Quality of regular waves experimentally generated by plunger-type wavemakers with mean flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper experimentally studies the quality of regular waves generated by a plunger-type wavemaker with a triangular wedge, as analyses on wave quality in such systems remain limited and often lack quantitative assessment. Three wedge geometries with inner angles of 25.7°, 35.0°, and 45.0° were tested under both no-flow and flow conditions. Wave quality was evaluated based on metrics of wave amplitude, vertical symmetry, and horizontal symmetry. With respect to wave amplitude, two leading analytical models were compared: the Equal Volume with Flow (EVF) model based on mass conservation and the Plunger-Type with Flow (PTF) model based on potential flow theory. After an operational correction to both models, the analysis showed that the PTF model was more accurate on average, but the EVF model provided comparable results. Among the tested configurations, the wedge with a 35.0° angle consistently generated waves with higher quality in terms of amplitude prediction and symmetry across varying flow conditions. These findings suggest that the use of an intermediate angled wedge offers a practical and reliable approach to generate linear waves in laboratory experiments. It is recommended that future studies with a plunger-type wavemaker adopt a similar geometry to enhance experimental accuracy in the presence of flow.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".