water

Article
Numerical Simulation of Liquid Sloshing with
Different Filling Levels Using OpenFOAM and
Experimental Validation
Yichao Chen 1 and Mi-An Xue 1,2, *
1 College of Harbour Coastal and Offshore Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China;
17625972812@163.com
2 State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, Tianjin University,
Tianjin 300072, China
* Correspondence: coexue@hhu.edu.cn




Received: 3 November 2018; Accepted: 23 November 2018; Published: 28 November 2018


Abstract: A series of numerical simulations were performed to explore the influences of filling level,
excitation frequency and amplitude on liquid sloshing by using the open source Computational Fluid
Dynamics toolbox OpenFOAM (Open Field Operation and Manipulation), which was fully validated
by the experimental data. The results show that the dynamic impact pressure is proportional to the
external excitation amplitude only in non-resonance frequency ranges. Pressure-frequency response
curves demonstrate a transition process from a ‘soft-spring’ response to a ‘hard-spring’ response
following the changes of the filling level. Such a transition process is found to be dominated by the
ratio of the filling level to tank length and the critical value can be obtained. It is also found that
wave breaking influences the period of sloshing wave in tanks and ultimately alters the resonance
frequency from the linear theory.

Keywords: sloshing; filling level; pressure-frequency response; OpenFOAM; experiment

1. Introduction
Sloshing is a phenomenon commonly found in partially-filled liquid storage vessels, such as
liquid cargo tanks and fuel tanks, in motion. Violent sloshing may result in serious structural damages
to the liquid-tank or even overturn the liquid cargo ship. Thus, a reliable prediction of the sloshing
is crucial for the design and deployment of such structures. For this purpose, theoretical analyses,
physical experiments, and numerical simulations are commonly utilized.
As a pioneer, Moiseev [1] developed a nonlinear analytical solution for the sloshing problem by
using the approximations and modal methods combined with the potential flow theory. Based on
Moiseev theory, Faltinsen [2] developed a third-order steady-state solution for the liquid sloshing in a
2D rectangular tank under the swaying and rolling excitations. Faltinsen [3,4] also established nonlinear
analytical solutions for liquid sloshing in a rectangular tank by using the multimodal approach. Ikeda
and Nakagawa [5] studied liquid sloshing in a rectangular tank under a horizontal excitation using
the potential flow theory and analyzed the influence of fluid sloshing on the nonlinear vibration of
the structure. However, the theoretical analysis approach may lead to unreliable predictions when
complex physical phenomena such as wave breaking and slamming occur due to their fundamental
assumption of the potential flow.
Physical experiments are considered an accurate approach and have been widely used to
investigate liquid sloshing particularly with a focus on the prediction of the impact pressure. Pistani
and Thiagarajan [6] conducted a series of sloshing experiments to accurately measure the high pressure

Water 2018, 10, 1752; doi:10.3390/w10121752 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2018, 10, 1752 2 of 18

generated during the impacts of the fluid. Xue et al. [7] experimentally investigated the effectiveness
of baffles on reducing the sloshing pressure. Kalinichenko and Sekerzh-Zenkovich [8] experimentally
studied the relationship between the maximum wave height and the Faraday wave frequency and
analyzed the crushing mechanisms of several types of sloshing waves, the broken form and jet flow
formation of Faraday waves under vertical excitations. In their study, the attenuation coefficients of
different modal waveforms and the relationship between wave breaking and frequency were also
obtained. Xue et al. [9] designed and built a liquid sloshing experimental rig driven by a wave-maker
to study liquid sloshing problems in a rectangular tank with perforated baffles. Their results showed
that the perforated baffle with a suitable orifice size is an effective baffle arrangement for reducing
the sloshing amplitude at higher excitation frequencies. Cai et al. [10] conducted an experimental
study on the resonance frequency and maximum impact pressure in Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
carriers. Generally speaking, the experimental studies have made a significant contribution to advance
the knowledge and to explore physics, but they are relatively expensive and are subjected to certain
limitations, e.g. the scaling problem and difficulties on measuring the temporal-spatial variations of
physical quantities.
Numerical simulations are now a popular approach for studying liquid sloshing. Xue et al. [11]
developed a finite difference model for solving the Navier-Stokes (NS) equation with a turbulence
model being incorporated to investigate the viscous liquid sloshing-wave interaction with baffles in a
tank. Liu and Lin [12] numerically studied 3D non-linear liquid sloshing with broken free surfaces. In
their model, the large-eddy-simulation (LES) approach is adopted to account for the effect of turbulence
by using the Smagorinsky sub-grid scale (SGS) closure model. Buldakov [13] considered a 2D sloshing
problem in a rectangular tank under horizontal and vertical excitation using a Lagrangian model.
Xue et al. [14] modelled the liquid sloshing in a baffled-tank using a time domain NS solver. Kim [15]
investigated 2D and 3D liquid sloshing in containers by solving the NS model using the solution
algorithm “Synchronized OverLap-and-Add” (SOLA) scheme, in which the free surface profile is
assumed to be a single-valued function. Ramaswamy et al. [16] studied 2D viscous flow sloshing by
using the Lagrange-finite element method. Oxtoby [17] described a semi-implicit volume-of-fluid
(VOF) free surface modelling methodology for flow problems involving violent free-surface motions.
Kishev et al. [18] developed a new Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulation approach based
on the constraint interpolation profile (CIP) method to tackle the violent sloshing problem. Chen
and Zong [19] presented an improved Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) model for the liquid
sloshing and discussed the relationship between the pressure amplitude and the excitation frequency.
Xue and Lin [20] studied the effects of ring baffles on reducing the violent liquid sloshing using their
3D free surface turbulent model and discussed the damping mechanism of the ring baffle. Kim [21]
applied both the finite-difference method and SPH model to the simulation of violent sloshing. Jin
and Lin [22] investigated the viscous effects on liquid sloshing under external excitations and found
that the peak value of the maximal pressure occurs near the natural frequency with a very small (less
than 3% of natural frequency) phase shift due to the wave nonlinearity. Recently, the open source CFD
toolbox, OpenFOAM, has also been used to study the sloshing and coupling effects with ship motion
and other problems [23–25].
Although a great deal of effort has been devoted to studying the liquid sloshing using the
above-mentioned three approaches, challenges and research gaps still exist, especially for violent
liquid sloshing, in which the nonlinearities due to the breaking waves and hydraulic jump in a shallow
water condition may invalid the analytical solutions. One specific issue is the occurrence of the
resonance, which normally leads to the possible highest pressure, for the liquid sloshing in a tank
with widely-ranged filling levels and large excitation amplitudes. This paper aims to contribute to
this issue using a systematic numerical investigation using OpenFOAM with the aid of experimental
studies. The filling level, excitation amplitudes, and frequencies are considered as the main variables
in the investigations.
Water 2018, 10, 1752 3 of 18

2. Numerical Model
module is the volume of fluid (VOF) based on the phase-fraction. The continuity equation,
This study employs the InterDyMFoam module in the OpenFOAM, which is a two-phase NS
momentum equation, and phase equation are, respectively, as follows.
solver for incompressible, isothermal immiscible fluids with optional mesh motion and mesh topology
changes including adaptive re-meshing. The∂ρ interface capturing approach used in this module is the
+ ∇ ⋅ ( ρU ) = 0 (1)
∂t
volume of fluid (VOF) based on the phase-fraction. The continuity equation, momentum equation,
and phase equation are, respectively, as follows.
∂ρU
+ ∇ ⋅ ( ρUU∂ρ
) −+∇∇⋅ τ· (=ρUC)κ=
∇α − gh∇ρ − ∇prgh (2)
∂t ∂t
0 (1)

