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.

KKR072 CFD for Engineers 2011, KKR072

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2011-05-19 - 2011-05-30
Antal svar: 18
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: ?%
Kontaktperson: Bengt Andersson»
Klass: Övriga

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.

18 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»0 0%
Around 20 hours/week»1 5%
Around 25 hours/week»6 33%
Around 30 hours/week»6 33%
At least 35 hours/week»5 27%

Genomsnitt: 3.83

2. How large part of the lectures did you attend?

18 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»1 5%
50%»0 0%
75%»7 38%
100%»10 55%

Genomsnitt: 4.44

- Collided with other course I took.» (25%)

3. How large part of the scheduled time for tutorial did you attend?

17 svarande

Less than 50%»0 0%
51% to 75%»1 5%
76% to 100%»4 23%
More than 100%»12 70%

Genomsnitt: 3.64

- The other coarse I took (ESMP) had compulsory presence at the same time as the tutorials on Wednesdays, which was a pity.» (51% to 75%)
- Missed some of the scheduled tutorial time because of mandatory lectures in the Energy Systems Modeling and Planning course. » (76% to 100%)
- The tutorials were good! Wery good planning and we actually had time to do most of it on scheduled time although all the report time was done outside school. A problem was all the extra time needed to read the book before the tutorials since no lectures was yet held on subject. » (More than 100%)

4. How many hours did you spending on writing the reports for the tutorials

- A few hours per report. Some of the report writing was done in waiting time for teacher aid.»
- 4-5 hours each»
- 5 hours for each tutorial approximately»
- around 7 hours per report»
- More than 5hours/week»
- 10»
- 5 hours in total.»
- maybe 15 hours per report»
- Hard to say. Around 3 hrs each.»
- Around two hours per tutorial, I don"t really remember.»
- Perhaps 2-4 hours each, but most of the time we were writing the reports at the same time as we were running the simulations. »
- mostly during tutorial, additional maybe 5 hours»
- 7-10 hours for each tutorial report»
- Not too many. I think it was very good that the focus of the report was to show that we understood, rather than on spending lots of time writing scientific reports.»
- about 4»

5. How large part of the scheduled time for the project did you attend?

17 svarande

Less than 50%»0 0%
51% to 75%»0 0%
76% to 100%»1 5%
101% to 150%»3 17%
More than 150%»13 76%

Genomsnitt: 4.7

- 150%? Missed the introduction.» (76% to 100%)
- Very short time to do a very large project considered this was not the only course we had, we always take two courses at the time.» (More than 150%)
- The last week before the deadline, the project was the only thing we worked on, as well as the report.» (More than 150%)
- Attended all of the scheduled time and some! » (More than 150%)

6. How many hours did you spending on writing the reports for the project?

- About 20 hours all in all per person. Lot of the report was written when waiting on iterations to complete.»
- About 60 hours»
- we mixed modelling with writing the report, so it"s hard to say, but maybe about 25 h.»
- 4 days»
- More than 10 hours»
- about 10 hours»
- 30»
- 5-6 hours in total»
- Many. Hard to say really. Spent a lot of the time during calculations on writing.»
- We wrote the report while we were simulating (if two computers were available). All in all perhaps around 35 hours per person. (Five hours a day during a week.)»
- 16-20 hours probably, around 3 full work days. »
- all together for the report maybe 80 hours»
- many»
- 40»
- not very much»

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.

7. How understandable are the goals?

18 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»5 27%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»2 11%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»11 61%

Genomsnitt: 3.05

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

13 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»10 76%
No, the goals are set too high»3 23%

Genomsnitt: 2.23

- Put some more material into the course and make it a 15p course» (No, the goals are set too high)
- The goals are reasonable considering background but the total workload required in the course is not reasonable and does not corespond to the number of credits. I took two 7.5 hp courses and was not able to start working on the other course untill the project and examination were finished.» (No, the goals are set too high)

9. Did the examination assess whether you have reached the goals

14 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»3 21%
Yes, definitely»9 64%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»2 14%

Genomsnitt: 2.92

Teaching and course administration

10. To what extent has the teaching been of help for your learning?

18 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»3 16%
Large extent»7 38%
Great extent»8 44%

Genomsnitt: 3.27

- There was often a great demand for help in the tutorials and in the project. Many hours have been put to just waiting when we got stuck. » (Great extent)

11. To what extent has the different partts of the course been of help for your learning?


- Project felt more like an extra examination and didn"t give much time for actual learning, specially since the real exam was before the project and we had to study hard before project even started and also that the project was so stressful. »
- I learn more from reading than from listening, but the lectures were very good too. The tutorials and the project both gave a great understanding.»
- For the lectures to be valuable, it pretty much requires you to have read the chapter in the text book in advance (which I unfortunately did not). Otherwise you will not get much out of it.»

