Marine Structures 12 (1999) 183}198

Liquid sloshing in ship tanks: a comparative study

of numerical simulation
Alain Cariou!,*, Guido Casella"
!Institut de Recherches de la Construction Navale, 1 rue de la Noe( } BP 72108-44321 Nantes cedex 3, France
"Registro Italiano Navale, 16128 Genova, Italy
Received 29 January 1999; received in revised form 1 May 1999; accepted 10 May 1999

Abstract

A programme of calculations and the main conclusions of the comparisons of the results from
a signi"cant sample of 11 of today's codes for numerical simulation of liquid sloshing in ship
tanks are presented. This study contributes to the assessment of the state-of-the-art of such
simulations. The characteristics of the codes are summarized. The programme of comparative
calculations includes one 2D simple case and one 3D engineering case. This comparison
con"rms that non-impulsive phenomena are correctly simulated but impacts are still far more
di$cult to assess and need improvements. ( 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

As a preliminary step, it is useful to recall the basis for today's interests in the
evaluation of liquid sloshing loads in tanks of ships as they are presented in 1997 ISSC
report [1]. Recent development and activity in the "eld of the evaluation of sloshing
loads is supported and motivated to a large extent by the following industrial
events:

f An increasing demand for middle sized vessels such as LNG carriers and double-
hull tankers. Ship motions of these small vessels tend to be relatively large in
comparison with those of large vessels making sloshing an even more important
subject to be studied [2}5].

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 0033-2-40145024; fax: 0033-2-40143400.

E-mail address: a.cariou@ircn.asso.fr (A. Cariou)

0951-8339/99/$ - see front matter ( 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 5 1 - 8 3 3 9 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 2 6 - X
184 A. Cariou, G. Casella / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 183}198

f An increasing demand of moored FSO (#oating storage o! loading unit) tankers

which may not avoid the most severe sea states and may consequently experience
severe sloshing loads and fatigue [6,10].
f A tendency to increase the capacity of large LNG tankers and to reduce the number
of their tanks which results in larger tanks with larger natural periods of sloshing
and consequently can make #uid motions in tanks more sensitive to sea waves
excitations [7]. This characteristic of large wide tanks also holds for double hull
VLCCs [8] which adds the possible loss of partial compensation of internal and
external pressure on tank walls as mentioned in Francescutto et al. [9].
f An increasing sensitivity to safety are reliability aspects in ship design which
includes the loss of stability, static and dynamic, and the structure integrity
problems related to the behaviour of #uid with free surface inside tanks and
compartments [9].

The structural elements concerned by the sloshing loads are the walls of the tanks
but also their internal structures, if any, such as sti!eners [8] and equipment like LNG
pump towers [8]. Two types of loads criteria are considered: the usual detection of
overloading by extreme maximum loads and the fatigue analysis [6,10].
As experiments, numerical analysis and design procedures are the usual tools
available to designers and scientists for assessing sloshing e!ects. They are the subjects
of the three main items in the contribution to the 1997 ISSC report. In order to
diversify the methods of investigation of the state-of-the-art of numerical analysis in
this speci"c domain, it was decided to complete the classical literature review by
comparative calculations from di!erent codes.
These calculations are the main focus of the present paper which is an extended
version of the description included in the ISSC report. Though it was initially
attempted to compare also, and at least partially, with existing model scale and/or full
scale measurements, only numerical results are compared due to a lack of availability
of such experimental data for the speci"c needs of this study, in particular for
publication purposes (proprietary and con"dentiality aspects).
The comparative study was split into three phases: a preliminary one for identifying
the codes and two calculation phases, the "rst of which was dedicated to a 2D case
with a very simple tank geometry in favour of a largest participation at low cost and
low di$culty and also in order to facilitate a more precise analysis, the second one was
dedicated to realistic 3D engineering case in order to test state-of-the-art possibilities.
In the following, the programme and results of these comparisons are described and
commented upon in a phase-by-phase sequence.

