## 3 Results
### Proposal and Verification of Dynamic Hydraulic Pressure Calculation Method  
The method for calculating the dynamic hydraulic pressure proposed in this study is based on the method proposed by [PERSON]. Therefore, as shown in Figure 11, the dynamic hydraulic pressure of the fluid was divided into convective components and impulsive components, and the dynamic hydraulic pressure of the convective and impulsive components could be calculated by Equations (6) and (7).  
\[m(z)=\frac{z-\left\{-0.376\frac{h}{B}+1.568\right\}\mathrm{h}}{\left\{0.502 \left(\frac{\mathrm{h}}{B}\right)^{2}-0.83\frac{\mathrm{h}}{B}\right\}}\rho_{ \omega}\,\ z>h_{min} \tag{6}\]  
\[m(z)=B\cdot\rho_{\omega}\,\ z\leq h_{min} \tag{7}\]  
where \(B\) is the width of the fluid storage structure, \(h\) is the initial fluid height, \(h_{min}\) is the minimum of sloshing height, and \(\rho_{\omega}\) is the weight density. In order to verify the proposed equation in this study, methods proposed by existing work and that of this study were used to apply dynamic hydraulic pressure to an arbitrary structure to compare the member forces of a dangerous section. The structure size applied in the analysis was 10.0 (width) and 5.0 m (height), and it was assumed that 3.0 m of fluid  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**h/B** & **0.4** & **0.5** & **0.6** & **0.7** & **0.8** \\ \hline h\({}^{\prime}\)/h & 0.780 & 0.824 & 0.800 & 0.820 & 0.845 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Ratio of the initial fluid height to the minimum sloshing height according to h/B.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**h/B** & **0.4** & **0.5** & **0.6** & **0.7** & **0.8** \\ \hline Max. Diff. (\%) & 1.213 & 2.071 & 1.186 & 3.040 & 1.376 \\ \hline Min. Diff. (\%) & 1.077 & 2.791 & 1.700 & 0.756 & 0.734 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 8: Maximum and minimum sloshing height predicted by the proposed equation according to h/B.  
was contained in the structure with the thickness of the wall 0.3, upper slab 0.3, and floor slab 0.5 m. For time-history analysis, a numerical analysis model was generated using MIDAS, the commercially available FE analysis program, and the seismic load shown in Figure 6b was applied.  
After performing the time-history analysis of the FE model considering the fluid, the bending moment, shear force, and reaction force generated in the dangerous section of the wall were compared, as displayed in Table 9. Comparing the total hydraulic pressure acting on the structure, the Housner model was 176.5 kN, which was about 80% of the existing and proposed models. The maximum bending moment and the maximum shear force in the dangerous section were estimated to be only about 50% of the Housner model compared with other existing models and the proposed models. Therefore, it was confirmed that the Housner model was underestimated compared with existing and proposed models. However, in the proposed model in which the dynamic hydraulic pressure of fluid was applied to the wall in the same form as the Housner model, the total hydraulic pressure acting on the structure was estimated to be 220.9 kN, indicating an error of 1-7% from the existing model. Therefore, it was confirmed that the hydraulic pressure calculated by the proposed model had similar values to the existing models, except for [PERSON]'s model. When comparing the maximum bending moment and the maximum shear force in the dangerous section, the values calculated by the proposed model had similar values to all of the existing models except for [PERSON]'s. From the results, it can be concluded that the structural analysis of a fluid storage structure by the proposed model can sufficiently secure the safety of a structure while approximately simulating the dynamic behavior of the fluid.