REPORT OF CFD LAB 4
Number of Students
Total 41
Submitted 41
Not Submitted 0
0 3
0 3 5
30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-100
GRADE DISTRIBUTION
98.76 96.84 96.75 99.8 98.9 95.44
2.59 3.19 4.15 0.84 5 5.65
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015
COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS YEARS
Mean Standard Deviation
Average = 95.44
Std Dev = 5.65
40 41 41 41
1 0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50
CFD Lab 1 CFD Lab 2 CFD Lab 3 CFD Lab 4
SUBMISSION HISTORY (FALL 2015)
Submitted Not Submitted
91.2 95.74 94.73 95.44
7.1 4.17 4.33 5.65
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
Students struggled with figuring the drag coefficient for the individual components from the provided schematic
Students did not include the discussion of boundary conditions in the CFD process
Students did not include all of the required figures as per the exercise guidelines
2)
Feedback
a. Positive Students liked the introduction to transient problems
All students understood the CFD process and were successful running the simulations.
Many students were satisfied with the lab and felt they benefitted from the lab.
b. Negative
Students did not like that there was no introduction to 3D problems in the lab sessions
Students felt the movie generation steps were a bit tedious
3)
Student Suggestions
Conduct studies where the slant angle is varied
Include a background section on prominent physics of the lab, this lab would include section about separation and vorticity formation
Include more details in the difficult steps
Consider doing a 3D ahmed car simulation to have introduction to 3D simulations