2. Preliminary phase: identi5cation of codes

In this phase, the objective was to collect the data of the basic characteristics of the
participating codes in order to be able to make the comparisons of the calculations
results more meaningful. To this purpose an information form was "lled in by the 12
participants. In Table 1 an overall summary of the results of this enquiry is given.
 A. Cariou, G. Casella / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 183}198 185

Table 1
Summary of main characteristics of codes participating in the comparative study

Contributions for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Domains:
Space : 2D X X X X X X X X X
Space : 3D X X X X X X
Time domain X X X X X X X X X X X X
Frequency domain
Viscosity:
Viscous #ow X X X X X X X X
Boundary layer X X X
Laminar #ow X X X X X X X
Turbulent #ow X X X
Inviscid #ow X X X X
Potential #ow X
Euler equations X
Compressibility:
Fully compressible
Slightly X X X X
compressible
Incompressible X X X X X X X X X
Impact:
Speci"c treatment X X X X X
Free surface
conditions:
Exact fully non- X X X X
linear
VOF type X X X X X X
SURF type X X X
MAC type X
Adaptive mesh X
Walls conditions:
Free slip X X X X X X
No slip X X X X X
Neumann (or X X X
normal velocity
"0)
Image type X X
Gradient of X
tangential
velocity"0
Wall function X X X
Flexible wall X
Gas:
Full dynamic #ow X
model
Numerical methods:
Finite di!erence X X X X X X
Finite volume X X X X X
Integral equations X
(BEM)

X N the possibility was mentioned to exist; blank N the possibility was mentioned not to exist or was
not mentioned.
186 A. Cariou, G. Casella / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 183}198

The di!erent questions tackled a selection of the most relevant physical phenomena
for sloshing, the ways they are theoretically formulated and numerically treated. The
analysis of the results leads to select several items.
The very xrst item concerns the time and space domain considered. It appeared that,
out of the 12 participating codes, nine were equipped with a 2D formulation and six
with a 3D one. An important proportion of 3D formulations is observed and such a
progression shows that the need is felt for a better insight in more realistic cases. It is
also noticeable that three of these 3D codes had no 2D option mentioned, so they are
supposed to make 3D approximations to simulate 2D cases.
Another noteworthy point is that no frequency domain formulation were proposed
by the participants. This is interpreted by the di$culty to simulate, with these
methods, the non-linear cases such as proposed in the programme of comparisons.
This progression of 3D methods is noticeable since the "rst approaches of sloshing
were mainly based on frequency-domain formulation and since regulatory approxi-
mations of natural frequencies are still based on them (see Section 3.2).
The second item concerns the way the viscosity is or is not, accounted for. A majority
of answers, 8 out of 12, mentioned a Navier}Stokes formulation for solving the viscous
#ow. Four used an inviscid #ow and only one had both options with an Euler equations
solver for the inviscid case so permitting rotationality and vorticity, which looks sound
for highly non-linear and tumultuous #ows and is less resources consuming, so the
participant's choice was to use this last option to perform the tests. Only one potential
#ow was mentioned, it will be commented in the last item for numerical methods.
With only one exception Navier}Stokes solvers have a laminar #ow option. Only
three out of them have a turbulent #ow option with the following turbulent models
mentioned: Baldwin}Lomax, K}e, Renormalised Group K}e, K}u, Gorski model
(wall region), Reynolds stress model, Subgrid scale model.
So the physics of viscous e!ects is not quite realistically simulated especially at real
scale for violent motions and also near the walls (despite that a few boundary layer
models are available). This is in progress with the development of turbulent models
though the imprecision in calculating these phenomena might be of minor in#uence
compared to the e!ects of numerical viscosity in many cases and as suspected from the
tests results.
The third item concerns the compressibility. No complete formulation of compres-
sible #ow and only four slightly compressible formulation were mentioned. Slight
compressibility is allowed through the following relation:
L p#oC2+ ) <o "0
t
which is derived from the expression of the mass conservation by assuming that the
state law of the pressure p is: p"oC2 where C is the speed of sound in the #uid and its
mass density o is considered as being nearly uniform (+od0). But most of the codes,
9 over 12, used an incompressible #ow formulation.
The fourth item concerns the specixc treatment of impact pressure. As #uid impact is
generally extremely localized in space and time and represents an abrupt change in
boundary conditions, the numeral space grid and the time step are often too coarse to
capture the exact peak pressure values and special treatment is applied in the area of
 A. Cariou, G. Casella / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 183}198 187

