Proceedings of the ASME 30th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic

Engineering
OMAE 2011
June 19-24, 2011, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

OMAE2011-49215

DRAFT: THE EFFECT OF INCOMPRESSIBILITY IN SPH SIMULATION OF

SLOSHING FLOW

Ashkan Rafiee∗ Sharen Cummins

School of Mechanical Engineering Computational Modelling Group
The University of Western Australia CSIRO Mathematics Informatics and Statistics
CRAWLEY, WA 6009, Australia South Clayton, VIC 3169
Email: rafiee@mech.uwa.edu.au Australia

Murray Rudman Krish Thiagarajan

Computational Modelling Group School of Mechanical Engineering
CSIRO Mathematics Informatics and Statistics The University of Western Australia
South Clayton, VIC 3169 CRAWLEY, WA 6009, Australia
Australia

ABSTRACT
In modelling incompressible flows using the Smoothed Par-
ticle Hydrodynamics method (SPH), an equation of state with
a large sound speed is typically used. This weakly compress-
ible approach (WCSPH), results in a stiff set of equations with
a noisy pressure field and stability issues at high Reynolds num-
ber. As a remedy, an incompressible SPH technique was intro-
duced [1] (ISPH), which uses a pressure projection technique to
model incompressibility. In this paper, the incompressible and
weakly compressible forms of the SPH method are employed to
study sloshing flow. Both methods are compared with experi-
mental data. The results show the incompressible SPH method
provides more accurate pressure fields and free-surface profiles
to experiment.
∗ Address all correspondence to this author.
INTRODUCTION
Sloshing is a generic term for the free surface motion of a
liquid that occurs in a partially filled container subjected to ex-
ternal excitation. It occurs as the fluid attempts to reach a state of
equilibrium due to the effective instantaneous acceleration (grav-
itational, rotational, etc) experienced by the fluid. Understanding
sloshing is important in order to avoid structural damage caused
by pressure fluctuations near the free surface, acoustic effects due
to the high velocity impact and the impacting loads exerted by the
fluid on the container. Sloshing phenomena occurs in various en-
gineering applications such as fuel sloshing in launch vehicles,
Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) sloshing in cargo containers and
water sloshing in reservoirs [2].
In the past five decades, sloshing has been investigated
by many researchers using various techniques. Initial studies
were based on mechanical models of the phenomenon by ad-
justing terms in the harmonic equation of motion [3, 4] when
time–efficient and reasonably accurate results were deemed suf-
ficient [5]. Other researchers solved the potential flow problem

