Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byOrlando Banister Modified over 4 years ago

2
A Fast Variational Framework for Accurate Solid-Fluid Coupling Christopher Batty Florence Bertails Robert Bridson University of British Columbia

3
Motivation Goal: Simulate fluids coupled to objects. Extend the basic Eulerian approach: – Advect fluid velocities – Add forces (eg. gravity) – Enforce incompressibility via pressure projection See eg. [Stam ‘99, Fedkiw et al. ‘01, Foster & Fedkiw ‘01, Enright et al. ‘02, etc.]

4
Motivation Cartesian grid fluid simulation is great! – Simple – Effective – Fast data access – No remeshing needed But…

5
Motivation Achilles’ heel: Real objects rarely align with grids.

6
Overview Three parts to our work: 1) Irregular static objects on grids 2) Dynamic & kinematic objects on grids 3) Improved liquid-solid boundary conditions

7
Previous Work First solution Voxelize – [Foster & Metaxas ’96] Easy! “Stairstep” artifacts Artificial viscosity Doesn’t converge under refinement!

8
Previous Work Better solution Subdivide nearby – [Losasso et al. ‘04] Stairs are smaller But problem remains

9
Previous Work Better yet Mesh to match objects – [Feldman et al. ‘05] Accurate! Needs remeshing Slower data access Trickier interpolation Sub-grid objects?

10
And now… back to the future? We’ll return to regular grids – But achieve results like tet meshes!

11
Pressure Projection Converts a velocity field to be incompressible (or divergence-free) No expansion or compression No flow into objects Images courtesy of [Tong et al. ‘03]

12
Pressure Projection We want the “closest” incompressible velocity field to the input. It’s a minimization problem!

13
Key Idea! Distance metric in the space of fluid velocity fields is kinetic energy. Minimizing KE wrt. pressure is equivalent to the classic Poisson problem! fluid nn 2 11 2 1 KEu

14
Minimization Interpretation Fluid velocity update is: Resulting minimization problem is: p t n uu ~ 1 2 ~ 2 1 minarg fluid p p t u

15
What changes? Variational principle automatically enforces boundary conditions! No explicit manipulation needed. Volume/mass terms in KE account for partial fluid cells. – Eg. Result: Easy, accurate fluid velocities near irregular objects. 2 2/12/12/1 2 1 KE iii uvol

16
Measuring Kinetic Energy

17
Discretization Details Normal equations always give an SPD linear system. – Solve with preconditioned CG, etc. Same Laplacian stencil, but with new volume terms. Classic: Variational: x uu x ppp iiiii 2/12/1 2 11 )1()1()1()2()1( x uVuV x pVpVVpV iiiiiiiiiii 2/12/12/12/1 2 12/12/12/112/1 )()()()()(

18
Object Coupling This works for static boundaries How to extend to… – Two-way coupling? Dynamic objects fully interacting with fluid – One-way coupling? Scripted/kinematic objects pushing the fluid

19
Object Coupling – Previous Work “Rigid Fluid” [Carlson et al ’04] – Fast, simple, effective – Potentially incompatible boundary velocities, leakage Explicit Coupling [Guendelman et al. ’05] – Handles thin shells, loose coupling approach – Multiple pressure solves per step, uses voxelized solve

20
Object Coupling – Previous Work Implicit Coupling [Klingner et al ‘06, Chentanez et al.’06] – solves object + fluid motion simultaneously – handles tight coupling (eg. water balloons) – requires conforming (tet) mesh to avoid artifacts

21
A Variational Coupling Framework Just add the object’s kinetic energy to the system. Automatically gives: – incompressible fluid velocities – compatible velocities at object surface fluid solid VMVu * 2 1 2 1 KE 2

22
A Coupling Framework Two components: 1) Velocity update: How does the pressure force update the object’s velocity? 2) Kinetic energy: How do we compute the object’s KE?

23
Example: Rigid Bodies 1) Velocity update: 2) Kinetic Energy: Discretize consistently with fluid, add to minimization, and solve. solid CM solid p p nXx n ˆ )(Torque ˆ Force 22 2 1 2 1 KEIωv m

24
Sub-Grid Rigid Bodies

25
Interactive Rigid Bodies

26
One Way Coupling Conceptually, object mass infinity In practice: drop coupling terms from matrix

27
Paddle Video

28
Wall Separation Standard wall boundary condition is u·n = 0. – Liquid adheres to walls and ceilings! Ideally, prefer u·n ≥ 0, so liquid can separate – Analogous to rigid body contact.

29
Liquid Sticking Video

30
Wall Separation - Previous Work If ũ·n ≥ 0 before projection, hold u fixed. – [Foster & Fedkiw ’01, Houston et al ’03, Rasmussen et al ‘04] Inaccurate or incorrect in certain cases:

31
Wall Separation Two cases at walls: – If p > 0, pressure prevents penetration (“push”) – If p < 0, pressure prevents separation (“pull”) Disallow “pull” force: – Add p ≥ 0 constraint to minimization – Gives an inequality-constrained QP – u·n ≥ 0 enforced implicitly via KKT conditions

32
Liquid Peeling Video

33
Future Directions Robust air-water-solid interfaces. Add overlapping ghost pressures to handle thin objects, à la [Tam et al ’05]

34
Future Directions Explore scalable QP solvers for 3D wall- separation. Extend coupling to deformables and other object models. Employ linear algebra techniques to accelerate rigid body coupling.

35
Summary Easy method for accurate sub-grid fluid velocities near objects, on regular grids. Unified variational framework for coupling fluids and arbitrary dynamic solids. New boundary condition for liquid allows robust separation from walls.

36
Thanks!

Similar presentations

OK

A Prediction-Correction Approach for Stable SPH Fluid Simulation from Liquid to Rigid François Dagenais Jonathan Gagnon Eric Paquette.

A Prediction-Correction Approach for Stable SPH Fluid Simulation from Liquid to Rigid François Dagenais Jonathan Gagnon Eric Paquette.

© 2018 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

To make this website work, we log user data and share it with processors. To use this website, you must agree to our Privacy Policy, including cookie policy.

Ads by Google