MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802647205 · doi:10.1002/nme.5825

Parallel implementation of implicit finite element model with cohesive zones and collision response using CUDA

2018· article· en· W2802647205 on OpenAlexafffund
Igor Gribanov, Rocky Taylor, Robert Sarracino

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics Simulations and Interactions
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaResearch and Development Corporation of Newfoundland and LabradorNvidia
KeywordsPolygon meshComputer scienceSolverFinite element methodCUDAComputational scienceCollisionFlexibility (engineering)BenchmarkingParallel computingStructural engineeringComputer graphics (images)EngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The aim of this work is to efficiently implement the Park‐Paulino‐Roesler cohesive zone model with the objective of creating realistic high‐resolution simulations of material deformation, fracture, and postfracture behavior. Intrinsically, unstructured meshes can create more realistic fracture patterns in bulk material than structured meshes. Implicit methods, stable for much larger time steps, have greater potential to model both fracture and postfracture behavior without sacrificing speed of execution. Several technical contributions are presented, including (i) GPU‐accelerated implementation of the Park‐Paulino‐Roesler cohesive zone model, (ii) efficient creation of sparse matrix structure, and (iii) comparison of different unloading/reloading relations when using an implicit scheme. A potential‐based collision response scheme was implemented that allows one to model the interaction of fragmented material. Several test simulations are carried out to demonstrate the flexibility of the model and its ability to reproduce different materials under various loading conditions. Benchmarking results show that most of the computational time is spent by the third‐party solver library, meaning that other operations do not require optimization. The library is made available as open source.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinglow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.376 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in EngineeringSame topicFluid Dynamics Simulations and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207