ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2002

Proceedings of The Twelfth (2002) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference
Kitakyushu, Japan, May 2631, 2002
Copyright 2002 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers
ISBN 1-880653-58-3 (Set); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set)

A Finite-Element Computation for the Sloshing Motion in LNG Tank

J. W. Kim1, Y. S. Shin1 and K. J. Bai2
1
American Bureau of Shipping
16855 Northchase Dr., Houston, TX 77060, USA.

2
Seoul National University
San 56-1, Shinlim Dong, Kwanak Ku, Seoul 151-742, Korea

ABSTRACT emergence of spot market. The FPSO/FSRU and their

A numerical simulation in time domain is made to
calculate the impact pressure due to sloshing motion in a
membrane-type LNG tank. A new finite-element method
based on stream-function theory is developed to resolve
the impact pressure highly localized in space and time.
Emphasis is made to the impact pressure at the low
accompanied by the recent demand for the operation of
LNG carrier in any filling level. Numerical results
show good correlation with the experimental results. The
consequences of the large impact pressure observed at
the low filling level are also discussed.
KEY WORDS: LNG Carrier; Partial filling; Sloshing;
Impact pressure; Finite-element method; Stream-function
theory.
INTRODUCTION
LNG carriers have usually operated with their tank fully
loaded or with a minimum cargo during their ballast
return voyage. The typical filling level of LNG tank is
greater than 95% tank height at the full-load condition
and less than 5% at the ballast condition. After the
accommodation of large chamfer at the top of the tank
and reinforced insulation system at the upper part of the
tank has been made, the current design practice (hull
scantling and insulation system) has been regarded as
safe to the sloshing impact load at these restricted
operational conditions (see, e.g., Tanaka et al., 1984).
Early design of LNG tanks with smaller chamfer and old
insulation system reported a number of minor damages at
the insulation box and utility devices in the tank.
However, no damages have been reported since the
increase of chamfer size and reinforcement of insulation
system.
Recently there has been growing demand for the
operations in all-filling level conditions due to the
shuttle vessels also demand operations in partial loading
cases. The sloshing motion at low filling level is known
to be quite different from that in the high filling level. At
the high filling level, standing waves are observed in the
tank. When the filling level is lower than 20% of the tank
length or width, progressive waves are observed near the
resonant conditions. The new operational condition at
partial filling made us to revisit a number of structural
issues that has been raised by the new pattern of sloshing
load. The first issue is the strength of the insulation
system to the impact load. The hydrodynamic impact
occurs when there is a sudden change in the wetted area
due to the liquid motion in the tank. At the full-load
condition, the ceiling of the tank is the only location
exposed the impact load. At the partial filling level, wide
area on the tank wall is vulnerable to the impact load.
The knuckle points at the upper chamfer may suffer large
impact when the crest of standing wave at the tank wall
reaches them. The impact at the knuckle point is similar
to the slamming impact on a wedge. The transverse and
inner-skin bulkhead will also be exposed to impact from
the progressive waves that are breaking or reflected at the
tank walls. Since the insulation system at the lower part
of the tank is less strengthened than the upper part, more
careful assessment for the impact load at the low filling
level is required. To make things worse, the progressive
wave at the low filling level develops hydraulic jump,
which can be characterized as a surge motion over the
whole liquid depth with stiff wave front, and has larger
momentum and more coherent structure than the standing
waves at the high filling level.
The large impact load at the knuckle point and low filling
level also raises the second issue - the scantling of the
bulkheads of the tank. Increasing the thickness and grade
of the plating and stiffner at the bulkheads may be
necessary to feel comfort from the large impact load at
the low filling. The third issue is the strengthening of the
pump tower in the LNG tank (Tanaka et al., 1984). Pump

