SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES 2004-01-0403

Design and Analysis of Fuel Tank Baffles to

Reduce the Noise Generated from Fuel Sloshing
Hoi Sum IU, W. L. Cleghorn and J. K. Mills
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto

Reprinted From: Noise and Vibration 2004

(SP-1867)

2004 SAE World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
March 8-11, 2004

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760 Web: www.sae.org
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.

For permission and licensing requests contact:

SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Fax: 724-772-4891
Tel: 724-772-4028

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service

Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-1615
Email: CustomerService@sae.org

ISBN 0-7680-1319-4
Copyright © 2004 SAE International

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE.
The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions
will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA

Design and Analysis of Fuel Tank Baffles to Reduce the
Noise Generated From Fuel Sloshing
Hoi Sum IU, W. L. Cleghorn and J. K. Mills
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto
Copyright © 2004 SAE International
ABSTRACT
Fuel slosh inside an automotive fuel tank was found to
generate unpleasant noise. This paper presents the
analysis of several baffle designs to suppress the fuel
slosh by using a commercial Computational Fluid
Dynamics software, FLOW-3D®, and performing slosh
experiments. Estimated mean kinetic energy and average
turbulent kinetic energy of the fluid obtained from the
computer simulations were used to compare with sound
measurements obtained from the slosh experiments. The
slosh experiments were recorded using high speed video
equipment enhanced with a data acquisition system to
take sound measurements. The simulation results showed
that approximately 70% energy reduction from the No-
baffle configuration could be achieved with the best baffle
configuration. The experimental results demonstrated that
at low fluid level, the performance of different baffle
configurations was approximately the same. At high fluid
level, the best baffle configuration can reduce the sound
level by approximately 15 decibels.
INTRODUCTION
Fuel slosh occurs when the vehicle that holds the fuel tank
is accelerating or decelerating. The slosh behavior can
affect the stability and control of the vehicle especially
when the vehicle fuel to gross weight ratio is high, such as
in a spaceship or an airplane. In a smaller scale, such as
in an automobile fuel tank, fuel slosh does not create
significant stability and control problem since the fuel to
gross weight ratio is relatively small. However, fuel slosh
in an automobile fuel tank does propose another type of
problem: the sloshing noise generated inside the tank.
The sloshing noise problem becomes more significant as
the customer’s expectation of a quiet automobile gets
higher. Therefore, the current research tries to reduce or
eliminate the sloshing noise problem by designing
1
2004-01-0403
different shaped baffles and placing them at different
positions in the fuel tank.
Since the mid-1980s, automobile manufacturers began
to use plastic to make fuel tanks [1]. Plastic fuel tanks
are made from high density polyethylene (HDPE).
HDPE is a strong and light weight material that allows
manufacturers to reduce the overall weight of their
vehicles. In addition to its light weight, other benefits
include better design flexibility, greater corrosion
resistance and lower manufacturing costs [2] [3].
However, due to the limitation of the plastic tanks
manufacturing process, full height baffles as used in
conventional steel fuel tanks cannot be implemented in
plastic tanks. Excessive fuel movement inside the
plastic fuel tank can therefore generate sloshing noise
that would not occur in a steel fuel tank.
Plastic fuel tanks are made by a process called blow
molding. The fuel tank is formed from blowing an
extruded plastic tube (parison) outward to fill the mold
cavity. Full height baffles are difficult to incorporate in
the plastic tank design. Only partial height baffles can
be integrated into the mold. See Figure 1 for typical
manufacturing steps of a plastic fuel tank.
Since these “built-in” baffles cannot be manufactured
to contain holes that allow fuel movement, the baffles’
shape, size and location become critical factors to
reduce the sloshing noise. The current research uses
computer simulations and slosh experiments to
investigate and analyze new baffle designs. To obtain
a thorough understanding of the slosh phenomenon,
high speed videos combined with simultaneous sound
measurements were used to record the sloshing
behavior.
The main objectives of the current research are to test,
analyze and compare five curved baffle designs and
determine an optimum solution. Since the slosh
behavior depends very much on the shape, the
location and the number of baffles inside the tank, testing
every design scenario can be a very tedious process.
Therefore, the secondary objective of the current research
is to verify the validity of the computer simulation results.
If the simulation results are found to be highly correlated
with the experimental results, computer simulations can
be used to obtain the optimum solution, and testing of the
optimum solution and the alternatives can be kept to
minimum.
Figure 1—Typical manufacturing steps of a plastic fuel tank. [4]
COMPUTER SIMULATION
FUEL TANK GEOMETRY
The tank geometry used in all the simulations of this paper
was based on the fuel tank model that was used in the
slosh experiments. The dimensions of the fuel tank model
are shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 shows the fuel tank
geometry used in the computer simulation. The tank
geometry shown in the figure was already discretized into
many rectangular cells. FLOW-3D® users only need to
specify the number of cells in all three axes, and the tank
volume would be discretized automatically.
INITIAL CONDITIONS
The unit system used in this paper is cgs unit system to
match the default unit system used by FLOW-3D®. For
2
safety reasons, the working fluid in the slosh
experiment was water. Therefore, the working fluid for
the computer simulation was also water to match the
slosh experiment. Since water is a very common fluid,
all of its properties can be extracted from the fluid
database in FLOW-3D®. Some major initial conditions
are listed in Table 1.
Figure 2—Dimensions of the fuel tank model.
Figure 3—Fuel tank geometry used in the computer simulation.
INPUT MOTION
Both the computer simulation and the slosh experiment
simulated the stop and go behavior experienced in
traffic. Therefore, the oscillating motion used was a
back and forth motion without side-by-side motion and
up and down motion. A harmonic motion was used to
simulate this back and forth motion as shown in Figure
4. Instead of specifying the displacement or the
velocity of the tank, FLOW-3D® requires user to specify
the acceleration amplitude of the motion.
 Corresponding Value and Brief
Initial Conditions
Description

