Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Просмотров: 342

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Validations and applications of a CFD tool dedicated to wind assessment in urban areas
- Subject Knowledge
- Modifier
- Channel 1
- Printing _Generating 3-D Tetrahedral Elements - HM-3210
- Car Design
- Geomagic Studio 9
- Paquete Rgl en r
- Package 3 D Rgl
- Softimage User Guide_ Geometric Objects
- Ale Tutorial
- Sysnoise-CFD
- Gc 2011 Garan Zha
- An Introduction cad
- cfx-numerics
- 3D Modeling
- cgx_2.3
- 160198
- CFD_01_Grotjans_ANSYS_ANSYS_16.0_CFD_Update_Release_Highlights-1
- 116_Welds

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

Milovan Perić

CD adapco Group, Nürnberg Office, Germany

Summary

The use of CFD is spreading in all areas of engineering. The flow domains are usually very

complicated, which places high demands on both meshing and solution methods.

In this manuscript the newest developments in the handling of complex geometries in CFD are

presented. The limitations with respect to the shape of control volumes that may appear in a

numerical grid are lifted: cells of arbitrary polyhedral shape are allowed. CAD-integration of all CFD

tools and automatic generation of polyhedral meshes, as well as a solution method that can use such

meshes, are also presented and the advantages of the new technology are discussed. The emphasis

is on CAD integration, automatic mesh generation, and optimization of mesh quality. The aim of all of

these measures is the shortening of analysis time in all phases of a CFD simulation and at the same

time an improvement of solution quality.

Keywords:

Introduction

Most flows of engineering interest take place in complex geometries. The flow domain is in many

cases difficult to define: the CAD-data provides a description of parts surrounded by fluid, but the

extraction of a closed fluid volume is often a non-trivial job. CFD-engineers usually spend a large – if

not the largest – portion of their analysis time on this task.

The starting point for a CFD simulation is often a CAD-data, usually provided by designers or analysts

from another department; CFD-engineer has to import this data into one or more tools and work on it

until a satisfactory mesh is created.

A tool for the clean-up and repair of CAD-data is indispensable in the process of grid generation for

complex geometries. Not only that it has to provide the possibility of creating a closed surface

enclosing the flow domain, but it also has to facilitate the desired simplification and removal of

geometry details which are deemed unimportant for the flow analysis. Such details can make

meshing substantially more complicated while having little effect on the computed flow; however, one

has to be careful as sometimes small geometrical details can trigger phenomena which otherwise

may not be captured in the simulation (separation, unsteadiness etc.). This step often requires a

skilled analyst who can evaluate the surface and make adequate decisions about the level of detail

that is to be retained in the final closed surface.

In addition to flow volume extraction from “exact” geometry defined by CAD-data, surface-wrapping

techniques are often used to create an approximated closed surface of the flow domain. This

approach usually leads to small geometry details getting lost during the wrapping process, which is

often satisfactory; caution is needed in order to ensure that the main flow features are captured. The

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

NAFEMS Seminar: “Simulation of Complex May 3-4, 2004

Flows (CFD) – Application and Trends 1 Niedernhausen/Wiesbaden, Germany

advantage of this approach is that it can be fully automated. An example of application of a surface-

wrapping technique to create a closed surface of a car for the simulation of external air flow is shown

in Fig. 1.

Once a closed surface of the flow domain is obtained, it needs to be analyzed in order to identify

features which must be preserved in the mesh. These include sharp edges and surface curvature,

which may require special treatment during the meshing process.

CAD-Integration of CFD

The approach to mesh generation described above – which is the current state-of-the-art – is slowly

changing; as CFD is becoming a part of the global CAE process, the need for its integration into CAD

tools becomes obvious. CFD add-ins are today available for almost all major CAD-packages (STAR-

CD and Comet CFD-solvers have been fully integrated into SolidWorks, Pro/ENGINEER, Unigraphics

18 and NX, CATIA V5). This enables the designer both to generate the solid model of the flow do -

main from scratch, and to extract the flow domain from a CAD-model of solid parts. The major ad -

vantage of this approach is that parametric studies are made easier, since the parametrization of the

solid model remains preserved and a mesh with the same properties can be generated for a modified

geometry with a push of one button. Also, as CFD becomes CCM (Computational Continuum

Mechanics), coupled analysis of fluid flow, heat transfer, and solid body deformation requires mesh -

ing of both solid and fluid domains. Thus, mesh generation within the CAD environment is desired.

performing a simulation of external air flow (also showing a trimmed, locally refined hexahedral mesh

in the symmetry plane). Courtesy of AUDI AG.

