0 Voturi pozitive0 Voturi negative

3 (de) vizualizări7 paginiCFD simulation journal

Aug 21, 2014

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

CFD simulation journal

© All Rights Reserved

3 (de) vizualizări

CFD simulation journal

© All Rights Reserved

- Guideline for Fuel Saving Measures on Bulk Carriers
- 79946
- Simple Beginning 3D OpenFOAM Tutorial
- Simple beginning 3D OpenFOAM Tutorial.pdf
- Question
- Meeee Eeeeee Mm Eee
- Applied_Computational_Fluid_Dynamics.pdf
- Investigation of Hydrodynamic Behavior in Random Packing Using CFD Simulation
- Guidelines for Numerical Flow Simulation Around Marine Propeller
- CFD investigation of the cold hydrodynamics of a laboratory scale CFB furnace
- Tajeda Martinez
- Fluent Intro 14.5 L11 Transient
- Turbulence Model in Open Foam
- Agard Turbulence
- Computation of Aerodynamic Coefficients of Ships Using FINEMarine
- transitionsum.pdf
- Bow Thruster Currents at Open Quay Constructions on Piles
- A study of abrasive waterjet.docx
- Literature Review on Correlations of the Non-Darcy Coefficient - Dacun Li
- Multiphase Flow Modelling

Sunteți pe pagina 1din 7

www.elsevier.com/locate/jlp

Evaluation of a CFD porous model for calculating ventilation in

explosion hazard assessments

C.E. Fothergill

ab

, S. Chynoweth

a

, P. Roberts

a,

, A. Packwood

b

a

Shell Global Solutions, P.O. Box 1, Chester, CH1 3SH, UK

b

Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, University of Surrey, GU2 7XH, UK

Abstract

In the past, gas explosion assessment relied on worst case scenarios. A more realistic approach is to look at the probability of

explosions and their likely severity. The most exible way of investigating many different scenarios is to estimate a ventilation

ow, feed this into a ammable volume calculation and then calculate the explosion severity. The procedure allows many parameters

to be varied efciently. A Computational Fluid Dynamics porous model is evaluated for modelling the ventilation ow through

congested regions, including a new method that has been developed to derive the resistance. Comparison with velocity measurements

from a large scale model of an offshore module showed that overall the CFD model performs very well, especially considering

that the homogenous porosity block does not model any of the internal obstructions and therefore would not predict any local ow

effects. This gives condence that the overall ow pattern is sufciently close to the local ow patterns, to be used in explosion

assessments. The porous approximation in CFX is found to underpredict the turbulence intensity in the obstacle array compared to

the explosion model EXSIM. Improving the turbulence prediction in the porous model would be valuable, so a relatively simple

method of increasing the turbulence in porous regions is proposed. The CFD model will provide the non-uniform natural ventilation

owelds of complex regions for future explosion assessments at a hierarchy of levels.

2003 Shell Research Ltd. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: CFD; Porous model; Explosion assessment

1. Introduction

In the past, gas explosion assessment relied on worst

case scenarios. A more realistic approach is to look at

the probability of explosions and their likely severity.

For instance, a gas release may not result in a uniform

ammable mixture throughout the module; and the

pressures created from a worst case explosion arising

from the ignition of a stoichiometric gas cloud extending

through the entire module have been proven to be higher

than those created by a realistic gas cloud (Johnson,

Cleaver, Puttock, and Van Wingerden, 2002).

The most exible way of investigating many different

scenarios is to estimate a ventilation ow, feed this into

a ammable volume calculation and then calculate the

373-5845.

E-mail address: pete.t.roberts@shell.com (P. Roberts).

0950-4230/03/$ - see front matter 2003 Shell Research Ltd. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0950-4230(02)00113-4

explosion severity (Fig. 1). The procedure allows many

parameters to be varied efciently, unlike a single step

process where a CFD model could calculate the

explosion severity of one individual scenario directly,

but each variation of the input parameters would involve

another computationally expensive simulation. A new

method of modelling the ventilation ow through con-

gested regions is evaluated here. This involves rep-

resenting a congested region as a volume of homogenous

porosity in the CFX-4 CFD model. The method chosen

to parameterise the porous region is described and

assessed here. The results of the porous simulations are

validated against full scale experimental measurements

and another CFD code, EXSIM

(http://www.exsim.com).