Density of the fluid 1gm/cm3, density of water

Number of fluid 1, air is considered to be the void

present region.

980cm/s2 downward along the z-

Gravity
axis.

0.04s, results are calculated in every

Time step size
0.04second

Duration of the 4 seconds, to match the length of

simulation the high speed videos
Figure 4—x-axis acceleration graph of the tank motion.
Fluid Temperature 293.0 K

Compressibility of Incompressible, Water is considered

the fluid to be an incompressible fluid
DIFFERENT BAFFLE DESIGNS AND POSITIONS
1.013e6 gm/cm-s2, 1 atmosphere
Void region pressure In the current study, five curved baffle designs were
pressure
used in the simulations and the slosh experiments.
Hydrostatic pressure in the z- Figure 5 shows the cross-section of the five curved
Initial pressure field
direction baffle designs and their positions inside the fuel tank
model. The author designed these to test the effects
Table 1—Major initial conditions.
of different heights and widths of the baffles with the
objective of reducing the sloshing noise. Baffle design
#1 employs an oblique design. Baffle design #2
through #4 test the effect of baffle width. Baffle design
#5 employs an overlapping baffle design to simulate a
For example, the tank displacement peak-to-peak compartmented tank. The baffles are generally put in
amplitude is 31cm, and the period of motion is 2 seconds. the shallow end of the tank because the sloshing noise
Then, the displacement s is equal to: usually occurs at this end.

s = − 15 . 5 sin ω t

where ω = 2 π = 2 π = π s − 1
T 2s

ds
v = = (− 15 .5 × ω ) cos ωt
dt
(a)
a =
dv
dt
(
= 15 . 5 × ω 2
)sin ωt

(
= 15 . 5 × π 2
)sin π t = 153 sin π t

For this case, the acceleration amplitude, 153 cm/s2, and

the angular frequency, π s-1, were used to specify the
(b)
harmonic motion.
3

Figure 5—Different baffle designs and their positions inside the fuel tank.
(a) Baffle design #1; (b) Baffle design #2; (c) Baffle design; (d) Baffle
design #4; (e) Baffle design #5 (All dimensions in centimeters)
ESTIMATED MEAN KE AND AVERAGE TURBULENT KE
Estimated mean kinetic energy and average turbulent
kinetic energy were obtained from the simulation results
for different baffle designs. Both of these kinetic energies
are normalized values, and their units are both
[energy/unit mass], i.e. [cm2/s2].
According to Clark [5], estimated mean and average
turbulent kinetic energy are defined below as they are
computed in the program code:
Estimated mean KE =
∑ [0 .5 × cmass × (u 2
+ v2 + w2 )]
M
Average turbulent KE =
∑ [0 .5 × cmass × (u ' 2
+ v '2 + w'2 )] (2)
M
(c)
where cmass = mass of fluid in each cell
u, v, w = velocity components of each cell
u ' , v' , w' = turbulent velocity fluctuation of each cell
u ' = u − U , v' = v − V , w' = w − W
U , V , W = average velocity component of the control
(d) volume.
M = total mass of the fluid
∑ = summation over all the cells
As shown in Equations (1) and (2), estimated mean
kinetic energy is directly proportional to the square of
the velocity components of each cell, and average
turbulent kinetic energy is directly proportional to the
square of the turbulent velocity fluctuations of each
cell.
(e)
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
After simulating the slosh phenomenon for different
baffle designs, fluid levels and periods of motion, slosh
experiments were carried out to verify the computer
simulation results. The same variables were used in
the slosh experiments. Figure 6 shows the schematic
diagram of the experimental setup. The test stand
consists of the variable speed electric motor, the motor
stand, the connecting rod, the motion guide and the
main frame. Four 2 × 4 wood pieces were used to
mount the fuel tank model to the motion guide. The
fuel tank model was made by ½ inch thick acrylic. The
sound meter was placed at the side of the fuel tank
and 20cm away from the fuel tank to record the
sloshing noise generated from both shallow and deep
ends. The high speed video camera was placed
(1)
further away to record the motion of the fuel in the
tank.
4
Figure 6—Schematic diagram of the experimental setup. Figure 7—The screen shot of MiDAS software with combined video
and data display.

