Loading on a Rigid Target from Close Proximity Underwater Explosions
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
The study describes recent simulation results for underwater explosions in close-proximity to rigid targets. Simulations are performed using Chinook, an Eulerian computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code. Predicted target loadings are compared with measurements taken from a series of experiments conducted under an international collaboration between Canada, The Netherlands, and Sweden. The simulations of the rigid target tests focused on the modelling of gas bubble collapse and water jetting behaviour. Both two-dimensional and three-dimensional simulations were performed. It was found that the two-dimensional analyses produced good bubble periods and reasonable impulse loading compared to experimental data. The time of arrival of the bubble collapse and water jetting were found to be very mesh dependent and refining the mesh did not always produce better results. The two-dimensional approach provides a good initial understanding of the problem for a reasonable computational effort. The three-dimensional simulations were found to produce improved impulse predictions. The numerical gas bubble radii time histories are also compared to empirical time histories.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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