A Finite-Element Computation for the Sloshing Motion in LNG Tank 43

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2002
tower is a jacket-type structure that supports discharge
and loading pipes. The large surge motion of the liquid at
the low filling level will induce significant drag force
concentrated at the lower part of the tower. Mild impact
due to the steep wave front is also anticipated.
Reinforcement of the lower part and the mounting system
may be necessary to take care of the sloshing load on the
lower part of the pump tower. For the assessment of the
all these structural issues, correct estimation of the
hydrodynamic pressure and the flow field is very
important.
Besides the hydrodynamic impact, sloshing in LNG tank
involves more complicated physical phenomena. To
name a few, the effect of compressibility and phase
transition during the impact, air entrapment, cushioning
effect due to corrugation, elastic effect of the tank wall,
etc. Also important is the dynamic response of the
structure to the impact load. The dynamic response of the
structural system is known to be sensitive to the ratio
between the duration of the impulse and the longest
natural period of the structure (Abramson et al., 1974).
Due to this complexity, analysis of the sloshing load
relies on model tests. Experiment has usually been done
with the rigid container filled with water, where the
physical phenomena listed above are ignored. To account
for the neglected phenomena, a simple calibration has
been done by comparing the measured peak pressure in
the model test and the estimated collapse pressure from
the previous damage in the LNG carriers (Tanaka et al.,
1984). The calibrated pressure is much lower than the
pressure from similarity law based on the Froude and
Euler scaling. However, the calibration should be done
very carefully when one has to consider a new
operational condition. It is doubtful whether one can use
the same calibration factor that has been used at the high
filling conditions for the sloshing pressure at the low
filling level. The answer should be made after
investigating the difference between the impact pressure
at these different filling levels. Previous theoretical and
experimental study showed that the flow pattern at the
high filling level is that of the standing wave, which is
quite different from the hydraulic jump at the low filling
level case. It is important to find the difference in the
sloshing pressure pattern at these two different situations.
Many theoretical and numerical methods have been
proposed to analyze the flow and pressure pattern in
sloshing problem. Faltinsen (1978), Faltinsen &
Rognebakke (2000), Faltinsen et al (2000) and Faltinsen
& Timokha (2001) used the semi-analytic analysis based
on nonlinear modal analysis and perturbation method.
The finite-difference method has been one of the most
popular numerical method for sloshing problem since the
development of SOLA, VOF and SURF schemes (see
Chan and Street, 1970 and Hirt et al, 1975). Recent
practical application of these scheme can be found in
44 A Finite-Element Computation for the Sloshing Motion in LNG Tank
Mikelis (1984), Arai (1994), and Kim (2000). More
thorough review on the recent theoretical and numerical
work based on the finite-difference scheme can be found
in Faltinsen & Rognebakke (2000) and Faltinsen &
Timokha (2001). Another popular numerical method is
finite-element method. To name a few, Nakayama and
Washizu (1990), Okamoto (1990) and Wu et al. (1998)
applied the finite-element method to sloshing problems.
The theoretical approach has not shown successful
estimation of the impact pressure at the low filling yet.
The earlier work of Verhagen, J.H.G, and van
Wijngaarden (1965), based on shallow-water wave
theory, provides a good estimation of the total sloshing
force at the low filling level. The numerical methods
based on the finite-difference method also have shown
inaccuracies in the conservation of mass and numerical
instability, which made the long-time simulation difficult
(Faltinsen & Timokha, 2001). Some numerical method
also could not capture the impact pressure at the low
filling level because of their artificial numerical damping
and/or compressibility. The numerical damping usually
makes the wave front smoother than the reality, which
results in the loss or weakening of the impact pressure.
The artificial compressibility also introduces numerical
error in pressure and mass conservation when severe
impact occurs.
In this study, we have developed a finite-element code,
SLOFE, to analyze the sloshing pressure in two
dimensions. Emphasis is made on the correct simulation
of the impact pressure at the lower filling level, where
the large impact load due to the hydraulic jump has been
observed. The existing finite-difference codes based on
SOLA-SURF and SOLA-VOF scheme have not been so
successful in predicting this impact pressure at the lower
filling level. The new finite-element method presented
here is based on variational principle in stream-function
formulation. This method satisfies the continuity
equation and the kinematic boundary conditions exactly.
As a result, the conservation of mass and mechanical
energy is exactly satisfied before we introduce numerical
damping to consider the viscous damping empirically.
We also developed a unique scheme to obtain the
impulsive part of the pressure separately without any
numerical differentiation that can introduce numerical
error for short-duration impact pressure. As a result, we
could obtain accurate description of the impact pressure
in spatial and temporal space.
A couple of numerical technique is introduced to handle
the presence of tank top and to allow the dry bottom at
the tank bottom when sloshing motion is severe. The
kinematic condition on the tank top, which can be stated
that the fluid particle cannot not move above the tank
top, is replaced by a dynamic condition by introducing
penalty pressure to suppress the fluid particle from
moving above the top. The penalty pressure is also
 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2002

