DOCSLIB.ORG

Room Sound Field Prediction by Acoustical Radiosity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Room Sound Field Prediction by Acoustical Radiosity ROOM SOUND FIELD PREDICTION BY ACOUSTICAL RADIOSITY by Eva-Marie Nosal B.Sc. (Pure Mathematics), The University of Calgary, 2000 B.Sc. (Applied Mathematics), The University of Calgary, 2000 B.Mus. (Piano performance), The University of Calgary, 2000 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Mathematics) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA December 2002 © Eva-Marie Nosal, 2002 ABSTRACT Acoustical radiosity is a technique based on assumptions of diffuse reflection and incoherent phase relationships that has been used to predict room sound fields. In this research, the background to acoustical radiosity is given, the integral equation (on which the technique is based) is derived, and a numerical solution is detailed for convex rooms of arbitrary shape. Several validations are made by comparison of the numerical solution to (1) analytical solutions for a sphere; (2) results from a ray tracing algorithm in cubical enclosures, and; (3) measurements in three real rooms. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Table of Contents iii List of Tables vii List of Figures viii Acknowledgments xi Dedication xii 1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………… 1 1.1 Room sound field prediction 1.2 History and literature review 1.3 Why acoustical radiosity? 1.4 Organization of thesis 2 Theoretical development 2.1 Assumptions ……………………………………………………………. 9 2.1.1 Diffuse reflection 2.1.2 Incoherent phase relationships 2.1.3 Other assumptions 2.2 Diffuse reflection ………………………………………………………. 10 2.2.1 Lambert’s (Cosine) Law 2.2.2 Intensity from radiation density 2.2.3 Intensity from incident intensity 2.3 Integral equation ………………………………………………………. 14 2.3.1 Explanation and derivation 2.3.2 Simplifications 2.3.2.1 Impulsive sound sources 2.3.2.2 Steady sound sources iii 2.3.3 Direct radiation density 2.3.4 Sound pressure at the receiver 2.3.5 Note on view independence 2.4 Analytical solutions of the integral equation …………………………... 19 2.4.1 Sphere 2.4.2 Flat room 3 Numerical solution 3.1 Discretization ………………………………………………………….. 22 3.1.1 Enclosure discretization 3.1.2 Direct contribution 3.1.3 Sound pressure at the receiver 3.1.4 Time discretization 3.2 Form factors …………………………………………………………… 25 3.2.1 Literature on form factors 3.2.2 Form factor algebra 3.2.3 Analytical form factors for rectangular rooms 3.2.4 HeliosFF 3.2.4.1Two-level hierarchy 3.2.4.2 Cubic tetrahedral algorithm 3.3 Integrals over solid angles ……………………………………………... 30 3.3.1 Possible approaches 3.3.2 Spherical triangle method 3.4 Algorithm ……………………………………………………………… 33 3.4.1 Basic 3.4.2 Averaging 3.4.3 Sound pressure at the receiver 4 Predictions from the solution 4.1 Impulse response ……………………………………………………… 37 4.1.1 Definition 4.1.2 Prediction 4.1.3 Consistency check 4.1.4 Integrating the impulse response 4.2 Signal response ……………………………………………………….. 40 4.3 Echogram 4.4 Steady state sound pressure level 4.5 Sound decay curve 4.6 Reverberation and early decay time iv 4.7 Other parameters ………………………………………………………. 43 4.7.1 Clarity 4.7.2 Definition 4.7.3 Center time 4.7.4 Strength 4.7.5 Others 5 Validation and experimentation 5.1 Validation of the numerical solution ………………………………….. 45 5.2 Comparison preliminaries …………………………………………….. 46 5.2.1 Parameters, echograms, and discretized echograms 5.2.2 Auralization 5.2.3 Ray tracing with RAYCUB 5.2.4 Predicted impulse response length 5.3 Predictions for a cubic room …………………………………………… 53 5.3.1 Initial predictions with varying patch sizes 5.3.1.1 Patch size 5.3.1.2 Absorption distribution 5.3.1.3 Computational efficiency 5.3.2 Predictions with varying time resolution 5.3.3 Predictions with varying time limits 5.3.4 Predictions using form factors by HeliosFF 5.3.5 Comparisons to ray tracing 5.3.6 More on ray tracing with diffuse reflection 5.4 Experiment …………………………………………………………….. 