Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Alexey Stomakhin?† Craig Schroeder† Lawrence Chai? Joseph Teran?† Andrew Selle?
† ?
University of California Los Angeles Walt Disney Animation Studios
Abstract
Snow is a challenging natural phenomenon to visually simulate.
While the graphics community has previously considered accumu-
lation and rendering of snow, animation of snow dynamics has
not been fully addressed. Additionally, existing techniques for
solids and fluids have difficulty producing convincing snow re-
sults. Specifically, wet or dense snow that has both solid- and
fluid-like properties is difficult to handle. Consequently, this pa-
per presents a novel snow simulation method utilizing a user-
controllable elasto-plastic constitutive model integrated with a hy-
brid Eulerian/Lagrangian Material Point Method. The method is
continuum based and its hybrid nature allows us to use a regular
Cartesian grid to automate treatment of self-collision and fracture.
It also naturally allows us to derive a grid-based semi-implicit in-
tegration scheme that has conditioning independent of the number
of Lagrangian particles. We demonstrate the power of our method
with a variety of snow phenomena including complex character in-
teractions.
Links: DL PDF W EB Figure 1: Rolling snowball. As the snowball moves down the
hill, compressed snow sticks, demonstrating that we can handle so-
1 Introduction called packing snow effect.
Disney.
c
versa), it is not the most optimal strategy. When solids and flu-
Snow dynamics are amazingly beautiful yet varied. Whether it is ids are needed simultaneously, researchers have developed two-way
powder snow fluttering in a skier’s wake, foot steps shattering an icy coupled systems to get good accuracy and performance for both
snow crust or even packing snow rolled into balls to make a snow- phenomena. Unfortunately, snow has continuously varying phase
man, it is snow’s rich repertoire that makes it simultaneously com- effects, sometimes behaving as a rigid/deforming solid and some-
pelling for storytelling and infuriatingly difficult to model on a com- times behaving as a fluid. Thus, instead of discrete coupling we
puter. Artists typically use simpler techniques combined in various must simultaneously handle a continuum of material properties ef-
ways to achieve snow effects [Kim and Flores 2008; Coony et al. ficiently in the same domain, even though such a solver may not be
2010; Klohn et al. 2012], but these approaches are often tweaked most efficient for a single discrete phenomenon.
for one type of snow. This suggests the need for a specialized solver
that handles difficult snow behaviors in a single solver. We present two main contributions that achieve these aims. First,
we develop a semi-implicit Material Point Method (MPM) [Sulsky
Specialized solvers for specific phenomena are frequently used et al. 1995] specifically designed to efficiently treat the wide range
in graphics and computational physics because achieving maxi- of material stiffnesses, collisions and topological changes arising in
mum resolution (and thus visual quality) requires efficiency. While complex snow scenes. To our knowledge, this is the first time MPM
a fluid simulator can produce solid-like elastic effects (and vice has been used in graphics. MPM methods combine Lagrangian
material particles (points) with Eulerian Cartesian grids. Notably,
there is no inherent need for Lagrangian mesh connectivity. Many
researchers in graphics have experimented with hybrid grid and par-
ACM Reference Format
Stomakhin, A., Schroeder, C., Chai, L., Teran, J., Selle, A. 2013. A Material Point Method for Snow Simula- ticle methods. For example, Zhu and Yang [2010] simulate sand as
tion. ACM Trans. Graph. 32, 4, Article 102 (July 2013), 12 pages. DOI = 10.1145/2461912.2461948
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2461912.2461948.
a fluid using a PIC/FLIP incompressible fluid technique. In fact,
MPMs were designed as a generalization of the PIC/FLIP solvers
Copyright Notice
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted to computational solids. As with PIC/FLIP, MPMs implicitly han-
without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that
copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned
dle self-collision and fracture with the use of the background Eu-
by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or re- lerian grid. This is essential given the many topological changes
publish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request
permissions from permissions@acm.org. exhibited by practical snow dynamics. Our second contribution is a
2013 Copyright held by the Owner/Author. Publication rights licensed to ACM.
0730-0301/13/07-ART102 $15.00.
novel snow constitutive model designed for intuitive user control of
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2461912.2461948 practical snow behavior. This is also designed to achieve our goal of
ACM Transactions on Graphics, Vol. 32, No. 4, Article 102, Publication Date: July 2013
102:2 • A. Stomakhin et al.
