MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018924371 · doi:10.1002/nag.721

Parallel generation of initial element assemblies for two‐dimensional discrete element simulations

2008· article· en· W2018924371 on OpenAlexaff
Attila M. Zsáki

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGranular flow and fluidized beds
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscrete element methodScalabilityComputer scienceDomain (mathematical analysis)Computational scienceMultiprocessingWorkstationExtended discrete element methodElement (criminal law)Parallel computingGranular materialPoint (geometry)Material point methodAlgorithmDomain decomposition methodsMulti-core processorFinite element methodEngineeringGeometryMechanicsStructural engineeringExtended finite element methodMathematicsGeotechnical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The discrete element method (DEM) enables modeling of the behavior of granular materials and rock masses via the interaction of elements, as the whole model deforms under the applied loading. As a starting point of any DEM simulation, the computational domain needs to be filled with discrete elements. Disks are often used for 2D simulations to generate the model. There are techniques developed to fill a domain with disks, but some of them take considerable time, comparable to the DEM simulation itself. This article presents a parallel algorithm that can fill domains with a tight packing of disks. The algorithm is scalable and its implementation was tested on both a shared memory parallel computer and a multiprocessor, multicore workstation. The applicability of the algorithm in filling domains with disks is demonstrated on a practical example of ore flow at a drawpoint in mining. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.339 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in GeomechanicsSame topicGranular flow and fluidized bedsFrench-language works237,207