1 Copyright

c 2011 by ASME
with a very complicated treatment of free–surface boundary con-
ditions [6]. Although the method is very accurate for specific
applications, it cannot handle breaking waves and tanks with baf-
fles. Others solved the non–linear shallow water equations [7] by
means of either Glimm’s method [8] or a gas analogy formula-
tion [9].
The most common method of studying sloshing physics is
via experimental techniques. Abramson [10] evaluated the re-
sults from model tests with tanks of various shapes. The effect
of viscosity, tank shape and various damping devices is outlined.
These studies were mainly related to liquid fuel tanks on space
vehicles. In the 19700 s and early 19800 s, the sloshing problem
became an important issue in the design of the liquefied natu-
ral gas carriers. Several experimental and analytical approaches
were considered during this time. A major set of experiments
were performed by Bass et al., [11] during 1980s on the vari-
ous parameters effecting sloshing. Results indicated that impact
pressure is constant over the range of Reynolds number investi-
gated. Thus for large amplitude sloshing, viscous forces are of
secondary importance. Liquid compressibility was not observed
to have a significant effect on the measured impact pressure. Ex-
periments conducted at reduced ambient pressure inside the tank
(also known as ullage pressure) showed significant increase in
impact pressures. It was concluded that ullage pressure has little
effect on impact pressures until low pressures near to the vapor
pressure of the liquid medium were reached.
As well as the experimental techniques, numerical simu-
lations are also widely adopted for studying highly non–linear
sloshing problems. Frandsen [12] used the Finite Difference
method for solving the non–linear potential flow in a 2D tank.
Celebi and Akyildiz [13] used the finite difference method along
with Volume of Fluid technique (VOF) for tracking the free–
surface. Sames et al. [14], applied a commercial VOF technique
to rectangular and cylindrical tanks.
In contrast to mesh–based methods, the Smoothed Parti-
cle Hydrodynamics (SPH) method is a meshless, purely La-
grangian technique which was originally developed in 1977 by
Lucy [15] and Monaghan and Gingold [16, 17]. It has subse-
quently been successfully employed in a wide range of problems,
e.g. astrophysics [18–20], fluid mechanics [21, 22], solid me-
chanics [23–25], fluid–structure interaction [26–28] and many
more (see [29] for a recent review).
In SPH, the ”particles” are moving nodes that are advected
with the local velocity and carry field variables such as pressure
and density. As the fields are only defined at the set of dis-
crete points, smoothing (interpolation) kernels are used to define
a continuous field and to ensure differentiability. Incompress-
ibility is typically satisfied in two ways. In the most common
approach, termed weakly compressible SPH (WCSPH), the fluid
is assumed compressible with a large sound speed (such that the
Mach number M ≈ 0.1 and the density of the fluid varies less
than 1%). An alternative approach uses a fractional-step projec-
2 Copyright
tion technique [1]. In the first step, the velocity is integrated
in time without enforcing incompressibility. Incompressibility is
then achieved by projecting the intermediate velocity field onto a
divergent-free space by solving a pressure Poisson equation [1].
This approach will be referred to as incompressible SPH (ISPH).
While the WCSPH scheme has been successfully imple-
mented at low Reynolds number, the reflection of sound waves
off boundaries at high Reynolds numbers leads to severe insta-
bilities in the scheme [30]. In addition the stiff equation of state
can result in large pressure fluctuations which also affects sta-
bility. These issues along with the requirement of a very small
time–step in WCSPH due to needing to predict sound waves can
be alleviated by using ISPH. However, the solution of the ellip-
tic pressure Poisson equation (PPE) increases the computational
costs at each time-step. Cummins and Rudman [1] showed the
computational costs of solving the PPE can be reduced by use of
a multi-grid technique.
In this paper, the WSPH and ISPH techniques are outlined
including descriptions of free–surface and solid wall bound-
ary conditions and the SPH–specific multi–grid implementation.
The accuracy, stability and robustness of WCSPH and ISPH are
studied in sloshing flow simulations. Here the divergence–free
ISPH is used with corrected density calculation. This has re-
solved the stability issue of divergence–free ISPH [31] while
utilising the accuracy of the technique compared to the density–
invariant ISPH approach.The results are compared with exper-
imental data for both global features (free–surface profile) and
local features (time variation of impact pressure on the bound-
aries). An assessment of their relative merits is also provided.
THE SPH METHOD
The SPH method uses smoothing kernels to express a
smooth function in terms of its values at a set of disordered
points. The kernel function or weighting function, specifies the
contribution of a typical field variable, A(r), at position, r, in
space. The kernel estimate of A(r) is defined as [32, 33]
Z
A(r) = A(r0 )W (r − r0 , h)dr0 (1)
V
where V represents the solution space and the smoothing length
h represents the effective width of the kernel W . The kernel has
the following properties
Z
W (r − r0 , h)dr0 = 1, lim W (r − r0 , h) = δ (r − r0 ). (2)
V h→0
c 2011 by ASME
If A(r0 ) is known only at a discrete set of N points r1 , r2 , ..., rN , where s = |r|/h and in two-dimensional problems the normaliza-
then we approximate A(r0 ) as, 7
tion factor takes the value W0 = 64πh 2.