the impact. Five such speci"c treatment were mentioned. Two types must be distin-
guished:

f The "rst one is a kind of post-treatment of the results of the simulation. It gives the
extra pressure (dp) due to the impact itself as a function of the velocity (<) near the
impact point just before the instant of impact. Its general expression is
dp"Ko< or koC<,
where k is a function of the time step and of the mesh size of the space grid. The use
of such a formula does not interfere with the overall #ow calculation.
f In contrast the second type is embedded in the numerical method. It is based on the
interposition of a thin grid layer between the wall and the impacting #uid. In this
so-called bu!er zone, the variation of the free surface velocity is smoothed and so
provides an arti"cial cushioning e!ect which is purely numerical and does not
follow the physics but was said to be needed for damping the too high level of
impact pressures given by 2D methods.

Another method of providing such a cushioning e!ect but in a more realistic way,
from physical considerations, is to account for the #exibility of walls: this will be
mentioned in the wall conditions item.
This bu!er zone was also mentioned to be associated with a time-averaging concept
for impact pressure,
The xfth item concerns the free surface conditons: Due to the possibility of complex
behaviour of the free surface all the methods mentioned are di!erent numerical
approximation techniques for the exact fully non-linear conditions. They are based on
three main approaches:

f The height function method which is an Eulerian concept as in the SURF scheme
or in the adaptive grid method. Such schemes are potentially able to deal with a
uniform representation of large free surface waves, i.e. up to overturning inception.
f The marker method which is a Lagrangian concept such as the famous marker and
cell (MAC) method or such schemes coupled to boundary element method (BEM)
with moving boundaries. This type of method is potentially able to handle over-
turning waves up to reentry inception with a simple logic.
f The volume of #uid (VOF) method which tracks the volume occupied by the #uid
rather than the free surface itself and in doing so uses a kind of rate of presence
of the #uid in the cells of an Eulerian grid. This is very simple logic for tackling
complex free surface shapes including overturning and re-entry but the position of
the free surface, inside the cells through which it goes, is not directly known and
needs some adaptations to be appreciated. Six of the participating codes used this
type of method which is a majority.

The sixth item was devoted to the other boundary condition: the walls condition. For
the inviscid #ows, whether potential or rotational, the condition for the non-porous
walls was classically the free slip (or Newmann) condition. For the viscous #ows, the
188 A. Cariou, G. Casella / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 183}198

Navier}Stokes equations need one more condition, and two main possibilities were
present among the answers:

f The free slip condition plus a null gradient condition of tangential velocity which is
numerically approximated in two ways: a direct method or an image-type method
which assumes local symmetry of #ow near the walls with an hypothetic #ow
outside the wall. One of these type of conditions had also a #exible wall approxima-
tion option available which basically means that the normal velocity of the wall
itself is not a zero constant.
f The classical no slip condition instead of the free slip one. The possibility of
coupling it with a wall function was mentioned three times and three boundary
layers options were already pointed out in the second item.

