How does changing the frontal surface area of a car (2.00 m², 2.20 m², 2.40 m², 2.60 m², 2.80 m², 3.00 m², 3.20 m², 3.40 m²) affect the drag force it experiences (N), determined using CFD simulations on SimScale?HL
Loading scores...
7
Official IB Result
IB Grade: 7
Criteria A: Research Design
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria StrandsPro
A.1Research question context
Excellent
A.2Methodological considerations for collecting data
Good
A.3Methodological considerations
Good
Criteria Feedback
- The research question is focused, quantitative, and clearly placed in an appropriate physics context.
- The investigation is methodologically detailed enough to be broadly reproducible, with a clear simulation workflow and data-collection plan.
- The student identifies several relevant practical considerations, including mesh quality, steady-state selection, and the effect of simulation settings on validity.
- The design still leaves an important confounding issue unresolved because changing width and height may alter the drag coefficient as well as frontal area.
- Some CFD details are missing, so full reproducibility is not yet achieved.
- A few methodological choices, such as repeated simulations in a deterministic setup, are not operationally explained.
Criteria B: Data Analysis
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria StrandsPro
B.1Communication of data recording and processing
Good
B.2Consideration of uncertainties
Moderate
B.3Data processing quality
Moderate
Criteria Feedback
- The data table is readable and includes units, multiple area values, and repeated drag-force readings.
- The student makes a genuine attempt to quantify uncertainty through ranges and gradient bounds.
- The processing pathway is understandable, with a mean calculation, regression, and correlation statistic.
- The student's communication of the data trail from raw simulation output to processed values is generally clear.
- The uncertainty treatment is incomplete because key uncertainties are not fully sourced, propagated, or displayed on the main graph.
- The interpretation of the p-value is statistically incorrect.
- The analysis does not adequately address the possibility that the drag coefficient changes with geometry scaling.
- Some presentation choices reduce precision, especially the lack of visible error bars and the use of overly fine decimal places.
Criteria C: Conclusion
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria StrandsPro
C.1Conclusion relevance and support
Good
C.2Scientific context comparison
Moderate
Criteria Feedback
- Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
- Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
- Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
- Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Criteria D: Evaluation
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria StrandsPro
D.1Methodological weaknesses
Good
D.2Suggested improvements
Good
Criteria Feedback
- Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
- Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
- Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
- Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.