exerted when the thickness of the liquid layer is smaller Then the governing equation in the fluid domain is given
than a threshold thickness to prevent the numerical by
scheme from being unstable due to the dry bottom or the
zero thickness of the liquid layer. 2 = 2 in D . (2)

To validate the present numerical scheme, the model test On the tank wall, SW, no mass flux is allowed
performed by Abramson et al. (1974) is simulated. The
impact pressure at the knuckle points at the upper and
= 0 on SW (3)
lower chamfer agreed well with the model test. The
spatial and temporal pattern of the impact pressure at the
four different filling levels is compared. To measure the On the free surface, SF, the evolution of two canonical
effective area of the sloshing pressure, we introduced the variables (Miles, 1977), the free surface (x, t ) and the
idea of panel pressure. It has been found that the impact free-surface potential (x, t ) , is governed by
pressure at the low filling level has more effective area
than the one at the high filling level. The consequence of

this difference in the high- and low filling level is also = on S F (4)
discussed. t x

)( )
MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION 1
+ 2x 2x + 2 x x x
( 2
t 2 1 + x
(5)
2 pf
y xx+gx+ Ax = on S F .
x 2

(t) where (x, t ) (x, , t ) . Here p f (x, t ) is the forcing

o pressure on the free surface, which will be specified later,
g = (g sin , g cos ) and A = R&r& , where the trans-
Y
formation matrix R is defined by
r(t)
cos sin
R = .
sin cos
O X
The boundary condition for on the free surface is
Fig. 1 Coordinate system given by

We consider the irrotational motion of an

imcompressible fluid in a tank with a given motion. The
inertial fixed coordinate system is denoted by OXY. A
moving coordinate system oxy is also introduced, where
the origin o denotes the center of rotation. If we define
the displacement vector Oo as r(t) and the angle between
OX and ox as (t), the fluid motion observed in the tank-
fixed coordinate system is a rotational motion with the
uniform vorticity of 2, where = & (t ) is the angular
velocity of the tank. Since the fluid is incompressible and
the rigid-body rotation is also volume-conserving, the
velocity field in the moving coordinate system can be
given by a stream function, i.e.,
= + x on S F , (6)
n x x
which gives the relation between the canonical variable
and the stream function together with the
governing equation given in Eq. (2).
Once the velocity field is obtained, the pressure in the
fluid domain can be obtained by solving a Laplace
equation for the impulsive pressure p i (x, y, t ) . The
pressure is decomposed into regular pressure and
impulsive pressure as

2 1 2
u= , v= (1) p(x, y, t ) pi (x, y, t ) g x + A x x x +
y x 2 2

(7)

A Finite-Element Computation for the Sloshing Motion in LNG Tank 45

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2002

Then the impulsive pressure p i (x, y, t ) is governed by coefficients and will also be determined empirically.

