Aktuella utvärderingar

Visa resultat

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.

Turbulence modelling, MTF270

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2009-05-18 - 2009-06-10
Antal svar: 15
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 75%
Kontaktperson: Lars Davidson»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers

Your own effort

1. How many hours per week did you spend on this course?

We mean total time, that is, it comprises the time you spent in class and the time you spent on your own work. Try to estimate the average time over the entire study period.

15 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»2 13%
Around 20 hours/week»3 20%
Around 25 hours/week»4 26%
Around 30 hours/week»4 26%
At least 35 hours/week»2 13%

Genomsnitt: 3.06

- Working 80% of the week made it difficult to put down more time. » (At most 15 hours/week)
- Since I haven"t study any turbulence courses, the amount of time spent in this course became very large. This is just approximation, maybe more time has been spent.» (Around 30 hours/week)

2. How large part of the teaching offered did you attend?

15 svarande

0%»1 6%
25%»1 6%
50%»5 33%
75%»3 20%
100%»5 33%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

- The lecture notes are great and I prefer reading them. » (0%)
- It would be better if the class wasn"t at friday, since it is easy to miss a lot of them.» (50%)
- I attended at all of the lectures since it was necessary to understand the lecture notes. » (100%)
- It felt important to obtain as much first hand lecture support and help to be able to grasp all parts of the course. The lectures were very good in sense of pedagogic explanations and guidance.» (100%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

The course syllabus states the course goals in terms of learning outcomes, i.e., knowledge, skills and attitudes to be acquired by the student during the course.

3. How understandable are the course goals?

15 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»2 13%
The goals are difficult to understand»1 6%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»5 33%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»7 46%

Genomsnitt: 3.13

- If one compares the outline of the course goals for this years (2009/2010) course compared to what we were expexted to know on the exam, there is little to complain about. » (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)

4. Are the goals reasonable considering your background and the number of credits?

Answer this this question and the succeeding one, only if you do know the course goals.

13 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»11 84%
No, the goals are set too high»2 15%

Genomsnitt: 2.15

- I think turbulence theory and turbulent flow should be prerequisites for this course.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- I guess my case is slightly different compared to the standard master student. I have worked with CFD for almost 2.5 years before enroling this course and I would have been surprised if I could not haved managed to learn all that was expected. » (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- The goals may be reasonable if you have read some turbulence courses before. But otherwise they can be in somewhat to high. » (No, the goals are set too high)

Teaching and course administration

5. To what extent has the lectures been of help for your learning? (indicate if you attended or not)

15 svarande

Small extent»2 13%
Some extent»6 40%
Large extent»5 33%
Great extent»2 13%

Genomsnitt: 2.46

- Did not attend» (Small extent)
- I spent a lot of time on the tasks and it would be better if the task would follow the lecture material more closely.» (Some extent)
- Maybe some more physical meaning explained during the lectures coud be good» (Large extent)
- The course literature (Lecture notes ) are quite inadequate so the lectures explained what the literature didn"t.» (Large extent)
- Without the lecture notes and discussions during lectures the course would have been far more demanding. » (Great extent)

6. To what extent has the lecture notes been of help for your learning?

15 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»1 6%
Large extent»11 73%
Great extent»3 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.13

- It would be easier if it was more explained in the lecture notes. Now a lot of things are just stated without telling why it is like that.» (Large extent)
- Sometimes the lecture notes are not really helpful, especially to understand the physical meaning of some equations. And there is too many others documents to read in order to really understand the lecture notes. Finally, some more derivations should be included. » (Large extent)
- I think it"s better to go trough more detail in lecture notes because it"s summerized everything and I can not understand how some of them come or derived. » (Large extent)
- They are good but could be better. More explanations would be needed to give a better help. This since no other literature were used. » (Large extent)
- The Lecture notes are good but it would be good to have access to complementary reading.» (Large extent)
- The lecture notes provided big help in learning most of the material. Naturally, the material was not always detailed enough to only use this in the learning process. The hand written lecture notes in combination with the given was a good combination and help throughout the course. However, it would have been helpful to get more direct information on where to find the major derivations of the transport equations. » (Large extent)

7. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts etc work?

