Development of Parallel CFD Applications on Distributed Memory with Chapel
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) software uses Message Passing Interface (MPI) to handle the parallelism over distributed memory systems. For a new developer, such as a student or a new employee, the barrier of entry can be high and more training is required for each particular software package, which slows down the research process on actual science. The Chapel programming language offers an interesting alternative for research and development of CFD applications.In this paper, the developments of two CFD applications are presented: the first one as an experiment by re-writing a 2D structured flow solver and the second one as writing from scratch a research 3D unstructured multi-physics simulation software. Details are given on both applications with emphasis on the Chapel features which were used positively in the code design, in particular to improve flexibility and extend to distributed memory. Some performance pitfalls are discussed with solutions to avoid them.The performance of the unstructured software is then studied and compared to a traditional open-source CFD software package programmed in C++ with MPI for communication (SU2). The results show that our Chapel implementation achieves performances similar to other CFD software written in C and C++, thus confirming that Chapel is a viable language for high-performance CFD applications.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it