Second order wave generation technique in the laboratory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Correct generation of the primary waves and the reproduction of the group-induced second order low and high frequency waves have been considered essential for physical model test in the laboratory to understand the effects of the wave-action phenomena on, for instance, offshore structures, mooring system, LNG, other floating vessels, harbor resonance, etc.. When natural waves are reproduced, the primary waves and their locked bounded waves are generated along with some unwanted free waves. Those free waves are evidently generated and propagate towards the test model and reflect from the boundaries. The free waves, having the same frequency of the bounded wave are reproduced due to mismatch of the boundary conditions at the wave paddle. Another two types of free waves are due to the wave paddle displacement and the local disturbances. These unwanted free waves can be eliminated by means of compensating free waves imposed on the system by second-order paddle motion. The control signal for this motion has to be introduced along with the primary waves. An extensive experimental works are carried out in the Offshore Engineering wave Basin (OEB) at the Institute of Ocean Technology (IOT), NRC to investigate the quality and the characteristics of the generated primary waves and their locked bounded waves after when the unwanted free waves are eliminated. Two different water depths are used within the shallow water limit. The obtained results are also compared with the numerical predictions.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".