Ty Trusty
Danny Kaufman
ABSTRACT
We propose and explore a new method for the implicit time integration of elastica. Key to our approach is the use of a mixed variational principle. In turn, its finite element discretization leads to an efficient and accurate sequential quadratic programming solver with a superset of the desirable properties of many previous integration strategies. This framework fits a range of elastic constitutive models and remains stable across a wide span of time step sizes and material parameters (including problems that are approximately rigid). Our method exhibits convergence on par with full Newton type solvers and also generates visually plausible results in just a few iterations comparable to recent fast simulation methods that do not converge. These properties make it suitable for both offline accurate simulation and performant applications with expressive physics. We demonstrate the efficacy of our approach on a number of simulated examples.
Supplemental Material
- David Baraff and Andrew Witkin. 1998. Large Steps in Cloth Simulation. In SIGGRAPH. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 43–54.Google Scholar
- Sofien Bouaziz, Sebastian Martin, Tiantian Liu, Ladislav Kavan, and Mark Pauly. 2014. Projective Dynamics: Fusing Constraint Projections for Fast Simulation. ACM Trans. Graph. 33, 4, Article 154 (July 2014), 11 pages.Google ScholarDigital Library
- George E. Brown and Rahul Narain. 2021. WRAPD: Weighted Rotation-aware ADMM for Parameterization and Deformation. ACM Trans. Graph 40, 4 (8 2021).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kazem Cheshmi, Danny M Kaufman, Shoaib Kamil, and Maryam Mehri Dehnavi. 2020. NASOQ: numerically accurate sparsity-oriented QP solver. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 39, 4 (2020), 96–1.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Timothy A Davis. 2006. Direct methods for sparse linear systems. SIAM.Google Scholar
- Theodore F Gast, Craig Schroeder, Alexey Stomakhin, Chenfanfu Jiang, and Joseph M Teran. 2015. Optimization integrator for large time steps. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 21, 10(2015), 1103–1115.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gaël Guennebaud, Benoît Jacob, 2010. Eigen v3. http://eigen.tuxfamily.org.Google Scholar
- Fabian Hahn, Sebastian Martin, Bernhard Thomaszewski, Robert Sumner, Stelian Coros, and Markus Gross. 2012. Rig-space physics. ACM transactions on graphics (TOG) 31, 4 (2012), 1–8.Google Scholar
- Ernst Hairer and Christian Lubich. 2014. Energy-diminishing integration of gradient systems. IMA J. Numer. Anal. 34, 2 (2014), 452–461.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alec Jacobson, Daniele Panozzo, 2018. libigl: A simple C++ geometry processing library. https://libigl.github.io/.Google Scholar
- Couro Kane, Jerrold E Marsden, Michael Ortiz, and Matthew West. 2000. Variational integrators and the Newmark algorithm for conservative and dissipative mechanical systems. International Journal for numerical methods in engineering 49, 10(2000), 1295–1325.Google Scholar
- L. Kharevych, Weiwei Yang, Y. Tong, E. Kanso, J. E. Marsden, P. Schröder, and M. Desbrun. 2006. Geometric, Variational Integrators for Computer Animation(SCA ’06). 43–51.Google Scholar
- Lei Lan, Danny M Kaufman, Minchen Li, Chenfanfu Jiang, and Yin Yang. 2022. Affine Body Dynamics: Fast, Stable & Intersection-free Simulation of Stiff Materials. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.10022(2022).Google Scholar
- David I.W. Levin. 2020. Bartels: A lightweight collection of routines for physics simulation. https://github.com/dilevin/Bartels.Google Scholar
- Minchen Li, Ming Gao, Timothy Langlois, Chenfanfu Jiang, and Danny M. Kaufman. 2019. Decomposed Optimization Time Integrator for Large-Step Elastodynamics. ACM Transactions on Graphics 38, 4 (2019).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tiantian Liu, Sofien Bouaziz, and Ladislav Kavan. 2017. Quasi-Newton Methods for Real-Time Simulation of Hyperelastic Materials. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 36, 3 (2017), 23.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Miles Macklin, Kenny Erleben, Matthias Müller, Nuttapong Chentanez, Stefan Jeschke, and Viktor Makoviychuk. 2019. Non-Smooth Newton Methods for Deformable Multi-Body Dynamics. CoRR abs/1907.04587(2019). arXiv:1907.04587Google Scholar
