3
SR1, m

0.8

0.4

0.0
5 10 15
Vk, knots
Figure 6: Effect of h/T on Rmisch stern squat in Unrestricted channel, all CB

PIANC Journal 7 8 Nov 10

 5.5 Yoshimura (Y2)
The Yoshimura squat SY2 is a function of both CB and h/T, same as Huuska/Guliev.
Figure 7 is similar to Figure 5, with 5 curves for SY2. Curves 2, 3, and 4 show the
variation in SY2 as a function of CB for a fixed h/T=1.2. The effect of h/T is again illus-
trated by curves 1, 3, and 5 with the solid lines and symbols. Table 4 lists the per-
centage variation in SY2 relative to the Base Case values at CB=0.65 for all three ship
speeds.

1.6
Effect of CB and h/T on Yoshimura Squat

1.2
SY2, m

0.8

0.4 CB=0.65, h/T=1.1

CB=0.60, h/T=1.2
CB=0.65, h/T=1.2
CB=0.70, h/T=1.2
CB=0.65, h/T=1.3
0.0
5 10 15
Vk, knots
Figure 7: Effect of CB and h/T on Yoshimura squat in Unrestricted channel

6. DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY

The Barrass is not affected by h/T since this parameter is not explicitly included in his
formula. The effect of changes in CB on predicted stern squat is approximately 1 to 1.
The predicted stern squat increased or decreased by 8% as CB increased or de-
creased by 8% (i.e., CB=0.05).

The Eryuzlu squat predictions are not dependent on CB. The effect of 8% changes in
h/T (i.e., h/T=0.1) is approximately 1 to 1 on the squat predictions. A decrease of
8% in h/T results in an increase in squat of approximately 8% and a similar decrease
in squat for an increase in h/T.

The Huuska/Guliev squat predictions are functions of CB and h/T. Again, changes in
CB result in near 1 to 1 changes in predictions. An 8% decrease or increase in CB de-
creases or increases squat predictions by approximately 8% for all three ship speeds.
Changes in h/T are slightly larger for fixed CB=0.65. A decrease in h/T to 1.1 for shal-
lower depths causes an increase in predicted squat of 8 to 12% for the three ship
speeds. Similarly, an increase in h/T to 1.3 for deeper channels gives a decrease in
squat of 8 to 10% as a function of ship speed.

The Rmisch stern squat predictions are not affected by CB since CB is not included
in his stern formula. Decreases in channel depth to h/T=1.1 results in 0 to 14% in-

PIANC Journal 8 8 Nov 10

creases in stern squat predictions as ship speed increases from 5 to 15 kts. Increas-
ing UKC to h/T=1.3 results in decreases in stern squat of 3 to 11%.

The Yoshimura squat predictions are affected by both CB and h/T. Again, changes in
CB produce nearly identical changes (i.e., 1:1) in squat predictions. A decrease of 8%
in CB from 0.65 to 0.60 results in decreases of 8 to 9%. Similarly, an increase of 8%
to CB =0.70, causes an increase in predicted squat of 8 to 9%. Decreasing the chan-
nel depth by 8% to h/T=1.1 causes an increase in squat predictions of approximately
7% for the three ship speeds. Likewise, increases in depth to h/T=1.3 leads to reduc-
tions of 4 to 8% for all ship speeds.

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to acknowledge the Headquarters, US Army Corps of Engineers,
for authorizing publication of this paper. The squat formulas in this paper are updates
from the PIANC WG30 report that will be reported and documented in the new WG49
report. Particular thanks go to Wilbur Wiggins (CESAW) and Capt Steven Carmel
(Maersk Shipping) for supplying information on the Savannah entrance channel and
Susan Maersk containership.

8. REFERENCES
BARRASS, C. B. Ship Squat A Guide for Masters, Private report, www.ship-
squat.com, 2002.

BARRASS, C.B., Thirty-Two Years of Research into Ship Squat, Squat Workshop
2004, Elsfleth/Oldenburg, Germany, 2004.

BARRASS, C. B., Ship Squat and Interaction for Masters, Private Report, www.ship-
squat.com, 2007.

BRIGGS, M.J., Ship Squat Predictions for Ship/Tow Simulator, Coastal and Hydrau-
lics Engineering Technical Note CHETN-I-72, U.S. Army Engineer Research and De-
velopment Center, Vicksburg, MS, http://chl.wes.army.mil/library/publications/chetn/,
2006.

