MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2960187003 · doi:10.1108/hff-09-2018-0485

GPGPU implementation of a lattice Boltzmann methodology for particle transport and deposition in complex flow

2019· article· en· W2960187003 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Ayyed Abdul-Kadhim, Fue‐Sang Lien, Eugene Yee

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Numerical Methods for Heat &amp Fluid Flow · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLattice Boltzmann Simulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLattice Boltzmann methodsComputer scienceGeneral-purpose computing on graphics processing unitsComputational scienceParallel computingComputationStatistical physicsProbabilistic logicAlgorithmGraphicsMechanicsPhysicsComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This study aims to modify the standard probabilistic lattice Boltzmann methodology (LBM) cellular automata (CA) algorithm to enable a more realistic and accurate computation of the ensemble rather than individual particle trajectories that need to be updated from one time step to the next (allowing, as such, a fraction of the collection of particles in any lattice grid cell to be updated in a time step, rather than the entire collection of particles as in the standard LBM-CA algorithm leading to a better representation of the dynamic interaction between the particles and the background flow). Exploitation of the inherent parallelism of the modified LBM-CA algorithm to provide a computationally efficient scheme for computation of particle-laden flows on readily available commodity general-purpose graphics processing units (GPGPUs). Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a framework for the implementation of a LBM for the simulation of particle transport and deposition in complex flows on a GPGPU. Towards this objective, the authors have shown how to map the data structure of the LBM with a multiple-relaxation-time (MRT) collision operator and the Smagorinsky subgrid-scale turbulence model (for turbulent fluid flow simulations) coupled with a CA probabilistic method (for particle transport and deposition simulations) to a GPGPU to give a high-performance computing tool for the calculation of particle-laden flows. Findings A fluid-particle simulation using our LBM-MRT-CA algorithm run on a single GPGPU was 160 times as computationally efficient as the same algorithm run on a single CPU. Research limitations/implications The method is limited by the available computational resources (e.g. GPU memory size). Originality/value A new 3D LBM-MRT-CA model was developed to simulate the particle transport and deposition in complex laminar and turbulent flows with different hydrodynamic characteristics (e.g. vortex shedding, impingement, free shear layer, turbulent boundary layer). The solid particle information is encapsulated locally at the lattice grid nodes, allowing for straightforward mapping of the datastructure onto a GPGPU enabling a massive parallel execution of the LBM-MRT-CA algorithm. The new particle transport algorithm was based on the local (bulk) particle density and velocity and provides more realistic results for the particle transport and deposition than the standard LBM-CA algorithm.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.341 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Numerical Methods for Heat &amp Fluid FlowSame topicLattice Boltzmann Simulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207