Beam - fixed inconsistencies of draw method #24073

Davide-sd · 2022-09-20T13:37:05Z

References to other Issues or PRs

Brief description of what is fixed or changed

This PR is fixing the inconsistencies mentioned on Issue #24043 , thus providing a schematic view which is consistent with the sign convention used by the Beam class. Not only this improves the visualization. It also allows the users to better make sense of the symbolic results. In particular:

the draw method is no longer looking at the assumptions on symbolic loads and moments, which are not used by the Beam class either in its computations.
positive loads (numeric or symbolic) are pointing downward.
negative loads (numeric or symbolic) are pointing upward.
positive moments (numeric or symbolic) are directed counterclockwise.
negative moments (numeric or symbolic) are directed clockwise.
the draw method is now able to visualize symbolic distributed loads without raising errors.
the beam won't be hidden by the distributed loads.

Other comments

Release Notes

physics.continuum_mechanics
- Improved the schematic view produced by the Beam.draw method.

sympy-bot · 2022-09-20T13:37:14Z

✅

Hi, I am the SymPy bot. I'm here to help you write a release notes entry. Please read the guide on how to write release notes.

Your release notes are in good order.

Here is what the release notes will look like:

physics.continuum_mechanics
- Improved the schematic view produced by the Beam.draw method. (#24073 by @Davide-sd and @smichr)

This will be added to https://github.com/sympy/sympy/wiki/Release-Notes-for-1.13.

Click here to see the pull request description that was parsed.

<!-- Your title above should be a short description of what
was changed. Do not include the issue number in the title. -->

#### References to other Issues or PRs
<!-- If this pull request fixes an issue, write "Fixes #NNNN" in that exact
format, e.g. "Fixes #1234" (see
https://tinyurl.com/auto-closing for more information). Also, please
write a comment on that issue linking back to this pull request once it is
open. -->

Fixes #24043 


#### Brief description of what is fixed or changed

This PR is fixing the inconsistencies mentioned on Issue #24043 , thus providing a schematic view which is consistent with the sign convention used by the `Beam` class. Not only this improves the visualization. It also allows the users to better make sense of the symbolic results. In particular:

* the `draw` method is no longer looking at the assumptions on symbolic loads and moments, which are not used by the `Beam` class either in its computations.
* positive loads (numeric or symbolic) are pointing downward.
* negative loads (numeric or symbolic) are pointing upward.
* positive moments (numeric or symbolic) are directed counterclockwise.
* negative moments (numeric or symbolic) are directed clockwise.
* the `draw` method is now able to visualize symbolic distributed loads without raising errors.
* the beam won't be hidden by the distributed loads.


#### Other comments


#### Release Notes

<!-- Write the release notes for this release below between the BEGIN and END
statements. The basic format is a bulleted list with the name of the subpackage
and the release note for this PR. For example:

* solvers
  * Added a new solver for logarithmic equations.

* functions
  * Fixed a bug with log of integers.

or if no release note(s) should be included use:

NO ENTRY

See https://github.com/sympy/sympy/wiki/Writing-Release-Notes for more
information on how to write release notes. The bot will check your release
notes automatically to see if they are formatted correctly. -->

<!-- BEGIN RELEASE NOTES -->

* physics.continuum_mechanics
  * Improved the schematic view produced by the `Beam.draw` method.

<!-- END RELEASE NOTES -->

Update

The release notes on the wiki have been updated.

moorepants · 2022-09-23T07:25:52Z

@AdvaitPote, given that you are also working on draw methods for the trusses, it would be in your best interest to review this PR and discuss.

