Experimental Study and Modelling of Thermal Protection in Liferafts Using a Thermal Manikin and Human Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".