Lader et al. (2009) deformable cages in current, as KF2012 report them (S3: drag asserted, lift reported), with the wake the cage casts, and the duality of the same cage in current and towed through still water (S4, no data). The E-modulus is PROVISIONAL (awaiting author).
Generated 2026-10-03 from commit 87e60a3 2026-10-03; tests run 2026-10-03T09:10:34.294 (main entry) and 2026-10-03T09:11:16.576 (VALIDATION entry).
Tests
Status from the gtest XML of the last run. A DISABLED_ test fails against the current laws; its numbers are in the tables below, and it stays disabled until the owner decides the issue.
Conventions: error = model/measured - 1 (in %) for loads and coefficients, model - measured for ratios and localCd; ratio = measured/model; margin = tolerance - |error| (negative = fails).
BarE PROVISIONAL (awaiting author): 4e+06 Pa. Fluid rho 1025, nu 1.19e-06 (assumption). Cage 225 nodes, 416 panels, 16 bottom weights; tow k = 10000 N/m. Wake: Freeze at 8 s, every 3 s, blend 1 s, filter 1 s, grid 192, 48, 48 over 1 m; loads at 18 s.
S3 still-water shape, BarE PROVISIONAL (awaiting author)
6 rows, 0 of 3 outside the tolerance.
Case
Measured
Model
Error
Tolerance
Margin
Result
Sn 0.19 still-water depth [m]
1.55
1.611
3.933 %
±5.000 %
1.067 %
within
Sn 0.19 arch of the unweighted nodes [m]
0
0.05848
0.058
–
–
reported
Sn 0.35 still-water depth [m]
1.55
1.609
3.794 %
±5.000 %
1.206 %
within
Sn 0.35 arch of the unweighted nodes [m]
0
0.05666
0.057
–
–
reported
Sn 0.43 still-water depth [m]
1.55
1.596
2.985 %
±5.000 %
2.015 %
within
Sn 0.43 arch of the unweighted nodes [m]
0
0.0455
0.046
–
–
reported
S3 drag against KF2012 Fig. 14, k 0.05 (asserted per net, +-20 %)
asserted; 21 rows, 6 of 21 outside the tolerance.
Case
Measured
Model
Error
Tolerance
Margin
Result
Sn 0.19 U 0.12 k 0.05 drag [N]
8.1
10.12
24.982 %
±20.000 %
-4.982 %
outside
Sn 0.19 U 0.26 k 0.05 drag [N]
36
39.64
10.120 %
±20.000 %
9.880 %
within
Sn 0.19 U 0.39 k 0.05 drag [N]
68.1
72.35
6.238 %
±20.000 %
13.762 %
within
Sn 0.19 U 0.50 k 0.05 drag [N]
108
98.74
-8.573 %
±20.000 %
11.427 %
within
Sn 0.19 U 0.65 k 0.05 drag [N]
136
131.9
-3.043 %
±20.000 %
16.957 %
within
Sn 0.19 U 0.76 k 0.05 drag [N]
164.1
153.9
-6.226 %
±20.000 %
13.774 %
within
Sn 0.19 U 0.93 k 0.05 drag [N]
190
184.3
-3.018 %
±20.000 %
16.982 %
within
Sn 0.35 U 0.12 k 0.05 drag [N]
17
19.27
13.343 %
±20.000 %
6.657 %
within
Sn 0.35 U 0.26 k 0.05 drag [N]
57
71.85
26.049 %
±20.000 %
-6.049 %
outside
Sn 0.35 U 0.39 k 0.05 drag [N]
102
116.9
14.582 %
±20.000 %
5.418 %
within
Sn 0.35 U 0.50 k 0.05 drag [N]
143
146.5
2.423 %
±20.000 %
17.577 %
within
Sn 0.35 U 0.65 k 0.05 drag [N]
170.1
179.5
5.546 %
±20.000 %
14.454 %
within
Sn 0.35 U 0.76 k 0.05 drag [N]
180
200.7
11.484 %
±20.000 %
8.516 %
within
Sn 0.35 U 0.93 k 0.05 drag [N]
195.1
230.7
18.242 %
±20.000 %
1.758 %
within
Sn 0.43 U 0.12 k 0.05 drag [N]
20.1
23.39
16.393 %
±20.000 %
3.607 %
within
Sn 0.43 U 0.26 k 0.05 drag [N]
70
84.84
21.200 %
±20.000 %
-1.200 %
outside
Sn 0.43 U 0.39 k 0.05 drag [N]
120
131.5
9.586 %
±20.000 %
10.414 %
within
Sn 0.43 U 0.50 k 0.05 drag [N]
150
160.4
6.946 %
±20.000 %
13.054 %
within
Sn 0.43 U 0.65 k 0.05 drag [N]
160
192.6
20.377 %
±20.000 %
-0.377 %
outside
Sn 0.43 U 0.76 k 0.05 drag [N]
165.1
213.4
29.269 %
±20.000 %
-9.269 %
outside
Sn 0.43 U 0.93 k 0.05 drag [N]
173
244.2
41.162 %
±20.000 %
-21.162 %
outside
S3 lift against KF2012 Fig. 14, k 0.05 (reported; E PROVISIONAL (awaiting author))
reported; 20 rows, no tolerance.
