1. Introduction
The fluid-structure interaction (FSI) effect between solid structures and liquids is prevalent in practical engineering. For example, liquid-filled containers under seismic action or other vibration loads belong to one of structures with the typical FSI effect [
1]. Analysis of the FSI effect of liquid-filled containers, on the one hand, focuses on liquid sloshing therein and on the other hand, considers the influence of liquid sloshing on these containers.
For liquid sloshing problems, Dodge
et al. [
2,
3,
4,
5] systematically expounded the theoretical and engineering applications of liquid sloshing modes. However, these methods pay more attention to theoretical analytical methods and are only applicable to solving cases with regular shapes and simple external excitations while fail to solve vibration problems of liquid-filled structures of complex shapes [
6,
7]. Bao
et al. [
8,
9] analyzed liquid modes based on potential-based fluid elements. When using the method, the liquid sloshing frequency is far lower than the structural vibration frequency and the obtained first hundreds of modes are all liquid sloshing modes rather than modes of solid structures [
10]. Therefore, it is difficult to apply the mode-superposition response spectrum method and time history analysis to dynamic analysis of liquid-filled structures, and these methods are not applicable to analysis of dynamic responses of liquid-filled containers.
Structural engineers generally pay more attention to how liquid motion affects structural responses under seismic action, while they are not interested in the motion of liquids themselves. To consider the influence of liquid sloshing on dynamic responses of liquid-filled containers and avoid complex liquid sloshing computation, the simplified equivalent mechanical model of fluid sloshing is generally used. On the basis of the potential flow theory, Graham [
11] took the lead to propose an equivalent mechanical model of fluid sloshing in a rectangular container, which has been widely applied in the engineering field. Housner [
12] deduced the simplified calculation formula of equivalent model of fluids based on physical intuition analysis. Housner model is a good approximation for the exact solution to the model proposed by Graham and has found extensive applications to civil and hydraulic engineering. However, Housner model is not built based on physical intuition and therefore is not an exact physical model, so its results are not safe in some cases. Li [
13] improved Housner model on the basis of the linear potential flow theory and provided the fitting solution to the equivalent model using a semi-analytical and semi-numerical method. Whereas, the improved Housner model has so complex parameters that it is only suitable for regular two-dimensional (2D) models while not to complex 2D and three-dimensional (3D) models. Apart from proposing the equivalent methods based on the potential flow theory, Wstergaard [
14] and Chopra [
15] also came up with the added mass method. Rajasankar
et al. [
16] applied the added mass method to the finite element method (FEM) and performed FSI analysis. Bao
et al. [
17] put forward the improved added mass model based on the added mass method and conducted dynamic analysis on an annular tank, providing reference for the design and application of annular tanks. However, the distributed mass coefficient is difficult to determine in the above added mass method and improved added mass methods, so when using these methods to analyze structures of liquid-filled containers, the results are generally less safe.
The conventional analytical methods are only applicable to cases with regular geometric shapes and simple external excitations, and FEM based on potential-based fluid elements is not applicable to analysis of dynamic responses of liquid-filled structures. Moreover, equivalent mechanical models based on fluid sloshing and the added mass methods also have drawbacks. Considering this, it is necessary to use a method that is not only suitable for analyzing liquid sloshing modes but also applicable to analyzing influences of liquid sloshing on dynamic responses of liquid-filled containers, so as to provide reference for engineering design and application of these containers. Therefore, the current research conducted finite element analysis (FEA) on liquid sloshing modes at first and compared the analysis results with theoretical solutions and liquid sloshing frequencies and modes measured in existing tests, thus verifying correctness of the FEM. Whereas, the theoretical solutions and test models are only applicable to 2D models, while practical models are all 3D ones, so 3D models of liquid sloshing were also analyzed. Then, dynamic analysis was performed on liquid-filled containers with different liquid levels, and influences of the FSI effect and the intrinsic frequency and dynamic response of liquid-filled containers were also considered. The FEM based on acoustic fluid elements used in the research provides an effective and reliable method for the dynamic analysis of liquid-filled containers considering the FSI effect.
