\ul
PBI: Position-Based Dynamics Handles Updated Lagrangian Inelasticity
Abstract.
Position-based Dynamics (PBD) and its extension, eXtended Position-based Dynamics (XPBD), have been predominantly applied to compliant constrained elastodynamics, with their potential in finite strain (visco-) elastoplasticity remaining underexplored. XPBD is often perceived to stand in contrast to other meshless methods, such as the Material Point Method (MPM). MPM is based on discretizing the weak form of governing partial differential equations within a continuum domain, coupled with a hybrid Lagrangian-Eulerian method for tracking deformation gradients. In contrast, XPBD formulates specific constraints, whether hard or compliant, to positional degrees of freedom. We revisit this perception by investigating the potential of XPBD in handling inelastic materials that are described with classical continuum mechanics-based yield surfaces and elastoplastic flow rules. Our inspiration is that a robust estimation of the velocity gradient is a sufficiently useful key to effectively tracking deformation gradients in XPBD simulations. By further incorporating implicit inelastic constitutive relationships, we introduce a plasticity in-the-loop updated Lagrangian augmentation to XPBD. This enhancement enables the simulation of elastoplastic, viscoplastic, and granular substances following their standard constitutive laws. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method through high-resolution and real-time simulations of diverse materials such as snow, sand, and plasticine, and its integration with standard XPBD simulations of cloth and water.
1. Introduction
Position-based Dynamics (PBD) [Müller et al., 2007] and its extension eXtended Position-based Dynamics (XPBD) [Macklin et al., 2016] are widely adopted in compliant constrained dynamics, particularly favored for their performance and simplicity for graphics applications such as rigid bodies [Müller et al., 2020], soft bodies [Bender et al., 2014], cloth [Müller et al., 2007], rods [Umetani et al., 2015] and hair [Müller et al., 2012]. When simulating mesh-based elasticity, it is straightforward to model XPBD constraints with FEM hyperelastic energies defined over explicit mesh topology. This allows for effective simulations of elasticity while maintaining the stability and speed of XPBD. For example, quardratic energy potentials [Chen et al., 2023] can be formulated using XPBD-style constraints. Macklin and Muller [2021] and Ton-That et al. [2023] reformulated stable Neo-Hookean [Smith et al., 2018] to demonstrate XPBD’s capability in handling nonlinear elasticity.
For inelasticity, on the other hand, two significant challenges emerge. Firstly, topology changes during material splitting and merging introduce great complexity in maintaining a high quality mesh, often necessitating remeshing. Secondly, while there have been explorations that enhances Position-based Fluids (PBF) [Macklin and Müller, 2013] with the conformation tensor [Barreiro et al., 2017] for viscoelastic fluids, it remains underexplored for XPBD to model physically-grounded finite strain (visco-) elastoplastic constitutive laws from classical continuum mechanics, such as von-Mises [Mises, 1913], Drucker-Prager [Drucker and Prager, 1952] and Herschel-Bulkley [Herschel and Bulkley, 1926] flow rules. Being able to simulate them would greatly improve XPBD’s versatility and intuitive controllability of material parameters.
In comparison with XPBD’s success in mesh-based materials, Material Point Method (MPM)’s development in graphics over the past decade has majorly focused on inelastic phenomena with topology change. MPM is based on the weak form of governing PDEs and employs a hybrid Lagrangian-Eulerian approach for spatial discretization. It handles topology changes, self collision, and finite strain deformation without overhead, and thus has been used for many continuum inelastic phenomena such as snow [Stomakhin et al., 2013], lava [Stomakhin et al., 2014], sand [Klár et al., 2016], mud [Tampubolon et al., 2017], metal [Wang et al., 2020], foam [Ram et al., 2015], and fracture [Wolper et al., 2019]. While substantial progress has been made in these areas, MPM exhibits several notable drawbacks, including excessive numerical dissipation due to particle-grid transfers [Jiang et al., 2015], artificial stickiness that hampers material separation [Fei et al., 2021], and resolution-dependent gaps between colliding materials [Jiang et al., 2017]. None of these issues are present in XPBD. This raises a natural question: Can we simulate MPM-style phenomena using XPBD instead?
Lagrangian | DOF | Plasticity | Granular | |
MPM | Updated | Grid | Flow Rule | Continuum |
PBD | Total | Particle | N/A | Sphere Approx. |
Ours | Total & Updated | Particle | Flow Rule | Continuum |
Towards addressing this question, we make an important observation: the primary factor that facilitates the modeling of inelasticity lies not in the hybrid Lagrangian-Eulerian nature of MPM, but rather in its use of an updated Lagrangian formulation for the deformation gradient tensor. In particular, one considers the time velocity to be defined over the previous time domain through the Lagrangian velocity of a particle traced back using the inverse deformation map : [Jiang et al., 2016]. This enables the derivation of the rate form of the deformation gradient given by , which can be further discretized into , allowing one to track the deformation gradient without referring to a material space configuration.
Inspired by this observation, if we can track the deformation gradient tensor using an updated Lagrangian view in XPBD, then by treating as a function of XPBD degrees of freedom, we can modify XPBD to resemble a “material point” approach. As detailed in later sections, this task reduces to robustly computing and differentiating the velocity gradient tensor. We present developments surrounding these ideas. By further incorporating an implicit plasticity treatment and additional stability-enhancing components, our method leverages the efficiency and simplicity of PBD while capturing the complex inelastic material responses typically associated with MPM; see Table. 1. In summary, our contributions include:
-
•
An updated Lagrangian augmentation for XPBD that tracks meshless deformation gradients and per-particle constraints;
-
•
PBI, a fully implicit plasticity-aware, velocity-based augmented XPBD algorithm capable of handling continuum mechanics-based elastoplastic/viscoplastic laws;
-
•
An investigation for practical stability enhancements, such as XSPH and position correction, and validations of our method with various practical examples.
