REPORT OF CFD LAB 3
Number of Students
Total 41
Submitted 41
Not Submitted 0
0 1 0
3
14
23
0 5 10 15 20 25
70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-100
GRADE DISTRIBUTION
98.12 98.09 97.33 98.19 96.72 94.73
4.1 2.53 4.69 3.72 6.7 4.30
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015
COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS YEARS
Mean Standard Deviation
Average = 94.73
Std Dev = 4.3
40 41 41
1 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
CFD Lab 1 CFD Lab 2 CFD Lab 3 CFD Lab 4
SUBMISSION HISTORY (FALL 2015)
Submitted Not Submitted
91.2 95.7 94.7
7.1 4.2 4.3
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
CFD Lab 1 CFD Lab 2 CFD Lab 3 CFD Lab 4
COMPARISON OF CFD LAB (FALL 2015)
Mean Standard Deviation
1) Common Mistakes
• CFD Process
o Some students didn’t report the dimensions of the geometry.
o Some students didn’t report the boundary conditions.
• Data Analysis and Discussion
o Many students missed figures of axial velocity contour.
o Many students reported friction forces on bottom wall instead of top wall.
2) Feedback
• Positive
o Students could see the details of the flow fields inside the diffuser.
o Students could study the effect of turbulence modelling.
o Students could study the separation phenomena.
• Negative o None.
3) Student Suggestions
• Some students required more explanation on modified U and TKE variables.
• Some students suggested that setting up lines inside the Fluent could be automated.
• Few students suggested that discussion should be made for all the figures students put inside the report.
• Few students suggested that manual should provide the final figures to be compared.
• Few students suggested that manual should provide more information for the equation part.