2. Background

Three main methods are currently available for the

rapid calculation of ventilation ow; zone models, inte-

342 C.E. Fothergill et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 16 (2003) 341347

Fig. 1. Stages of an explosion calculation.

gral models and empirical approximations. These tech-

niques are appropriate where the ow is expected to be

spatially uniform (Grosso, 1992), but in more complex

regions the ow eld can contain signicant areas of

non-uniformity such as recirculation regions and these

cases need to be calculated using CFD. The large-scale

ow circulations and patterns within the module can be

modelled by representing the congestion in the module

as a volume of homogenous porosity and resistance. This

approximation is used instead of fully resolving the

obstacles because:

It is computationally more efcient, allowing a large

number of connement arrangements under a range

of windspeeds to be modelled.

The results need to be applicable to any module, so

one single internal arrangement would not be appro-

priate as it would create specic ow patterns that

would not be appropriate input for calculating am-

mable volumes.

The details of the ow inside the module are not

required by simpler ammable volume models that

use the ventilation velocity.

The evaluation of this method will be valuable for

many applications.

Research concerning wakes behind surface mounted

two-dimensional porous obstacles (Shiau, 2000; Lee &

Kim, 1999; Raju, Garde, Singh SK & Singh N, 1988)

has allowed the basic features of the perturbed ow to

be reasonably well understood. The large scale general

ow patterns inside a free-standing porous region in

atmospheric ow has rarely been considered, the closest

examples being investigations into groups of buildings

(Macdonald, 2000).

The ammable volume is calculated using a method

suitable to the likely complexity of the problem. Simple

correlations can be used to arrive at the ammable vol-

ume (Cleaver & Britter, 2001) if a characteristic venti-

lation velocity is known. A more accurate method

(Chynoweth, 2001) uses random walk theory. Many dif-

ferent release scenarios can be calculated with one single

ow eld as the basis, while the release location, orien-

tation, ow rate and composition are all varied. The

efciency of the technique means that many thousands

of simulations can be performed in order to construct a

statistically sound picture of the probable ammable gas

clouds. The explosion models use the ammable volume

input, and range from simple empirical methods

(Puttock, 1995) through phenomenological models

(Puttock et al., 1998) to CFD models (Saeter, 1998). The

model complexity required is case dependent and in

many situations it is appropriate to apply more than

one model.

3. Porous model in CFD

Geometry is represented as a porous region in CFX

using the Porosity Distributed Resistance (PDR) formu-

lation of the governing equations. The model is a gener-

alisation of the Navier-Stokes equations for uid ow

and of Darcys law commonly used for ows in porous

regions (Miguel, van de Braak, Silva, & Bot, 2001). This

method was rst proposed by Patankar and Spalding

(1974). In the PDR method, the presence of obstructions

modies the governing equations in two ways. Firstly,

the volume of the obstruction is represented in the con-

trol volume in such a way that only the non-blocked

areas are available for uid ow. Secondly, obstacles

give additional ow resistance which must be modelled.

The modied Navier-Stokes momentum equation is

written as

343 C.E. Fothergill et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 16 (2003) 341347

t

(brU

i

)

x

j

(b

i

rU

j

U

i

)

x

j

(b

i

s

ij

) b

p

x

i

R

i

where U

i

is the mean velocity vector in the i-direction,

b is the volume porosity, b

i

is the area porosity in the i

direction, and

R

i

b(R

C

i

R

F

i

|U

i

|)U

i

R

Cx

(kgs

-1

/m

-3

) is the resistance constant in the x-direc-

tion and R

Fx

(kg/m

4

) is the speed resistance factor in the

x-direction. The linear resistance term R

Cx

can be set to

zero due to the highly turbulent nature of the ow.

The porous approximation has been used to model

two-dimensional porous fences (Takahashi, Du, Wu,

Maki & Kawashima, 1998). Packwood (2000) used a

resistance based on empirical data from Hoerner (1965)

and tested the performance of a modied k- and the

Reynolds stress model for ow downstream of fences.

Overall the much simpler, modied k- model worked

surprisingly well. The three-dimensional problem has

been largely neglected, although Speirs (1997) experi-

mental study showed that the main ow features were

common to both the two and three-dimensional cases.

Another study of 3D volumes compared CFD PDR

results to experiments (Hoang, Verboven, De Baerde-

maeker & Nicola , 2000) and found 26% error in the

CFD simulations, but this was thought to be mostly due

to mesh quality.

