Visa resultat

Multiphase flow kursutvärdering, TME160

1. Have the learning outcomes for the course been clearly stated at the web page of the course?*

2. Did the course in general live up to your expectations? The answers are given in grades 1 - 5 (5 - best) and can be accompanied with more detailed comments if necessary.*

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

1»		1		10%
2»		0		0%
3»		0		0%
4»		3		30%
5»		6		60%

- It would have been interesting to see more about VOF and phase changes (e.g. liquid-gas). Even though this is a "special case", I felt like the course is more aimed at particulate flows at the moment. Perhaps a bit more on VOF could be included (and not just on DNS but on how it can be used for wave impact simulations that were mentioned on one of the lectures).» (4)
- I thsught that we would do more actual simulations to practice what we had learned.» (4)

3. Please give the estimation of your attendance rate for the activities at the course (lectures, exercises). If necessary, give comments.*

- 90%, because of schedule conflicts.»
- 100%»
- 90%»
- Full attendance»
- 100 %»
- Full attendance at the course lecture and exercises.»
- ~100%»
- 100% attendance»
- About 100 %. A little less due to compulsory attendance accivities in other courses.»
- 100% attendance»

4. What is your general judgement of the course? The answers can be given in grades 1 - 5 (5 - best) and can be accompanied with more detailed comments if necessary.*

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

1»		0		0%
2»		1		10%
3»		0		0%
4»		2		20%
5»		7		70%

- Too vague and un-scientific.» (2)
- I think the course were very good, I have used what I learned a loot in my thesis work.» (5)

5. What is your background in fluid mechanics (i.e. what courses belonging to this field did you take in the past)?*

- Transportprocesser, bachelor"s thesis, turbulence modelling, computational fluid dynamics for engineers, compressible flow, turbomachinery, gas turbine technology.»
- Basic fluid mechanics, Mechanics of fluids, CFD, Compressible flow, Turbulence modelling, Turbomachinery + Bachelor Thesis»
- "Mechanics of fluids" (Lars Davidson), CFD but no turbulence modeling»
- Computational fluid dynamics for engineers transport phenomenon»
- CFD for engineers »
- CFD for chemical engineering. »
- I have a relatively strong background in fluid mechanics, with several courses in fluid mechanics, CFD, heat transfer, etc.»
- Course in transport processes»
- transport prosesser (kemiteknik med fysik) Computational fluid dynamics for engineers-(Inovative and sustanible chemical engeneering) Turbulent modeling (Applied mechanics) compressible flows (Applied mechanics) turbomachiery (Applied mechanics) gasturbine technology (Applied mechanics)»
- I have learned fluid dynamics, turbulence modeling, numerical simulations in fluid dynamics and particle simulation methods in fluid dynamics at a university abroad. »

6. Is there smething you feel that is missing in the course (after having completed the course now). Please give your comments.*

- Population balance modelling. Although the stuff treated is probably more relevant.»
- No»
- As mentioned, a bit more on (large scale) VOF would be nice.»
- Hands on training on techniques»
- Msybe som actual practice on the matter»
- I personally believe that fitting more exercises in multi-phase simulation would make the course even more efficient. »
- Proper treatment of at least one of the classic multiphase flow modeling cases, eg. Eulerian-Eulerian.»
- Nothing missing.»
- Something about population balances and breakup of particles but I do not think there is room in the course for more than the current material»
- I think the course covers what I expected and the content was very relevant. »

7. Please grade (with comments) the following lecturer - Srdjan Sasic - and his contributions to the course. Was he clear enough? Was he willing and able to answer your questions? Anything else that you*

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

1»		1		10%
2»		1		10%
3»		0		0%
4»		1		10%
5»		8		80%

- Very good at explaining, always answers questions.» (5)
- Great lecturer and good slides! I appreciated the examples from real situations (e.g. the hopper/fluidized bed simulations) since the course in total had a quite general approach.» (5)
- exceptional lectures» (5)
- I firmly believe he is one of the best lecturer that I have ever met throughout two years of my study period at Chalmers. » (5)
- He seemed like a nice guy, but unfortunately his lecturing was very vague. Digressions were too common, the language not clear enough etc.» (1, 2)
- I have nothing but posetive to say about Srdjan Sasic» (5)
- Very good and inspiring lecturer making the subject very interesting and explains everything very good! Always helpful and willing to explain again. Only two points to improve: stop saying "you don"t have to write this" since it is asked in the exam. And when students have questions for the exam you should answer, even though the same specific question will be part of the exam. » (4)

