Sunteți pe pagina 1din 4

College of Engineering

EGA324 Mechanical Engineering


Practice

Session 2017/18

Assignment C1 – Aerofoil Experiment

Student Name/Surname
Student number
Lecturer Dr N. Lavery
Group number
Groups 01-16: 16-Feb-18
Submission deadline 5pm Groups 17-32: 23-Feb-18
Date of submission
Notes on marking:
 This assignment is based on the experiment E1: Aerofoil Experiment completing a technical
report for this experiment using the layout provided below
 For the final submission remove the marking scheme and these notes, the page guides in
headings and all section guidelines (in italics), and restrict yourself to the total 8 page
requirement – 1 page coversheet, 7 pages for experiment, 1 page reflection & references
 A consistent and professional format is expected along with appropriate labelling and captioning
for any figures/tables used.
 The University adopts a zero tolerance policy towards plagiarism and unfair practise, this
includes use of somebody elses laboratory data, copying of material from other students,
copying of past work, use of non-referenced material from the internet of publications.

EGA324Technical Report for Assignment C1 1 Student number: XXXXXX (2017-18)


Overview
This assignment consists of an 8-page formal report on experiment 1 (Flow over an aerofoil in the
subsonic wind tunnel) undertaken in weeks 1 and 2. The report will be marked on the basis of quality
of reporting to meet the learning objective (LO1).
The report layout should be:
• Coversheet (1 page)
• Summary (0.5 page - 250 words) & Objectives (0.5 page)
• Experiment (1-2 pages max)
• Results (1-2 pages max including graphs/tables) & Discussion (1 page)
• Conclusions (0.5 page, 250 words)
• Personal reflection (0.5 page, 200 words)
• References (0.5 page, min 4)

Marking Scheme
C1 ASSIGNMENT (20%)
3rd 2-ii 2-i
Fail 1st (85- Distinction
(40- (55- (65-
(<40%) 100%) (100%)
55%) 65%) 85%)
Coversheet present and
performance (8 marks)

SC1 0 0.4 0.55 0.65 0.85 1


complete
Writing structure

SC2 Structure/Graphics 0 0.4 0.55 0.65 0.85 1


SC3 Figures, Tables, Equations 0 0.4 0.55 0.65 0.85 1
SC4 Formatting 0 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.7 2
SC5 Grammar and semantics 0 0.4 0.55 0.65 0.85 1
Documentation and
SC6 0 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.7 2
references
Technical Content

SC7 Summary 0 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.7 2


Performance (12

SC8 Overview/objectives 0 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.7 2


marks)

SC9 Description of experiment 0 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.7 2


SC10 Results 0 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.7 2
SC11 Discussion 0 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.7 2
SC12 Conclusions 0 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.7 2
Total marks 0 8 11 13 17 20

Summary (0.5 pages – 250 words) & Objectives (0.5 page)


Insert here your 250 word summary of this report. This should be a mini-representation of the entire
report with a summary of main body of work without all the details summarising the findings:
• A brief introduction – in one or two sentences briefly describe the aims of the
experiment. (The main aim or objective of this experiment was to …)
• In the second paragraph, summarise the highlighting key details (e.g. equipment
used, specimen types and number, free stream velocities tested, experimental
details, etc...) Remember that whoever is reading the summary will be able to read
the rest of the document if they are interested.
• A summary of key findings of the experiment (e.g. at what angle stall occurred, what
the maximum lift and drag forces were, )
• Finally these findings should also be compared to previous published data (either
experimental or computational) and/or theoretical estimates.
• Any significant findings claimed in the summary should tally to your discussion and
conclusions sections

EGA324Technical Report for Assignment C1 2 Student number: XXXXXX (2017-18)


Experiment and Methodology (1 – 2 pages)
Insert here a brief description of the experiment in a maximum of 1 page:
• Give a list of key monitoring or measurement devices, mentioning how/what they
are measuring during the experiment (e.g. load, extension, pressure, relevant
standards).
• Include a photograph of the rig(s) and/or sketches of the test section/samples
detailing critical dimensions of the geometry required for the analysis along with
flow direction/velocity or direction of applied forces.
• If there was any preparation steps prior to the experiment, describe the process you
used and name any equipment required.
• Add in your own words how you have planned an experimental programme to cover
a range of tests to fully explore the aims of the experiment. List the independent,
dependent and any environmental variables which are recorded.
• Details of the number of repeated tests will be needed to address any discussion on
consistency of results and to minimise experimental error/uncertainty.

