Faculty of Engineering, Environment and Computing 6063MAA Computational Thermofluids
Assignment Brief 2022/23
| Module Title Computational Thermofluids | Ind/Group Individual | Cohort Jan/May 2023 | Module Code 6063MAA |
| Coursework Title CW2: CFD modelling of 3D Heat Exchanger | Hand out date: 1/2/2023 | ||
| Module Leader Mansour Qubeissi | Due date: 3/4/2023 | ||
| Estimated Time (hrs): 25/ individual Word Limit: 500 (per student) | Coursework type: Report | % of Module Mark 25 | |
| Submission arrangement online via Aula: File types and method of recording: Submit a single continuous document via the 3005MAA Turnitin link provided in Aula by 18:00 hours, Monday 3rd April 2023.Mark and Feedback date: within 2 weeks of submission (excluding holidays).Mark and Feedback method: Aula. |
| Module Learning Outcomes Assessed: Appraise mathematical models relevant to mechanical and related engineering disciplines, and demonstrate an appreciation of their limitations [IMechE_US2].Appraise the requirement for engineering activities to promote sustainable development [IMechE_S3].Evaluate engineering principles and apply them [IMechE_E1]. Identify, classify and describe the performance of thermofluid mechanic systems and components through the use of analytical methods and modelling techniques.Apply quantitative methods and computer based models to solve engineering problems [IMechE_E3] and apply a systems approach to engineering.Assess characteristics of materials, equipment and processes and appraise engineering workshop and laboratory skills [IMechE_P1 & P2]. Assessed the learning outcomes 2,3,4, 5 |
| Mark distribution: Presentation and layout [5%]: including abstract, referencing and clarity.Design modeller [25%]: including geometry using certain model justification, meshing techniques (including mesh independence check), model set-up.Results [50]: including justification of figures, plots, values with clear descriptions of all contours of flow, critical parameters and their flow spots (e.g. high gradient pressure at certain regions).Discussion [15%]: to examine how the simulation affect hypothesis and assumptions, and vice- versa, whether new outputs are revealed (explored) from this model, whether the results are influenced by certain limitations (e.g. number of elements), the implications of the result |
| findings, the anticipated changes in model/geometry/mesh set-ups to improve quality of results. Conclusion [5%]: to summarise the work and critical findings, to feel free to state opinions about this modelling process (without conflicts with facts), to be self-critical and explain limitations, to briefly provide alternative approaches for improving the solving techniques. |
| Notes: You are expected to use Coventry University APA style for referencing. For support and advice on this, students can contact Centre for Academic Writing (CAW).Please notify your registry course support team and module leader for disability support.Any student requiring an extension or deferral should follow the university process as outlined here.The University cannot take responsibility for any coursework lost or corrupted on disks, laptops or personal computer. Students should therefore regularly back-up any work and are advised to save it on the University system.If there are technical or performance issues that prevent submitting coursework through the online coursework submission system on the day of a coursework deadline, an appropriate extension to the coursework submission deadline will be agreed. This extension will normally be 24 hours or the next working day if the deadline falls on a Friday or over the weekend period. This will be communicated via your Module Leader. Assignments that are more than 15% over the word limit will result in a deduction of 10% of the mark i.e. a mark of 60% will lead to a reduction of 6% to 54%. The word limit includes quotations, but excludes the bibliography, reference list and tables.You are encouraged to check the originality of your work by using the draft Turnitin links on Aula.Collusion between students (where sections of your work are similar to the work submitted by other students in this or previous module cohorts) is taken extremely seriously and will be reported to the academic conduct panel. This applies to both coursework and exam answers.A marked difference between your writing style, knowledge and skill level demonstrated in class discussion, any test conditions and that demonstrated in a coursework assignment may result in you having to undertake a Viva Voce in order to prove the coursework assignment is entirely your own work.If you make use of the services of a proof-reader in your work you must keep your original version and make it available as a demonstration of your written efforts. Also, please read the university Proof Reading Policy.You must not submit work for assessment that you have already submitted (partially or in full), either for your current course or for another qualification of this university, with the exception of resits, where for the coursework, you may be asked to rework and improve a previous attempt. This requirement will be specifically detailed in your assignment brief or specific course or module information. Where earlier work by you is citable, i.e., it has already been published/submitted, you must reference it clearly. Identical pieces of work submitted concurrently may also be self-plagiarism. |
Assessment Criteria
| % | RELEVANCE of the ANSWER | ARGUMENT and COHERENCE | EVIDENCE | Summary |