The above-mentioned CAD-integrations of CFD tools provide not only the automatic meshing

capabilities within the CAD environment; the solution as well as the post-processing of the results can

also be performed without ever leaving the native environment of the hosting CAD tool. Thus,

enterprise-wide solutions become possible, by allowing designers to run CFD simulations and

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

NAFEMS Seminar: “Simulation of Complex May 3-4, 2004

Flows (CFD) – Application and Trends 2 Niedernhausen/Wiesbaden, Germany

analysis of the results on the spot. Non-specialists in CFD can benefit from collaboration with

specialists within the same or from another organization, who can set up a sample problem in an

optimal way and allow the designer to continue with parametric studies on his own.

An example of a CAD-integrated CFD solution is shown in Fig. 2. The boundary conditions and all

other simulation parameters are set up on the solid model and remain associated with it, so that no

changes are needed during geometry variation as long as the flow conditions remain the same. The

mesh is generated fully automatically, with only a small number of parameters that need to be set

globally or at specific solid model surfaces.

Since flow domains can be arbitrarily complex, the meshing procedure should be fully automatic, as

any manual intervention by the CFD-engineer may require both too much time and special skills to

produce an optimal result. Therefore, block-structured grids can seldom be used; unstructured

meshes are the only practical alternative.

Fig. 2: An example of a CAD-integrated set of CFD tools (Comet-Pro/E): solid modeling, automatic

meshing, flow simulation, and post-processing within Pro/ENGINEER environment. Shown is the

shear stress on vehicle surface and streamlines around the vehicle; red ellipse indicates the Comet-

Pro/E button in the Pro/ENGINEER GUI.

The meshing tool – in addition to being automatic – needs to fulfill the following criteria:

Prismatic layers should be automatically created along walls, if viscous flows are to be computed.

The prisms may have any polygonal base (from triangle onwards) – it is most important that there

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

NAFEMS Seminar: “Simulation of Complex May 3-4, 2004

Flows (CFD) – Application and Trends 3 Niedernhausen/Wiesbaden, Germany

are enough of cells with two faces parallel to wall in order to allow for an appropriate treatment of

the wall boundary layer. Also, parts like ducts, pipes, narrow gaps etc. should be recognized and

meshed with prismatic cells, both for accuracy (allowing for an accurate treatment of parallel flow)

and efficiency reasons (allowing for higher aspect ratios).

The mesh fineness should be controllable, both by the user (who often knows in advance where

the mesh should be finer) and by the solver (for a subsequent mesh adaptation and error-guided

mesh refinement).

The mesh quality should be controlled and, where necessary, automatically repaired. This can be

achieved by re-meshing, merging, or splitting of “bad” cells.

The most widely used type of unstructured meshes are those made of tetrahedra, usually with a layer

of triangular prisms along walls to allow for an appropriate treatment of boundary layers. While such

meshes are the easiest to generate, their quality is often inappropriate. The prism layers along walls

alleviate the problems associated with flat tetrahedra near boundary, but the fact that a tetrahedron

has only four faces – and thus only four neighbor cells – makes cells of this type less suitable for

approximation of diffusive fluxes than hexahedra or polyhedra. The problem is that, in order to

compute gradients of dependent variables, the four nearest neighbors of a given cell are often not

sufficient to achieve the accuracy offered by control volumes with six or more faces. The

consequence is that a larger number of tetrahedral control volumes is needed when computing

viscous flows to achieve the desired accuracy than when hexahedra or polyhedra are used.

Hexahedral control volumes are probably optimal from efficiency and accuracy point of view, but

meshes made of good quality hexahedra are difficult to generate automatically. Polyhedral meshes,

on the other hand, can be generated automatically as easily as tetrahedral meshes; while they have

more neighbors and thus require both more storage and computing time per cell, the higher accuracy

usually compensates for the extra effort, as will be demonstrated below.

predominantly hexahedral meshes, with a limited number of polyhedra and prisms, has been

commercially introduced by the CD adapco Group more than five years ago. In this method, a so

called “subsurface” is created by displacing the surface of the solution domain inwards by a certain

distance. This subsurface cuts then cells of a “custom mesh” – typically Cartesian – creating trimmed

cells (polyhedra). Between subsurface and solution domain boundary a layered mesh (made of

hexahedra and some prisms) is created. The limited number of trimmed (polyhedral) cells are thus

away from walls, ensuring a high-quality mesh. An example of such a mesh for a relatively simple

geometry is shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3: An example of an automatically generated trimmed mesh (left) and a polyhedral mesh (right),

both with five prism layers along walls.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

