See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325261187

Ship Squat; An Analysis of Two Approximation Formulas Using the Physics of

Hydrodynamic Flow (published under Pilot, C, 2007, Ship Squat; An Analysis of
Two Approximation Formulas...

Article · May 2018

CITATIONS READS
0 2,115

1 author:

Chris Pilot
Maine Maritime Academy
52 PUBLICATIONS 98 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Chris Pilot on 11 November 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Ship Squat; An Analysis of Two Approximation Formulas Using the Physics
of Hydrodynamic Flow

By Dr. Christopher Pilot

Physics Dept., Maine Maritime Academy
Castine, ME, USA 04420
[email protected]

Abstract
Ship squat, the downward pull of vessels traveling at speed in restricted waters, is of great
practical importance given the possibility for grounding, the implications for dredging, and the
potential for sinkage and even loss of life. Since the groundbreaking work of Tuck, many
formulas have surfaced which attempt to calculate and predict the amount of downward
displacement given the size, shape, draught, under-keel clearance, and, most importantly, speed
of the moving vessel. The formulas are, however, of limited utility because of their
mathematical complexity; mariners often want a rough but robust estimate of predicted
downward displacement without having to resort to a computer and spreadsheet. We analyze
two such approximation formulae here, one due to Barrass and the other due to Schmiechen, and
argue that one is correct based on physical principles. The other must lead to false results at
speeds where squat is appreciable. We argue that the correct dependency of squat on speed must
be velocity cubed (V3), versus velocity squared (V2), in the critical limit where the Froude depth
number approaches .7.

1
1. Introduction
Since the groundbreaking theoretical work of Tuck (Tuck, 1967), many theoretical as well as
empirical formulas have surfaced (PIANC/IAPH WG 30D, 1994; Vantorre, 1995; Landsburg,
1995, 1996) which attempt to mathematically predict the amount of downward displacement
(squat) of a vessel given the ships’ profile, physical dimensions, and speed in restricted waters.
These formulas tend to be complicated in that a computer and spreadsheet are often needed to
evaluate, i.e., calculate the actual amount of squat. Furthermore, even with a spreadsheet, a
significant bandwidth, or spread, in the predicted squat amount is obtained from the different
formulae given the same initial input parameters. (Qualitatively, however, the results look
rather similar.) The problem rests with the fact that many parameters are involved, and it is
difficult to correctly ascertain them empirically at any one instant in time in other than controlled
conditions. Secondly, we are dealing with a problem in hydrodynamic flow approaching critical
phenomena where a small variation of one parameter can lead to a remarkably different and
dramatic change in the outcome as a whole.

Even if we decide on a formula giving middle-of-the-road predictions for squat such as the
Huuska/Guliev formula adopted by ICORELS (Huuska, 1976; PIANC/IAPH WG 30D, 1994;
Landsburg 1995, 1996) and which is a direct extension of Tucks’ original work, the problem still
remains to define a useful approximation formula. Barrass (Barrass, 1979a; Barrass, 1979b;
Barrass, 1981; PIANC/IAPH WG 30D, 1994) has come up with a popular simplified formula
(his second iteration) and we show in this paper that his latest and improved formula (Barrass II)
can be derived from the more general Huuska/ICORELS formulation. As far as we know,
Barrass’ formula has never been replicated from an underlying theory. His formula was based
on empirical work having studied and analyzed about 300 cases of squat involving actual ships
and ship-models. The motivation of Barrass for finding a simplified formula was simple. He
was motivated by the desire to come up with a formula which could be utilized on ships by ship
pilots which was accurate and which didn’t rely on trial-and-error, rule-of-thumb guesstimates.

In this paper we will analyze two such approximation formulas. One is due to Barrass and the
other originates with Schmiechen (Schmiechen, 1997). Both can be derived from the more
general Huuska/ICORELS formulation as we shall show here. However, they each give
remarkably disparate results. Our objective is to show why this is so and why one approximation
is correct and the other approximation is physically incorrect when there is squat. The key is to
recognize and understand the correct limiting process. Even though both results are correct, the
physics will show that only one result is valid in the realm of practical interest.

In section 2 we derive what is essentially the Barrass II formula by taking a certain limit of the
Huuska/ICORELS equation and making certain realistic assumptions. In section 3 we take a
different limit of the Huuska/ICORELS equation and obtain Schmiechens’ formula. Results are
then compared from a physical perspective. Our conclusions and recommendations are
presented in section 4, our final section.