2 Related work
Geometric snow modeling The bulk of graphics snow research is
devoted to modeling accumulation [Feldman and O’Brien 2002;
Fearing 2000a; Fearing 2000b; Nishita et al. 1997]. These tech-
niques can efficiently and accurately create snow-covering effects
but neglect treatment of snow dynamics. Some authors have ex-
tended these techniques to handle rapid animation and interactions
with external objects [Pla-Castells et al. 2006; Zhu and Yang 2010;
Chanclou et al. 1996; Marechal et al. 2010; Hinks and Museth
2009]. Often these methods use simplified modeling primitives like
height-fields (e.g. [Sumner et al. 1999]), and these are now a pop-
ular techniques for games and feature films. Additionally, Kim and
Lin [2003] and Kim et al. [2006] simulate the related phenomena Figure 5: SIGGRAPH. The MPM method naturally handles frac-
of ice and frost formation. ture, giving us interesting naturalistic shapes.
Disney.
c
ACM Transactions on Graphics, Vol. 32, No. 4, Article 102, Publication Date: July 2013
A material point method for snow simulation • 102:3
Figure 6: Castle destruction. Modeled structures like this castle can be destroyed using our method.
Disney.
c
an elasto-plastic constitutive relation worked well for generating volume change, which we model in our method similarly to a nor-
realistic dynamics for a wide range of visual phenomena. This rep- mal mesh-based solid simulation. Stiffness is also important, and
resentation, as well as finite-element-based discretization, is very while MPM cannot do this as well as mesh-based elasticity (the de-
common in the engineering literature [Meschke et al. 1996; Cresseri formation gradient is less accurate), it is more effective than grid-
and Jommi 2005; St Lawrence and Bradley 1975; Dutykh et al. based elasticity as the deformation gradient is not dissipative and
2011; Cresseri et al. 2010; Brown 1980; Nicot 2004]. remains synchronized with positions. Plasticity and fracture are
also handled well by MPM, and this is what makes the method de-
3 Paper Overview sirable for snow simulation. MPM is almost ideal for plasticity
because the inaccuracies of the deformation gradient accumulate as
artificial plasticity. While grid-based fluids work well for plasticity
As discussed in the introduction, snow dynamics modeling is diffi-
[Goktekin et al. 2004], MPM is better at conserving angular mo-
cult due to snow’s variability, usually stemming from environmen-
mentum. While mesh-based FEM methods can handle plasticity
tal factors (freshness, water/ice content, etc.). Our model ignores
[Bargteil et al. 2007], remeshing is required with extreme deforma-
root causes, and we instead concentrate on deriving an empirical
tion. By contrast, MPM need only track the unmeshed particles.
model based on phenomenological observations. Even so, our snow
We note MPM’s gains in plasticity and fracture come at the cost of
constitutive model is based on theory and models devised for engi-
reduced elastic accuracy, a good tradeoff for snow.
neering applications. The model is kept efficient, allowing us to
capture sufficient geometric detail with tractable computation time.
The material point method is the center of our technique. At
4 Material point method
its core, MPM relies on the continuum approximation, avoiding
the need to model every snow grain. While an MPM method A body’s deformation can be described as a mapping from its
typically uses a Cartesian grid to make topology changes and undeformed configuration X to its deformed configuration x by
self-collisions automatic, it outperforms purely Eulerian methods x = φ(X), which yields the deformation gradient F = ∂φ/∂X.