Case
Measured
Model
Error
Tolerance
Margin
Result
Sn 0.19 U 0.26 k 0.05 lift [N]
3.6
4.204
16.789 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.19 U 0.39 k 0.05 lift [N]
12.5
12.03
-3.780 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.19 U 0.50 k 0.05 lift [N]
25.1
19.87
-20.832 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.19 U 0.65 k 0.05 lift [N]
37.1
30.43
-17.966 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.19 U 0.76 k 0.05 lift [N]
47
37.6
-19.996 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.19 U 0.93 k 0.05 lift [N]
52
47.34
-8.969 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.35 U 0.12 k 0.05 lift [N]
1.1
1.337
21.538 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.35 U 0.26 k 0.05 lift [N]
11
12.93
17.555 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.35 U 0.39 k 0.05 lift [N]
26.1
27.91
6.936 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.35 U 0.50 k 0.05 lift [N]
47
38.84
-17.353 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.35 U 0.65 k 0.05 lift [N]
63
50.61
-19.672 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.35 U 0.76 k 0.05 lift [N]
72
57.28
-20.450 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.35 U 0.93 k 0.05 lift [N]
76
65.01
-14.454 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.43 U 0.12 k 0.05 lift [N]
0
2.05
∞
–
–
reported
Sn 0.43 U 0.26 k 0.05 lift [N]
16
17.29
8.065 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.43 U 0.39 k 0.05 lift [N]
43.1
35.07
-18.636 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.43 U 0.50 k 0.05 lift [N]
64
46.64
-27.126 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.43 U 0.65 k 0.05 lift [N]
71
58.01
-18.296 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.43 U 0.76 k 0.05 lift [N]
74.1
64.03
-13.595 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.43 U 0.93 k 0.05 lift [N]
77
70.5
-8.436 %
–
–
reported
S3 drag and lift at k 0.03 and 0.08 (reported)
reported; 36 rows, no tolerance.