N
A(r0 ) = ∑ δ (r0 − r j )A(r j )(dV ) j (3) Weakly Compressible SPH (WCSPH)
j=1 In the WCSPH the pressure is calculated through an equa-
tion of state. In this work, the most common form of equation of
where the index j denotes the particle label and particle j has a state for water is used [33, 37]
mass m j and density ρ j at position r j . The differential volume el-
ement around the point r j is called (dV ) j . By inserting equation ρ0 ci 2

ρi

(3) into equation (1), we obtain, Pi = ( )7 − 1 . (10)
7 ρ0
N Z
A(r) = ∑ δ (r − r j )A(r j )(dV ) jW (r − r j , h) dr j (4) where ρ0 is the reference density. In order for density fluctua-
j=1 tions to be around 1%, the Mach number should be M ≈ 0.1. To
ensure this condition, the speed of sound is set to c = 10V , where
and upon integrating, we have: V is the maximum expected velocity inside the flow. The density
ρi is evolved at each time–step using the continuity equation
N
A(r) = ∑ A(r j )W (r − r j , h)(dV ) j (5) dρi mj
= ρi ∑ (ui − u j ) · ∇Wi j . (11)
j=1
dt ρj

The final step is to express the differential volume element (dV ) j

m Time stepping scheme
as ρ jj . Thus, the approximation for A(r) can be written as:
Any stable time integrating algorithm for ordinary differen-
tial equations can be used to integrate Eq. 7. However, recently
N symplectic time integrators have been proposed for solving the
mj
A(r) = ∑ A(r j )W (r − r j , h) (6) sets of ordinary equations in the SPH formulation [29, 38]. In
j=1 ρ j
this work a modified Verlet scheme which is second order accu-
rate in time is used to integrate the momentum, continuity and
The summation is over particles which lie within a circle of ra-
displacement equations
dius h centered at r. The momentum equation can be written in
the SPH form as  du 
dt i = Fi
   
du Pi Pj
= −∑mj + + Π i j ∇iWi j + g (7)  dx 
= ui
dt i ρi 2 ρ j 2 dt i (12)
h i
dρ
where u, P, m, ρ and g are velocity, pressure, mass, density and dt i = Di
gravitational force respectively. In the Eq. 7, Πi j is the viscous
force between particle i and j and is calculated as described in
We denote the values at the beginning of time–step by superscript
[29, 34]
n, at the mid–point by n + 1/2 and at the end of each time–step
by n + 1. Initially, all the variables are shifted to the mid–point
8µ ui j · ri j
Πi j = − (8) as follows
ρi ρ j (ri j 2 + 0.01h2 )
 1
 ui n+ 2 = ui n + 4t
2 Fi
n
where µ is the dynamic viscosity of the fluid. The kernel used in 



the simulations in this paper is one of the Wendland kernels [35]. 
1
This kernel gives the best compromise between accuracy and xi n+ 2 = xi n + 4t
2 ui
n (13)


computation cost [36] and is given by 

 n+ 12
= ρi n + 4t

n

ρi 2 Di .
 (1 + 2s)(2 − s)4 0 ≤ s ≤ 2
W (r, h) = W0 × (9) The forces Fi are evaluated at the mid–point and the velocity,
0 2≤s position and density of the particles are updated at the end of


3 Copyright
c 2011 by ASME
time–step using

1



 ui n+1 = ui n + 4tFi n+ 2



1
xi n+1 = xi n+ 2 + 4t
2 ui
n+1 (14)




1
= ρi n+ 2 + 4t

 n+1 n+1 .
ρi 2 Di

To speed up the calculations it is possible to use the values of F

at the previous midpoint (Fn−1/2 ) in the predictor step, Eq. 13.
It is shown that the error introduced by this is small and of order
O(dt 3 ) [33].
In WCSPH the time–step is governed by the following CFL FIGURE 1. Schematic of the boundary particles in the WCSPH
condition method. Filled circles are fluid particles and filled rectangles are bound-
ary particles.
h
4t ≤ 0.5 (15)
c adapted for the sloshing flows in this work by applying a Dirich-
let pressure boundary condition for the free surface particles and
where h is the smoothing length and c represents the speed of by allowing the particle density to change.
sound in the simulation. The time–step is similar to the two step projection method
of Chorin [43]. Initially, the particles are shifted to their interme-
diate position due to the contribution of the stress tensor and the
Boundary Conditions in WCSPH
body force. This step is an explicit integration in time without
In the SPH method there are several approaches for mod-
enforcing the incompressibility. The intermediate velocity of the
elling boundary conditions [33, 39]. In this work, the boundaries
particles is
are represented by fixed particles placed with the same spacing
as the initial fluid particles. Typically three layers of fixed bound-
u∗i = uni − ∆t
 
