12 views

Uploaded by Arun Kumar

248

- Development of Secondary Flow in a Curved
- Analysis of Blast Resistant RCC Structure
- FLUENT-Intro 14.0 L04 SolverSettings
- Computational Aerodynamics of Vortex Flow
- Analytical Model of Mhd Mixed
- ME2135 2 Table
- 7th Semester Detail syllabus.pdf
- 35334279
- Models
- The Calculation of Aerodynamic Loading on Surfaces of Any Shape
- Aerodynamics of Impulsive Insect Wing Design
- p803639_A1b
- Characteristic Analysis of Supersonic Impinging Jet in Laser Machining
- EPFL_TH5241
- coleman reiner - xfoil project
- DPM U Bend
- The Origin of Turbulent Spots, Johnson and Dris
- Aerodynamic considerations of blended wing body aircraft (transonico M=0.85)
- MIT2_25F13_SolFinalExam
- Alternative Approaches to Rear End Drag Reduction

You are on page 1of 8

Using Swept Fins

Harpreet Singh Suri

Ganapati N Joshi

Defence Institute of Advanced Technology

Pune, India

joshiganapati@gmail.com

Defence Institute of Advanced Technology

Pune, India

suriharpreetsingh@gmail.com

Abstract A computational study has been made to

understand effect of sweep on crossing-shock- wave/ boundary

layer interactions. A symmetric double fin flow field structure at

mach 4 and fin angle of 15 deg is examined. Computed results for

unswept fin interaction captures essential features studied in

benchmark experiments. The effect of sweep on crossing shock

interaction is studied at sweep angles of 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25

and 30 and compared with unswept case. A reduction in peak

surface pressure and skin friction coefficient was observed.

Keywords Crossing shock wave boundary layer interactions,

Swept fin, Boundary layer separation.

I. INTRODUCTION

Interaction of shock wave and turbulent boundary

layer (SWBLI) are observed in supersonic and hypersonic

flights of aircraft, space vehicles and projectiles. These

interactions are commonly presents at aircraft inlet and

compressors, aircraft control surface and wing body junctions.

These interactions produce undesirable effects such as

increase of drag, large vortical flow structure, separation of

flow, high wall heating and large unsteadiness of shock

induced separation. Thus the shock wave boundary layer

interactions degrade vehicle or machine performance. [1]

When two separate single shocks converges and

interacts with each other and also with a boundary layer, such

an interaction is called Crossing- Shock Interaction. These

interactions can be produced by a simple configuration of two

fins placed opposite to each other (symmetrically or

asymmetrically) on a flat plate in the flow as shown in the Fig.

1. This arrangement represents inlet configuration of

propulsion systems. [2]

The parameters affecting crossing shock wave

boundary layer interactions are free stream Mach number, fin

angles, Reynolds number and boundary layer thickness. [3]

Vast experimental as well as theoretical research

work had been carried out for understanding of flow field

structure of crossing shock wave boundary interactions which

include symmetric and asymmetric double fins [4, 5, 6, 7, 8]

.These studies also commented on various flow parameters

such as surface pressure distributions, skin friction and heat

transfer coefficients.

understanding of the flow phenomena by changing the

governing parameters, no documented study is available on

the effect of fin sweep on crossing SWBLI.

In the present paper, the effect of sweep on a

crossing shock wave/ boundary layer interaction is

investigated for a free stream Mach number 4 and fin angle of

15. The investigation is carried out in two parts: (a) Study of

the unswept fin interaction and (b) Study of the interaction

with Sweep. The first study is compared with existing

benchmark experimental results and serve for validating the

code as well.

II. COMPUTATIONAL SETUP AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

A. Numerical Solver

Computations have been carried out for the integral, three

dimensional, steady, compressible Reynolds Averaged Navier

Stokes (RANS) equations using a finite volume based code

STAR CCM+. A coupled implicit solver is used. The inviscid

fluxes, in the discretized system are evaluated using an

upwind flux-difference splitting scheme [9]. The

discretization is second order accurate in space. Dynamic

viscosity is computed using Sutherlands law. The equation of

ISBN 978-1-4799-3158-3

1037

International Conference on Recent Advances in Mechanical Engineering and Interdisciplinary Developments [ICRAMID - 2014]

state is used ideal gas equation. The realizable k- 2 layer (keps) all Y+ wall treatment turbulence model is used.

