CFD study · OpenFOAM · free surface + forced roll

Tank Sloshing — the Published CFD Study

From analytical first-mode verification to period-dependent forced-roll response: what the completed cases establish, where the evidence is strongest, and what remains outside the present model.

Reviewed public release24 accepted cases · immutable dataset revision · source-neutral evidence

Loading the reviewed public release…

01 · Decision question

What do the completed runs tell us?

The campaign asks two linked questions. First, does the VOF model reproduce the rectangular tank’s analytical first-mode frequency under free decay? Second, how do liquid-level response and aggregate roll moment change across the published forced-roll periods and mesh levels?

Loading…Study evidence
Engineering verdict. Loading the reviewed evidence…

02 · Analysis basis

Campaign structure

Free decay

Mesh and timestep cases compare measured first-mode frequency with the linear analytical target. This is the numerical validation fixture.

Forced roll

Thirteen forced-roll records cover 16–26 s with targeted 21–25 s refinement, a medium/fine comparison at 24 s, sectional wall loads, and a stationary no-roll baseline.

Detailed pressure cases

The fine 24 s pressure runs publish wall probes, aggregate loads, mesh QA, solver audit, complete-cycle fields, and a tightened Courant-target refinement.

Study curves and report styling
Select published curves
Loading curve controls…

03 · Quantified evidence

Verification and forced-response curves

Absolute and roll-normalized quantities remain separate. The analytical free-decay target is a verification reference, not a forced-response prediction.

Accepted CFDAnalytical verification

04 · Traceable values

Selected-case evidence

Published metrics for the selected reference case
QuantityValueUnit

05 · Interpretation and limits

Engineering use

Supported

First-mode frequency agreement, period-dependent forced-roll response with 21–25 s refinement, normalized cross-case comparisons, aggregate and sectional loads, complete-cycle field evidence, and published numerical QA.

Qualified

The refined pressure case reduced the observed maximum Courant number from 0.478 to 0.326, but still exceeded its tighter configured target of 0.25. The exception remains visible in the QA report.

Not established

Three-dimensional end-wall and local impact effects, response at other fill levels or roll amplitudes, private geometry reconstruction, and vessel-level anti-roll benefit are not claims of this release.

Practical consequence. Use the period sweep to identify the strongest published loading region and the validation fixture to qualify frequency prediction. Do not treat the current aggregate-wall, two-dimensional results as a final design-load or vessel-performance assessment.

06 · Next decision-grade work

Close the remaining evidence gaps

  1. Extend the governing 22–24 second region across fill level and roll amplitude.
  2. Close the residual Courant exceedance below the configured 0.25 target.
  3. Add local impact-resolution where design decisions require peak pressures.
  4. Extend realistic vessel excitation beyond tank-local roll where the application requires combined motion.

Browse every published case · Review the validation fixture · Compare two cases