Despite these studies, methods for representing com-

plicated geometries as porous regions in CFD are not

well established. The value for resistance depends on

both the shapes of the blockages within a module and

the distribution of large volume and small volume

obstacles. The drag on the ow through a porous region

can be estimated by calculating the drag due to each

individual obstacle and then summing these values to

arrive at the overall resistance.

The speed resistance factor R

Fi

(kg/m

4

) equates to

R

F

i

D

Vu

2

where V is the total volume, u is the averaged ow speed

and D is the drag. SI units are used throughout. The drag

on an individual object can be written

D

1

2

ru

2

C

D

A

where r is density, C

D

is the drag coefcient, and A is

the frontal area. The effective drag of the entire module

and all of its internal congestion was then taken to be

the sum of the drag of each obstacle:

D

i

1

2

ru

2

C

(i)

D

A

(i)

where C

D

(i)

and A

(i)

are values for an individual

obstacle.Therefore,

D

1

2

ru

2

i

C

(i)

D

A

(i)

and

R

F

i

1

2

r

C

(i)

D

A

(i)

V

The formulation above uses CAD data to calculate the

actual drag for four categories of obstruction, and each

of the shapes have different drag coefcients, available

in the literature (Munson, Young & Okiishi, 1998).

Implicit in the above formulation is the assumption

that obstacles are sufciently well spaced. This issue has

been addressed in another study using a resistance para-

meter, (TNO, 1989) where corrections were made for

obstacles lying in the wake of another obstacle. In Pack-

woods (2000) simulations the main deciency found is

that it overestimates the total resistance in cases where

grids are closely spaced, due to the partial shielding

effect of an upstream grid on a downstream one. A tech-

nique which sums the drag of all of the obstacles within

the module may similarly overpredict the overall resist-

ance.

The Engineering Sciences Data Unit Item 74040

(1974) provides a method for estimating the pressure

drop across tube banks which takes into account the

spacing of the obstacles. This method was used to test

the effect of spacing. It assumes that all of the obstruc-

tions are circular cylinders, and that the ow is con-

strained to go through the tube matrix rather than around

it. The resistance of an array of typical dimensions and

1 m spacing were calculated using both the ESDU

method and the method that sums the drag. A difference

of 7.5% was found in the ventilation. This is negligible

when considering the role of the ventilation gures in

the calculation of gas cloud size and explosion assess-

ments, but indicates that the method could be

improved nonetheless.

4. Validation

The ability of the porous block approximation in the

CFX code to represent ow through congested modules

was evaluated using measurements from a full scale

module and the results from another code, EXSIM

(http://www.exsim.com). EXSIM is a CFD based

software tool specically designed for explosion model-

ling, which models more of the complex geometry

within a congested region.

Simulations were carried out of the ow through a

module of dimensions 28 m 12 m 8 m with one

long side, the adjacent short side and the top blocked.

Five different wind speeds were modelled, ranging from

2.77.8 m/s, and the same wind direction was used in

344 C.E. Fothergill et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 16 (2003) 341347

every case, with the wind impinging on the short blocked

side of the module. Velocities from CFX were compared

at the locations where measurements were taken in the

module. The velocities for the different windspeeds were

non-dimensionalised by the ambient windspeed in each

case. The non-dimensionalised values from each differ-

ent wind speed simulation were then averaged to give a

single value at each location for the measurements and

the model.

The experimental programme was carried out in a

Joint Industry Project with 11 participating companies

(BG Technology, 1999). Velocities were measured

inside an experimental rig representative of an offshore

module, in different wind speeds. The rig was on open

land with trees and buildings in the vicinity. Ten anem-

ometers were placed in two planes, one at eight m along

the length of the rig, and the other at 20 m along the

length of the rig.

The domain in the CFX model extended ve module

heights around the module and 15 heights downwind, in

accordance with guidance found in Casey and Win-

tergerste, (2000). The domain was divided into cells on

a 0.5 m grid. The inlet velocity was tted with a log

law prole

U

ln

z

z

o

for the location of the model, was used. The k - turbu-

lence model was used, and turbulent kinetic energy at

the inlet was derived from wind tunnel measurements.

The CAD data describing the module was used with the

method described above, which sums the drag of all the

individual obstacles. This gave the porosity and resist-

ance of the porous block that represented the internal

congestion of the module, with porosity = 0.93 and R

x

= 0.11kg/m

4

. Fig. 2 shows the congestion inside the

module.