82 5.4.1 Test environments 5.4.1.1 Squash court 5.4.1.2 Environmental Room 5.4.1.3 Hebb 12 5.4.2 Measurements 5.4.3 Air-absorption exponents 5.4.4 Source power 5.4.5 Room surface absorption coefficients 5.5 Comparison between measurement and prediction ……………………. 89 5.5.1 Echograms 5.5.2 Discretized echograms 5.5.3 Acoustical parameters 5.5.4 Conclusions 6 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………. 109 v Bibliography ………………………………………………………………………….. 113 Appendix A: Definitions ……………………………………………………………. 117 Appendix B: Relationships …………………………………………………………. 125 B.1 Reverberation and decay time B.2 Clarity and definition B.3 Absorption, reflection, and transmission coefficients B.4 Air absorption coefficients and exponents Appendix C: Theorems ……………………………………………………………. 127 C.1 Girard’s theorem C.2 Generalization of Girard’s theorem to arbitrary polygons C.3 Theorem Appendix D: Codes …………………………………………………………………. 132 vi LIST OF TABLES 5.1 Numerical and analytical predictions for three spheres ………………………. 45 5.2 Time and memory requirement for predictions on three spheres ……………... 46 5.3 Distribution of absorption in the cubical rooms ………………………………. 53 5.4 Parameter predictions for the four cubical rooms …………………………….. 62 5.5 Air absorption exponents at 23° C, 50% relative humidity, and normal atmospheric pressure in 10-3 m-1 ……………………………………… 85 5.6 Sound Power Levels (dB) of the source with settings for (1) the Environmental Room and Hebb 12 and (2) the squash court …………………. 87 5.7 Surface absorption coefficients ……………………………………………….. 89 D.1 List and description of MATALB M-files ……………………………………. 132 vii LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 Specular, semi-diffuse, and diffuse reflection ………………………………….. 3 1.2 Conversion of specularly to diffusely reflected sound energy …………………. 6 2.1 Projected length ………………………………………………………………... 11 2.2 Parametrization of a sphere ……………………………………………………. 12 2.3 Illustration for the derivation of the integral equation ………………………… 15 3.1 Form factor geometry …………………………………………………………. 25 3.2 Illustrations for the spherical triangle method ………………………………… 31 5.1 t versus reverberation time for various ε ………………………………… 52 finalmin 5.2 Discretization of the cubical rooms …………………………………………… 54 5.3 Echograms for Cube 1 from predictions with 24, 96, 294, and 600 patches …………………………………………………………………………. 56 5.4 Range reduced from Figure 5.4 for more detail ……………………………….. 57 5.5 Range reduced and domain increased from Figure 5.5 for more detail …………………………………………………………………………… 58 5.6 Discretized echograms for Cube 1 ……………………………………………. 60 5.7 Parameters predictions versus number of patches for Cube 1 ………………… 61 5.8 CPU time and memory requirements versus number of patches for Cube 2 …………………………………………………………………………. 64 5.9 Echograms for Cube 1 with varying time resolution …………………………. 66 5.10 Parameter predictions versus 1/∆t for Cube 4 ……………………………….. 67 5.11 CPU time and memory requirement vs. discretization frequency for Cube 1 …………………………………………………………………….. 68 5.12 Parameter predictions versus texact (s) for Cube 2 (with t final = 2 s) …………… 70 5.13 Parameter predictions versus t final (s) for Cube 1 (with texact = 0.6 s) …………. 71 viii 5.14 Echograms for Cube 2 from radiosity (600 patches), ray tracing with diffuse reflection, and ray tracing with specular reflection predictions ……………………………………………………………………… 73 5.15 Range reduced from Figure 5.14 for more detail ……………………………… 74 5.16 Discretized echograms for Cubes 1 and 2 by radiosity and ray tracing (diffuse and specular) with time resolution of 0.05 s ………………….. 75 5.17 Discretized echograms for Cubes 3 and 4 by radiosity and ray tracing (diffuse and specular) with time resolution of 0.05 s ………………….. 76 5.18 Parameter predictions by radiosity and ray tracing with diffuse, 50% diffuse/50% specular, and specular reflection for all four cubes ………… 77 5.19 Echograms from radiosity and ray tracing with diffuse reflection in the squash court ………………………………………………………………... 80 5.20 Discretized echogram from radiosity and ray tracing with diffuse reflection in the squash court ………………………………………………….. 81 5.21 Dimensions of Hebb 12 ……………………………………………………….. 83 5.22 Experimental setup ……………………………………………………………. 84 5.23 Source and receiver positions in the three measured rooms ………………….. 