Case
Measured
Model
Error
Tolerance
Margin
Result
Sn 0.19 U 0.26 k 0.03 drag [N]
36
39.76
10.456 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.19 U 0.26 k 0.03 lift [N]
3.6
4.222
17.279 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.19 U 0.26 k 0.08 drag [N]
36
39.57
9.915 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.19 U 0.26 k 0.08 lift [N]
3.6
4.185
16.256 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.19 U 0.50 k 0.03 drag [N]
108
99.01
-8.325 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.19 U 0.50 k 0.03 lift [N]
25.1
19.93
-20.584 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.19 U 0.50 k 0.08 drag [N]
108
98.47
-8.821 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.19 U 0.50 k 0.08 lift [N]
25.1
19.78
-21.200 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.19 U 0.93 k 0.03 drag [N]
190
184.8
-2.731 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.19 U 0.93 k 0.03 lift [N]
52
47.54
-8.584 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.19 U 0.93 k 0.08 drag [N]
190
183.8
-3.245 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.19 U 0.93 k 0.08 lift [N]
52
47.16
-9.309 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.35 U 0.26 k 0.03 drag [N]
57
72.31
26.867 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.35 U 0.26 k 0.03 lift [N]
11
13.08
18.942 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.35 U 0.26 k 0.08 drag [N]
57
71.33
25.145 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.35 U 0.26 k 0.08 lift [N]
11
12.78
16.216 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.35 U 0.50 k 0.03 drag [N]
143
147.3
3.020 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.35 U 0.50 k 0.03 lift [N]
47
39.09
-16.834 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.35 U 0.50 k 0.08 drag [N]
143
145.5
1.736 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.35 U 0.50 k 0.08 lift [N]
47
38.54
-17.999 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.35 U 0.93 k 0.03 drag [N]
195.1
232.7
19.272 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.35 U 0.93 k 0.03 lift [N]
76
65.24
-14.163 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.35 U 0.93 k 0.08 drag [N]
195.1
229.8
17.806 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.35 U 0.93 k 0.08 lift [N]
76
64.91
-14.586 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.43 U 0.26 k 0.03 drag [N]
70
85.65
22.356 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.43 U 0.26 k 0.03 lift [N]
16
17.58
9.893 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.43 U 0.26 k 0.08 drag [N]
70
83.81
19.735 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.43 U 0.26 k 0.08 lift [N]
16
17.08
6.771 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.43 U 0.50 k 0.03 drag [N]
150
161.9
7.914 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.43 U 0.50 k 0.03 lift [N]
64
46.95
-26.638 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.43 U 0.50 k 0.08 drag [N]
150
158.7
5.796 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.43 U 0.50 k 0.08 lift [N]
64
46.2
-27.807 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.43 U 0.93 k 0.03 drag [N]
173
247.5
43.036 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.43 U 0.93 k 0.03 lift [N]
77
70.65
-8.252 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.43 U 0.93 k 0.08 drag [N]
173
243.4
40.722 %
–
–
reported
Sn 0.43 U 0.93 k 0.08 lift [N]
77
70.42
-8.542 %
–
–
reported
S3 steadiness of the tow force over the last 2 s (reported)
reported; 21 rows, no tolerance.
Case
Measured
Model
Error
Tolerance
Margin
Result
Sn 0.19 U 0.12 k 0.05 steadiness
0
9.704e-05
0
–
–
reported
Sn 0.19 U 0.26 k 0.05 steadiness
0
0.0002816
0
–
–
reported
Sn 0.19 U 0.39 k 0.05 steadiness
0
0.0003457
0
–
–
reported
Sn 0.19 U 0.50 k 0.05 steadiness
0
8.393e-05
0
–
–
reported
Sn 0.19 U 0.65 k 0.05 steadiness
0
0.0002529
0
–
–
reported
Sn 0.19 U 0.76 k 0.05 steadiness
0
0.0002271
0
–
–
reported
Sn 0.19 U 0.93 k 0.05 steadiness
0
0.001191
0.001
–
–
reported
Sn 0.35 U 0.12 k 0.05 steadiness
0
0.0002991
0
–
–
reported
Sn 0.35 U 0.26 k 0.05 steadiness
0
0.000667
0.001
–
–
reported
Sn 0.35 U 0.39 k 0.05 steadiness
0
0.0008582
0.001
–
–
reported
Sn 0.35 U 0.50 k 0.05 steadiness
0
0.001736
0.002
–
–
reported
Sn 0.35 U 0.65 k 0.05 steadiness
0
0.002288
0.002
–
–
reported
Sn 0.35 U 0.76 k 0.05 steadiness
0
0.00261
0.003
–
–
reported
Sn 0.35 U 0.93 k 0.05 steadiness
0
0.002335
0.002
–
–
reported
Sn 0.43 U 0.12 k 0.05 steadiness
0
0.00115
0.001
–
–
reported
Sn 0.43 U 0.26 k 0.05 steadiness
0
0.002726
0.003
–
–
reported
Sn 0.43 U 0.39 k 0.05 steadiness
0
0.002688
0.003
–
–
reported
Sn 0.43 U 0.50 k 0.05 steadiness
0
0.002725
0.003
–
–
reported
Sn 0.43 U 0.65 k 0.05 steadiness
0
0.002652
0.003
–
–
reported
Sn 0.43 U 0.76 k 0.05 steadiness
0
0.002226
0.002
–
–
reported
Sn 0.43 U 0.93 k 0.05 steadiness
0
0.00141
0.001
–
–
reported
S3 Freeze log lines (k 0.05):
Sn 0.19 U 0.12: Net: wake frozen at t = 11.0046 s after 2 rebuilds: max(max|dR|, |dM|/M) = 0.00981482 < WakeTolerance 0.01.