The actual fuel tank and the fuel tank model are made of
different materials and they have different sound radiation
characteristics. However, note that the purpose of this
work was not to measure the sound level radiating from a
real fuel tank. Instead, the purpose was to obtain the
optimum baffle shape and location. Therefore, the results
obtained from the fuel tank model were adequate.
The working fluid was water, which has different but
similar fluid properties than gasoline.
ACOUSTIC ENCLOSURE
The background noise due to the electric motor turned
on was around 75dB(A). An acoustic enclosure was
built to damp out the motor noise. Figure 8 shows the
experimental setup with the acoustic enclosure. After
the acoustic enclosure was installed, the background
noise due to the electric motor turned on was reduced
by approximately 15dB(A).

BAFFLE FABRICATION
HIGH SPEED VIDEO RECORDING AND DATA
ACQUISITION All baffles used in the slosh experiments were made of
Styrofoam. A large piece of 1-inch think Styrofoam
The high speed video camera used was MotionScope PCI was cut into many pieces of the shape of the baffle. All
1000 Series manufactured by Redlake MASD, Inc. The these pieces were then glued together to form a
highest recording frame rate the equipment could achieve complete baffle. The complete baffle was wrapped by
was 1000 frames/sec. However, 125 frames/sec was a thin plastic sheet to prevent the fluid from dissolving
used in the experiments to extend the recording time to 4 the glue and to enhance the adhesive ability of the
seconds and lower the light source requirement. waterproof tape, which was used to hold the baffles
onto the fuel tank model.
The data acquisition system used was called Motion &
Integrated Data Analysis System (MiDAS) manufactured
by Xcitex Inc. The data collected was synchronized with
the video and displayed in a single computer program.
Figure 7 shows a screen shot of the combined video and
data display.

The sound meter used was a TES-1350A sound level

meter manufactured by TES Electrical Electronic Corp.
There were two output types from the sound meter, and
they were AC and DC outputs. The DC output was
chosen to be used in the experiments. The DC output
was 0.01V/dB linearly. If the output voltage is 0.6V, the
sound level is 60dB; if the output is 0.9V, the sound level
is 90dB etc. Therefore, the voltage output from the sound
meter was multiplied by 100 to correctly display the unit
Decibel. The sound meter measures the overall A-
Figure 8—Picture of the experimental setup with the acoustic
weighted sound level every 1/8 second. enclosure.

