REPORT OF CFD LAB 1
Number of Students
Total 43
Submitted 41
Not Submitted 2
91.11 89.79 89.82 95.49 93.9 89.9
10.03 13.49 8.92 17.3
7.8 9.1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015
COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS YEARS
Mean Standard Deviation
1 1
0
6
3 3
13 14
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-100
GRADE DISTRIBUTION
Average = 89.9
Std Dev = 9.1
41
2
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
89.9
9.1
0 20 40 60 80 100
CFD Lab 1 CFD Lab 2 CFD Lab 3 CFD Lab 4
COMPARISON OF CFD LAB (FALL 2015)
Mean Standard Deviation
1)
Common Mistakes
Five students did not follow report instructions found on website o Students that missed points for report sections outside of Data
Analysis and Discussion, can fix the mistakes and resubmit for full credit by (10/7). This is only allowed of CFD Lab 1, no future leniency will be granted.
Students struggled with understanding V&V studies.
o Many students did not use order of accuracy to determine which grid set was closest to asymptotic range.
o Many students did not analyze change in grid uncertainty to determine which grid set was more sensitive to grid refinement ratio.
o Many students did not understand that if the relative error is smaller than the grid uncertainty, then the mesh is considered verified.
Six students forgot to address 8.7.2 from Exercises, covers differences in CFD, EFD, and AFD along with error sources.
2)
Feedback
a. Positive 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
Some students struggled with setting up the V&V study and analyzing the results.
3)
Student Suggestions
First lab section should be instructor led
Better examples showing what results should look like
More detail in explanation of lab manual steps
More detailed explanation of V&V instruction and meaning of parameters