2. Barrass’ Formula as an Approximation of Huuska/ICORELS

2
Ship squat is the tendency of a vessel to sink and trim when underway thereby reducing its’
under-keel clearance. The downward pull can be measured as a displacement, SM, in meters (m).
The trim is typically measured as a rotation, Ө, in radians (rads) about the horizontal transverse
axis of the ship, i.e., about a line going through the beam. The total squat at the bow is given by
the equation

S = SM + ½ Lpp’ Ө (1)

where Lpp’ is the length between perpendiculars of the at-rest vessel by the waterline.

Squat is a hydrodynamic effect which depends critically on the speed of the vessel, but also on
the draught, the length of the ship, the shape of the hull, and the under-keel clearance. A very
good formula giving solid middle-of-the-road estimates for the actual squat displacement is the
Huuska/ICORELS formula mentioned above. For simplicity we assume an open waterway
laterally, i.e., no breath restrictions in a horizontal sense. Then that formula simplifies to:

S = 2.4 ∙ Δ/ (Lpp’)2 ∙ Fnh2/√(1- Fnh2) (2)

In equation (2), S is the same displacement as in equation (1), measured in meters and is due to a
ships’ motion in shallow water, and Δ is the underwater volume of the vessel in cubic meters. Δ
can be calculated as Δ = CB ∙ Lpp’ ∙ B ∙ T, where Lpp’ is the length of the ship between
perpendiculars (in m), B is the maximum beam width of the ship by the waterline (in m), and T
is the ships’ draught, or depth in the water, when at rest (again in m). The block coefficient, CB,
is a unit-less ratio which measures the actual submerged volume of the ship in relation to a
corresponding submerged rectangular block volume. By definition, CB = (submerged volume)/(
Lpp’ ∙ B ∙ T). The Froude depth number, Fnh , is another dimensionless, i.e. unit-less, scale
parameter defined as V/√(g∙h) where V is the speed of the vessel in m/s, h is the undisturbed
water depth in meters (m) and g is the acceleration due to gravity, 9.81 m/s2. This Froude
number based on depth is to be distinguished from the one commonly used in naval architecture,
which has the length of vessel in the denominator.

The block coefficient, CB, measures how streamline the hull of a vessel is. For bulky tankers, CB
is about .85, whereas for finer formed vessels, CB is approximately .6. Maximum squat typically
occurs at the bow (front) of the ship but for high speed vessels with a block coefficient less than
about .7, the squat can actually occur at the stern (rear) of the vessel. We keep in mind that Δ is
measured in cubic meters where a one cubic meter displacement means one metric ton (1000kg)
of fresh water has been pushed aside. In seawater, a one cubic meter displacement means even
more water mass has been pushed aside, approximately 1030 kg, due to the higher density of
seawater. By Archimedes principle, the upward buoyant force acting on a vessel keeping it
afloat is equal to the weight of the fluid which has been displaced, i.e., pushed aside. Obviously,
by equation (2), we see that the amount of expected squat is directly proportional to Δ. Δ, in
turn, is directly proportional to T, the draught in the water.

Bearing this in mind, equation (2) can be recast in dimensionless form; we can rewrite it as

S/T = C2 ∙ Fnh2/√(1- Fnh2) (3)

3
where C2 is a constant, defined by C2 = 2.4 ∙ CB ∙ B /Lpp’ ,which depends only on the specific
dimensions of the ship. The unit-less ratio, S/T, is the amount of squat in relation to the original
at-rest draught of the vessel. From equation (3) it is clear that the Froude depth number, Fnh, is
what we should focus on for hydrodynamic purposes since it is this quantity which depends on
the speed of the vessel.

As a ship builds up speed, i.e., as Fnh increases, there is more water mass flushed under the hull.
Fnh is really a speed to depth ratio; larger values signify more speed relative to depth. If there is
more speed relative to depth, then a greater fraction of the water must get pushed underneath the
hull as the ship makes its way through the water. According to the Bernoulli principle, this is
what creates the pressure difference between the surface and the bottom of the hull, the bottom
being at a lower pressure. This pressure difference when multiplied by a perpendicular cross-
sectional area exerts a force which causes a downward displacement of the vessel. It is clear that
Fnh has to be substantial for the Bernoulli principle to work and for significant squat to exist.
Low values for Fnh (close to zero) suggest that not enough water gets flushed under. And if not
enough water is getting flushed under, then it means that there is too little pressure difference.
Also Fnh cannot increase indiscriminately so there is a limit to how much water can get pushed
under, due to horsepower and bow wake considerations. Typical upper values for Fnh are Fnh ≈ .6
for tankers and Fnh ≈ .7 for container ships, since these are large volume displacement vessels.