Dα ∂ α
∂ρU
+ ∇ · (ρUU)=− ∇ · τ+ = ⋅ (α∇Uα )−=gh
∇ Cκ 0∇ρ − ∇ prgh (3)
(2)
∂t Dt ∂t
where ρ is the density, U is the fluidDα velocity∂α vector, τ is the shear stress, C is the surface tension
= + ∇ · (αU) = 0 (3)
coefficient which is set to 0 in the current Dt investigation,
∂t к is the interface curvature, α is the volume
fraction,
where g isthe
ρ is thedensity,
acceleration of gravity,
U is the h is the vector,
fluid velocity positionτvector
is the of the mesh
shear stress,centre measured
C is the surfacefrom the
tension
coordinates origin, p rgh is the dynamic pressure. The fluid density ρ and the viscosity coefficient μ are
coefficient which is set to 0 in the current investigation, k is the interface curvature, α is the volume
respectively
fraction, calculated
g is the by densities
acceleration (ρh
of gravity, 1, ρ2) and viscosity (μ1, μ2) of two fluids using the volume
is the position vector of the mesh centre measured from the
fraction α,
coordinates origin, p is the dynamic pressure. The fluid density ρ and the viscosity coefficient µ
rgh
are respectively calculated by densitiesρ(ρ= 1 , αρ
1 + (1 - α ) × ρ 2
ρ2 ) and viscosity (µ1 , µ2 ) of two fluids using the volume
fraction α, (4)
ρμ==αρ αμ1 1++((11−- αα))××μρ22
(4)
µ = αµ1 + (1 − α) × µ2
OpenFOAM uses the Finite Volume Method to discretize its governing equations. A first-order
OpenFOAM
implicit uses the Finite
Euler discretization Volume
scheme Method
is used to discretize
for dealing with its
thegoverning equations.
time derivative terms, A first-order
e.g., ∂U/∂t
implicit Euler
and ∂α/∂t. Thediscretization
Gauss linear scheme is usedscheme
discretization for dealing with the
is selected fortime derivative
gradient e.g.,∇U.
terms,e.g.,
estimation, ∂U/∂t and
Gauss
linear corrected is considered for laplacian schemes such as ∇prgh, ∇ρ. With regard to the divergence
∂α/∂t. The Gauss linear discretization scheme is selected for gradient estimation, e.g., ∇· U. Gauss
linear such as ∇·(UU)
terms corrected and ∇(Uα),
is considered for laplacian
the vanschemes
Leer schemesuch as ∇prgh ,The
is used. ∇ρ.PIMPLE
With regard to the divergence
algorithm, which is a
terms
combination ∇·PISO
such asof (UU) and ∇·(Uα),
(Pressure the vanwith
Implicit LeerSplitting
scheme isofused. The PIMPLE
Operator) algorithm,
and SIMPLE which is a
(Semi-Implicit
combination
Method for Pressure-Linked Equations), is used for the velocity-pressure decoupling. MoreMethod
of PISO (Pressure Implicit with Splitting of Operator) and SIMPLE (Semi-Implicit details
for Pressure-Linked
of the InterDyMFoamEquations),
can be found is used
in thefor the velocity-pressure
OpenFOAM decoupling.
website or other references.More
Thesedetails of the
will not be
InterDyMFoam
repeated here, can onlybe the
found in the OpenFOAM
solution process of website or other references.
the InterDyMFoam These willinnot
is illustrated be repeated
Figure 1 for
here, only the solution process of the InterDyMFoam is illustrated in Figure 1 for completeness.
completeness.

Figure 1. The flow chart of the solution.

3. Experimental Setup
3. Experimental Setup
For
For the
thepurpose
purpose of validating the numerical
of validating model,model,
the numerical as wellas
as exploring detailed physics
well as exploring detailedassociated
physics
with the liquid sloshing, a series of experiments are carried out in the Laboratory
associated with the liquid sloshing, a series of experiments are carried out in the Laboratory of Vibration Test
of
and Liquid Sloshing at the Hohai University, China. A six-degree of freedom (DoF)
Vibration Test and Liquid Sloshing at the Hohai University, China. A six-degree of freedom (DoF) motion simulation
platform, which is commonly
motion simulation known
platform, which is as a hexapod
commonly and isasable
known to perform
a hexapod andsix-DoF
is able tomotions
performregularly
six-DoF
or randomly according to an appropriate input of time histories, is utilized
motions regularly or randomly according to an appropriate input of time histories, is utilized to generate the forced
to
motions of the liquid tank, as shown in Figure 2. The tank used in the experiments
generate the forced motions of the liquid tank, as shown in Figure 2. The tank used in the is a rectangular
tank made of is
experiments plexiglass with antank
a rectangular 8-mm thickness.
made The internal
of plexiglass with dimensions of the rectangular
an 8-mm thickness. tank
The internal
are L = 600 mm
dimensions in length,
of the W = tank
rectangular 300 mmare in
L =width
600 mmandinHlength,
= 650 mm
W = in
300height.
mm inAwidth
horizontal
and Hsinusoidal
= 650 mm
in height. A horizontal sinusoidal motion x = - A sin ωt is assigned to the rectangular
motion x = − A sin ωt is assigned to the rectangular tank. The amplitude and frequency of the motion
tank. The
can be set up
amplitude through
and a control
frequency of thecomputer.
motion can Thebedisplacement
set up through of the motioncomputer.
a control platform was
The recorded by a
displacement
displacement
of the motion sensor.
platform Figure 3, which by
was recorded compares both thesensor.
a displacement actual motion
Figure 3, platform displacement
which compares bothand
the
theoretical displacement, indicates that the experimental apparatus has high motion
actual motion platform displacement and theoretical displacement, indicates that the experimental accuracy.
apparatus has high motion accuracy.
Water 2018, 10, 1752 4 of 18

(a) (b)

(a)
Figure 2. The experimental (b) platform, (b). The
setup of liquid sloshing (a). The motion simulation
liquid tank.
Figure 2. The experimental setup of liquid sloshing (a). The motion simulation platform, (b). The
liquid tank.
Figure 2. The experimental setup of liquid sloshing (a). The motion simulation platform, (b). The
liquid tank.
15 experiment
10 A theoretical
5
15 experiment
0
A theoretical
-5 10
5
displacement(mm)

0
15
-5
10 B
displacement(mm)

5
15
0
10 B
-5
5
0
15
-5
10 C
5
15
0
10 C
-5
5
00 5 10 15 20 25 30
time(s)
-5
Figure
Figure 3. The comparisons
3. The comparisons
0
of both
of both
5
the actual
the actual
10
motion
motion
15
platform
platform
20
displacement
displacement
25
and theoretical
30 and theoretical
displacement
displacement (amplitude
(amplitude is
is 77 mm,
mm, ωωAA ==1.425
1.425rad/s, time(s)
rad/s,ω ω
B = = 4.749
B 4.749 rad/s,
rad/s, ωC ω C = 14.249
= 14.249 rad/s).
rad/s).

In Figure 3. The comparisons of both the actual motion platformare displacement and theoretical
In the
the experimental
experimental study,
study, twotwo filling
filling levels,
levels, 13.8%
13.8% and
and 30.8%,
30.8%, are considered.
considered. For
For measuring
measuring
the displacement (amplitude is 7 mm, ω A = 1.425 rad/s, ωB = 4.749 rad/s, ωC = 14.249 rad/s).
the dynamic
dynamic impact
impact pressure
pressure onon the
the tank
tank wall,
wall, five
five pressure
pressure sensors
sensors are
are embedded
embedded inin the
the left
left wall,
wall, as
as
shown
shown Inin Figure
in Figure 2. Their specific
2. Their specific locations
locations are illustrated
arelevels,
illustrated in Figure
in and
Figure 4. A camera
4. A are
camera was fixed
was fixed in front of
the the experimental
rectangular tank to study,
record the two filling
profile of the free 13.8%
surface. 30.8%, considered. Forinmeasuring
front of
thethe
rectangular tank
dynamic assumption to record
impact pressure the profile
on the tank of the
wall, free surface.
five pressure sensors are embedded in the left wall, as
With
Withinthethe assumption of
of potential
potential flow
floware theory,
theory, the
the natural
natural frequencies
frequencies can
can be analytically
befixed
analytically
shown
determined
Figure
as [26]
2. Their specific locations illustrated in Figure 4. A camera was in front of
determined as [26]
the rectangular tank to record the profile πnof the free πn surface.
r
With the assumption ofωnpotential = g flow tanh(theory, h), n = 1, 2, 3, (5)
π
Ln Lπ n the natural frequencies can be analytically
determined as [26] ωn = g tanh( h ) , n = 1, 2, 3, (5)
where n is the mode number and h is the filling L level. According
L to Equation (5), the first-mode natural
frequencies
where n is the are mode
ω 1 = 4.749 rad/s
number and and π n rad/s
ω 1 = 6.333 π nfor the tank with the low (13.8%) and high
(30.8%) filling level, respectively.
ω hn is
= theg filling level.
tanh( According
h ) , n = 1, 2,to3,Equation (5), the first-mode (5)
natural frequencies are ω1 = 4.749 rad/s and L ω1 = 6.333Lrad/s for the tank with the low (13.8%) and
high (30.8%)
where n isfilling level,number
the mode respectively.
and h is the filling level. According to Equation (5), the first-mode
natural frequencies are ω1 = 4.749 rad/s and ω1 = 6.333 rad/s for the tank with the low (13.8%) and
high (30.8%) filling level, respectively.
Water 2018, 10, 1752 5 of 18

