4.3 Article

Multiphysics simulations: Challenges and opportunities

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1094342012468181

关键词

Multiphysics; multimodel; multirate; multiscale; implicit and explicit algorithms; strong and weak coupling; loose and tight coupling

资金

  1. Institute of Computing in Science (ICiS)
  2. Institute for Computing in Science
  3. Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research, Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC02-06CH11357]
  4. Directorate For Engineering
  5. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn [1068419] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Directorate For Engineering
  7. Div Of Industrial Innovation & Partnersh [1237555] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  8. Division Of Mathematical Sciences
  9. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1228206] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  10. Division Of Mathematical Sciences
  11. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [0810422, 1065046, 1016268] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We consider multiphysics applications from algorithmic and architectural perspectives, where algorithmic includes both mathematical analysis and computational complexity, and architectural includes both software and hardware environments. Many diverse multiphysics applications can be reduced, en route to their computational simulation, to a common algebraic coupling paradigm. Mathematical analysis of multiphysics coupling in this form is not always practical for realistic applications, but model problems representative of applications discussed herein can provide insight. A variety of software frameworks for multiphysics applications have been constructed and refined within disciplinary communities and executed on leading-edge computer systems. We examine several of these, expose some commonalities among them, and attempt to extrapolate best practices to future systems. From our study, we summarize challenges and forecast opportunities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据