Proceedings of the 2006 Winter Simulation Conference 2006
DOI: 10.1109/wsc.2006.323199
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Domain-Specific Language for Model Coupling

Abstract: There is an increasing need for the comprehensive simulation of complex, dynamic, physical systems. Often such simulations are built by coupling existing, component models so that their concurrent simulations affect each other. The process of model coupling is, however, a nontrivial task that is not adequately supported by existing frameworks. To provide better support, we have developed an approach to model coupling that uses high level model interfaces called Potential Coupling Interfaces. In this work, we p… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Of course, many additional projects address important aspects of multiphysics simulations. Such projects include approaches that facilitate working at higher levels of abstraction (Ford et al, 2006;Sahu et al, 1999;McInnes et al, 2006;Bulatewicz and Cuny, 2006;DeVito et al, 2011), as well as software such as Cactus (Goodale et al, 2003), Coupler (Liu and Sosonkina, 2011), DDEMA (Michopoulos et al, 2003), FLASH (Dubey et al, 2009), InterComm (Sussman, 2006), Jade (Hegewald et al, 2008), Karma (Mahadevan et al, 2009), MCT (Larson et al, 2005), MUSE (Zwart et al, 2008), Overlink (Grandy, 2004), Overture (Hen-53 shaw, 2002), PreCICE , Sierra (Stewart and Edwards, 2004), and XpressSpace (Zhang et al, 2011a).…”
Section: Software Successesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of course, many additional projects address important aspects of multiphysics simulations. Such projects include approaches that facilitate working at higher levels of abstraction (Ford et al, 2006;Sahu et al, 1999;McInnes et al, 2006;Bulatewicz and Cuny, 2006;DeVito et al, 2011), as well as software such as Cactus (Goodale et al, 2003), Coupler (Liu and Sosonkina, 2011), DDEMA (Michopoulos et al, 2003), FLASH (Dubey et al, 2009), InterComm (Sussman, 2006), Jade (Hegewald et al, 2008), Karma (Mahadevan et al, 2009), MCT (Larson et al, 2005), MUSE (Zwart et al, 2008), Overlink (Grandy, 2004), Overture (Hen-53 shaw, 2002), PreCICE , Sierra (Stewart and Edwards, 2004), and XpressSpace (Zhang et al, 2011a).…”
Section: Software Successesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, high-frequency interaction between models demands automated methods that allow the linked model to execute autonomously. The need for model linking (also called model coupling) has motivated considerable work toward methods and tools (Larson et al, 2001;David et al, 2002;Buis et al, 2006;Bulatewicz and Cuny, 2006;Ford et al, 2006;Joppich and Kurschner, 2006;Gregersen et al, 2007).…”
Section: Model Linking Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unfortunately, available datasets are not efficiently shared among the existing diverse model simulations and data processors [2,3]. This situation is caused primarily by the lack of homogeneous, well-defined descriptions, transformations, and interconnections.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Model coupling is a particularly complex topic with numerous solutions proposed, as for example described in [2], [3], and [23]. However, as explained in [9], most of the existing model interoperability methods require the users to modify source code in order to create meaningful model coupling scenarios.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%