Figure 4.The
Figure4.4.
Figure Theinner
The innerdimension
inner dimension of
dimension of the
of
rectangular
the rectangular
the
tankand
rectangular tank
tank andthe
thelayout
and the
layoutofoffive
layout of
fivepressure
pressuresensors.
five pressure
sensors.
sensors.
4. Model Validation
4. Model
4. Model Validation
Validation
4.1. Mesh Convergence Test
4.1. Mesh
4.1. Mesh Convergence
Convergence Test Test
Mesh convergence studies are performed to determine the mesh size used in the following
Mesh convergence
Mesh convergence studiesstudies are performed
performed to determine the the mesh
mesh sizesize used in in the following
following
simulations. The computationalare mesh consiststoofdeterminea uniform square grid.used
Three the mesh sizes are
simulations.
simulations. The computational
Thetests.
computational mesh consists of a uniform square grid. Three mesh sizes areare
considered in the They are 2 mesh mm, 5consists
mm andof8 mm, a uniform square The
respectively. grid.model
Threetankmesh size sizes
is exactly
considered in
considered in the tests.
tests. They
They are
are 22 mm,
mm, 5 mm mm andand 8 mm,
mm, respectively.
respectively. TheThe model
model tank
tank size
size isis exactly
exactly
the same as thethe experimental tank and5the water8 depth is 90 mm (i.e., the low filling level in the
the
the same
same as
as the
the experimental
experimental tank
tank and
and the
the water
water depth
depth is
is 90
90 mm
mm (i.e.,
(i.e., the
the low
low filling
filling level
level in the
in the
experiment). The test parameters are chosen as A = 7 mm and ω = 4.749 rad/s. The frequency is the
experiment). The test parameters are chosen as A = 7 mm and ω = 4.749
experiment). The test parameters are chosen as A = 7 mm and ω = 4.749 rad/s. The frequency is the rad/s. The frequency is the
same
sameasasasthe
thefirst
firstmode
modenatural
naturalfrequency
frequency predicted usingthe
predicted using
using thelinear
lineartheory
theory(Equation
(Equation (5)).
(5)). Therefore,
Therefore,
same the first mode natural frequency predicted the linear theory (Equation (5)). Therefore,
wewe expected
expected to to see
to see a violent
see aa violent sloshing
violent sloshing
sloshing in in the
in the tank
the tank
tank due due
due to to
to the the resonance.
the resonance.
resonance. If If
If the the
the mesh mesh resolution
mesh resolution
resolution leads leadsleads
to
we expected to
toaaconvergent
convergentsolution
solutionfor forthis
thiscase,
case,ititshall
shallbe besufficient
sufficientfor forother
othercases,
cases,especially
especiallynon-resonance
non-resonance
a convergent solution for this case, it shall be sufficient for other cases, especially non-resonance
cases.
cases.The
Thecomparison
comparisonof ofthe
thepressure
pressure recorded
recorded at at P1
at P1 inin the
thecases
caseswith
withdifferent
differentmesh
meshsizes sizesis is plotted
plotted
cases. The comparison of the pressure recorded P1 in the cases with different mesh sizes is plotted
inin
Figure
Figure 5. These
5. These
Theseresults areare
results all similar, although
all similar,
similar, althoughthe result obtained
the result
result by using
obtained the 8-mm
by using
using mesh mesh
the 8-mm
8-mm slightly
in Figure 5. results are all although the obtained by the mesh
differs from
slightly others.
differs fromA others.
mesh size
A of 5 mm
mesh size is employed
of 5 mm is in the following
employed in the studies.studies.
following Furthermore, the time
Furthermore,
slightly differs from others. A mesh size of 5 mm is employed in the following studies. Furthermore,
step
thesize
the timeisstep
time automatically
step size is
size adjusted by
is automatically
automatically the condition
adjusted
adjusted by the
by that the Courant
the condition
condition that the
that numbernumber
the Courant
Courant number ≤0.5.
≤0.5. ≤0.5.

1.0
1.0
2mm
2mm
0.8
0.8 5mm
5mm
8mm
8mm
0.6
0.6

0.4
0.4

0.2
0.2

0.0
0.0

-0.2
-0.2

-0.4
-0.4
00 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88
time(s)
time(s)
Figure
Figure 5.The
Figure5.5. Thecomparisons
The comparisons of
comparisons of the
of the pressure
the recorded at
recorded
pressure recorded atP1
at P1in
P1 inthe
in thecases
the caseswith
cases withdifferent
with differentmesh
different mesh
mesh sizes.
sizes.
sizes.
4.2. Experimental Validation
4.2. Experimental
4.2. Experimental Validation
Validation
ToTovalidate the
thenumerical
validate the numerical model
model for
for the
the cases with different
cases with
with different sloshing
sloshingconditions,
conditions,sixsixsets
sets
of of
To validate numerical model for the cases different sloshing conditions, six sets of
experimental
experimentaldata
datawith
with two
two different
different filling levels
filling levels and three
levels and
and three different
differentexcitation
excitationfrequencies
frequencies areare
experimental data with two different filling three different excitation frequencies are
employed. The
employed. The comparisons
The comparisons between
comparisons between the
between the experimental
the experimental data
experimental data and
data and the
and the numerical
the numerical results
numerical results are
results are illustrated
illustrated in
are illustrated
employed.
Figure 6, in which the red circles represent the experimental data and the black line represents
the numerical results. Overall, the numerical results agree with the experimental data for the
in Figure 6, in which the red circles represent the experimental data and the black line represents6 of
Water 2018, 10, 1752
the
18
in Figure 6, in which the red circles represent the experimental
numerical results. Overall, the numerical results agree with the experimental data for the data and the black line represents the
numerical results.
non-resonance (FigureOverall,
6a–d),thenear-resonance
numerical results (Figure agree withorthe
6b–e), experimental (Figure
fully-resonance data for6c–f) the
non-resonance
non-resonance
conditions. It is (Figure
(Figure
noticed 6a–d),
6a–d), near-resonance
thatnear-resonance
the discrepancies (Figure (Figure
6b–e), or
between 6b–e), or fully-resonance
thefully-resonance
numerical results (Figure
and6c–f)(Figure 6c–f)
conditions.
experimental
conditions.
is noticed It
that is noticed
the that
discrepancies the discrepancies
between the between
numerical the
results numerical
results in the cases shown in Figure 6a,b become relatively more significant after t = 15 s.the
It and results
experimental and
results experimental
in cases
Further
results
shown inon
analysis in the
Figure cases shown
6a,b become
the pressure in
spectra Figure
relatively 6a,b
(Figuremore become relatively
significant
7) suggests thatafter more significant
t = 15 s. Further
the difference after
analysis
in Figure t
6a is on= 15 s. Further
the pressure
mainly caused
analysis
spectra
by on the pressure
(Figure
the fundamental 7) suggests spectra
pressure that (Figure 7) suggests
the difference
component (i.e., ω1)inand that
thethe
Figure 6adifference
is mainlyin
experimental Figure
caused
data 6a the
by
decays is mainly
after t = 15caused
fundamental
s. For
by the
pressure fundamental
component pressure
(i.e., )component
and the (i.e.,
experimentalω 1) and the experimental data decays after t = 15 s. For
data decays
the case shown in Figure 16b, the spectra shown in Figure 7b further confirm a satisfactory
ω after t = 15 s. For the case shown in
the case
agreement. shown
Figure 6b, the in Figure
spectra shown
In addition, the free6b, the
in Figure spectra
surface7b shown
furtherare
profiles in
confirm Figure 7b
a satisfactory
also compared. further
Some confirm
agreement.
results in In a satisfactory
theaddition,
case withthe a
resonance excitation are shown in Figure 8, which compares the wave profiles at six instantsa
agreement.
free surface In addition,
profiles are the
also free surface
compared. profiles
Some are
results inalso
the compared.
case with aSome results
resonance in the
excitation case
are with
shown
resonance
in
between 8,excitation
Figure8.55 which 9.17are
s andcompares s. A shown
the wave
good in Figure
profiles
match has been8,atwhich
six compares
instants
observed. betweenthe8.55wave profiles
s and 9.17 s. at six instants
A good match
between 8.55
has been observed. s and 9.17 s. A good match has been observed.
0.08 0.15
0.08
0.06 a experimental data 0.15 d
0.06
0.04 a numerical results
experimental data
0.10
0.10
d
numerical results 0.05
0.04
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.00 0.00
0.00
-0.02 0.00
-0.05
-0.02
-0.04 -0.05
-0.10
-0.04
-0.10
0.4
0.2
b 0.4
0.3 e
0.2
b 0.3
0.2 e
P(kPa)

0.1
0.2
0.1
P(kPa)

0.1
0.0 0.1
0.0
0.0 0.0
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.1
-0.2 -0.2
-0.3
-0.2 -0.3

0.8
c 1.0 f
0.8
0.6
0.6
c 1.0 f
0.4 0.5
0.4
0.2 0.5
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.2 -0.5

-0.2 -0.5
-0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 t(s) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

t(s)
Figure 6. The model validation under different filling levels, external frequencies and the same
Figure
Figure 6. The model validation
6. The validation under
under different
different filling
filling levels,
levels, external frequencies
frequencies and and the
the same
amplitude of A model
= 7 mm, (a) h = 90 mm, ω = 0.5 ω1, (b) h = 90 mm, ωexternal
= 0.8 ω1, (c) h = 90 mm, same
ω = ω1, (d) h
amplitude
amplitude of
of A
A =
= 77 mm,
mm, (a)
(a) hh ==90 mm,ωω==0.5
90mm, 0.5ωω1, 1 , (b)
(b) h h 90
= = 90 mm,
mm, ω =ω0.8 ω
= 0.8
1, ω 1 ,h(c)
(c) = h =mm,
90 ω
90 mm,
= ωω1, =(d)
ω1h,
= 200 mm, ω = 0.5 ω1, (e) h = 200 mm, ω = 0.8 ω1, (f) h = 200 mm, ω = ω1.
(d) h =mm,
= 200 200 ωmm, ωω=1,0.5
= 0.5 h1=, (e)
(e)ω 200hmm,= 200ω mm, ω1=
= 0.8 ω 0.8hω=1200
, (f) , (f)mm,
h = 200
ω =mm,
ω1. ω = ω1 .