18 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»0 0%
Large extent»8 44%
Great extent»10 55%

Genomsnitt: 3.55

18 svarande

Small extent»2 11%
Some extent»8 44%
Large extent»7 38%
Great extent»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 2.38

18 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»0 0%
Large extent»10 55%
Great extent»8 44%

Genomsnitt: 3.44

18 svarande

Small extent»1 5%
Some extent»0 0%
Large extent»5 27%
Great extent»12 66%

Genomsnitt: 3.55

12. Did the tutorials give sufficient training before starting the project?

18 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»3 16%
Large extent»12 66%
Great extent»3 16%

Genomsnitt: 3

- It is very difficult to get started with the project, but once this is done, the tutorials are a great help.» (Large extent)

13. Is some basic information lacking in the present tutorial material?

Should there be more information in the written material or should the teaching assistant add more material in his/her presentation? Suggest what should be included.

- No not that i can think of.»
- Maybye more about reaching convergence»
- all information should be written in the tutorial material, and then the teaching assistants can headlight the important things.»
- Yes. Please give more information in written material as well as presentation. Actually, I was confused because of the material that was not clear enough.»
- There should be more information in the written material. If the material was easier to follow there would be less unnecessery quations to the teaching assistance and less time would be lost when waiting in line for help because we can"t find a function in the program.»
- A more thourough explanation for how the velocity profile can be copied and applied at the inlet. More information on how the mesh quality can be checked in FLUENT.»
- No, I really liked it»
- Think it was quite good. However the written material could be a bit more organised. It differed a lot between the tutorials, which was sometimes confusing.»
- more written material, and more assistants to help with fluent and ansys»

14. Is some basic material lacking in the present project desciption

Should there be more information in the written material or should the teaching assistant add more material in his/her presentation? Suggest what should be included.

- The book has it"s language faults and is sometimes hard to follow. Also i believe some equations were wrong, at least not the same as in the lectures.»
- No»
- you must be able to get all information even if you miss a presentation. use a structured mesh. help to reach convergens, you can choose not to calculate everything (unclick list). how to create the injection points. »
- Please give a clear description of the project at the beginning. This will give us know what we should do and be able to the project by ourself to large extent.»
- The fisrt page of the instructions are somewhat unclear, especially the section below the first table where the gas concentrations are explained (NH3< 0.009).»
- Yes, there should be more information if it has not been explained in the turtorials. »
- No, not really.»
- The project description should be revised somewhat, there were some information that were redundant like the economy part which were not included this year. »
- No, I really liked it»
- more written material, and more assistants to help with fluent and ansys»

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

17 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»0 0%
Rather well»9 52%
Very well»8 47%

Genomsnitt: 3.47

Study climate

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

18 svarande

Very poor»2 11%
Rather poor»2 11%
Rather good»3 16%
Very good»11 61%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.27

- it was way to long time until you could get any help!!! and very irritating when the teacher spent 20 min in one group when the whole class was on the help list. it felt like you needed sharp elbow to get the help you needed and deserved.» (Very poor)
- Two hours of waiting in line is rather very poor. » (Very poor)
- Very devoted teachers but way too many questions from the whole class for them to have time with!» (Rather poor)
- to wait an hour to get help for fluent isn"t good enough... not with that project.» (Rather poor)
- During some tutorial sessions there were very long help lists. Of course there is not much to do about this, but sometimes it felt like the teaching assistents stayed longer at each group than necessary. I can just say how it was for us, but sometimes we had a short question which turned in to a long discussion. I see the point, but sometimes it could be a good idea to focus on quantity rather than quality.» (Rather good)
- it was usually a rather long waiting period before help was available since all groups required much help. when help did come it was very usefull however. moreover, questions on emails were ususally quicly responded to, even after working hours. » (Rather good)
- Got quick answers from mail by Mohammed and Per.» (Very good)
- Per and Mohammad were both very helpful and generous with their time. The consultation time with Bengt was very appreciated.» (Very good)
- Per and Mohammad were great assets during the course - thumbs up!» (Very good)

