iCAD/CAEt
Carnegie Mellon
University

24-688: Introduction to CAD/CAE Tools

Quiz5   
  Fall 2013   

Home ] Course Info ] Schedule ] Showcase ] References ] Performance ]
     

 

Quiz 5        
Total 100      
Average 105.1      
Codename Total Problem 1 Score Submission of FCE Additional 10 Points Comments
Anaheim , California 110 100 10  
Atlanta , Georgia 110 100 10  
Buffalo , New York 110 100 10  
Cincinnati , Ohio 110 100 10  
Cleveland , Ohio 110 100 10  
Columbus , Ohio 110 100 10  
Dallas , Texas 110 100 10  
Fort Wayne , Indiana 110 100 10  
Fremont , California 110 100 10  
Fresno , California 110 100 10  
Indianapolis, Indiana 110 100 10  
Kansas , Missouri 110 100 10  
Louisville , Kentucky 110 100 10  
Mesa , Arizona 110 100 10  
Omaha , Nebraska 110 100 10  
Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania 110 100 10  
Raleigh , North Carolina 110 100 10  
Sacramento , California 110 100 10  
Santa Ana , California 100 110 10  
Seattle , Washington 110 100 10  
St. Paul , Minnesota 110 100 10  
St. Petersburg , Florida 110 100 10  
Tampa , Florida 110 100 10  
Washington , DC 110 100 10  
Wichita , Kansas 110 100 10  
Arlington , Texas 108 98 10 Rotational Motions of ram werent constrained
Austin , Texas 108 98 10 Rotational Motions of ram werent constrained
Baltimore , Maryland 108 98 10 Rotational Motions of ram werent constrained
Denver , Colorado 108 98 10 Rotational Motions of ram werent constrained
Hialeah , Florida 108 98 10 Rotational Motions of ram werent constrained
Honolulu CDP, Hawaii 108 98 10 Rotational Motions of ram werent constrained
Jacksonville , Florida 108 98 10 Rotational motions of ram weren't constrained
Jersey , New Jersey 108 98 10 Rotational Motions of ram werent constrained
Las Vegas , Nevada 108 98 10 Incorrect number of nodes selected at the top face of ram. Creates slightly wrong result
Long Beach , California 108 98 10 Rotational Motions of ram werent constrained
Minneapolis , Minnesota 108 98 10 Rotational Motions of ram werent constrained
New Orleans , Louisiana 108 98 10 Rotational Motions of ram werent constrained
Norfolk , Virginia 108 98 10 Rotational Motions of ram werent constrained
Toledo , Ohio 108 98 10 Rotational Motions of ram werent constrained
Anchorage , Alaska 107 97 10 Wrong displacement graph
Milwaukee , Wisconsin 107 97 10 Rotational motions of ram weren't constrained. Von mises contour plot shows displacement values 
Phoenix , Arizona 107 97 10 Rotational motions of ram weren't constrained. Von mises contour plot shows displacement values 
San Antonio , Texas 107 97 10 Wrong displacement graph
Baton Rouge , Louisiana 106 96 10 Rotational motions of ram weren't constrained, Simulation gives wrong result
El Paso , Texas 106 96 10 Adaptive stiffness is unchecked. Rotational Motions of ram werent constrained
Laredo , Texas 106 96 10 Rotational Motions of ram werent constrained, von mises contour plot shows 44th step
Lincoln , Nebraska 106 96 10 Rotational Motions of ram werent constrained, von mises contour plot shows 44th step
Memphis , Tennessee 106 96 10 Rotational Motions of ram werent constrained,adaptive stiffness wasn’t used.
Riverside , California 106 96 10 Multiplier at 1.1 sec wasn't defined
San Francisco , California 106 96 10 Rotational motions of ram weren't constrained, Simulation gives wrong result
Stockton , California 106 96 10 Rotational Motions of ram werent constrained. Displacement graph doesn’t show the displacement of ram
Virginia Beach , Virginia 103 93 10 No displacement graph, simulation gives very wrong result.
Boston , Massachusetts 100 100 0  
Corpus Christi , Texas 100 90 10 Total number of steps should have been 44. Not 40. Wrong displacement graph. Von mises contour plot shows 36th step.
Glendale , Arizona 100 90 10 Total Number of steps should have been 44. Mistake corresponds to wrong von mises stress contour plot for and displacement graph
Oakland , California 100 90 10 Total Number of steps should have been 44. Mistake corresponds to wrong von mises stress contour plot for and displacement graph
Plano , Texas 100 90 10 No displacement graph, multiplier at 1.1 defined 1. it should have been 0, simulation gives very wrong result
Portland , Oregon 100 100 0  
St. Louis , Missouri 100 100 0  
Los Angeles , California 98 98 0 Rotational motions of ram weren't constrained.
Tucson , Arizona 98 98 0 Rotational Motions of ram werent constrained
Charlotte , North Carolina 93 93 0 Rotational Motions of ram werent constrained. Displacement graph is missing.
Tacoma , Washington 0 0 0 No Submission

    

                                                       

Home ] Course Info ] Schedule ] Showcase ] References ] Performance ]


Send email to Professor Kenji Shimada ( shimada @ cmu.edu)
with questions or comments about this web site.