NAFEMS Seminar: “Simulation of Complex May 3-4, 2004

Flows (CFD) – Application and Trends 4 Niedernhausen/Wiesbaden, Germany

A truly polyhedral mesh for the same geometry is also shown in Fig. 3. While a polyhedral mesh is

not an optimal choice for straight pipes, it is used in this example for illustration purposes. Both

meshes are generated fully automatically, using a solid model of the flow domain created by a CAD-

tool. The user-specified parameters are: thickness of the layer along wall boundaries, number of

prism layers, and the mean cell size. High boundary curvature is automatically recognized by the

polyhedral mesher and smaller cells are generated there.

The question often asked is: which grid is optimal for my application? Any grid type leads

asymptotically to the same solution (there are exceptions where the error is not reduced by grid

refinement, but these are not typical and will not be considered here); however, the effort needed to

obtain a solution of a required accuracy depends largely on the mesh type and quality. A general

recommendation is to use prismatic cells not only along walls but also whenever flow direction is fixed

by the geometry (pipes, channels, ducts, small gaps etc.). This means that the side prism faces

should be aligned with the flow while the prism base should be orthogonal to flow direction. On the

other hand, when recirculating flows are encountered, polyhedral cells tend to generally be the most

efficient ones. Tetrahedral cells – if used as control volumes – are the least suitable; there are

methods, however, which use tetrahedral meshes but solve on a dual mesh (which is effectively a

polyhedral mesh), thus alleviating the problems associated with tetrahedral control volumes.

The capability of the flow solver to use a truly polyhedral mesh is desired for many reasons, even if

the mesh is not created originally as polyhedral. The key feature of such a solver is to handle a

control volume with any number of faces (which is the case with CCM-solvers of CD adapco Group).

With this capability at hand, one can provide a unified treatment of many situations encountered in

engineering practice, which would otherwise require a special treatment:

Cell-wise local refinement: One can locally split some cells into a number of smaller cells. The one

face of a non-refined cell is now simply replaced by a number of smaller faces, which are common

to that cell and the newly-created cells by refining the original neighbor cell. Thus, only a pre-

processing step is needed to update the face and cell data, while the solver itself is not affected.

Non-matching grid block interfaces: One can join grid blocks of different topology, and again only a

pre-processing step is needed to find pieces of the interface surface that are common to two cells

on either side of the interface. The cells along the interface become polyhedra even if they are

regular Cartesian “bricks”, because the faces originally lying in the interface are replaced by a

number of smaller faces.

Sliding interfaces: The above is also true when grid blocks slide along each other, the difference

being that the faces in the sliding interface need to be updated every time the mesh is moved.

Cyclic boundaries: In the case of boundary pairs where cyclic conditions are to be applied, the

same treatment as for non-matching grid blocks can be used (upon an appropriate rotation or

translation of one boundary surface to match the other).

In all the above cases, nothing special needs to be considered in the solver, making it simpler and

easier to maintain and extend than when the so called “hanging-node” approach is applied. With

extensions of CFD to a wider range of CCM-applications in mind, keeping the solver simple and

unaffected by mesh details is a highly desirable feature.

Another advantage of the poyhedral capability of the solver is that grid quality can be better

optimized. With no topological constraints attached to the mesh, cells whose quality is not appropriate

can be modified in many ways to improve them. For example, cells can be individually split (e.g. if

they turn out to be concave) or joined with neighbor cells (e.g. if thin cells are generated through the

trimming process described above). Also, a group of cells can be removed and replaced by a set of

different cells which fulfill the quality criteria better. This is in particular true for moving meshes, where

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

NAFEMS Seminar: “Simulation of Complex May 3-4, 2004

Flows (CFD) – Application and Trends 5 Niedernhausen/Wiesbaden, Germany

the limitation of a fixed cell type (e.g. tetrahedron) would require more frequent re-meshing over a

larger part of the solution domain than when polyhedral cells are used. There are practically no limits

to cell manipulation possibilities and it is expected that we shall see a lot of effort in this area in the

future, as mesh optimization will become a major task after automatic mesh generation has become a

routine.