It is well-known experimental fact (PIANC/IAPH WG 30D, 1994) that ship squat is not
significant for V < 6 knots = 3.08 m/s (1 knot = 1.15 mph = .514 m/s), i.e., for Fnh < .3. This has
been shown empirically under a variety of conditions. Yet it is precisely in this limit that
equation (2) reduces to, what is essentially, the Barrass II formula. To see this we assume that
Fnh is small, i.e., significantly less than one. Using the binomial expansion

Fnh2/√(1- Fnh2) = Fnh2 ∙ ( 1 + ½ Fnh2 + …) (4)

Since Fnh2 << 1, we keep only the first term on the right hand side of the expansion. Thus, by
equation (2)

S ≈ 2.4 ∙ CB ∙ B ∙ T ∙ Fnh2/ Lpp’ (5)

≈ (2.4 ∙ CB ∙ B/ Lpp’) ∙ V2/ (g ∙ (h/T))

≈ (.245 ∙ CB ∙ B/ Lpp’) ∙ V2/ (h/T)

This can be further simplified. For the vessels that we are considering, the length to beam ratio
is typically about 7. Some examples will substantiate this claim. For 250,000 tdw tankers
(280,500 tonnes loaded), typical dimensions are Lpp’/B = 330m/50m = 6.6. For 65 tdw bulk
carriers (85,000 tonnes loaded), typical values are Lpp’/B = 245m/35m = 7. And for Panamax
container ships (65,000 tonnes loaded), good representative values are Lpp’/B = 270m/32m = 8.4.
Thus, with the approximation that Lpp’/B ≈ 7, equation (5) can further be reduced to

S ≈ .035 ∙ CB ∙ V2/ (h/T) (6)

4
It is this expression which we wish to compare to Barrass’ latest formula (Barrass II).

The Barrass II formula, obtained as a result of analyzing about 300 actual squat results, some
measured on ships and some measured on ship-models, reads

S ≈ (CB/ 30) ∙ (S2) 2/3 ∙ Vkt2.08 (7)

In equation (7), Vkt is the speed of the vessel in knots and S2 is the blockage ratio (sometimes
referred to as the velocity return factor) defined as

S2 = As/ Aw = As/( Ac - As) = S1/(1- S1) (8)

In (8), As is the submerged mid-ship cross-sectional area, and Ac is the cross-sectional area of the
channel including that of the submerged ship. Aw, on the other hand, is the so-called wetted
cross-sectional area of the waterway excluding the submerged cross-sectional area of the ship.
Finally, S1 is defined to be As/ Ac . For rectangular cross-sectional areas, As = B ∙ T and Ac =
w ∙ h where w refers to the width of the waterway.

We are considering open water in a lateral, i.e. horizontal sense (no breadth restrictions), and
according to Barrass, the effective width, w, for open water should be taken to range from about
w ≈ 8∙B for oil tankers to about w ≈ 10.5∙B for passenger vessels. Also, for the Barrass formula
to work, the assumed ratio of water depth to draught should lie between 1.1 < h/T < 1.5. Finally
the speed in equation (7) is measured in knots whereas in equation (6) it is measured in m/s. We
convert the speed in equation (7) to m/s and obtain:

S ≈ (CB/ 30) ∙ {(B∙T/(w∙h))/[1 - (B∙T/(w∙h))]}2/3 ∙ (V/.514)2.08 (9)

≈ (CB/ 30) ∙ {(T/h)/[w/B - T/h]}2/3 ∙ (V/.514)2.08

≈ .133 ∙ CB ∙ {(T/h)/[10 - T/h]}2/3 ∙ V2.08

In the last line we have used the approximation w/B ≈ 10 as a representative value for an open
waterway as Barrass advocates. Equation (9) is qualitatively and quantitatively very similar to
equation (6) in the range 1.1 < h/T < 1.5. Both are proportional to CB, both are essentially
proportional to T/h, and both have what is close to a velocity-squared dependency. To show that
the results do indeed match in the ranges considered, two numerical examples should suffice. If
we assume that V = 6.17 m/s = 12 knots, and if h/T = 1.1, then equation (6) gives (1.21∙ CB) as a
calculated value for the amount of squat in meters. For the same parameters, equation (9)
renders (1.26∙ CB) as a calculated result. We see that both equations give essentially the same
value! At the other extreme where h/T = 1.5, using the same speed as before, equation (6) gives
(.89∙ CB) whereas equation (9) gives (1.01∙ CB) in meters. Again, the results are close given the
uncertainties in estimating w/B.