Briggs, M.J. 2009. Sensitivity Study of PIANC Ship Squat Formulas, International
Conference on Ship Manoeuvring in Shallow and Confined Water: Bank Effects,
Antwerp, Belgium, May 13-15, 57-67.

BRIGGS, M.J., VANTORRE, M., ULICZKA, K., and DEBAILLON, P., Chapter 26:
Prediction of Squat for Underkeel Clearance, Handbook of Coastal and Ocean Engi-
neering, World Scientific Publishers, Singapore, 2010, 723-774.

CANADIAN COAST GUARD, Safe Waterways (A Users Guide to the Design, Main-
tenance and Safe Use of Waterways), Part 1(a) Guidelines for the Safe Design of
Commercial Shipping Channels, Software User Manual Version 3.0, Waterways De-
velopment Division, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, December 2001.

PIANC Journal 9 8 Nov 10

ERYUZLU, N.E., CAO, Y.L., DAGNOLO, F., Underkeel Requirements for Large
Vessels in Shallow Waterways, Proceedings of the 28th International Navigation
Congress, PIANC, Paper S II-2, Sevilla, Spain, 17-25, 1994.

FMA (Finnish Maritime Administration), The Channel Depth Practice in Finland, Bul-
letin, Waterways Division, Helsinki, Finland, July 12, 2005.

GULIEV, U.M., On Squat Calculations for Vessels Going in Shallow Water and
Through Channels, PIANC Bulletin 1971, Vol. 1, No. 7, 17-20, 1971.

HUUSKA, O., On the Evaluation of Underkeel Clearances in Finnish Waterways,

Helsinki University of Technology, Ship Hydrodynamics Laboratory, Otaniemi, Report
No. 9, 1976.

ICORELS (International Commission for the Reception of Large Ships), Report of

Working Group IV, PIANC Bulletin No. 35, Supplement, 1980.

OHTSU, K., YOSHIMURA, Y., HIRANO, M., TSUGANE, M. AND TAKAHASHI, H.

Design Standard for Fairway in Next Generation, Asia Navigation Conference, No.
26, 2006.

OVERSEAS COASTAL AREA DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE OF JAPAN, Technical

Standards and Commentaries for Port and Harbour Facilities in Japan, 2002.

PIANC, 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 Bulle-
tin No. 95, June 1997.

PUERTOS DEL ESTADO, Recommendations for Maritime Works (Spain) ROM 3.1-
99: Designing Maritime Configuration of Ports, Approach Channels and Floatation
Areas, CEDEX, Spain, 1999.

RMISCH, K. Empfehlungen zur Bemessung von Hafeneinfahrten, Wasserbauliche

Mitteilungen der Technischen Universitt Dresden, Heft 1, 39-63, 1989.

SRKIA, E., Economical Efficiency to be Achieved with a Regulatory Change Only

with Consideration for Navigational Risks, PIANC Magazine, 129, 23-34, 2007.

ULICZKA, K., and KONDZIELLA, B., Dynamic Response of Very Large Container-
ships in Extremely Shallow Water, Proceedings 31st PIANC Congress, Estoril,
Spain, 2006.

YOSHIMURA, Y., Mathematical Model for the Manoeuvring Ship Motion in Shallow
Water Journal of the Kansai Society of Naval Architects, Japan, No. 200, 1986.

PIANC Journal 10 8 Nov 10

 APPENDIX A: PIANC SHIP SQUAT FORMULAS

This appendix describes the five PIANC empirical squat formulas of Barrass, Eryuzlu,
Huuska/Guliev, Rmisch, and Yoshimura. More detailed descriptions with constraints
for channel and ship parameters are described in PIANC (1997), Briggs (2006),
Briggs (2009), and Briggs et al. (2010). The new PIANC WG49 report is planned for
publication in 2011.

A1. Barrass (B3)

Barrasss formula for maximum squat SMax,B3 in an unrestricted channel is a function
of the block coefficient CB, ship speed Vk in knots, and channel blockage coefficient
K. It is defined as

KCBVk2 Sb,B3 CB > 0.7

=
SMax,B3 = (1)
100 Ss,B3 CB 0.7

If CB>0.7, it is equal to the bow squat Sb,B3. If CB0.7, it is equal to the stern squat
Ss,B3. His channel coefficient K is based on analysis of over 600 laboratory and proto-
type measurements for all three channel types (Barrass 2007) and is defined as

=K 5.74S 0.76 1 K 2 (2)

The limits on K are designed so that K=1 for U channels. The blockage factor S is a
measure of the cross-sectional areas of the ship As and channel Ac and is defined as

=
As
S =
( 0.98T ) CB0.85 (3)
Ac 7.04h

If S<0.1 for U channels, the value of K is set to 1.0. This insures the limits required
above for K.