Sn 0.19 U 0.26: Net: wake frozen at t = 17.0165 s after 4 rebuilds: max(max|dR|, |dM|/M) = 0.00584117 < WakeTolerance 0.01.
Sn 0.19 U 0.39: Net: wake frozen at t = 17.0113 s after 4 rebuilds: max(max|dR|, |dM|/M) = 0.00725061 < WakeTolerance 0.01.
Sn 0.19 U 0.50: Net: wake frozen at t = 17.01 s after 4 rebuilds: max(max|dR|, |dM|/M) = 0.00397755 < WakeTolerance 0.01.
Sn 0.19 U 0.65: Net: wake frozen at t = 14.0019 s after 3 rebuilds: max(max|dR|, |dM|/M) = 0.00673756 < WakeTolerance 0.01.
Sn 0.19 U 0.76: Net: wake frozen at t = 14.0091 s after 3 rebuilds: max(max|dR|, |dM|/M) = 0.00983578 < WakeTolerance 0.01.
Sn 0.19 U 0.93: Net: wake frozen at t = 17.0094 s after 4 rebuilds: max(max|dR|, |dM|/M) = 0.00877003 < WakeTolerance 0.01.
Sn 0.35 U 0.12: no freeze line
Sn 0.35 U 0.26: no freeze line
Sn 0.35 U 0.39: no freeze line
Sn 0.35 U 0.50: no freeze line
Sn 0.35 U 0.65: no freeze line
Sn 0.35 U 0.76: no freeze line
Sn 0.35 U 0.93: no freeze line
Sn 0.43 U 0.12: no freeze line
Sn 0.43 U 0.26: no freeze line
Sn 0.43 U 0.39: no freeze line
Sn 0.43 U 0.50: no freeze line
Sn 0.43 U 0.65: no freeze line
Sn 0.43 U 0.76: no freeze line
Sn 0.43 U 0.93: no freeze line
S4 duality, Direct: |dF|/|F| = 1.608e-13 (tolerance 1e-08, from the final states); max |dx|/D = 1.946e-15 and max |dv|/U = 3.912e-13 over the nodes (final states, reported); max |du_rel|/U at the 4 probes = 2.000e-08 (tolerance 1e-06, result file); smallest deficit behind the cage 0.2677; force in current (-129.430741, -0.066204, -83.729442) N.
S4 duality, Grid: |dF|/|F| = 2.163e-13 (tolerance 1e-03, from the final states); max |dx|/D = 2.112e-15 and max |dv|/U = 3.222e-13 over the nodes (final states, reported); max |du_rel|/U at the 4 probes = 6.000e-08 (tolerance 1e-03, result file); smallest deficit behind the cage 0.2652; force in current (-128.972740, -0.073217, -83.500390) N.
Data provenance
Every measured number in the tables above comes from these files (contract C6); the header of each gives the paper, the table or figure, how it was obtained and its uncertainty.
Lader P, Moe H, Jensen O, Lien E (2009), Noter med hoy soliditet - modellforsok, SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture technical report (in Norwegian); available only via Kristiansen T, Faltinsen OM (2012), J. Fluids Struct. 34, 218-235 (KF2012)
location
KF2012 Table 1 (sn, dw, lw) and Table 2 (nominal D, L, bottom weights), journal p. 228, PDF p. 11; bottom-weight count from KF2012 Fig. 11 caption and p. 232
kind
tabulated
uncertainty
as published (values copied exactly); KF2012 Table 2 assigns the experimental uncertainties Sn +-10 %, D +-5 %, L +-5 %, dw +-20 %, T_bw +-5 %
The Lader 2009 report is not in background/; everything here is KF2012's account of it. Circular deformable net cages in the Hirtshals flume, 16 bottom weights of 0.6 kg (T_bw0 = 0.875 m_bw g = 5.15 N in water, g = 9.81 m/s2), C_Dbw0 = 0.66 (Blevins, via KF2012).