Barrass’ formula is a popular one because hand-held calculators can be used to determine the
amount of squat. And the amount calculated is not dependent on the specifics of the ship, i.e., no

5
physical dimensions are needed… other than the general form of the vessel which is captured by
the value of the block coefficient, CB. In fact, Barrass goes a step further and gives even more
simplified expressions for squat based on his underlying equation, equation (7), to make it even
easier for the pilot to make estimates. As far as we know, this is the first time equation (7) has
been reproduced from theory. Remember that Barrass’ formula was based solely on empirical
observations. Equation (6), on the other hand, is based on theoretical work, dating back to Tuck.

3. Schmiechens’ Formula Derived in a Different Limit

Again, we start out with equation (3). However, we claim that Fnh must approach .7, an upper
limit for large volume displacement vessels. Remember that sizable squat can never occur below
Fnh ≈ .3. It stands to reason that a larger value for Fnh is needed because a larger value indicates
more speed relative to depth, and more speed indicates more water being flushed under the keel.
Due to the Bernoulli effect this is precisely what pulls the ship down.

Another way to view this is from energy considerations. As a vessel assumes enough speed to
generate significant squat, part of the hp is now being used up to pull the vessel down. (Hence
the observed instantaneous decrease in forward speed when squat “kicks in”.) Power in crude
terms is Force ∙ Velocity where the velocity is in the forward direction, and the force is the
retarding force acting against this motion. (We are looking at the work done per unit time by an
external agent, the engines of the ship.) Since the retarding force for a solid object moving
through a fluid is proportional to V2 for turbulent flow conditions (present here) (Rayleigh
equation (Serway & Jewett, 2004; Tipler, 2004)), the power expended in driving a vessel
forward must be proportional to V3. Part of this power is what produces squat and we therefore
expect a V3 dependency for squat as well. (The upward buoyant force on a vessel is pretty
constant. For a downward displacement against this force by an amount S, the added work
required is (Force ∙ Distance) = (Buoyant Force ∙ S). This work is done every second, so every
second V3 must be proportional to (Buoyant Force ∙ S). However, since the upward buoyant
force is roughly constant, S itself must be proportional to V3.)

In the limit where Fnh approaches .7, the following approximation formula works [10]:

Fnh2/√(1- Fnh2) ≈ 2 ∙Fnh3 (10)

Then equation (3) reduces to

S/T = C3 ∙ Fnh3 (11)

where C3, defined as C3 = 4.8 ∙ CB ∙ B/ Lpp’ , is a new constant which depends only on the
characteristics of the ship. Equation (11) was first obtained by Schmiechen. We note that in
equation (11), S/T is proportional to V3, as expected, versus the V2 obtained previously in
equation (5). We maintain that equation (11) is a better simplified formula to calculate and
approximate ship squat, versus equations (5) or (6), because of the above mentioned physical
considerations. Experimental verification of a V3 (versus V2) dependency has been obtained
(Akudinov & Jakobsen, 1995) with a model of the Herald of Free Enterprise.

6
For numerical estimates, we can again assume that Lpp’/B ≈ 7. Then, numerically, the relative
squat can be determined from equation (11) to be

S/T ≈ 4.8 ∙ CB /7 ∙ V3/(g∙h)3/2 (12)

≈ (CB /45) ∙ (V/√h)3

≈ (CB /330) ∙ (Vkt/√h)3

This is a simple formula to remember and to work with. For V = 6.17 m/s = 12 knots and h =
10m, one obtains for S/T a value of .16 CB. However, if V = 6.17 m/s and h = 5m, then the
relative amount of squat is S/T = .47 CB, an almost three-fold increase, even for vessels which
are very finely formed (indicated by low values for CB). Equation (12) does not suffer from the
restriction that 1.1 < h/T < 1.5 as equation (7) does. Nor is the questionable approximation of w
≈ 10 ∙ B for open waterways invoked. If we are dealing with an open waterway in the sense that
there is no breath restriction, then the proper limit to take, mathematically, is w → ∞.

4. Conclusion and Remarks:

We claim that Barrass’ simplified formula, or any formula indicating a V2 dependency for ship
squat, cannot be correct. It is obtained in an incorrect limit, and hence, cannot be valid. Ship
squat is a hydrodynamic effect relating to Bernoulli’s principle. Sufficient water mass has to get
flushed under the keel in order for there to be a sufficient pressure difference. And it is this
pressure gradient which generates the downdraft force. For there to be sufficient water mass
flushed under the keel, the speed to depth ratio must be adequately large. Hence the Froude
depth number should be approaching unity and not zero.