by tracking mass (and other conserved quantities) through non- Deformation φ(X) changes according to conservation of mass,
dissipative Lagrangian particles (like SPH). Unlike SPH, however, conservation of momentum and the elasto-plastic constitutive re-
MPM uses the grid as an efficient continuum scratch-pad which lation
avoids high valence communication patterns derived from nearest-
Dρ Dv 1 ∂Ψ T
neighbor queries. See Figure 7 for an illustration of the interplay = 0, ρ = ∇ · σ + ρg, σ= FE ,
between the grid and particles and Section 4.1 for details. Dt Dt J ∂FE
Our motivation for choosing MPM is that it is better able to han- where ρ is density, t is time, v is velocity, σ is the Cauchy stress, g
dle the dynamics of snow. This is analogous to how a rigid body is the gravity, Ψ is the elasto-plastic potential energy density, FE is
simulation is the most efficient way to handle infinite stiffness and the elastic part of the deformation gradient F and J = det(F ). We
incompressibility compared to using a large stiffness directly on a will discuss details of the constitutive model in Section 5.
FEM mesh solver. The constitutive properties central to snow are
volume preservation, stiffness, plasticity, fracture, and we summa- The basic idea behind the material point method is to use particles
rize various methods’ abilities to handle them in Table 1. (material points) to track mass, momentum and deformation gra-
dient. Specifically, particle p holds position xp , velocity vp , mass
Volume preservation in snow is important even though, unlike a mp , and deformation gradient Fp . The Lagrangian treatment of
liquid, it is compressible. Instead, snow has varying resistance to these quantities simplifies the discretization of the Dρ and ρ Dv
Dt Dt
terms. However, the lack of mesh connectivity between particles
Volume complicates the computation of derivatives needed for stress-based
Method Preservation Stiffness Plasticity Fracture force evaluation. This is remedied with the use of a regular back-
Reeve particles - - - - ground Eulerian grid. Interpolating functions over this grid are used
Rigid bodies ?? ?? - ? to discretize the ∇ · σ terms in the standard FEM manner using the
Mesh-based solids ? ??? ?? ? weak form. We use dyadic products of one-dimensional cubic B-
Grid-based fluids ??? ? ?? ??? splines as our grid basis functions as in [Steffen et al. 2008]
SPH ? ? ? ???
MPM ?? ?? ??? ???
Nih (xp ) = N ( h1 (xp − ih))N ( h1 (yp − jh))N ( h1 (zp − kh)),
Table 1: Comparison between various methods of simulation on
four properties that are important for snow. where i = (i, j, k) is the grid index, xp = (xp , yp , zp ) is the
ACM Transactions on Graphics, Vol. 32, No. 4, Article 102, Publication Date: July 2013
102:4 • A. Stomakhin et al.
2 7 8 9 10
Particle only once Particle Updated deformation Particle velocities Collided particles Updated positions
states volumes gradients
9
1 3 4 5 6
evaluation position, h is the grid spacing and 7. Update deformation gradient. The deformation gradient for
1 3 each particle is updated as Fpn+1 = (I + ∆t∇vpn+1 )Fpn ,
2 2
2 |x| − x + 3 , 0 ≤ |x| < 1
P n+1
where we have computed ∇vpn+1 = i vi (∇wipn T
) .
N (x) = − 61 |x|3 + x2 − 2|x| + 34 , 1 ≤ |x| < 2 . Section 7 gives a detailed description of the update rule for
elastic and plastic parts of F .
0, otherwise
8. Update particle velocities. Our new particle velocities
For more compact notation, we will use wip = Nih (xp ) and n+1
are vpn+1 = (1 − α)vPICp n+1
+ αvFLIPp , where the PIC part is
∇wip = ∇Nih (xp ). These interpolation functions naturally com- n+1 P n+1 n n+1
vPICp = v w and the FLIP part is vFLIPp = vpn +
pute forces at the nodes of the Eulerian grid. Therefore, we must P n+1 i ni n ip
i (vi − vi )wip . We typically used α = 0.95.
first transfer the mass and momentum from the particles to the grid
so that we can update the velocities at the grid nodes. This updated 9. Particle-based body collisions on vpn+1 as detailed in Sec-
velocity is then transferred back to the particles in either a FLIP or tion 8.
