DN2275 Advanced computation in fluid mechanics

Resultat av kursutvärdering


    27 frågor väntar på svar och en eller annan kommentar.


  1. Did you find the course easy or hard?

    1. 0% (0 st) Very easy.
    2. 0% (0 st) Easy.
    3. 56% (5 st) Average.
    4. 44% (4 st) Hard.
    5. 0% (0 st) Very hard.


  2. Did you find the course interesting?

    1. 67% (6 st) Yes, very.
    2. 22% (2 st) Yes.
    3. 0% (0 st) Neutral.
    4. 0% (0 st) Not so much.
    5. 0% (0 st) No.


  3. Where your well prepared for the course material by other courses?

    1. 44% (4 st) Yes.
    2. 33% (3 st) Not sure.
    3. 22% (2 st) No.


  4. What did you think about the course literature?

    1. 44% (4 st) Very good.
    2. 56% (5 st) Good.
    3. 0% (0 st) Ok.
    4. 0% (0 st) Not that good.
    5. 0% (0 st) Bad.
    6. 0% (0 st) I have not used it.

    Comments on the course literature:

    I is very good indeed.I think it is excellent to provide the idea for research in the field of fluid mechanics as well as its sub field aerodynamics.
    ---
    As far as the book it's concerned, my first impression was that it was kind of messy with the material not really organized in a systematic way as I found myself browsing back and forth trying to understand some particular concept or just trying to get the big picture. However, while doing a review of the end of the course, the whole thing started to make sense and I started to enjoy the book which, at points, makes really a compelling reading.
    The conclusion is that a having sort of (short) primer on the G2 method just highlighting the key points would be a nice thing at the beginning of the course.

    ---
    It was very good in the sense that viewpoints of many scientists were included and we got the chance to learn other developments as well.


  5. How many of the seminars have you been to?

    1. 0% (0 st) Less than 20%.
    2. 0% (0 st) 20-40%.
    3. 11% (1 st) 40-60%.
    4. 11% (1 st) 60-80%.
    5. 78% (7 st) More than 80%.


  6. What did you think about the seminars?

    1. 11% (1 st) Very good.
    2. 67% (6 st) Good.
    3. 22% (2 st) Acceptable.
    4. 0% (0 st) Not that good.
    5. 0% (0 st) Bad.
    6. 0% (0 st) I have not participated.

    Comments:

    Every student should takes part more actively.
    ---
    Some seminars were very interesting and understandable, but other were quite messy. I think the first seminars (with the exercises) were the more understandable. Maybe was my lack of background.
    ---
    Perhaps add more worked examples could be helpful to the better understanding some concepts.


  7. Did you prepare for the seminars (by reading relevant literature etc.)?

    1. 22% (2 st) Yes, always
    2. 56% (5 st) Often
    3. 22% (2 st) Sometimes.
    4. 0% (0 st) Seldom.
    5. 0% (0 st) Never.


  8. How much time did you spend on the problem sheet?

    1. 0% (0 st) Less than 9h.
    2. 11% (1 st) 9-14h.
    3. 44% (4 st) 15-20h.
    4. 44% (4 st) More than 20h.

    Comments:

    The problem is designed in way that one can understand the whole book recommended if he / she reads the book more actively.
    ---
    It took a lot of time... on the other had, just typing the thing in latex take a considerable amount of time
    ---
    Probably was my lack of background.
    ---
    It was very helpful to understanding many ideas.


  9. How much time did you spend on the project?

    1. 0% (0 st) Less than 9h.
    2. 33% (3 st) 9-14h.
    3. 11% (1 st) 15-20h.
    4. 56% (5 st) More than 20h.

    Comments:

    It is time consuming, but interesting.
    ---
    I think that it is kind of a waste of resources with everybody running the same (long) calculations. Nice that people have hands-on experience with FEniCS, but, maybe, the calculation tasks might be distributed among the participants so that there are no duplications of efforts and people share the results at the end (I'm aware of all the practical problems that one would face by organizing something like this, though...)
    ---
    We spent a lot of time trying to understand how to program in Unicorn.


  10. How much time did you spend on reading articles and writing the reviews?

    1. 0% (0 st) Less than 9h.
    2. 11% (1 st) 9-14h.
    3. 33% (3 st) 15-20h.
    4. 56% (5 st) More than 20h.

    Comments:

    This was due to our lack of background.


  11. How much time did you spend on writing the final report?

    1. 22% (2 st) Less than 9h.
    2. 33% (3 st) 9-14h.
    3. 33% (3 st) 15-20h.
    4. 11% (1 st) More than 20h.

    Comments:

    To write the reort one should read more related journals and books.


  12. What was best about the course:

    Nice discussions during the seminars
    ---
    Project and problem solving.
    ---
    It really forces you to think hard about Fluid Dynamics.
    ---
    The topics and the bibliography. The evaluations too.
    ---
    One of the best things was to learn about the G2-method which is a powerful tool to attack fluid dynamics problems. Also, the concept of "solution of an equation" was well analyzed and discussed.
    ---
    The fact that it covered recent works in the field.


  13. How can the course be improved:

    I missed some feedback about the problem sheet and the reviews. Would have been nice to get some comments on them.
    ---
    I think the book recommended is very good ,but very concised , So if you provide separate explanation of each chapter , student could get more help to understand more.I mean you can provide some hand notes.Also you should provide more materials about the subject of aerodynamics .
    ---
    I think I would prefer traditional lectures than seminars. That is, the professor solves problems and excercises in the whiteboard.
    ---
    It might be useful to add some documentation on using the software.
    ---
    May be more focus can be given into theory.


  14. Other comments:

    Nothing.
    ---
    I have just a couple of comments regarding the Circulation.
    1. It can actually be measured (Johari and Durgin, Experiments in Fluids 25 (1998) 445-454 DOI 10.1007/s003480050250). So you might find validation data.
    2. The fact that a problem is well posed with respect to drag and lift does imply that it is well posed also with respect to circulation? In particular, the circulation seems to be a very local information, in a way (in fact it is an integral of velocity on curve, which is a set of null measure...).

    ---
    It is very well planned course. I learned a lot from it. Thank you very much!


jhoffman@kth.se

Denna sammanställning har genererats med ACE.