5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Period of motion = 3.0s

FLOW-3D® RESULTS Fluid levels 6.5cm 9.0cm 11.5cm 14cm

No-baffle
Simulations were run with two variables; period of motion 350 171 120 195
configuration
and the fluid level. Three periods of motion were
Design #1 312 222 155 109
considered: 2.0s, 2.5s and 3.0s. The duration of every
simulation was set to 4.0s to match the recording time in Design #2 324 232 119 125
the high speed video recording time. Four fluid levels,
Design #3 321 217 193 140
6.5cm, 9.0cm, 11.5cm and 14.0cm, were considered.
Tables 2, 3 and 4 summarize the peak estimated mean Design #4 310 222 95 103
kinetic energy of different baffle designs.
Design #5 199 185 244 110
As shown in Tables 2, 3 and 4, in general, the mean Table 4—Peak estimated mean kinetic energy of different baffle
2 2
kinetic energy decreases as the period of motion designs at period of motion of 3.0s (unit—cm /s ).
increases and as the fluid level increases. As the period
of motion increases, corresponding to slower tank motion,
hence the mean kinetic energy of the fluid should be lower
Among Baffle design #1 through #4, Baffle design #1
as predicted by FLOW-3D®. In the case of increasing fluid
gave the lowest mean kinetic energy in most
level, although the mass of fluid had increased, the
situations. Baffle design #1 is slightly taller and wider
velocity of the fluid is smaller and the factor of the velocity
than the other baffle designs and it has an asymmetric
components in the mean kinetic energy equation is
oblique design. All these reasons make design #1
squared, so the kinetic energy ends up decreasing as
perform better than the other designs. Baffle designs
well.
#2, #3 and #4 have the same height and symmetric
design but different widths. The simulation results
Period of motion = 2.0s show that Baffle designs #2, #3 and #4 perform about
the same. This concludes that the width of the baffle is
Fluid levels 6.5cm 9.0cm 11.5cm 14cm not a major factor toward reducing the fluid slosh
energy.
No-baffle
2470 1933 1700 990
configuration
Baffle design #5 has a completely different shape than
Design #1 2127 1615 1143 330 the others. The height of the baffles is almost double
the height of the others. After placing one baffle to the
Design #2 1615 1520 1256 386
top and two baffles to the bottom of the tank, the
Design #3 1800 1520 1235 421 baffles overlap each other so that the tank is now
similar to a three-compartment tank. According to the
Design #4 2145 1643 1274 333 simulation results, this design is very effective toward
reducing the fluid slosh energy. For the slosh situation
Design #5 406 552 760 330 of T=2.0s and Fluid level = 6.5cm, the mean kinetic
Table 2—Peak estimated mean kinetic energy of different baffle designs energy of the fluid was reduced by as much as 80%.
2 2
at period of motion of 2.0s (unit—cm /s ).
Tables 5, 6 and 7 summarize the average turbulent
kinetic energy for different baffle designs.

Period of motion = 2.5s

Period of motion = 2.0s
Fluid levels 6.5cm 9.0cm 11.5cm 14cm
Fluid levels 6.5cm 9.0cm 11.5cm 14cm
No-baffle
950 560 350 386 No-baffle
configuration 39.6 26.1 16.2 7.6
configuration
Design #1 653 600 462 171
Design #1 35.6 36.4 20.6 7.0
Design #2 740 653 400 205
Design #2 39.0 39.5 23.3 8.2
Design #3 702 570 429 240
Design #3 33.3 36 20.3 10
Design #4 720 600 430 214
Design #4 37.5 38 21.3 9.3
Design #5 285 253 319 287
Design #5 11.4 17.8 22.3 9.3
Table 3—Peak estimated mean kinetic energy of different baffle designs
2 2 Table 5—Peak average turbulent kinetic energy of different baffle
at period of motion of 2.5s (unit—cm /s ). 2 2
designs at period of motion of 2.0s (unit—cm /s ).

6
 Period of motion = 2.5s
baffle designs were used, and they were put in the
same positions as in the computer simulations. Tables
Fluid levels 6.5cm 9.0cm 11.5cm 14cm 8, 9 and 10 summarize the experimental results.
No-baffle
13.1 4.1 3.4 6.3
configuration Period of motion = 2.0s
Design #1 13.5 12.1 7.1 2.8
Fluid levels 6.5cm 9.0cm 11.5cm 14cm
Design #2 19 14.5 8.9 3.6
No-baffle
66 70 75 76
Design #3 15.6 17 8.1 4.3 configuration

Design #4 16.1 15.8 7.6 3.2 Design #1 64 67 71 72

Design #5 7.6 9 11.9 8.8 Design #2 68 69 72 75

Table 6—Peak average turbulent kinetic energy of different baffle Design #3 66 69 72 72

2 2
designs at period of motion of 2.5s (unit—cm /s ).
Design #4 64 68 75 71

Design #5 65 66 66 69
Table 8—Peak noise generated from the fluid slosh at period of
motion of 2.0s. Sound level unit—dB(A)
Period of motion = 3.0s