AdvaitPote · 2022-10-03T11:30:06Z

Very Good work @Davide-sd on this PR. The points that you raised in the corresponding issue are valid and the draw method could definitely use these improvements. I just have one issue with this which shouldn't take much time to resolve.

from sympy import *
from sympy.plotting import PlotGrid
from sympy.physics.continuum_mechanics import Beam
init_printing()

E, I, P = symbols('E, I, P')
R1, R2 = symbols('R1, R2')
M1, M2 = symbols('M1, M2')
L = symbols("L", positive=True)

b1 = Beam(L, E, I)
b1.apply_load(-R1, 0, -1)
b1.apply_load(R2, L, -1)
b1.apply_load(M1, L/4, -2)
b1.apply_load(-M2, 3*L/4, -2)
p1 = b1.draw()

b2 = Beam(L, E, I)
b2.apply_load(-2*R1, 0, -1)
b2.apply_load(R2, L, -1)
b2.apply_load(M1, L/4, -2)
b2.apply_load(-2*M2, 3*L/4, -2)
p2 = b2.draw()

PlotGrid(1, 2, p1, p2)

In the first case, what you have suggested having symbols with a negative sign to have directions the same as negative loads works. The Force R1 is in the upward direction and the Moment M2 is in the clockwise direction.
However, just adding a constant just reverts the method back to its original and now both forces and both moments are in the same direction despite there being a negative sign attached to the loads.

sympy/physics/continuum_mechanics/beam.py

oscarbenjamin · 2022-11-24T20:05:17Z

This has merge conflicts now. I'll mark this as draft. Feel free to mark it as ready for review later.

sympy/physics/continuum_mechanics/beam.py

I wish that were not flagged: it is convenient way to avoid having to type string quotation marks.

github-actions · 2023-09-12T19:35:20Z

Benchmark results from GitHub Actions

Lower numbers are good, higher numbers are bad. A ratio less than 1
means a speed up and greater than 1 means a slowdown. Green lines
beginning with + are slowdowns (the PR is slower then master or
master is slower than the previous release). Red lines beginning
with - are speedups.

Significantly changed benchmark results (PR vs master)

Significantly changed benchmark results (master vs previous release)

| Change   | Before [8059df73] <sympy-1.12^0>   | After [cd89bf0b]    |   Ratio | Benchmark (Parameter)                                                |
|----------|------------------------------------|---------------------|---------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| -        | 87.3±2ms                           | 57.1±0.1ms          |    0.65 | integrate.TimeIntegrationRisch02.time_doit(10)                       |
| -        | 85.3±1ms                           | 56.7±0.9ms          |    0.67 | integrate.TimeIntegrationRisch02.time_doit_risch(10)                 |
| +        | 22.2±0.07μs                        | 38.9±0.2μs          |    1.76 | integrate.TimeIntegrationRisch03.time_doit(1)                        |
| -        | 6.98±0.02ms                        | 3.77±0.02ms         |    0.54 | logic.LogicSuite.time_load_file                                      |
| -        | 2.11±0ms                           | 654±1μs             |    0.31 | polys.TimePREM_LinearDenseQuadraticGCD.time_op(3, 'sparse')          |
| -        | 10.4±0.04ms                        | 1.96±0ms            |    0.19 | polys.TimePREM_LinearDenseQuadraticGCD.time_op(5, 'sparse')          |
| -        | 369±1μs                            | 82.0±0.2μs          |    0.22 | polys.TimePREM_QuadraticNonMonicGCD.time_op(1, 'sparse')             |
| -        | 4.85±0.02ms                        | 363±1μs             |    0.07 | polys.TimePREM_QuadraticNonMonicGCD.time_op(3, 'sparse')             |
| -        | 10.7±0.04ms                        | 1.09±0ms            |    0.1  | polys.TimePREM_QuadraticNonMonicGCD.time_op(5, 'sparse')             |
| -        | 6.26±0.01ms                        | 3.95±0ms            |    0.63 | polys.TimeSUBRESULTANTS_LinearDenseQuadraticGCD.time_op(2, 'sparse') |
| -        | 27.3±0.07ms                        | 12.0±0.03ms         |    0.44 | polys.TimeSUBRESULTANTS_LinearDenseQuadraticGCD.time_op(3, 'sparse') |
| -        | 6.91±0.01ms                        | 1.18±0ms            |    0.17 | polys.TimeSUBRESULTANTS_QuadraticNonMonicGCD.time_op(1, 'sparse')    |
| -        | 16.3±0.06ms                        | 9.23±0.02ms         |    0.57 | polys.TimeSUBRESULTANTS_QuadraticNonMonicGCD.time_op(2, 'sparse')    |
| -        | 212±0.4ms                          | 71.0±0.2ms          |    0.34 | polys.TimeSUBRESULTANTS_QuadraticNonMonicGCD.time_op(3, 'sparse')    |
| -        | 6.37±0.01ms                        | 539±0.6μs           |    0.08 | polys.TimeSUBRESULTANTS_SparseGCDHighDegree.time_op(3, 'sparse')     |
| -        | 27.8±0.05ms                        | 857±2μs             |    0.03 | polys.TimeSUBRESULTANTS_SparseGCDHighDegree.time_op(5, 'sparse')     |
| -        | 611±1μs                            | 201±0.9μs           |    0.33 | polys.TimeSUBRESULTANTS_SparseNonMonicQuadratic.time_op(1, 'sparse') |
| -        | 6.49±0.02ms                        | 203±1μs             |    0.03 | polys.TimeSUBRESULTANTS_SparseNonMonicQuadratic.time_op(3, 'sparse') |
| -        | 17.0±0.04ms                        | 205±0.4μs           |    0.01 | polys.TimeSUBRESULTANTS_SparseNonMonicQuadratic.time_op(5, 'sparse') |
| -        | 164±0.2μs                          | 89.6±0.5μs          |    0.55 | solve.TimeMatrixOperations.time_rref(3, 0)                           |
| -        | 315±0.4μs                          | 108±0.8μs           |    0.34 | solve.TimeMatrixOperations.time_rref(4, 0)                           |
| -        | 31.7±0.07ms                        | 13.5±0.01ms         |    0.43 | solve.TimeSolveLinSys189x49.time_solve_lin_sys                       |