Finally, Barrass defined the squat at the other end of the ship for unrestricted chan-
nels when the ship is initially at even keel at zero speed as

Ss,B3 CB > 0.7

1 40 ( 0.7 CB )2 SMax,B3 = (4)
Sb,B3 CB 0.7

A2. Eryuzlu et al. (E2)

The Eryuzlu et al. formula for squat SE2 in an unrestricted channel is defined as

2.289 2.972
h2 V h
SE 2 = 0.298 s T Kb (5)
T gT

The value of the channel width correction factor Kb=1 for unrestricted channels.

PIANC Journal 11 8 Nov 10

 A3. Huuska/Guliev (HG)
The Huuska/Guliev squat SHG is given by

2.4CBBT Fnh2
SHG = Ks (6)
Lpp 1 Fnh2

The dimensionless correction factor Ks is used for restricted channels and canals to
quantify ship blockage. It goes to Ks=1 for unrestricted channels. Thus, the
Huuska/Guliev formula is identical to the ICORELS (1980) formula for unrestricted
channels.

A4. Rmisch (R1)

The Rmisch squat formulas for bow Sb,R1 and stern squat Ss,R1 in an unrestricted
channel are given by

Sb,R1, Ss,R1 = CVCF K TT (7)

The factors in this equation are correction factors for ship speed CV, ship shape CF,
and squat at critical speed KT defined as

V V
2 4

=
CV 8 0.5 + 0.0625 (8)
Vcr Vcr

10BC 2
B
Bow
CF = Lpp (9)


1.0 Stern

K T = 0.155 h T (10)

Finally, critical ship speed Vcr is a function of channel configuration defined as

hLpp
0.125

Vcr = gh 0.58 (11)
BT

A5. Yoshimura (Y2)

The Yoshimura maximum squat SY2 is defined as

3
V 2
0.7 +
1.5T BCB 15T BCB
s
SY 2 = L + h (12)
h pp Lpp g

PIANC Journal 12 8 Nov 10

 APPENDIX B: SYMBOLS

The following symbols are used in this paper:

2
Ac Wetted cross-sectional channel area with extrapolated slopes to water surface (m )
2
As Ships underwater amidships cross section (m )
B Ships beam (m)
CB Ships block coefficient
Fnh Depth Froude Number = Vs gh
2
g Acceleration due to gravity (m/s )
h Water depth (m)
h/T Height to depth ratio
hT Trench height for dredged or restricted channels (m)
K Barrass channel coefficient
Kb Eryuzlu correction factor for channel width
Ks Huuska/Guliev correction factor for ship blockage
Loa Ship length overall (m)
Lpp Ship length between perpendiculars (m)
n Inverse bank slope = run/rise
S Blockage factor = As/Ac
Sb Squat at bow (m)
SMax Maximum squat at the bow or stern (m)
Ss Squat at stern (m)
T Ship draught (m)
TEU Twenty-foot equivalent units
U Unrestricted channel
UKC Underkeel clearance (m)
VCr Critical ship speed (m/s)
Vk Ship speed through the water (Kt)
Vs Ship speed through the water (m/s)
W Channel width, measured at bottom (m)

PIANC Journal 13 8 Nov 10

 SUMMARY
A sensitivity analysis on the effect of input parameters on PIANC empirical squat
predictions was conducted. Five of the most popular PIANC formulas including Bar-
rass, Eryuzlu, Huuska/Guliev, Romisch, and Yoshimura were investigated for unre-
stricted or open channels. Input parameters included ship speed Vk, block coefficient
CB, and channel depth to ship draught h/T. The fully-loaded Post-Panamax Susan
Maersk containership was used as the example ship. Channel parameters were se-
lected based on reasonable ranges that would occur in the entrance channel of the
Port of Savannah, Georgia. A total of 27 cases were run in this sensitivity study.

PIANC Journal 14 8 Nov 10