- Miles Macklin, Matthias Müller, and Nuttapong Chentanez. 2016. XPBD: Position-Based Simulation of Compliant Constrained Dynamics(MIG ’16).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sebastian Martin, Bernhard Thomaszewski, Eitan Grinspun, and Markus Gross. 2011. Example-Based Elastic Materials. In SIGGRAPH(SIGGRAPH ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 72, 8 pages.Google Scholar
- V. Modi, L. Fulton, A. Jacobson, S. Sueda, and D.I.W. Levin. 2020. EMU: Efficient Muscle Simulation in Deformation Space. Computer Graphics Forum (Dec 2020). https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.14185Google ScholarCross Ref
- Matthias Müller, Nuttapong Chentanez, Miles Macklin, and Stefan Jeschke. 2017. Long Range Constraints for Rigid Body Simulations. In SCA(SCA ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 14, 10 pages.Google Scholar
- Matthias Muller, Bruno Heidelberger, Marcus Hennix, and John Ratcliff. 2007. Position based dynamics. J Vis Commun Image R 18, 2 (2007), 109 – 118.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Matthias Müller, Miles Macklin, Nuttapong Chentanez, Stefan Jeschke, and Tae-Yong Kim. 2020. Detailed Rigid Body Simulation with Extended Position Based Dynamics. Computer Graphics Forum(2020).Google Scholar
- Matthew Overby, George E. Brown, Jie Li, and Rahul Narain. 2017. ADMM ⊇ Projective Dynamics: Fast Simulation of Hyperelastic Models with Dynamic Constraints. IEEE TVCG 23, 10 (2017), 2222–2234.Google Scholar
- E. Reissner. 1985. On mixed variational formulations in finite elasticity. Acta Mechanica 56, 3-4 (1985), 117–125.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Martin Servin, Claude Lacoursiere, and Niklas Melin. 2006. Interactive simulation of elastic deformable materials. In SIGRAD 2006. Citeseer.Google Scholar
- Nicholas Sharp 2019. Polyscope. www.polyscope.run.Google Scholar
- Eftychios Sifakis and Jernej Barbic. 2012. SIGGRAPH 2012 Course Notes FEM Simulation of 3D Deformable Solids: A practitioner’s guide to theory, discretization and model reduction. (version: August 4, 2012). http://femdefo.orgGoogle Scholar
- Breannan Smith, Fernando De Goes, and Theodore Kim. 2018. Stable Neo-Hookean Flesh Simulation. ACM Trans. Graph. 37, 2, Article 12 (2018), 15 pages.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Demetri Terzopoulos and Hong Qin. 1994. Dynamic NURBS with Geometric Constraints for Interactive Sculpting. ACM Trans. Graph. 13, 2 (April 1994), 103–136.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Huamin Wang and Yin Yang. 2016. Descent methods for elastic body simulation on the GPU. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 35, 6 (2016), 1–10.Google ScholarDigital Library
- S J Wright and J Nocedal. 1999. Numerical optimization. (1999).Google Scholar
- Zangyueyang Xian, Xin Tong, and Tiantian Liu. 2019. A Scalable Galerkin Multigrid Method for Real-Time Simulation of Deformable Objects. ACM Trans. Graph. 38, 6, Article 162 (2019), 13 pages.Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Mixed Variational Finite Elements for Implicit Simulation of Deformables
Recommendations
Some remarks on quadrilateral mixed finite elements
It is well known that quadrilateral finite elements may produce unsatisfactory results when used on distorted meshes. It turns out that many commonly used finite elements achieve suboptimal convergence properties on distorted quadrilaterals; among such ...
Mixed finite elements for elasticity on quadrilateral meshes
We present stable mixed finite elements for planar linear elasticity on general quadrilateral meshes. The symmetry of the stress tensor is imposed weakly and so there are three primary variables, the stress tensor, the displacement vector field, and the ...
Nonconforming elements in least-squares mixed finite element methods
In this paper we analyze the finite element discretization for the first-order system least squares mixed model for the second-order elliptic problem by means of using nonconforming and conforming elements to approximate displacement and stress, ...
Comments