0.0177 a experimental data

0.0177 a
ω1
0.5ω ω1 experimental
numerical data
results
0.0118 0.5ω1 numerical results
0.0118 1

0.0059
0.0059
0.0000
0.0000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
a.u.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
a.u.

0.06 b
b 1 ω
0.06 0.6ω
0.04 0.6ω1 ω1 2ω1
0.04 1 2ω1
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
f (Hz)
f (Hz)
Figure 7. The Fast Fourier Transformation of the time history of the experimental and numerical
pressure (amplitude is 7 mm, h = 90 mm, ωa = 0.5 ω1 , ωb = 0.8 ω1 ).
 Figure 7. The Fast Fourier Transformation of the time history of the experimental and numerical
pressure
Water 2018, (amplitude is 7 mm, h = 90 mm, ωa = 0.5 ω1, ωb = 0.8 ω1).
10, 1752 7 of 18

Figure 8.8. The numerical wave profile and experimental

experimental snapshot in six moments between 8.55 s and
9.17 s (amplitude is 77 mm,
mm, hh = ω ==ωω1).1 ).
= 90 mm, ω

For further
further validation,
validation, the experimental
experimental data in in the
the literature
literature are
are also
also used.
used. The first case
considered here is the 2D sloshing sloshing experiment carried out by Liu and Lin [12]. In this case, the tank
dimensions are L = = 570 mm and H = = 300 mm. The water depth h is 150 150 mm.
mm. The tank undergoes a
sinusoidal translation with an amplitude of 5 mm and the frequency
sinusoidal translation with an amplitude of 5 mm and the frequency of 6.0578 of 6.0578 rad/s.
rad/s.The comparison
The comparison of
the surface
of the elevation
surface recorded
elevation near the
recorded left boundary
near (20 mm) between
the left boundary (20 mm)thebetween
numericaltheand experimental
numerical and
data is showndata
experimental in Figure 9. Excellent
is shown in Figureagreement
9. Excellentis observed.
agreementAnother experiment
is observed. Another was performedwas
experiment by
Liu et al. [27],
performed in which
by Liu the in
et al [27], 2Dwhich
tank had
the 2Da length of La=length
tank had 900 mm of Land a height
= 900 mm and of aHheight
= 508 ofmm.
H =The
508
filling
mm. The levelfilling
h/H is 18.3%.
level h/HThe tank undergoes
is 18.3%. The tank aundergoes
sinusoidalarolling motion
sinusoidal with motion amplitude
rolling with motion of
4amplitude
degrees. The pressure recorded on the wall and at the mean water surface is used
of 4 degrees. The pressure recorded on the wall and at the mean water surface is used for for comparison.
The results are
comparison. Theshown
resultsinare
Figure
shown 10.in Through
Figure 10.such comparisons,
Through one may one
such comparisons, agree that
may the that
agree present
the
OpenFOAM
present OpenFOAM modellingmodelling
results in aresults
satisfactory accuracy andaccuracy
in a satisfactory is suitable
andforisnumerically
suitable forsimulating the
numerically
sloshing
simulating problems.
the sloshing problems.

0.20
numerical results
experimental data（Liu and Lin）
0.15

0.10
η(m)

0.05

0.00

-0.05

-0.10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
t(s)

Figure Thevalidation
9. The
Figure 9. validationofof
thethe free
free surface
surface time
time history
history curve,
curve, experimental
experimental data data (Liu Lin)
(Liu and andfrom
Lin)
from
[12]. [12].
Water 2018, 10, 1752 8 of 18
2.5

numerical results
2.5 experimental data (Liu et al)
2.0
numerical results
experimental data (Liu et al)
2.0
1.5

P(kPa)P(kPa)
1.5
1.0

1.0
0.5

0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20
t(s)
0.0
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 10. The validation of the pressure history
t(s)curve, experimental data (et al) from [27].

Figure 10. The validation of the pressure history curve, experimental data (et al.) from [27].
Figure 10. TheResults
validation of the pressure history curve, experimental data (et al) from [27].
4.3. Three-Dimensional
4.3. Three-Dimensional Results
It is widely accepted
4.3. Three-Dimensional that the single degree of freedom sloshing shown in Figures 7 and 8 can be
Results
simplified as 2Daccepted
It is widely problemsthat in the
the single
numerical
degree simulation.
of freedom However,
sloshing in the cases
shown under7 resonance
in Figures and 8 can
It is widely
conditions, accepted
theaswave that the
breaking singleand
degree of freedom sloshing shown in Figures investigate
7 and 8 canthebe
be simplified 2D problems inoccurs
the numericalthe 3D effect may
simulation. become
However, important.
in the casesTo under resonance
simplified
significanceas of2D problems
the 3D in the
effect, numerical simulation.
corresponding 3Deffect
numericalHowever, in the cases
investigations under
are To
carried resonance
out. The
conditions, the wave breaking occurs and the 3D may become important. investigate the
conditions, the
numerical results wave breaking occurs and the 3D effect may become important. To investigate the
significance of the by
3D both
effect,the 2D model and
corresponding 3Dthe 3D model
numerical are compared
investigations arewith theout.
carried experimental data
The numerical
significance
to shedby light of the
onthe
the2D 3Deffect.
3D effect,Incorresponding
the 3D numerical investigations
placedare carried out. The
results both model and the3D3Dsimulations, pressure with
model are compared probestheare
experimental across
datathe
to transverse
shed light
numerical
direction results by both the11).
2D Two
model and subjected
the 3D model are compared with are
the experimental data
on the 3D(shown
effect. Inin the
Figure
3D simulations, cases
pressure probes to resonant
are placed conditions
across the considered.
transverse These
direction
to shed
include inlight
Case on the
A, where3D effect.
h = 90 In
mm, the 3D simulations,
f = 1.06 fto
1, and
pressure
A = 7 conditionsprobes
mm, and Case are placed
B, in which h across the transverse
= 200include
mm, f =Case
0.96
(shown Figure 11). Two cases subjected resonant are considered. These
direction
fA,
1, A = 7 (shown in Figure 11). Two cases subjected to resonant conditions are considered. These
mm.
where h = 90 mm, f = 1.06 f1 , and A = 7 mm, and Case B, in which h = 200 mm, f = 0.96 f1 , A = 7 mm.
include Case A, where h = 90 mm, f = 1.06 f1, and A = 7 mm, and Case B, in which h = 200 mm, f = 0.96
f1, A = 7 mm.

Figure 11. The locations of pressure probes.

Figure 11. The locations of pressure probes.
Figure 12 compares the pressure-time histories at the probes located at the same height from
Figure 12 compares Figure 11. The locations
the pressure-–time historiesofat
pressure probes.
the probes located at the same height from
the tank bottom in 3D numerical simulations but different transverse positions. As observed, the
the tank bottom in 3D numerical simulations but different transverse positions.
impact pressures at different transverse positions but the same height are largely the same, except the As observed, the
impactFigure 12 compares
pressures at the pressure-–time
different transverse histories
positions but atthe
thesame
probes located
height are at the same
largely the heightexcept
same, from
pressures at the corner of the tanks, e.g., P1, P4, and P7. Further comparison in Figure 13 shows that the
the tank
the model bottom
pressures at toin 3D
the numerical
corner ofbetter simulations
the tanks, but
e.g., P1, P4,different
and transverse
P7. Further positions.inAs
comparison observed,
Figure the
13 shows
3D
impact leads
pressures a slightly
at different prediction
transverse on
positions the pressures
but the same on the
heightcorner points,
are largely compared
thecorner to the
same, points,
except
that the 3D
2D simulations. model leads to a slightly better prediction on the pressures on the
the pressures
compared at However,
to the the
2D corner
the superiority
of the
simulations.
of the
tanks, e.g.,
However,
3D
P4,model
P1,superiority
the and P7. over the 2D
ofFurther
model is not
3D comparison
the the model over thein obvious
Figure 13inshows
2D model
terms
is not
of the
that improvement
the 3D model of of the
leads computational
toimprovement accuracy.
a slightly better Considering
prediction high
on the accuracy. computational
pressures Considering demand
on the cornerthe of
points,
obvious
the 3D in terms
simulation, as the
demonstrated in Tableof
1, the
one computational
may agree that the 2D model is preferable in high
terms
compared to the 2D simulations. However, the superiority of the 3D model over the 2D model is not
of computational
obvious in termsrobustness for the problems
of the improvement concerned
of the in this paper.
computational accuracy. Considering the high
computational demand of the 3D simulation, as demonstrated in Table 1, one may agree that the 2D
model is preferable in terms of computational robustness for the problems concerned in this paper.
computational demand of the 3D simulation, as demonstrated in Table 1, one may agree that the 2D
Water 2018, 10, 1752 9 of 18
model is preferable
3.0
in terms of computational robustness
3.0
for the problems concerned in this paper.
2.5 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
3.0 a 2.5
3.0 A
2.0
2.5 P1 P2 P3 2.0 P4 P5 P6
1.5 a 2.5
A
2.0 1.5
2.0
1.0
1.5 1.0
0.5 1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0 1.0
0.5
-0.5 0.0
0.5
0.0
P(kPa)

