MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221061596 · doi:10.1145/3526213

Physics-Based Combustion Simulation

2022· article· en· W4221061596 on OpenAlexaff
Michael B. Nielsen, Morten Bojsen-Hansen, Konstantinos Stamatelos, Robert Bridson

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and flame dynamics
Canadian institutionsAutodesk (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombustionLaminar flowDeflagrationSootIgnition systemRadiative transferCondensationAdiabatic processComputer scienceMechanicsStatistical physicsPhysicsThermodynamicsChemistryDetonationExplosive material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a physics-based combustion simulation method for computer graphics that extends the mathematical models of previous efforts to automatically capture more realistic flames as well as temperature and soot distributions. Our method includes mathematical models for the thermodynamic properties of real-world fuels which enables, for example, the prediction of adiabatic flame temperatures. We couple this with a model of heat transfer that includes convection, conduction as well as both radiative cooling and heating. This facilitates among other things ignition at a distance without heating up the intermediate air. We model the combustion as infinitely fast chemistry and couple this with the thin flame model, spatially varying laminar burning velocities based on local species and empirical measurements, physically validated soot formation and oxidation as well as water vapor production and condensation. We implement this on adaptive octree-like grids with collocated state variables, a new SBDF2-derived semi-Lagrangian time integrator for velocity, and a multigrid scheme used for multiple solver components. In combination, these models enable us to simulate deflagration phenomena ranging from small scale premixed and diffusion flames to fireballs and subsonic explosions which we demonstrate by several examples. In addition, we validate several of the results based on reference footage and measurements and discuss the relation of prevalent heuristic techniques arising in visual effects production to some of the physics-based models we propose.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topicCombustion and flame dynamicsFrench-language works237,207