Performance and survivability of totally enclosed motor propelled survival craft (TEMPSE) in ice and open water conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lifeboats are a necessary fixture on all commercial vessels and fixed and floating offshore installations. They are the crew’s last line of defense in the event of an emergency. These craft are depended upon if vessel/installation abandonment is required. Despite this reality, there are no special design regulations if the intended area of operation of the craft experiences some level of ice coverage. This poses navigational and structural challenges since lifeboats operating in ice are exposed to higher loading then ones operating in open water. The majority of lifeboats built today are typically built from a combination of chopped strand mat and heavy woven roving. This results in a structure that is easy and economical to build but may not have sufficient mechanical strength to provide a safe haven during emergency evacuations in ice covered water. The ice trials showed that the conventional lifeboat tested is capable of operating in ice concentrations to a limit of between about 6 and 7 tenths concentration. Either way, the utility of the lifeboat was severely restricted by ice cover. The basic performance limits of this type of evacuation craft show the basic design requirements for any craft that is meant to complement or replace a conventional boat system. A simple impact model relating impact energy to the lifeboat hull material and temperature indicated a safe operating speed for the lifeboat at ≈2.0 knots. During the ice trials 2007, 2009 and 2010, this safe operating speed was exceed regularly without damage to the hull. This can be attributed to the conservative nature of the model plus a couple of other factors, namely ice strength and lifeboat bow area reinforcement. In the 2007 and 2009 the ice was relatively weak and in 2010 the lifeboat entire bow area was reinforced during the impact panel dynamometer and sea-chests installation.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".