PIC type manner. The transfer process is done using the interpolat-
ing weights wip . 10. Update particle positions using xn+1
p = xn n+1
p + ∆tvp .
sual realism. The most salient features of our approach are the use where Ω0 is the undeformed configuration of the material. The
of principal stretches rather than principal stresses in defining our MPM spatial discretization of the stress-based forces is equivalent
plastic yield criteria as well as a simplification of hardening behav- to differentiation of a discrete approximation of this energy with
ior that only requires modification of the Lamé parameters in the respect to the Eulerian grid node material positions. However, we
hyperelastic energy density. While principal-stress-based plasticity do not actually deform the Eulerian grid so we can think of the
is more appropriate for physical accuracy, principal-stretch-based change in the grid node locations as being determined by the grid
yield gives the user more control over the visual behavior of the node velocities. That is, if xi is the position of grid node i, then
simulation. x̂i = xi + ∆tvi would be the deformed location of that grid node
In multiplicative plasticity theory it is customary to separate F into given the current velocity vi of the node. If we refer to the vector
an elastic part FE and a plastic part FP so that F = FE FP . We of all grid nodes x̂i as x̂, then the MPM approximation to the total
define our constitutive model in terms of the elasto-plastic energy elastic potential can be written as
density function X 0
Φ(x̂) = Vp Ψ(F̂Ep (x̂), FPnp ),
λ(FP ) p
Ψ(FE , FP ) = µ(FP )kFE − RE k2F + (JE − 1)2 , (1)
2 where Vp0 is the volume of material originally occupied by particle
with the elastic part given by the fixed corotated energy density p, FPnp is the plastic part of F at particle p at time tn and F̂Ep is
from [Stomakhin et al. 2012] and the Lamé parameters being func- the elastic part which is related to x̂ as in [Sulsky et al. 1995] as
tions of the plastic deformation gradients !
X n T n
µ(FP ) = µ0 eξ(1−JP ) and λ(FP ) = λ0 eξ(1−JP ) , (2) F̂Ep (x̂) = I + (x̂i − xi )(∇wip ) FEp . (4)
i
where JE = det FE , JP = det FP , FE = RE SE by the po- With this convention, the MPM spatial discretization of the stress-
lar decomposition, λ0 , µ0 are the initial Lamé coefficients and ξ based forces is given as
is a dimensionless plastic hardening parameter. Additionally we
define the portion of deformation that is elastic and plastic using ∂Φ X 0 ∂Ψ
−fi (x̂) = (x̂) = Vp (F̂Ep (x̂), FPnp )(FEp
n T
) ∇wip n
.
the singular values of the deformation gradient. We define a criti- ∂ x̂i ∂F E
p
cal compression θc and stretch θs as the thresholds to start plastic (5)
deformation (or fracture). Namely, the singular values of FE are That is, fi (x̂) is the force on grid node i resulting from elastic
restricted to the interval [1 − θc , 1 + θs ]. stresses. This is often written in terms of the Cauchy stress
Our material is elastic in the regime of small deformations as dic- σp = J1n ∂F∂Ψ
E
(F̂Ep (x̂), FPnp )(FEp
n T
) as
p
tated by the FE dependence in (1). When the deformation exceeds X
a critical threshold (either stretch or compress) it starts deforming fi (x̂) = − Vpn σp ∇wip
n
, (6)
plastically as described in more detail in Section 7. This also affects p
ACM Transactions on Graphics, Vol. 32, No. 4, Article 102, Publication Date: July 2013
102:6 • A. Stomakhin et al.
n+1 n
as in (4) and F̂P p = FP p , so that initially all the changes get
attributed to the elastic part of the deformation gradient
n+1
The next step is to take the part of F̂Ep that exceeds the critical
deformation threshold and push it into F̂Pn+1
p . We compute the sin-
n+1
gular value decomposition F̂Ep = Up Σ̂p VpT and then clamp the
singular values to the permitted range Σp = clamp Σ̂p , [1−θc , 1+
Figure 10: Snowplow. The characteristic cylindrical tube spray is θs ] . The final elastic and plastic components of the deformation
created by the snowplow.
