Workshops among Core Universities

In preparation for the contract award for the ORNL team led by UT and Battelle, the core universities and ORAU conducted workshops in each of the core competency areas of the laboratory in order to identify the university strengths that can be brought through collaborative activities. Four such workshops have been held:

Advanced Materials at Georgia Tech

Advanced Computational Science at Virginia Tech

Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia

Neutron Sciences at NC State--Dec. 7, 1999

Virginia Tech Presentation by Mark Pitt

Materials Workshop—July 27, 1999

Hosted by Georgia Tech

Official Meeting Notes from Georgia Tech

Summary Notes from Panel Discussion

EU is forming "megacenters" of universities; U.S. needs to do it—meeting could lead to a "megacenter" materials consortium for U.S.

Collaborations areas: nanomaterials/nanoelectronics, polymers, biomaterials

Materials synthesis applied to polymers; structure studies based on neutron scattering (HFIR and SNS)

Need follow-up meetings at focused technical level

4 key areas for collaboration: (1) synthesis, (2) property measurement at atomic level, (3) computational modeling, (4) distance learning

Distance learning—need to examine and relax requirements for getting degrees over distance; takes administrative changes at universities; look at existing models like VCES

Should focus on shared equipment and resources rather than focus on PI collaboration

Need detailed assessment of ORNL facilities and equipment; need to involve ORNL in future meetings

Short courses for multi-University graduate students focused on core areas "special topics"…who gets the tuition?

Graduate student symposia—pass around from u to u in focused areas (e.g. polymers); invite NSF, DOE etc. to see the expertise and ask for their support

Generate pre-proposals in selected research topic areas

Get critical mass of political support from the consortium states

Form a committee on communications among the universities

Attendees:

Virginia Tech—Ken Reifsnider, Ron Kander, Tim Long, Scott Case, John Wilson

Florida State—6 attendees

Georgia Tech—5 attendees

NC State—3 attendees

ORAU—John Nemeth

U. So. Mississippi—4 attendees

UT Knoxville—4 attendees

UVA—4 attendees

Duke—no attendees

Return to top

 Advanced Computing Workshop—August 16, 1999

Hotel Roanoke, Roanoke, VA—Hosted by Virginia Tech

Meeting Summary

The participants delivered the presentations noted in the agenda (see Background Material below). At the conclusion of the meeting, the group made the following summary observations.

Common Themes across the Universities

The areas noted as common thrusts among the universities include:

• Networking
• Cluster grid computing
• Video and distance learning delivery
• Modeling and simulation (across many disciplines and applications)
• Information science, data management, data mining
• Problem solving environments and visualization
• Potentially common, but needing more discussion—human computer interfaces and security considerations for networks

Potential Areas for Collaboration among the Universities

These areas were not thoroughly discussed (for lack of time) but were mentioned as possible areas for new research in collaboration among the universities:

• Mobile or ubiquitous computing environments among the universities
• Cross-cutting applications using advanced computing—e.g. bioinformatics
• Environmental science applications
• Virtual human model (already of interest to ORNL)
• Exploit clusters across the universities in wide area network
• Multidisciplinary training across the universities—build on what exists to help each other and exploit current strengths (e.g. how to set up computer clusters)
• Share "virtual computer support staffs" across the universities
• Share experience ("lessons learned") among the universities who are setting up different approaches to graduate level computer sciences programs
• Use each others’ cluster set-ups to benchmark and refine the operations of individual clusters

Next Steps

This topic generated varying responses including the following:

• In short term, have more focused meetings on topical areas with object of producing proposals; need "seed money" for this development.
• Define creative approaches to joint faculty positions—e.g. sabbaticals, joint among the core universities as well as with ORNL, overcoming the geographic distance in making these work
• Define ways to allow access to computer resources at ORNL and among the core universities
• Need incentives to take "next steps"… what are the "carrots?"
• Need to involve ORNL personnel in these discussions; any next meeting should be more focused and involve them and allow opportunities to develop "bottom-up" collaborative opportunities
• Skeptical that a "top-down" edict to collaborate will succeed
• Skeptical that ORNL or any of the universities will be willing to share compute cycles
• Compelling problems bring groups together for collaboration; need to define some "grand challenge" problems to propose—e.g. problem-solving environment, climate change, contaminant transport
• Should wait for award, then announce opportunities broadly among and within the universities, and then convene meetings at ORNL to develop collaborative proposals
• There is reason to believe that ORNL will be receptive to broadening their capabilities to go after new ideas. DOE has a quota on computational funding—60% Labs, 40% universities…aligning with ORNL and university team is "win-win" for DOE program managers, ORNL and the universities
• A southeast grid would be political force to attract funding

Briefing materials for the presentations are being assembled at Virginia Tech. If anyone would like to see any of this material, please contact Pam Pettry (pettry@vt.edu, 540-231-6077).

Background Material

Meeting Purposes

1. Assemble the "core universities" associated with the UT-Battelle proposal to become familiar with activities and strengths of these universities in Advanced Computing (one of the core competency areas of ORNL).
2. Initiate discussions of potential collaborative interactions among the universities.

Meeting Approach

Building on the successful meeting on Materials, hosted by Georgia Tech, this meeting will follow a similar format. Each university will present overview briefings that cover the research capabilities and strengths of the university in a 50-minute period. The format should be overhead transparencies (with accompanying handouts). The content and approach to each university’s briefings is to be decided by each university. Some general topics might include (but is not limited to) computer hardware, networking, virtual laboratory applications, simulations, modeling, applications, educational content delivery, etc. At the end of the university briefings, John Nemeth from ORAU will discuss the linkage with ORNL. Finally, a general open panel discussion will be convened (with one person designated from each university) to focus a summary of what we believe are the areas of strength and potential collaboration among the universities.