Fluid levels 6.5cm 9.0cm 11.5cm 14cm

No-baffle
3.4 1.3 1.7 3.5 Period of motion = 2.5s
configuration
Design #1 10 4.1 4.3 2.3 Fluid levels 6.5cm 9.0cm 11.5cm 14cm
Design #2 11.2 4.8 3.0 3.1 No-baffle
63 70 77 72
configuration
Design #3 11.8 3.5 4.2 4.8
Design #1 63 63 65 68
Design #4 10.0 3.6 1.9 2.7 Design #2 62 63 64 65
Design #5 6.5 6.5 8.4 3.9 Design #3 62 64 68 62
Table 7—Peak average turbulent kinetic energy of different baffle
2 2 Design #4 64 64 70 64
designs at period of motion of 3.0s (unit—cm /s ).
Design #5 62 63 62 63
Table 9—Peak noise generated from the fluid slosh at period of
Similar to the results of the mean kinetic energy, the motion of 2.5s. Sound level unit—dB(A)
turbulent kinetic energy decreases as the period of motion
increases and as the fluid level increases. However,
different from the mean kinetic energy, the turbulent
kinetic energy obtained from No-baffle configuration is not
always the highest among other baffle designs. In fact, for Period of motion = 3.0s
period of motion of 3.0s, i.e. the tank is moving slowly, No-
baffle configuration gives the lowest turbulent kinetic Fluid levels 6.5cm 9.0cm 11.5cm 14cm
energy for fluid level 6.5cm, 9.0cm and 11.5cm. This is No-baffle
because when the tank is moving slowly, the fluid sloshes 59 66 68 76
configuration
steadily, i.e. less velocity fluctuation. According to Design #1 59 61 60 67
Equation 2, the turbulent kinetic energy should be low.
Introducing the baffles would disturb the steady slosh, i.e. Design #2 59 59 59 61
more velocity fluctuation, hence higher turbulent kinetic
energy. Design #3 59 60 60 61

Design #4 59 59 64 62

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Design #5 60 62 61 60

Table 10—Peak noise generated from the fluid slosh at period of
In order to verify the computer simulation results, the motion of 3.0s. Sound level unit—dB(A)
same parameters were used for both computer
simulations and the slosh experiments. The same five
7
As shown from Tables 8, 9 and 10, No-baffle configuration
always generated the highest noise level in the high fluid
level cases. In the low fluid level cases, the noise levels
for different baffle configurations were about the same, but
the noise was sometimes increased with the introduction
of baffles. This is because the high noise level usually
occurs when the fluid sloshes and hits the top wall of the
tank. In low fluid level, the fluid does not slosh high
enough to hit the top wall of the tank, so the noise is
usually due to the turbulence created from the slosh.
After introducing the baffles, the turbulence of the fluid
slosh was higher when it flows over the baffles, hence
higher noise level.

Once again, the performance of Baffle design #1 through

#4 is about the same as predicted by the similar mean
kinetic energy obtained from the computer simulations. In
the low fluid level cases, Baffle design #5 performs also
similar to other designs although the mean kinetic energy
obtained from Baffle design #5 was predicted much lower
from the computer simulations. Baffle design #5 does
slow down the slosh as predicted from the computer
simulations, but in the low fluid level cases, the fluid could Figure 9—Releasing of bubbles phenomenon. (a) Fluid traveling
not reach the top wall and generate noise regardless of toward the shallow end; (b) air trapped in the left side, and air
the fluid speed. Therefore, all baffle designs lead to rushing to the right side.
approximately the same performance in reduction of
sloshing noise.