Disney.
c gradient are computed as
n+1 −1 T
FEp = Up Σp VpT and FPn+1 n+1
p = Vp Σp Up Fp . (12)
where Vpn = Jpn Vp0 is the volume of the material occupied by
n
particle p at time t . n+1 n+1
It can be easily verified that Fpn+1 = FEp FP p .
We highlight this relation of the MPM spatial discretization to the
elastic potential because we would like to evolve our grid velocities 8 Body Collisions
vi implicitly in time. With this convention, we can take an implicit
step on the elastic part of the update by utilizing the Hessian of We process collisions against collision bodies twice each time step.
the potential with respect to x̂. The action of this Hessian on an The first time is on the grid velocity vi? immediately after forces
arbitrary increment δu can be expressed as are applied to grid velocities. In the case of semi-implicit integra-
tion, this contributes to the right hand side of the linear system,
X ∂2Φ X 0 n T n and degrees of freedom corresponding to the colliding grid nodes
−δfi = (x̂)δuj = Vp Ap (FEp ) ∇wip , (7)
∂ x̂i ∂ x̂j p
are projected out during the solve. We apply collisions once more
j
to particle velocities vpn+1 just before updating positions to account
where for the minor discrepancies between particle and grid velocities due
to interpolation. In each case, collision processing is performed the
∂2Ψ X same way. All of our collisions are inelastic.
n n T n
Ap = (FE (x̂), FPp ) : δuj (∇wjp ) FEp
∂FE ∂FE Collision objects are represented as level sets, which makes col-
j
(8) lision detection (φ ≤ 0) trivial. In case of a collision the local
and the notation A = C : D is taken to mean Aij = Cijkl Dkl with normal n = ∇φ and object velocity vco are computed. First,
summation implied on indices kl. See the accompanying technical the particle/grid velocity v is transformed into the reference frame
report for details of the differentiation. of the collision object, vrel = v − vco . If the bodies are sep-
arating (vn = vrel · n ≥ 0), then no collision is applied. Let
vt = vrel − nvn be the tangential portion of the relative ve-
6.1 Semi-implicit update locity. If a sticking impulse is required (kvt k ≤ −µvn ), then
0
we simply let vrel = 0, where the prime indicates that the colli-
We think of the elasto-plastic response as defined from the material sion has been applied. Otherwise, we apply dynamic friction, and
positions of the Eulerian grid nodes x̂i = xi + ∆tvi . However, as 0
vrel = vt + µvn vt /kvt k, where µ is the coefficient of friction.
noted in the previous section, we never deform this grid. Therefore, Finally, we transform the collided relative velocity back into world
we can think of x̂ = x̂(v) as defined by v. With this in mind, we coordinates with v 0 = vrel
0
+ vco .
use the following notation fin = fi (x̂(0)), fin+1 = fi (x̂(v n+1 ))
2 n ∂f n We used two types of collision objects: rigid and deforming. In
and ∂∂x̂iΦ∂ x̂j = − ∂ x̂ij = − ∂∂f i
x̂j
(x̂(0)).
the rigid case, we store a stationary level set and a potentially time-
Using these derivatives, we form our implicit update using vin+1 = varying rigid transform, which we can use to compute φ, n, and vco
at any point. In the deforming case, we load level set key frames
vin + ∆tm−1 ((1 − β)fin + βfin+1 ) ≈ vin + ∆tm−1 n
i (fi +
P ∂fiin n+1 and interpolate them similarly to [Selle et al. 2008] using φ(x, t +
β∆t j ∂ x̂j vj ). This leads to a (mass) symmetric system to γ∆t) = (1−γ)φ(x−γ∆tvco , t)+γφ(x+(1−γ)∆tvco , t+∆t),
solve for vin+1 except we compute the velocity as vco = (1−γ)v(x, t)+γv(x, t+
∆t) instead of the average velocity.