15 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»0 0%
Rather well»1 6%
Very well»14 93%

Genomsnitt: 3.93

- Good, everything needed could be found. » (Very well)
- No problems as I can remember.» (Very well)

8. To what extent has Task 4 been of help for your learning?

15 svarande

(på denna fråga var det möjligt att välja flera svarsalternativ)

Little»3 20%
rather much»3 20%
much»6 40%
very much»3 20%

- It was too many pictures to generate so it was hard to have time to analyze all of them.» (rather much)
- Couldn"t understand the connection with the chapters that was at the topics. Would have needed more knowledge before doing it to get more out of it. » (Little)
- It should follow the lecture material more closely.» (Little)
- Alot of the learning in the first part of the course had to do with discussions regarding the assignments in task 4. The work load was high but also awarding in knowledge. The last part of the task regarding eigenvectors/eigenvalues of the strain tensor and Reynolds stresses was the least giving part of the task. » (very much)

9. To what extent has Task 5 been of help for your learning?

15 svarande

Little»0 0%
rather much»4 26%
much»7 46%
very much»4 26%

Genomsnitt: 3

- This task was more connected to the lecture material so it was a good tool for learning the course.» (much)
- Task 5 was less rewarding. Some of the assignments were not described in as much detail as task 4 and might be something to look over before next course.» (much)
- It was a more funny task to deal with, since there were not too many pictures.» (very much)
- Very good task that helped a lot for the learning. Task 4 should have been more like this. » (very much)

10. Next year a new Task will probbly be included where the students will carry out an LES with a commerical code. Is that a good idea?

15 svarande

Very bad idea»0 0%
bad idea»0 0%
good idea»7 46%
very good idea»8 53%

Genomsnitt: 3.53

- Good idea. But i think it will be to much workload. » (good idea)
- I think it should be. because we suppose to work with these kind of software in future so it"s good to learn some stuff before» (good idea)
- Good, but maybe more focus of the theory behind the models would be better to include instead. Would give a much better learning output. » (good idea)
- Something I wanted to have done in this course. But, do not include as many assignments in the tasks if this would be added. To much is less.» (good idea)
- I would like to do it, nut as it is now it would have been hard to have the time for all three tasks. » (very good idea)
- In task 5 we did some mathematical works, but I did not know exactly what I was doing. When the task in combined with a real physical case, we can get more.» (very good idea)
- I would suggest to add similar task on RANS part aswell. In addition, they students might verify the "quality" of the solution, when no exact/text book information is available. Pretty much as it happens when you are trying to solve the real industial problem.» (very good idea)

11. You are required to give an oral presentation of Task 4 & 5. Is it good?

15 svarande

not at all»2 13%
rather good»3 20%
good»5 33%
very good»5 33%

Genomsnitt: 2.86

- For practicing on giving oral presentation this could be good but it didn"t give much for understanding the course material.» (not at all)
- We should get some feedback» (good)
- Very good!» (very good)
- Maybe students can be encouraged (through an additional credit) to more actively participate in the discussions during the presentations.» (very good)
- Oral presentations are always good. To be forced to talk about and explain the work makes it crusial to really understand what has been done and how it all works. Do not remove. » (very good)

12. Next year a new Task will be probably included. Hence something in Task 4 or Task 5 must be taken out. Which part do you suggest that we should omit?

- Task 4 - eigenvalues Task 5 - 5.5 5.12»
- the part with all the vector fields. Too much time on zooming in interesting parts was used.»
- I suggest give some quantities for plotting and let the students calculate only a few but still compare and analyse the results.»
- In task 4, maybe the subtasks 4.10 and 4.11 about the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the pressure strain and the Reynolds stress could be removed. In the task 5, maybe the subtask 5.8 about the PDF could be removed.»
- 4-10»
- Task 5: 5.10, 5.11, 5.12 and Task 5.5. Task 5.6 is not easy to understand. Task 4: 4.10 and 4.11. »
- Something from 4th part. Maybe give derivative functions for 5th task, it takes lot of time to do them»
- task 4.7 in assignment 4 take too much time also in task 5 I think 5.10 or 5.11 can be removed because 5.6 is really helpful to understand the basic»
- Task 4, but not all of it. Maybe change task 4 entirely to a shorter one that more focus on what has been said in the lectures. To include another task even task 5 should be shortened down. Maybe there are a couple of unnecessary sub taskes now. »
- There were too many detailed quantities studied. Maybe focus more closely on the Reynold"s stresses, and only the most important terms in the Reynolds stress equation.»
- Task 4: 4.10, 4.11 Task 5: 5.9, 5.12 In Tasks 5.2/5.4 it might good to supply the student with an example of numerical differenciation (via "grad" function) and also define a bit more explicit the mult. operation for S_{ij} tenzors.»
- The PDF in the task 5.»
- Task 4: - Eigenvectors/eigenvalues Task 5: - Two Point Correlation & Energyspectra»