On the tank bottom, we prevent the numerical instability

2 p i = 0 in D (8)
due to dry bottom by introducing a constraint force to
maintain the thickness of the fluid on the bottom at the
As the boundary condition for the impulsive pressure, a
minimal value, , for numerical stability.
Neumann-type condition is imposed on the tank wall and
a Dirichlet-type condition is imposed on the free surface:

( *
bottom +
pf =

t
, ) < bottom *
(13)
pi & n ( y, x ) on S
= W (9) 0, > tbottom *
n

2 1 2
Here bottom * = h + and will be determined
p i (x, y, t ) = p f + g x + A x x x + on S F
2 2 empirically.

(10) FINITE-ELEMENT METHOD
The governing equations for the impact pressure, Eqs. Variational Formulation
(7)~(10), can easily be derived by integrating the Euler
equations of the liquid. The initial/boundary value problem given in the previous
section can be equivalently formulated as a variational
MODELING OF TANK TOP AND BOTTOM problem to make the following functional stationary.
We assumed that the tank surface is rigid. When the
surface elevation is high enough, it can hit the tank top

L = +
2
(
+ 4 + 2 r dxdy
t x 2
2
)
but it cannot go over the tank top. The constraint on the
tank top can be given as the following inequality: (
g + Ay 2 )
Ax x + x +
2 x
top (11)
(14)
The above kinematic condition is not a convenient form
for numerical modeling. Instead, we introduce an Here, Ax and Ay denote the x and y component of the tank
equivalent dynamic condition. When the free surface hit acceleration A. The variational formulation given here
the ceiling, an impact pressure is exerted on the fluid can be obtained from the on given in Kim et al. (2001),
surface. This pressure can be interpreted as the constraint by generalizing the formulation to the rotational
force to satisfy the inequality (11). As a result, we can coordinate system.
satisfy the inequality by introducing a additional pressure
(or Lagrange multiplier) on the free surface. This Finite-Element Discretization
approach, however, also introduces numerical difficulty
with additional unknowns. One of the practical ways to The stream function (x, y, t ) is interpolated by a
enforce this kind of constraint in structural analysis is the bilinear finite-element interpolation function. The surface
use of contact spring, which is a stiff spring only elevation (x, t ) and the velocity potential (x, t ) are
triggered on when the free surface is close to the tank
interpolated by linear interpolation functions:
wall. The rigid ceiling is replaced by a spring-damper
system, with sufficiently high stiffness to allow Ne
deformation within an admissible range. We also
introduce damping to suppress the short numerical waves
( x, y , t ) = (t )N (x, y )
i =1
i i (15)
due to the high stiffness of the ceiling. Then the
additional penalty pressure is given by Nx
(x, t ) = i (t )M i (x ) (16)

( *
top +
pf =
)
t
, > top *
(12)
i =1

0, < top * Nx
(x, t ) = i (t )M i (x ) (17)
i =1

Here top * = top and is a small number which will

where Nx and Ny are number of nodes in x and y
be determined empirically. The spring and damping directions, respectively, and Ne = NxNy is the total

46 A Finite-Element Computation for the Sloshing Motion in LNG Tank

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2002

number of nodes. Substituting the Eqs. (15)~(17) into Eq. Table 1 Input parameters for sloshing simulations for
(14), and taking variations with respect to the variables various filling levels
i (t ), i (t ) and i (t ) , we can obtain ordinary differential
equations for i (t ), i (t ) and algebraic equation for Case A Case B Case C Case D
i (t ) . The Runge-Kutta 4th order method is used to
d/b 0.12 0.20 0.40 0.71
integrate the ordinary differential equations. The details
of the procedure are quite similar to the one given in Kim d/h 0.16 0.27 0.54 0.96
& Bai (2000).
A/b 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
NUMERICAL RESULTS
/ g 82 82 82 82
A two-dimensional prismatic tank that has been used by
Abramson et al. (1974) for their model test is used for the
numerical simulation. The sketch of the geometry is / gh 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1
given in Fig. 2. The dimensions of the tank are given by
b = 1.38m, h = 1.02m, hu = 0.295m, hl = 0.14m / gb2 3.14 x 10-4 3.14 x 10-4 3.14 x 10-4 2.00 x 10-5
and u = b = 135o.
/h 2.35 x 10-4 2.35 x 10-4 2.35 x 10-4 2.35 x 10-4

/h 2.5 x 10-3 2.5 x 10-3 2.5 x 10-3 2.5 x 10-3

hu
bf Nx x Ny 100 x 10 100 x 10 100 x 20 200 x 20
P2 u
h t g / h .003 .003 .003 .003
b d

P1
hl b Fig. 3 shows the comparison of the impact pressure with
Fig. 2 Definition sketch of a two-dimensional LNG tank
The tank is excited by a regular harmonic sway motion:
2t
r (t ) = A sin ,0 ,
T the experiment. The impact pressure at the knuckle point
where A is the sway amplitude and T is the period of the
motion.
Numerical simulation has been performed for the four
filling levels given in Table 1. The sway amplitude is
given as 10% of the breadth of the tank, which
corresponds to a realistic extreme sway motion of a ship
(Abramson et al., 1974). The other input parameters used
in the numerical simulation are also given in Table 1.
The parameters , and are determined by calibrating
the impact pressure from the model tests.
model test results for Case A. Abramson et al. (1974)
reported that the peak values of the impact pressure are
random. The experimental values in Fig. 3 are the 10%
exceedance limit of the peak values they provided.
However, the calculated pressure shows periodic pattern
after a few transient periods, as can be seen in Fig. 4.
This is presumably due to the three-dimensional effect in
in intermediate filling level (Case C) is given in Fig. 5.
The maximum pressure in the SLOFE result occurred at
slightly shorter excitation period than the model test. The
theoretical result of Faltinsen and Rognebakke (2000)
shows significantly lower values than the experiment and
SLOFE result. Fig. 6 shows the time history of impact
pressure when T = 1.6 sec. In general, the present
numerical scheme predicts the magnitude of the impact
pressure quite well.

A Finite-Element Computation for the Sloshing Motion in LNG Tank 47

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2002

2.5 P/gb SLOFE 6 P/gb SLOFE

Model Test Cases Faltinsen and Rognebakke
Fresh Water (2000)
2 63% Glycerol/Water 5 Model Test Cases
85% Glycerol/Water Fresh Water
Reginol Oil 63% Glycerol/Water
4 85% Glycerol/Water
1.5
Reginol Oil
3
1
2
0.5
1
0 0
1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6
T (sec) 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2
T (sec)
Fig. 3 The maximum value of impact pressure at P1. Fig. 5 The maximum value of impact pressure at P2.
d/b = 0.12, A/b = 0.1. The model test results d/b = 0.40, A/b = 0.1. The model test results
are taken from Abramson et al. (1974) are taken from Abramson et al. (1974)
3 5

4
2
3
p/gb

p/gb

2
1

0
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
0 2 4 6 8 10
t/T
Fig. 4 Time history of impact pressure at P1. t/T
d/b = 0.12, A/b = 0.1, T = 1.85 sec. Fig. 6 Time history of impact pressure at P2.
d/b = 0.12, A/b = 0.1, T = 1.6 sec.

In Fig. 7 through 10, the snapshots of the sloshing

motion, including the sloshing wave and pressure
distribution in the tank and tank walls, are shown for
each cases simulated. At the low filling level (Case A
and B), we can observe hydraulic jump that runs up to
the upper chamfer. Large impact pressure occurs when
the wave front of the hydraulic jump hits and runs up the
tank wall. A sharp peak of the pressure is formed due to
the large acceleration of the liquid run up at the wall.
This is similar to the peak pressure due to jet spray
observed in the slamming of a wedge. At the
intermediate filling level (Case C in Fig. 9), the free
surface shape looks similar to the hydraulic jump at the
low filling level with milder wave front. No impact
pressure has been observed at the bulkhead. Impact
occurred when the liquid hit the upper chamfer. At the
high filling level, Case D in Fig. 10, impact occurs near
the upper corner of the tank. The peak of the impact
pressure is more localized than the low filling cases.