2. Related Work
Inelasticity with PBD
Müller et al. [2007] introduced PBD, which replaces internal forces with positional constraints and produces appealing, stable and real-time simulations. Its first-order convergence was studied by Plunder and Merino-Aceituno [2023]. XPBD [Macklin et al., 2016], an extension of PBD, utilizes the compliant-constraint framework [Tournier et al., 2015] to uniformly handle soft and hard constraints to simulate elasticity. Our work follows the latest XPBD paradigm [Macklin et al., 2019] with substeps. Other PBD materials include rigid body [Müller et al., 2020], soft body [Bender et al., 2014], cloth [Müller et al., 2007], hair [Müller et al., 2012], elastic rod [Umetani et al., 2015], sand [Macklin et al., 2014], fluid [Macklin and Müller, 2013] with surface tension [Xing et al., 2022] and their unified couplings [Macklin et al., 2014; Frâncu and Moldoveanu, 2017; Abu Rumman et al., 2020; Robinson-Mosher et al., 2008]. We refer to Bender et al. [2017] for a comprehensive survey.
For continuum materials, Bender et al. [2014] defined a constraint for the elastic strain energy. Müller et al. [2015] constrained the strain tensor directly instead. Macklin and Muller [2021] reformulated stable Neo-Hookean using XPBD. Plastic deformation and fracture can be modeled by shape matching [Chentanez et al., 2016; Jones et al., 2016; Falkenstein et al., 2017], prioritizing efficiency over accuracy. Macklin et al. [2014] simulated sand as colliding spheres with friction. SideFX Houdini’s Vellum PBD solver further added spring-like cohesion for snow. Without further utilizing continuum mechanics-based inelastic models, these approaches have limited mechanical intuition and physical parameter controllability. A step forward was proposed by Barreiro et al. [2017], which enhances PBF with the conformation tensor for viscoelastic fluids. Nevertheless, it does not incorporate finite strain continuum mechanics, limiting its suitability in modeling general elastoplastic and viscoplastic laws.
Inelasticity with MPM
MPM was introduced by Sulsky et al. [1994] as a hybrid Lagrangian/Eulerian approach for solids. Since its adoption in graphics [Hegemann et al., 2013; Stomakhin et al., 2013], MPM has gained significant attentions for its automatic topology change and material versatility. Snow plasticity was first done by projecting principal stretches [Stomakhin et al., 2013]. Phase change was modeled by [Stomakhin et al., 2014] through a dilational/deviatoric splitting of the constitutive model. Yue et al. [2015] adopted Herschel-Bulkley viscoplasticity for foam. Ram et al. [2015] used the Oldroyd-B model for viscoelastic fluids. Fei et al. [2019] developed an analytical plastic flow approach for shear-dependent liquids. Following Drucker-Prager yield criterion, Klár et al. [2016]; Daviet and Bertails-Descoubes [2016] modeled sand as continuum granular materials and Tampubolon et al. [2017] further added wetting. Wolper et al. [2019, 2020] captured dynamic fracture using Non-Associated Cam-Clay (NACC) plasticity and damage mechanics. Advocating implicit integrators, stiff plastic materials like metal was simulated with Newton-Krylov MPM [Wang et al., 2020], while Fang et al. [2019] used Alternating Direction Methods of Multipliers (ADMM) for viscoelasticity and elastoplasticity and Li et al. [2022] proposed a variational implicit inelasticity formulation.
Inelasticity with Other Discretizations
Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) was originally for incompressible flow. Clavet et al. [2005] added dynamic-length springs for viscoelasticity. Jones et al. [2014] and Müller et al. [2004] solved Moving Least Squares (MLS) for elastoplasticity. Gerszewski et al. [2009] first used deformation gradient tensor with multiplicative elastoplastic decomposition in SPH. Alduán and Otaduy [2011] and Yang et al. [2017] modeled granular materials based on Drucker Prager yielding. Gissler et al. [2020] developed an implicit SPH snow solver similarly to Stomakhin et al. [2013]’s MPM treatment. Using power diagram-based particle-in-cell [Qu et al., 2022] and MLS-MPM [Hu et al., 2018], power plastics [Qu et al., 2023] simulated inelastic flow with an XPBD-style Gauss-Seidel solver. Peridynamics [Silling, 2000] defines pairwise forces and integrates particle interactions. He et al. [2017] combined peridynamics with projective dynamics [Bouaziz et al., 2023] and modeled Drucker-Prager plasticity. Chen et al. [2018] used isotropic linear elasticity with plasticity and simulated fracture.
3. Method
We start with briefly reviewing XPBD [Macklin et al., 2016], which lets hyperelasticity be governed by Newton’s equations of motion through a potential : , where is the mass matrix and is the unknown position states. XPBD assumes can be further expressed as , where contains constraints, and is a block diagonal compliance matrix. The elastic internal force and Lagrange multiplier are then shown to be
(1) | ||||
(2) |
where and is the time step size.
3.1. Rewriting StVK Elasticity as Constraints
For modeling elasticity, we adopt the St. Venant-Kirchhoff (StVK) model with Hencky strains. The elastoplastic behavior of isotropic materials is characterized in the principal stretch space via singular value decomposition (SVD) [Stomakhin et al., 2012] of the deformation gradient . For StVK we have energy density
(3) |
where is an element’s rest volume and is the element’s total potential energy, assuming piecewise constant element deformations.
To convert into constraints, our first option is to separately handle each term. As done by Macklin and Muller [2021] for Neo-Hookean, by utilizing , we could define two constraints for the and term respectively as
(4) | ||||
(5) |
Alternatively, as done by Qu et al. [2023] on power diagrams, we can absorb Lamé parameters from to and define a single -dependent constraint through to achieve
(6) |
which clearly halves the number of constraints by allowing more nonlinearity in each . In practice we find both options effective, and adopt the single-constraint version for efficiency.