-1.0 -0.5
-0.5 0.0
2.5 2.5
P(kPa)

-1.0 -0.5
2.0 P1 P2 P3 2.0 P7 P8 P9
2.5
1.5
b 2.5
1.5
B
2.0 P1 P2 P3 2.0 P7 P8 P9
1.0
1.5
b 1.0
1.5
B
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0
0.5 0.5
-0.5 -0.5
0.0 0.0
-1.0 -1.0
-0.5 -0.5
-1.5 -1.5
-1.0 0 5 10 15 20 -1.0 0 5 10 15 20
-1.5 -1.5
0 5 10 15 t(s) 0
20 5 10 15 20

Figure 12. The comparison of impact pressure at different t(s) positions at the same height on the side
wall. (a) h = 90 mm, ω = 1.06 ω1, pressure on the bottom, (A) h = 90 mm, ω = 1.06 ω1, pressure on the
12. The
Figure 12.
Figure The comparison
comparisonofofimpact
impactpressure
pressureat at
different positions
different at the
positions same
at the height
same on the
height onside
the wall.
side
free surface, (b) h = 200 mm, ω = 0.96 ω1, pressure on the bottom, (B) h = 200 mm, ω = 0.96 ω1, pressure
(a) h = 90 mm, ω = 1.06 ω
wall. (a) h = 90 mm, ω = 1.06 , pressure on the bottom, (A) h = 90 mm, ω = 1.06
1 ω1, pressure on the bottom, (A) h = 90 mm, ω = 1.06 ω 1 ω1, pressurethe
, pressure on onfree
the
on the free surface.
surface,
free (b) h(b)
surface, = 200 mm,mm,
h = 200 ω =ω0.96 ω1 ,ωpressure
= 0.96 on the bottom, (B) h = 200 mm, ω = 0.96 ω , pressure
1, pressure on the bottom, (B) h = 200 mm, ω = 0.96 ω11, pressure
on the
on the free
free surface.
surface.

2.5 2D numercal results 2.5

3D numercal results
a A
2.0
2.5 experiment
2D numercaldata
results 2.0
2.5
1.5
3D numercal results
a A
2.0
1.0 experiment data 1.5
2.0
1.5
0.5
1.0 1.0
1.5
0.0
0.5 0.5
-0.5 1.0
0.0
P(kPa)

-1.0 0.0
0.5
-0.5
P(kPa)

-1.0
2.5 0.0
2.5
2.0 b 2.0 B
2.5
1.5 2.5
2.0
1.0 b 1.5
2.0 B
1.5
0.5 1.0
1.0 1.5
0.0 0.5
0.5
-0.5 1.0
0.0
0.0
-1.0 0.5
-0.5
-1.5 -0.5
0.0
-1.0
-2.0 -1.0
-1.5 0 5 10 15 20-0.5 0 5 10 15 20
-2.0
0 5 10 15
t(s)
20
-1.0
0 5 10 15 20

t(s) results (a) h = 90 mm, ω = 1.06 ω1 , pressure

Figure 13. The comparison of the 2D and 3D numerical
on the bottom, (A) h = 90 mm, ω = 1.06 ω1 , pressure on the free surface, (b) h = 200mm, ω = 0.96 ω1 ,
pressure on the bottom, (B) h = 200 mm, ω = 0.96 ω1 , pressure on the free surface.
Water 2018, 10, 1752 10 of 18

Table 1. The comparison of parameters between the 2D model and 3D model.

Two-dimensional Model Three-dimensional Model

Mesh Size 5 × 5 mm 5 × 5 × 5 mm
Mesh Number 15,600 936,000
Computing CPU:AMD Ryzen 7 1700X Eight-Core Processor 3.40 GHz no parallel
Times 1962 s 394,971 s
In agreement with the experimental data; Match well with the
Analysis of Result
Sometimes there are large pressure peaks. experimental value

5. Results and Discussions

5.1. Effects of External Excitation Amplitudes

The excitation amplitude is an important factor that influences the intensity of the sloshing in
the forced sloshing problem, and it reflects the input energy of the system. In this study, the influence
of amplitude on the sloshing under different conditions will be discussed after a series of numerical
studies being conducted. These cases are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. The numerical case parameters.

Case h/L ω1 (rad/s) ω/ω1 ω A(m)

Case 1 0.5 2.3745
Case 2 0.6 2.8494
Case 3 0.7 3.3243
0.15 4.749
Case 4 0.8 3.7992 0.001
Case 5 0.9 4.2741 0.003
Case 6 1 4.749 0.005
Case 7 0.5 3.1665 0.007
Case 8 0.6 3.7998 0.01
Case 9 0.7 4.4331 0.02
0.33 6.333
Case 10 0.8 5.0664
Case 11 0.9 5.6997
Case 12 1 6.333

Figure 14 displays the response curves of the maximum impact pressure vs. the amplitude of the
forced motion at different combinations of the filling level and frequency. It is worth mentioning that
the vertical coordinate represents the peak of impact pressure which, at P1, was non-dimensionalized
based on water depth, density and gravity (P = P0 /ρgh, h is set as 0.2 m). Data obtained through
physical model experiments (the amplitudes are 3 mm, 5 mm and 7 mm respectively) are also added
to Figure 14 for validation. It can be noted that the impact pressure increases as the amplitude
increases and that increase is basically linear in the non-resonance range. In order to further illustrate
this relationship, Figure 15 shows the pressure-time histories in the cases with different excitation
amplitudes. For the convenience of the comparison, the pressure results in the cases with A = 1 mm
multiplied by a scaling factor of 3 is able to be comparable with the corresponding results with
A = 3 mm. If two curves in Figure 15 match with each other (e.g., Figure 15a–d), the pressure is then
linearly dependent on the motion amplitude; otherwise, the nonlinearity becomes more important (e.g.,
Figure 15e–f). This condition often occurs following the occurrence of wave resonance and breaking.
Water 2018, 10, 1752 11 of 18
1.0 1.5
0.5ω1
h/L=0.15 h/L=0.33
1.0 0.6ω1 1.5
0.8 0.7
0.5ωω11 1.2
h/L=0.15 h/L=0.33
0.8
0.6ωω11
0.8 0.9
0.7ωω11 1.2
0.6 0.9
ω
0.8
1
ω 1
experimental
P/ρgh P/ρgh

0.9ω1
0.6 0.9
ω1
0.4 0.6
experimental

0.4 0.6
0.2 0.3

0.2 0.3
0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
A(mm) A(mm)
0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Figure
A(mm) 14. The amplitude–pressure response curve.
A(mm)

Figure TheThe
14. 14.
Figure amplitude–pressure response
amplitude–pressure curve.
response curve.
0.03
P(A=1mm)*3 0.03
h/L=0.15 h/L=0.33
0.02
0.03 ω/ω1=0.6 P(A=3mm) a 0.02 ω/ω1=0.6 b
P(A=1mm)*3 0.03
0.01 h/L=0.15 h/L=0.33
0.02 a 0.01
b
P/ ρ gh P/ ρ gh

ω/ω1=0.6 P(A=3mm) 0.02 ω/ω1=0.6

0.00 0.00
0.01 0.01
-0.01 -0.01
0.00 0.00
-0.02
-0.02 -0.01
-0.01
-0.02
0.06
-0.02 0.10
h/L=0.15 0.08 h/L=0.33
0.04
0.06 ω/ω1=0.8 c 0.06
0.10 ω/ω1=0.8 d
0.02 h/L=0.15 0.04
0.08 h/L=0.33
0.04 c 0.02 d
P /ρgh P /ρgh