The EXSIM model takes account of more of the

details of the congestion, by using CAD data to calculate

a porosity and resistance appropriate to the congestion

in each cell on a coarse (1 m) grid to use in the PDR

formulation. The k - turbulence model in EXSIM

includes turbulence source terms appropriate to ow

through congested regions.

5. Results and analysis

The vector plot in Fig. 3 illustrates, in plan view, the

results of the CFX simulations with an ambient wind

speed of 6.7 m/s. The ambient wind is approaching from

the left hand side and impinging on the short blocked

side. The ow leaves the module at the upwind end of

the long open side due to the pressure reduction, and

Fig. 2. Geometry of experimental rig.

ow is entering at the downwind end to compensate for

this. Fig. 4, a, b, and c show the u, v, and w components

of the velocity predicted and measured at the ten anem-

ometer locations. The reversed ow shown in the vector

plot (Fig. 3) helps to explain why the u velocities pre-

dicted by CFX are all negative. The CFX prediction of

the velocity component is close to the experimental

values in almost every case. This is surprisingly good

because the CFD velocity is representative of the entire

cell and so is an average over 0.5 m. The anemometers

on the other hand are amongst the geometry of the mod-

ule and measure the velocity at that point, which will be

affected by any nearby obstructions. Thus we would not

expect precise agreement with the measurements. A few

of the velocities are in the opposite direction to those

measured, which will be due to the effect of the local

obstructions on the ow past the anemometers.

Turbulence predicted by CFX and EXSIM was also

compared. The comparison was of the same arrangement

with two adjacent sides and the top blocked, and the

wind impinging on the short blocked side. Fig. 5 a & b

show that the both the turbulent kinetic energy and the

turbulent eddy dissipation predicted by CFX is much

lower than EXSIM. The coarser EXSIM mesh will

account for part of the difference because small features

that could be resolved on the CFX mesh would be coun-

ted as turbulent energy by EXSIM. The most important

reason for the difference in turbulence is that EXSIM

uses a source term to increase turbulence in the wake of

obstacles. The increase in turbulence when ow

345 C.E. Fothergill et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 16 (2003) 341347

Fig. 3. Flow vectors in and around module from CFX.

Fig. 4. a,b,c. Comparison of non-dimensionalised u, v & w compo-

nents of velocity.

Fig. 5. a,b. Turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) and turbulent eddy dissi-

pation (TED) predicted by CFX and EXSIM.

impinges on an obstacle is signicant, and its role as a

mechanism for increasing ame speed in explosions is

well established (Brandeis, 1985; Dorge, Pangritz &

Wagner, 1976). EXSIM is primarily an explosion model

that has been designed to capture these effects, and

therefore provides a more accurate prediction of turbu-

lence than the CFX porous model. If the obstacles in the

geometry were resolved in CFX then the turbulence

would be predicted, but the CFX porous approximation

purely reduces the volume available for free ow, and

adds resistance to the ow. The porous model in CFX

would benet from improved turbulence prediction

because of the effects on the mean ow, and because

this would allow the ammable volumes to be calculated

more accurately when using the random walk method.

While the best approach would be to dene a source

346 C.E. Fothergill et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 16 (2003) 341347

term in the k - equations, this is complicated to do in

CFX at the application level. One technique to improve

the turbulence prediction is to use a model similar to

that which is typically implemented at boundaries such

as inlets, based on the local velocity eld and local tur-

bulence length scale. This can be implemented in CFX

using an extra FORTRAN routine which can introduce

a source of any kind at any location within a domain.

The turbulent kinetic energy k and the turbulent eddy

dissipation could be replaced by values calculated

locally using the following:

k C

1

U

2

e

C

2

k

3/2

Lt

pm

where Lt

pm

is the turbulent length scale in the porous

media, akin to the interstice size, and C

1

and C

2

are con-

stants. The values of these are problem specic, and as

such are difcult to recommend. One method of nding

the constant values would be to set up a model of

obstacles representing the porous region explicitly. The

local turbulence constants required to achieve similar

levels of turbulence in the porous media could then be

determined.

6. Conclusions

A new method has been developed to derive the resist-

ance that is used to modify the Navier-Stokes equations

in the Porosity Distributed Resistance formulation. A

large scale model of an offshore module was simulated

using CFX-4. Comparison with the measurements

showed that overall the CFD model performs very well,

especially considering that the homogenous porosity

block does not model any of the internal obstructions

and therefore would not predict any local ow effects.