2. FEA theory based on acoustic fluid elements
A liquid-filled container and a liquid constitute an FSI system, in which the liquid and structure (liquid-filled container) are simulated using FEM. The FEM simulation methods of structures have been introduced in detail in many monographs [
18]. For FEA considering the FSI effect, one is to use the fluid displacement as an unknown quantity [
19] and harness the similarity between the fluid motion equation and equation of motion of structural elastomers, which can obtain the finite element calculation model of fluid consistent with the finite element scheme; the other is to take the fluid pressure as an unknown quantity [
20] and coordinate the displacement and pressure on the structure-fluid interface, from which the obtained mass and stiffness matrices are asymmetric matrices. When analyzing liquid sloshing problems using the pressure scheme based on acoustic fluid elements [
21], the theory is described as follows:
For the structure:
where
separately represent the mass, damping, and stiffness matrices of the structure;
separately denote the acceleration, speed, and displacement vectors at nodes of structural elements;
is the coupling matrix at the structure-fluid interface;
is the nodal pressure vector of fluid elements;
is the load vector of the structure.
For the fluid:
where
separately represent the mass, damping, and stiffness matrices of the fluid;
are the first-order and second-order derivatives of nodal pressure of fluid elements;
is the fluid density;
is the load vector of the fluid.
The following is obtained by combining Eqns. (8) and (9):
By solving Eq. (3), the liquid sloshing modes in the FSI system and the FSI dynamic responses can be obtained.
5. Dynamic and time-historical analysis of cylindrical liquid-filled containers
Cylindrical liquid-filled containers with different liquid levels were taken as examples to perform dynamic and time-historical analysis. The El-Centro (1940), Kobe (1995), and Loma Prieta (1989) waves were selected and applied in the x direction, with the peak acceleration of 0.1
g. The acceleration time-history curves and Fourier spectra are shown in
Figure 20. Structural analysis generally focuses on the displacement, acceleration, and stress of structures. Hence, the maximum displacement, maximum acceleration, and maximum von Mises stress on the sidewall at different heights of liquid-filled containers at x=D/2 and y=0 were monitored.
The distribution of the maximum displacement on the sidewall of containers with different liquid levels along the height is displayed in
Figure 21. As the liquid level ascends, the maximum displacement on the sidewall of cylindrical liquid-filled containers constantly enlarges, while its location changes. When the liquid levels are 0 m (liquid-filled container not containing liquid), 1, and 2 m, the maximum displacement on the sidewall appears on the top of the container; under conditions with liquid levels of 3 and 4 m, the maximum displacement on the sidewall appears at the height of 2.5 m; if the liquid levels are 5 and 6 m, the maximum displacement on the sidewall occurs at the height of 3 m. The maximum displacement on the sidewall shares basically consistent distribution law along the height under conditions of different liquid levels and the three seismic waves, and they always increase on the sidewall of cylindrical liquid-filled container with rising liquid level. Whereas, the values of the maximum displacement are different. Taking the liquid level of 6 m as an example, the maximum displacements on the sidewall are separately 0.052, 0.049, and 0.046 mm under the El-Centro, Kobe, and Loma Prieta waves, and they all appear at the height of 3 m on the sidewall.
The distribution law of the maximum acceleration on the sidewall of containers with different liquid levels along the height is similar to that of the maximum displacement on the sidewall. It can be seen from
Figure 21 that as the liquid level rises, the maximum acceleration on the sidewall of cylindrical liquid-filled containers constantly grows, while its location varies. In the case that the liquid levels are 0, 1, and 2 m, the maximum acceleration on the sidewall appears on the top of the liquid-filled container; if the liquid levels are 3 and 4 m, the maximum acceleration on the sidewall is found at the height of 2.5 m; when the liquid levels are 5 and 6 m, the maximum acceleration on the sidewall occurs at the height of 3 m.
Under action of the three seismic waves, the maximum acceleration on the sidewall of containers with different liquid levels basically has the same distribution along the height. The maximum acceleration on the sidewall of cylindrical liquid-filled container always increases with ascending liquid level. Taking the liquid level of 6 m as an example, the maximum accelerations on the sidewall are 0.46, 0.20, and 0.058 m/s
2 under the El-Centro, Kobe, and Loma Prieta waves, respectively, and they all appear at the height of 3 m. Under action of different seismic waves, the maximum acceleration on the sidewall of containers with different liquid levels differs greatly in the distribution height. On the one hand, this is because the frequencies of input seismic waves differ greatly from the structural frequency. The main frequencies of the El-Centro, Kobe, and Loma Prieta waves all concentrate within 5 Hz (
Figure 20). In the case of different liquid levels, the minimum and maximum first frequencies of the cylindrical container are 13.17 Hz (liquid level of 6 m) and 19.94 Hz (liquid level of 0 m), respectively. This suggests an unobvious acceleration amplification effect. On the other hand, El-Centro wave has more high-frequency spectra (higher than 15 Hz) compared with Kobe and Loma Prieta waves, so the maximum acceleration on the sidewall under the El-Centro wave is greater than those under Kobe and Loma Prieta waves.
