Response Surface Models for Analyzing Sinkage and Trim Effects on Planing Hull Motions in a Vertical Plane
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Further to the studies presented by Sayeed et al. (OMAE2014-23489), response surface models have been improved by including the effects of sinkage and trim to the vertical plane motions of planing hull in head sea. This was achieved by including longitudinal center of gravity (LCG) as an additional factor to the existing model and change in LCG eventually incorporated the effects of sinkage and trim. The validated non-linear mathematical model, Planing Hull Motion Program (PHMP) can predict the heave and pitch motions and bow and center of gravity accelerations with reasonable accuracy at planing and semi-planing speeds. This paper again illustrates an application of modern statistical design of experiment (DOE) methodology to develop response surface models to assess planing hull motions in a vertical plane in head seas. Responses were obtained from PHMP based on a multifactor uniform design scheme. Results showed that the simple one line regression models provided adequate fit to the generated responses and provided valuable insights into the behaviour of planing hull motions in a vertical plane. The new response surface models includes all possible influential factors that affect the vertical plane motions of planing hull in head sea. The simple surrogate models can be a quick and useful tool for the designers during the preliminary design stages.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it