• Aucun résultat trouvé

2015 Exam 1 – Report

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Partager "2015 Exam 1 – Report"

Copied!
4
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

2015 Exam 1 – Report

General

Total number of students 42

Attended 41

Missed 1

Number of problems 3

Average grade 84.07

Standard deviation of grades 10.11

Individual problem breakdown

Problem 1 2 3

Average grade 9.17 6.90 9.15 Standard deviation of grades 1.18 1.89 0.80

Grade distribution

(2)

Grade distribution per problem

Comparison with past years

(3)

Comments

OVERALL

• All students followed the rules for the formula sheet.

PROBLEM 1

• Some students did not assume the pressure at point 2 as gauge pressure. Instead, they calculated it by using F=PA equation, which brought huge value for pressure at point 2.

Therefore, the pressure at point 2 wasn't removed in the energy equation either.

• Few students forgot to include friction head loss.

• Few students did not find the velocity at point 2 by using momentum balance. Instead, they used the energy equation.

• Few students did not plug the velocity at point 2 into energy equation.

• Few students did not set the control volume from the outlet to the plate.

• Few students did not assume the height for point 1 as 'h'. Instead, they assumed either zero or radius of outlet.

• There were some minor mistakes, such as putting wrong sign, having no root when calculating velocity at point 2, or getting the area wrong.

PROBLEM 2

• x-momentum equation (part a):

o Some students kept the gravity term even if there is no gravity action in the x direction.

o Few students assumed the pressure gradient equal to zero.

o Some students made calculation mistakes in integrating the equation and applying the boundary conditions.

• Maximum velocity location (part b):

o Some students did not use 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕

𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕= 0 to locate the ymax

o Some students assumed 𝑦𝑦𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 =ℎ because the upper plate is moving while the lower one is fixed. This assumption is not correct since there is a pressure gradient acting and the velocity profile is not linear.

• Pressure difference (part c):

o Some students used only the manometer fluid density instead of the difference between the density of flowing fluid and manometer fluid in the manometer equation.

o Some student used 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕

𝜕𝜕𝑚𝑚 = ∆𝜕𝜕 instead of 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕

𝜕𝜕𝑚𝑚 =∆𝜕𝜕∆𝑙𝑙

o Many students used ∆𝜕𝜕= 𝑝𝑝1− 𝑝𝑝2 instead of ∆𝜕𝜕 =𝑝𝑝2− 𝑝𝑝1. PROBLEM 3

• Most of the students did not realize that since there is only one Pi, the relationship isπ1=constant.

• Some students made a mistake when finding the exponents.

• Some students tried to find 2 Pi’s instead of 1.

(4)

Quiz attendance

• [0 missed] 31 students attended 7/7 of quizzes and their average grade is 7.95.

• [1 missed] 8 students attended 6/7 of quizzes and their average grade is 7.18.

• [2 missed] 1 student attended 5/7 of quizzes and his average grade is 7.79.

• [3 missed] 1 student attended 4/7 of quizzes and his average grade is 5.75.

Références

Documents relatifs

Quelles adaptions faudrait-il apporter au travail pr´ ec´ edent pour avoir le r´ esultat de convergence ci-dessus pour tout r´ eel

Relation between Markoff numbers and extremal numbers : simultaneous approximation of x and x 2 by rational numbers with the same denominator.

[r]

If the goal is to oxidize your analyte to a single form, no material is available that can be used as a column. You must have a method to remove any excess oxidizing reagents

We investigate existence and uniqueness of solutions to the filtration equation with an inhomogeneous density in R N (N 3), approaching at infinity a given continuous datum

It is worth noting that in the classical low Mach number assumption the zero-order pressure P 0 is not constant in time.. This difference between the classical low Mach

Thus we may conclude that each of the white instability regions in Figures 1–3 corresponds to a distinct order of resonance between the µ = 0 slow flow motion and the frequency of

D´ eterminer les vecteurs propres de A et v´ erifer que les vecteurs propres associ´ es aux valeurs propres distinctes sont