ary particles are used, enough to ensure the convolution of nearby ∑ m j Πi j · ∇iWi j + g (16)
fluid particles is accurate.
In WCSPH, these particles are governed by the same mo- where u∗ represents the intermediate velocity vector. The parti-
mentum and continuity equations as the fluid particles and con- cles are then shifted to their intermediate position by
tribute to the solution procedure like others. Therefore, the den-
sity equation is also solved for these boundary particles to calcu-
ri ∗ = ri n + ∆t (ui ∗ ) . (17)
late the increasing pressure due to the approaching fluid particles.
Furthermore, this increased pressure prevents the fluid particles
from penetrating the solid boundaries. Velocities of all bound- Given the intermediate velocity field, the following pressure
ary particles are set to the velocity of the boundary at the end Poisson equation (PPE) is needed to enforce incompressibility
of each time–step [40]. Figure 1 shows a schematic of the fluid
and boundary particles with the boundary particles represented ∇ · ui ∗
 
1
by the filled square symbols. ∇· ∇Pi = . (18)
ρ ∆t

From the continuity equation, the source term is written as

Incompressible SPH
Several time–stepping scheme have been proposed for
ISPH [1, 31, 41]. Cummins and Rudman [1] presented a pro- ∇ · ui ∗ 1 dρi
≡ (19)
jection scheme based on maintaining a divergence–free velocity ∆t ρ0 ∆t dt
field. In their technique, both the density and the mass of parti-
cles are constant but it was not able to model free surface flows. where
Shao and Lo [41] proposed a method similar to the moving par-
ticle semi–implicit (MPS) method [42] for SPH that imposes the dρi mj
= ρi ∑ (u∗i − u∗j ) · ∇Wi j . (20)
density invariance to describe free–surface flows. This method is dt ρj

4 Copyright
c 2011 by ASME
In contrast to WCSPH, where the particle density is evaluated
using Eq.11,in ISPH the density of each particle is calculated
from the SPH summation of density

ρi = ∑ m jWi j . (21)
j

However, the truncation of the kernel for the particles on the

free–surface due to lack of neighbouring particles leads to er-
ror in the density calculation at the free–surface. To overcome
this, the kernel in the density summation has been renormalised
using the so–called Shepard correction [44],

Wi j
ρi = ∑ m jW̃i j , where W̃i j = m . (22)
j ∑k ρkk Wik (a)

Figure. 2 shows the effect of this correction on the sloshing simu-

lation. Particles are more scattered and the free–surface is noisier
without the correction (Fig. 2–a). In contrast, the correction leads
to more accurate density distribution (Fig. 2–b).
The intermediate velocity field is corrected with the pres-
sure gradient term to obtain a solenoidal velocity field. The final
velocity is calculated as
!
Pj Pi
un+1
i = uni − ∆t ∑ m j 2
+ 2 ∇Wi j (23)
ρ j ρi

and the final position of particles is

ui n + ui n+1
 
ri n+1 = ri n + ∆t . (24)
2 (b)

Following [41], the Laplacian pressure term in the PPE (Eq. 18) FIGURE 2. The ISPH results for sloshing flow, without kernel correc-
is approximated as tion (a) and with kernel correction (b). Particle spacing is l0 = 10−2 m.
 
1 8 Pi j ri j · ∇Wi j
∇· ∇P = ∑ m j . (25)
ρ (ρi + ρ j )2 |ri j |2
Boundary Conditions in ISPH
Discretisation of Eq. 25 leads to a linear system of equations for
pressure with a symmetric and positive definite matrix of coef- In ISPH, one layer of fixed particles are placed on the wall.
ficients. In this work, a multi–grid technique with Gauss–Seidel These particles contribute to the construction of the PPE matrix.
method is employed to solve the corresponding Poisson equation. The pressure from them allows the Neumann boundary condition
In ISPH the time–step is governed by the following condi- to be satisfied at the wall. In order to avoid accuracy degrada-
tion tion due to truncation of the kernel near the wall, several layers
of boundary particles are placed outside the wall. These parti-
s ! cles do not contribute to the solution of the PPE. Instead their
h pressure is calculated from the wall particles by assuming a zero
4t ≤ 0.25min (26)
|fi | pressure gradient in the normal direction to the wall. Figure 3
shows a schematic of the particle positions. The fluid particles,
where fi is force per unit mass and equal to magnitude of particle wall particles and external boundary particles are illustrated by
acceleration [30]. circles, stars and rectangles, respectively.