3.2. Gradient is All You Need
Unlike mesh-based representations [Macklin and Muller, 2021] which use linear FEM to model the deformation map and compute deformation gradient using an undeformed reference state , meshless inelastic materials cannot utilize simplex elements due to extreme deformation. We follow Jiang et al. [2016] to take an updated Lagrangian view for deformation rate:
(7) |
with being the Lagrangian velocity whose Eulerian counterpart is . With time discretization from to and the assumption that the velocity at time being for , we have
(8) |
Taking for a particle we get
(9) |
as the evolution of given and . With updated Lagrangian, the reference space is thus always and there is no need to store ; see Fig. 6. Therefore, to express constraints as functions of positions , robustly estimating () and its derivative is all one needs.
Accurately estimating meshless velocity gradients is generally challenging. Most meshless shape functions require a dense neighborhood to fulfill the kernel’s normalization condition. Known as neighborhood deficiency, significant accuracy degradation would occur especially for first-order derivatives (such as velocity gradient) in sparse regions. Kernel gradient correction [Bonet and Lok, 1999] and the reproducing kernel particle method [Liu et al., 1995] are examples of strategies in mitigating this problem. Here we adopt reweighting-based kernel gradient correction [Bonet and Lok, 1999]
(10) |
with SVD based pseudo inverse and Wendland kernels for and , where is the time volume of particle . As in many SPH methods, the correction is indispensable for maintaining simulation stability. See Westhofen et al. [2023] for discussions of similarly viable gradient estimation choices. Our discrete velocity gradient at particle in is then
(11) |
Combining the gradient estimation with Eq. 9 and differentiating per-particle constraint (Eq. 6) reveals
(12) | ||||
(13) |
which provides us all necessary constraint derivatives in XPBD.
3.3. Implicit Plasticity
Plasticity in continuum mechanics is typically solved with return mapping, denoted as , which adjusts strains according to a plastic flow rule. It projects an elastic predictor onto the yield surface to ensure an inequality constraint on the stress.
To make plasticity implicit, we propose to alternate between (1) an XPBD iteration with a projected stress and (2) a stress projection. This is essentially a fixed point iteration similarly to Li et al. [2022]:
(14) |
where is the updated velocity by previous XPBD iterations based on in the previous iteration. In contrast to Li et al. [2022]’s fixed point iteration on which functions as an independent outer loop of a full Newton optimization, our design establishes a fixed point on , updating variables directly impacted by the fixed point iteration within XPBD iterations; see Fig. 6 top and Alg. 1. Resultingly, our implicit plasticity treatment introduces negligible extra cost on top of what implicit elasticity already necessitated.
Nonetheless, convergence in fixed-point iterations depends on an initial guess sufficiently close to the solution, among other conditions of the implicit function. In this paper, we do not monitor quantitative plasticity convergence since few XPBD iterations are needed for visually plausible results. We do emphasize the importance of implicit plasticity and compare it with a semi-implicit treatment which only applies plasticity at the end of a time step; see 5.1.
4. Algorithm
Here we detail the PBI pipeline and its seamlessly integration into existing XPBD. Our pseudocode for advancing a time step using velocity-based XPBD is summarized in Alg. 1.
4.1. Algorithm Overview
Similarly to MPM, we use material particles to discretize the continuum. Each particle is governed by a constitutive model-induced constraint (Eq. 6) and a plastic return mapping operator . We use to denote particle-wise inelasticity constraints () and to denote traditional PBD constraints ().
Due to our dependency on velocity gradients, it is more natural to reparametrize XPBD with velocities rather than positions as primary unknown variables. Closely resembling position-based XPBD, we solve for velocities and Lagrange multipliers that satisfies
(15) | ||||
(16) |
by updating per-particle inelastic constraint ’s corresponding Lagrangian multiplier with
(17) |
where and . The velocity update is given by:
(18) |
The velocities and multipliers are jointly updated by a colored Gauss-Seidel iteration (see 4.3 and Alg. 1):
(19) |
4.2. Particle Neighbor Search
We reconstruct the neighbor information for each particle at the beginning of each timestep, similarly to Macklin and Müller [2013]. A comprehensive overview of CPU- and GPU-based neighborhood search methods is surveyed by Ihmsen et al. [2014]. Each material particle is assigned the same kernel radius in our discretization scheme. We adopt a uniform spatial-grid-based method for neighborhood searches following Hoetzlein [2014]. Particles are spatially stored in cells while neighbor lists are determined by querying adjacent grid cells using the Wendland kernel’s support radius of .
4.3. Colored Gauss-Seidel
Original PBD and XPBD frameworks solve constraints iteratively using nonlinear Gauss-Seidel [Müller et al., 2007; Macklin et al., 2014, 2016]. In contrast, Macklin and Müller [2013] adopted a Jacobi-style iteration for fluids, solving each constraint independently to enhance parallelism. We found that for high resolution and often high stiffness simulations considered in this paper, Jacobi iterations too slowly propagate information and often suffer from non-convergence (also noted by Macklin et al. [2014]). Thus we implement colored Gauss-Seidel to maximize convergence, parallelism, and GPU throughput. We assign particles into cells with ( 4.2). colors are specified for eliminating dependencies between constraints in a -dimensional simulation. We process all cells of the same color in parallel while constraints corresponding to all particles in the same cell are computed serially.
demo | particle # | radius | ave sec/frame | iter # | material | material parameters | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Fig. 13) Hitman | 1.05M | 41.2 | 10 | 1/100 | NACC | |||
(Fig. 13) Snow Dive | 2.48M | 84.7 | 5 | 1/100 | NACC | |||
(Fig. 2) Noodles | 1.18M | 67.1 | 10 | 1/40 | VM | |||
(Fig. 8) Hourglass | 1.01M | 47.9 | 5 | 1/24 | DP | |||
(Fig. 7) Dam Breach | 4.00M | 198.5 | 7 | 1/24 | DP | |||
(Fig. 5) Camponotus | 1.12M | 52.0 | 10 | 1/100 | NACC | |||
(Fig. 3) Cloth | 1.10M | 43.7 | 10 | 1/100 | HB | |||
(Fig. 16) Wrist | 20K | 0.015 | 5 | 1/100 | HB |
The efficiency of this implementation heavily depends on the average Particle Per Cell (PPC), as particles within the same cell are traversed sequentially. To optimize PPC and ensure an even particle distribution, we utilize Poisson disk sampling [Bridson, 2007] during the initial particle placement.