13. You get 5 bonus points for each Task. Is that suffient?

11 svarande

much too little»0 0%
too little»9 81%
too much»2 18%
much too much»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.18

- It is ok.» (?)
- it was very good, reasonable amount. Maybe if three tasks, then 3-4 for each» (?)
- I think it"s fair. also encourage student to write better and spend more time.» (?)
- I think it"s ok, but that s not an option for answer» (too little)
- considering the time and attempts it takes, it is too little» (too little)
- I want to say that 5 points are great and should not be changed. But this alternative was not represented. :)» (too little)
- I think 5 points was reasonable but there was no such option.» (too little)
- +1 extra point for Task4» (too little)
- just enough» (too much)

Study climate

14. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?

15 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»0 0%
Rather good»4 26%
Very good»11 73%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.73

- Good help when Lars was available during the labs.» (Rather good)
- Good, Lars is great:). Maybe it would have been good to include another assistant to help Lars. » (Very good)

15. How well has cooperation between you and your fellow students worked?

15 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»0 0%
Rather well»7 46%
Very well»8 53%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.53

- Did not have that much contact with the students when I attended as a bit of a working outsider. The ones I did interact with were of good help and cooperation was good =)» (Rather well)
- Very well indeed!» (Very well)

16. How was the course workload?

15 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»7 46%
High»6 40%
Too high»2 13%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

- To not have studied for 3 years and only putting down 20% of the week it was high. I have little knowledge of how it would have been if I"d have more time. » (High)
- I have been working day and nights so no spare time was left for me:(» (Too high)

17. How was the total workload this study period?

15 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»4 26%
High»6 40%
Too high»5 33%

Genomsnitt: 4.06

- As I mentioned above, 80% work 20% fun..» (Adequate)
- I have been working day and nights so no speartime was left for me:(» (Too high)
- Work related» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

18. What is your general impression of the course?

15 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»2 13%
Good»10 66%
Excellent»3 20%

Genomsnitt: 4.06

- More details about why the models are as they are.» (Good)
- I am just missing some more physical meaning to have a better understanding of the differents models.» (Good)
- Very good coarse, I learned a lot. But maybe to much information in such a short time. As I said before. Maybe a turbulence coarse or two as a prerequisite would be good. » (Good)
- Its an exellent course. Would be great to have a continuation course aiming at deeping the understanding of the turbulence phenomena. At some point though it felt that split up of the course in RANS and LES parts might be favorable. Would be great to have a continuation course that covers the commercial software side of the turbulence modelling. One can think of covering the software differences and some particularities of the implementation (extracting necessary info. out of the solution, udf etc.). Another direction might be the discussion of the guidlines for analysis, improvement and speed up (of computational effort) of the obtained numerical solution. Last, but no least - thank you for an exellent course :) !!» (Excellent)
- Enjoyed it even though sundays became less free for a few weeks. » (Excellent)

19. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Tasks and presentations»
- The leture notes»
- The tasks, the website of the course. »
- learning outcome, very good method to learn »
- Bonus points for tasks. Makes work much harder»
- assignments»
- The teacher, task numbers and the happy spirit.»
- Task 5»
- The labs. They are good eventhough time has to be put down. However, don"t over do it. If an extra LES-task is planned be sure to bring down the work load on task 4 & 5. »

20. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- Less technicals parts in Matlab»
- Perhaps give some more theory in the lecture notes»
- Presentations for task 4 and 5 are not necessary. More labs to work on the assignment. »
- more details in lecture notes could be better for understanding.»
- task 4 and the coarse literature. To include a more theoretical literature would be great. »
- Task 4»
- More LES ,)»

21. Additional comments

- I personally prefer a more physical course. Because this course includes a lot of models and mathematical formulations. but there are not enough real cases explaining these models. I suggest you to add some samples to each part of the lecture showing different models and how these models predict the flow patterns. Also, what is the advantages and disadvantages of each model over others. In addition, It is good for students to know more about motivations behind each turbulence model. Where the differences between models come from and what is the role of each term in the model equations. Maybe, it is much better and sensible. Also, some tasks could be added to investigate different turbulence models performance in a special case. »
- happy summer holiday!! See you!»
- Good course. I hope I get the opportunity to learn even more in future courses just like this one. »

Kursutvärderingssystem från