• Aucun résultat trouvé

Exam 3 Report 12/13/2017

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Partager "Exam 3 Report 12/13/2017"

Copied!
3
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

1

Exam 3 Report 12/13/2017

1. Summary

Total number of students 18

Attended 18

Missed 0

Number of problems 6

Average grade 81.85

Standard deviation of grades 12.17

2. Grade distribution

3. Comparison with past years

0 0 0

1

2

4

7

4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100

Number of Students

Grade

Total Grade Distribution

81.85 82.82 81.49 83.98 81.24 80.06 85.81 80.29

12.17 9.58 11.83 12.69 13.49 11.62 10.93 14.06

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2010 2009

Grade

Year

Comparison with Previous Years

Average Standard Deviation Average Over 2009-2017

(2)

2 4. Individual problem breakdown

5. Grade distribution per problem

8.53 8.22 8.64

7.19

8.36 8.17

1.49 1.63

1.15

1.96 1.93

1.54 0.00

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

1 2 3 4 5 6

Grade

Problem

Individual scores per problem

Average

Standard Deviation

0 0 0

1

4

2

1

10

0 0

2

1 1

2

5

7

0 0 0 0

3

5

2

8

0 0

4

3

2

3

1

5

0

1 1

0

2 2

3

9

0 0

1

0

4 4 4

5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10

Number of Students

Grade

Grade distribution per problem

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6

(3)

3 6. Comments

OVERALL

• All students followed the rules for the formula sheet.

PROBLEM 1

• Some students made mistakes when calculating derivate of the stream function

• Some students made mistakes when evaluating velocity at the stagnation point PROBLEM 2

• Many students used incorrectly used the same velocity for ball and rod power calculation

• Many students could not calculated the drag with the correct characteristic area PROBLEM 3

• Many students incorrectly used radial length of the rotor instead of chord length for the calculation of the boundary layer thickness

PROBLEM 4

• Many students try to use the drag coefficient to calculate the drag instead of using the control volume method

• Some students used incorrect bound for the integral (i.e. ∫02𝑏𝑏 instead of ∫−𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 )

PROBLEM 5

• Some students did not setup the system of equation required to solve the parallel pipe system correctly

PROBLEM 6

• Many students could not apply the given function into the simplified governing equation to solve for k constant

Références

Documents relatifs

Assume that the covariance function ρ of a stationary Gaussian process X tends to 0 at infinity; we will prove that the tail of the distribution of the associated chord-length L

[r]

That is, the reaction of the R&D effort in the US to an increase in EU’s R&D productivity is found to be submissive – using Scherer’s (1991) terminology. This robust

On a surface with a Finsler metric, we investigate the asymptotic growth of the number of closed geodesics of length less than L which minimize length among all geodesic multicurves

The analysis showed similarities and differences between the countries as well as between the textbook series concerning the opportunities for learning length

Ensuite, en ajoutant la dernière partie, qui est celle du quiz, avec une fonctionnalité de partage des scores sur les réseaux sociaux (Facebook, Twitter et

Then, the slab is measured with another developed program which calculates the abscissa of the detection landmark of the arrival of the slab, tests the value of the gray level of

First, we have to make a rigorous selection of attributes such as the margin of the field of vision, the distance between the camera and the slab, the