X ∂ 2 Φn
Iδij + β∆t2 m−1
i vjn+1 = vi? , (9) Finally, we utilize a sort of sticky collision in situations where we
∂ x̂i ∂ x̂j want snow to stick to vertical or under-hanging surfaces. In this
j
case, Coulomb friction is insufficient since the normal relative ve-
where the right hand side is locity would be zero (vertical) or positive (under-hanging and sep-
0
arating due to gravity). We achieve this effect by setting vrel =0
vi? = vin + ∆tm−1 n
i fi (10) unconditionally for collisions against these surfaces.
ACM Transactions on Graphics, Vol. 32, No. 4, Article 102, Publication Date: July 2013
A material point method for snow simulation • 102:7
Figure 9: Walking character. A character stepping through snow produces an interesting structure.
Disney.
c
Table 3 lists the simulation times and resolutions for each of the Limitations. Our model has generated a large number of com-
examples. For all of our examples we randomly seeded particles pelling examples, but there remains much work to be done. A lot
into the volumes we needed to fill in with snow and gave them the of our parameters were tuned by hand, and it would be interest-
same initial parameters. We found that using 4 − 10 particles per ing to calibrate to measured models. We also neglect interactions
grid cell (for initially packed snow) produced plausible results. In with the air, which are important for powder snow and avalanches.
addition, we found that we did not need to perform any reseeding Aliasing at render time is sometimes a difficulty, and this could be
of particles, and we also optimized grid operations to occur only handled by better filtering or employing more sophisticated raster-
on nodes where particles’ interpolation radii overlapped. Thus our ization techniques. For example, we hope to experiment with the
computation remained proportional to the number of particles and anisotropic kernel approach of [Yu and Turk 2010]. We are also
equivalently the number of occupied grid cells. interested in extending our work to sand simulation or even gen-
ACM Transactions on Graphics, Vol. 32, No. 4, Article 102, Publication Date: July 2013
102:8 • A. Stomakhin et al.
K EISER , R., A DAMS , B., G ASSER , D., BAZZI , P., D UTR É , P., S ELLE , A., L ENTINE , M., AND F EDKIW, R. 2008. A mass spring
AND G ROSS , M. 2005. A unified lagrangian approach to model for hair simulation. In ACM Trans. on Graph., vol. 27,
solid-fluid animation. In Point-Based Graph., 2005. Eurograph- 64.1–64.11.
ics/IEEE VGTC Symp. Proc., 125–148.
S T L AWRENCE , W., AND B RADLEY, C. 1975. The deformation
K IM , T.-Y., AND F LORES , L. 2008. Snow avalanche effects for of snow in terms of structural mechanism. In Snow Mech. Symp.,
Mummy 3. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2008 talks. 155.
K IM , T., AND L IN , M. 2003. Visual simulation of ice crystal S TEFFEN , M., K IRBY, R., AND B ERZINS , M. 2008. Analysis
growth. In Proc 2003 ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symp. and reduction of quadrature errors in the material point method
Comput. Anim., 86–97. (MPM). Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 76, 6, 922–948.
K IM , T., A DALSTEINSSON , D., AND L IN , M. 2006. Modeling S TOMAKHIN , A., H OWES , R., S CHROEDER , C., AND T ERAN ,
ice dynamics as a thin-film Stefan problem. In Proc. 2006 ACM J. 2012. Energetically consistent invertible elasticity. In Euro-
SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symp. Comput. Anim., 167–176. graphics/ACM SIGGRAPH Symp. on Comp. Anim., 25–32.
K LOHN , K., O’B RIEN , M., S PELTZ , T., AND W ICHITSRI - S ULSKY, D., Z HOU , S.-J., AND S CHREYER , H. 1995. Applica-
PORNKUL , T. 2012. Building the snow footprint pipeline on tion of particle-in-cell method to solid mechanics. Comp. Phys.
Brave. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2012 talks. Comm. 87, 236–252.