0.00 ω/ω1=0.8 0.06 ω/ω1=0.8

0.02 0.00
0.04
-0.02 -0.02
0.02
0.00
-0.04 -0.04
0.00
-0.02 -0.06
-0.02
-0.04 -0.04
1. 5
-0.06
0.6 h/L=0.15
ω/ω1=1
e 1.1.05
h/L=0.33
f
0.4 ω/ω1=1
0.6
P /ρ gh P /ρ gh

h/L=0.15
0.2 ω/ω1=1
e 0. 5
1. 0
h/L=0.33
f
0.4 ω/ω1=1
0.0 0.0.05
0.2
-0.2 -0. 5
0.0 0. 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 -0. 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.2
t( s)
t(s)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Figure
Figure 15.15. The
The comparison
comparison ofofpressure-time
pressure-timehistory
historycurves
curvesatatdifferent t( s)
differentamplitudes.
amplitudes. (a) 0.15,ω =
h/L==0.15,
(a) h/L
t(s)
ω= 0.60.6ω1ω 1 , (b)
, (b) h/Lh/L
= 0.33, ω = 0.6
= 0.33, ωω=1, (c)
0.6 h/L
ω1 ,= (c) h/L
0.15, ω ==0.8 ω1, (d)
0.15, ω =h/L0.8= 0.33, ω = h/L
ω1 , (d) 0.8 ω=1, (e)
0.33, 0.8 ωω=1 ,ω1,
h/Lω= =0.15,
Figure
(e) (f)
h/L 15. The
= =0.15, comparison of pressure-time history curves at different amplitudes. (a) h/L = 0.15, ω =
h/L 0.33,ωω==ωω11,. (f) h/L = 0.33, ω = ω1 .
0.6 ω1, (b) h/L = 0.33, ω = 0.6 ω1, (c) h/L = 0.15, ω = 0.8 ω1, (d) h/L = 0.33, ω = 0.8 ω1, (e) h/L = 0.15, ω = ω1,
5.2. Resonant
(f) h/LHysteresis
= 0.33, ω = and
ω1.and Resonance in Advance
5.2. Resonant Hysteresis Resonance in Advance
In the sloshing problem, the natural frequency of the tank can be computed using the analytical
In the sloshing
5.2. Resonant problem,
Hysteresis the natural
and Resonance frequency of the tank can be computed using the analytical
in Advance
solution based on the potential flow theory Equation (5). However, the frequency leading to the
solution based on the potential flow theory Equation (5). However, the frequency leading to the
maximum impact
In the pressure
sloshing is generally
problem, not consistent
the natural frequency withof the natural
tank can frequency due tousing
be computed the nonlinearity.
the analytical
maximum impact pressure is generally not consistent with the natural frequency due to the
Thesolution
theory [28]
basedhasonindicated the change
the potential in the resonant
flow theory Equationresponse from athe
(5). However, so-called ‘hard-spring’
frequency leading totothe
nonlinearity. The theory [28] has indicated the change in the resonant response from a so-called
‘soft-spring’
maximumbehaviour as the filling
impact pressure level increases.
is generally Kobine’swith
not consistent [29] confirms the predicted
the natural frequency change
due tointhe
‘hard-spring’ to ‘soft-spring’ behaviour as the filling level increases. Kobine’s [29] confirms the
thenonlinearity.
hysteresis behaviour
The theory with an has
[28] increasing filling
indicated the level.
change Based
in theon resonant
these studies, this section
response from a mainly
so-called
predicted change in the hysteresis behaviour with an increasing filling level. Based on these studies,
conducts studies to
‘hard-spring’ to explore the mechanism
‘soft-spring’ behaviour ofasthetheresonant hysteresis.
filling level increases. Kobine’s [29] confirms the
this section mainly conducts studies to explore the mechanism of the resonant hysteresis.
predicted change in the hysteresis behaviour with an increasing filling level. Based on these studies,
this section mainly conducts studies to explore the mechanism of the resonant hysteresis.
Water 2018, 10, 1752 12 of 18

A large number of numerical simulations are performed to explore the influence of the filling
level on the response between the impact pressure of tank wall and external excitation frequency. The
specific parameters of the cases are in Table 3. There are 10 filling levels, one amplitude of motion,
15 external excitation frequencies, 30 s of sloshing duration considered. In order to gather more stable
and accurate pressure data, the pressure probe is set at the bottom of the tank wall which is away from
the pressure impacts (h = 30 mm).

Table 3. The numerical case parameters.

Case h/L L(m) h(m) A(m) ω1 (rad/s) ω (rad/s)

Case 13 0.054 0.0324 2.942
Case 14 0.1 0.06 3.953
Case 15 0.15 0.09 4.749
Case 16 0.217 0.1302 5.514
Case 17 0.25 0.15 5.804
0.6 0.007 0.8 ω1 –1.2 ω1
Case 18 0.28 0.168 6.023
Case 19 0.3 0.18 6.15
Case 20 0.33 0.198 6.316
Case 21 0.433 0.2598 6.711
Case 22 0.596 0.3576 6.999

Figure 16 shows the pressure-frequency response curves at 10 different filling levels. In

Figure 16c–h, the corresponding experimental are also included for comparison, which, once again,
show good agreements and reinforce the credibility of experimental and numerical models. In all the
cases, the pressure increases as the frequency increases and then decreases afterword. However, at
different filling levels, the rate of increase/decrease and the maximum response frequency are not the
same. It can be clearly seen that when the filling level changes from low to high, the ascending process
before the maximum response frequency becomes shorter, and the descending process after that
becomes longer, the maximum response frequency (Marked in the Figure 16) decreases from 1.18 ω1
to 0.92 ω1 instead of keeping the first-mode natural frequency computed by the potential theory.
As is shown in Figure 16a–c, there are ‘soft-spring’ responses in shallow water sloshing; it is
characterized by a rapid decrease after a slow rise to the maximum response value, with the maximum
response frequency higher than the natural frequency. Besides, Figure 16h–k show a ‘hard-spring’
response in deepwater sloshing. Its characteristic is a slow descent after a rapid rise to the maximum
response value and maximum response frequency is less than natural frequency. There is a critical
depth, as shown in Figure 16e, at which level the resonance curve becomes symmetric about the
natural frequency, being consistent with the resonance in normal harmonic systems.
The occurrences of the ‘soft-spring’ response and the ‘hard-spring’ response may be mainly caused
by the nonlinear effect of wave breaking. In order to study the effect of wave breaking, unbroken
cases of shallow water and deepwater are set up. With all other conditions remaining the same,
the amplitude was reduced to 0.5 mm to make sure that the free surface is not broken during the
whole process of sloshing. Figures 17 and 18 show the pressure-frequency response curve, the mean
squared error-frequency response curve, the pressure-time history curve, and the spectral analysis
at the maximum response frequency in the case of breaking and non-breaking. It should be noted
that when at the same depth but without wave breaking, the phenomenon of resonant hysteresis
disappears, and the analysis of the max pressure and mean squared error show a similar trend. It is
well known that the double peak phenomenon in the pressure-time history curve under resonance
indicates two impacts on the tank wall after the sloshing wave is broken. It can be seen in Figure 17
that the resonant sloshing at the low filling level has broken in the third period of sloshing, far earlier
than the resonant sloshing at the high filling level. The Fourier transform in Figures 17 and 18 shows
that more multiplications of the natural frequency appear in the wave breaking case and the case at
the low filling level, which also shows that the phenomenon of wave breaking, will produce nonlinear
Water 2018, 10, 1752 13 of 18

produce
effects nonlinear
and effects
the sloshing at and the sloshing
the low at the
filling level haslow fillingnonlinearity
stronger level has stronger nonlinearity
than the sloshing atthan the
a high
sloshing
filling at a high filling level.
level.

0.4 0.6

0.3 h/L=0.054 (1.18, 0.227) a h/L=0.1 (1.1, 0.396) b

0.4
P/ρgh

0.2
0.2
0.1

0.0 0.0
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2

1.0 2.0
numerical (1.06, 0.659) (1, 1.214)
0.8
experimental
c 1.5 h/L=0.217 d
P/ρgh

0.6
h/L=0.15 1.0
0.4
0.2 0.5

0.0 0.0
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2

1.5 2.0
h/L=0.25 (1, 1.066) e 1.5 h/L=0.28 (0.98, 1.422) f
1.0
P/ρgh

1.0
0.5
0.5

0.0 0.0
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2

1.0 1.2
0.8 h/L=0.3 h/L=0.33 (0.96, 0.845)
(0.98, 0.716) g 0.9 h
P/ρgh

0.6
0.6
0.4
0.2 0.3

0.0 0.0
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2

0.4
0.6 (0.94, 0.493) (0.92,0.29)
h/L=0.433 i 0.3 h/L=0.596 j
0.4
P/ρgh

0.2
0.2 0.1

0.0 0.0
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2

ω / ω1 ω / ω1

Figure
Figure 16.16. The
The pressure–frequency
pressure–frequencyresponse
responsecurves
curvesatatdifferent
differentfilling levels.
filling (a)(a)
levels. h/L
h/L==0.054,
0.054,(b)
(b)h/L
h/L==
0.1,
0.1, (c) h/L = 0.15, (d) h/L = 0.217, (e) h/L = 0.25, (f) h/L = 0.28, (g) h/L = 0.3, (h) h/L = 0.33, (i) h/L==
(c) h/L = 0.15, (d) h/L = 0.217, (e) h/L = 0.25, (f) h/L = 0.28, (g) h/L = 0.3, (h) h/L = 0.33, (i) h/L
0.433,
0.433, (j)
(j) h/L
h/L == 0.596.
0.596.