91 5.24 Measured and predicted echograms in the squash court at 1 kHz …………….. 92 5.25 Measured and predicted echograms in the Environmental Room at 1 kHz ………………………………………………………………………….. 93 5.26 Measured and predicted echograms in Hebb 12 at 1 kHz …………………….. 94 5.27 Discretized echogram for the squash court at 1 kHz ………………………….. 96 5.28 Discretized echogram for the Environmental Room at 1 kHz ………………… 97 5.29 Discretized echograms for Hebb 12 1 at kHz …………………………………. 98 5.30 Parameter values as a function of position in the squash court 1 at 1 kHz …………………………………………………………………………. 100 5.31 Parameter values as a function of frequency (Hz) in the squash court ………………………………………………………………………….. 103 5.32 Parameter values as a function of frequency (Hz) in the Environmental Room ………………………………………………………… 104 ix 5.33 Parameter values as a function of frequency (Hz) in Hebb 12 ………………. 105 A.1 Double lune with angle α …………………………………………………….. 120 A.2 Great circle and spherical triangle on a sphere ……………………………….. 121 C.1 Extending the edges of a spherical triangle to form 3 great circles ………….. 128 C.2 Three double lunes defined by a spherical triangle …………………………... 128 C.3 Covering the sphere by three lunes ………………………………………….. 128 x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I’d like to thank my supervisor and mentor, Murray Hodgson, for his ideas, endless support, and unwavering confidence in my work. Murray gave me the freedom I needed to be creative and pushed just enough to get me over any blocks that inevitable came my way. He encouraged and helped me to present and publish my work. His unique perspectives, original ideas, and boundless enthusiasm for acoustics, combined with a vast experience in the field and superior communication skills, make Murray a wonderful person to work with. I will always remember our long discussions and napkin drawings with much fondness. The opportunity for me (in the math department) to work with Murray Hodgson (in mechanical engineering) was provided by the Institute of Applied Mathematics (IAM) at UBC.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Radiosity Radiosity
    Radiosity Radiosity Motivation: what is missing in ray-traced images? Indirect illumination effects Color bleeding Soft shadows Radiosity is a physically-based illumination algorithm capable of simulating the above phenomena in a scene made of ideal diffuse surfaces. Books: Cohen and Wallace, Radiosity and Realistic Image Synthesis, Academic Press Professional 1993. Sillion and Puech, Radiosity and Global Illumination, Morgan- Kaufmann, 1994. Indirect illumination effects Radiosity in a Nutshell Break surfaces into many small elements Light source Formulate and solve a linear system of equations that models the equilibrium of inter-reflected Eye light in a scene. Diffuse Reflection The solution gives us the amount of light leaving each point on each surface in the scene. Once solution is computed, the shaded elements can be quickly rendered from any viewpoint. Meshing (partition into elements) Radiosity Input geometry Change geometry Form-Factors Change light or colors Solution Render Change view 1 Radiometric quantities The Radiosity Equation Radiant energy [J] Assume that surfaces in the scene have been discretized into n small elements. Radiant power (flux): radiant energy per second [W] Assume that each element emits/reflects light Irradiance (flux density): incident radiant power per uniformly across its surface. unit area [W/m2] Define the radiosity B as the total hemispherical Radiosity (flux density): outgoing radiant power per flux density (W/m2) leaving a surface. unit area [W/m2] Let’’s write down an expression describing the total flux (light power) leaving element i in the Radiance (angular flux dedensity):nsity): radiant power per scene: unit projected area per unit solid angle [W/(m2 sr)] scene: total flux = emitted flux + reflected flux The Radiosity Equation The Form Factor Total flux leaving element i: Bi Ai The form factor Fji tells us how much of the flux Total flux emitted by element i: Ei Ai leaving element j actually reaches element i.
