PSI - Issue 66

Umberto De Maio et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 66 (2024) 486–494 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2025) 000–000

490

5

Fig. 2. Maximum pressure recorded on the structure.

A useful comparison to assess the validity of the proposed model is performed by considering a pseudo-static approach defined according to existing guidelines provided by current codes (Reeder et al., 2021; Holub et al., 2012; Dai et al., 2023), in which the impact pressure is determined as the sum of hydrostatic and hydrodynamic components as follows:

1 2

1

2

0 2 D P gH C U    

(5)

0

The comparison between the numerical and analytical results is reported in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3. Comparison between the proposed model and the pseudo-static approach in terms of total pressure considering the inlet velocity equal to (a) 1, (b) 3, and (c) 5 m/s. We can note that the results predicted by the proposed model are coherent with those obtained by the available pseudo-static approach. Such a macroscale analysis makes it possible to derive the pressure distribution on the structure walls induced by the impacting fluid, denoted as “fluid pressure function f(t,x,y,z) ”. Such a function is employed, at the same time, in the mesoscale analysis as the dynamic load acting on the structure wall. In particular, in the mesoscale analysis, the structure walls are modeled by using brick elements equipped with suitable constitutive laws, and the nonlinear