Based on the previous section’s conclusion that the external excitation amplitude has a linear
effect on the sloshing pressure, the pressure of the A = 0.5 mm case has been expanded 14 times to
compare with the pressure of the A = 7 mm case to investigate how the sloshing state will be if the
wave cannot break. As shown in Figure 19, the two curves all coincide before wave breaking, but the
difference happened after the waves break. A significant phase advance occurred in the pressure-time
history curve of shallow water sloshing, and phase delay appears in the pressure-time history curve of
Water 2018, 10, 1752 14 of 18

shallow water sloshing. This result shows that wave breaking will change the period of liquid sloshing
in the tank. In the condition of shallow water, the period of the liquid sloshing decrease with wave
breaking, the maximum response can be achieved at an external excitation frequency greater than the
natural frequency. As for deepwater sloshing, the period of the liquid sloshing goes up with the wave
breaking, so the system resonance can be excited at an external excitation frequency lower than the
natural frequency. These are the root causes of resonant hysteresis and resonance in advance.
Why does the wave breaking have different effects on shallow water and deepwater sloshing?
The hydraulic jump is a common phenomenon in shallow water sloshing; Figure 20 shows the wave
propagation process before and after the occurrence of the hydraulic jump in the resonant case. It
should be noted that the process of a sloshing wave propagating from the highest point on the right
wall to the highest point on the left wall takes 0.71 s before the occurrence of the hydraulic jump, but it
becomes 0.67 s after the hydraulic jump happens. One reason for this phenomenon is that the liquid
climbing up the wall falls vertically and hits the free surface as shown in Figure 20; this force accelerates
the velocity at the free surface of the sloshing wave so that the period of the liquid sloshing decreases.
The wavelength of deepwater sloshing is longer, a standing wave phenomenon occurs under the
excitation of resonance. Figure 21 shows the complex nonlinear phenomenon in deepwater resonant
sloshing. It can be seen that there are obvious roof slamming phenomena and aerification which may
dissipate energy during each impact. Besides, a large amount of liquid splashing will reduce the depth
of water, which will lead to lower wave speed and a longer period of deepwater sloshing.

0.6 0.10
0.5
0.4 ( 1.1, 0.396) ( 1, 0.064)
h/l=0.1 h/l=0.1
P/ρgh

0.3 A=7mm 0.05 A=0.5mm

0.2
0.1
0.0 0.00
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
ω / ω1 ω / ω1
0.15 0.03

( 1.1, 0.1038) ( 1, 0.0196)

0.10 0.02
σ

0.05 0.01

0.00 0.00
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
ω / ω1 ω / ω1
0.6 0.10
0.4
ω / ω1=1.1 0.05 ω / ω1=1
P/ρgh

0.2
0.0 0.00
-0.2
-0.05
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
t (s) t (s)
0.3 0.06

1.1ω1 ω1
0.2 0.04
a.u.

2.2ω1
0.1 0.02 2ω1
3.3ω1
4.4ω1 5.5ω1 6.6ω1 7.7ω 3ω1
1
0.0 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
f(Hz) f(Hz)

Figure
Figure 17. 17.
TheThe effects
effects of wave
of wave breaking
breaking on shallow
on shallow water sloshing.
water sloshing. (left column:
(left column: wave breaking;
wave breaking; right
right column:
column: no wave no wave breaking).
breaking).
Water 2018, 10, 1752 15 of 18

0.4 0.10
(0.92, 0.29)
P /ρg h 0.3 (1, 0.08)
h/l=0.596 h/l=0.596
0.2 A=7mm 0.05 A=0.5mm

0.1

0.0 0.00
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
ω / ω1 ω / ω1
0.20 0.05
0.15 (0.92, 0.146) 0.04 (1, 0.035)
0.03
0.10
σ

0.02
0.05 0.01
0.00 0.00
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
ω / ω1 ω / ω1
0.4 0.10
ω / ω1=0.92 ω / ω 1=1
P /ρg h

0.2 0.05
0.00
0.0
-0.05
-0.2
-0.10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
t (s) t (s)
0.4 0.100
0.3 0.92ω1 0.075 ω1
a. u.

0.2 0.050
0.1 0.025
1.84ω1
0.0 0.000
0.0 1.2 2.4 3.6 4.8 6.0 0.0 1.2 2.4 3.6 4.8 6.0
f(Hz) f(Hz)

Figure The
18.18.
Figure effects
The of of
effects wave breaking
wave onon
breaking deepwater sloshing.
deepwater sloshing.

1.5 0.9
Based on the previous section’s conclusion that the external excitation amplitude has a linear
P(0.5mm)*14
effect on the sloshingP(7mm)pressure, the pressure of the A = 0.5 mm case has been expanded 14 times to
1.0
compare with the pressure of the A = 7 mm case to 0.6investigate how the sloshing state will be if the
wave cannot break. As shown in Figure 19, the two curves
h/L=0.1 all coincide before wave breaking, but the
h/L=0.1
difference =1
happened
 after the waves break. 0.3 
A significant =1.1 phase advance occurred in the
P/gh

0.5 1 1

pressure-–time history curve of shallow water sloshing, and phase delay appears in the
pressure-–time history curve of shallow water sloshing. This result shows that wave breaking will
0.0 0.0
change the period of liquid sloshing in the tank. In the condition of shallow water, the period of the
liquid sloshing decrease with wave breaking, the maximum response can be achieved at an external
-0.5 frequency greater than the natural frequency.
excitation -0.3 As for deepwater sloshing, the period of the
liquid 2sloshing goes up with the wave breaking, so the system resonance can be excited at an
external excitation frequency lower than the natural frequency. These are the root causes of resonant
0.6
hysteresis and resonance in advance.
h/L=0.596 h/L=0.596
Why 1 does1the
=1 wave breaking have different effects on =0.92
shallow water and deepwater sloshing?
0.3 1
The hydraulic jump is a common phenomenon in shallow water sloshing; Figure 20 shows the wave
P/gh

propagation process before and after the occurrence of the hydraulic jump in the resonant case. It
0 0.0
should be noted that the process of a sloshing wave propagating from the highest point on the right
wall to the highest point on the left wall takes 0.71 s before the occurrence of the hydraulic jump, but
-0.3
it becomes
-1 0.67 s after the hydraulic jump happens. One reason for this phenomenon is that the
liquid climbing up the wall falls vertically and hits the free surface as shown in Figure 20; this force
-0.6
accelerates0 the5 velocity 10 at 15the free 20 surface
25 of 30the sloshing
0 5 wave10so that
15 the20 period25of the30 liquid
sloshing decreases. The wavelengtht(s) of deepwater sloshing is longer, a standingt(s) wave phenomenon
occurs under the excitation of resonance. Figure 21 shows the complex nonlinear phenomenon in
The comparison
Figure 19.resonant
deepwater of pressure-time
sloshing. Itofcan history
be seen that curve
therewith
are wave
obviousbreaking
roof or not. (red phenomena
slamming line: wave and
Figure 19. The comparison pressure-–time history curve with wave breaking or not. (red
breaking; black line: no wave breaking).
aerification which
line: wave may black
breaking; dissipate energy
line: no during each impact. Besides, a large amount of liquid
wave breaking).
 -0.3
-1 -0.6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.6
0 5 10 t(s)
15 20 25 30 05 10 15
t(s) 20 25 30
t(s)
t(s)
Water Figure
2018, 10,19.
1752The comparison of pressure-–time history curve with wave breaking or not. (red line: 16 of 18
wave breaking;
Figure black line: of
19. The comparison nopressure-–time
wave breaking).
history curve with wave breaking or not. (red line: wave
breaking; black line: no wave breaking).

Figure 20. The fluid

fluid phenomenon
phenomenon in inshallow
shallowwater
watersloshing
sloshing(h/L
(h/L == 0.1, ω/ω11==1.1,
0.1, ω/ω 1.1,AA == 77 mm,
mm, the
falling liquid hits the free surface in the red circle).