5 Copyright

c 2011 by ASME

FIGURE 3. Schematic of the boundary particles in the ISPH simu-
lations. The wall particles (stars) contribute to the PPE but the outer
boundary particles (rectangles) do not.
Free–surface
Since the number of neighboring particles are smaller for
particles on the free surface the value of ∇ · r decreases for the
free–surface particles [30]. In 2D simulations the value of ∇ · r
is equal to 2 inside the fluid domain and is significantly below 2
for the surface particles. Therefore a criterion of
∇ · r = 1.5 (27)
is used to recognize the particles on the free–surface where the
divergence of the particle position is calculated using
mj
∇·r = ∑ ri j · ∇Wi j . (28)
ρj
A Dirichlet boundary condition of p = 0 is assigned to these par-
ticles.
Multi–grid solver
In this work, a multi–grid scheme [45] is used for efficient
solution of the pressure Poisson equation. The multi–grid is im-
plemented in a similar way to [1]. First an equivalent grid resolu-
tion is defined at the particle level. This is achieved by extending
the domain size to ensure 2n grid cells fits in the domain with a
grid cell size of 2h × 2h. Initially several Gauss–Seidel iterations
(typically ∼ 3 − 5) are performed at the particles. Then the error
is mapped to the finest grid level which has a cell size of 2h × 2h.
This corresponds to the size of the search grid used in assem-
bling the list of nearest neighbour particles. The mapping from
the particles to the grid is done by using the kernel employed in
the simulations (Wendland kernel, see Eq. 9). Similar to [1], a
standard defect correction multi–grid technique is used at coarse
levels and bilinear interpolation is used to prolong the correction
to the finer level. To project back the correction from the finest
grid level to particles level, the bilinear interpolation scheme is
6 Copyright
used. Finally one last Gauss–Seidel iteration is performed at the
particles to calculate the pressure and the residual. The proce-
dure represents a one V–cycle.
SLOSHING FLOW
To compare the capability of WCSPH and ISPH methods
and study the incompressibility effects in sloshing flow, an exper-
iment was carried out to measure the impact pressure and capture
the flow pattern. Here, the experimental setup is introduced and
then the results are compared with numerical results from ISPH
and WCSPH.
Experimental Setup
The sloshing experiments are carried out in a rectangular
tank partially filled with water at atmospheric pressure and room
temperature. The tank dimensions are 130 cm × 90 cm × 10 cm,
corresponding to the length, height and width of the tank. Three
of the walls are made of transparent plexiglass for optical ac-
cess, while the top and one of the side walls are made of alu-
minum and host pressure sensors. On the side wall the sensors
are spaced 15 mm apart in the vertical direction and 25 mm apart
in the horizontal direction. There are 59 vertical positions avail-
able in the central column and 31 on each of the side columns.
On the top of the tank there are 3 lines of 22 holes each spaced
15 mm apart and the lines are 25 mm apart. The time variation
of the impact pressure at the position of initial water level on the
left wall is recorded at the frequency of 40 kHz during the exper-
iment. The tank is mounted on top of a motion system platform.
This device is capable of performing motions with six degrees
of freedom [40]. Figure 4 shows the experimental setup. For
the experiment considered here, the tank was filled 20% with
water, corresponding to H = 0.18 m. The motion is sinusoidal
with the amplitude of A = 0.1 m at the resonant frequency of
f = 0.496 Hz, which is the frequency of a shallow water wave
with wavelength of λ = 1.3 m and depth of H = 0.18 m. Figure 5
shows different snap shots of impact at three different times.
SPH Comparisons With Experiment
WCSPH and ISPH simulations were run to compare both
global and local features of the sloshing phenomenon with exper-