notes
Depth: the KF2012 text (p. 228) says "diameter D = 1.75 m and depth 1.5 m", while Table 2 gives L0 = 1.55 m; l_m is the Table 2 value.
notes
E-modulus PROVISIONAL (awaiting author): Table 2 lists the variation "0.2 x 10^6" with no unit (nominal E = infinity), the text (p. 229) says "E = 0.2 Pa gave similar initial conditions"; the most likely reading is 0.2 MPa, a shape-matching device, not a material property. Not a column.
notes
Net weight in water not reported (KF2012 p. 230 estimate 4-5 N per net from rho_net = 1130 kg/m3 of Lader and Enerhaug 2005). Inflow 10-12 % higher at the top than at the bottom in the same flume (KF2012 §3.2.1).
Lader P, Moe H, Jensen O, Lien E (2009), SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture technical report (in Norwegian); available only via Kristiansen T, Faltinsen OM (2012), J. Fluids Struct. 34, 218-235 (KF2012)
location
KF2012 Fig. 14, experimental markers ("Drag, experiments" filled squares, "Lift, experiments" filled circles), journal p. 231, PDF p. 14
kind
digitised
uncertainty
+-0.5 N and +-0.005 m/s (marker centres read from the PDF vector drawing, axes calibrated on the tick marks; not eye-read). The measurement uncertainty itself is not stated; KF2012 treat +-20 % as their total model-plus-experiment band.
units
sn [-], u_m_s [m/s], drag_N [N], lift_N [N]
notes
The Lader 2009 report is not in background/; these are KF2012's plotted experimental points. The Morison-model diamonds and the KF2012 simulation curves are not included. Cage data: lader2009_kf2012_tables1-2.csv.
notes
nan = no marker in the figure (Sn = 0.19 has no lift marker at 0.12 m/s). The read-off values lie within 0.1 N of whole newtons, which suggests the plotted data were integers.
model choices of plan test S3 (NetValidation_LaderCage_Test.cpp, MARE-0101, WP-D2) for the Lader et al. (2009) cages of tests/data/lader2009_kf2012_tables1-2.csv; not a measurement
location
KF2012 §3.2.2 (journal p. 229, PDF p. 12) for the still-water shape the E-modulus is chosen to give; plan Decisions 4
kind
text
uncertainty
e_pa is PROVISIONAL (awaiting author); KF2012 found that E does not affect drag and affects lift below 0.4 m/s (KF2012 Fig. 18)
units
sn [-], e_pa [Pa]
notes
E-modulus PROVISIONAL (awaiting author). KF2012 Table 2 lists "0.2 x 10^6" (no unit) and the text "E = 0.2 Pa gave similar initial conditions": a shape-matching device, not a material property (plan Decisions 4). In this model BarE is the twine's modulus (bar stiffness E pi BarD^2/4 per twine); 0.2 MPa stretches the still-water cage to 2.26 m (Sn 0.19) against L0 = 1.55 m, 2 MPa to +7 %. The value below is the smallest round value that keeps the still-water depth within the +-5 % KF2012 Table 2 band on L (3.9 %, 3.8 %, 3.0 % deeper) while the unweighted bottom-ring nodes arch 5-6 cm above the weighted ones (the lower part of the net arches under the bottom weights, KF2012 §3.2.2); S3_StillWaterShapeWithProvisionalE checks both.
notes
fluid rho = 1025 kg/m3, nu = 1.19e-6 m2/s: the NetStructure defaults. KF2012 do not state the flume water; an assumption, reported as an owner question.
notes
The cage has a flat bottom net (assumption: KF2012 Figs. 13 and 16 show a closed cage; the bottom is not described). Twine neutrally buoyant (KF2012 did not model the net weight, §3.2.2). The 16 bottom weights are constant forces T_bw on every second node of the 32-node bottom ring; their drag (KF2012 nominal C_Dbw = 0.66) is not modelled (the KF2012 variation C_Dbw = 0).