On the other hand, in high fluid level cases, the velocity of

the fluid does affect the noise level. Since the higher the
velocity of the fluid before hitting the wall, the bigger the
force that exerts on the tank walls by the fluid, hence the
noise generated could reach as high as 77dB(A).
Therefore, Baffle design #5 does provide great
improvement to reduce the noise level because it
considerably slows down the fluid slosh. For the slosh
situation of T = 2.5s and Fluid Level = 11.5cm, as much
as 15dB(A) deduction from the No-baffle configuration can
be achieved by Baffle design #5.
As discussed previously, the noise level depends strongly
on the velocity of the fluid before hitting the tank walls.
Therefore, at period of motion of 3.0s, most noise levels
were closed to the 59-60dB(A), with a few exceptions.
The first exception occurs for the No-baffle configuration.
Since there is no baffle to disturb the slosh, the fluid
sloshes steadily. Because of the fluid sloshes steadily, a
large surface area of fluid hits the top wall of the tank at
the same time and generates high noise level. The
second exception is caused by a slosh phenomenon that
happens only after introducing the top-mounted baffles.
This top-mounted baffle creates different fluid levels
between its two sides, so the air trapped on top of the low
fluid level side would rush out to the high fluid level side.
The releasing of bubbles could create certain level of
noise that is higher than the background noise. As the
fluid sloshes faster, this releasing of bubbles phenomenon
occurs more rapidly and creates higher noise levels.
Figure 9 explains the releasing of bubbles slosh
phenomenon.
8
CORRELATION ANALYSIS
This section presents two correlation analyses
between the computer simulation and the slosh
experiment. The first correlation analysis was done
between the mean kinetic energy obtained from the
computer simulation and the noise level obtained from
the slosh experiment. Since these two quantities can
both be represented by data points that vary with time,
two sets of data can be obtained for every slosh
situation. If the number of data points and the time
interval between each data point are the same, a
correlation factor can be calculated between two sets
of data.
The second correlation analysis was done between the
peak mean kinetic energy and the peak noise level.
One correlation factor was obtained for all the slosh
situations considered in this research. Individual
correlation factor was obtained for each slosh situation
where the fluid hits the top wall of the tank.
Mean Kinetic Energy and Noise Level
Table 11 summarizes the correlation analysis results.
The correlation analysis was performed for all baffle
configurations at the period of motion of 2.0s.
 Period of motion = 2.0s the shallow end. When the fluid sloshes toward
the deep end, the fluid usually does not slosh high
Fluid levels 6.5cm 9.0cm 11.5cm 14cm enough to hit the top wall of the deep end to
No-baffle generate noise. Since the number of peaks for the
0.13 0.21 0.29 0.80 kinetic energy and the sloshing noise do not
configuration
Design #1 0.69 0.58 0.61 0.63 match, the correlation factors between them are
usually small values.
Design #2 0.65 0.11 0.20 0.09
Design #3 0.75 0.74 0.05 0.44 2. According to the results obtained from the
Design #4 0.69 0.44 0.12 0.20 computer simulation, there are always two kinetic
energy peaks in a complete slosh cycle regardless
Design #5 0.32 0.30 0.72 0.04 of different fluid levels. However, in the slosh
Table 11—Correlation factors between the mean kinetic energy and the experiment, at low fluid level, there is sometimes
noise level. no noise generated at all, i.e. no noise peak. The
number of peaks do not match for these two sets
of data, hence the correlation factors between
them are small.
Examination of Table 11 reveals that there is not a strong
correlation between the mean kinetic energy obtained 3. Since the background noise level is around
from the computer simulation and the noise level obtained 60dB(A), the sound meter cannot capture the
from the slosh experiment. However, the slosh noise peaks that are below 60dB(A), i.e. the sound
experiment did show that higher slosh velocity before level data would only show the noise levels above
hitting the top wall of the tank always generated higher 60dB(A). Hence, the correlation factors would be
noise level. High fluid slosh velocity means the mean low for slosh situations involving noise peaks
kinetic energy of the fluid is high. So, there is still a close below 60dB(A). Likewise, the correlation factors
relationship between the mean kinetic energy and the would be higher for slosh situations involving noise
sloshing noise. The small correlation factors obtained peaks above 70dB(A) as explained below.
between them are because of the following three reasons:

1. After comparing the slosh patterns and the mean
kinetic energy graphs, it is concluded that the peak
kinetic energy of the fluid always happens when the
fluid is sloshing toward either the shallow or deep end
of the tank as shown from Figure 10.
Peak Mean Kinetic Energy and Peak Noise Level
In the first part of this correlation analysis, the peak
mean kinetic energy and the peak noise level from all
baffle designs were used to obtain one correlation
factor. The correlation factor obtained was 0.35. This
shows again that high mean kinetic energy predicted in
the computer simulation does not always correspond
to high sloshing noise in the slosh experiment. This is
because high sloshing noise in the slosh experiments
only occurs when the fluid hits the top of the tank. For
low fluid level slosh situations, the fluid usually does
not slosh high enough to hit the top of the tank.

Therefore, in the second part of this correlation

analysis, only the slosh situations with the fluid hits the
top of the tank were considered. Two slosh situations
were considered and they were at period of motion of
2.0sec for fluid level 11.5cm and 14.0cm. The results
are listed in Table 12 and Table 13.

Figure 10—Occurrences of peak kinetic energy of the fluid. (a) Fluid

sloshing toward the shallow end; (b) Fluid sloshing toward the deep end.
Therefore, there are two kinetic energy peaks in a
complete slosh cycle. On the other hand, for most
slosh experiments, a noise peak only happens once
per slosh cycle. This is because the noise only
occurs when the fluid sloshes and hits the top wall of
9
From the correlation analyses, high mean kinetic
energy of the fluid does not always correspond to high
sloshing noise. High correlation factors can only be
obtained from slosh situations where the fluid hits the
top wall of the tank. Therefore, it is very important to
know whether the fluid hits the top of the tank before
the mean kinetic energy can be used to predict the
sloshing noise. Moreover, the correlation factor was
high only when comparing the mean kinetic energy
and the sloshing noise at a specific slosh situation.
Mean kinetic energy values obtained from different slosh
situations cannot be combined to predict the sloshing
noise, i.e. each slosh situation must be considered
separately.

