Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byKory Goodwin Modified over 8 years ago
1
The Need for Speed in Flood Modelling November 13, 2014 Richard Connell Ben Tate Lachlan Inglis Vs
2
Recent Changes to Hydraulic Modelling Limitation: ‘Traditional’ implicit hydraulic model schemes run on a single-core Recent advances in computing power are in multi-core & parallelisation Solution: Transition to ‘explicit’ hydraulic model schemes that can be parallelised to run on multi-core systems
3
Compute Performance History
4
Processor Comparison CPUGPU ChipIntel - i7-5960XNvidia – Titan Black Processing Cores Clock Speed Single Precision Performance Double Precision Performance Peak Power Usage
5
Processor Comparison CPUGPU ChipIntel - i7-5960XNvidia – Titan Black Processing Cores8 (16)2880 Clock Speed Single Precision Performance Double Precision Performance Peak Power Usage
6
Processor Comparison CPUGPU ChipIntel - i7-5960XNvidia – Titan Black Processing Cores8 (16)2880 Clock Speed3.5 GHz1.17 GHz Single Precision Performance Double Precision Performance Peak Power Usage
7
Processor Comparison CPUGPU ChipIntel - i7-5960XNvidia – Titan Black Processing Cores8 (16)2880 Clock Speed3.5 GHz1.17 GHz Single Precision Performance350 GFLOPS5,000 GFLOPS Double Precision Performance Peak Power Usage
8
Processor Comparison CPUGPU ChipIntel - i7-5960XNvidia – Titan Black Processing Cores8 (16)2880 Clock Speed3.5 GHz1.17 GHz Single Precision Performance350 GFLOPS5,000 GFLOPS Double Precision Performance175 GFLOPS1,700 GFLOPS Peak Power Usage
9
Processor Comparison CPUGPU ChipIntel - i7-5960XNvidia – Titan Black Processing Cores8 (16)2880 Clock Speed3.5 GHz1.17 GHz Single Precision Performance350 GFLOPS5,000 GFLOPS Double Precision Performance175 GFLOPS1,700 GFLOPS Peak Power Usage140 Watts250 Watts
10
Hydraulic Models: TUFLOW TUFLOW ClassicTUFLOW GPU Scheme Implicit Finite Difference Domains1D & 2D (GRID) Inflow BoundariesFlux, source points, rainfall Outflow Boundaries Water level, rating curve
11
Hydraulic Models: TUFLOW TUFLOW ClassicTUFLOW GPU Scheme Implicit Finite Difference Explicit Finite Volume Domains1D & 2D (GRID)2D (GRID) Inflow BoundariesFlux, source points, rainfall Source points, rainfall Outflow Boundaries Water level, rating curve Water level
12
Hydraulic Models: MIKE by DHI MIKE ClassicMIKE GPU Scheme Implicit Finite Difference Domains1D & 2D (GRID) Inflow BoundariesFlux, source points, rainfall Outflow Boundaries Water level, rating curve
13
Hydraulic Models: MIKE by DHI MIKE ClassicMIKE GPU Scheme Implicit Finite Difference Explicit Finite Volume Domains1D & 2D (GRID)1D & 2D (MESH) Inflow BoundariesFlux, source points, rainfall Outflow Boundaries Water level, rating curve
14
Woorabinda Case Study Study area = 29.9 sq km Grid Size = 10 m Cells/ Elements = 300,000 All 2D (no structures) Single inflow hydrograph Downstream water level boundary Hydraulic Models Tested TUFLOW Classic TUFLOW GPU MIKE Classic MIKE FM CPU MIKE FM GPU – 1 st Order MIKE FM GPU – 2 nd Order
15
Woorabinda Case Study
16
TUFLOW Classic TUFLOW GPU 1 st Order MIKE Classic MIKE FM CPU MIKE FM GPU 2 nd Order MIKE FM GPU 1 st Order SchemeImplicitExplicitImplicitExplicit Simulation Time 14h 44m0h 24m2h 58m30h 56m3h 6m1h 48m Time Step
17
Woorabinda Case Study TUFLOW Classic TUFLOW GPU 1 st Order MIKE Classic MIKE FM CPU MIKE FM GPU 2 nd Order MIKE FM GPU 1 st Order SchemeImplicitExplicitImplicitExplicit Simulation Time 14h 44m0h 24m2h 58m30h 56m3h 6m1h 48m Time Step3s1.43s3s0.38s0.39s0.38s
18
Woorabinda Case Study TUFLOW Classic TUFLOW GPU 1 st Order MIKE Classic MIKE FM CPU MIKE FM GPU 2 nd Order MIKE FM GPU 1 st Order SchemeImplicitExplicitImplicitExplicit Simulation Time 14h 44m2h 58m30h 56m Time Step3s1.43s3s0.38s0.39s0.38s
19
Woorabinda Case Study TUFLOW Classic TUFLOW GPU 1 st Order MIKE Classic MIKE FM CPU MIKE FM GPU 2 nd Order MIKE FM GPU 1 st Order SchemeImplicitExplicitImplicitExplicit Simulation Time 14h 44m0h 24m2h 58m30h 56m3h 6m1h 48m Time Step3s1.43s3s0.38s0.39s0.38s
20
Woorabinda Case Study
21
CPU Vs GPU Benchmarking Summary Pros: Significant speed-up for large models Larger models and finer grid resolutions are now possible Cons: Accuracy of results Feature limitations
22
Example Applications – Loddon Valley Loddon Valley: 65 km x 48 km 25 m grid resolution 5 million grid cells 10 day flood event Run time: 1 hour
23
Example Applications – Goulburn River Previous Model Setup: 8 Separate 1D/2D hydraulic models 25 m grid resolution Average 9 day flood event Total Run time: 390 hours 40 Hours 30 Hours 22 Hours 154 Hours 50 Hours 37 Hours 27 Hours 30 Hours
24
Example Applications – Goulburn River Upper Model: 85 km x 65 km 10 m grid resolution 55 million cells 10 day flood event Run time: 25 hours Lower Model: 64 km x 80 km 10 m grid resolution 50 million cells 10 day flood event Run time: 20 hours
25
CPU Vs GPU Conclusions Significant reduction in model run times are possible Much larger model extents and smaller grid resolutions possible Suitable for: Rapid large scale flood assessment Rapid assessment of mitigation options Real-time flood warning Not suitable for: Detailed flood mapping … Yet!
Similar presentations
© 2024 SlidePlayer.com Inc.
All rights reserved.