This gives condence that the overall ow pattern is suf-

ciently close to the local ow patterns to be used in

explosion assessments.

The porous approximation in CFX is found to under-

predict the turbulence intensity in the obstacle array. The

PDR formulation does not account for the signicant tur-

bulence created by obstacles, whereas the EXSIM k -

turbulence model has been modied to capture the

extra turbulence. Improving the turbulence prediction in

the porous model would be valuable, rstly because it

would provide more accurate inputs to random walk

methods of calculating ammable volume, and secondly

because the turbulence itself can affect the mean ow.

A relatively simple method of increasing the turbulence

in porous regions is proposed, by locally specifying the

turbulence to raise it to levels found when the obstacles

are modelled explicitly.

The CFD model can be used to provide the non-uni-

form natural ventilation owelds of complex regions

for future explosion assessments at a hierarchy of levels,

whether simple approximate methods are adequate or

more complex methods are required to calculate the

ammable volume, in addition to providing pressure

boundary conditions for simple zone models.

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements are given to the Engineering and

Physical Sciences Research Council and to Shell

Research for funding this work, and to the Joint Industry

Project for providing experimental results.

References

BG Technology (1999). Gas build up for high pressure natural gas

releases in naturally ventilated offshore modules. Large Scale

Experiments. British Gas Technology Report.

Brandeis, J. (1985). Effect of obstacles on ames. Combustion Science

and Technology, 44, 6173.

Casey, M., & Wintergerste, T. (Eds.). (2000). Special interest group

on quality and trust in Industrial CFD best practice guidelines.

European Research Community on Flow, Turbulence and Combus-

tion.

Chynoweth, S. (2001). Dispersion in congested environments. Pro-

ceedings, Major Hazards Offshore 2001, 27-28 November, London.

Cleaver, R. P. & Britter, R. E. (2001). A workbook approach to esti-

mating the ammable volume produced by a gas release. Technical

Discussion Paper R406, Fire and Blast Information Group News-

letter, Issue 29, July 2001.

Dorge, K. J., Pangritz, D., & Wagner, H. G. (1976). Experiments on

velocity augmentation of spherical ames by grids. Acta Astro-

nautica, 3, 10671076.

ESDU (1974). Pressure loss during crossow of uids with heat trans-

fer over plain tube banks without bafes. Engineering Sciences

Data Unit Item No. 74040.

Grosso, M. (1992). Wind pressure distribution around buildings: a

parametrical model. Energy and Buildings, 18, 101131.

Hoang, M. L., Verboven, P., De Baerdemaeker, J., & Nicola , B. M.

(2000). Analysis of the air ow in a cold store by means of compu-

tational uid dynamics. International Journal of Refrigeration,

23(2), 127140.

Hoerner, S. F. (1965). Fluid dynamic drag. Published by the author,

Library of Congress No. 64,19666.

Johnson, D. M., Cleaver, R. P., Puttock, J. P., & Van Wingerden, C.

J. M., Investigation of Gas Dispersion and Explosions in Offshore

Modules. Proceedings, 2002 Offshore Technology Conference,

Houston, TX, 6-9 May 2002.

Lee, S., & Kim, H. (1999). Laboratory measurements and turbulence

eld behind porous fences. Journal of Wind Engineering and

Industrial Aerodynamics, 80, 311326.

Macdonald (2000). A comparison of results from scaled eld and wind

tunnel modelling of dispersion in arrays of obstacles. Atmospheric

Environment, 32(22), 38453862.

Miguel, A. F., van de Braak, N. J., Silva, A. M., & Bot, G. P. A.

(2001). Wind-induced airow through permeable materials. Jour-

nal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 89, 4547.

Munson, B. R., Young, D. F., & Okiishi, T. (1998). Fundamentals of

uid mechanics. John Wiley and Sons Inc.

Packwood, A. R. (2000). Flow through porous fences in thick bound-

347 C.E. Fothergill et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 16 (2003) 341347

ary layers: comparisons between laboratory and numerical experi-

ments. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics,

88, 7590.

Patankar, S. V., & Spalding, D. B. (1974). A calculation procedure

for the transient and steady-state behaviour of shell-and -tube heat

exchangers. In N. H. Afgan, & E. V. Schundler (Eds.), Heat

exchangers: design and theory sourcebook (pp. 155176).

McGraw-Hill.