Agenda

• Identify key common interests
• Strengths to augment ORNL advanced computing thrusts

4:45—5:00 Workshop Summary and Adjourn

Participants

Florida State University

Larry Dennis, Director, Supercomputing Computations Research Institute (SCRI), dennisl@scri.fsu.edu

Gorden Erlebacher, Mathematics, erlebach@math.fsu.edu

Jerry Wekezer, Civil Engineering, Chair, wekezer@eng.fsu.edu

Dave Furbish, Geology, Chair, dfurbish@garnet.acns.fsu.edu

Duke University

John Board, Electrical and Computer Engineering, jab@ee.duke.edu

Richard Lucic, Computer Science, lucic@cs.duke.edu

Robert Wagner, Computer Science, raw@cs.duke.edu

Georgia Tech

Mary Trauner, Educational Technology, Mary.Trauner@oit.gatech.edu

Nikil Jayant, Electrical & Computer Engineering, nikil.jayant@ece.gatech.edu

Philip Enslow, Computing, enslow@terminus.cc.gatech.edu

North Carolina State University

Paul Turinsky, Nuclear Engineering, turinsky@eos.ncsu.edu

Wes Snyder, Electrical Engineering, Center for Advanced Communications & Computing, wes@eos.ncsu.edu

John Gilligan, Associate Dean, College of Engineering, gilligan@eos.ncsu.edu

Chris Roland, Physics, roland@ajax.physics.ncsu.edu

Jerzy Bernholc, Physics, bernholc@ncsu.edu

Harry Perros, Computer Science, hp@csc.ncsu.edu

Oak Ridge Associated Universities

John Nemeth, nemethj@orau.gov

University of Tennessee at Knoxville

Bob Ward, Dept. Head, Computer Sciences, ward@cs.utk.edu

Christian Halloy, Director, Joint Institute for Computational Science (JICS), halloy@cs.utk.edu

Mike Berry, Computer Sciences, berry@cs.utk.edu

Joe Iannelli, Mech. & Aero. Eng. & Eng. Science, jiannell@utk.edu

University of Virginia

Andrew Grimshaw, Computer Science, grimshaw@virginia.edu

Jorg Liebeherr, Computer Science, jorg@Virginia.EDU

William Pearson, Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, pearson@virginia.edu

David Hudson, Associate Vice President for Research, dhudson@virginia.edu

Virginia Tech

Len Peters, Vice President for Research and Dean of Graduate School, peters@vt.edu

John Wilson, Research and Grad Studies, wilsonj@vt.edu

Scott Midkiff, Electrical and Computer Engineering, midkiff@vt.edu , Scott Midkiff's Presentation

Layne Watson, Computer Science, ltw@vt.edu

Richard Nance, Computer Science, nance@vt.edu , Richard Nance's Presentation

John Carroll, Computer Science, jcarroll@vt.edu , Jack Carroll's Presentation

Dennis Kafura, Dept. Head, Computer Science, kafura@vt.edu

Return to top

Environmental Sciences Workshop—September 14-15, 1999

Hosted by University of Virginia in Charlottesville

University Self-Identified Strengths

UVA—Global climate change (Carbon budget); Isotope geochemistry

Fla. State—Analytical physics & chemistry, Multi-porosity aquifers, Climatology & Meterology

Duke (not present)—Free-air CO₂, Plant physiology & ecosystems, Oceanography

VT—Biofuels & alternative energy, Waste management/pollution control, Data management, Integrated resource management, Biodiversity—conservation biology (Virginia Tech Presentation by Richard Rich)

UT—Advanced Analytical capability, Microbial ecology, Parallel computing applied to environmental problems

GT—Regional air quality—monitoring & modeling, GIS technology, Aquatic natural processes—toxicology, bioremediation, Information technology

NC State—Bio-remediation & biotechnology, Waste management and pollution control, Air & water quality—management and assessment, Ecotoxicology, Severe storm prediction, modeling

Parallel computing for application modeling, Advanced analytical techniques

The list was agree to include a mixture of capabilities (analysis, parallel computing) and research focus (climate change).

Major Research Problems that the Core Universities Could Address

• Environmental Chemistry
• Microbial Processes and Applications
• Global Environmental Change
• Environmental Data and Information Systems—Ameriflux sites
• Biofuels, CO₂ Mitigation
• Contaminants Such as Mercury
• Integrated Environmental Assessment
• Sustainable Economic Development
• Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function
• Ground Water Contamination
• Oceanography
• Southeast Coastal Processes

Infrastructure Problems that the Core Universities Could Address

• Environmental Science Computations
• Data Communications—especially related to linking remote field sites with wireless network
• Environmental Event Response Team (Science-based) for region/nation
• Oak Ridge Center for Advanced Studies—educational opportunities in global change, groundwater, summer institutes and conferences

Attendees

VT—Richard Rich, Don Orth, John Little (1^st day only), John Wilson

Fla. State—3 attendees

Georgia Tech—3 attendees

NC State—4 attendees

ORAU—John Nemeth

UT—Frank Harris (proposed Assoc. Lab Director for Environmental and Biological Sciences)

UVA—6 attendees

Duke—no attendees

See complete attendee list with addresses, phone numbers, e-mails

Return to top

Neutron Science Workshop at NC State--Dec. 6-7, 1999

Agenda and Attendees