SOLVCON Outlook, 2014


I like to code and engineer for continuum-based first-principle simulations. Although numerical simulations inherently have limitation, to use computers to get to the details and insights is fascinating, especially when the problems are otherwise difficult to be studied. A table, some pencils, a laptop, and data centers are all we need. Oh, and we don’t need to physically touch a data center (or we aren’t allowed to do so :) It’s amazing to be able to see so much with so little.

But it doesn’t mean the simulations are simple, although the building blocks are really just mathematical formulations and computer code. Remember devils are in the details. Correct and accountable simulation results are as challenging as physical experiments, but call for a different skill set. We have to realize that doing the simulations means making special computer software, of which the prerequisite is the “domain knowledge” that takes years of study.

The point is that we are making software. For scientific research, there is an impression that the efforts on software should be minimized. Many researchers don’t have long-term thinking about their code. That causes problems. A computational scientist can be sure about nothing other than the formations and the code. If we don’t program with discipline, our simulations won’t have desired credibility. From empirical equations, semi-analytical simulations, one-dimensional simulations to three-dimensional, massively-parallelized simulations, the ever-increasing computing power drove the code to be more and more complex, and we simply need to work like professional programmers to properly organize our calculations.

Better Engineering for Science

More engineering practices should be brought into the picture. We need to construct the simulation software with discipline, but engineering software is pretty different to other engineering. In software, there’s no “real thing” that can be verified by the Mother Nature. Many of us may not be familiar with the skills and tools to be employed.

The goal of SOLVCON is to let a researcher focus on developing research code that uses the CESE method. From the engineering perspective, collaboration is good and it’s not reasonable to ask a single person to understand every detail from the choice of design patterns to the development of constitutive models. Ultimately, we hope everyone who’s interested in SOLVCON’s applicable areas can find a comfortable place to contribute.

But it is unclear that how many and what roles there should be for a good team. How people should collaborate? How should the responsibility from different roles to overlap? For a usual research team in a university, we don’t need to answer these questions, because the team is more or less constrained by how academia is working. SOLVCON is an open-source project. It enjoys a high degree of freedom and the only significant constraint is resources. We can make different try.

Scope is still needed for a project. The basis of SOLVCON is (i) unstructured meshes (Voronoi-based) of mixed elements, (ii) the CESE method, and (iii) hybrid implementation of Python and C. SOLVCON is open-sourced with a permissive license so close-source applications are OK. On that basis we want to learn how to do good computational science with good software practices.


The first thing to consider is communication, which is important for both science and software. Open and critical discussions make ideas to grow into solutions. In the software development communities many systems and services have been developed to facilitate communication in development teams. Documenting is the most prominent system, for all we have are just code and formulations.

Formulations are what common software projects don’t have. There are some solutions available, and SOLVCON uses Sphinx as the documenting system. In this way, the formulations and the simulations will be integrated into the software’s document. In-progress demonstration can be found at and

One challenge with the traditional research papers is that the they can’t carry code. For a medium-sized project of more than a thousand lines of code, the separation between code and passages makes either part difficult to be maintained. The SOLVCON documenting system wants to improve this. By using “readthedocs” and “BitBucket”, producing the cross-referenced document online is just several clicks away.

Version Control and Building

Although everything about numerical simulations is in computers, we still can say that we have one tangible asset: source code. The source code should be properly managed and can be made to the center of all communication. In software development it is called version control, and there are many version control systems (VCS) and services at our disposal. SOLVCON uses Mercurial (hg) with the BitBucket hosting service. BitBucket also provides a nice issue tracker and can hook into other online services.

Source code needs to be built before running. Building the binary code from source code involves compiling, linking, and organizing the intermediates at proper places. It’s much more complex than just compiling so that we need a build system. SOLVCON uses SCons to build its binary parts. Standard Python distutil is used after SCons for making source package.

In addition to building, SOLVCON provides scripts in “ground/” and “soil/” directories to build third-party software packages, if they are not otherwise available. The dependency management is especially important when running SOLVCON on a supercomputer site, for usually the pre-installed software packages are not sufficient to run SOLVCON.


Testing is something can’t be taken away from the development cycle. It is different from the result verification for an under-development simulation, but about repeatedly confirming the already verified (or partially verified) results are still valid.

In SOLVCON there are three levels of testing: the unit testing, functional testing, and solution testing. The unit testing is using the standard Python unit test framework and doctest. The functional testing is arranged for interoperation of different modules in the software system. Solution testing is responsible for making sure the calculation results remain the same after when changing the code. The solution tests are collected in the “examples/” directory, and scripts of running these solution tests or examples are provided.

It is important to separate the testing into levels. We should constantly run tests to check that we don’t break code, because if we do, it takes more time to fix errors in the future than to avoid errors during development. Usually, the more involved tests need more resources and more complex setup. For example, all unit tests in SOLVCON can be run with a single “nosetests” command, and they finish in 10 seconds on my MacBook Air. In contrast, a solution test for a solver in SOLVCON takes 10 minutes on a 8-core server. We can use unit tests to quickly detect errors, and the expensive solution tests only need to be invoked at a late phase of development.

A continuous integration (CI) system (Jenkins) is set up at to carry out all the tests and code building with every commit in the source code repository. If a developer forgets to run the tests, the CI system will still run them anyway. Whenever it’s possible, we should set up automation to do repeating tasks and free up developers’ or researchers’ time for something more valuable.

Scheduling for Collaboration

To some extent, developing code is like developing formulations. They both consumes large chucks of time and are usually a standalone activity that requires one to get into the “flow” for efficient and quality work. That is, we can’t be disturbed in the middle of the work flow or we will lose a lot of productivity.

If we centralize the work to software development, or, in another word, do computational research like we are developing software, then collaboration techniques for software can come to help the research. Because research teams are usually small (tens of people or less), we should adopt established agile methodologies like Scrum, Kanban, eXtreme Programming (XP), etc. These methodologies are not addressing how to manage the “domain knowledge”, which is our focus of computational science. We need to adjust them to balance the software and non-software parts.


This isn’t the complete description about what SOLVCON wants to achieve, but provides an overview for its possible contribution outside its basis. The fundamental infrastructure mentioned above is already there. The project should be expanded to find out how far it can go. For now, the use of the CESE method is a limiting condition for its applications, but also an opportunity to bring new things into unexplored application areas. Preliminary applications developed for supersonic flows, waves in solids, and acoustics can be used as working models.

I hope to know more people who are interested in this model of developing PDE solvers or the CESE method, and try a fun approach of doing computational research together.