    [Show full text]
  • RADIATION HEAT TRANSFER Radiation
    MODULE I RADIATION HEAT TRANSFER Radiation Definition Radiation, energy transfer across a system boundary due to a T, by the mechanism of photon emission or electromagnetic wave emission. Because the mechanism of transmission is photon emission, unlike conduction and convection, there need be no intermediate matter to enable transmission. The significance of this is that radiation will be the only mechanism for heat transfer whenever a vacuum is present. Electromagnetic Phenomena. We are well acquainted with a wide range of electromagnetic phenomena in modern life. These phenomena are sometimes thought of as wave phenomena and are, consequently, often described in terms of electromagnetic wave length, . Examples are given in terms of the wave distribution shown below: m UV X Rays 0.4-0.7 Thermal , ht Radiation Microwave g radiation Visible Li 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 10-0 101 102 103 104 105 Wavelength, , m One aspect of electromagnetic radiation is that the related topics are more closely associated with optics and electronics than with those normally found in mechanical engineering courses. Nevertheless, these are widely encountered topics and the student is familiar with them through every day life experiences. From a viewpoint of previously studied topics students, particularly those with a background in mechanical or chemical engineering, will find the subject of Radiation Heat Transfer a little unusual. The physics background differs fundamentally from that found in the areas of continuum mechanics. Much of the related material is found in courses more closely identified with quantum physics or electrical engineering, i.e. Fields and Waves.
    [Show full text]
  • Causes of Color Radiometry for Color
    Causes of color • The sensation of color is caused • Light could be produced in by the brain. different amounts at different wavelengths (compare the sun and • Some ways to get this sensation a fluorescent light bulb). include: • Light could be differentially – Pressure on the eyelids reflected (e.g. some pigments). – Dreaming, hallucinations, etc. • It could be differentially refracted - • Main way to get it is the (e.g. Newton’s prism) response of the visual system to • Wavelength dependent specular the presence/absence of light at reflection - e.g. shiny copper penny various wavelengths. (actually most metals). • Flourescence - light at invisible wavelengths is absorbed and reemitted at visible wavelengths. Computer Vision - A Modern Approach Set: Color Radiometry for color • All definitions are now “per unit wavelength” • All units are now “per unit wavelength” • All terms are now “spectral” • Radiance becomes spectral radiance – watts per square meter per steradian per unit wavelength • Radiosity --- spectral radiosity Computer Vision - A Modern Approach Set: Color 1 Black body radiators • Construct a hot body with near-zero albedo (black body) – Easiest way to do this is to build a hollow metal object with a tiny hole in it, and look at the hole. • The spectral power distribution of light leaving this object is a simple function of temperature Ê 1 ˆ Ê 1 ˆ E(l) µ 5 Á ˜ Ë l ¯ Ë exp(hc klT )-1¯ • This leads to the notion of color temperature --- the temperature of a black body that would look the same Computer Vision - A Modern Approach Set: Color Measurements of relative spectral power of sunlight, made by J.
    [Show full text]
  • Radiometry and Photometry
    Radiometry and Photometry Wei-Chih Wang Department of Power Mechanical Engineering National TsingHua University W. Wang Materials Covered • Radiometry - Radiant Flux - Radiant Intensity - Irradiance - Radiance • Photometry - luminous Flux - luminous Intensity - Illuminance - luminance Conversion from radiometric and photometric W. Wang Radiometry Radiometry is the detection and measurement of light waves in the optical portion of the electromagnetic spectrum which is further divided into ultraviolet, visible, and infrared light. Example of a typical radiometer 3 W. Wang Photometry All light measurement is considered radiometry with photometry being a special subset of radiometry weighted for a typical human eye response. Example of a typical photometer 4 W. Wang Human Eyes Figure shows a schematic illustration of the human eye (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1994). The inside of the eyeball is clad by the retina, which is the light-sensitive part of the eye. The illustration also shows the fovea, a cone-rich central region of the retina which affords the high acuteness of central vision. Figure also shows the cell structure of the retina including the light-sensitive rod cells and cone cells. Also shown are the ganglion cells and nerve fibers that transmit the visual information to the brain. Rod cells are more abundant and more light sensitive than cone cells. Rods are 5 sensitive over the entire visible spectrum. W. Wang There are three types of cone cells, namely cone cells sensitive in the red, green, and blue spectral range. The approximate spectral sensitivity functions of the rods and three types or cones are shown in the figure above 6 W. Wang Eye sensitivity function The conversion between radiometric and photometric units is provided by the luminous efficiency function or eye sensitivity function, V(λ).