4.4. XSPH and Position Correction
The goal of eXtended Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (XSPH) is to incorporate artificial viscosity for mitigating nonphysical oscillations in dynamics observed in SPH-based simulations, which is more observable when the material is stiff and the constraints become hard to solve. We follow Schechter and Bridson [2012]’s simpler XSPH-style noise damping after velocity update by blending in surrounding particle velocities in :
(20) |
XSPH encourages smooth and coherent motion for inelastic materials in this paper. We use in all examples.
In particle-based simulations, including but not limited to SPH, FLIP [Brackbill and Ruppel, 1986; Zhu and Bridson, 2005], and APIC [Jiang et al., 2015], non-physical particle clumping and uneven particle distributions are common issues due to accumulation of advection errors. While MPM is insensitive to the problem due to its structural grid nature, it is crucial for pure particle-based methods like SPH and our approach to maintain reasonably even particle distributions. Without doing so can strongly impair simulation quality and convergence, particularly when material stiffness is high.
Various techniques in graphics have been proposed to address this by shifting particle positions [Ando et al., 2012; Ando and Tsuruno, 2011; Kugelstadt et al., 2019]. However, we point out that while these methods work well for fluids, they are problematic for updated Lagrangian simulations because such positional shifting is transparent to the evolution of deformation gradients, leading to discrepancy between the positions of points and their perceived deformations. Fortunately within XPBD we can directly adopt a point-point distance constraint [Macklin et al., 2014]
(21) |
inside nonlinear iterations. Here represents the particle kernel radius and is a small gap threshold used to determine when corrective action is needed for nearby particle pairs. We set to .
4.5. Deformation Gradient Update
Strain variables within XPBD iterations are temporary. After arriving at the post-XSPH velocity , we update both the deformation gradient state and position state using the same velocity – an essential subtlety to maintain their consistency:
(22) |
where inelastic return mapping is also applied to ensure the stored elastic deformation gradient is within the yield region.
5. Results
Here we evaluate and benchmark our Position-based Inelasticity (PBI) framework in terms of visual results against traditional XPBD and MPM methods, as detailed in 5.1. Additionally, we present various demonstrations in 5.2 that illustrate PBI’s effective handling of diverse phenomena. We use Intel Core i9-14900KF CPU with 32GB memory and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090. We model common inelastic materials including Cam-Clay (NACC) [Wolper et al., 2019] snow and fracture, Drucker-Prager [Klár et al., 2016; Tampubolon et al., 2017] sand, Von Mises [Li et al., 2022] plasticine and metal, and Herschel-Bulkley [Yue et al., 2015] foam.
5.1. Evaluation
Intuitive Parameters
We simulate sand collapsing with varying friction angles . Our method reproduces characteristic piling shapes. Similarly we can easily control the fluidity of viscoplastic goo (Fig. 11). A smaller gives a more fluid-like appearance, while a larger leads to more elastic behavior. In Fig. 4, we compare viscoplastic, shear thinning, and shear thickening materials by only altering the Herschel-Bulkley power parameter . Upon impact with a ground plane, the shear thickening material exhibits low flow rates under high stress, behaving elastically and bouncing off. Conversely, the shear thinning material flows immediately due to its higher flow rate.
Comparisons to Vanilla XPBD and MPM
We compare PBI sand with both vanilla XPBD [Macklin et al., 2014, 2016], which employs a point-wise friction model, and explicit MPM with Drucker-Prager plasticity [Klár et al., 2016]; see Fig. 14. This comparison includes simulations of two sand blocks collide (top) and sand column collapse (bottom). All methods apply a timestep of ms, with identical initial sampling positions for all particles across the methods. The vanilla XPBD (left) approach fails to accurately replicate the correct friction angle upon sand settling. While both MPM (middle) and PBI (right) successfully model the continuum behavior of sand, our method achieves a more uniform particle distribution, avoiding the sparsity, clumping, and artificial grid -gap phenomena typically caused by MPM solvers. For a quantitative analysis, we also plotted the average distance between each particle and its nearest neighbor per frame, displayed on the far right of Fig. 14. Each particle was initially positioned at intervals equal to the particle radius. The average distance relative to the initial state in the MPM decreases rapidly post-collision, accompanied by an increase in the variance of the distance, whereas our method maintains both the relative distance and variance stably throughout the simulation, indicating a more consistent particle distribution. It is also noteworthy that our method aligns more closely with the approach of [Yue et al., 2018] compared to MPM, opting for Discrete Element Method (DEM) to capture more discrete behaviors near the free surface.
Implicit Plasticity
We evaluate our fully implicit plasticity treatment by replacing it with a semi-implicit method, which only performs return mappings at the end of the time steps as in Stomakhin et al. [2013] 4.5), while XPBD iterations only address elasticity. As shown in Fig. 9, the semi-implicit approach (right) can lead to severe artifacts. This occurs because the forces generated by stresses outside the yield surface cause the continuum to behave more like a purely elastic body. This artifact results from the semi-implicit method’s failure to account for plasticity during the XPBD solve, leading to an overestimation of the material’s resistance to tensile deformation. In contrast, our method (middle) fully incorporates plasticity in the XPBD iterations and avoids such artifacts.