The free stream conditions are chosen to match the

experimental conditions. The boundary layer is taken to be

fully turbulent from the start since the transition zone as per

the experiments is far upstream of the fin and does not affect

the region of interest.

The turbulent intensity is set to 5% and the ratio of

turbulent to molecular viscosity is 50 on all the boundaries. It

is verified that within a range around these values, the

computed solutions remain unchanged. The boundary

conditions specified are inlet stagnation pressure, (p0) =1.5

x106 Pa, inlet stagnation temperature, (T0) = 295 K and

incoming flow Mach number, (M) = 3.85.

B. Computational Domain

Computational domain is shown in Fig. 2a, b. The

geometry consists of two vertical fins, both mounted at angle

= 15, to a horizontal flat plate. The computational domain

extends 213 mm upstream and 163.4 mm downstream of

leading edge of the fin. Height of the fin is taken as 82.5 mm.

and incoming boundary layer thickness (0) is 3.5 mm.

Utilizing symmetry of the crossing-shock interaction about

centre-line; flow through half of the geometry has been

simulated [2].

The free stream conditions are chosen to match the

experimental conditions of the unswept interaction. In Figure

2b, face ABCD is presented as Inlet having p0=1.5 x106 Pa

and T0= 295 K. Face EFGH is presented as Outlet and at this

face the stream wise gradients are set to zero. Face KIJL (Fin),

Face IHEJ and Face ALJEFB (Plate) is prescribed as Wall. On

these faces Adiabatic, zero normal pressure gradient and noslip conditions are used. Face BFGC is assigned as symmetry

plane and the normal component of the velocity and the

normal derivatives of the flow quantities are set as zero.

Three different grids were used to examine grid

independence of computational solutions. To ensure that

viscous sub-layer is completely resolved, 20 grid points are

provided within 20% of the boundary layer thickness. The

details of grids are summarized in Table 1:

TABLE I

GRID DETAILS

Case

Nx

Ny

Nz

NTotal

Y+

Mean

Y+

Max

Coarse

Grid

85

60

45

229500

1.902

0.8052

Medium

Grid

125

70

60

525000

1.606

0.2295

Fine Grid

165

80

75

990000

1.232

0.2159

A. Grid Independence

Surface pressure is computed along interaction middle line

and is plotted in Fig. 3 for coarse, medium and fine grid.

16

Coarse Grid

Medium Grid

14

Fine Grid

12

P/Pinf

10

8

6

4

.

2

0

0

Fig 2a

Top view of computational geometry; =fin angle, = Outflow

Duct angle, P = Primary Shock, R = Reflected Shock, E = Expansion Fan.

(Settles 1993 [2])

ISBN 978-1-4799-3158-3

1038

10

20

x/0

30

40

50

International Conference on Recent Advances in Mechanical Engineering and Interdisciplinary Developments [ICRAMID - 2014]

20

variation between results of coarse and medium mesh.

However, results obtained using medium and fine meshes are

almost invariant. Also computation time for medium grid is

lesser than fine grid. Hence, for further analysis and to

optimise the computational efforts, the results of the medium

mesh are used.

15

P/Pinf

Computational setup code validation is done by comparing

computational results with experimental results of Garrison

and Settles [2, 10] for 15-Deg symmetric crossing shock wave

boundary layer at Mach number 4. The surface pressure ratio

and skin friction coefficient are plotted against non

dimensional distance along x-axis x/0 along interaction

middle line.

baldwin lomax r2

balwin lomax r3

spalart almaras edwards

keps

exp

computatinal k eps

10

0

0

along the interaction centre line are plotted against the

experimental values of surface pressure along interaction

centre line and shown in Fig. 4a. The computed surface

pressure values along the interaction center line shows a good

agreement with the experimental values. The model has

correctly predicted location of beginning of pressure rise i.e.

upstream influence however over estimated the pressure at

other places. The computed values of pressure are also

compared with computational results mentioned in AGARDAR-319 [11] and presented in Fig. 4b. The computational

results show close agreement with other computational

results.

