• Aucun résultat trouvé

Exam 1 Report 10/14/2019

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Partager "Exam 1 Report 10/14/2019"

Copied!
3
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

1

Exam 1 Report 10/14/2019

1. Summary

Total number of students 14

Attended 13

Missed 1

Number of problems 3

Average grade 82.31

Standard deviation of grades 14.98

2. Grade distribution

3. Comparison with past years

0

1

0 0 0

4 4 4

0 1 2 3 4 5

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

Number of Students

Grade

Total Grade Distribution

82.31 81.25 86.53 87.97 84.11 86.80

75.84 82.29

90.11

14.98 10.34 11.93 7.91 10.12 12.12 16.38

8.78 9.73

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00

2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2010

Grade

Year

Comparison with Previous Years

Average Standard Deviation Average Over 2010-2019

(2)

2 4. Individual problem breakdown

5. Grade distribution per problem

8.92

7.92 7.85

1.44 1.55

2.60

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

Grade

Problem

Individual scores per problem

Average

Standard Deviation

0 0 0 0

4

1

0

8

0

1

0 0

3 3

4

2

0 0 0

1 1 1

6

3

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

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

(3)

3 6. Comments

PROBLEM 1

 Some of students used Momentum equation incorrectly.

 One student confused the Gage pressure with Hydrostatic pressure in Bernoulli's Equation.

 Some of students could not use Momentum equation to get Velocity.

PROBLEM 2

 Several students Missed pressure Force for calculating Moment.

 Some of students did not use correct moment arm.

 One student multiplied density to get Moment 𝑀⃗⃗ =𝝆(𝑟 × 𝐹 )

 Some of students couldn’t use the continuity equation and calculate wrong Velocity.

 Some of students indicated wrong sign at pressure term in Momentum equation.

PROBLEM 3

 One student missed the pressure gradient, and another student used gravity term rather than Pressure term in N-S Equation.

 One student couldn’t neglect the convection(Non-linear) term which should be canceled out with the fully developed assumption.

 One student used wrong boundary condition.

 Several students couldn’t integrate 𝑢(𝑦) correctly to get flow rate 𝑄̇

 Some of student couldn’t use the shear stress formula 𝜏𝑤= 𝜇𝑑𝑢

𝑑𝑦

Références

Documents relatifs

Otto Beisheim Graduate School of Management -WHU Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg (University of Bamberg) Rheinmain University of Applied Sciences. Ruhr

http://personal.lse.ac.uk/pissarid/papers/WB_ECMA.pdf Reproduce and explain the results reported in Table 4 p.1365 Topic 3. Job matching

Dr Cadesky is a first-year resident in family medi- cine and serves as the resident advisor for the family medicine Student Interest Group at McGill University in Montreal, Que. He

VOL 47: APRIL • AVRIL 2001 ❖ Canadian Family Physician • Le Médecin de famille canadien 701. Letters ❖ Correspondance Letters

descriptive feedback, and the wording of the question has changed over time. However, in all the feedback surveys questions used the Likert scale of 1 to 5, and

On an exceptional and duly justified basis, changes may be made to the placement programme while it is underway, as long as all three parties (the student trainee,

This paper presents a description of ongoing work of an Alberta school district that is working to support and enhance effective inclusive practices that reach and teach

when- while –as -Use of linking words -Vocabulary related to feeling