Convergence
We study the convergence of our method using cantilever beams of varying stiffness, , respectively (Fig. 15). We set the density at and the timestep at ms. We also compare the relative residual errors of the Gauss-Seidel and Jacobi solvers in our method. PBI with Gauss-Seidel can converge stably with a large timestep. In contrast, the Jacobi solver only converges with softer materials and struggles with high stiffness. This is consistent with observations about XPBD in prior work. Given that the materials discussed in our paper are predominantly very stiff, we opted for grid-colored Gauss-Seidel as our solver. Although using a large timestep is feasible with sufficient iterations, it becomes cost-inefficient if too many iterations are required. Thus, following Macklin et al. [2019], we employ a small timestep.
Position Correction
To validate the importance of position correction, we conducted a hydraulic test on a highly stiff aluminum wheel, as shown in Fig. 10. Without position correction, areas with significant deformation and stress suffer from gradient estimation errors due to uneven particle distribution, resulting in artificial fractures and eventually simulation instability. With position correction, however, we can reliably simulate high-stiffness materials under extensive deformation. This example also shows our capability in animating metal ductility using Von Mises plasticity.
Scalability
To demonstrate the scalability of our method, we simulate viscoplastic monsters hitting the ground using 8K, 56K, 400K, and 3M particles, respectively. We maintain a constant simulation time step of ms, perform 10 iterations of XPBD per substep, and apply consistent material parameters across all simulations. Our method consistently replicates material behavior at varying resolutions, as depicted in Fig. 17. We measure and plot the computation time for each individual frame (left) alongside the average computation time per particle (right). The average computation times per particle for 8K, 56K, 400K, and 3M are 0.75 ms, 0.178 ms, 0.075 ms, and 0.038 ms, respectively. These results highlight strong scalability; as the number of particles increases, the colored Gauss-Seidel solver can more effectively exploit GPU resources, significantly reducing the overall computational overhead per particle.
Timing Breakdown
Fig. 12 illustrates the GPU computational cost breakdown for the Hourglass simulation example. In the breakdown, Collision Detection refers to the time spent on constructing the LBVH [Karras, 2012] and querying for collision between point-triangle pairs. Neighbor Search covers the time taken to build the background grid and neighborhood list by querying adjacent cells (see 4.2 for details). Solve Inelasticity Constraints involves our colored Gauss-Seidel solver for inelasticity constraints, including fixed-point implicit plasticity treatment. Solve Other Constraints accounts for the time spent on resolving all other constraints, such as point-triangle distance constraints for boundary conditions, position correction, as well as stretching, bending, and density constraints in other examples. XSPH and Update Particle State are detailed in 4.4 and 4.5, respectively. The majority of our framework’s computational time is spent on solving inelasticity constraints, while additional stability enhancements like XSPH and position correction contribute a relatively small overhead.
5.2. Demos
Complex materials with up to millions of particles, such as snow (Fig. 13), sand (Fig. 8), mud (Fig. 2, Fig. 7), viscoplastic paint (and its coupling with traditional XPBD cloth) (Fig. 3), and brittle fracture (Fig. 5) can be simulated with PBI. The timing and parameters are summarized in Table. 2.
Real-time Interaction
We further showcase our method in interactive applications where very small time steps are impractical. The convergence and stability of our approach enable interactive performance in moderately complex scenarios involving 20K particles. For this application, we employ the Jacobi solver due to its significant parallelism capabilities on GPUs for small-scale simulation. In this example, we use an Apple Vision Pro VR device and VisionProTeleop [Park and Agrawal, 2024] to track hand motions and enable a virtual hand to interact with viscous fluids.
6. Discussion
In summary, PBI is a novel updated Lagrangian enhancement for XPBD, enhancing its capability for simulating complex inelastic behaviors governed by continuum mechanics-based constitutive laws. Further incorporating an implicit plasticity treatment and stability enhancements, PBI can be easily integrated into standard XPBD to open up its new simulation possibilities.
While PBI supports a broad range of material behaviors, Maxwell viscoelastic materials [Fang et al., 2019] necessitate more specialized treatment. Also, interactions between sand and water mixtures occur primarily at the material boundary. Simulating actual porous media [Tampubolon et al., 2017] and fluid sediment mixture [Gao et al., 2018] with proper momentum transfer are interesting future work.
Another direction is to optimize parallelism for solving inelastic per-particle constraints. Although grid-colored Gauss-Seidel significantly improves performance over sequential iterations in large-scale simulations, it underperforms in small-scale cases on modern GPUs due to low utilization, obstructing many interactive rate experiments. A tailored real-time solver would be interesting.
References
- [1]
- Abu Rumman et al. [2020] Nadine Abu Rumman, Prapanch Nair, Patric Müller, Loïc Barthe, and David Vanderhaeghe. 2020. ISPH–PBD: coupled simulation of incompressible fluids and deformable bodies. The Visual Computer 36, 5 (2020), 893–910.
- Alduán and Otaduy [2011] Iván Alduán and Miguel A Otaduy. 2011. SPH granular flow with friction and cohesion. In Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics symposium on computer animation. 25–32.
- Ando et al. [2012] Ryoichi Ando, Nils Thurey, and Reiji Tsuruno. 2012. Preserving fluid sheets with adaptively sampled anisotropic particles. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 18, 8 (2012), 1202–1214.
- Ando and Tsuruno [2011] Ryoichi Ando and Reiji Tsuruno. 2011. A particle-based method for preserving fluid sheets. In Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics symposium on computer animation. 7–16.
- Barreiro et al. [2017] Héctor Barreiro, Ignacio García-Fernández, Iván Alduán, and Miguel A Otaduy. 2017. Conformation constraints for efficient viscoelastic fluid simulation. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 36, 6 (2017), 1–11.
- Bender et al. [2014] Jan Bender, Dan Koschier, Patrick Charrier, and Daniel Weber. 2014. Position-based simulation of continuous materials. Computers & Graphics 44 (2014), 1–10.