16

10

20

30

40

x/0

Fig. 4b : Pressure comparison for unswept fin interaction with other

computations (AGARD-AR-319 [11])

2)

Skin Friction: The computed values of skin friction

are compared with the experimental results of surface pressure

along interaction centre line and shown in Fig. 5 a. The model

predict onset of separation in close agreement. The

downstream values are not in very much agreement with the

experimental results and model overestimate the skin friction

coefficient. This feature is also observed in other

computational results mentioned in AGARD-AR-319 [11].

The comparison of computed skin friction with other

computational results mentioned in AGARD-AR-319 [11] is

shown in Fig 5b.

0.005

14

12

Skin friction coefficent

0.004

P/Pinf

10

8

6

4

0.003

0.002

0.001

2

0

0

10

Computational

20

x/0

30

40

50

10

Computational

Experimental (Settles,1993)

20

30

40

x/0

Experimental (Settles, 1993)

Fig. 5a Skin Friction comparison for unswept fin interaction with experiment

ISBN 978-1-4799-3158-3

1039

International Conference on Recent Advances in Mechanical Engineering and Interdisciplinary Developments [ICRAMID - 2014]

0.006

balwin lomax

baldwin lomax edward

balwin lomax panaras

k eps g2

k eps g3

k eps r3

exp

computation k eps

0.005

Skin Friction Coefficient

EXPERIMENTAL/

COMPUTATIONAL

(SETTLES 1993)

0.004

0.003

0.002

(a)

FLOW FIELD

DIAGRAM

(SETTLES 1993)

COMPUTATIONAL

EXPERIMENT COMPUTATION

(b)

0.001

0.000

-0.001

0

10

20

30

40

x/0

Fig. 5b Skin Friction comparison for unswept fin interaction with other

computations (AGARD-AR-319 [11])

computed values of normalized static pressure P/Pinf with the

experimental results [2] for 14 steam wise (y-z) planes

throughout the interaction has been carried out. These frames

are at equally spaced intervals of non dimensional distance

along x-axis x/0 = 1.43 with the first frame at x/0 = 16.6.

The origin of the x axis is on the interaction centerline at the

fin leading-edge position. The location of these planes is

shown in Fig. 6.

Experimental

PLS/computatinal

Images,

their

corresponding flow field diagram and compuated static

pressure contours are presented in the subsequent Fig. 7a-d .

For brevity only 4 frames (3, 6, 9, 12), corresponding to

region just upstream and downstream of interaction, are

presented. The size and shape of the various important

features such as primary shock, separation shock, and

reflected shock of computational images are in well

agreement with the experimental result images throughout the

interaction region.

(c)

(d)

diagrams (Settles 1993 [2]) and computational results. (a) Frame 3, (b) Frame

6, (c) Frame 9 and (d) Frame 12

skin friction coefficient and similarity of wave structure it is

seen that the computational results of unswept double fin

model is fairly matching with the experimental results.

C. Swept Fin Interactions

In this section, effect of fin sweep on the crossing shock

interaction is discussed. Computations have been carried out

for crossing shock wave boundary layer interaction with fins

having sweep angles of 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30

respectively for same set up and under same operating

conditions. The results are compared with unswept case to

investigate the effect of sweep on the interaction and flow field

parameters.

of a low pressure jet which consist of two counter rotating

vortices. These vortices are similar to the vortices formed by

single fin interactions. In the unswept fin case, these vortices

ISBN 978-1-4799-3158-3

1040

interact at center line and lifted up from the flat plate forming

a jet like structure. The same is evident in the surface pressure

contours observed as a low pressure region in Fig 7 (a) (frame

number 3).

The streamline structure of unswept fin, 10 0, 200 and 300

sweep fin is shown in Fig. 8 a-d respectively. It is observed

from these streamline structure that vortex are becoming

weaker with increase in fin sweep angle. Due to this

weakening of these vortices the streamlines becomes more

disperse with increase in sweep. This feature is predominant

in the region x/0> 25. Streamlines originating from the fin

apex undergo a large deflection towards the centreline.

