Efficient Simulation of Large Bodies of Water by Coupling Two and Three Dimensional Techniques Geoffrey Irving Stanford University Pixar Animation Studios.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Realistic Simulation and Rendering of Smoke CSE Class Project Presentation Oleksiy Busaryev TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual.
Advertisements

Joint Mathematics Meetings Hynes Convention Center, Boston, MA
Christopher Batty and Robert Bridson University of British Columbia
(c) MSc Module MTMW14 : Numerical modelling of atmospheres and oceans Staggered schemes 3.1 Staggered time schemes.
RAMS/BRAMS Basic equations and some numerical issues.
Course 14 Fluid Simulation Monday, Half Day, 8:30 am - 12:15 pm.
Coupling Continuum Model and Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics Methods for Reactive Transport Yilin Fang, Timothy D Scheibe and Alexandre M Tartakovsky Pacific.
Combating Dissipation. Numerical Dissipation  There are several sources of numerical dissipation in these simulation methods  Error in advection step.
More Accurate Pressure Solves. Solid Boundaries  Voxelized version works great if solids aligned with grid  If not: though the error in geometry is.
1cs533d-winter-2005 Notes  Please read Fedkiw, Stam, Jensen, “Visual simulation of smoke”, SIGGRAPH ‘01.
Peyman Mostaghimi, Martin Blunt, Branko Bijeljic 11 th January 2010, Pore-scale project meeting Direct Numerical Simulation of Transport Phenomena on Pore-space.
University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill Fluid & Rigid Body Interaction Comp Physical Modeling Craig Bennetts April 25, 2006 Comp Physical.
Use of satellite altimeter data for validating large scale hydraulic models Matt Wilson, University of Exeter Doug Alsdorf, Ohio State University Paul.
Combined Lagrangian-Eulerian Approach for Accurate Advection Toshiya HACHISUKA The University of Tokyo Introduction Grid-based fluid.
Modeling Fluid Phenomena -Vinay Bondhugula (25 th & 27 th April 2006)
Coupling Water and Smoke to Thin Deformable and Rigid Shells Eran Guendelman 1,2 Andrew Selle 1,3 Frank Losasso 1,2 Ronald Fedkiw 1,2 1 Stanford University,
Computations of Fluid Dynamics using the Interface Tracking Method Zhiliang Xu Department of Mathematics University of Notre.
Non-hydrostatic algorithm and dynamics in ROMS Yuliya Kanarska, Alexander Shchepetkin, Alexander Shchepetkin, James C. McWilliams, IGPP, UCLA.
The UNIVERSITY of NORTH CAROLINA at CHAPEL HILL Intro to Computational Fluid Dynamics Brandon Lloyd COMP 259 April 16, 2003 Image courtesy of Prof. A.
The UNIVERSITY of NORTH CAROLINA at CHAPEL HILL Introduction to Modeling Fluid Dynamics 1.
Modeling, Simulating and Rendering Fluids Thanks to Ron Fediw et al, Jos Stam, Henrik Jensen, Ryan.
FUNDAMENTAL EQUATIONS, CONCEPTS AND IMPLEMENTATION
Motivation  Movie  Game  Engineering Introduction  Ideally  Looks good  Fast simulation  Looks good?  Look plausible  Doesn’t need to be exactly.
Fluid Animation CSE 3541 Matt Boggus. Procedural approximations – Heightfield fluids Mathematical background – Navier-Stokes equation Computational models.
Parallel Adaptive Mesh Refinement Combined With Multigrid for a Poisson Equation CRTI RD Project Review Meeting Canadian Meteorological Centre August.
Methods for the Physically Based Simulation of Solids and Fluids Geoffrey Irving Stanford University May 16, 2007.
Hybrid WENO-FD and RKDG Method for Hyperbolic Conservation Laws
A Look at High-Order Finite- Volume Schemes for Simulating Atmospheric Flows Paul Ullrich University of Michigan.
A Hybrid Particle-Mesh Method for Viscous, Incompressible, Multiphase Flows Jie LIU, Seiichi KOSHIZUKA Yoshiaki OKA The University of Tokyo,
Animation of Fluids.
COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS IN REAL-TIME An Introduction to Simulation and Animation of Liquids and Gases.
