4.7 Article

Particle-resolved thermal lattice Boltzmann simulation using OpenACC on multi-GPUs

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2023.124758

关键词

Particle-laden flow; Thermal convection; Lattice Boltzmann method; GPU computing; OpenACC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We utilize the OpenACC approach to accelerate particle-resolved thermal lattice Boltzmann simulation using graphics processing unit (GPU). By adopting the momentum-exchange method for fluid-particle interactions and extending the indirect addressing method to address load imbalance issues, we achieve improved simulation performance.
We utilize the Open Accelerator (OpenACC) approach for graphics processing unit (GPU) accelerated particle-resolved thermal lattice Boltzmann (LB) simulation. We adopt the momentum-exchange method to calculate fluid-particle interactions to preserve the simplicity of the LB method. To address load imbalance issues, we extend the indirect addressing method to collect fluid-particle link information at each timestep and store indices of fluid-particle link in a fixed index array. We simulate the sedimentation of 4,800 hot particles in cold fluids with a domain size of 40002, and the simulation achieves 1750 million lattice updates per second (MLUPS) on a single GPU. Furthermore, we implement a hybrid OpenACC and message passing interface (MPI) approach for multi-GPU accelerated simulation. This approach incorporates four optimization strategies, including building domain lists, utilizing request-answer communication, overlapping communications with computations, and executing computation tasks concurrently. By reducing data communication between GPUs, hiding communication latency through overlapping computation, and increasing the utilization of GPU resources, we achieve improved performance, reaching 10846 MLUPS using 8 GPUs. Our results demonstrate that the OpenACC-based GPU acceleration is promising for particle-resolved thermal lattice Boltzmann simulation.

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

4.7
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