2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.apor.2014.06.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Numerical simulation of 2D sloshing waves using SPH with diffusive terms

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

1
8
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
1
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The dimensions of the fluid domain in the tank are [D × H], and the motion of the tank is represented using the first‐order linear wave theory, as follows: x(t)goodbreak=Acos()ωnt$$ x(t)=A\cos \left({\omega}_nt\right) $$ ωn2goodbreak=|g|kntanh()knH$$ {\omega}_n^2=\mid g\mid {k}_n\tanh \left({k}_nH\right) $$ where normalA$$ \mathrm{A} $$ is the amplitude, ωn$$ {\upomega}_{\mathrm{n}} $$ is the angular frequency, g$$ g $$ is the gravitational acceleration, kn$$ {k}_n $$ is the wave number, H$$ H $$ is the initial wave depth inside the tank, and n$$ n $$ is the free surface mode. The amplitude and frequency are 0.03D and ω1$$ {\upomega}_1 $$, as in 47 . Same with their study, the initial The LSPH and ELSPH results are compared to the finite element method (FEM) solution 47 in Figure 21.…”
Section: Benchmark Simulationsmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The dimensions of the fluid domain in the tank are [D × H], and the motion of the tank is represented using the first‐order linear wave theory, as follows: x(t)goodbreak=Acos()ωnt$$ x(t)=A\cos \left({\omega}_nt\right) $$ ωn2goodbreak=|g|kntanh()knH$$ {\omega}_n^2=\mid g\mid {k}_n\tanh \left({k}_nH\right) $$ where normalA$$ \mathrm{A} $$ is the amplitude, ωn$$ {\upomega}_{\mathrm{n}} $$ is the angular frequency, g$$ g $$ is the gravitational acceleration, kn$$ {k}_n $$ is the wave number, H$$ H $$ is the initial wave depth inside the tank, and n$$ n $$ is the free surface mode. The amplitude and frequency are 0.03D and ω1$$ {\upomega}_1 $$, as in 47 . Same with their study, the initial The LSPH and ELSPH results are compared to the finite element method (FEM) solution 47 in Figure 21.…”
Section: Benchmark Simulationsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The amplitude and frequency are 0.03D and ω1$$ {\upomega}_1 $$, as in 47 . Same with their study, the initial The LSPH and ELSPH results are compared to the finite element method (FEM) solution 47 in Figure 21.…”
Section: Benchmark Simulationsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The δ-SPH is a robust, accurate and reliable method in solving several hydrodynamic problems, (see e.g. Antuono et al [2,6], Meringolo et al [45], Zhang et al [43], Sun et al [32], Green and Peiró [65], De Chowdhury and Sannasiraj [61], Zhang et al [63]). Nevertheless, there are still some drawbacks that limit its application in some areas where traditional CFD methods perform well, such as the modelling of shear flows at high Reynolds numbers, vortical flow evolutions characterized by large negative pressure values or viscous flows inside confined domains.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Chao et al simulate the phenomenon of sloshing with rectangular tanks to find the optimum kernel [1]. De Chowdhury and Sannasiraj use SPH with rectangular tanks using diffusive terms to reduce pressure oscillation [2], Servan-Camas et al simulate the phenomenon of sloshing employing coupled SPH-FEM using the time-domain method [3], Longshaw and Rogers use SPH to simulate the sloshing of fuel tanks with DualSPHysics [4], Green has used Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) in long-duration simulation at a small filling ratio in 2D with high stretching [5], The applications of SPH in sloshing are carried out by Landrini et al [6] and Chen et al [7] to predict impact pressure in the tanks s sidewall. Recently Trimulyono et.al [8] were used SPH for experimental validation using prismatic tank both 2D and 3D.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%