A solver intended for polyhedral meshes requires a different data structure than existing “legacy

codes”. However, second-order discretization of convective and diffusive fluxes as well as for source

terms can be easily accomplished for any cell type; actually, the same approximations used for

structured grids can be applied:

Midpoint rule for surface and volume integration is the simplest second-order approximation that

does not depend on the shape of integration domain. It requires only that the value of the function

to be integrated is either known or approximated at the centroid of face or volume in question.

Evaluation of surface integrals requires interpolation, since the variable values are not available at

face centroids. To this end, various practices are possible, relying on values of variables and their

gradients at centroids of the two common cells. The simplest one of second order is based on

linear interpolation and is commonly referred to as “central-differencing scheme”.

In order to evaluate diffusive fluxes, gradients are also required at face centroids. Again, various

practices are available, the simplest one of second order reducing to central differences.

In order to obtain a solution method that is efficient both with respect to memory usage and

computing time, deferred-correction approach is extensively used. In it, simple but inaccurate

approximations for surface integrals are used to build the implicit coefficient matrix, while an explicit

correction term is used to subtract the simplified approximation and replace it with a higher-order one.

Thus, the implicit coefficient matrix contains only entries from the nearest neighbors of each cell,

while all deferred corrections are summed in the source term.

Fig. 4: Two typical polyhedral control volumes with a common face (from the polyhedral mesh shown

in Fig. 3).

Figure 4 shows two typical polyhedral control volumes with one common face. The cells created

using the automatic mesher of CD adapco Group have on average 10 to 12 faces; these are defined

by straight edges but are in general not planar.

Time-integration of second order is also easily implemented; it does not depend on cell topology. The

fully-implicit scheme that uses quadratic interpolation in time (three time levels) is favored for its

simplicity and stability; another popular method is the Crank-Nicolson scheme.

The second-order approximations described above are suitable not only for RANS-type simulations

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

NAFEMS Seminar: “Simulation of Complex May 3-4, 2004

Flows (CFD) – Application and Trends 6 Niedernhausen/Wiesbaden, Germany

but also for LES and DES, as has been demonstrated in a number of studies performed by different

authors over the past few years. A recent (to be published) analysis performed at UMIST,

Manchester, has shown that polyhedral cells also offer good energy-conservation properties when the

above-described second-order approximations are used, verifying that this type of cells is – contrary

to tetrahedra – also well suited for LES.

In order to verify the accuracy and computational efficiency of polyhedral meshes, numerous

computations have been performed with test cases which poses either an analytical solution or an

accurate benchmark solution obtained on a very fine hexahedral mesh. These tests have indicated

that, for the same accuracy, polyhedral meshes require half the memory and five to 10 times less

computing time than tetrahedral meshes (using the same discretization and solution methods, i.e. the

same flow solver). While a different solver specially tuned for tetrahedral meshes may be more

efficient than the one used in the aforementioned tests, the general conclusion is likely to remain the

same.

Fig. 5: Cross-section through tetrahedral (left; 650000 cells) and polyhedral (right; 138000 cells)

mesh used to compute the flow around a sphere in a channel.

One of these basic test cases involved a computation of flow around a sphere mounted on a

cylindrical support in a wind tunnel. Figure 5 shows cross-sections through a tetrahedral mesh

(consisting of 650000 cells) and a polyhedral mesh (consisting of 138000 cells). Both meshes had

five layers of prisms along sphere and support walls.

Figure 6 shows convergence of iterations on the two meshes. As in all other test cases, the rate at

which the residual norm is reducing with iterations is substantially higher on the polyhedral mesh.

This is partly due to the fact that the polyhedral mesh has 4.7 times less control volumes than the

tetrahedral mesh, but another substantial contribution is due to better properties of polyhedral control

volumes compared to tetrahedral ones. Note that both computations are performed using the same

code, the same discretization schemes (central differences for both convective and diffusive fluxes)

and the same under-relaxation parameters; all cells are treated as polyhedra, irrespective of how

many faces they have. This certifies that any improvement in convergence behavior is due to the

difference in cell topology.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

NAFEMS Seminar: “Simulation of Complex May 3-4, 2004

Flows (CFD) – Application and Trends 7 Niedernhausen/Wiesbaden, Germany

Fig. 6: Convergence of iterations for laminar flow around sphere at Re = 100 on the two meshes.