The distribution of the maximum von Mises stress on the sidewall of containers with different liquid levels along the height is shown in
Figure 23. The maximum von Mises stress is always found at the bottom of the liquid-filled containers. Apart from the bottom, the maximum von Mises stress on the sidewall of cylindrical liquid-filled containers constantly increases as the liquid level ascends. When the liquid levels are 0, 1, and 2 m, the maximum von Mises stress on the sidewall appears at the height of 1.0 m; if the liquid levels are 3 and 4 m, the maximum von Mises stress on the sidewall occurs at the height of 2.0 m; in the case that liquid levels are 5 and 6 m, the maximum von Mises stress on the sidewall occurs at the height of 2.5 m. Under action of the three seismic waves, the maximum von Mises stress on the sidewall shows basically consistent distribution law along the height of containers with different liquid levels. As the liquid level rises, the maximum von Mises stress on the sidewall of cylindrical liquid-filled containers enlarges while the values of the maximum von Mises stress are different. Taking the liquid level of 6 m as an example, under the El-Centro, Kobe, and Loma Prieta waves, the maximum von Mises stresses on the sidewall are separately 0.150, 0.144, and 0.135 MPa, and they are all found at the height of 2.5 m.
6. Conclusions
Dynamic analysis was performed on liquid sloshing modes in liquid-filled containers and the liquid-filled containers using the FEM based on acoustic fluid elements. The following conclusions are obtained:
(1) The liquid sloshing modes in 2D and 3D liquid-filled containers of regular shapes and arbitrary cross sections were analyzed and compared with theoretical solution and test results. The results reveal that the FEM based on acoustic fluid elements is highly applicable and reliable.
(2) The liquid level exerts significant influences on the intrinsic frequency of liquid-filled containers. As the liquid level in liquid-filled containers rises, the vibration frequency of cylindrical containers reduces obviously. When the liquid level in liquid-filled containers is 6 m, the first frequency declines by 31.24%. During engineering design of liquid-filled containers, the influence of the FSI effect on the intrinsic frequency of these containers should not be ignored. This suggests that the FEM based on acoustic fluid elements can well consider the effect.
(3) For the cylindrical liquid-filled container in the research, the liquid level basically does not influence the displacement, acceleration, and stress of liquid-filled containers under horizonal seismic action if the liquid level is low (within 2 m). As the liquid level ascends (3 to 6 m), the displacement, acceleration, and stress of liquid-filled containers enlarge significantly. The acceleration responses of liquid-filled containers are particularly significantly affected by spectral characteristics of seismic waves.
Figure 1.
Liquid in 2D containers. (a) Rectangular container; (b) Container with an arbitrary cross section.
Figure 1.
Liquid in 2D containers. (a) Rectangular container; (b) Container with an arbitrary cross section.
Figure 2.
The first six sloshing modes of the free liquid surface in the rectangular container.
Figure 2.
The first six sloshing modes of the free liquid surface in the rectangular container.
Figure 3.
Test models
[23,24] (Unit: mm).
Figure 3.
Test models
[23,24] (Unit: mm).
Figure 4.
The first four liquid sloshing modes in the rectangular container obtained by FEA. (a) The first order; (b) The second order; (c) The third order; (d) The fourth order.
Figure 4.
The first four liquid sloshing modes in the rectangular container obtained by FEA. (a) The first order; (b) The second order; (c) The third order; (d) The fourth order.
Figure 5.
The first four liquid sloshing modes in the rectangular container measured in the tests [
23,
24]. (
a) The first order; (
b) The second order; (
c) The third order; (
d) The fourth order.
Figure 5.
The first four liquid sloshing modes in the rectangular container measured in the tests [
23,
24]. (
a) The first order; (
b) The second order; (
c) The third order; (
d) The fourth order.
Figure 6.
The first four liquid sloshing modes in the round container obtained by FEA. (a) The first order; (b) The second order; (c) The third order; (d) The fourth order.
Figure 6.
The first four liquid sloshing modes in the round container obtained by FEA. (a) The first order; (b) The second order; (c) The third order; (d) The fourth order.