The seventh item concerns the way the ullage gas is taken into account. Five answers
stated that the gas was not taken into account, four others were more precise and
declared that the gas was merely simulated by a constant and uniform pressure over
the free surface, another one mentioned a quasi-static perfect gas law, one slightly
compressible gas formulation was also present, and "nally only one complete formu-
lation of multiphase #ow with a compressible gas was declared.
The eighth item concerns the basic numerical method used to discretize and solve the
equations of the overall #ow in the volume of the #uid. The enquiry gave the following
global result: six "nite di!erence methods (FDM), "ve "nite volume methods (FVM),
and only one boundary element method (BEM).
The only BEM solved a potential #ow problem by integral equations and these two
speci"c features made it interesting for comparison purposes despite the fact that the
method was not able to cope with impacts and was not even designed for such events.
All the FVM methods treated the free surface with a VOF technique, which is a
quite natural coupling, and only one FDM did so.
As to the time-integration methods, six were declared to be explicit including one
fourth-order Runge}Kutta algorithm, two were implicit, one semi-implicit, one impli-
cit for pressure determination but explicit for velocities.
For the space grids, they were cartesian or curvilinear, with constant or variable
steps, body "tted or not, multiblock or not, structured or not, staggered or not.
The main overall conclusion of this preliminary phase was that the 12 participating
codes could be considered as a representative sample of the today state of art with a
good variety of diversi"ed methods. Unfortunately, for unexpected reasons, and other
than technical ones, participant no. 12 could not go on with the calculation phases.

3. First calculation phase: simple case

3.1. Main objectives and consequent comparison method

An important aim was to facilitate participation of most existing codes and enable
the organizers to produce a meaningful interpretation of the comparisons. So it was
 A. Cariou, G. Casella / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 183}198 189

decided to de"ne a very simple case suitable for a 2D approach at a low overall cost
and low di$culty with a limitation of the input parameters and of the coupled e!ects
on the results.
In order to facilitate meaningful comparisons and to satisfy our main topic which
was to get insight in the validity of numerical simulation of resonant sloshing
e!ect, the output to be compared was limited to the free surface deformation at
selected instants and to the time histories at a few selected "ctituous probes location
on the walls. Furthermore, the main excitations were monoharmonic periodic
motions of only one degree of freedom at the natural period and resulting in a 2D
response.
The selected instantaneous free surface elevation throughout the tanks were con-
sidered as the simplest signi"cant characteristic for comparison of the global behav-
iour of the liquid. The pressure time traces at selected location were considered as the
simplest signi"cant characteristics for comparison of impacts and local e!ects. As
scale e!ects were to be checked a real scale case and a model scale case were also
considered.
We had also in mind to compare the results in both situations of `quieta motions
and `violenta motions on one hand and to investigate two "lling levels (60 and 20%)
on the other hand. In order to avoid an excessive number of cases the largest
excitation case was coupled with the lowest "lling level and the smallest excitation
case was coupled with the highest "lling level.
In addition to these 2D harmonic tests, two optional tests were proposed:

f A coupled two harmonic degrees of freedom test resulting in a 3D excitation in the

expectation of getting some insight into 3D e!ects and coupling.
f A decay test at small excitation in order to get some insight into damping in a small
linear motions situation.

The objective of the study was not to perform a pure benchmark between a few codes
of the same type but to obtain a signi"cant idea of the extent of possible scattering in
the results from both a variety of type of codes (methods) and a large variety of
resources and know-how to handle them. So, the time steps and grid sizes were left
totally free to the best choice of the participants and were not controlled by the
organizers.

3.2. Test programme dexnition

For the 2D case the section of the tank was a mere rectangle which dimensions at
model scale were a 800 mm horizontal length and a 400 mm height (see Fig. 1), and,
for the 3D case, a 400 mm width. The real scale size was obtained by a multiplying
scale factor of 50. For each test, "ve pressure time traces were recorded at probes
located along the tank walls (see Fig. 1). The tests were performed according to the
scheme given in Table 2.
190 A. Cariou, G. Casella / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 183}198

Fig. 1. Sketch of the `smalla scale tank model for phase 1, illustrating the position of the pressure probes
(measures in (mm)).

Table 2
Tests speci"cations (Phase 1)

Test id Level (%) Scale Motion Amplitude Period Probes Dim.