    [Show full text]
  • Eigenvector Radiosity
    Eigenvector Radiosity by Ian Ashdown, P. Eng., FIES B. App. Sc., The University of British Columbia, 1973 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Master of Science in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Computer Science) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ The University of British Columbia April 2001 © Ian Ashdown, 2001 Abstract Radiative flux transfer between Lambertian surfaces can be described in terms of linear resistive networks with voltage sources. This thesis examines how these “radiative transfer networks” provide a physical interpretation for the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of form factor matrices. This leads to a novel approach to photorealistic image synthesis and radiative flux transfer analysis called eigenvector radiosity. ii Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents ........................................................................................................... iii List of Figures ................................................................................................................ iv Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................... vii Dedication .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Motivation: Brdfs, Radiometry
    Motivation: BRDFs, Radiometry Sampling and Reconstruction of Visual Appearance § Basics of Illumination, Reflection § Formal radiometric analysis (not ad-hoc) CSE 274 [Fall 2018], Lecture 2 § Reflection Equation Ravi Ramamoorthi § Monte Carlo Rendering next week http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/~ravir § Appreciate formal analysis in a graduate course, even if not absolutely essential in practice Radiometry § Physical measurement of electromagnetic energy § Measure spatial (and angular) properties of light § Radiance, Irradiance § Reflection functions: Bi-Directional Reflectance Distribution Function or BRDF § Reflection Equation § Simple BRDF models 1 Radiance Radiance properties ? Radiance constant as propagates along ray ? Power per unit projected area perpendicular – Derived from conservation of flux to the ray per unit solid angle in the direction of the ray – Fundamental in Light Transport. dΦ == L dωω dA L d dA = dΦ 1 1112 2 2 2 2 ωω==22 ? Symbol: L(x,ω) (W/m sr) d12 dA r d 21 dA r dA dA dωω dA==12 d dA ? Flux given by 11 r 2 2 2 dΦ = L(x,ω) cos θ dω dA ∴LL12= 2 Radiance properties Irradiance, Radiosity ? Sensor response proportional to radiance ? Irradiance E is radiant power per unit area (constant of proportionality is throughput) ? Integrate incoming radiance over – Far away surface: See more, but subtends hemisphere smaller angle – Projected solid angle (cos θ dω) – Wall equally bright across viewing distances – Uniform illumination: Consequences Irradiance = π [CW 24,25] 2 – Radiance associated with rays in a ray tracer – Units: W/m
    [Show full text]
  • Radiosity Overview, by Stephen Spencer
    Radiiosiity Measurres off IIllllumiinattiion The Radiiosiitty Equattiion Forrm Facttorrs Radiiosiitty Allgorriitthms [[Angell,, Ch 13..4--13..5]] Allternatiive Notes • SIGGRAPH 1993 Education Slide Set – Radiosity Overview, by Stephen Spencer www.siggraph.org/education/materials/HyperGraph/radiosity/overview_1.htm 1 Liimiitatiions of Ray Traciing Locall vs. Glloball Illllumiinatiion • Local illumination: Phong model (OpenGL) – Light to surface to viewer – No shadows, interreflections – Fast enough for interactive graphics • Global illumination: Ray tracing ± Multiple specular reflections and transmissions ± Only one step of diffuse reflection • Global illumination: Radiosity ± All diffuse interreflections; shadows ± Advanced: combine with specular reflection 2 Image vs. Objject Space • Image space: Ray tracing ± Trace backwards from viewer ± View-dependent calculation ± Result: rasterized image (pixel by pixel) • Object space: Radiosity ± Assume only diffuse-diffuse interactions ± View-independent calculation ± Result: 3D model, color for each surface patch ± Can render with OpenGL Cllassiicall Radiiosiity Method • Divide surfaces into patches (elements) • Model light transfer between patches as system of linear equations • Important assumptions: ± Reflection and emission are diffuse · Recall: diffuse reflection is equal in all directions · So radiance is independent of direction ± No participating media (no fog) ± No transmission (only opaque surfaces) ± Radiosity is constant across each element ± Solve for R, G, B separately 3 Ballance
    [Show full text]
  • Radiometry, Radiosity and Photon Mapping
