• Aucun résultat trouvé

Exam 2 Report 11/20/2019

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Partager "Exam 2 Report 11/20/2019"

Copied!
3
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

1

Exam 2 Report 11/20/2019

1. Summary

Total number of students 12

Attended 12

Missed 0

Number of problems 3

Average grade 80.56

Standard deviation of grades 10.62

2. Grade distribution

3. Comparison with past years

0 0 0

1

0

5 5

1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

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

Number of Students

Grade

Total Grade Distribution

80.6 75.8 80.7 83.2 82.5 85.1 81.9 83.0 85.8

10.6 13.0 11.0 8.6 12.0 12.3 13.4 9.5 10.9

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

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

7.71

8.42 8.04

1.59 1.72

1.23

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00

1 2 3

Grade

Problem

Individual scores per problem

Average

Standard Deviation

0 0 0 0

7

1 1

3

0 0 0

2 2 2

0

6

0 0 0

1 1

5

3

2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

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 made mistake when they integrate velocity profile.

 Several students could not cancel out each terms correctly in NS equation.

 Although 𝜃 Momentum Equation need to be used, some of students used other direction’s momentum equation.

 One student indicated two answers, but one of them was wrong.

PROBLEM 2

 One student used wrong unit for frequency.

 Some of students used inappropriate Non-dimensional values when they calculate model scale’s velocity.

 It seems like that some of students do not know how to use Buckingham Pi theorem correctly.

PROBLEM 3

 Several students could not consider the Dynamic pressure term in Energy equation.

 Some of students used wrong sign for Head provided by turbine.

 Several students did not consider the minor losses at Entrance and Valve. Also some of students didn’t consider the turbine efficiency.

 One student thought that 𝑉2 value is fixed in Energy equation.

 Some of students multiplied turbine efficiency to the turbine head. But the turbine efficiency need to be considered as denominator. (ℎ𝑡𝜂 ⇒ 𝜂𝑡)

Références

Documents relatifs

Thus, the problem size effect observed in small problems cannot be attributed to variations in the strategies used to solve them, with the smallest problems more frequently

 It seems like that two students do not know how to approach to solved this kind of problem, and could not

• One student could not derivative the velocity profile correctly, so derived wrong shear stress..

 One student indicated wrong unit for flow

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

 Several students could not transformed the model scale velocity to prototype velocity correctly so they derived wrong answer..

• Some student made wrong assumptions when applying momentum equations (i.e. not assuming v=0, not neglecting gravity for y-momentum). • Some students did not

• Most students had difficulty substituting