The objective of this verification study is to model a 3D sloshing fluid domain using the slosh ing element tool available in Midas GTS NX and Midas FEA NX. A linear time-history dynamic analysis is carried out to simulate the hydrodynamic effects generated by ground motion.
The primary intention of this report is to:
This comparison enables validation of the 3D sloshing fluid element and confirms the numerical model’s fidelity relative to established analytical solutions.
Open a new file in Midas GTS NX. Select the Model Type as 3D and click OK.
Creating a new 3D model in Midas GTS NX
Use the geometry creation tools to construct the model geometry as shown in Figure 3.
3D model showing water volume and wall
Define the Wall, Water, Fluid-Structure-Interface and Free Surface properties as per Table.1 and Table.2.
| Material | Material Type | Elastic Modulus | Bulk Modulus | Poisson's ratio | Unit weight |
| Wall | Isotropic-Elastic | 30 GPa | - | 0.2 | 20 kN/m3 |
| Water | Sloshing Medium | - | 2.2 GPa | - | 9.8 kN/m3 |
Table.1. Material properties used in the model
| Element Property | Element Type | Material |
|
Wall |
3D Solid | Wall |
| Water | 3D Sloshing | Water |
| Fluid Boundary | Plane-Free Surface | - |
| Fluid Boundary | Plane-FSI | - |
Table.2. Element properties used in the model
A structured hexahedral mesh is generated for both the wall and fluid regions. The meshing strategy for the model incorporates the following features:
Meshed model
Fixed Boundary (Wall)
Sloshing Fluid Boundary (Fluid End Face)
Fixed Boundary Definition
Sloshing Constraint Boundary Definition
Dynamic Load Case Definition
Adynamic ground acceleration load is defined to simulate earthquake-induced excitation of the fluid domain. The applied sinusoidal forcing function provides a controlled and repeatable excitation mechanism, enabling the generation of sloshing waves within the fluid.
Ground Motion Characteristics
Time forcing function input window
A linear time-history (Direct) analysis is defined to compute the dynamic response of the fluid domain under the prescribed ground motion. The key analysis settings are as follows:
Since Westergaard’s formulation represents the impulsive component of the hydrodynamic pressure—i.e., the pressure generated by the instantaneous inertial response of the reservoir during ground acceleration—the dynamic loading is applied only over the half–cycle of the excitation.
For an excitation frequency of 5Hz, the duration of one half–cycle is
Therefore, the hydrodynamic pressure is applied over a time period of 0.1s.
Analysis case definition
After the dynamic analysis is completed, the following results are extracted to evaluate the hydro
dynamic behavior of the fluid:
Using the Cutting Diagram tool, the following steps are carried out:
Sloshing Pressure
Expand the cutting diagram from the work tree menu and use the show table option to extract pressure distribution as function of depth(m).
Extract Pressure vs Depth
Westegaard’s analysis is used to compute the hydrodynamic pressure occurring on the down
stream face of the dam due to the sloshing effect of the water during a dynamic loading case
such as an Earthquake event. Westergaard’s study on hydrodynamic pressure was based on the
assumptions that the reservoir water is a nonrotating, nonsticky, and slightly compressed liquid;
the reservoir bottom is a rigid plane without energy absorption; the dam body is rigid; and the
upstream surface of the dam is vertical. Although the hydrodynamic pressure formula proposed
by Westergaard can reflect some essential characteristics of the effect of the reservoir on the dam
body, the Westergaard formula is too idealistic because of its many assumptions.
The following assumptions are made in Westegaard’s Analysis:
1. Incompressible Fluid
2. Dam/Wall/Structure is Rigid in nature (not flexible)
3. No Sloshing behaviour is considered (no relative movement between reservoir and dam that can produce sloshing effects)
4. Only implusive hydrodynamic mass
5. No viscosity or damping
6. Based on uniform horizontal ground acceleration
7. Rigid Bottom
The hydrodynamic pressure at point i is obtained by dividing the hydrodynamic mass by its tributary area and multiplying by the horizontal acceleration:
Since mai already includes the tributary area A_i, the area cancels out. Substituting Westergaard’s added-mass expression gives:
Limitations of Westegaard’s analysis
Table.3. Comparison of FEA Sloshing Pressure and Hydrodynamic Pressure(Westergaard)
The FEM model can be extended to simulate the full loading cycle, allowing the analysis to capture the hydrodynamic effects associated with reservoir sloshing. This provides a more com prehensive representation of the time-dependent pressure response. An example of the pressure variation over a simulation period of 1 second is illustrated below. The sloshing-induced pressure increases to approximately twice the initial value calculated for the half-cycle duration.
Sloshing Pressure for full loading cycle and time period 1 second