PAPER SERIES
2004-01-0403
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
2004-01-0403
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 Nobaffle 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 customers expectation of a quiet automobile gets
higher. Therefore, the current research tries to reduce or
eliminate the sloshing noise problem by designing
COMPUTER SIMULATION
Figure 3Fuel 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.
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
Initial Conditions
Number of fluid
present
Gravity
Duration of the
simulation
Fluid Temperature
293.0 K
Compressibility of
the fluid
s = 15 . 5 sin t
where = 2 = 2 = s 1
T
2s
v =
ds
=
dt
a =
dv
= 15 . 5
dt
= 15 . 5
( 15
(
2
)sin
.5
) cos
)sin
t
(a)
t = 153 sin t
(b)
Average turbulent KE =
[0 .5 cmass (u '
+ v '2 + w'2
)]
M
(c)
(2)
(d)
(e)
Figure 5Different 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)
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
ESTIMATED MEAN KE AND AVERAGE TURBULENT KE
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 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
further away to record the motion of the fuel in the
tank.
[0 .5 cmass (u
M
+ v2 + w2
)]
(1)
4
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.
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
FLOW-3D RESULTS
Simulations were run with two variables; period of motion
and the fluid level. Three periods of motion were
considered: 2.0s, 2.5s and 3.0s. The duration of every
simulation was set to 4.0s to match the recording time in
the high speed video recording time. Four fluid levels,
6.5cm, 9.0cm, 11.5cm and 14.0cm, were considered.
Tables 2, 3 and 4 summarize the peak estimated mean
kinetic energy of different baffle designs.
As shown in Tables 2, 3 and 4, in general, the mean
kinetic energy decreases as the period of motion
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
as predicted by FLOW-3D. In the case of increasing fluid
level, although the mass of fluid had increased, the
velocity of the fluid is smaller and the factor of the velocity
components in the mean kinetic energy equation is
squared, so the kinetic energy ends up decreasing as
well.
6.5cm
9.0cm
11.5cm
14cm
No-baffle
configuration
2470
1933
1700
990
Design #1
2127
1615
1143
330
Design #2
1615
1520
1256
386
Design #3
1800
1520
1235
421
Design #4
2145
1643
1274
333
Design #5
406
552
760
330
6.5cm
9.0cm
11.5cm
14cm
No-baffle
configuration
350
171
120
195
Design #1
312
222
155
109
Design #2
324
232
119
125
Design #3
321
217
193
140
Design #4
310
222
95
103
Design #5
199
185
244
110
Fluid levels
Fluid levels
6.5cm
9.0cm
11.5cm
14cm
No-baffle
configuration
950
560
350
386
Design #1
653
600
462
171
Design #2
740
653
400
205
Design #3
702
570
429
240
Design #4
720
600
430
214
Design #5
285
253
319
287
Fluid levels
6.5cm
9.0cm
11.5cm
14cm
No-baffle
configuration
39.6
26.1
16.2
7.6
Design #1
35.6
36.4
20.6
7.0
Design #2
39.0
39.5
23.3
8.2
Design #3
33.3
36
20.3
10
Design #4
37.5
38
21.3
9.3
Design #5
11.4
17.8
22.3
9.3
6.5cm
9.0cm
11.5cm
14cm
No-baffle
configuration
13.1
4.1
3.4
6.3
Design #1
13.5
12.1
7.1
2.8
Design #2
19
14.5
8.9
3.6
Design #3
15.6
17
8.1
Design #4
16.1
15.8
Design #5
7.6
6.5cm
9.0cm
11.5cm
14cm
4.3
No-baffle
configuration
66
70
75
76
7.6
3.2
Design #1
64
67
71
72
11.9
8.8
Design #2
68
69
72
75
Design #3
66
69
72
72
Design #4
64
68
75
71
Design #5
65
66
66
69
6.5cm
9.0cm
11.5cm
14cm
No-baffle
configuration
3.4
1.3
1.7
3.5
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
63
70
77
72
Design #3
11.8
3.5
4.2
4.8
No-baffle
configuration
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
Design #4
64
64
70
64
Design #5
62
63
62
63
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Fluid levels
6.5cm
9.0cm
11.5cm
14cm
No-baffle
configuration
59
66
68
76
Design #1
59
61
60
67
Design #2
59
59
59
61
Design #3
59
60
60
61
Design #4
59
59
64
62
Design #5
60
62
61
60
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.
6.5cm
9.0cm
11.5cm
14cm
0.13
0.21
0.29
0.80
0.69
0.58
0.61
0.63
Design #2
0.65
0.11
0.20
0.09
Design #3
0.75
0.74
0.05
0.44
Design #4
0.69
0.44
0.12
0.20
Design #5
0.32
0.30
0.72
0.04
No-baffle
configuration
Design #1
Table 11Correlation factors between the mean kinetic energy and the
noise level.
1700
75
1143
1256
1235
1274
71
72
72
75
Correlation
factor
760
66
0.89
990
76
330
386
421
333
330
72
75
72
71
69
Correlation
factor
0.71
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:
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_pubid991224177622_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 Kings College Road, Toronto, ON M5S 3G8
Canada
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Email: sam.iu@utoronto.ca
12