Results (1-2 pages) and Discussion (1 page)


See the Course notes for a more detailed description for the experimental results to be included in
this section, primarily an example table of the data collected, pressure distributions over the aerofoil
at suggested AoA and drag/lift/lift coefficient graphs as a function of AoA.
All graphs should have a figure number and caption, and be referred to within the text of this and/or
the discussion section.
As you have limited space, use it wisely. Do not put too many lines in the same. If you can put error
bars in then do, but if you do not make sure you explain why in the text.
You should also be thinking here of including data in the graphs from theoretical/empirical
considerations and/or data from previously published results. Use citations to references within the
text to re-inforce the connection with theory/or previous work.
For the discussion:
• Are there any appreciable fluctuations in either the recorded pressures or velocities?
• Is there any reason to doubt the accuracy of the measured lift and forces?
• Can you include a measure of error bars on your experimental data?
• Describe the shape of the pressure distributions over the aerofoil using Bernoulli’s
equation.
• Indicate the stall angle and describe how you determined that value.
• Explain your results – what happens to the flow over the aerofoil as it approaches
and goes beyond the stall angle? How are the pressure and velocity connected along
a streamline?
• Were you able to obtain previous data for comparison at a similar Reynolds number
and for the same foil (NACA0012). If not, how do your results compare to the
measured results in the reference given to you (Gregory et al.[1])?

Conclusions (0.5 page)


This section should summarise key findings of the work, for example:
• What is the influence of the Reynolds number on the peak lift and drag?
• What is the influence of the AoA on the pressure distributions?
• At what angle of attack did the stall occur, and how was this affected by the Reynolds
number?
• How does the data compare to any published experimental data?
• How does it compare to theory or empirical equations?

EGA324Technical Report for Assignment C1 3 Student number: XXXXXX (2017-18)


• How reliable are your results?
In the conclusion section it is important to concisely summarise points from your discussion –
bulleting helps to keep the conciseness, but you can use paragraphs instead if you wish – but keep it
all within half a page. Also, you need to make sure that your statements in your summary coincides
with what you have concluded.
You can also, if you wish, bring up future areas of investigation which would further improve
achieving the objectives of the experiment.

Reflection (0.5 page)


This section should include short answers to set questions:
• What have you learnt about experimental testing?
• To what degree have the learning objectives been achieved?
• What could be done to improve the learning experience?

References (0.5 page)


For each assignment try to find 2-4 references which are relevant. You can use the Harvard format:
Barnard, N. et al., 2011. A quantitative investigation of the structure of Raney-Ni catalyst material
using both computer simulation and experimental measurements. Journal of Catalysis, 281(2), pp.
300-308.
BBC News, 2013. Calsonic Kansei, Llanelli: Politicians fear 48 jobs at risk. BBC News Online South
West Wales, 3 May.
Lavery, N. P. et al., 2013. Life cycle assessment of sponge nickel produced by gas atomisation for use
in industrial hydrogenation catalysis applications. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,
18(2), pp. 362-376.
Or another suitable bibliography format is the IEEE:
1. PILKEY, W. D., Peterson’s stress concentration factors, Second Edition, 1997 (John Wiley, New
York).
2. ALLISON, I. M. and HEARN, E. J., A new look at the bending strength of gear teeth, Experimental
Mechanics, 2003.
Note: If you are referencing a web page, you must give the address and the date it was last accessed
(as the information on a web page can change over time)

EGA324Technical Report for Assignment C1 4 Student number: XXXXXX (2017-18)