imental data. For the SPH calculations, the particles were placed
on a square grid with initial spacing of l0 = 5 × 10−3 m and the
smoothing length was set to h = 1.5l0 . The Reynolds number
is calculated using the depth of water as the typical length and
is Re = (2g)1/2 H 3/2 /ν, where ν = 10−6 m2 /s is the kinematic
viscosity of water. Using these dimensions the Reynolds number
is Re ≈ 338000. Figure 6 shows the shape of free–surface pro-
files for ISPH and WCSPH. The free–surface profile has been
digitized from the experimental data and superimposed on to the
numerical results for better comparison. The particle positions
c 2011 by ASME
 FIGURE 5. The snapshots of the sloshing at a random impact.
FIGURE 4. The tank installed on top of the motion platform.
are shown coloured by pressure, to compare the pressure field
obtained from both techniques. It can be seen in the Fig. 6 that
the pressure field from WCSPH is highly noisy compared to the
very smooth pressure gradient in the ISPH. Using stiff equation
of state in the WCSPH leads to development of negative pressure.
This high negative pressure in WCSPH causes an unrealistic ten-
sile force between particles which can lead to creation of clusters
of particles in some regions of the field. This effect is not seen
in the ISPH. On the other hand the particles in ISPH results are
more scattered.
The time variation of the impact pressure at the initial water
level on the left wall is compared against experimental data. The
results are shown in Fig. 7. The ISPH results are in good agree-
ment with the experimental data during the decay period while
the WCSPH results are highly oscillatory during the decay. The
decay time is predicted more accurately in ISPH compared to
7 Copyright
WCSPH, where the decay time is in fact hidden due to the highly
noisy pressure field.
Efficiency comparisons
Figure 8 compares the CPU time for 2 s of sloshing simu-
lation for ISPH and WCSPH at three different resolutions, cor-
responding to initial particle spacing of 10−2 m, 5 × 10−3 m and
3 × 10−3 m. The CPU wall-clock time was measured on an In-
tel Core2 Duo PC with 4 GiB memory. Despite an increase in
the time–step ISPH is ≈ 3 − 4 times slower than WCSPH at
the finest resolution. Further work is needed to accelerate the
PPE solver such as investigating pre–conditioned linear solvers
to make ISPH method more efficient.
CONCLUSION
In this paper, a two-dimensional sloshing flow has been sim-
ulated with WCSPH and ISPH and the results are compared
against experimental data. It has been observed that ISPH gives
more accurate, stable and reliable results in comparison to WC-
SPH at high Re flows. This is credited to a more accurate pres-
sure calculation in ISPH which is derived from the an incom-
pressible flow constraint rather than an equation of state. Despite
the larger time–steps in ISPH compared to WCSPH, the compu-
tational cost is still greater in ISPH. This cost has been reduced
by using a multi–grid scheme to solve the pressure Poisson equa-
tion but further work needs to be performed in this area.
REFERENCES
[1] Cummins, S. J., and Rudman, M., 1999. “An SPH projec-
tion method”. J. Comput. Phys., 152, pp. 584–607.
[2] Wu, C. H., and Chen, B. F., 2009. “Sloshing waves and
resonance modes of fluid in a 3d tank by a time-independent
finite difference method”. Ocean Eng., 36, pp. 500–510.
[3] Graham, E. W., and Rodriguez, A. M., 1952. “The charac-
c 2011 by ASME
FIGURE 6. The snapshots of the SPH results for sloshing flow for ISPH (left column) and WCSPH (right column). The black dots represent the
experimental free–surface.

teristics of fuel motion which affects airplane dynamics”. stabiliser tanks”. RINA Transactions and Annual Report,
Journal of Applied Mechanics, 19, pp. 381–388. 19, pp. 31–45.
[4] Lewison, G. R. G., 1976. “Optimum design of passive roll [5] Aliabadi, S., Johnson, A., and Abedi, J., 2003. “Compari-