Flow Direction

R1

S1

S3

S4

S2

fin, 100, 200 and 300 sweep fin is shown in Fig. 9 a-d

respectively.

The separation of the flow is indicated by the convergence

of skin friction lines. The line S1 represents the separation line

as shown in Fig .9a. A fluidic throat is observed downstream

which is formed due to convergence of separation lines S1

and S2. The width of this fluidic throat is seen to increase with

increase in fin sweep angle.

Moving downstream, the primary separation lines come

together at the interaction centreline, forming a node of

separation, the primary separation lines initially converge

Flow Direction

x/0

a

Fig. 9 a-d Skin Friction lines comparison for swept fin and unswept fin

interaction, (a) Unswept , (b) 10, (c) 20, (d) 30 sweep.

approach it again further downstream. On moving further

downstream, secondary separation phenomenon is observed as

shown by the area encompassed by separation lines S3 and S4

in Fig 9a. The comparison of the streamlines of swept fins

shows that this central separation region elongates with

increase in sweep.

No dominant effect is observed on structure of

reattachment line R1 in Fig 9a-d, in unswept and swept fin

case, however, a divergence of skin friction lines in

reattachment region near to expansion corner is observed.

x/0

Fig. 8 a-d Streamline comparison for swept fin and unswept fin interaction,

(a) Unswept, (b) 10, (c) 20 and (d) 30 sweep.

Surface pressure is

computed along the interaction middle line. The surface

pressure ratio (P/Pinf) is plotted against non dimensional

distance along x-axis (x/0) with origin located in line with the

fin apex at interaction centerline. The Fig. 10 represents

variation in surface pressure with increase in sweep angle of

fin as compared to unswept fin.

For unswept, fin initial pressure rise i.e. upstream

influence occurs at approximately x/0 = 13.02 and peak

surface pressure occurs at x/0 =38.4 which is down stream of

primary shock intersection location (i.e. x/0 =15 approx).

ISBN 978-1-4799-3158-3

1041

0.006

Unswept

5

10

15

20

25

30

14

12

P/Pinf

10

8

Unswept

5

10

15

20

25

30

0.005

Skin Friction Coefficient

16

6

4

0.004

0.003

P3

0.002

0.001

2

0

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

x/0

10

20

30

40

50

x/0

Fig. 10 Pressure comparison for swept fin and unswept fin interaction.

Fig. 11 Skin Friction comparison for swept fins and unswept fin interaction.

increase in fin sweep angle. This is due to increase in

dispersion of the surface streamlines and divergence of skin

friction lines in reattachment region near to the expansion

corner in the corresponding region.

The Fig.12 shows percentage change in area average

of skin friction coefficient over the plate on which the fins are

mounted with increase in sweep. The magnitude of skin

friction is reduced by 3.55% for 30 SWEPT fin as compared

to unswept case.

(Cf) measured stream wise direction along interaction

centerline and plotted against non dimensional distance along

x-axis (x/0) with origin located in line with the fin apex at

interaction centerline. Fig. 11 represents variation in skin

friction coefficient along interaction center line with increase

in sweep angle of fin as compared to unswept fin.

For unswept fin onset of reduction of skin friction

coefficient occurs at approximately x/0 = 13.02 before

reaching to a minimum value at x/0 = 19.88. This decrease in

skin friction is due to the intersection of swept shocks. Further

moving to downstream skin friction increases to local

maximum values at x/0 = 22.17, 29.03, 36.77 and 41.63

respectively. The magnitude of peak skin friction coefficient

is 0.00527 and occurs at x/0 = 41.63.

With increase in sweep although there is a slight delay

in onset of reduction of skin friction coefficient but minimum

skin friction coefficient is achieved nearly at same location.

The skin friction coefficient plots of swept fins shows

same trend as that of unswept fin. However the dominant

change is observed in third peak region shown as P3 in Fig.11.

ISBN 978-1-4799-3158-3

1042

Unswept 5 10 15 20 25 30

0.00

% Change in Skin Friction Coefficent

With increase in sweep angle the upstream influence line is

marginally moved forward causing marginal delayed

separation. Further with increase in sweep there is reduction

in the peak pressure and that is also moved further

downstream. The magnitude of peak surface pressure ratio of

30 swept fin is 12.11 occurs at x/0 =40 which is 19% less

from peak pressure of unswept fin.

