## 5 Comparison of Experimental Models  
In open literature, there are cases in which experimental verification was conducted in the actual ship's fresh water tank [17] or outdoor wall structures, such as swimming pools [18].  
There are cases [19; 20] in which a small experimental tank was manufactured and experimentally verified but it is difficult to accurately compare them because there is a difference from the actual model (reinforcement plate or opening plate).  
Among the reference literature, there is a case of verifying the natural frequency through an impact test on a small rectangular tank as Figure 5 [8]. The properties of the plate were calculated by applying the method proposed in this study and the results are included in this content.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{L_{1}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{L_{2}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{L_{3}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{L_{4}}\)} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Calculation Results**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**FEA**} \\ \cline{5-12}  & & & & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**\(\mathbf{W_{1}}\) Plate**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(\mathbf{W_{2}}\) Plate**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(\mathbf{W_{1}}\) Plate} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(\mathbf{W_{2}}\) Plate} \\ \cline{5-12}  & & & & & **1 st** & **2 nd** & **1 st** & **2 nd** & **1 st** & **2 nd** & **1 st** & **2 nd** \\ \hline
10 m & 2 m & 2 m & 2 m & 35.324 & 36.463 & 49.564 & 111.978 & 35.098 & 36.143 & 48.594 & 112.54 \\ \hline
10 m & 2 m & 4 m & 2 m & 35.324 & 36.463 & 37.665 & 47.076 & 35.096 & 36.128 & 37.314 & 46.421 \\ \hline
10 m & 2 m & 6 m & 2 m & 35.324 & 36.463 & 36.047 & 39.559 & 35.095 & 36.153 & 35.77 & 39.093 \\ \hline
10 m & 2 m & 8 m & 2 m & 35.324 & 36.463 & 35.324 & 37.344 & 35.094 & 36.134 & 35.305 & 37.003 \\ \hline \multicolumn{12}{c}{\(\mathbf{L_{1}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{L_{2}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{L_{3}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{L_{4}}\)} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**\(\mathbf{W_{1}}\) Plate**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(\mathbf{W_{2}}\) Plate**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(\mathbf{W_{1}}\) Plate} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(\mathbf{W_{2}}\)** Plate**} \\ \cline{5-12}  & & & & **1 st** & **2 nd** & **1 st** & **2 nd** & **1 st** & **2 nd** & **1 st** & **2 nd** \\ \hline
10 m & 5 m & 2 m & 5 m & 6.027 & 7.542 & 26.742 & 34.789 & 6.056 & 7.675 & 26.675 & 34.578 \\ \hline
10 m & 5 m & 4 m & 5 m & 6.027 & 7.542 & 9.684 & 19.417 & 6.044 & 7.604 & 9.951 & 19.262 \\ \hline
10 m & 5 m & 6 m & 5 m & 6.027 & 7.542 & 7.074 & 12.306 & 6.101 & 7.841 & 7.250 & 12.898 \\ \hline
10 m & 5 m & 8 m & 5 m & 6.027 & 7.542 & 6.326 & 8.940 & 6.029 & 7.623 & 6.397 & 9.126 \\ \hline \multicolumn{12}{c}{\(\mathbf{L_{1}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{L_{2}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{L_{3}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{L_{4}}\)} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**\(\mathbf{W_{1}}\) Plate**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(\mathbf{W_{2}}\) Plate**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(\mathbf{W_{1}}\) Plate} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(\mathbf{W_{2}}\)** Plate**} \\ \cline{5-12}  & & & & **1 st** & **2 nd** & **1 st** & **2 nd** & **1 st** & **2 nd** & **1 st** & **2 nd** \\ \hline
10 m & 10 m & 2 m & 10 m & 1.983 & 4.300 & 24.617 & 26.261 & 2.155 & 4.314 & 24.600 & 26.275 \\ \hline
10 m & 10 m & 4 m & 10 m & 1.983 & 4.300 & 8.700 & 22.230 & 2.117 & 4.480 & 8.541 & 22.045 \\ \hline
10 m & 10 m & 6 m & 10 m & 1.983 & 4.300 & 3.469 & 5.759 & 2.091 & 4.470 & 3.679 & 5.889 \\ \hline
10 m & 10 m & 8 m & 10 m & 1.983 & 4.300 & 2 In Table 8, it can be seen that there is no significant difference in the calculation results, even when compared with the experimental results.