Full benchmark results can be found as artifacts in GitHub Actions
(click on checks at the top of the PR).

smichr · 2023-09-12T22:09:11Z

@AdvaitPote @moorepants , please give this another look.

smichr · 2023-09-15T18:17:42Z

Further modifications can be made in a new PR.

fixed draw method

cdb14ba

moorepants reviewed Oct 3, 2022

View reviewed changes

sympy/physics/continuum_mechanics/beam.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

oscargus added the physics.continuum_mechanics label Oct 5, 2022

github-actions bot added the Merge conflict label Nov 15, 2022

oscarbenjamin marked this pull request as draft November 24, 2022 20:05

Merge branch 'master' into issue_24043

d73777e

smichr reviewed Sep 12, 2023

View reviewed changes

sympy/physics/continuum_mechanics/beam.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

remove dict(...) use

66b9d7b

I wish that were not flagged: it is convenient way to avoid having to type string quotation marks.

smichr marked this pull request as ready for review September 12, 2023 21:52

smichr removed the Merge conflict label Sep 12, 2023

smichr added 2 commits September 12, 2023 17:06

use is_negative for _is_load_negative

d6f77c6

Update beam.py

dd7c72c

smichr merged commit 2f5542c into sympy:master Sep 15, 2023

oscarbenjamin mentioned this pull request Mar 10, 2025

beam.draw() raise error when trying to draw with an undefined (symbol) distributed loads (order >= 0) #24434

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Beam - fixed inconsistencies of draw method #24073

Beam - fixed inconsistencies of draw method #24073

Uh oh!

Davide-sd commented Sep 20, 2022

Uh oh!

sympy-bot commented Sep 20, 2022 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

moorepants commented Sep 23, 2022

Uh oh!

AdvaitPote commented Oct 3, 2022

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

oscarbenjamin commented Nov 24, 2022

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Sep 12, 2023 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

smichr commented Sep 12, 2023

Uh oh!

smichr commented Sep 15, 2023

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Beam - fixed inconsistencies of draw method #24073

Beam - fixed inconsistencies of draw method #24073

Uh oh!

Conversation

Davide-sd commented Sep 20, 2022

References to other Issues or PRs

Brief description of what is fixed or changed

Other comments

Release Notes

Uh oh!

sympy-bot commented Sep 20, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

moorepants commented Sep 23, 2022

Uh oh!

AdvaitPote commented Oct 3, 2022

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

oscarbenjamin commented Nov 24, 2022

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Sep 12, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

smichr commented Sep 12, 2023

Uh oh!

smichr commented Sep 15, 2023

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

sympy-bot commented Sep 20, 2022 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Sep 12, 2023 •

edited

Loading