Comprehensive Hydrodynamic Performance Evaluations of Representative Atlantic Canadian Fishing Vessels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Domestic vessel designs are generally aimed at satisfying certain operational specifications, not targeting optimized fuel consumption, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or Underwater Radiated Noise (URN) generation. This can be observed in Canadian domestic vessels, as Canada encompasses vast maritime terrain and a long history of shipping and fishing industry. The situation may be more challenging for Canadian fishing vessels, primarily constructed to satisfy economic needs that meet the minimum jurisdictional requirements. The high length/beam ratio, deep hull shape, off-the-shelf propeller and rudder and other hull appendages are often selected to maximize the profit/capacity and with insufficient attention to their impacts on the hydrodynamic performance, stability and the GHG and URN emission aspects. The impact of the not-well-designed propeller, rudder, and hull shape and appendages on various performance indices such as fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (powering performance), manoeuvring, seakeeping and URN emissions are poorly understood. The primary objective of this research is to gain insights into existing designs of Canadian fishing vessels’ hull, propeller, rudder and appendage systems to improve understanding of the hydrodynamic interactions and the resulting impacts on performance efficiencies, GHG and URN emissions. As the first step in achieving this objective, the research team has selected and physically modelled a representative Atlantic Canadian fishing vessel at a suitable scale. The team utilized both physical and numerical modelling tools and techniques to conduct the investigations on the hydrodynamic performance evaluations of the fishing vessel model at realistic operating conditions in terms of bare and appended hull resistance, powering predictions using self-propulsion tests, free running manoeuvring and seakeeping performance. This paper presents the preliminary results of the physical and numerical modelling campaign, specifically investigations of the effects of a hull appendage known as a keel cooler. This work improves understanding of the interactions between the vessel, propeller, rudder, and hull appendages regarding hydrodynamic, dynamic stability and GHG and URN emissions performance.
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".