Measurement of hydrodynamic loads on the hull of C-SCOUT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Testing of the hydrodynamic loading on C-SCOUT's hull has been completed for the purpose of gathering data to input into a numerical manoeuvring model. The 1:10 scale models tested include a baseline version, a longer "full" hull, and a full hull with holes to represent through-body thrusters all models were stripped of appendages. The models were tested in IMD's cavitation tunnel at flow speeds up to 4 m/s, and a wide variety of yaw angles. A six-component balance was used to measure all hydrodynamic forces and moments. Vortex-induced vibrations limited the range of testable flow speeds. Inconsistent behaviour of the support for the model caused significant error in the results. The results are hence considered to be of qualitative value only. The data show definitive trends that generally agree with expectations, although the stall angle of the hull, near 50°, was unusually large. Two different methods were used to calculate the centre of effort, and their results were compared. Due to the scatter in the load data, the calculated centres of effort are not considered reliable. More testing is recommended. If it is not possible to complete full-scale tests, the model support should be stiffened to reduce vibration problems, and the foil should be redesigned so it behaves more consistently. Tests of the full hull with through-body thruster holes should be conducted at higher yaw angles.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".