- Bender et al. [2017] Jan Bender, Matthias Müller, and Miles Macklin. 2017. A survey on position based dynamics, 2017. In Proceedings of the European Association for Computer Graphics: Tutorials. 1–31.
- Bonet and Lok [1999] Javier Bonet and T-SL Lok. 1999. Variational and momentum preservation aspects of smooth particle hydrodynamic formulations. Computer Methods in applied mechanics and engineering 180, 1-2 (1999), 97–115.
- Bouaziz et al. [2023] Sofien Bouaziz, Sebastian Martin, Tiantian Liu, Ladislav Kavan, and Mark Pauly. 2023. Projective dynamics: Fusing constraint projections for fast simulation. In Seminal Graphics Papers: Pushing the Boundaries, Volume 2. 787–797.
- Brackbill and Ruppel [1986] Jeremiah U Brackbill and Hans M Ruppel. 1986. FLIP: A method for adaptively zoned, particle-in-cell calculations of fluid flows in two dimensions. Journal of Computational physics 65, 2 (1986), 314–343.
- Bridson [2007] Robert Bridson. 2007. Fast Poisson disk sampling in arbitrary dimensions. SIGGRAPH sketches 10, 1 (2007), 1.
- Chen et al. [2018] Wei Chen, Fei Zhu, Jing Zhao, Sheng Li, and Guoping Wang. 2018. Peridynamics-Based Fracture Animation for Elastoplastic Solids. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 37. Wiley Online Library, 112–124.
- Chen et al. [2023] Yizhou Chen, Yushan Han, Jingyu Chen, Shiqian Ma, Ronald Fedkiw, and Joseph Teran. 2023. Primal Extended Position Based Dynamics for Hyperelasticity. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGGRAPH Conference on Motion, Interaction and Games. 1–10.
- Chentanez et al. [2016] Nuttapong Chentanez, Matthias Müller, and Miles Macklin. 2016. Real-time simulation of large elasto-plastic deformation with shape matching.. In Symposium on Computer Animation. 159–167.
- Clavet et al. [2005] Simon Clavet, Philippe Beaudoin, and Pierre Poulin. 2005. Particle-based viscoelastic fluid simulation. In Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics symposium on Computer animation. 219–228.
- Daviet and Bertails-Descoubes [2016] Gilles Daviet and Florence Bertails-Descoubes. 2016. A semi-implicit material point method for the continuum simulation of granular materials. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 35, 4 (2016), 1–13.
- Drucker and Prager [1952] Daniel C. Drucker and William Prager. 1952. Soil mechanics and plastic analysis or limit design. Quart. Appl. Math. 10 (1952), 157–165.
- Falkenstein et al. [2017] Michael Falkenstein, Ben Jones, Joshua A Levine, Tamar Shinar, and Adam W Bargteil. 2017. Reclustering for large plasticity in clustered shape matching. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Motion in Games. 1–6.
- Fang et al. [2019] Yu Fang, Minchen Li, Ming Gao, and Chenfanfu Jiang. 2019. Silly rubber: an implicit material point method for simulating non-equilibrated viscoelastic and elastoplastic solids. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 38, 4 (2019), 1–13.
- Fei et al. [2019] Yun Fei, Christopher Batty, Eitan Grinspun, and Changxi Zheng. 2019. A multi-scale model for coupling strands with shear-dependent liquid. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 38, 6 (2019), 1–20.
- Fei et al. [2021] Yun Fei, Qi Guo, Rundong Wu, Li Huang, and Ming Gao. 2021. Revisiting integration in the material point method: a scheme for easier separation and less dissipation. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 40, 4 (2021), 1–16.
- Frâncu and Moldoveanu [2017] Mihai Frâncu and Florica Moldoveanu. 2017. Unified Simulation of Rigid and Flexible Bodies Using Position Based Dynamics. In Workshop on Virtual Reality Interaction and Physical Simulation, Fabrice Jaillet and Florence Zara (Eds.). The Eurographics Association.
- Gao et al. [2018] Ming Gao, Andre Pradhana, Xuchen Han, Qi Guo, Grant Kot, Eftychios Sifakis, and Chenfanfu Jiang. 2018. Animating fluid sediment mixture in particle-laden flows. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 37, 4 (2018), 1–11.
- Gerszewski et al. [2009] Dan Gerszewski, Haimasree Bhattacharya, and Adam W Bargteil. 2009. A point-based method for animating elastoplastic solids. In Proceedings of the 2009 ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation. 133–138.
- Gissler et al. [2020] Christoph Gissler, Andreas Henne, Stefan Band, Andreas Peer, and Matthias Teschner. 2020. An implicit compressible SPH solver for snow simulation. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 39, 4 (2020), 36–1.
- He et al. [2017] Xiaowei He, Huamin Wang, and Enhua Wu. 2017. Projective peridynamics for modeling versatile elastoplastic materials. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 24, 9 (2017), 2589–2599.
- Hegemann et al. [2013] Jan Hegemann, Chenfanfu Jiang, Craig Schroeder, and Joseph M Teran. 2013. A level set method for ductile fracture. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation. 193–201.
- Herschel and Bulkley [1926] Winslow H. Herschel and Ronald Bulkley. 1926. Konsistenzmessungen von Gummi-Benzollösungen. Kolloid-Zeitschrift 39 (1926), 291–300.
- Hoetzlein [2014] Rama C Hoetzlein. 2014. Fast fixed-radius nearest neighbors: interactive million-particle fluids. In GPU Technology Conference, Vol. 18. 2.
- Hu et al. [2018] Yuanming Hu, Yu Fang, Ziheng Ge, Ziyin Qu, Yixin Zhu, Andre Pradhana, and Chenfanfu Jiang. 2018. A moving least squares material point method with displacement discontinuity and two-way rigid body coupling. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 37, 4 (2018), 1–14.