Fig. 7 Pressure distribution in the fluid domain and on the tank

walls for Case A. Pmax denotes the maximum value of p/gb on
the tank wall.

48 A Finite-Element Computation for the Sloshing Motion in LNG Tank

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2002

Fig. 8 Pressure distribution in the fluid domain and on the tank Fig.10 Pressure distribution in the fluid domain and on the tank
walls for Case B. Pmax denotes the maximum value of p/gb on walls for Case D. Pmax denotes the maximum value of p/gb on
the tank wall. the tank wall

The influence of the impact load to the structural system

depends on both the spatial and temporal pattern of the
load. Evenly distributed load has more influence than the
concentrated load if they have the same amplitude. The
ratio between the duration of the impact load and the
natural frequency of the structure determines the
dynamic behavior of the structural response (Abramson
et al, 1974). To quantify the spatial effectiveness of the
impact load, we introduced panel pressure.

We subdivide the tank surface by a number of panels as

shown in Fig. 11. The spacing of the panels is determined
from the typical spacing of stringers or girders. Two
quantities are defined at each panel. The maximum panel
pressure is defined as the maximum value of the impact
pressure on a panel at a moment. The average panel
pressure is defined as the instantaneous average impact
pressure, which is more meaningful value for the input to
the structural analysis since the scantling of bulkhead
plating and stiffner is usually made with the uniformly
distributed load over the panel.

Fig. 9 Pressure distribution in the fluid domain and on the tank We compare two pressures to show the spatial
walls for Case C. Pmax denotes the maximum value of p/gb on distribution of the impact load. Fig. 12 shows the time
the tank wall history of the maximum and average panel pressure at
the four different filling level. As we expected, the ratio

A Finite-Element Computation for the Sloshing Motion in LNG Tank 49

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2002

of the average panel pressure to the maximum panel 8

Max. panel pressure
pressure at the low filling level is greater than the ratio at Avg. panel pressure

the high filling level. The ratio is higher than 0.5 for Case 6
B, where the impact pressure on the bulkhead is most

p/gb
significant. At high filling level, Case D, the ratio is 4
about 0.2. This is because the peak of the impact load is
highly localized at this filling level as can be seen in Fig.
2
10. This clearly shows that the impact pressure at the low
filling level has wider effective area than the one at the
high filling level. 0

0 2 4 6 8 10
As mentioned in the introduction, the calibration of the t/T
pressure from the model test or simulation has been made (a) Case A, T = 1.85 sec
based on collapse pressure of the insulation box at the
high filling level. The collapse of the insulation box 8 Max. panel pressure
Avg. panel pressure
should depend on the total load on a finite area of
insulation system. The calibration factor at the high 6
filling level may not be valid for the low filling level case

p/gb
where the impact load has wider effective area as shown 4
in the present numerical simulation. In addition, the angle
between the wave front of and the tank wall was usually
2
greater than 15 degree at the low filling level (see Fig. 7
and 8). This indicates that the air entrapment is less likely
0
to happen at the low filling level, which may provide
another reason for the calibration factor to be different 0 2 4 6 8 10
t/T
from the one at high filling level.
(b) Case B, T = 1.6 sec

8
Max. panel pressure
Avg. panel pressure

6
p/gb

0 2 4 6 8 10
t/T
Fig. 11 Panels to evaluate panel pressure
(c) Case C, T = 1.6 sec

8
Max. panel pressure
Avg. panel pressure

6
p/gb

0 2 4 6 8 10
t/T
(d) Case D, T = 0.87 sec

Fig.12 Time history of the maximum and average panel

pressure.