Fig. 7: Comparison of profiles of axial (left) and radial (right) velocity component computed on a

tetrahedral (650000 cells) and a polyhedral (138000 cells) mesh: through the sphere center (upper)

and 0.814 D downstream of sphere center (lower). Profile data is obtained from the solution using

interpolation to a number of predefined points along a line.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

NAFEMS Seminar: “Simulation of Complex May 3-4, 2004

Flows (CFD) – Application and Trends 8 Niedernhausen/Wiesbaden, Germany

Figure 7 shows comparisons of axial and radial velocity profiles computed on the two meshes at two

cross-sections. Since the points on the profile do not coincide with computational nodes, interpolation

was used to obtain the variable values at desired locations. To this end, the variable value and its

gradient at the nearest cell center were used. Note that, although the cells are substantially larger in

the polyhedral mesh, the obtained profiles are smoother than those from the tetrahedral mesh, where

cells are smaller (the same interpolation method is used in both cases). This also indicates that the

gradients computed on the polyhedral mesh are more accurate (more neighbor nodes contribute to

the gradient at cell center, even though distances between nodes are larger on the polyhedral mesh).

The profiles obtained on the two meshes agree both qualitatively and quantitatively very well (apart

from larger interpolation errors in profiles from the tetrahedral mesh), which shows that – for the same

solution accuracy – substantially less control volumes are needed when polyhedral cells are used

compared to tetrahedra. In all tests performed so far, it turned out that about five times less polyhedra

than tetrahedra are needed to obtain solutions of the same quality on both mesh types. Although the

computing effort per cell is larger for polyhedra than tetrahedra (due to a larger number of faces per

cell – typically three times more faces), the overall effort is substantially lower: between five and 10

times less computing time for the same accuracy has been observed in all applications so far.

transfer in an engine head: polyhedral mesh for

the assembly of solid and fluid domains (upper left)

and for the fluid domain alone (upper right), and

streamlines in the fluid domain colored by

temperature (right).

Finally, Fig. 8 shows the polyhedral mesh used to compute flow and conjugate heat transfer in an

engine head, along with streamlines in the fluid domain. The mesh was generated fully automatically,

starting from a solid model obtained in one of CAD-tools. With CAD-integrated CCM tools and

unrestricted shape of control volumes, coupled analysis of fluid-structure interaction and solution of

other continuum mechanics problems is becoming a lot easier.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

NAFEMS Seminar: “Simulation of Complex May 3-4, 2004

Flows (CFD) – Application and Trends 9 Niedernhausen/Wiesbaden, Germany

Conclusions

The major improvements in methods for flow simulation in complex geometries have recently been

achieved in three areas:

Creation of a closed surface of the flow domain (CAD integration, manipulation of CAD data,

surface wrapping) as the starting point for mesh generation;

Automatic meshing, using either trimming technique (for a predominantly hexahedral mesh) or

methods for polyhedral mesh generation;

Development of a solution method that allows control volumes to have an arbitrary polyhedral

shape.

The trends for a further increase of productivity and a better integration of CFD into the overall CAE

process are:

Development of novel software engineering techniques to meet the challenges of future parallel

computations on very large meshes, requiring new solutions for interfaces between the user and

the software and between different software modules.

The CD adapco Group is active in all these areas and aims to lead the development of new CCM

