MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558876588 · doi:10.4043/27386-ms

Accelerating Numerical Ice Engineering Tools Using GPGPU

2016· article· en· W2558876588 on OpenAlexaff
Shadi Alawneh, Jan Thijssen, Martín Richard

Bibliographic record

VenueArctic Technology Conference · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicScientific Research and Discoveries
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandCentre For Cold Ocean Resources Engineering
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral-purpose computing on graphics processing unitsComputer scienceCUDAGraphics processing unitSpeedupParallel computingMonte Carlo methodComputational scienceGraphics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract C-CORE is engaged in understanding the iceberg and sea ice design loads needs of the energy sector. As the energy industry ventures into oceans with greater ice cover and more icebergs, there is a significant need for efficient engineering tools to plan and manage operations in exploration, production, and safety. Industry requires a range of scenarios for their risk assessments, where existing simulations can be computationally and time intensive. C-CORE has recently started using the benefit of the General Purpose Computing on Graphical Processing Units (GPGPU) approach. This approach has shown significant speed up of several numerical ice engineering applications related to icebergs and sea ice. The investigated model types are Monte-Carlo type approaches for probabilistic design method, and quadratic discriminant. GPU computing with Compute Unified Device Architecture (CUDA) is a new approach to solve complex problems and transform the GPU into a massively parallel processor. The present study applies the GPGPU technology to a Monte-Carlo simulation, used for a sea ice load application. The objective of this study is to measure the performance of the GPU using CUDA, and compare against the serial Central Processing Unit (CPU) using C++ and MATLAB implementations. Results show a speedup of up to 2,600 times of the GPGPU implementation compared to the MATLAB implementation, reducing the elapsed time from about 1.5 hour to about 2 seconds. This strongly indicates that the GPGPU approach can help the industry to significantly reduce the time required for the simulations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArctic Technology ConferenceSame topicScientific Research and DiscoveriesFrench-language works237,207