diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'articles')
| -rw-r--r-- | articles/2018-12-22_fun_with_compute_shaders_and_fluid_dynamics.md | 45 |
1 files changed, 29 insertions, 16 deletions
diff --git a/articles/2018-12-22_fun_with_compute_shaders_and_fluid_dynamics.md b/articles/2018-12-22_fun_with_compute_shaders_and_fluid_dynamics.md index bb0d6c7..ac86531 100644 --- a/articles/2018-12-22_fun_with_compute_shaders_and_fluid_dynamics.md +++ b/articles/2018-12-22_fun_with_compute_shaders_and_fluid_dynamics.md @@ -1,45 +1,58 @@ # Fun with compute shaders and fluid dynamics +As I previously alluded to, computational fluid dynamics is a current subject of interest of mine both academically and recreationally. Where on the academic side the focus obviously lies on theoretical strictness and simulations are only useful as far as their error can be judged and bounded, I very much like to take a more hand wavy approach during my freetime and just _fool around_. This works together nicely with my interest in GPU based computation which is to be the topic of this article. + <video controls="" preload="metadata" loop="true" poster="https://static.kummerlaender.eu/media/classical_explosion.poster.jpg"><source src="https://static.kummerlaender.eu/media/classical_explosion.teaser.mp4" type="video/mp4"/></video> -## First for some theory… +While visualizations such as the one above are nice to behold in a purely asthetic sense independent of any real word groundedness their implementation is at least inspired by models of our physical reality. The next section aims to give a overview of such models for fluid flows and at least sketch out the theoretical foundation of the specific model implemented on the GPU to generate all visualization we will see on this page. + +## Levels of abstraction -The behaviour of weakly compressible fluid flows -- i.e. non-supersonic flows where the compressibility of the flowing fluid plays a small but _non-central_ role -- is usually modelled by the weakly compressible Navier-Stokes equations which relate density $\rho$, pressure $p$, viscosity $\nu$ and speed $u$ to each other: +The behaviour of weakly compressible fluid flows -- i.e. non-supersonic flows where the compressibility of the flowing fluid plays a small but _non-central_ role -- is commonly modelled by the weakly compressible Navier-Stokes equations which relate density $\rho$, pressure $p$, viscosity $\nu$ and speed $u$ to each other: $$\begin{aligned} \partial_t \rho + \nabla \cdot (\rho u) &= 0 \\ \partial_t u + (u \cdot \nabla) u &= -\frac{1}{\rho} \nabla p + 2\nu\nabla \cdot \left(\frac{1}{2} (\nabla u + (\nabla u)^\top)\right)\end{aligned}$$ -What we use (Boltzmann equilibrium): +As such the Navier-Stokes equations model a continuous fluid from a macroscopic perspective. That means that this model doesn't concern itself with the inner workings of the fluid -- e.g. what it is actually made of, how the specific molecules making up the fluid interact individually and so on -- but rather considers it as an abstract vector field. One other way to model fluid flows is to explicitly model the individual fluid molecules using classical physics. This microscopic approach closely reflects what actually happens in reality. From this perspective the _flow_ of the fluid is just an emergent property of the underlying individual physical interactions. Which approach one chooses for computational fluid dynamics depends on the question one wants to answer as well as the available computational ressources. A sufficienctly precise model of individual molecular interactions precisely models physical reality in arbitrary situations but is easily much more computationally intensive that a macroscopic approach using Navier-Stokes. In turn, solving such macroscoping equations can quickly become problematic in complex geometries with diverse boundary conditions. No model is perfect and no model is strictly better that any other model in all categories. + +## Lattice Boltzmann in theory… +The approach I want to introduce for this article is neither macroscopic nor microscopic but situated between those two levels of abstraction -- it is a _mesoscopic_ approach to fluid dynamics. Such a model is given by the Boltzmann equations that can be used to describe fluids from a statistical perspective. As such the _Boltzmann-approach_ is to model neither the macroscopic behaviour of a fluid nor the microscopic particle interactions but the probability of a certain mass of fluid particles $f$ moving with a certain directed speed $\xi$ at a certain location $x$ at a specific time $t$: $$\left( \partial_t + \xi \cdot \partial_x + \frac{F}{\rho} \cdot \partial_\xi \right) f = \Omega(f) \left( = \partial_x f \cdot \frac{dx}{dt} + \partial_\xi f \cdot \frac{d\xi}{dt} + \partial_t f \right)$$ -How we get there (BGK LBM): +The Boltzmann equilibrium advection equation's total differential $\Omega(f)$ can be viewed as a collision operator that describes the local redistribution of particle densities