How to Apply
Proposals for 2014 ALCC are due 11:59 PM EST February 3rd, 2014. Email your completed proposal to ALCC@science.doe.gov. PDF format is preferred but not required. Awards will be announced in May 2014 and allocations will begin July 1st 2014.
- The proposed work must have a source of funding
- The proposed work cannot require the Proprietary User Agreement at the national laboratories.
- The proposed research should be in areas related to the DOE mission
The proposal must contain a coversheet with the following information in the order specified:
- Primary PI, affiliation, contact information (phone, email)
- Institutional contact (name, phone, email) for the agent who has the authority to review, negotiate and sign the user agreement on behalf of that institution. The person who can commit an organization may be someone in a contracts or procurement department, department head, or grants department.
- Collaborators and affiliations
- Machine requested and time requested. Requests for time at NERSC should be made in MPP units. Requests for Titan are to be in units of Titan-core hours. Requests for Mira should be made in units of CPU hours or the equivalent Mira-core hours. Please note, a Titan-core hour consists of both CPUs and GPUs even when only CPUs are utilized.
- Online storage request (storage requested for home directory and scratch) and offline/archival storage request. Storage polices are posted for NERSC, OLCF, and ALCF.
- Short summary no longer than several sentences
- Science categories (e.g. astrophysics) and keywords
- Identification of funding source(s) that supports this research (grant numbers are not required). If the funding source is DOE, please specify program office if known.
- If you currently have an allocation at one of the facilities (OLCF, ALCF, or NERSC) identify the allocation type (e.g. INCITE, ERCAP) and allocation size.
- If applicable, identify publications from previous ALCC awards.
- Abstract/Executive Summary (1 page maximum)
- Narrative describing the proposed research (15 page maximum including figures)
No specific template is required however the narrative should contain:
- Anticipated results of the research and intermediate goals, as appropriate.
- The computational approach and the performance of the codes that will be used. Include whether the application software already contains the models necessary to simulate the problem to be studied and if not, an estimate of the person months needed to add those capabilities, e.g. new force fields.
- Curriculum Vitae of PI
Provide the CV of the primary PI. Include a section that lists collaborators from the past four years with current affiliations if known.
- Project Team
A brief description of the expertise of the members of the project team in comparable computational projects.
- Suggested Reviewers and Other Information (Optional. Separate page)
On a separate page that will not be shared with peer reviewers, you may include additional information such as suggested reviewers or other comments you may have.
The following are suggestions and are not requirements.
- When listing milestones, include computational resources required for each milestone. HPC time is a limited resource. To optimize access to ALCC resources, sub-allocations rather than the full requested allocation may be awarded. Sub-allocation amounts are determined based upon the proposal and peer review evaluations. Including computational resources needed for each milestone will improve the peer reviewer’s understanding of the proposal’s allocation needs and enable a more optimal allocation process.
- A primary goal of ALCC is to advance the DOE mission and broaden the community of users capable of using leadership computing resources. Therefore, authors may wish to specifically address how their project supports DOE goals and/or broadens the community of users capable of using leadership computing resources. A list of projects of special interest to the DOE can be found under the 2014 ALCC Call for Proposals.
ALCC proposals undergo scientific merit reviews through a peer review process. The proposals are evaluated against the following criteria, which are listed in descending order of importance as codified in the Code of Federal Regulations(10 CFR 605.10) against the following criteria:
- Scientific and/or technical merit of the project
- Appropriateness of the proposed method or approach
- Competency of applicant’s personnel and adequacy of proposed resources
- Reasonableness and appropriateness of the proposed allocation request
Included in scientific and/or technical merit of the project is an evaluation regarding if the project is “of interest to the Department of Energy (DOE) with an emphasis on high-risk, high-payoff simulations in areas directly related to the DOE mission”.