| First 70-100 | Innovative response, answering the questions fully, addressing the learning objectives of the assessment task. Evidence of critical analysis, synthesis and evaluation. | A clear, consistent in-depth critical and evaluative argument, displaying the ability to develop original ideas from a range of sources. Engagement with theoretical and conceptual analysis. | Wide range of appropriately supporting evidence provided, going beyond the recommended texts. Correctly referenced. | An outstanding, well-structured and appropriately referenced answer, demonstrating a high degree of understanding and critical analytic skills. |
| Upper Second 60-69 | A very good attempt to address the objectives of the assessment task with an emphasis on those elements requiring critical review. | A generally clear line of critical and evaluative argument is presented. Relationships between statements and sections are easy to follow, and there is a sound, coherent structure. | A very good range of relevant sources is used in a largely consistent way as supporting evidence. There is use of some sources beyond recommended texts. Correctly referenced in the main. | The answer demonstrates a very good understanding of theories, concepts and issues, with evidence of reading beyond the recommended minimum. Well organised and clearly written. |
| Lower Second 50-59 | Competently addresses objectives, but may contain errors or omissions and critical discussion of issues may be superficial or limited in places. | Some critical discussion, but the argument is not always convincing, and the work is descriptive in places, with over- reliance on the work of others. | A range of relevant sources is used, but the critical evaluation aspect is not fully presented. There is limited use of sources beyond the standard recommended materials. Referencing is not always correctly presented. | The answer demonstrates a good understanding of some relevant theories, concepts and issues, but there are some errors and irrelevant material included. The structure lacks clarity. |
| Third 40-49 | Addresses most objectives of the assessment task, with some notable | The work is descriptive with minimal critical discussion and limited theoretical engagement. | A limited range of relevant sources are used, without appropriate presentation as | Some understanding is demonstrated but is incomplete, and there is evidence of limited research on the topic. Poor structure and |
| omissions. The structure is unclear in parts, and there is limited analysis. | supporting or conflicting evidence, and very limited critical analysis. Referencing has some errors. | presentation, with few and/or poorly presented references. | ||
| Fail 0-39 | Deviation from the objectives of the assessment task. May not consistently address the assignment brief. At the lower end fails to answer the question set or address the learning outcomes. There is minimal evidence of analysis or evaluation. | Descriptive with no evidence of theoretical engagement, critical discussion or theoretical engagement. At the lower end displays a minimal level of understanding. | Very limited use and application of relevant sources as supporting evidence. At the lower end demonstrates a lack of real understanding. Poor presentation of references. | Whilst some relevant material is present, the level of understanding is poor with limited evidence of wider reading. Poor structure, presentation, and referencing. At the lower end there is evidence of a lack of comprehension, resulting in an assignment well below the required standard. |
| School of Mechanical Engineering | |
| Computational Thermofluids 6063AA CW2: CFD modelling of 3D Heat Exchanger Coursework Assignment 2022/23 |
The coursework brief is dedicated for 3rd year Engineering Students only
1. Aim
This coursework aims to develop several key capabilities required in the mechanical product innovation process. Specifically, these include: creativity, management, modelling methods, analysis and synthesis, and the application of world-widely used CFD technology tool (ANSYS-Fluent) to simulate and solve a typical engineering problem. The aim will be met by modelling a selected case study based on satisfying a requirement associated with a fluid mechanics and heat transfer engineering application.
2. Problem description
Heat Exchanger
Simulate a 3D steady waterflow of Heat Exchanger, using CW1 specifications provided specifically for your group in the laboratory session. If certain details are not provided on purpose, you will need to use your engineering sense for assumptions or conduct appropriate research to determine the reasonable values, as needed.
3. Hints
- Consider 3D simulation only.
- Describe the design and input parameters relevant to your case study specifically, in alignment to the input parameters taken from the lab test and sheet.
- Analyse the test results and make the appropriate calculations. Please read the lab manual for guidance.
- Make sure you validate your 3D CFD results, in comparison to the experimental data conducted in the lab.
- Consider simplifying the domain for CFD modelling (e.g., assuming a symmetric plane if applicable).
4. Tasks
- You to conduct one lab test-set, verified with the simulation of the dedicated lab case using ANSYS-Fluent software.
- The results should be presented in a 500-word report.
- A single report is to be submitted via Turnitin on Aula page.
- You will not need to use Peer Assessment.
- Any submissions via emails or alternative methods will NOT be considered.
Get expert help for CFD modelling of 3D Heat Exchanger and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!