caused by said particles colliding. As this equation by itself is still continuous in all variables we need to discretize it in order to use it on a finite computer. This basically means that we restrict all variable values to a discrete and finite sets in addition to replacing difficult to solve parts with more approachable approximations. -$$\Omega(f) := -\frac{f-f^\text{eq}}{\tau} \Delta t$$ +As our goal is to display simple fluid flows on a distinctly two dimensional screen a first sensible restiction is to limit space to two dimensions. As a side note: At first glance this might seem strange as there in fact are no truly 2D fluids in our 3D environment. While this doesn't need to concern us for generating entertaining visuals there are in fact some real world situations where 2D fluid models can be reasonable solutions for 3D problems. +Besides the restriction to two dimensions a common step of discretizing the Boltzmann equation is to approximate the collision operator using an operator pioneered by Bhatnagar, Gross and Krook: $$\Omega(f) := -\frac{f-f^\text{eq}}{\tau} \Delta t$$ + +This honorifically named BGK operator relaxes the current particle distribution $f$ towards its theoretical equilibrium distribution $f^\text{eq}$ at a rate $\tau$. Combining this definition of $\Omega(f)$ and the Boltzmann equation without external forces yields the BGK Approximation of said equation: $$(\partial_t + \xi \cdot \nabla_x) f = -\frac{1}{\tau} (f(x,\xi,t) - f^\text{eq}(x,\xi,t))$$ +To further discretize this we restrict the velocity $\xi$ not just to two dimensions but to a finite set of nine discrete unit velocities: $$\newcommand{\V}[2]{\begin{pmatrix}#1\\#2\end{pmatrix}} \{\xi_i\}_{i=0}^8 = \left\{ \V{0}{0}, \V{-1}{\phantom{-}1}, \V{-1}{\phantom{-}0}, \V{-1}{-1}, \V{\phantom{-}0}{-1}, \V{\phantom{-}1}{-1}, \V{1}{0}, \V{1}{1}, \V{0}{1} \right\}$$ -$$(\partial_t + \xi_i \cdot \nabla_x) f_i(x,t) = -\frac{1}{\tau} (f_i(x,t) - f_i^\text{eq}(x,t))$$ - +We also define the equilibrium $f^\text{eq}$ towards which all distributions in this model strive as the discrete equilibrium distribution by Maxwell and Boltzmann. This distribution $f_i^\text{eq}$ of the $i$-th discrete velocity $\xi_i$ is given for density $\rho \in \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ and total velocity $u \in \mathbb{R}^2$ as well as fixed lattice weights $w_i$ and lattice speed of sound $c_s$: $$f_i^\text{eq} = w_i \rho \left( 1 + \frac{u \cdot \xi_i}{c_s^2} + \frac{(u \cdot \xi_i)^2}{2c_s^4} - \frac{u \cdot u}{2c_s^2} \right)$$ -$$\rho(x,t) = \sum_{i=0}^{q-1} f_i(x,t)$$ - -$$\rho u(x,t) = \sum_{i=0}^{q-1} \xi_i f_i(x,t)$$ +The moments $\rho$ and $u$ at location $x$ are in turn dependent on the cumulated distributions: +$$\begin{aligned}\rho(x,t) &= \sum_{i=0}^{q-1} f_i(x,t) \\ \rho u(x,t) &= \sum_{i=0}^{q-1} \xi_i f_i(x,t)\end{aligned}$$ -$$w_0 = \frac{4}{9}, \ w_{2,4,6,8} = \frac{1}{9}, \ w_{1,3,5,7} = \frac{1}{36}$$ +Verbosely determining the constant lattice weights and the lattice speed of sound would exceed the scope of this article. Generally these constants are chosen depending of the used set of discrete velocities in such a way that the resulting collision operator preserves both momentum and mass. Furthermore the operator should be independent of rotations. +$$w_0 = \frac{4}{9}, \ w_{2,4,6,8} = \frac{1}{9}, \ w_{1,3,5,7} = \frac{1}{36}, \ c_s = \sqrt{1/3} $$ -$$\overline{f_i} = f_i + \frac{1}{2\tau}(f_i - f_i^\text{eq})$$ +We have now fully discretized the BGK Approximation of the Boltzmann equation. As the actual solution to this equation is still implicit in its definition we need to solve the following integral: +$$f_i(x+\xi_i, t+1) - f_i(x,t) = -\frac{1}{\tau} \int_0^1 (f_i(x+\xi_i s,t+s) - f_i^\text{eq}(x+\xi_i s, t+s)) ds$$ -$$\overline\tau = \tau + \frac{1}{2}$$ +As the exact integration of this expression is actually non-trivial it is once again only approximated -- in this instance using the Trapezoidial rule and the folliwing shift of $f_i$ and $\tau$: +$$\begin{aligned}\overline{f_i} &= f_i + \frac{1}{2\tau}(f_i - f_i^\text{eq}) \\ \overline\tau &= \tau + \frac{1}{2}\end{aligned}$$ +Thus we finally end up with a discrete LBM BGK equation that can be trivially performed -- i.e. there is is a explicit function for transforming the current state into its successor -- on any available finite computer: $$\overline{f_i}(x+\xi_i,t+1) = \overline{f_i}(x,t) - \frac{1}{\overline\tau} (\overline{f_i}(x,t) - f_i^\text{eq}(x,t))$$ -$$f_i^\text{out}(x,t) = f_i(x,t) - \frac{1}{\tau}(f_i(x,t) - f_i^\text{eq}(x,t))$$ +## …and in practice -$$f_i(x+\xi_i,t+1) = f_i^\text{out}(x,t)$$ +The ubiquitous way of applying the discrete LBM equation to a lattice is to separate it into a two step _Collide-and-Stream_ process: +$$\begin{aligned}f_i^\text{out}(x,t) &= f_i(x,t) - \frac{1}{\tau}(f_i(x,t) - f_i^\text{eq}(x,t)) \\ f_i(x+\xi_i,t+1) &= f_i^\text{out}(x,t)\end{aligned}$$ -## …translated into GLSL compute shaders ```cpp layout (local_size_x = 1, local_size_y = 1) in; |