Simulating rigid body fracture with surface meshes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a new brittle fracture simulation method based on a boundary integral formulation of elasticity and recent explicit surface mesh evolution algorithms. Unlike prior physically-based simulations in graphics, this avoids the need for volumetric sampling and calculations, which aren't reflected in the rendered output. We represent each quasi-rigid body by a closed triangle mesh of its boundary, on which we solve quasi-static linear elasticity via boundary integrals in response to boundary conditions and loads such as impact forces and gravity. A fracture condition based on maximum tensile stress is subsequently evaluated at mesh vertices, while crack initiation and propagation are formulated as an interface tracking procedure in material space. Existing explicit mesh tracking methods are modified to support evolving cracks directly in the triangle mesh representation, giving highly detailed fractures with sharp features, independent of any volumetric sampling (unlike tetrahedral mesh or level set approaches); the triangle mesh representation also allows simple integration into rigid body engines. We also give details on our well-conditioned integral equation treatment solved with a kernel-independent Fast Multipole Method for linear time summation. Various brittle fracture scenarios demonstrate the efficacy and robustness of our new method.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".