1.1 60 Small (1) 0.01 (m) 1.1797 (5) 2D

1.2 20 Small (1) 0.08 (m) 1.8354 (6) 2D
1.3 60 Small (1) 0.5 (m) 8.3417 (5) 2D
1.4 20 Small (1) 4.0 (m) 12.978 (6) 2D
1.5 } optional 60 Small (2) (3) (4) (5) 3D
1.6 } optional 20 Small / decay test / 2D

Liquid: Fresh water at 203C (kinem. visc. " 1.007]10~6 m2s~1), (spec. mass"1000 kg.m3)

Gas phase: Air at 203C (kinem. visc. " 1.400]10~5 m2s~1), (spec. mass"1.3 kg/m3)

Test duration: About 15 slosh cycles

Notes: (1) Horizontal harmonic motion, (2) combination of two angular harmonic motions around two
perpendicular coordinate axis (longitudinal and transverse to the tank), (3) axis d 1 : 40 (deg) } axis
d 2 : 2.0 (deg), (4) axis d 1 : 0.7325 (s) } axis d 2 : 1.1797 (s), (5) probes: b}d}f}g}h, (6) probes: a}b}c}d}e.
Test 1.5 is the 3D case and axis d 1 and axis d 2 are axes of rotation respectively parallel to the length and
to the width of the tank.

According to linear theory, the above natural periods were estimated by the
following formula:

20
¹" ,
J(g/p¸)th[pR(H/¸)]

where ¸ is the tank length, H the tank height, R the "lling level (liquid height/tank
height), and ¹ the resonance period (s).
 A. Cariou, G. Casella / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 183}198 191

In order to avoid any scattering in the results due to the possible e!ect of a
discontinuity at initial conditons, a slow start of the #uid excitation was allowed by a
smoothing exponential ramp superimposed on the harmonic tank motions. The
resulting tank motion was therefore given by the following relations:

A B
2p
A"rA sin t ,
0 ¹

where r is the exponential smoothing ramp:

A B
!3t2
r"1!exp ln(10) ,
¹2

where A is the amplitude of tank motion, ¹ the resonance period (s) and t the current
0
time value (s*0).
The liquid and ullage gas characteristics were those of fresh water at 203C and air at
203C and the ullage pressure was 1 bar.
Plots of free surface position were asked at the following instants:

f t"3.0 T (second cycle after permanent excitation is reached),

f t"4.0 T (third cycle after permanent excitation is reached),
f t"15.0 T (last cycle),
f at occurrence of "rst ceiling impact if any and, if not, at occurrence of maximum free
surface elevation.

In case of a possible need for additional information to help with the analysis, the
plots of pressure "eld and velocity "eld were also requested at the same instants.
For the optional 3D case, the same output data was speci"ed at both centre vertical
planes of the tank and, in addition, an isometric perspective view of the free surface
position.
For the optional decay test, the exciting motion was de"ned by a Heaviside step
function of the horizontal translational velocity of the tank. As already mentioned, the
objective was to gain insight into the damping through the response to an impulsive
force excitation. In order to keep the response amplitude within the limits of the linear
hypothesis and in order to avoid any unexpected reaction of the various numerical
integration schemes to such discontinuity at initial conditons, the height of the
velocity step was choosen very small (0.08 m/s).

3.3. Results of comparisons

From the analysis of the monoharmonic 2D cases, it emerged that two main di!erent
situations had to be distinguished:

f The non-impulsive case which is the situation before any impact occurs and so the
free surface deformation is still a smooth curve looking like a sinusomK d.
192 A. Cariou, G. Casella / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 183}198

f The impulsive case which is the situation during any impact event or more generally
at any time after the "rst impact.