8 Copyright

c 2011 by ASME
 WCSPH .vs. Experiment
ISPH .vs. Experiment
FIGURE 7. Comparison of time history of impact pressure of WC-
SPH and ISPH with experimental data.
son of finite element and pendulum models for simulation
of sloshing”. Computational Fluids, 32, pp. 535–545.
[6] Faltinsen, O. M., Rognebakke, O. F., and Timokha, A. N.,
2005. “Resonant three-dimensional nonlinear sloshing in a
square-base basin. part 2: Effect of higher modes”. Journal
on Fluid Mechanics, 523, pp. 199–218.
9 Copyright
FIGURE 8. Comparison of CPU time.
[7] Lee, T., Zhou, Z., and Cao, Y., 2002. “Numerical simu-
lations of hydraulic jumps in water sloshing and water im-
pacting”. ASME. J. Fluids Eng., 124, pp. 215–226.
[8] Stoker, J. J., 1957. Water waves, Pure and Applied Mathe-
matics, Vol. IV. Interscience, New York.
[9] Verhagen, J. H. G., and Wijngaarden, L., 1965. “Non–
linear oscillations of fluid in a container”. Journal on Fluid
Mechanics, 22, pp. 737–751.
[10] Abramson, H. N., 1966. The dynamic behavior of liquids
in moving containers, with applications to space vehicle
technology. Technical Report SP-106, National Aeronau-
tics and Space Administration.
[11] Bass, R. L., Bowles, E. B., Trundell, R. W., Navickas, J.,
Peck, J. C., Yoshimura, N., Endo, S., and Pots, B. F. M.,
1985. “Modeling criteria for scaled lng sloshing experi-
ments”. Transactions of the American Society of Mechani-
cal Engineers, 107, pp. 272–280.
[12] Frandsen, J. B., 2004. “Sloshing motions in excited tanks”.
J. Comput. Phys., 196, pp. 53–87.
[13] Celebi, M. S., and Akyildiz, H., 2002. “Nonlinear mod-
elling of liquid sloshing in a moving rectangular tanks”.
Ocean Eng., 29, pp. 1527–1553.
[14] Sames, P. C., Marcouly, D., and Schellin, T. E., 2002.
“Sloshing in rectangular and cylindrical tanks”. Journal
on Ship Research, 46, pp. 186–200.
[15] Lucy, L. B., 1977. “A numerical approach to the testing of
the fission hypothesis”. Astron. J., 82, pp. 1013–1020.
c 2011 by ASME
[16] Gingold, R. A., and Monaghan, J. J., 1977. “Smoothed par-
ticle hydrodnamics: Theory and application to nonspherical
stars”. Mon. Not. Roy. Astr. Soc., 181, pp. 375–389.
[17] Monaghan, J. J., and Gingold, R. A., 1983. “Shock simu-
lation by the particle method SPH”. J. Comput. Phys., 52,
pp. 374–389.
[18] Benz, W., 1988. “Applications of smoothed particle hy-
drodynamics (SPH) to astrophysical problems”. Computer
Physics Communications, 48, pp. 130–139.
[19] Monaghan, J. J., 1990. “Modeling the universe”. In Pro-
ceedings of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 18,
pp. 233–237.
[20] Monaghan, J. J., and Lattanzio, J. C., 1991. “A simula-
tion of the collapse and fragmentation of cooling molecular
clouds”. Astrophysical Journal, 375, pp. 177–189.
[21] Monaghan, J. J., Cas, R. F., Kos, A., and Hallworth, M.,
1999. “Gravity currents descending a ramp in a stratified
tank”. Journal Fluid Mechanics, 379, pp. 39–70.
[22] Swegle, J. W., Hicks, S. W., and Attaway, S., 1995.
“moothed particle hydrodynamics stability analysis”. J.
Comp. Phys., 116, pp. 123–134.
[23] Libersky, L. D., and Petscheck, A. G., 1993. “High strain
lagrangian hydrodynamics- a three–dimensional SPH code
for dynamic material response”. J. Comput. Phys., 109,
pp. 67–75.
[24] Benz, W., and Asphaug, E., 1995. “Simulations of brittle
solids using smoothed particle hydrodynamics”. Computa-
tional Physics Communications, 87, pp. 253–265.
[25] Bonet, J., and Kulasegaram, S., 2000. “Corrections and