The area average of surface pressure ratio for unswept

and 30 swept fin configuration at outlet is 1.96 and 1.94

respectively. The comparison of static pressure ratios shows

that changing the configuration from unswept to 30 deg swept

fin results in a 1.2% decrease in surface pressure ratio at

outlet.

-0.50

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00

-2.50

-3.00

-3.50

-4.00

computed values of normalized static pressure (P/Pinf) for fin

at various sweep angles with unswept fin is carried out at the

previously mentioned 14 stream wise (y-z) planes (Fig.6). For

brevity only 6 frames (3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 at x/ 0= 19.46,

23.75, 25.18, 26.61, 28.04 and 32.33 respectively) are

presented in Fig. 13 a-f.

These frames are corresponding to regions just upstream

and downstream of interaction. Following aspects of effect of

sweep can be deduced from these figures.

From Fig. 13 a (frame 3) it is evident that there is an

UNSWEPT

5 SWEEP

10 SWEEP

sweep. From Fig. 13 b and c (frame 6 and 7) it is evident that

there is a reduction in boundary layer separation around the

centerline as evident in high pressure region (reduced red

region). From Fig. 13 d and e (frame 8 and 9) it clearly evident

that the interaction of individual fin swept shocks is getting

delayed. From Fig. 13 f (frame 12) it is evident that although

the onset of separation is getting delayed with the sweep

however the pressure along the centerline downstream of

interaction increases much faster as the sweep increases.

(Central red regions in frame).

15 SWEEP

20 SWEEP

25 SWEEP

30 SWEEP

Fig. 13a-f Comparison of surface pressure (P/P) contours; Unswept, 5,10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 sweep

ISBN 978-1-4799-3158-3

1043

P/P

pressure ratio of 14 frames of all swept fin cases with respect

to unswept fin.

1

Frame number

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

constant support, guidance and motivation.

REFERENCES

[1]

1

0

[2]

% Change in P/Pinf

-1

[3]

-2

-3

[4]

-4

[5]

-5

-6

[6]

-7

-8

5

10

15

20

25

[7]

30

[8]

Fig. 14 Effect of fin Sweep on P/P

ratio with increase in sweep. This observation also

substantiates the decrease in pressure ratio as discussed in

comparison of surface pressure along interaction centerline.

[9]

[10]

IV. CONCLUSION

A computational investigation of effect of fin sweep on

flow field structure of a crossing shock wave turbulent

boundary layer interaction is performed for 15 symmetric fin

configuration at Mach number 4. Comparison of flow field

parameters, such as streamline structure, surface pressure

ratio, skin friction coefficient and surface pressure contours,

of unswept and swept fin at sweep of 5 to 30 has been

carried out.

From the results following conclusions can be drawn.

With introduction of sweep, 1) the vortices become weaker

and the streamlines becomes more disperse. 2) Peak pressure

is damped and there is 1.2% decrease in surface pressure ratio

at outlet. 3) There is a reduction in skin friction coefficient by

3.55%. 4) Separation is marginally delayed. 5) The

compression is higher near to wall and also along the

centerline between the interaction before and after the shockshock interaction respectively.

[11]

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors thank Ms. Roschelle, Ph.D. scholar of Defence

Institute of Advance Technologies (DIAT), Deemed

University (DU), Pune for familiarizing computational fluid

dynamics software and providing valuable inputs at various

stages. Authors also acknowledge Dr. S E Talole, Head of

ISBN 978-1-4799-3158-3

1044

link.springer.com /article /10.1007 %2Fs00193 - 009 - 0238 - 2 ? LI

= true # page - 1

T.J. Garrison, G.S. Settles, N. Narayanswami and D.D. Knight,

Structure of crossing shock wave boundary layer interactions ,

AIAA Journal, vol. 31, pp.2204-2211, Dec 1993

D. Gaitonde and D. Knight, Numerical Experiments on the 3-D

Shock wave boundary layer interaction generated by sharp fin,

AIAA paper 88-0309, 1988

T.J. Garrison, G.S. Settles, N. Narayanswami, D.D. Knight, C.C.