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

18 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»0 0%
Rather well»1 5%
Very well»17 94%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.94

18. How was the course workload?

18 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»1 5%
High»7 38%
Too high»10 55%

Genomsnitt: 4.5

- Way to high, almost no time was put to the other course except mandatory laboration and lectures. Also the fact that assuming that the students have the Easter brake and re-examination week to study for the exam was not so nice. Many students actually had re-examinations that was overlooked because the examination date. Off course there was an second try but the course was really planed after doing and making the first one.» (Too high)
- Even by neglecting the second course, the workload was high in this period. Consider making the course a 15p course instead» (Too high)
- I prefer to have more time so that the course workload is decreased.» (Too high)
- Too high for "only" 7.5 credits» (Too high)
- maybe a bit less time for the report» (Too high)
- does not correspond to 7.5 hp» (Too high)

19. How was the total workload this study period?

18 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»1 5%
High»9 50%
Too high»8 44%

Genomsnitt: 4.38

- Total workload was reasonable since we didn"t do much in the other course but due to the fact that some time would have been needed there too, the workload was way too high.» (High)
- Since the CFD course took so much time, I could not spend much time on the other course. Luckily, it was a less extensive course, but I think it is a pity when courses get down prioritized due to too high work load in another course. » (High)
- Doing both the CFD coarse and the ESMP coarse was really, really hard. 8 reports were to be delivered in ESMP and 4 in CFD, of which one was very big. This is way too much in total. Also studying for the CFD exam in the middle of it all... I have never worked so hard in all my time at Chalmers! But I do think it"s good to have the CFD exam before the project, so it"s really the other coarse that needs to change, not the CFD coarse.» (Too high)
- Energy systems modelling and planning as well» (Too high)
- The week before the first exam was one of the toughest weeks ever on Chalmers. Is it really necessary to have the exam when the project requires loads of time? » (Too high)

Summarizing questions

20. What is your general impression of the course?

18 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»1 5%
Good»12 66%
Excellent»5 27%

Genomsnitt: 4.22

- Worked a lot, but learned equally much.» (Good)
- I really enjoyed this coarse, it was a lot of fun with good teachers, good coarse literature and a fun project.» (Excellent)

21. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Tutorials.»
- Lectures, tutorial 1 and 2, all chapters in textbook except for chapter 6.»
- The tutorials, the lectures, the project.»
- The tutorials»
- Great project, keep it!»
- the tutorials are most necessary to be able to handle the project.»
- projects and tutorials»

22. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- Maybe a little less workload or changing the amount of academic points gained for the course. felt almost like a 15 hp course itself.»
- better and more instructions for the tutorial and project so that you can get forward without asking the teachers about everything»
- Please rewrite chapter 6 in the textbook. It is difficult to follow and makes me confused a lot.»
- In tutorial 3 it was hard to grasp what was to be reported. More assistants in the tutorials and the project. Minor difficulties took hours to resolve because the assitants were too few.»
- tutorial 2 should be better written. the goals of tutorial 3 should be better described. »
- Suggest to mix groups between mechanical and chemical engineers. Had to focus too much energy to just understand the chemistry, and I guess chemists had struggles the other way around with the more fluid mechanic aspects.»
- The book needs some more work when it comes to the language, otherwise it"s very good.»
- The time of the exam and the project. Should not be the same weeks.»
- The exam should be in the exam week, it is better to focus on the project.»
- Te textbook needs to be better. And lecturing isn"t Mr. Andersson best side. »

23. Additional comments

- The course name is misspelled at "studieportalen", I hope it wont be in the grading. i guess it should be called "computational" and not "computional"?»
- I would like to have more information about how non-equilibrium wall functions work in the textbook. And also the downsides with k-omega»
- it would be preferable to have at least 3 assistant teachers.»
- A very useful and enlightening course!»
- The returned examination was poorly commented. most of the reduced points was not motivated why. If there was a commentary it was short and hard or impossible to read. »

Kursutvärderingssystem från