Motion Response of a Full-Scale Life Raft in Laboratory Tow Experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 16-person full-scale life raft was towed in a tow tank in calm water, regular and irregular waves. The objectives were to assess the raft motion response, occupant motion, tow force, effect of tow speed, effects of different test variables (drogue deployment, floor inflation, weight distribution and ballast), and the likelihood of occupant motion sickness. Comparisons of RAOs obtained in regular and irregular waves demonstrated that irregular waves could be used as a cost effective means to determine raft response with a high degree of confidence. They also show that the life raft tow performance is different in waves than in calm water. For example, mean tow force is 20% higher in the sea state tested than in calm water. Floor inflation, drogue deployment, even weight distribution and tow speed increase mean tow force and tow force variation about its mean. The data also show that the same ballast types should be used to access the effects of different variables because manikin and water bag ballast produce different results. Measured occupant heave acceleration was about the same as the raft heave acceleration. From occupant heave acceleration, it was estimated that after 20 hours in the raft, 20% of occupants would vomit. Formulae were proposed to predict tow force in different sea states. Mean tow forces predicted using calm water tow resistance and RAOs derived from regular wave tow tests compared well with measured mean tow force in irregular waves.
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".