- Ihmsen et al. [2014] Markus Ihmsen, Jens Orthmann, Barbara Solenthaler, Andreas Kolb, and Matthias Teschner. 2014. SPH fluids in computer graphics. (2014).
- Jiang et al. [2017] Chenfanfu Jiang, Theodore Gast, and Joseph Teran. 2017. Anisotropic elastoplasticity for cloth, knit and hair frictional contact. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 36, 4 (2017), 1–14.
- Jiang et al. [2015] Chenfanfu Jiang, Craig Schroeder, Andrew Selle, Joseph Teran, and Alexey Stomakhin. 2015. The affine particle-in-cell method. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 34, 4 (2015), 1–10.
- Jiang et al. [2016] Chenfanfu Jiang, Craig Schroeder, Joseph Teran, Alexey Stomakhin, and Andrew Selle. 2016. The material point method for simulating continuum materials. In Acm siggraph 2016 courses. 1–52.
- Jones et al. [2016] Ben Jones, April Martin, Joshua A Levine, Tamar Shinar, and Adam W Bargteil. 2016. Ductile fracture for clustered shape matching. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics and Games. 65–70.
- Jones et al. [2014] Ben Jones, Stephen Ward, Ashok Jallepalli, Joseph Perenia, and Adam W Bargteil. 2014. Deformation embedding for point-based elastoplastic simulation. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 33, 2 (2014), 1–9.
- Karras [2012] Tero Karras. 2012. Maximizing parallelism in the construction of BVHs, octrees, and k-d trees. In Proceedings of the Fourth ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Conference on High-Performance Graphics. 33–37.
- Klár et al. [2016] Gergely Klár, Theodore Gast, Andre Pradhana, Chuyuan Fu, Craig Schroeder, Chenfanfu Jiang, and Joseph Teran. 2016. Drucker-prager elastoplasticity for sand animation. ACM Trans. Graph. 35, 4, Article 103 (jul 2016), 12 pages.
- Kugelstadt et al. [2019] Tassilo Kugelstadt, Andreas Longva, Nils Thuerey, and Jan Bender. 2019. Implicit density projection for volume conserving liquids. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 27, 4 (2019), 2385–2395.
- Li et al. [2022] Xuan Li, Minchen Li, and Chenfanfu Jiang. 2022. Energetically consistent inelasticity for optimization time integration. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 41, 4 (2022), 1–16.
- Liu et al. [1995] Wing Kam Liu, Sukky Jun, and Yi Fei Zhang. 1995. Reproducing kernel particle methods. International journal for numerical methods in fluids 20, 8-9 (1995), 1081–1106.
- Macklin and Müller [2013] Miles Macklin and Matthias Müller. 2013. Position based fluids. ACM Trans. Graph. 32, 4, Article 104 (jul 2013), 12 pages.
- Macklin and Muller [2021] Miles Macklin and Matthias Muller. 2021. A Constraint-based Formulation of Stable Neo-Hookean Materials. In Motion, Interaction and Games. 1–7.
- Macklin et al. [2016] Miles Macklin, Matthias Müller, and Nuttapong Chentanez. 2016. XPBD: position-based simulation of compliant constrained dynamics. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Motion in Games (MIG ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 49–54.
- Macklin et al. [2014] Miles Macklin, Matthias Müller, Nuttapong Chentanez, and Tae-Yong Kim. 2014. Unified particle physics for real-time applications. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 33, 4 (2014), 1–12.
- Macklin et al. [2019] Miles Macklin, Kier Storey, Michelle Lu, Pierre Terdiman, Nuttapong Chentanez, Stefan Jeschke, and Matthias Müller. 2019. Small steps in physics simulation. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation. 1–7.
- Mises [1913] R. v. Mises. 1913. Mechanik der festen Körper im plastisch- deformablen Zustand. Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse 1913 (1913), 582–592.
- Müller et al. [2015] Matthias Müller, Nuttapong Chentanez, Tae-Yong Kim, and Miles Macklin. 2015. Strain based dynamics. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation (Copenhagen, Denmark) (SCA ’14). Eurographics Association, Goslar, DEU, 149–157.
- Müller et al. [2004] Matthias Müller, Richard Keiser, Andrew Nealen, Mark Pauly, Markus Gross, and Marc Alexa. 2004. Point based animation of elastic, plastic and melting objects. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics symposium on Computer animation. 141–151.
- Müller et al. [2007] Matthias Müller, Bruno Heidelberger, Marcus Hennix, and John Ratcliff. 2007. Position based dynamics. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation 18, 2 (2007), 109–118.
- Müller et al. [2012] Matthias Müller, Tae Kim, and Nuttapong Chentanez. 2012. Fast Simulation of Inextensible Hair and Fur. VRIPHYS 2012 - 9th Workshop on Virtual Reality Interactions and Physical Simulations.
- Müller et al. [2020] 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 39, 8 (2020), 101–112.
- Park and Agrawal [2024] Younghyo Park and Pulkit Agrawal. 2024. Using Apple Vision Pro to Train and Control Robots. https://github.com/Improbable-AI/VisionProTeleop
- Plunder and Merino-Aceituno [2023] Steffen Plunder and Sara Merino-Aceituno. 2023. Convergence proof for first-order position-based dynamics: An efficient scheme for inequality constrained ODEs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01215 (2023).
- Qu et al. [2022] Ziyin Qu, Minchen Li, Fernando De Goes, and Chenfanfu Jiang. 2022. The power particle-in-cell method. ACM Transactions on Graphics 41, 4 (2022).
- Qu et al. [2023] Ziyin Qu, Minchen Li, Yin Yang, Chenfanfu Jiang, and Fernando De Goes. 2023. Power Plastics: A Hybrid Lagrangian/Eulerian Solver for Mesoscale Inelastic Flows. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 42, 6 (2023), 1–11.
