Vortical Inviscid Flows with Two-Way Solid-Fluid Coupling
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vortex methods increasingly receive attention from the computer graphics community for simple and direct modeling of complex flow phenomena such as turbulence. The coupling between free-form solids, represented by arbitrary surface meshes, and fluids simulated with vortex methods, leads to visually rich simulations. In this paper, we introduce a novel approach for simulating the interaction between solids and inviscid fluids for high-quality simulations using Lagrangian vortex particles. The key aspect of our method is simulating the creation of vorticity at a solid's surface. While previous vortex simulators only focus on modeling the solid as a boundary for the fluid, our approach allows the accurate simulation of two processes of visual interest. The first is the introduction of surface vorticity in the main flow as turbulence (vortex shedding). The second is the motion of the solid induced by fluid forces. We also introduce to computer graphics the concept of source panels to model nonturbulent flow around objects. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work on two-way coupling of 3D solids and fluids using Lagrangian vortex methods in computer graphics.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it