Horstman, Flow field surveys and computations of a crossing-shock

wave/boundary-layer interaction, AIAA J. 34 (1) 5056, 1996

A.A. Zheltovodov, A.I. Maksimov, Symmetric and asymmetric

crossing-shock-waves/turbulent boundary layer interactions,

Technical Report EOARD F61708-97-W0136, ITAM, Russian

Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, Russia, 1998

D. Gaitonde, J.S. Shang, T.J. Garrison, A.A. Zheltovodov, A.I.

Maksimov, Three-dimensional turbulent interactions caused by

asymmetric crossing-shock configurations, AIAA J. 37 (12), 1602

1608, 1999

J Zheltovodov A. A., Some Advances in Research of Shock Wave

Turbulent Boundary Layer Interactions. AIAA ,2006-496, 2006.

Zheltovodov A.A., Maksimov A.I., Shevchenko A.M., Vorontsov

S.S., Knight D.D., Experimental study and computational

comparison of crossing shock wave/turbulent boundary layer

interaction, in International Conference on the Methods of Aerophysical Research (ICMAR94), Part I, Novosibirsk, Russia, 221

230, 1994

W. Rodi, Experience with Two-Layer Models Combining the k-e

Model with a One-Equation Model near the Wall, AIAA- Paper 910216, January 1991.

G.S. Settles, L.J. Dodson, Hypersonic Shock/Boundary Layer

Interaction Database: New and Corrected Data, Ames Research

Center, Moffett Field, California, NASA Contract Report 177638,

1994

D.D. Knight, G. Degrez. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interactions

in High Mach Number Flows A Critical Survey of Current Numerical

Predication Capabilities. AGARD AR-319 Vol. 2, 1998, pp. 1-18 to

1-19.

- Development of Secondary Flow in a CurvedUploaded byistt
- Analysis of Blast Resistant RCC StructureUploaded byIRJET Journal
- FLUENT-Intro 14.0 L04 SolverSettingsUploaded byvahidss
- Computational Aerodynamics of Vortex FlowUploaded byawethaf9876
- Analytical Model of Mhd MixedUploaded bySam Magomnang
- ME2135 2 TableUploaded bydave low
- 7th Semester Detail syllabus.pdfUploaded bySubhendu Barisal
- 35334279Uploaded bybabakafzali
- ModelsUploaded byRahul Mall
- The Calculation of Aerodynamic Loading on Surfaces of Any ShapeUploaded bydevast_w
- Aerodynamics of Impulsive Insect Wing DesignUploaded byJack Azad
- p803639_A1bUploaded byxeyran
- Characteristic Analysis of Supersonic Impinging Jet in Laser MachiningUploaded byFrancesco Buzzigoli
- EPFL_TH5241Uploaded byViren Patel
- coleman reiner - xfoil projectUploaded byapi-312401337
- DPM U BendUploaded byharabnezhad
- The Origin of Turbulent Spots, Johnson and DrisUploaded byAlan Wynne
- Aerodynamic considerations of blended wing body aircraft (transonico M=0.85)Uploaded bybadofwas
- MIT2_25F13_SolFinalExamUploaded byMauricio Andrés Gutiérrez Bravo
- Alternative Approaches to Rear End Drag ReductionUploaded byKJScott92
- David B. Stahl et al- Flyer Velocity Characteristics of the Laser-Driven Miniflyer SystemUploaded byCola7890
- Lucy Bennett.docxUploaded bylucybennett54
- Viscous Flow Tutorial 1Uploaded byWizardWannabe
- Flama RstUploaded bypaivensolidsnake
- Effect of Blast Loading on Columns- A Critical ReviewUploaded byIJSTE
- Wind Effects on High Rise BuildingsUploaded byMoraru Gabriel
- Docslide.us American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 37th Joint Propulsion Conference 58537ffb23578Uploaded byAmritansh Ranjan
- 1-s2.0-S002980181830043X-mainUploaded byShalihan Mustafa
- LECTURE 4.0.pdfUploaded byNur Salwani
- 46647 Final 00311Uploaded bykurniawan waskito