Figure 21.
Figure The
21. The fluid
fluid phenomenon
The fluid phenomenon inindeepwater
deepwatersloshing
sloshing(h/L
(h/L === 0.596,
0.596, ω/ω11 1===0.92,
0.596, ω/ω 0.92,AA == 77 mm,
0.92, mm, the
the
Figure 21. phenomenon in deepwater sloshing (h/L ω/ω A = 7 mm, the
phenomena
phenomenaof of roof
ofroof slamming
roofslamming and
slammingand aerification
andaerification occurred
aerificationoccurred
occurredinin the
inthe red
thered circle).
redcircle).
circle).
phenomena
6. Conclusions
6.Conclusions
6. Conclusions
A liquid sloshing numerical model was developed based on OpenFOAM in this study, and a
A liquid
A liquid sloshing
sloshing numerical
numerical model
model was
was developed
developed based
based on
on OpenFOAM
OpenFOAM in in this
this study,
study, and
and aa
series of experiments were conducted to validate the accuracy of the model. The satisfactory agreement
series
series of experiments
of experimental
experiments andwere conducted
werenumerical
conducted to validate
togives
validate the
the toaccuracy
accuracy of the model.
of the model. The satisfactory
between data support the assumption that the The
model satisfactory
is suitable
agreement between experimental and numerical data gives support to the assumption
for 2D tank sloshing problems. The numerical results of the 2D model and the 3D model that the model
were
compared with the experimental results, suggesting an insignificant 3D effect associated with the cases
concerned in this paper. Considering the extremely longer Central Processing Unit (CPU) time by the
3D model, the 2D model is preferable and is used in the systematic numerical investigations. A large
number of numerical simulations were performed to explore the influence of frequency, amplitude,
and the filling level on sloshing: (1) the research on the influence of amplitude indicated that the impact
pressure increases as the amplitude grows, and the increase is basically linear in the non-resonance
range. Moreover, the change in amplitude affects sloshing more greatly near the resonance frequency.
However, under the excitation of resonance frequency, wave breaking may challenge such a principle
because of nonlinear effect; (2) the influence of water depth on pressure-frequency response also has
been studied, the process of the transition from a ‘soft-spring’ response to a ‘hard-spring’ response
is observed following the change of the filling level, the ascending trend of the pressures before
the maximum response frequency becomes shorter, and the descending process after that becomes
longer. The maximum response frequency decreases from 1.18 ω1 to 0.92 ω1 moving away from
the first-mode natural frequency ω1 calculated by potential theory; (3) The main reason for this
difference should be the nonlinear effect of wave breaking. The nonlinear effect of wave breaking was
studied by a pressure-frequency response curve, the mean squared error-frequency response curve,
the pressure-time history curve, and the spectral analysis at the maximum response frequency in the
case of breaking and non-breaking. The result show that when at the same depth but without wave
breaking, the phenomenon of resonant hysteresis disappears, and the resonance sloshing at a low
filling level is more nonlinear than the resonance sloshing at a high filling level; (4) The pressure of
the A = 0.5 mm case has been expanded 14 times to compare with the pressure of the A = 7 mm case
to investigate how the sloshing state will be if wave cannot break. The result shows that the period
of the shallow liquid sloshing decreases with wave breaking, therefore, the maximum response can
Water 2018, 10, 1752 17 of 18

be achieved at an external excitation frequency higher than the natural frequency. Combined with
the fluid phenomenon in Figures 20 and 21, the reasons may be the liquid climbing up the wall falls
vertically and hits the free surface; this force accelerates the velocity of the sloshing wave. In the
condition of deep water, the period of the liquid sloshing goes up with wave breaking, so the system
resonance can be excited at an external excitation frequency lower than the natural frequency. One
reasonable reason is that there is an obvious roof slamming and aerification which may dissipate
energy during each slamming. Besides, a large amount of liquid splashing will reduce the depth of the
water, which will lead to lower wave speed and a longer period of deepwater sloshing.
Some reasonable reasons have been raised combined with the fluid phenomenon in Figures 20
and 21: (1) the drop of the fluid after the hydraulic jump accelerates the velocity of the sloshing wave;
(2) the roof slamming and aerification may dissipate energy during each impact; (3) a large amount of
liquid splashing will reduce the depth of water, which will lead to a lower wave speed and a longer
period of deepwater sloshing.

Author Contributions: Supervision, M.-A.X.; Writing-Original Draft Preparation, Y.C.

Funding: This work is supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2018B12814),
the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51679079), State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering
Simulation and Safety (Tianjin University) (HESS-1703), the Program for Excellent Innovative Talents of Hohai
University, the Project to Engage Foreign Experts in Culture and Education of Hohai University (T2018049).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Moiseev, N.N. On the theory of nonlinear vibrations of a liquid of finite volume. J. Appl. Math. Mech. 1958,
22, 860–872. [CrossRef]
2. Faltinsen, O.M. A nonlinear theory of sloshing in rectangular tanks. J. Ship Res. 1974, 18, 224–241.
3. Faltinsen, O.M.; Rognebakke, O.F.; Lukovsky, I.A.; Timokha, A.N. Multidimensional modal analysis of
nonlinear sloshing in a rectangular tank with finite water depth. J. Fluid Mech. 2000, 407, 201–234. [CrossRef]
4. Faltinsen, O.M.; Timokha, A.N. An adaptive multimodal approach to nonlinear sloshing in a rectangular
tank. J. Fluid Mech. 2001, 432, 167–200.
5. Ikeda, T.; Nakagawa, N. Non-linear vibrations of a structure caused by water sloshing in a rectangular tank.
J. Sound Vib. 1997, 201, 23–41. [CrossRef]
6. Pistani, F.; Thiagarajan, K. Experimental measurements and data analysis of the impact pressures in a
sloshing experiment. Ocean Eng. 2012, 52, 60–74. [CrossRef]
7. Xue, M.-A.; Zheng, J.; Lin, P.; Yuan, X. Experimental study on vertical baffles of different configurations in
suppressing sloshing pressure. Ocean Eng. 2017, 136, 178–189. [CrossRef]
8. Kalinichenko, V.A.; Sekerzh-Zen’kovich, S.Y. Experimental investigation of Faraday waves of maximum
height. Fluid Dyn. 2007, 42, 959–965. [CrossRef]
9. Xue, M.-A.; Lin, P.; Zheng, J.H.; Ma, Y.; Yuan, X.; Nguyen, V.T. Effects of perforated baffle on reducing
sloshing in rectangular tank: experimental and numerical study. China Ocean Eng. 2013, 27, 615–628.
[CrossRef]
10. Cai, Z.H.; Wang, D.Y.; Li, Z. Influence of excitation frequency on slosh-induced impact pressures of liquefied
natural gas tanks. J. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. 2011, 16, 124–128. [CrossRef]
11. Xue, M.-A.; Zheng, J.H.; Lin, P.; Xiao, Z. Violent transient sloshing-wave interaction with a baffle in a
three-dimensional numerical tank. J. Ocean Univ. China 2017, 16, 661–673. [CrossRef]
12. Liu, D.; Lin, P. A numerical study of three-dimensional liquid sloshing in tanks. J. Comput. Phys. 2008, 227,
3921–3939. [CrossRef]
13. Buldakov, E. Lagrangian modelling of fluid sloshing in moving tanks. J. Fluids Struct. 2014, 45, 1–14.
[CrossRef]
14. Xue, M.-A.; Zheng, J.H.; Lin, P. Numerical simulation of sloshing phenomena in cubic tank with multiple
baffles. J. Appl. Math. 2012, 2012, 1–21. [CrossRef]
15. Kim, Y. Numerical simulation of sloshing flows with impact load. Appl. Ocean Res. 2001, 23, 53–62. [CrossRef]
Water 2018, 10, 1752 18 of 18

16. Ramaswamy, B.; Kawahara, M.; Nakayama, T. Lagrangian finite element method for the analysis of
two-dimensional sloshing problems. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 1986, 6, 659–670. [CrossRef]
17. Oxtoby, O.F.; Malan, A.G.; Heyns, J.A. A computationally efficient 3D finite-volume scheme for violent
liquid–gas sloshing. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 2015, 79, 306–321. [CrossRef]
18. Kishev, Z.R.; Hu, C.; Kashiwagi, M. Numerical simulation of violent sloshing by a CIP-based method. J. Mar.
Sci. Technol. 2006, 11, 111–122. [CrossRef]
19. Chen, Z.; Zong, Z.; Li, H.T.; Li, J. An investigation into the pressure on solid walls in 2D sloshing using SPH
method. Ocean Eng. 2013, 59, 129–141. [CrossRef]
20. Xue, M.-A.; Lin, P. Numerical study of ring baffle effects on reducing violent liquid sloshing. Comput. Fluids.
2011, 52, 116–129. [CrossRef]
21. Kim, Y. Experimental and numerical analyses of sloshing flows. J. Eng. Math. 2007, 58, 191–210. [CrossRef]
22. Jin, X.; Lin, P.Z. Viscous effects on liquid sloshing under external excitations. Ocean Eng. 2018, in press.
[CrossRef]
23. Ma, Z.H.; Causon, D.M.; Qian, L.; Mingham, C.G.; Martinez, F.P. Numerical investigation of air enclosed
wave impacts in a depressurised tank. Ocean Eng. 2016, 123, 15–27. [CrossRef]
24. Jiang, S.C.; Teng, B.; Bai, W.; Ying, G. Numerical simulation of coupling effect between ship motion and
liquid sloshing under wave action. Ocean Eng. 2015, 108, 140–154. [CrossRef]
25. Wang, Y.-S.; Politano, M.; Laughery, R. Towards full predictions of temperature dynamics in McNary Dam
forebay using OpenFOAM. Water Sci. Eng. 2013, 6, 317–330.
26. Faltinsen, O.M.; Timokha, A.N. Sloshing; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009.
27. Liu, D.; Tang, W.; Wang, J.; Xue, H.; Wang, K. Comparison of laminar model, RANS, LES and VLES for
simulation of liquid sloshing. Appl. Ocean Res. 2016, 59, 638–649. [CrossRef]
28. Waterhouse, D.D. Resonant sloshing near a critical depth. J. Fluid Mech. 2006, 281, 313–318. [CrossRef]
29. Kobine, J.J. Nonlinear resonant characteristics of shallow fluid layers. Philos. Trans. 2008, 366, 1331–1346.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).