Figure 7.
The first four liquid sloshing modes in the round container measured in the tests [
23,
24]. (
a) The first order; (
b) The second order; (
c) The third order; (
d) The fourth order.
Figure 7.
The first four liquid sloshing modes in the round container measured in the tests [
23,
24]. (
a) The first order; (
b) The second order; (
c) The third order; (
d) The fourth order.
Figure 8.
The first four liquid sloshing modes in the U-shaped 2D container obtained by FEA. (a) The first order; (b) The second order; (c) The third order; (d) The fourth order.
Figure 8.
The first four liquid sloshing modes in the U-shaped 2D container obtained by FEA. (a) The first order; (b) The second order; (c) The third order; (d) The fourth order.
Figure 9.
The first four liquid sloshing modes in the U-shaped 2D container measured in the tests [
23,
24]. (
a) The first order; (
b) The second order; (
c) The third order; (
d) The fourth order.
Figure 9.
The first four liquid sloshing modes in the U-shaped 2D container measured in the tests [
23,
24]. (
a) The first order; (
b) The second order; (
c) The third order; (
d) The fourth order.
Figure 10.
3D liquid sloshing models.
Figure 10.
3D liquid sloshing models.
Figure 11.
2D view of liquid sloshing modes in the cuboid container obtained by FEA. (a) The first order; (b) The third order; (c) The sixth order; (d) The nineth order.
Figure 11.
2D view of liquid sloshing modes in the cuboid container obtained by FEA. (a) The first order; (b) The third order; (c) The sixth order; (d) The nineth order.
Figure 12.
3D view of liquid sloshing modes in the cuboid container obtained by FEA. (a) The first order; (b) The third order; (c) The sixth order; (d) The nineth order.
Figure 12.
3D view of liquid sloshing modes in the cuboid container obtained by FEA. (a) The first order; (b) The third order; (c) The sixth order; (d) The nineth order.
Figure 13.
2D view of liquid sloshing modes in the spherical container obtained by FEA. (a) The first order; (b) The second order; (c) The third order; (d) The fourth order.
Figure 13.
2D view of liquid sloshing modes in the spherical container obtained by FEA. (a) The first order; (b) The second order; (c) The third order; (d) The fourth order.
Figure 14.
3D view of liquid sloshing modes in the spherical container obtained by FEA. (a) The first order; (b) The second order; (c) The third order; (d) The fourth order.
Figure 14.
3D view of liquid sloshing modes in the spherical container obtained by FEA. (a) The first order; (b) The second order; (c) The third order; (d) The fourth order.
Figure 15.
2D view of liquid sloshing modes in the U-shaped 3D container obtained by FEA. (a) The first order; (b) The second order; (c) The third order; (d) The fourth order.
Figure 15.
2D view of liquid sloshing modes in the U-shaped 3D container obtained by FEA. (a) The first order; (b) The second order; (c) The third order; (d) The fourth order.
Figure 16.
3D view of liquid sloshing modes in the U-shaped 3D container obtained by FEA. (a) The first order; (b) The second order; (c) The third order; (d) The fourth order.
Figure 16.
3D view of liquid sloshing modes in the U-shaped 3D container obtained by FEA. (a) The first order; (b) The second order; (c) The third order; (d) The fourth order.
Figure 17.
Cylindrical liquid-filled containers: H-Container height; D-Container diameter; t-Container wall thickness; h-Liquid level.
Figure 17.
Cylindrical liquid-filled containers: H-Container height; D-Container diameter; t-Container wall thickness; h-Liquid level.
Figure 18.
Liquid sloshing modes in the cylindrical liquid-filled container. (a) The first order; (b) The second order; (c) The third order; (d) The fourth order.
Figure 18.
Liquid sloshing modes in the cylindrical liquid-filled container. (a) The first order; (b) The second order; (c) The third order; (d) The fourth order.
Figure 19.
Vibration modes of the cylindrical liquid-filled container. (a) The first order; (b) The second order; (c) The third order; (d) The fourth order.
Figure 19.
Vibration modes of the cylindrical liquid-filled container. (a) The first order; (b) The second order; (c) The third order; (d) The fourth order.
Figure 20.
Acceleration time-history curves and Fourier spectra under seismic waves.
Figure 20.
Acceleration time-history curves and Fourier spectra under seismic waves.
Figure 21.
Distribution of the maximum displacement on the sidewall of containers with different liquid levels along the height.
Figure 21.
