4.7 Article

A Numerical Analysis of Dynamic Slosh Dampening Utilising Perforated Partitions in Partially-Filled Rectangular Tanks

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jmse10020254

关键词

sloshing; pendulum oscillation; rectangular tank; CFD; NITA; VOF

资金

  1. Malta Marittima and Transport Malta via the `DeSloSH' project supported through the Maritime Seed Award 2020
  2. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, VENTuRE [856887]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conventional LNG cargo vessels face tank-fill limitations which restrict commercial operations. This study uses computational fluid dynamics to analyze the sloshing dynamics of partially-filled chamfered rectangular tanks. The findings show that the use of partition barriers reduces impact in a specific fill-range.
Conventional liquefied natural gas (LNG) cargo vessels are imposed with tank-fill limitations as precautions to prevent structural damage and stability-loss due to high-impact sloshing, enforcing cargo volume-fills to be lower than 10% or higher than 70% of the tank height. The restrictions, however, limit commercial operations, specifically when handling spot trades and offshore loading/unloading at multiple ports along a shipping route. The study puts forward a computational fluid dynamic (CFD) sloshing analysis of partially-filled chamfered rectangular tanks undergoing sinusoidal oscillatory kinetics with the use of the explicit volume-of-fluid and non-iterative time-advancement schemes. Establishing a 20% to 60% fill-range, the sloshing dynamics were acknowledged within an open-bore, partitioned, and perforated-partitioned tank when oscillating at frequencies of 0.5 Hz and 1 Hz. The overall torque and static pressure induced on the tank walls were investigated. High-impact slamming at the tank roof occurred at 40% and 60% fills, however, the implementation of the partition and perforated-partition barriers successfully reduced the impact due to suppression and dissipation of the wave dynamics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据