- Ram et al. [2015] Daniel Ram, Theodore Gast, Chenfanfu Jiang, Craig Schroeder, Alexey Stomakhin, Joseph Teran, and Pirouz Kavehpour. 2015. A material point method for viscoelastic fluids, foams and sponges. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGGRAPH / Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation (Los Angeles, California) (SCA ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 157–163.
- Robinson-Mosher et al. [2008] Avi Robinson-Mosher, Tamar Shinar, Jon Gretarsson, Jonathan Su, and Ronald Fedkiw. 2008. Two-way coupling of fluids to rigid and deformable solids and shells. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 27, 3 (2008), 1–9.
- Schechter and Bridson [2012] Hagit Schechter and Robert Bridson. 2012. Ghost SPH for animating water. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 31, 4 (2012), 1–8.
- Silling [2000] Stewart A Silling. 2000. Reformulation of elasticity theory for discontinuities and long-range forces. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 48, 1 (2000), 175–209.
- Smith et al. [2018] Breannan Smith, Fernando De Goes, and Theodore Kim. 2018. Stable neo-hookean flesh simulation. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 37, 2 (2018), 1–15.
- Stomakhin et al. [2012] Alexey Stomakhin, Russell Howes, Craig A Schroeder, and Joseph M Teran. 2012. Energetically Consistent Invertible Elasticity.. In Symposium on Computer Animation, Vol. 1.
- Stomakhin et al. [2013] Alexey Stomakhin, Craig Schroeder, Lawrence Chai, Joseph Teran, and Andrew Selle. 2013. A material point method for snow simulation. ACM Trans. Graph. 32, 4, Article 102 (jul 2013), 10 pages.
- Stomakhin et al. [2014] Alexey Stomakhin, Craig Schroeder, Chenfanfu Jiang, Lawrence Chai, Joseph Teran, and Andrew Selle. 2014. Augmented MPM for phase-change and varied materials. ACM Trans. Graph. 33, 4, Article 138 (jul 2014), 11 pages.
- Sulsky et al. [1994] Deborah Sulsky, Zhen Chen, and Howard L Schreyer. 1994. A particle method for history-dependent materials. Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering 118, 1-2 (1994), 179–196.
- Tampubolon et al. [2017] Andre Pradhana Tampubolon, Theodore Gast, Gergely Klár, Chuyuan Fu, Joseph Teran, Chenfanfu Jiang, and Ken Museth. 2017. Multi-species simulation of porous sand and water mixtures. ACM Trans. Graph. 36, 4, Article 105 (jul 2017), 11 pages.
- Ton-That et al. [2023] Quoc-Minh Ton-That, Paul G Kry, and Sheldon Andrews. 2023. Parallel block Neo-Hookean XPBD using graph clustering. Computers & Graphics 110 (2023), 1–10.
- Tournier et al. [2015] Maxime Tournier, Matthieu Nesme, Benjamin Gilles, and François Faure. 2015. Stable constrained dynamics. ACM Trans. Graph. 34, 4, Article 132 (jul 2015), 10 pages.
- Umetani et al. [2015] Nobuyuki Umetani, Ryan Schmidt, and Jos Stam. 2015. Position-based elastic rods. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation (Copenhagen, Denmark) (SCA ’14). Eurographics Association, Goslar, DEU, 21–30.
- Wang et al. [2020] Xinlei Wang, Minchen Li, Yu Fang, Xinxin Zhang, Ming Gao, Min Tang, Danny M. Kaufman, and Chenfanfu Jiang. 2020. Hierarchical Optimization Time Integration for CFL-Rate MPM Stepping. ACM Trans. Graph. 39, 3, Article 21 (apr 2020), 16 pages.
- Westhofen et al. [2023] Lukas Westhofen, Stefan Jeske, and Jan Bender. 2023. A comparison of linear consistent correction methods for first-order SPH derivatives. Proceedings of the ACM on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques 6, 3 (2023), 1–20.
- Wolper et al. [2020] Joshuah Wolper, Yunuo Chen, Minchen Li, Yu Fang, Ziyin Qu, Jiecong Lu, Meggie Cheng, and Chenfanfu Jiang. 2020. Anisompm: Animating anisotropic damage mechanics. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 39, 4 (2020), 37–1.
- Wolper et al. [2019] Joshuah Wolper, Yu Fang, Minchen Li, Jiecong Lu, Ming Gao, and Chenfanfu Jiang. 2019. CD-MPM: continuum damage material point methods for dynamic fracture animation. ACM Trans. Graph. 38, 4, Article 119 (jul 2019), 15 pages.
- Xing et al. [2022] Jingrui Xing, Liangwang Ruan, Bin Wang, Bo Zhu, and Baoquan Chen. 2022. Position-Based Surface Tension Flow. ACM Trans. Graph. 41, 6, Article 244 (nov 2022), 12 pages.
- Yang et al. [2017] Tao Yang, Jian Chang, Ming C Lin, Ralph R Martin, Jian J Zhang, and Shi-Min Hu. 2017. A unified particle system framework for multi-phase, multi-material visual simulations. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 36, 6 (2017), 1–13.
- Yue et al. [2015] Yonghao Yue, Breannan Smith, Christopher Batty, Changxi Zheng, and Eitan Grinspun. 2015. Continuum foam: A material point method for shear-dependent flows. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 34, 5 (2015), 1–20.
- Yue et al. [2018] Yonghao Yue, Breannan Smith, Peter Yichen Chen, Maytee Chantharayukhonthorn, Ken Kamrin, and Eitan Grinspun. 2018. Hybrid grains: Adaptive coupling of discrete and continuum simulations of granular media. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 37, 6 (2018), 1–19.
- Zhu and Bridson [2005] Yongning Zhu and Robert Bridson. 2005. Animating sand as a fluid. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 24, 3 (2005), 965–972.