CFD study · OpenFOAM · free surface + forced roll
Tank Sloshing — Engineering Evidence Report
What the completed runs establish, where the response is strongest, and which conclusions remain bounded by the published evidence.
Loading the reviewed public release…
01 · Executive reading
What this study establishes
The free-decay cases test the numerical model against the analytical first-mode frequency. The forced-roll sweep then measures the response across loading periods; mesh comparison and solver audit qualify how strongly those results may be used.
02 · Response evidence
Where the forced-roll response peaks
Use the curve controls to compare absolute response, response normalized per degree of roll, and the free-decay analytical target. Curves retain their evidence class and are not blended into a single validation claim.
Accessible chart data
| Quantity | Value | Unit |
|---|
04 · Interpretation boundary
What the evidence does—and does not—support
Supported
Frequency agreement, period-dependent forced-roll response with 21–25 s refinement, normalized response comparisons, aggregate and sectional loads, complete-cycle field evidence, and the published numerical QA disposition.
Not yet supported
Three-dimensional end-wall and local impact effects, response at other fill levels or roll amplitudes, private geometry reconstruction, or a vessel-level anti-roll benefit claim.
Next decision-grade step
Extend the governing 22–24 second region across fill level and roll amplitude, and close the residual Courant exceedance below the configured 0.25 target.