Also, whenever there is turbulent behavior, the retarding force is proportional to V2 (versus V for
steady state flow). Hence the power expended is proportional to V3. Since part of the power
goes into generating squat, S/T should also be proportional to V3. S/T being proportional to V2
holds only for ridiculously low speeds. (The transition from steady state flow (Stokes equation
(Serway & Jewett, 2004; Tipler, 2004)) to turbulent flow happens when the so-called Reynolds
number exceeds 2000. Given the viscosity of water, this transition already occurs at extremely
low velocities for normal ships and vessels. But not necessarily for ship-models, which was a
large part of the analysis by Barrass!)

In several of Barrass’ papers (Barrass, 1979a; Barrass, 1979b), it is recognized that the onset of
ship squat is accompanied by the following tell-tale signs (quote):

1) Wave-making increases at the for’d end of the ship

2) The ship becomes more sluggish to maneuver
3) The r.p.m. indicator will show a decrease. If the ship is in open water, i.e. without
breadth restrictions, this decrease may be 15% of the service number of revolutions. If a

7
 ship is in a confined channel, this decrease in r.p.m. can be about 20% of the normal
value.
4) There will be a drop in speed. If the ship is in open water the speed reduction may
amount to about 30%. If the ship is in a confined channel, the drop may amount to 60%
of service speed.
5) The ship may start to vibrate suddenly because of the entrained water effect, causing the
natural hull frequency to become resonant with another frequency.

These seem to indicate to us that a ship is attempting to break free of its downward pull, and,
hence Fnh must approach a sufficiently large value.

Schmiechen has correctly identified the correct limit, and come up with the correct
approximation. Hence we advocate the use of equations (11) or (12) as good benchmarks to
mariners for estimating squat. Note that equation (12), in particular, can be used with relative
ease using a simple hand-held calculator. The specific dimensions of the ship do not come into
play… only the block coefficient which is determined by the general type of vessel.

Acknowledgement: I would like to thank the IAMU committee for their patience and for this
opportunity to present my work. I would also like to thank Dr. Harold Alexander, Dr. Richard
Kimball, and Dr. Anna Markhotok of Maine Maritime Academy for many fruitful discussions on
ship power and the Bernoulli Effect.

References:
Akudinov, V.K. & Jakobsen, B.K.: Squat Predictions at an Early Stage of Design. Presented at
the SNAME Workshop on Ship Squat In Restricted Waters. Washington, D.C. October 4, 1995.
See, in particular, page 52, figure 2E in the published draft of 1996 edited by Landsburg, A.

Barrass, C. B. (1979a): The Phenomena of Ship Squat. International Shipbuilding Progress, No.
26, p. 16-21

Barrass, C.B (1979b): A Unified Approach to Squat Calculations for Ships. PIANC Bulletin No.
32, p. 3-10

Barrass, C.B. (1981): Ship Squat – A Reply. The Naval Architect, November (1981), p. 268-272

Huuska, O (1976): On the Evaluation of Underkeel Clearances in Finnish Waterways. Helsinki

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

Landsburg, A. (Editor) (1995, 1996): Workshop on Ship Squat in Restricted Waters. SNAME
Panel H10 (Ship Controllability) of the Hydrodynamics Committee. Washington D.C. October
4, 1995. Draft July 1996

PIANC/IAPH WG 30D (1994): Appendix: Prediction of Squat. September 29, 1994

8
 PIANC/IAPH WG II-30 (1997): Final Report of the Joint PIANC-IAPH Working Group II-30
(June 1997). See, in particular, section 6.5.2.1, and appendix C, figures C8 and C9.

Schmiechen, M. (1997): Squat-Formeln. Duisburger Kolloquium 1997

Serway, Raymond A. & Jewett, John W. (2004). Physics for Scientists and Engineers (6th ed.).
Brooks/Cole. ISBN 0-534-40842-7.

Tipler, Paul (2004). Physics for Scientists and Engineers: Mechanics, Oscillations and Waves,
Thermodynamics (5th ed.). W. H. Freeman. ISBN 0-7167-0809-4.

Tuck, E.O. (1967): Sinkage and Trim in Shallow Water of Finite Depth. Forschungshefte fuer
Schiffstechnik 14, p. 92-94

Vantorre, M. (1995): A Review of Practical Methods for the Prediction of Squat. Presented at
the SNAME Workshop on Ship Squat in Restricted Waters. Washington D.C. October 4, 1995

View publication stats