    Radiometry, Radiosity and Photon Mapping When images produced using the rendering techniques described in Chapter 3 just are not giving you the realism you require probably the first technique that comes to mind to improve things is ray tracing. There are other techniques for generating high quality synthetic images but they will not be discussed here. Ray tracing may be slow but it does give superb, almost photographic quality, images and better algorithms are being developed all the time, so that under certain conditions it is even possible to achieve real-time ray tracing. There are many texts that describe the theory of ray tracing in detail, Watt [9] in chapters 7 and 8 covers all the basics and in Glassner [3] the story is continued. Shirley [8] specializes in realistic ray tracing. A full description of a complete package is given by Lindley [5] and there are also quite a few good publicly available freeware and shareware ray tracing programs with code that can be retrieved from many FTP sites and open source repositories. Despite the popularity of the ray tracing algorithm some would argue that it does not implement a true model of the illumination process and cannot easily image things like the penumbra of soft shadows, particulate light scattering or the caustics due to light passing through refractive glass A lot of work has been done on an alternative approach know as radiosity, and this has been used to produce some of the most realistic images ever synthesized, however radiosity is not perfect, it cannot account for specular reflections for example.
    [Show full text]
  • 18. Radiosity
    Reading Recommended : Watt, Chapter 10. 18. Radiosity : Optional M. F. Cohen and J. R. Wallace. Radiosity and Realistic Image Synthesis. Academic Press. 1993. 2 1 Physically-based rendering Physically-based rendering, cont'd Basic optics Why physically-based? Physics of light and color Insights into problem of rendering Geometrical optics Illumination engineering Ray \metaphor" Quest for realism Re ection and transmission A \grand challenge" problem in graphics Radiative transfer The light holo deck...someday Measurement: radiometry and photometry Transp ort theory and integral equations 4 3 Radiometry Radiance So far we have considered b ouncing of light around ro om In graphics and illumination engineering, the measure of using ray tracing. energy along a ray is called radiance. What is the fundamental quantity that is b ouncing around? Rougly sp eaking, radiance is the power per unit area per unit direction passing through a p oint p in a particular direction u: This quanitity is a function of some variables. What are they? Lp; u For the moment, we are ignoring wavelength dep endence. One of the most imp ortant prop erties of radiance: radiance is constant along a ray travel ling through empty space. 6 5 The BRDF The grand scheme en an incoming direction and an outgoing direction, only Giv Photons/light Physics p ortion of the light is re ected dep ending on the surface a Transport theory material prop erties. Mathematics Lp; u Lp; u out Integral equations in Radiometry u out Computer Science u in Algorithms p Numerics dA Surface balance equation This re ection function is called the BRDF, or Bi-directional Re ectance Distribution Function.
    [Show full text]
  • Radiation: Overview
    AME 60634 Int. Heat Trans. Radiation: Overview • Radiation - Emission – thermal radiation is the emission of electromagnetic waves when matter is at an absolute temperature greater than 0 K – emission is due to the oscillations and transitions of the many electrons that comprise the matter • the oscillations and transitions are sustained by the thermal energy of the matter – emission corresponds to heat transfer from the matter and hence to a reduction in the thermal energy stored in the matter • Radiation - Absorption – radiation may also be absorbed by matter – absorption results in heat transfer to the matter and hence to an increase in the thermal energy stored in the matter D. B. Go AME 60634 Int. Heat Trans. Radiation: Overview • Emission – emission from a gas or semi- transparent solid or liquid is a volumetric phenomenon – emission from an opaque solid or liquid is a surface phenomenon • emission originates from atoms & molecules within 1 µm of the surface • Dual Nature – in some cases, the physical manifestations of radiation may be explained by viewing it as particles (A.K.A. photons or quanta); in other cases, radiation behaves as an electromagnetic wave – radiation is characterized by a wavelength λ and frequency ν which are related through the speed at which radiation propagates in the medium of interest (solid, liquid, gas, vacuum) c in a vacuum λ = c = c = 2.998 ×108 m/s ν o D. B. Go € € AME 60634 Int. Heat Trans. Radiation: Spectral Considerations • Electromagnetic Spectrum – the range of all possible radiation frequencies – thermal radiation is confined to the infrared, visible, and ultraviolet regions of the spectrum 0.1< λ <100 µm € • Spectral Distribution – radiation emitted by an opaque surface varies with wavelength – spectral distribution describes the radiation over all wavelengths – monochromatic/spectral components are associated with particular wavelengths D.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Radiosity Why Radiosity?