Distribution of the maximum displacement on the sidewall of containers with different liquid levels along the height.
Figure 22.
Distribution of the maximum acceleration on the sidewall of containers with different liquid levels along the height.
Figure 22.
Distribution of the maximum acceleration on the sidewall of containers with different liquid levels along the height.
Figure 23.
Distribution of the maximum von Mises stress on the sidewall of containers with different liquid levels along the height.
Figure 23.
Distribution of the maximum von Mises stress on the sidewall of containers with different liquid levels along the height.
Table 1.
Comparison of the first four order frequency in FEA, theoretical analysis, and tests (Unit: Hz).
Table 1.
Comparison of the first four order frequency in FEA, theoretical analysis, and tests (Unit: Hz).
Order |
Rectangular container Water level h = 0.12 m |
Round container Water level h = 0.16 m |
U-Shaped container Water level h = 0.115 m |
Theoretical calculation |
Test |
FEA |
Theoretical calculation |
Test |
FEA |
Theoretical calculation |
Test |
FEA |
1 |
1.93 |
1.89 |
1.93 |
1.77 |
1.68 |
1.77 |
1.90 |
1.85 |
1.89 |
2 |
2.79 |
2.73 |
2.79 |
2.55 |
2.52 |
2.57 |
2.78 |
2.73 |
2.78 |
3 |
3.42 |
3.40 |
3.43 |
3.12 |
3.09 |
3.15 |
3.42 |
3.35 |
3.42 |
4 |
3.95 |
3.94 |
3.97 |
3.61 |
3.51 |
3.64 |
3.95 |
3.87 |
3.95 |
Table 2.
The first ten liquid sloshing frequencies in different types of liquid-filled containers (Unit: Hz).
Table 2.
The first ten liquid sloshing frequencies in different types of liquid-filled containers (Unit: Hz).
Container |
Order |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
Cuboid container (Water level h = 0.12 m) |
1.93 |
2.34 |
2.80 |
2.97 |
3.34 |
3.45 |
3.55 |
3.79 |
4.01 |
4.08 |
Spherical container (Water level h = 0.16 m) |
1.95 |
2.57 |
2.85 |
3.04 |
3.37 |
3.44 |
3.79 |
3.80 |
3.88 |
4.12 |
U-shaped 3D container (Water level h = 0.115 m) |
2.04 |
2.72 |
3.09 |
3.27 |
3.65 |
3.66 |
4.04 |
4.11 |
4.22 |
4.40 |
Table 3.
Model sizes and material parameters.
Table 3.
Model sizes and material parameters.
Geometric dimensions |
Container diameter D / m |
12 |
Container height H / m |
7 |
Container wall thickness t / m |
0.2 |
Liquid level h / m |
6 |
Material parameters |
Structure |
Elastic modulus E / Pa |
|
Density / |
2643 |
Poisson’s ratio |
0.15 |
Liquid |
Density / |
1000 |
Acoustic velocity c / |
1435 |
Table 4.
First five liquid sloshing frequencies in the cylindrical liquid-filled containers (Unit: Hz).
Table 4.
First five liquid sloshing frequencies in the cylindrical liquid-filled containers (Unit: Hz).
|
Order |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
FEA numerical solution (rigid container) |
0.27 |
0.35 |
0.40 |
0.42 |
0.47 |
FEA numerical solution (elastic container) |
0.27 |
0.35 |
0.40 |
0.42 |
0.47 |
Theoretical solution |
0.27 |
0.35 |
0.40 |
0.42 |
0.47 |
Table 5.
The first five frequencies of cylindrical containers with different liquid levels (Unit: Hz).
Table 5.
The first five frequencies of cylindrical containers with different liquid levels (Unit: Hz).
Order |
Liquid level |
0 m |
1 m |
2.0 m |
3.0 m |
4.0 m |
5.0 m |
6.0 m |
1 |
19.94 |
19.94 |
19.88 |
19.45 |
18.05 |
15.93 |
13.71 |
2 |
20.11 |
20.11 |
20.02 |
19.48 |
18.23 |
16.30 |
14.20 |
3 |
26.81 |
26.81 |
26.72 |
26.13 |
24.39 |
21.46 |
18.37 |
4 |
29.29 |
29.28 |
29.09 |
27.85 |
24.93 |
21.88 |
19.41 |
5 |
38.30 |
38.30 |
38.16 |
37.10 |
34.10 |
30.44 |
26.34 |