MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007917178 · doi:10.1115/omae2009-79383

Experimental Study and Modelling of Thermal Protection in Liferafts Using a Thermal Manikin and Human Subjects

2009· article· en· W2007917178 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lawrence Mak, Andrew Kuczora, Michel B. Ducharme, B. Farnworth, James O. Boone, Rob Brown, Stephen S. Cheung, Kerri-Ann Evely, Fabien A. Basset, Scott N. MacKinnon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicTextile materials and evaluations
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandBrock UniversityDefence Research and Development CanadaNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermal manikinThermal comfortMaterials scienceSkin temperatureThermal insulationRepeatabilityComposite materialMedicineMathematicsBiomedical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experiments were conducted in cold conditions (5°C water temperature and 5°C air temperature) to assess the thermal protection of a 16-person, SOLAS approved, commercially available liferaft using a thermal manikin and human subjects. The comparison tests included four cases — 1. Inflated raft floor; dry clothing (Idry); 2. Inflated raft floor; wet clothing (Iwet); 3. Uninflated raft floor; dry clothing (Udry); 4. Uninflated raft floor; wet clothing (Uwet). The results demonstrated equivalence in insulation between human subjects and a thermal manikin for all cases of comparison (Idry: Manikin 0.236 (m2°C)/W versus Human 0.224 (m2°C)/W; Iwet: Manikin 0.146 (m2°C)/W versus Human 0.145 (m2°C)/W; Udry: Manikin 0.174 (m2°C)/W versus Human 0.185 (m2°C)/W; Uwet: Manikin 0.101 (m2°C)/W versus Human 0.116 (m2°C)/W). The results also showed the repeatability of the thermal manikin tests (0.177 (m2°C)/W versus 0.171 (m2°C)/W in Udry baseline case; and 0.101 (m2°C)/W versus 0.104 (m2°C)/W in Uwet baseline case). The results indicated that the insulation of a closed cell foam floor is comparable to an inflated floor (0.236 (m2°C)/W compared to 0.221 (m2°C)/W and 0.236 (m2°C)/W for closed foam floor from manufacturer A and B respectively). TPA provided considerable additional insulation than all baseline cases. A test with a human subject wearing a TPA in the Uwet case showed an improved insulation of 48% over the baseline case. TPA provided more additional insulation than a wet suit in all test cases except Udry case. In Uwet case, the worst test condition, the insulation obtained by sitting on a lifejacket (0.149 (m2°C)/W) is less than wearing a TPA (0.158 (m2°C)/W). Both of these are better than sitting directly on an uninflated floor (0.104 (m2°C)/W) or a closed cell foam floor (0.129 (m2°C)/W). There is a significant decrease in insulation value sitting in 10 cm of water (0.05 (m2°C)/W). Two human subject tests show an insulation value of 0.079 (m2°C)/W and 0.081 (m2°C)/W respectively. A liferaft occupant heat loss model was developed and integrated with Defense R&D Canada’s Cold Exposure Survival Model to predict survival time. For Uwet case, the worst test condition, the survival time is 32 hours and functional time is 24 hours for the experimental conditions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTextile materials and evaluationsFrench-language works237,207