Puttock, J. S. (1995). Fuel gas explosion guidelinesthe congestion

assessment method. Second European Conference on major Haz-

ards Onshore and Offshore, IchemE, Rugby, UK p. 267.

Puttock, J. S., Yardley, M. R., & Cresswell, T. M. (1998). Prediction

of vapour cloud explosions using the SCOPE model. Journal of

Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 13, 419431.

Raju, R., Garde, R. J., Singh, S. K., & Singh, N. (1988). Experimental

study on characteristics of ow past porous fences. Journal of Wind

Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 29, 155163.

Shiau, B. (2000). Experimental study of a turbulent boundary layer

ow over a wind-break of semi-circular section. Journal of Wind

Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 84, 247256.

Speirs, L. J. (1997). Wake dispersion on process plant: enhancing VOC

emissions control. Engineering Doctorate Thesis, University of

Surrey.

Takahashi, S., Du, M., Wu, P., Maki, T., & Kawashima, S. (1998).

Three dimensional numerical simulation of the ow over complex

terrain with windbreak hedge. Environmental Modelling and

Software, 13(34), 257265.

TNO Green Book (1989). Methods for the determination of possible

damage. Rijswijk, The Netherlands: TNO, (Chapter 1).

- Guideline for Fuel Saving Measures on Bulk CarriersÎncărcat deGeorge Papa
- 79946Încărcat deSwati Chandran
- Simple Beginning 3D OpenFOAM TutorialÎncărcat desohcahtoa
- Simple beginning 3D OpenFOAM Tutorial.pdfÎncărcat deAnkit Gupta
- QuestionÎncărcat dearavind
- Meeee Eeeeee Mm EeeÎncărcat dealexmechdesigner
- Applied_Computational_Fluid_Dynamics.pdfÎncărcat deragul
- Investigation of Hydrodynamic Behavior in Random Packing Using CFD SimulationÎncărcat deEdilberto Murrieta Luna
- Guidelines for Numerical Flow Simulation Around Marine PropellerÎncărcat dewaleed yehia
- CFD investigation of the cold hydrodynamics of a laboratory scale CFB furnaceÎncărcat deignacio7paz
- Tajeda MartinezÎncărcat deGaurav Chopra
- Fluent Intro 14.5 L11 TransientÎncărcat deabouelrich188
- Turbulence Model in Open FoamÎncărcat dejahid
- Agard TurbulenceÎncărcat deVivek Kanti
- Computation of Aerodynamic Coefficients of Ships Using FINEMarineÎncărcat detanyaku
- transitionsum.pdfÎncărcat defrankkqqzz
- Bow Thruster Currents at Open Quay Constructions on PilesÎncărcat deYO Batia Bii
- A study of abrasive waterjet.docxÎncărcat deMynameisiii
- Literature Review on Correlations of the Non-Darcy Coefficient - Dacun LiÎncărcat deAli
- Multiphase Flow ModellingÎncărcat deivanmatijevic
- Ansys Icem Cfd BrochureÎncărcat dethienmakb
- A ally Simple Turbulence Closure Model for Attached and Separated Turbulence Boundary LayersÎncărcat deShapiro Alex
- introcfd.pdfÎncărcat deAhmed Salem Amr
- Pasar a LatexÎncărcat deEXAMENQUIMESTRAL
- 182902.pdfÎncărcat delrodriguez_892566
- Fluids 16Încărcat deNilesh Pancholi
- EFFECT OF SHAPE OF TALL BUILDINGS SUBJECTED TO WIND LOADINGÎncărcat deIAEME Publication
- [MartiÌ-n, Montes, Galan, 2008] Bubbling process in stirred tank reactors II - Agitator effect on the mass transfer rates.pdfÎncărcat dejunior_100
- Modelo Hidrodinamico Reactor Cilindrico ElectrodoÎncărcat dealerozco
- hydraulicÎncărcat deShahram Hawrami