stabilization of smooth particle hydrodynamics methods
with applications in metal forming simulations”. Interna-
tional Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 47,
pp. 1189–1214.
[26] Rabczuk, T., Garcie, R., Song, J. H., and Belytschko, T.,
2009. “Immersed particle method for fluid.structure inter-
action”. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng, 81, pp. 48–71.
[27] Maurel, B., Potapov, S., Fabis, J., and Combescure, A.,
2009. “Full SPH fluid–shell interaction for leakage sim-
ulation”. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng, 80, pp. 210–234.
[28] Rafiee, A., and Thiagarajan, K. P., 2009. “An SPH projec-
tion method for simulating fluid–hypoelastic structure in-
teraction”. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, 198, pp. 2785–2795.
[29] Monaghan, J. J., 2005. “Smoothed particle hydrodynam-
ics”. Rep. Progr. Phys., 68, pp. 1703–1759.
[30] Lee, E. S., Moulinec, C., Xu, R., Violeau, D., Laurence, D.,
and Stansby, P., 2008. “Comparisons of weakly compress-
ible and truly incompressible algorithms for the SPH mesh
free particle method”. J. Comput. Phys., 227, pp. 8417–
8436.
[31] Xu, R., Stansby, P., and Laurence, D., 2009. “Accuracy
and stability in incompressible SPH (ISPH) based on the
10
projection method and a new approach”. Journal of Com-
putational Physics, 228(18), pp. 6703–6725.
[32] Monaghan, J. J., 1992. “Smoothed particle hydrodynam-
ics”. Annul. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 30, pp. 543–574.
[33] Monaghan, J. J., 1994. “Simulating free surface flows with
SPH”. J. Comput. Phys., 110, pp. 399–406.
[34] Cleary, P. W., 1998. “Modelling confined multi-material
heat and mass flows using sph”. Appl. Math. Modelling,
22, pp. 981–993.
[35] Wendland, H., 1995. “Piecewise polynomial, positive def-
inite and compactly supported radial functionsof minimal
degree”. Adv. Comput. Math., 4, pp. 389–396.
[36] Crespo, A. J. C., 2008. “Application of the smoothed par-
ticle hydrodynamics model sphysics to free–surface hydro-
dynamics”. Ph.d thesis, Department of Applied Physics,
University of Vigo.
[37] Batchelor, G. K., 1974. An Introduction to Fluid dynamics.
Cambridge University Press.
[38] Molteni, D., and Colagrossi, A., 2009. “A simple procedure
to improve the pressure evaluation in hydrodynamic context
using the SPH”. Comput. Phys. Comm., 180, pp. 861–872.
[39] Morris, J. P., Fox, P. J., and Zhu, Y., 1997. “Modeling
low reynolds number incompressible flows using SPH”. J.
Comput. Phys., 136, pp. 214–226.
[40] Rafiee, A., Pistani, F., and Thiagarajan, K. P., 2010. “Study
of liquid sloshing: Numerical and experimental approach”.
Computational Mechanics, In-press.
[41] Shao, S., and Lo, E. Y. M., 2003. “Incompressible SPH
method for simulating newtonian and non–newtonian flows
with a free surface”. Advances in Water Resources, 26,
pp. 787–800.
[42] Koshizuka, A., Nobe, A., and Oka, Y., 1998. “Numeri-
cal analysis of breaking waves using the moving particle
semi–implicit method”. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, 26,
pp. 751–769.
[43] Chorin, A. J., 1968. “Numerical solution of the navier–
stokes equations”. J. Math. Comp., 22, pp. 745–762.
[44] Bonet, J., and Lok, T. S. L., 1999. “Variational and momen-
tum preservation aspects of smooth particle hydrodynamic
formulations”. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 180,
pp. 97–115.
[45] Hackbusch, W., 1985. Multi–Grid Methods and Applica-
tions. Springer–Verlag Berlin.
Copyright
c 2011 by ASME