50 A Finite-Element Computation for the Sloshing Motion in LNG Tank

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2002
CONCLUSIONS
A new numerical method is developed for sloshing
analysis of LNG tanks. Emphasis is made on the impact
pressure at the low filling conditions. The new method is
based on streamfunction theory and satisfies the
continuity equation exactly without any introduction of
artificial or numerical compressibility. The pressure is
calculated from the Laplace equation for the impulsive
pressure. The numerical method provides accurate, peak
preserving impact pressure at the low filling level, where
the impact by hydraulic jump dominates the pressure
pattern at the wall. The comparison with experimental
value shows a good correlation between the impact load
from our method and experiments. It has been found that
the impact load on the bulkhead is maximum at the low
filling level (20% of tank width). It has also been found
that the spatial and temporal pattern of the impact
pressure at the low filling is quite different from the high
filling case. The wider effective area of the impact
pressure at the low filling level indicates that the
calibration of the impact pressure should be made more
carefully for the strength of the insulation system and
bulkheads. Extension of the present numerical method to
the three dimensions is straightforward and is under
pursuing for more realistic analysis of the sloshing
pressure around the corner of the tank.
REFERENCES
Abramson, H. N., Bass, R. L., Faltinsen, O. M. and Olsen,
H. A. 1974 Liquid Slosh in LNG Carriers, 10th Symp. On
Naval Hydrodynamics, June 24-28, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, pp. 371-388.
Arai, M., Cheng, L. Y. and Inoue, Y. 1994 3-D numerical
simulation of impact load due to liquid cargo sloshing.
Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan, vol.
171.
Chan, K.C. and Street, R.L. 1970 SUMMAC - A
numerical model for water waves. Stanford University,
Report 135
Faltinsen, O.M. 1990 Sea Loads on Ships and Offshore
Structures, Cambridge University Press.
Faltinsen, O. M. 1978 A numerical non-linear method of
sloshing in tanks with two-dimensional flow: Journal of
Ship Research, vol. 18.
Faltinsen, O. M. and Rognebakke O. F. 2000 Sloshing,
Int. Conf. on Ship and Shipping Research - NAV,
Venice, Italy.
A Finite-Element Computation for the Sloshing Motion in LNG Tank
Faltinsen, O.M., Rognebakke, O.F., Lukovsky, I.A.,
Timokha, A.N. 2000 Multidimensional Modal Analysis
of Nonlinear Sloshing in a Rectangular Tank with Finite
Water Depth, J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 407, pp. 201-234.
Faltinsen, O. M. and Timokha, A. N. 2001 An Adaptive
Multimodal Approach to Nonlinear Sloshing in a
Rectangular Tank, J. Fluid Mech., vol. 432, pp. 167-200.
Hirt, C.W., Nicholas, B.D. and Romero, N.C. 1975
SOLA - A numerical solution algorithm for transient
fluid flows. Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Report
LA 5852
Kim, J. W. and Bai, K. J. 1999 A Finite-Element
Method for Two-Dimensional Water Wave Problems,
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids,
Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 105-121.
Kim, J. W., Bai, K. J., Ertekin, R. C. and Webster, W. C.
2001 A Derivation of Green-Naghdi Equation for
Irrotational Flows, Journal of Engineering
Mathematics, Vol. 40, Issue 1, pp. 17-34.
Kim, Y. 2000 Numerical simulation of sloshing flows
with impact load, Applied ocean Research, vol. 23
Mikelis, N. E. 1984 Sloshing in partially filled liquid
tanks and its effect on ship motions: Numerical
simulations and experimental verification. RINA Spring
meeting, London
Tanaka, T. et al 1984 Estimation of Impact Pressure and
Hydrodynamic Force due to Sloshing in LNG Carrier,
Nippon Kokan Technical Report, Overseas No. 42.
Verhagen, J.H.G and van Wijngaarden, L. 1965
Nonlinear Oscillations of Fluid in a Container, J. Fluid
Mech., Vol. 22, Part. 4.
Wu, G. X., Ma, Q. W. AND Taylor, R. E 1998
Numerical simulation of sloshing waves in a 3D tank
based on a finite element method. Applied Ocean
Research, vol. 20
Zhao, R., and Faltinsen, O.M. 1993 Water Entry of Two-
Dimensional Bodies, J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 246, pp. 593-
612.
51