    Radiosity Why Radiosity? References: Cohen and Wallace, Radiosity and Realistic Image Synthesis Sillion and Puech, Radiosity and Global Illumination eye Thanks to Leonard McMillan A powerful demonstration introduced by Goral et al. of the differences between radiosity and for the slides traditional ray tracing is provided by a sculpture by John Ferren. The sculpture consists of a series of vertical boards painted white on the faces visible to the viewer. The back faces of the boards are Thanks to François Sillion for painted bright colors. The sculpture is illuminated by light entering a window behind the sculpture, images so light reaching the viewer first reflects off the colored surfaces, then off the white surfaces before entering the eye. As a result, the colors from the back boards “bleed” onto the white surfaces. An early application of radiative heat transfer in stables. Lecture 20 Slide 1 6.837 Fall ‘01 Lecture 20 Slide 2 6.837 Fall ‘01 Radiosity vs. Ray Tracing Ray Tracing vs. Radiosity Ray tracing is an image-space algorithm, while radiosity is computed in object-space. Original sculpture lit Ray traced image. A standard Image rendered with radiosity. by daylight from the rear. Ray tracer cannot simulate the note color bleeding effects. interreflection of light between Because the solution is limited by the view, ray tracing is often said to provide a view- diffuse Surfaces. dependent solution, although this is somewhat misleading in that it implies that the radiance itself is dependent on the view, which is not the case. The term view-independent refers only to the use of the view to limit the set if locations and directions for which the radiance is computed.
    [Show full text]
  • Radiometry.Pdf
    Radiometry • Questions: • how “bright” will surfaces be? • what is “brightness”? • measuring light • interactions between light and surfaces • Core idea - think about light arriving at a surface • around any point is a hemisphere of directions • Simplest problems can be dealt with by reasoning about this hemisphere Lambert’s wall More complex wall More complex wall Solid Angle • By analogy with angle (in radians) • The solid angle subtended by a patch area dA is given by dAcosϑ dω = r2 • Another€ useful expression: dω = sinϑ (dϑ )(dφ) € Radiance • Measure the “amount of light” at a point, in a direction • Property is: Radiant power per unit foreshortened area per unit solid angle • Units: watts per square meter per steradian (wm-2sr-1) • Usually written as: • Crucial property: In a vacuum, radiance leaving p in the direction of q L(x,ϑ,ϕ) is the same as radiance arriving at q from p – hence the units € Radiance is constant along straight lines • Power 1->2, leaving 1: dA2 cosϑ 2 L(x1,ϑ,ϕ)(dA1 cosϑ1) r2 • Power 1->2, arriving at 2: € dA1 cosϑ1 L(x 2,ϑ,ϕ)(dA2 cosϑ 2 ) r2 € Irradiance • How much light is arriving at a surface? • Sensible unit is Irradiance L(x,ϑ,ϕ)cosϑdω • Incident power per unit area not foreshortened • This is a function of incoming angle. A surface experiencing radiance L(x,θ,φ) coming in from • € dω experiences irradiance • Crucial property: ∫ L(x,ϑ,ϕ)cosϑ sinϑdϑdϕ Total power arriving at the Ω surface is given by adding irradiance over all incoming angles --- this is why it’s a € natural unit Surfaces and the BRDF • Many effects when light strikes a surface -- could be: • absorbed; transmitted.
    [Show full text]