For the non-impulsive situation the agreement was quite acceptable. This is "rst
demonstrated by the free surface comparison which showed that the global motions
were quite comparable as illustrated in Fig. 2a for Test 1.3 after a duration of 3]T at
real scale, where all participants were present and only contributor no. 4 was beyond
the bounds. For the remaining discrepancies at the left upper corner of the tank, the
numerical viscosity was strongly suspected (especially by participant no. 8). As to the
#uctuations of free surface shown by participant no. 8 on the left-hand side of the tank,
it is an illustration of the problem already mentioned in the "fth item of paragraph II
concerning the exact location of the free surface with a VOF method. This participant

Fig. 2. (a) Test 1.3 } Time"3]T } Comparison of free surface results } real scale. (b) } Test 1.4
} Time"3]T } Comparison of free surface results } real scale.
 A. Cariou, G. Casella / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 183}198 193

was not equipped, at that time, with a speci"c adaptation to approximate this exact
location.
This was also con"rmed for local e!ects by pressure time histories as illustrated by
Figs. 3a and 3b for Test 1.1 (same conditions as for Test 1.3 but at model scale) and
probe b where the agreement was quite acceptable for the "rst cycles before the "rst
impact (at t+3.25 T). Furthermore, the relative agreement was still acceptable for the
whole duration of the simulations, the interpretation was that probe b was at the
bottom of the tank and was separated by a su$cient distance and height of liquid
(relative importance of hydrostatic pressure) from the impact location which was at
the ceiling.
For the impulsive case quite large discrepancies were observed and three codes did
not produce results. This is pointed out, for the global motion of the liquid behaviour,
by the free surface elevation, for instance, in Test 1.4 (see Fig. 2b) at real scale, lowest
"lling level, strongest excitation and after "rst impact event (on the left-hand side of
the tank). This is con"rmed by local e!ects for instance in Fig. 4 where is presented the
pressure time trace of probe c, which in Test 1.2 (same conditions as for 1.4 but at
model scale) is located in a side wall impact area.
It was detected that important discrepancies in the peak pressures could be
introduced by the use, or not, of speci"c post treatments for impact pressures.
As to the scale e!ects, it could only be due to the way the physical viscosity was
accounted for, since the grids proportions and number of cells were left unchanged
whatever the scale.
For the non-viscous #ow formulations no scale e!ect was, of course, detected. For
viscous #ow formulations some scale in#uences were shown by four codes but they
were di!erent from one code to the next and di$cult to compare.
They were slight or null for the non-impulsive case. This was interpreted by the fact
that rotationally is more intense in the violent impulsive cases.
For the optional decay test, the untoward numerical reactions to impulsive initial
excitations and intense local deformation of the free surface were avoided to the few
participating codes, but then the responses were "nally too small to give signi"cant
comparisons.
As to the optional 3D case, only two contributors participated and it was not
a signi"cant sample for comparisons. Nevertheless, this lack of participation was
interpreted to mean that it is probably due to the fact that most of the 3D methods
available are far more resource demanding than the 2D ones. So 2D methods are of
course more popular especially in the case of budget, time or computer resources
limitations, for instance, in early design stages, and provided that 2D hypothesis are
realistic.

4. Second calculation phase: engineering case

This was an optional phase dedicated to a realistic full 3D engineering case. The
objective was to compare the di!erent calculation procedures in addition to the mere
code results.
 194
A. Cariou, G. Casella / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 183}198

Fig. 3. (a) Test 1.1 } probe b comparison of pressure traces. (b) Test 1.1 } probe b } comparison of pressure traces (e!ects of numerical viscosity highlighted).
 A. Cariou, G. Casella / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 183}198 195

Fig. 3. (Continued).

Fig. 4. Test 1.2 } probe c } comparison of pressure traces (di!erences in peak determination highlighted).

The tank was of a type of a LNG carrier fore tank. Its geometry with the location of
three probes (A, B, C) is given in Fig. 5. It was considered as fully 3D because any
excitation in which the direction of translation or axis of rotation is parallel or
orthogonal to the plane of symmetry results in a 3D response.
196 A. Cariou, G. Casella / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 183}198

Fig. 5. Sketch of the tank geometry for phase 2 (meter is the length unit).

Fig. 6. 3D engineering case } free } surface deformation.

The liquid and the gas characteristics were those of LNG and the "lling level was
80%. The excitation was a combination of a pitch and a roll harmonic motion with
di!erent amplitudes and periods.
Unfortunately, only one contribution was obtained which was a con"rmation of the
conclusion of the previous `simplea 3D case. Nevertheless, it is an interesting result
 A. Cariou, G. Casella / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 183}198 197

since it demonstrates today's state-of-the-art for realistic engineering purposes.