A Fast Simulation Method Using Overlapping Grids for Interactions between Smoke and Rigid Objects Yoshinori Dobashi (Hokkaido University) Tsuyoshi Yamamoto.
1 Discretization of Fluid Models (Navier Stokes) Dr. Farzad Ismail School of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Universiti Sains Malaysia Nibong Tebal.
ParCFD Parallel computation of pollutant dispersion in industrial sites Julien Montagnier Marc Buffat David Guibert.
A conservative FE-discretisation of the Navier-Stokes equation JASS 2005, St. Petersburg Thomas Satzger.
A cell-integrated semi-Lagrangian dynamical scheme based on a step-function representation Eigil Kaas, Bennert Machenhauer and Peter Hjort Lauritzen Danish.
A particle-gridless hybrid methods for incompressible flows
Governing equations: Navier-Stokes equations, Two-dimensional shallow-water equations, Saint-Venant equations, compressible water hammer flow equations.
A Numerical Model for Multiphase Flow, I: The Interface Tracking Algorithm Frank Bierbrauer.
Taming a Wild River Jeff Lander Darwin 3D
FlowFixer: Using BFECC for Fluid Simulation ByungMoon Kim Yingjie Liu Ignacio Llamas Jarek Rossignac Georgia Institute of Technology.
Two Dimensional simulation of a Dam Break wave propagation for the isolated building test case University of Pavia Gabriella Petaccia Impact Workshop...
Lagrangian particle models are three-dimensional models for the simulation of airborne pollutant dispersion, able to account for flow and turbulence space-time.
Discretization Methods Chapter 2. Training Manual May 15, 2001 Inventory # Discretization Methods Topics Equations and The Goal Brief overview.
Houston, Wiebe & Batty. (2004) RLE Sparse Level Sets. RLE Sparse Level Sets Ben Houston Mark Wiebe Christopher Batty Fluids and Level Sets Session.
CHANGSHENG CHEN, HEDONG LIU, And ROBERT C. BEARDSLEY
Florida State University V. Mihalef B. Unlusu D. Metaxas M. Sussman M. Y. Hussaini Physics-Based Boiling Simulation.
1 Application of Weighted Essentially Non-Oscillatory Limiting to Compact Interpolation Schemes Debojyoti Ghosh Graduate Research Assistant Alfred Gessow.
Numerical Algorithm Development and Testing in HYCOM.
November 2005 Center for Computational Visualization Institute of Computational and Engineering Sciences Department of Computer Sciences University of.
Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center Modifications of the MICOM version used in the Bergen Climate Model Mats Bentsen and Helge Drange Nansen.
Efficient Simulation of Large Bodies of Water by Coupling Two and Three Dimensional Techniques SIGGRAPH 2006 Geoffrey Irving Eran Guendelman Frank Losasso.
CSE 872 Dr. Charles B. Owen Advanced Computer Graphics1 Water Computational Fluid Dynamics Volumes Lagrangian vs. Eulerian modelling Navier-Stokes equations.
Efficient Simulation of Large Bodies of Water by Coupling Two and Three Dimensional Techniques Geoffrey Irving Stanford University Pixar Animation Studios.
Stable But Nondissipative Water OH-YOUNG SONG HYUNCHEOL SHIN HYEONG-SEOK KO.
Animating smoke with dynamic balance Jin-Kyung Hong Chang-Hun Kim 발표 윤종철.
Interesting papers on SIGGRAPH 2005 Korea University Computer Graphics Lab. Jin-Kyung Hong.
Fluid Animation CSE 3541 By: Matt Boggus.
Xing Cai University of Oslo
Transient Mixed Flow Modeling Capability in SRH-2D for Culverts and Bridges Yong G. Lai.
Terrain-following coordinates over steep and high orography
Objective Numerical methods Finite volume.
Finite Volume Method Philip Mocz.
Lake Iseo Field Experiment
Introduction to Fluid Dynamics & Applications
Bogdan Rosa1, Marcin Kurowski1, Damian Wójcik1,
Particle-in-Cell Methods
Low Order Methods for Simulation of Turbulence in Complex Geometries
Ph.D. Thesis Numerical Solution of PDEs and Their Object-oriented Parallel Implementations Xing Cai October 26, 1998.
Fluid Simulation.
Presentation transcript:

