Engineering with Computers

, Volume 22, Issue 3–4, pp 293–309 | Cite as

A system integration framework for coupled multiphysics simulations

  • Xiangmin Jiao
  • Gengbin Zheng
  • Phillip A. Alexander
  • Michael T. Campbell
  • Orion S. Lawlor
  • John Norris
  • Andreas Haselbacher
  • Michael T. Heath
Original Article


Multiphysics simulations are playing an increasingly important role in computational science and engineering for applications ranging from aircraft design to medical treatments. These simulations require integration of techniques and tools from multiple disciplines, and in turn demand new advanced technologies to integrate independently developed physics solvers effectively. In this paper, we describe some numerical, geometrical, and system software components required by such integration, with a concrete case study of detailed, three-dimensional, parallel rocket simulations involving system-level interactions among fluid, solid, and combustion, as well as subsystem-level interactions. We package these components into a software framework that provides common-refinement based methods for transferring data between potentially non-matching meshes, novel and robust face-offsetting methods for tracking Lagrangian surface meshes, as well as integrated support for parallel mesh optimization, remeshing, algebraic manipulations, performance monitoring, and high-level data management and I/O. From these general, reusable framework components we construct domain-specific building blocks to facilitate integration of parallel, multiphysics simulations from high-level specifications that are easy to read and can also be visualized graphically. These reusable building blocks are integrated with independently developed physics codes to perform various multiphysics simulations.


Software framework Multiphysics simulation System integration Data abstraction 


  1. 1.
    Allen G, Dramlitsch T, Foster I, Karonis N, Ripeanu M, Seidel E, Toonen B (2001) Supporting efficient execution in heterogeneous distributed computing environments with Cactus and Globus. In: Proceedings of Supercomputing ’01 (CDROM), Denver, COGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allan B, Armstrong R, Wolfe A, Ray J, Bernholdt D (2002) The CCA core specification in a distributed memory spmd framework. Concurr Comput Pract Exp 5:323–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Budge KG, Peery JS (1998), Experiences developing ALEGRA: a C++ coupled physics framework. In: Workshop on Object Oriented Methods for Interoperable Scientific and Engineering ComputingGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bassetti F, Brown D, Davis K, Henshaw W, Quinlan D (1998) Overture: an object-oriented framework for high performance scientific computing. In: Proceedings of Supercomputing ’98 (CDROM), San Jose, CAGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reynders JVW et al (1996) POOMA: a framework for scientific simulations on parallel architectures. In: Wilson GV, Lu P (eds) Parallel programming using C++, MIT, pp 553–594Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stewart JR, Edwards HC (2004) A framework approach for developing parallel adaptive multiphysics applications. Finite Elem Anal Des 40:1599–1617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liskov B, Castro M, Shrira L, Adya A (1999) Providing persistent objects in distributed systems. Lect Notes Comput Sci 1628:230–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hakonen H, Leppanen V, Raita T, Salakoski T, Teuhola J (1999) Improving object integrity and preventing side effects via deeply immutable references. In: Proceedings of Sixth Fenno-Ugric Symposium on Software Technology, FUSST’99, pp 139–150Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stevens P, Pooley R (1999) Using UML: software engineering with objects and components. Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    London K, Dongarra J, Moore S, Mucci P, Seymour K, Spencer T (2001) End-user tools for application performance analysis using hardware counters. In: International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Computing SystemsGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huang C, Lawlor O, Kalé LV (2003) Adaptive MPI. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Languages and Compilers for Parallel Computing (LCPC 03), College Station, TXGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huang C, Zheng G, Kumar S, Kalé LV (2006) Performance evaluation of adaptive MPI. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming 2006Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kalé LV (2002) The virtualization model of parallel programming: runtime optimizations and the state of art. In: Los Alamos Computer Science Institute (LACSI) 2002, Albuquerque, NMGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zheng G (2005) Achieving high performance on extremely large parallel machines. PhD Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kale LV, Zheng G, Lee CW, Kumar S (2006) Scaling applications to massively parallel machines using projections performance analysis tool. In: Future generation computer systems special issue on: large-scale system performance modeling and analysis, vol. 22:347–358Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kalé LV (2004) Performance and productivity in parallel programming via processor virtualization. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Productivity and Performance in High-End Computing (at HPCA 10), Madrid, SpainGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zheng G, Lawlor OS, Kalé LV (2006) Multiple flows of control in migratable parallel programs. In: Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on High Performance Scientific and Engineering Computing (HPSEC-06), Columbus, OhioGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jiao X, Heath MT (2004) Overlaying surface meshes, part I: algorithms. Int J Comput Geom Appl 14:379–402MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jiao X, Heath MT (2004) Overlaying surface meshes, part II: topology preservation and feature detection. Int J Comput Geom Appl 14:403–419MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Farhat C, Lesoinne M, LeTallec P (2004) Load and motion transfer algorithms for fluid/structure interaction problems with non-matching discrete interfaces: momentum and energy conservation, optimal discretization and application to aeroelasticity. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng 157:95–114CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bernardi C, Maday Y, Patera AT (1994) A new nonconforming approach to domain decomposition: the mortar element method, In: Brezis H, Lions JL (eds) Nonlinear PDEs and Their Applications, Collège de France Seminar, vol XI, pp 13–51Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Belgacem FB, Maday Y (1997) The mortar element method for three dimensional finite elements. RAIRO Math Model Numer Anal 31:289–302MATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jiao X, Heath MT (2004) Common-refinement based data transfer between nonmatching meshes in multiphysics simulations. Int J Numer Meth Eng 61:2401–2427CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jaiman RK, Jiao X, Geubelle PH, Loth E (2005) Assessment of conservative load transfer for fluid-solid interface with non-matching meshes. Int J Numer Meth Eng 64:2014–2038MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Osher S, Fedkiw R (2003) Level set methods and dynamic implicit surfaces. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sethian JA (1999) Level set methods and fast marching methods. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thompson JF, Soni BK, Weatherill NP (eds) (1999) Handbook of grid generation. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Freitag L, Leurent T, Knupp P, Melander D (2002) MESQUITE design: issues in the development of a mesh quality improvement toolkit. In: 8th Int. Conf. Numer. Grid Gener. Comput. Field Sim., pp 159–168Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lawlor OS, Kalé LV (2002) A voxel-based parallel collision detection algorithm. In: Proceedings of International Conference Supercomputing, pp 285–293Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wilson WG, Anderson JM, Vander Meyden M (1992) Titan IV SRMU PQM-1 overview. AIAA Paper 92-3819Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiangmin Jiao
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gengbin Zheng
    • 1
  • Phillip A. Alexander
    • 1
  • Michael T. Campbell
    • 1
  • Orion S. Lawlor
    • 1
    • 3
  • John Norris
    • 1
  • Andreas Haselbacher
    • 1
  • Michael T. Heath
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Simulation of Advanced RocketsUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA
  2. 2.College of ComputingGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of AlaskaFairbanksUSA

Personalised recommendations