Period of Motion = 2.0s

Fluid level = 11.5cm
Mean Noise
KE Level
No-Baffle
1700 75
Configuration
Design #1 1143 71
Design #2 1256 72
Design #3 1235 72 Correlation
Design #4 1274 75 factor
Design #5 760 66 0.89
Table 12—Correlation analysis result for slosh situation of T=2s, Fluid
Level = 11.5cm

Period of Motion = 2.0s

Fluid level = 14.0cm
Mean Noise
KE Level
No-Baffle
990 76
Configuration
Design #1 330 72
Design #2 386 75
Design #3 421 72 Correlation
Design #4 333 71 factor
Design #5 330 69 0.71
Table 13—Correlation analysis result for slosh situation of T=2s, Fluid
Level = 14.0cm

Since fluid hitting the top of the tank is a major factor

toward predicting the sloshing noise from the computer
simulation, correctly predicting the slosh pattern inside the
fuel tank could greatly enhance the prediction of the noise
level. Therefore, the next section presents the slosh
pattern comparison between the computer animations and
the slosh experiment videos.
Figure 11—Slosh pattern comparison for No-baffle configuration at
SLOSH PATTERN COMPARISON period of motion of 2.0s and fluid level of 6.5cm. Left: computer
simulation. Right: Slosh experiment
In this section, the slosh patterns predicted by Flow-3D®
was used to compare with the actual slosh patterns
obtained from the slosh experiments. Screen shots
obtained from the computer simulations and the slosh
experiments are put side by side for the comparison The slosh comparison shows that FLOW-3D® can
purpose. Figure 11 shows an example of the slosh predict the slosh pattern very well for all the cases
pattern comparison. Each frame is separated by 0.24s. including high fluid level, low fluid level, with baffles
10
added and without baffles added. However, it was found
that FLOW-3D® cannot predict the releasing of bubbles
slosh phenomenon that occurs at certain situations after
adding the top-mounted baffles.
EFFECTS OF BOTTOM-MOUNTED BAFFLES
After performing the computer simulations and the slosh
experiments, it is found that the bottom-mounted baffles
are most effective toward disturbing the fluid slosh when
they are partially submerged in the water. As the fluid
increases to the level that the baffles are totally
submerged in the water, the effects of these baffles
vanish. Therefore, it is advantageous to make the bottom-
mounted baffles as high as possible in order to disturb the
slosh at high fluid levels. Also, it is very important to leave
some openings along the baffles added to allow the
balance of the fluid level between each baffle. As shown
in Figure 12, fluid level imbalance could happen if the
bottom-mounted baffles are completely across the fuel
tank. The fluid level imbalance could affect the fuel gauge
from correctly measuring the remaining fuel volume inside
the tank.
Figure 12—Misreading of the fuel level. (a) Bottom-mounted baffle
completely across the tanks; (b) misreading of the remaining volume; (c)
bottom-mounted baffle with openings; (d) correct reading of the
remaining volume.
EFFECTS OF TOP-MOUNTED BAFFLES
Similar to the effects of the bottom-mounted baffles, the
top-mounted baffles are most effective when they are
partially submerged in the water. Once they are
completely submerged in the fluid, i.e. at fluid level higher
than the shallow end, their effects vanish. Again, these
top-mounted baffles also propose the problem of fluid
level imbalance if they are completely across the fuel tank.
Introducing openings to the top-mounted baffles could
eliminate the fluid level imbalance problem, but these
openings could lead to the problem of releasing of
bubbles. The openings allow the releasing of bubbles to
occur more rapidly and easily.
11
Moreover, the fluid level imbalance could be a problem
when refilling the fuel tank. One side of the tank can
be full while the other side is still half full. Therefore, it
is not recommended to add top-mounted baffles to the
fuel tank although they do slow down the slosh at mid
fluid level. The influence of the top-mounted baffles at
mid fluid level can be replaced by using taller bottom-
mounted baffles.
CONCLUSION
The two goals of the current research were to reduce
or eliminate the sloshing noise generated inside the
fuel tank and to verify the validity of the computer
simulations by performing slosh experiments. The first
goal was successfully achieved. At low oscillating
frequencies, i.e. periods of motion of 2.5s and 3.0s,
Baffle design #5 was able to eliminate the sloshing
noise completely. At high oscillating frequency, i.e.
period of motion of 2.0s, Baffle design #5 was still able
to reduce the sloshing noise.
The second goal was also achieved. From the slosh
pattern comparison, FLOW-3D® was proved to be able