technologies.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

NAFEMS Seminar: “Simulation of Complex May 3-4, 2004

Flows (CFD) – Application and Trends 10 Niedernhausen/Wiesbaden, Germany

- Validations and applications of a CFD tool dedicated to wind assessment in urban areasЗагружено:Meteodyn_Urbawind
- Subject KnowledgeЗагружено:Musersame
- ModifierЗагружено:maria
- Channel 1Загружено:parandhamaiah
- Printing _Generating 3-D Tetrahedral Elements - HM-3210Загружено:api-19817003
- Car DesignЗагружено:Ramnish Sharma
- Geomagic Studio 9Загружено:Siddharth Ghorpade
- Paquete Rgl en rЗагружено:Jose RC
- Package 3 D RglЗагружено:metastocks
- Softimage User Guide_ Geometric ObjectsЗагружено:Jeremy George
- Ale TutorialЗагружено:dwdg
- Sysnoise-CFDЗагружено:paulomareze
- Gc 2011 Garan ZhaЗагружено:Daniel Mullen
- An Introduction cadЗагружено:DineshNewalkar
- cfx-numericsЗагружено:ChiragPhadke
- 3D ModelingЗагружено:Rajyalakshmi Jammalamadaka
- cgx_2.3Загружено:VBP
- 160198Загружено:sagarsrinivas
- CFD_01_Grotjans_ANSYS_ANSYS_16.0_CFD_Update_Release_Highlights-1Загружено:mohamedezeldin
- 116_WeldsЗагружено:Xpizmon
- Aplicabilidad de URANS y DES Simulaciones de flujo pasado Cilindros Rectangulares y Secciones PuenteЗагружено:Daniel SC
- OTC-23965-MSЗагружено:Félix Gallo Cruz
- ICEM-Intro_14.0_L01_Introduction.pdfЗагружено:Lam Trinh Nguyen
- 112.ISROMAC2016 Rademakers FinalЗагружено:MuhammedNayeem
- RM WorkЗагружено:rudrik joshi
- DataExplorer ManualЗагружено:danialalishah
- Introduction to Proe and Aim.pdfЗагружено:M.Thirunavukkarasu
- COMSOL release notesЗагружено:Angel Velasquez
- bianchini2016_29.pdfЗагружено:Melly Deslina

- Computational Fluid Dynamics SolutionЗагружено:sangsharma
- In This Chapter the Modifications That Were Carried Out ToЗагружено:sangsharma
- A General Methodology of the Project Work is Displayed Below:Загружено:sangsharma
- Problem Definition & ObjectivesЗагружено:sangsharma
- 1.1 IntroductionЗагружено:sangsharma
- Introduction to CFX-5Загружено:sangsharma

- 2.2 Filming Techniques for Recording Present PracticeЗагружено:cpl_09
- Mass Proportional Damping in Nonlinear Time-history AnalysisЗагружено:Evgeny Shavelzon
- Radyadour_Kh._Zeytounian_auth._Navier-Stokes-Fourier_Equations_A_Rational_Asymptotic_Modelling_Point_of_View.pdfЗагружено:Fakg
- Tabela de Integrais das Funções de BesselЗагружено:eupassei
- Remembering the Mathematics of the Ideal VillaЗагружено:Thomas Grabner
- Thermal Design LNG HEЗагружено:Muhammad Rozi
- marine hydrodynamicsЗагружено:Anu Parameswaran
- (RILEM Bookseries 17) Carmen Andrade, Joost Gulikers, Elisabeth Marie-Victoire - Service Life and Durability of Reinforced Concrete Structures-Springer International Publishing (2019)Загружено:Giovanni Medrano
- Excel FunctionsЗагружено:iPakistan
- Coursera Quiz Week3 Fall 2012Загружено:Soumyajit Das
- 70539_06fЗагружено:Dan Farris
- Ecuaciones Parametricas 13 14Загружено:feuchis
- Orifice Plate Calculator Pressure Drop CalculationЗагружено:lutfi awn
- d 6988 – 03 Medicion de CalibreЗагружено:MiguelAngelPerezEsparza
- Ba9201 — Statistics for Managementjanuary 2010Загружено:Sivakumar Natarajan
- B.E (Pt)Mechanical 2013 SyllabusЗагружено:subaceg
- ECAT Entry Test MCQsЗагружено:Shawn Parker
- Numerical Investigation of Ejectors for Ejector Refrigeration SystemЗагружено:International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
- Plaxis82-0-GenInfo-Chinese.pdfЗагружено:Diana Meirani
- (Frontiers in Physics)Richard P. Feynman, Fernando B. Morinigo, William G-RedЗагружено:Bruno Da Fonseca Gonçalves
- solution for gate paper 2008Загружено:yellamilli
- Labquest2 User ManualЗагружено:Shamba Molina
- 15-05-12 Fellenius Fitting T-z & Q-z Functions in UniPileЗагружено:Rodrigo Rivera
- Kurt Varmuza-Chemometrics in Practical Applications-Intech (2012)Загружено:David Santiago
- Ultimate PryingЗагружено:sanjaypatel2291
- The Concept of Specific Energy in Rock Drilling- Teale 1965Загружено:Anonymous UO394e
- FDTD Method for Em With MATLAB SimulationsЗагружено:aditi monga
- 3caedafdfea1c5b4e77118792b6a22fa4998.pdfЗагружено:Họ Và Tên
- siuwsyllabus-2011Загружено:Akio Ino
- 250 Problems in Elementary Number Theory - Sierpinski (1970).pdfЗагружено:Ioana Iaru

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.