- Caltrans-Bridge Design Practice Feb 2015Încărcat deZain Oo
- Shell Shepherd v3.1.0Încărcat deMochamad Safarudin
- Basic Design ValuesÎncărcat deHomero Silva
- Davis_2011Încărcat deMochamad Safarudin
- Quadcopter Dynamics, Simulation, And ControlÎncărcat deFajar Prima
- Conversion Calculator Ppm H2SÎncărcat deCarlos Maldonado Salazar
- 531808Încărcat deMochamad Safarudin
- Consistent Units in Anaylsis.pdfÎncărcat denabilishes
- 5.2_Active Fire ProtectionÎncărcat deTony Eduok
- Interpreting FEA Results_ Integration Point Data - EchobioÎncărcat deMochamad Safarudin
- X.1.32.01_20Explosion_20Isolation_20Valve_1Încărcat deMochamad Safarudin
- DIN 1.4003Încărcat deDhaniel
- Tables TechnicalProperties EnÎncărcat deleak
- White FinalÎncărcat deMochamad Safarudin
- Geothermal Basics - BasicsÎncărcat deMochamad Safarudin
- Lec08-Control3Încărcat deMochamad Safarudin
- Mechatronics DesignÎncărcat deMochamad Safarudin
- 103303-8787 IJET-IJENSÎncărcat deMochamad Safarudin
- Auto Ground VehicleÎncărcat deMochamad Safarudin
- Paper-Modeling and Validation of 7-DOF Ride Model for Heavy Vehicle-libreÎncărcat deMochamad Safarudin
- FORMULATION OF STIFFNESS CONSTANT AND EFFECTIVE MASS FOR A FOLDED BEAM..pdfÎncărcat deSabino HectorCampos
- Beam Sdof LastÎncărcat deUNsha bee kom
- Gas Explosion VentingÎncărcat deMochamad Safarudin
- app2Încărcat deMochamad Safarudin
- Paper 289870Încărcat deMochamad Safarudin
- tp72-c3Încărcat deSachin Kumar Singh
- unix shell scriptinglÎncărcat deBanhi
- Pahl Et Al-2005-Chemical Engineering & TechnologyÎncărcat deMochamad Safarudin
- 2004-003-FP Sousa Rodolfo TrézÎncărcat deMochamad Safarudin
- Final Agenda-4th Deepwater Asia Congress%2c Indonesia 2015Încărcat deMochamad Safarudin

- AOAC 925.10Încărcat deMuhammad Zinedine
- Topic3 Ventilation Part 1Încărcat dewasiq ismail
- Paroc Flat Roofs INTÎncărcat dehucklberry
- Revista intersectii No7_engÎncărcat debabuliu
- Pharma GuidelineÎncărcat desksingh82
- CO Car Park Ventilation System - FAQÎncărcat dehessam_seifi
- FM DataSheets_Mechanical RefrigerationÎncărcat deyunying21
- COMMO COMPACT Engleski KompletÎncărcat deZika Topalovic
- Valuable Subfloor (Basement) Ventilation Be Able to Prevent Dampness, Mould, TermitesÎncărcat denventilation
- resumeÎncărcat deapi-316259915
- Advanced Naturally Ventilated ArchitectureÎncărcat debeybimay28
- BEATs2010_314 (1)Încărcat demirza yousuf
- 300014061Încărcat deVh Iglesias Fernández
- 308128988 Aktualisasi Pancasila Dalam Kehidupan Berbangsa Dan Bernegara Di EraÎncărcat deIlham Caisar Julianto
- TN01 Whole House Ventilation PDFÎncărcat deAsdrúbalAguirreCorrea
- 2GR-FE Emission ControlÎncărcat deLuks Fernandez
- AIR SNS EN-1Încărcat deYidan Zheng
- Passivhaus Airtightness GuideÎncărcat deBegets Begets
- Rest RoomÎncărcat destranfir
- Data Center Cleaning Best PracticesÎncărcat denadim.remane
- RJ1802_WEBÎncărcat dePaulo Ferreira
- 2008-Biotreatment of indoor air for VOC removalÎncărcat deSuwat Soonglerdsongpha
- Daylighting and Natural VentilationÎncărcat deDevansh Mehta
- Industrial Safety SyllabusÎncărcat deramakrishna333781
- Indoor Environment QualityÎncărcat deUdari Wickramasinghe
- 6 VRV AHU ApplicationÎncărcat deCong Viet
- Ex:RecomReportÎncărcat delolomo
- Spangen QuarterÎncărcat dePetra Popa
- Cab. Reg. No. 498 - Latvian Construction Standard LBN 201-10Încărcat delietotajs71
- Panasonic - FV-11VH1_11VHL1.Manual Spec Sheet- Westside Wholesale - Call 1-877-998-9378.Image.markedÎncărcat deWestsideWholesale

## Mult mai mult decât documente.

Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.

Anulați oricând.