MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6992874125

Modelling water discharge onboard ships

2004· article· en· W6992874125 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicShip Hydrodynamics and Maneuverability
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFree surfaceDeckTowerHullFlow (mathematics)Port (circuit theory)Water flowDispersion (optics)Discharge coefficient
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water collected on decks due to waves or result of accidental structural damages cause loss of stability by what is known as the free surface effects. This study focuses on the modeling of the discharge of the collected water in order to establish relationships between the geometrical characteristics of an open deck or damaged hull - its beam, height of the gap (e.g. freeing port) - and wave parameters such as wave length and wave height. A two-dimensional model of the discharge was constructed to visualize the free surface and to measure the flow discharge from a flat bottom. In this study, lengths corresponding to the flooded width of the ship, initial water height corresponding to the collected amount of water on deck and discharge gap height corresponding to the freeing port opening were varied systematically. The time domain discharge flow pattern and free surface form were recorded with a digital camera. The digitized frames were captured on a computer and the location and the form of the free surface were computed. The change in volume, discharge rate velocity at the freeing port and various parameters of the discharge kinematics were calculated from knowledge of the free surface. Additionally, CFD solutions to the problem were carried out. This paper reports some of the findings related to the variation of the discharge gap height and tank length.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicShip Hydrodynamics and ManeuverabilityFrench-language works237,207