Three Rod-examples #456
Three Rod-examples #456
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Andrew-Tao Thank you! Could you add some documentation on each case, such as link to the reference paper and where you got the theoretical data?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good work. I only went through one of the cases in detail, but I think the same comments apply to the other cases.
- Look into python naming convention (e.g. PEP 8). For example, look at when to use
CapWordsorlower_case_with_underscores. Then go through these files and check if everything adheres to these conventions - Don't repeat yourself. If a function already exists and can be reused without much modification, look for ways to call them instead of copying them in every case.
- If possible, it may be cleaner to load large hard-coded data arrays from a separate data file.
- Remove comments unless they are related to simulation parameters (e.g. total steps) or final outputs
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| # Add call backs | ||
| class AxialStretchingCallBack(ea.CallBackBaseClass): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please change the class name to the case name accordingly
| ea.OneEndFixedBC, constrained_position_idx=(0,), constrained_director_idx=(0,) | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| Conservative_Load = np.array([0.0, -end_force_x, 0.0]) |
| PLOT_FIGURE = True | ||
| SAVE_FIGURE = False | ||
| SAVE_RESULTS = False |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These seem to be unused? Remove them if that is the case
| # timestepper = PEFRL() | ||
|
|
||
| total_steps = int(final_time / dt) | ||
| print(stretch_sim) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think printing this out is useful.
| x_tip_paper = [ | ||
| 0.9912, | ||
| 0.9309, | ||
| 0.8455, | ||
| 0.7613, | ||
| 0.6874, | ||
| 0.6249, | ||
| 0.5724, | ||
| 0.5281, | ||
| 0.4906, | ||
| 0.4584, | ||
| 0.4306, | ||
| 0.4064, | ||
| 0.3851, | ||
| ] | ||
| y_tip_paper = [ | ||
| 0.1241, | ||
| 0.3411, | ||
| 0.4976, | ||
| 0.6031, | ||
| 0.6745, | ||
| 0.7243, | ||
| 0.7603, | ||
| 0.7871, | ||
| 0.8077, | ||
| 0.8239, | ||
| 0.8370, | ||
| 0.8478, | ||
| 0.8568, | ||
| ] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Might be better to load this from a data file
| return x_tip, y_tip, z_tip | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def adjust_square_cross_section( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This function seems to have a lot in common with elastica/rod/factory_function. Considering you are only modifying a few properties, is it possible to just do a function like
def adjust_square_cross_section(rod: RodType):
'''Take the rod as argument and modify its properties in-place'''There was a problem hiding this comment.
I had tried lots of ways to simplify this process, but I found it hardly possible. Because I need to change all three second moment of mass (I0_1,I0_2,I0_3) according to the shape of the cross-section, and all other key parameters including bend_matrix and shear_matrix, needed to be recalculated based on the new second moment of mass. So it's basically the same as the factory_function. However, I do can take the rod as an argument.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's fine. A few things you can do:
- Like you said, take the rod as an argument, and the function need not return anything since rod is passed in as reference
- Many of the initial parts of this function is already done in
factory_function, which is called when you first initialize the rods. Since you are only modifying moi, bend and shear matrices, there is no need for things like position/director initializations and all those assertions/validity checks as they are readily done infactory_function. Only keep the most essential parts in this function. - You might consider merging the two cantilever cases into one directory. The post-processing files of these two are almost identical as far as i can tell.
- I see you hard-coded
side_lengthandpoisson_ratiointo this function. Consider passing them in as arguments so the function is generic and not tied to this particular case
| ) | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def plot_video_with_surface( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This function is repeated in all of these examples. Consider only have one of these?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Some of these functionalities are used repeatedly. Try condensing them based on 'DRY' (don't repeat yourself)
| n_elem, base_length, base_radius, youngs_modulus, -15, True, False | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| x_tip_paper = [ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same as the other file. Maybe load data from a file, and do not run the same simulation more than once.
| print(relative_tip_position) | ||
| return relative_tip_position | ||
|
|
||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is good practice to structure a file like
| import ... | |
| def run_simulation(...): | |
| """" function definition """ | |
| if __name__ == "__main__": | |
| # actual code to run in this script |
3D_Tumbling_Unconstrained_Rod.mp4
Conservative-Case.mp4
3D_muscular_snake.mp4
3D_muscular_snake2.mp4