L ENAERTS , T., AND D UTR É , P. 2009. Mixing fluids and granular S UMNER , R., O’B RIEN , J., AND H ODGINS , J. 1999. Animating
materials. In Comp. Graph. Forum, vol. 28, 213–218. sand, mud, and snow. In Comp. Graph. Forum, vol. 18, 17–26.
L EVIN , D., L ITVEN , J., J ONES , G., S UEDA , S., AND PAI , D. T ERZOPOULOS , D., AND F LEISCHER , W. 1988. Modeling inelas-
2011. Eulerian solid simulation with contact. ACM Trans. on tic deformation: viscoelasticity, plasticity, fracture. Proc. ACM
Graph. 30, 4, 36. SIGGRAPH 1988 22, 4, 269–278.
L UCIANI , A., H ABIBI , A., AND M ANZOTTI , E. 1995. A multi- W ISCOMBE , W., AND WARREN , S. 1980. A model for the spectral
scale physical model of granular materials. In Graphics Inter- albedo of snow. I: Pure snow. J. of the Atmospheric Sciences 37,
face, 136–136. 12, 2712–2733.
M ARECHAL , N., G UERIN , E., G ALIN , E., M ERILLOU , S., AND W OJTAN , C., AND T URK , G. 2008. Fast viscoelastic behavior
M ERILLOU , N. 2010. Heat transfer simulation for modeling with thin features. In ACM Trans. on Graph., vol. 27, 47.
realistic winter sceneries. Comp. Graph. Forum 29, 2, 449–458.
Y U , J., AND T URK , G. 2010. Reconstructing surfaces of particle-
M C A DAMS , A., S ELLE , A., WARD , K., S IFAKIS , E., AND based fluids using anisotropic kernels. In Proceedings of the
T ERAN , J. 2009. Detail preserving continuum simulation of 2010 ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer
straight hair. ACM Trans. on Graphics 28, 3, 62. Animation, Eurographics Association, 217–225.
M ESCHKE , G., L IU , C., AND M ANG , H. 1996. Large strain finite- Z HU , Y., AND B RIDSON , R. 2005. Animating sand as a fluid.
element analysis of snow. J. of Engng. Mech. 122, 7, 591–602. ACM Trans. on Graph. 24, 3, 965–972.
M ILENKOVIC , V. 1996. Position-based physics: simulating the Z HU , B., AND YANG , X. 2010. Animating sand as a surface flow.
motion of many highly interacting spheres and polyhedra. In Eurographics 2010, Short Papers.
Proc. of the 23rd annual conf. on Comp. Graph. and interactive
techniques, 129–136.
M ILLER , G., AND P EARCE , A. 1989. Globular dynamics: A
connected particle system for animating viscous fluids. Comp.
& Graph. 13, 3, 305–309.
NARAIN , R., G OLAS , A., AND L IN , M. 2010. Free-flowing gran-
ular materials with two-way solid coupling. In ACM Trans. on
Graph., vol. 29, 173.
N ICOT, F. 2004. Constitutive modelling of snow as a cohesive-
granular material. Granular Matter 6, 1, 47–60.
N ISHITA , T., I WASAKI , H., D OBASHI , Y., AND NAKAMAE , E.
1997. A modeling and rendering method for snow by using
metaballs. In Comp. Graph. Forum, vol. 16, C357–C364.
O’B RIEN , J., BARGTEIL , A., AND H ODGINS , J. 2002. Graphi-
cal modeling and animation of ductile fracute. ACM Trans. on
Graph. 21, 3, 291–294.
PAULY, M., K EISER , R., A DAMS , B., D UTR É , P., G ROSS , M.,
AND G UIBAS , L. 2005. Meshless animation of fracturing solids.
In ACM Trans. on Graph., vol. 24, 957–964.
P LA -C ASTELLS , M., G ARC ÍA -F ERN ÁNDEZ , I., AND
M ART ÍNEZ , R. 2006. Interactive terrain simulation and
force distribution models in sand piles. Cellular Automata,
392–401. Figure 12: The end. We can simulate other words, too.
Disney.
c
ACM Transactions on Graphics, Vol. 32, No. 4, Article 102, Publication Date: July 2013