to predict the slosh pattern quite well. Once the slosh
pattern is known, the mean kinetic energy obtained
from the computer simulation can be used to predict
the sloshing noise for individual slosh situation where
the fluid hits the top wall of the tank. Therefore, the
results of the mean kinetic energy and the slosh
pattern obtained from the computer simulation must be
combined in order to predict the noise level generated
inside the fuel tank more precisely.
The following conclusions can be drawn from the
computer simulation results:
1. The mean kinetic energy has two peaks in a
complete slosh cycle. The peak mean kinetic
energy occurs when the fluid is moving fastest
toward either end of the tank.
2. The mean kinetic energy reaches its minimum
values when the fluid is changing the slosh
direction.
3. The mean kinetic energy and the turbulent kinetic
energy always decrease as the fluid level
increases and as the period of motion increases.
4. The width of the baffle is not a major factor toward
reducing the sloshing noise as shown by the
similar mean kinetic energies obtained from Baffle
designs #2, #3 and #4.
5. Baffle design #5 has tall baffles that overlap each
other. The fuel tank now becomes similar to a
three-compartment tank. Compared to the No-
baffle configuration, Baffle design #5 could lower
the mean kinetic energy of the fluid by as much as
80% for a certain slosh situation.
The following conclusions can be drawn from the slosh
experiment results:
1. The sloshing noise always occurs when the fluid hits
the top wall of the tank, and the noise mainly occurs at
the shallow end.
2. At low fluid levels, the noise generated from different
baffle designs including the No-baffle configuration
were about the same.
3. At high fluid levels, Baffle designs #1 through #4 only
give little improvement toward noise reduction.
However, Baffle design #5 could eliminate the
sloshing noise at low oscillating frequency and reduce
the sloshing noise at high oscillating frequency.
4. The noise level generated depends very much on the
velocity of the sloshing fluid before hitting the tank
wall(s). Low velocity of the fluid leads to low noise
level generated, and vice versa.
5. Partially submerged baffles have the most effect
toward slowing down the fluid movement. Hence, tall
baffles are desired to effectively slow down the fluid
movement for high fluid levels.
6. Fluid level imbalance could occur inside the fuel tank
if the baffles added are completely across the tank.
Adding openings to the baffles could solve this
problem.
7. Releasing of bubbles phenomenon could occur after
adding the top-mounted baffle at the mid section of
the fuel tank. Air trapped in the shallow end would
rush out to the deep end of the tank and generate
noise.
8. Correlation factors between the mean kinetic energy
and the sound level are low because the number of
peaks in a complete cycle usually do not match.
9. Correlation factors between the peak mean kinetic
energy and the peak noise level are high for individual
slosh situation where the fluid hits the top of the tank.
10. The frame by frame computer animation and the
frame by frame slosh video were found to closely
match each other. This shows that the computer
simulations could predict the slosh pattern very well.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank General Motors of
Canada Limited for providing financial support for the
research program.
Special thanks to Zhi Rong Xu, Alex Lukaszyk and Joe
Tomaselli for building the fuel tank test stand, the fuel
tank model and the acoustic enclosure, respectively.
REFERENCES
1. P. J. Alvarado, “Steel vs. Plastics: The Competition
for Light-Vehicle Fuel Tanks,” Journal of Metals,
1996, v48: n7, pp. 22-25.
2. “BASF Forecasts Polyethylene Fuel Tanks, on
U.S.-made Vehicles, to Exceed 60% by the Year
2000”,
http://www.basf.com/static/OpenMarket/Xcelerate/
Preview_cid-991655156929_pubid-
991224177622_c-Article.html, 6/21/1996.
3. American Plastics Council, “Plastic Applications in
Cars: Fuel Tank”, http://www.plastics-car.com
/applications /fuel.htm , Date Accessed: June 13,
2003.
4. Serope Kalpakjian, Manufacturing Engineering and
Technology, (New York, USA: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company Inc, 1989), pp. 540.
5. Mr. Marlon Clark, Flow Science, Inc, Santa Fe,
NM, USA. Emails to Hoi Sum IU, Department of
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University
of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, July 28,
2003.
CONTACT
Hoi-Sum IU, W.L. Cleghorn, J.K. Mills
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering,
University of Toronto
5 King’s College Road, Toronto, ON M5S 3G8
Canada
Email: sam.iu@utoronto.ca

12