## 3 Results and Discussion  
After the mesh operation was performed and introduced to the program, the analysis conditions were defined as in Section 2.4. The baffle pressure outputs were defined with the model's point surface, as shown in Figure 4. In Figure 5, the contours of velocity magnitude for the unbaffled tank are shown according to the different times of the analysis. The pressure history curves of caused by sloshing at points P1, P2, P3, P4 and P5 with different baffle structures are shown in Figure 6. The 50% filled tank was operated for the harmonic input signal with 0.1 m amplitude and 0.8 Hz frequency. According to this input signal, the value of the acceleration signal amplitude was 2.52 m/s\({}^{2}\). The pressure history curves for points P1, P2, P3, P4, and P5 of the tank with unbaffled and different baffle structures are shown in Figure 6.  
It is seen from the fluctuating shape of the fluid in the unbaffled tank in Figure 5 and the pressure values in Figure 6 that there was a violent sloshing movement in the tank. From the measurements of the P5 probe, it was concluded that the fluid reached the ceiling and that there was deterioration in fluid integrity from Figure 5. When the response curves of tanks with unbaffled and different baffle structures were examined in the case of a movement amplitude of 0.1 m, it was determined that the maximum and minimum values of pressure obtained at the measurement points did not change much. It could be seen that the most significant difference between the minimum-maximum values at the pressure points occurred in the \"flat baffled-mounted from the ceiling of the tank\" structured system in scenario 3. It was observed that the \"Flat baffle mounted from the ceiling\" and \"Wall angled baffled tank\" structures reached the steady state more quickly (approximately 5 s) compared to the other studied baffle structures and unbaffled tank structures. After that, the sloshing took place more smoothly. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l} \hline
**Tank Model** & **Node Number** & **Elements Number** & **Model** \\ \hline Tank without baffle & 55,025 & 50,400 & - \\ Flat baffle mounted from the bottom of the tank & 55,800 & 50,730 & \\ Flat baffle mounted from the ceiling of the tank & 55,800 & 50,760 & \\ Circular perforated & 121,807 & 115,183 & Multizone \\ baffled tank & 442,080 & 422,476 & Multizone \\ Multi-baffled tank & 55,800 & 49,950 & - \\ Base-angled baffled tank & 56,451 & 51,300 & - \\ Wall-angled baffled tank & 56,265 & 50,910 & - \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Analysis models and mesh numbers. It can be said that this was because the amplitude of the system input signal was relatively high compared to that in the studies examined in the literature. The harmonic input signal amplitude significantly impacted the system's behavior in sloshing. Since the inlet amplitude was large, it reached the ceiling of the liquid fuel tank in the system, turning into a hydraulic splash event, and lost its free surface integrity. In order to examine the effectiveness of the baffle structures, as applied by many studies in the literature, an examination was conducted made for scenarios 1, 2, 4, and 6, applying minor input movement. In these analyses, the motion amplitude was set as 0.02 m, and the angular frequency value was set as the natural frequency value calculated using Equation (6). The calculated frequency values were 0.74 Hz and 0.84 Hz, respectively, for the 50% and 70% filling rates. Analyses were carried out at the 50% and 70% filling rates for the specified structures. As seen in Figure 7, the sloshing behavior in the tank also changed significantly with the reduction in the input amplitude value. It was determined that the pressure values decreased in the measurements made from the same pressure points at the same filling rate, and the baffle wall structures effectively reduced the pressure fluctuations. The unbaffled tank still had more aggressive behavior than the other baffled tanks.