8. Please grade (with comments if needed) the excercise tutor Meisam Farzaneh and his contributions. Was he clear enough? Was he able to answer your questions? Anything else that you would like to add as*

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

1»		1		10%
2»		0		0%
3»		4		40%
4»		3		30%
5»		2		20%

- Went through the examples slow which is good. However, could have been explaining the different steps in more detail. » (3)
- Very thorough» (5)
- He talked very fast and I had a hard time trying to both write whsat he wrote and listen to what he said since it went very fast» (3)
- He is been very clear and straightforward in his reasoning and explanations.» (5)
- Simply followed the notes he had, unable to answer questions that went a bit further than the notes.» (1)
- Might be clearer if he before hi made a exercise give the overall "strategy" for the problem» (4)

9. Please comment on the tasks and exercises for the course (e.g. too few, too many, too easy, too difficult, relevant, not relevant, too strict deadlines, etc.)*

- It was good.»
- Task 1 was great. You learnt a lot by getting the feedback. A second one like it for the latter part of the course would be nice. Task 2 was alright. A lot of time was spent on merely trying to understand the multiphase function in the program we chose to simulate in. After the task was completed, I didn"t really see the point in the task. »
- The calculation tasks from the exercise sessions were a bit detached from the rest of the course, in my impression, but the home tasks were very good.»
- well balanced»
- The first home task was really good for the learning progresss and getting to know how the answers were supposed to be formulated. The second home task was not relevant since ee could not get any help and it was to do since we had not practiced sny software etc earlier in the course.»
- I thought more exercises in multi-phase simulation would make the course super efficient.Also,I found the 1st&2nd exercises(calculation of terminal velocities)were a little bit easy for such a course in this level. »
- Not really relevant.»
- They where ok. Perhaps the project presentations can be done earlier, not week 7, to close to exams. »
- I liked the exercised, especially the first since you got very good critique»
- Was okay»

10. Please comment on the exam for the course (e.g. too difficult, too easy, etc.)*

- As expected.»
- The exam was in accordance to what we had gone trough during the course.»
- No big surprises, so I believe it was good.»
- well balanced»
- It was relevant nothing new a good exam»
- Manageable.»
- The course was so vague that it was hard to know what the exam will be about. I"m definitely not satisfied with my grade. »
- The exam is fair. »
- I think the exam was good, there might have been a bit too lite time I think a 5h exam might have been better. but litle time test how well you know the material so I an not sure»
- Hard but relevant. »

11. Please suggest if there is something you think that can improve the course even more in the future. What would you like to be more present in the course?*

- Maybe have half an hour longer lectures in the beginning. To not end up in a hurry at the end.»
- Some clearer headings in the lecture notes. When going through them it was sometimes hard to know which topic a slide belonged to. »
- -»
- Some guest lectures from industry»
- The second home task should be changed some how. Either by having some time set off were you could ask questions and get som help with your simulations or by doing a completely new home task 2.»
- Adding more exercises and shifting from theoretical to more practical will certainly be very positive. »
- Clear language, fewer digressions, better lecturing.»
- All good. »
- No nothing I have not sugested in the questions above»
- -»

12. Do you think that the information obtained in the course will be relevant for your future activities (e.g. master thesis, future employment)?*

- Yes, definately.»
- Yes»
- Yes»
- Yes, most definitely»
- Yes indeed! I am doing my master thesis kn cfd and i am workingwith multiphase flows.»
- Definitely relevant. »
- Very relevant, yet the course did not help much unfortunately.»
- yes»
- Yes, I have used the information a lot in my master thesis and I expect to use it in the future as well»
- Yes! »

13. Additional comments if there is something not covered by the previous questions.*

- Not that I can think of.»
- -»
- -»
- None»
- I am happy with the course and I would recomend it to others»
- I would like to thank Srdjan Sasic for all he is doing in this course.He is a very knowledgeable lecturer with a great personality.For me he is such an awesome role model and I have definitely learnt a lot from him in this course.»
- -»
- If one misses a lecture it is hard to recover. One could get sick and not be able to be there. There should be some way to get hold of what has been said at the lecutre. The given lecture notes are not exstensive enough for that. »
- besides a bit to many mornings starting at 8 a great course»
- -»

* obligatoriska frågor