- ASME B31.1 Operation and Maintenance Requirements-From a Code PerspectiveUploaded bymailmaverick8167
- Caracteristicas normas ASME B31Uploaded bydarthneo
- ASME Sec IXUploaded bykiki270977
- NDT NotesUploaded byZen Nazeha
- Basics of Steam GenerationUploaded bynecrominion
- European Weld SymbolsUploaded bydreams987
- Fe-C_phase_diagramUploaded byYoung-long Choi
- Erection Method StatementUploaded byDilxan Fdo
- Erection Guidelines for 500 Mw Boiler Pressure PartsUploaded byyanloyan
- Boiler Making ManualUploaded byArun Kumar
- Stress Analysis of Steam Piping System 2168 9873 1000158Uploaded byArun Kumar
- Pages From c2TR (1)Uploaded bysammar_10
- IGTPSA.pdfUploaded byIsmail Magdy Ismail
- Non Distructive ExaminationUploaded byaneeshta
- Project Standards and Specifications Piping Materials Rev01webUploaded byNguyen Anh Tung
- Super Critical Boiler Technology MaturesUploaded byShivadas Ghoshal
- VariableUploaded byArun Kumar
- 2Uploaded byArun Kumar
- PJST13_2_57Uploaded byArun Kumar
- Corrosion of Boiler Tubes Some Case Studies....15Uploaded byLeonardo Della Mea
- ijertv6n6spl_07Uploaded byArun Kumar
- IJETT-V17P278Uploaded byArun Kumar
- A 3-D Finite Deformation.pdfUploaded bymahfuz
- v6-1726-1731Uploaded byArun Kumar
- Technical_Catalogue_for_Submarine_Installations_of_Polyethylene_PipesUploaded byvictor salvador
- Boiler designUploaded byraghuveeranush
- ES_Rpt_RevC_EngUploaded byArun Kumar
- EPSRC Thermal Management Sheffield Progress Report July 2010Uploaded byArun Kumar

- 208829646-Experiment-5-Series-and-Parallel-Pump.docxUploaded byAbdulrazzaqAL-Maliky
- L1Uploaded byJavier Espino
- Fan and Duct System Analysis.pdfUploaded byZaid Tariq Alabiry
- Auto Ignition PointUploaded bySaba Ali
- PSVUploaded byImmanuel
- Forward Osmosis - Wikipedia, The Free EncyclopediaUploaded bySagar Apte
- Chap 1_Introduction.pdfUploaded byRezaul Karim
- Water ScarcityUploaded byDIPAK PRASAD
- 3.3 Capillary PressureUploaded byHind Lionne
- Main Control Valve 966Uploaded byAhmed Rezk
- Proceedings31-Quality Water in Saudi ArabiaUploaded byfsadi79
- Model+StudyUploaded byanisazman
- Waste Water Using MSLUploaded byfirah
- 76B.docxUploaded byJamie Schultz
- 1 2 5 a aerodynamicforcesUploaded byapi-325609547
- Friction Factor CalculationUploaded byImtinan Mohsin
- Pressure Drop in Pipe Fittings and ValvesUploaded bymxjoe
- Nichols, Schmid, Riley - Self-sustained Oscillations in Variable-Density Round Jets (2007)Uploaded byAryce_
- hydrostaticsUploaded bydaphcosi
- The Kaushalya Dam Being Constructed on Ghaggar River in Panchkula at a Cost of Rs 217 Crore Will Soon Be Made FunctionalUploaded byLokesh Chadha
- A3_1_ELA_GBUploaded byErick Gomez Cueva
- Cold Weather PrecautionUploaded byVivek Pratap Singh
- Elements of Urban StormwaterUploaded byEduardo Carvalho
- Chemical Eng Fluid Mechanics.pdfUploaded byaisfm
- About pumps and turbines.pdfUploaded byabdullahaafaq
- WTPUploaded bySaurabh Singh
- fixed and fluidized bed experimentUploaded bysunlias
- HPBP DrawingUploaded byLakshmi Narayan
- Numerical Simulation of Vortex Flows in Cylindrical GeometriesUploaded byInternational Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
- Moody Steel PipesUploaded byStanislav Sviderek