Efficient Simulation of Large Bodies of Water by Coupling Two and Three Dimensional Techniques Geoffrey Irving Stanford University Pixar Animation Studios Eran Guendelman Stanford University Frank Losasso Ron Fedkiw Stanford University Industrial Light + Magic

Motivation Large scale water phenomena important – Rivers, lakes, oceans, floods Fast option: height field methods – Nice wave propagation – Can’t handle overturning Accurate option: 3D Navier Stokes – Captures three dimensional behavior – Slow at high resolutions: O(N 4 )

Solution: use both Uniform 3D Navier-Stokes near interface Coarsen elsewhere using tall cells

Solution: use both

Related work: 2D Deep water – Fournier and Reeves 1986, Peachy 1986 – Recent: Thon et al. 2000, Hinsinger 2002 Shallow Water – Kass and Miller 1990, O’Brien and Hodgins 1995 Rivers and streams – Chen and Lobo 1994, Thon and Ghazanfarpour 2001

Related work: 3D Uniform Navier-Stokes water – Foster and Metaxas 1997, Foster and Fedkiw 2001 – Enright et. al 2002: Particle level set method Large bodies of water – Takahashi et al. 2003: spray and foam – Mihalef et al. 2004: breaking waves Adaptive simulation – Losasso et al. 2004: Octree grids – Houston et al. 2006: Run-Length Encoded (RLE) grids

Outline Grid structure Uniform solver Advection on tall cells Pressure solver on tall cells Parallel implementation Discussion and Results

Outline Grid structure Uniform solver Advection on tall cells Pressure solver on tall cells Parallel implementation Discussion and Results

Why height fields work Water likes to stay flat Only water-air interface is visible Vertical structure simpler than horizontal

Mixing height fields and 3D Specify “optical depth” where we expect turbulent motion Use uniform 3D cells within optical depth Use height field model elsewhere optical depth

Grid structure Start with uniform MAC grid Keep cells within optical depth of the interface Outside optical depth, merge vertical sequences of cells into single tall cells

Grid structure: storing values Start with MAC grid storage – Level set values in cell centers near interface – Pressure values in cell centers – Velocity components on corresponding faces

Grid structure: pressure Two pressure samples per tall cell Linear interpolation between Allows

Grid structure: velocity Velocity corresponds to pressure gradients

Refinement and coarsening Grid is rebuilt whenever fluid moves based on current level set Linear time (Houston et al. 2006) Velocity must be transferred to new grid – optionally transfer pressure as initial guess

Transferring velocity InterpolateLeast squares

Transferring velocity (cont) Interpolate: Least squares:

Outline Grid structure Uniform solver Advection on tall cells Pressure solver on tall cells Parallel implementation Discussion and Results

Uniform solver Navier-Stokes equations plus level set Level set exists only in uniform cells Velocity updated using projection method

Uniform solver (cont) Advect velocity and add gravity – use semi-Lagrangian for uniform cells Solve Laplace equation for pressure Apply pressure correction to velocity

Outline Grid structure Uniform solver Advection on tall cells Pressure solver on tall cells Parallel implementation Discussion and Results

Tall cell advection Can’t use semi-Lagrangian for Use conservative method for plausible motion Simplest option: first order upwinding

First order upwinding Conservation form of advection equation Compute flux on each control volume face Add fluxes to current velocity

First order upwinding (tall cells) Pretend to do the following – Refine to uniform grid – Advect – Coarsen back to original grid Simulate this by applying least squares directly to uniform discretization Same answer but faster

First order upwinding (tall cells) u along uu along vv along uv along v

Advection issues Occasional instabilities near steep terrain – fix by clamping to affine combination Lots of numerical dissipation – good enough for bulk motion Future work: generalize higher order schemes used in shallow water

Outline Grid structure Uniform solver Advection on tall cells Pressure solver on tall cells Parallel implementation Discussion and Results

Pressure solve on tall cells Pressure projection is Need gradient and divergence operators

Pressure solve: gradient Gradient is easy

Pressure solve: divergence Two divergence samples per cell Interpolate velocity to uniform face Divide flux between samples with same weights used for interpolation

Pressure solve: Laplacian Compose divergence and gradient to get linear system Symmetric and positive definite since we used the same weights in both Solve using preconditioned conjugate gradients

Outline Grid structure Uniform solver Advection on tall cells Pressure solver on tall cells Parallel implementation Discussion and Results

Parallel implementation Parallelize only along horizontal dimensions – No harder than parallelizing a uniform code – Vertical dimension already cheap Exchange data with neighbors every step

Parallel implementation Pressure solved globally on all processor together Block diagonal preconditioner built out of incomplete Choleski on each processor AB CD

Results: splash (300 x 200) Optical depth equal to water depth

Results: splash (300 x 200) Optical depth 1/4 th water depth

Results: splash (300 x 200) Optical depth 1/16 th water depth

Results: deep splash Water depth doubled

Results: boat (1500 x 300)

Results: river (2000 x 200)

Matching bottom topography Tall cells match ground for free Octrees would require extra refinement Less important for deep problems

Comparison with octrees Advantages over octrees: – Easy to parallelize – Reduces to MAC discretization with refinement – Matches bottom topography for free Main disadvantage: relies on vertical simplicity for efficiency Not applicable for all flows – rising bubbles, colliding droplets, etc.

Conclusion Want high resolution near interface – Uniform resolution at interface sufficient Plausible bulk motion enough elsewhere Many flows have simple vertical structure Use this to create hybrid 2D/3D method

Future work Improved advection scheme – Match ENO/WENO schemes for shallow water Better parallelism – Remove global linear system solve Find optimal adaptive structure – Hybrid RLE / octree grid?

The End Questions?