MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409503178 · doi:10.5957/tos-2025-010

Accelerated Computation of Large-Order and Nonlinear Finite Element Models

2025· article· en· W4409503178 on OpenAlexaff
Arya Majed, Nathan Cooke, D. T. R. Pasala, Shane D. Ryan, Alaa Mansour, Mike Paulin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElasticity and Material Modeling
Canadian institutionsSyncrude (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodComputationNonlinear systemComputer scienceOrder (exchange)Applied mathematicsMathematicsAlgorithmPhysicsStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we discuss a physics-based framework for accelerated computation of large-order linear and nonlinear finite element models. We utilize the word physics-based to differentiate from accelerated computation achieved via other means such as neural networks. The typical manner in which system-level finite element models are developed is by first constructing the sub-system level (hereafter referred to as component) finite element models and then imposing constraint equations along the connecting interfaces to impose displacement compatibility and force equilibrium. In this way, the finite element model of large complex systems can be constructed from its components in a systematic fashion. The resulting system-level finite element model will often be of large-order (100M+ degrees of freedoms) especially if high resolution stress calculations are desired. The solution of such large-order finite element models in either frequency- or time-domain can easily become infeasible even on cloud-based super-computers. However, high-speed computation can still be achieved algorithmically with a proper framework for computation. By utilizing methodologies such as Residual-Flexibility Mixed-Boundary (RFMB), reduced-order component level models which fully preserve the accuracy of the upstream component finite element model can be developed. From these reduced-order components, the system-level model can be constructed which can now compute any desired forcing function for the subject assessment, including long duration stochastics inputs. The deployment of this methodology and framework are demonstrated through application examples, which include irregular wave fatigue of flexible risers, dynamics of a floating structure topside/hull, random vibrations of cokers, and stresses in thermoplastic composite pipe.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.235 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElasticity and Material ModelingFrench-language works237,207