Fig. 6 illustrates this with an overturning 3D free surface deformation for this phase.

5. Conclusions

The following points have emerged:

f In the test conditions investigated, it is strongly suspected that physical viscosity,

detected by scale e!ects, has little in#uence compared to numerical viscosity.
f Navier}Stokes or Euler 2D formulations solved by "nite di!erence or "nite volume
methods may now be considered as practical tools for engineering applications
provided that the 2D hypothesis are relevant. 3D versions are becoming more
numerous and are valid tools which can treat more realistic cases. Consequently,
they are more demanding from both computational resources and data treatment
points of view. Nevertheless, for both 2D and 3D versions, research is still needed
for a correct description of pressure peaks and impacts, in particular, as far as their
e!ects on structural response are concerned (#uid}structure interaction).
f General considerations: the results of this benchmark were satisfying in that they
permitted better insight in the di!erences between the codes. They also gave an
indication of the features generally considered as being assessed and on the topics
for which more research is needed. It is suggested that this ISSC benchmark could
be pro"ciently used by Designers and Classi"cation Societies for a preliminary
assessment of the potentiality of commercially available codes to be adopted in ship
design. This is mainly important as to the real possibilities of state-of-the-art
procedures for impulsive and dynamic non-impulsive phenomena simulation. On
this point, in particular, the results obtained reinforce and illustrate in a practical
way the conclusions from the literature review of the 1997 ISSC.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the e!ort made by contributors. Thanks to
their work, it was possible to obtain the present results, which is deemed to be of
particular interest for the maritime shipbuilding community: Yokohama National
University, Ecole Centrale de Nantes (two contributions), Germanischer Lloyd,
Principia, University of Trieste, Sirehna, DNV & Daewoo Industries, Lloyd's Regis-
ter, Registro Italiano Navale, Institut de Recherches de la Construction Navale.

References

[1] Committee 1.2. `Loadsa } Report, 13th ISSC 1997, vol. 1.

[2] Yamamoto S, Kataoka F, Shioda S, Ashitani Y. Study on impact pressure due to sloshing in midsized
LNG carrier. Int J O!shore Polar Eng 1995;5(1):10.
198 A. Cariou, G. Casella / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 183}198

[3] Shinkai A, Tamia S, et al. Sloshing impact pressure induced on cargo oil tank walls on the
middle-sized double hull tanker. Trans Soc Naval Arch West Japan 1995;(90):91.
[4] Takemoto H, Oka S, et al. Experimental study on sloshing impact loads of middle sized tankers with
double hulls. J Soc Naval Arch. Japan 1994;176:399.
[5] Shinkai A, Mano M, et al. Numerical analysis of sloshing problems for the middle sized double hull
tanker. J Soc Naval Arch Japan 1994;176:387.
[6] Casella G, Sebastiani L, Valdenazzi F. Fluid}structure interaction in numerical simulation of liquid
sloshing. Cetena International Seminar on Hydroelasticity for Ship Structural design, Genoa, Italy,
February 1996.
[7] Brosset L. Simulation numeH rique du ballottement de liquides dans des reH servoirs enmouvement
(Numerical simulation of liquid sloshing in moving tanks). J Marine Marchande, NouveauteH s
techniques maritimes 1995;9.
[8] Park YJ, Choi JK, Kim YS, Bae YS. A practical prediction method of sloshing loads in cargo ship
tanks on board ships. PRADS'95, Seoul, September 1995, p. 1418.
[9] Francescutto A, Contento G. An experimental study of the coupling between roll motion and sloshing
in a compartment. ISOPE 94, Osaka, Japan, April 1994, vol. 3, p. 283.
[10] Casella G, Dogliani M. Evaluation of sloshing-induced fatigue damage on a FSO tanker. 6th ISOPE
conference, Los Angeles USA, May 1996.