Här kan se resultatet från utvärderingen och exportera statistiken till ett annat program. Det går också att
göra en enkel filtrering genom att klicka på svarsalternativen och kommentarerna eller en avancerad filtrering
genom att använda knappen längst ned.
Water Wave Mechanics, BMT030
Öppen för svar: 2008-03-21 - 2008-04-04
Antal svar: 2
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 18%
Kontaktperson: Lars Bergdahl»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers
1. General opinion on the courseWhat is your general judgement of the course?
- Very good course with a "real-life" project»
2. Do you think the course fulfilled its aim as expressed on the home page?Aim:
The overall aim of the course is to give a comprehensive introduction to the behaviour of water waves, both in the time domain (phase-resolving) and the frequency domain (phase-averaging).
- Yes very well!»
3. How well do you think the course fulfilled the learning outcome as given on the home page?Learning outcome:
· describe and discuss the influence of the underlying assumptions behind different wave theories, and, importantly, be able to judge when they are applicable
· predict the wave climate based on meteorological and geographical data
· analyse wave data using Fourier Transform and asses the properties of corresponding wave spectra
· estimate design waves based on the Rayleigh probability distribution
· compute (in a linear sense) how the wave properties are influenced by changes in bathymetry (shoaling, refraction, reflection, breaking) and geometry (reflection, diffraction)
· design a breakwater according to the Shore Protection Manual
· compute wave loads on slender structures, e.g. offshore wind power plants in shallow water
· apply a widely used computer program for wave forecasting
- Breakwater design was a bit vague»
- Assumptions behind wave theories I can"t recall we discussed. The design of the breakwater I also felt was a bit rushed/fast. Also the calculation of wave loads on structures was a bit rushed using Morisons in Mathcad during a single lecture. Otherwise everything very good»
4. Did the lectures contribute to the fulfillment of the learning outcome?
- Yes, although see comments on question 3 for parts were lectures could be better or more describing»
5. Did the assignments and project work contribute to the learning outcome?
- The project did a lot»
- Yes, it was wery good to see how most parts/lectures in the course fits together and can be applied in a real project»
6. Did the laboratory experiment contribute to the learning outcome?
- Not so much»
- Yes, but it also felt a bit rushed. Maybe the lab should be in the end of study week 2 when the first pieces of theory are starting to fit together... The lab was very interesting and one or two labs more would have been good for learning (maybe one on e.g. refraction/diffraction/shoaling)»
7. Did the text book and handout material contribute to the learning outcome?- Handout material was good, especially Lars chapter 7 & 8. Book is quite difficult and does not explain somethings very good or just very complicated. Maybe Lars entire own material could be the course literature?»
8. Do you think there was an appropriate balance between the different course moments?- Would have like to have learnt more about breakwater design and applied knowledge of the course»
- Forces on structures (Morison"s) and breakwater design seemed a bit rushed. Otherwise ok»
9. More comments and suggestions for changes.- More application of learnt knowledge for real-life situations.»
- Additional lab as mentioned on question 6. Also a study visit maybe to SSPA or some other place were they simulate harbour layouts in tanks would have been very interesting. Lars should have credit for holding a good level on the theory stuff and his focus on the applications. Also he cares about the students and is a very personal and "easy-to-talk-to" teacher.»