Removing "constraint" from the names of most FEM workbench features #10217
Replies: 8 comments 6 replies
-
@luzpaz Btw. are we supposed to create the "Problem" type issues for feature requests as well now? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I believe that the theses presented are correct and it's worth using the knowledge and experience of FEA-eng who is a professional in this field .... |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@kaktusus Thank you. I will add the links shortly. Meanwhile, here's a link to the forum discussion: https://forum.freecad.org/viewtopic.php?t=80298 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Note that I not only removed "constraint" from most of them (apart from those that are actually constraints) but also removed "FEM" (IMO unnecessary) and rephrased them in general so that they make more sense for both professionals and amateurs. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Basically, I agree to remove excessive use of “constraint” and mostly follow a nomenclature which is used by solvers. This naming has grown with FreeCAD since times when it had only few “constraints”. I do not orientate smoothly in the FreeCAD code, but maybe this naming follows how the code is structured. If we rename the gui tools (objects), should we rename the objects inside the code as well and check if it makes sense on the code level? To make the code and gui consistent, but e.g. breaking old macros? It would be good if @berndhahnebach (or somebody who worked with FreeCAD FEM code structure) can comment on this. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@mlampert |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Is there an existing issue for this?
Full version info
Subproject(s) affected?
FEM
Problem description
I'd like to suggest a change in nomenclature. Currently, most tools in the FEM workbench are named "Constraint ...". For example, we have "Constraint force", "Constraint displacement", "Constraint temperature" and many more. What's wrong with that? It's confusing for people with some experience in FEA. For us, the "constraint" name is reserved for just a small subset of analysis features. That's also the case in CalculiX (and in Abaqus on which CalculiX is based). We have "Tie constraint" (available in FreeCAD and named "Constraint tie") and a few other constraints unsupported in the FEM workbench but that's it. If we were to follow the theory behind FEM, there are single-point constraints (SPCs) applied to a single degree of freedom (boundary conditions) and multi-point constraints (MPCs) applied to multiple degrees of freedom (equations). But it's really confusing when we call everything "constraint". For example, loads shouldn't be called this way. Even worse when we have something like "Constraint sectionprint", This one is ridiculous because it has literally nothing to do with constraints, it just prints the results from a selected face of the model. No way it could affect DOFs like a constraint would.
Since FEA is my job, I can suggest less confusing names for all the existing "constraints" if you agree with me that we should get rid of this unnecessary prefix.
Marking @kaktusus because we discussed the plans to improve the nomenclature and translations in the FEM workbench.
Anything else?
No response
Code of Conduct
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions