2 views

Uploaded by knowme73

Turbulence Modeling using CFD

Turbulence Modeling using CFD

© All Rights Reserved

- Noise from Forced Mixers
- Performance Based Wind Engineering
- eddy simul
- Unsteady Airfoil Flows with Application to Aeroelastic Stability
- Fluent-Adv Turbulence 15.0 L02 Rans Models
- CFD-aided modelling of activated sludge systems – A critical review.pdf
- Development Turbulent Pipe Flow 1
- 110725 Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics
- Turbolence
- Heat Transfer in Cross Flow
- pdf . dcf analisis
- Turbulent Mixing Annual Review
- Florence 1993
- Development of a Near-wall Turbulence Model and Application to Jet, Tae
- Turbulent Flows.pdf
- manuscript_Kraev_Yanyshev
- Guelph.pdf
- hhahah
- IJETAE_0813_122
- Cfdb Turbulence

You are on page 1of 16

We will now focus on Turbulence Modelling, which is a critical area for any engineer involved with

industrial CFD. There are a number of different approaches so it is important that you have solid

grounding in this area to enable you to choose the appropriate model for your simulation

requirements. It is worth noting that in August 2012, LEAP will be hosting Dr. Florian Menter to run a

series of Advanced Turbulence Training courses in Melbourne, Sydney and Perth. Dr. Menter is a world

recognised expert in turbulence modelling, and more information on his visit to Australia can be found

here.

The ANSYS CFD Solvers solve the Navier Stokes and conservation equations, but as direct solutions are

not possible to resolve for any flows of an industrial Reynolds number then we need to do some

modelling, as opposed to resolving the values directly.

The equations that we used are not closed and so we need to use Turbulence Modelling to close the

equation set and then iterate towards a solution. We can use what is called a Reynolds Averaged Navier

Stokes (RANS) approach, or we can use an Eddy Simulation technique which resolves the larger eddies in

the flow and is only really required when you have separation or large recirculating regions.

The most commonly used models are the RANS models due to their low cost in terms of compute power

and run times. The Eddy Simulation methods can be quite mesh sensitive but will yield much better

results for separated and recirculating flow, albeit over much longer run times.

The RANS models apply a Reynolds decomposition technique to the Navier Stokes equations which

breaks the velocity down into its mean and fluctuating components. This decomposition leaves us with

one unknown value, which is termed the Reynolds Stress. We use Turbulence Models to resolve the

Reynold’s Stress and close the equation set. There are two ways we can go about resolving this, the first

(and most commonly used approach) is to use an isotropic value for the turbulent viscosity value which

is called the an Eddy Viscosity Model, the other way is to solve using the Reynolds Stress Model (RSM)

for the 6 separate Reynolds Stresses, which results in an anisotropic solution.

EDDY VISCOSITY MODELS

The limitation with Eddy Viscosity models is that they use an isotropic value which may not be

appropriate and hence can increase the diffusion in your result. Obviously solving for the 6 Reynolds

Stresses and dissipation will be more accurate, but you are then solving extra equations which will

increase your run time considerably. There are further modifications to the 2 equation Eddy Viscosity

models that yield similar results to RSM which I will elaborate on soon.

I have listed below the most commonly used Eddy Viscosity turbulence models over the past ten or so

years and the intended use behind their development.

k-epsilon – Two equation model for free shear and non-wall bounded flow behaviour. Was the

previous industrial standard.

k-omega – Two equation model for wall bounded flows, not commonly used.

SST (Shear Stress Transport) - Two equation model blending the freestream advantages of the k-

epsilon model with the wall bounded advantages of the k-omega model. This is the new

industrial standard and should be the default choice for most applications.

Note: Modifications for Curvature Correction to the SST model give comparable results to RSM and the

SST model also works very well with the Transition Model now available in CFX and FLUENT.

Options like Curvature Correction are very useful in tackling problems where previously you would have

required an RSM model. The Transition Models can be of benefit also, depending on your application

and give much better drag prediction as they will maintain laminar flow along a body and develop

natural transition points, as well as calculate regions of bypass transition. I won’t discuss these here, but

there is extensive information in the ANSYS User Guides. These additional options are available in

ANSYS CFX and ANSYS FLUENT.

The Reynolds Stress models were used widely for high swirling flows, for example, the flow in a cyclone

separator. In the past we would use the RSM models for this type of flow, but nowadays you should use

the SST model with the Curvature Correction model enabled.

EDDY SIMULATION

The more advanced options for resolving turbulence are the simulation based models. These generally

require much better mesh resolution and involve much longer run times as they can only be run as an

unsteady simulation. These are used primarily for resolving large scale separations and recirculating

regions.

The Scale Adaptive Simulation is the best point to start when stepping up from a RANS modelling

analysis. The Scale Adaptive Simulation is based on an unsteady SST RANS model but calculates the local

length scales and resolves accordingly. The advantage of this is that it can be run on a good quality

RANS mesh without any additional meshing requirements. For some flow behaviours this has been

shown to give very similar results to Large Eddy Simulation (LES) and Detached Eddy Simulation

(DES). This is why we would recommend this as a starting point for unsteady simulations with separated

or recirculating flows, and as a good alternative to an unsteady RANS SST simulation.

The Detached Eddy Simulation resolves the boundary layer and the smaller eddies by using a RANS

solution in those regions. This can produce quite good results for a fraction of the cost of LES, but is very

sensitive to the mesh resolution. You need to ensure a very good quality mesh in the boundary layer

and a good transition region from the boundary layer to the freestream to help the solver switch from

the RANS solution in the boundary layer to an LES solution for the larger eddies. This adds complexity

and has been known to cause erroneous results.

Large Eddy Simulation is the most expensive of the three simulation options and requires a very fine grid

to accurately resolve the eddies, especially in the boundary layer. Once the eddies are too small to be

resolved by the grid, they fall back into a sub-grid model. As this sub-grid model is used only to resolve

the smallest eddies which tend to have more universal properties, this yields very accurate results, but

because of the large mesh requirements this is not a commonly used approach in industrial settings.

We can now use LES in specific regions of the mesh only using Embedded LES. This means that we can

run an unsteady RANS in the bulk of the flow and a full LES calculation in only the required separated

regions hence making it more practical for industrial use.

Each of these simulation methods when used correctly will yield a better result than the steady state or

unsteady RANS models for separated flow or recirculating flow behaviour but it is more expensive to do

so.

As far as Turbulence Models are concerned, the SST is a good default choice for most flow

problems. Please contact our Technical Support Team if you would like to discuss your flow problem

and the options available to you. If you are interested in attending the Advanced Turbulence

Training courses by Dr. Florian Menter, more information can be found here.

In the next blog post we will look at the importance of the y+ value and discuss the use of appropriate

values for the different turbulence models.

Previously we have discussed the importance of an inflation layer mesh and how to implement

one easily in ANSYS Meshing. We also touched upon the concept of mesh y+ values and how

we can estimate them during the inflation meshing process. In other posts, we also discuss the

different turbulence models and eddy simulation methods available to ANSYS CFD users. In

today's post, we'll talk in more detail about y+ values apply to the most commonly used

turbulence models.

From our earlier discussions, we now understand that the placement of the first node in our near-

wall inflation mesh is very important. The y+ value is a non-dimensional distance (based on

local cell fluid velocity) from the wall to the first mesh node, as you can see in the image

below. To use a wall function approach for a particular turbulence model with confidence, we

need to ensure that our y+ values are within a certain range.

y+ definition

Looking at the image above, we need to be careful to ensure that our y+ values are not so large

that the first node falls outside the boundary layer region. If this happens, then the Wall

Functions used by our turbulence model may incorrectly calculate the flow properties at this first

calculation point which will introduce errors into our pressure drop and velocity results. The

upper range of applicability will vary depending on the flow physics and the extent of the

boundary layer profile.

For instance, flows with very high Reynolds numbers (typically aircraft, ships, etc) will

experience a logarithmic boundary layer that extends to several thousand y+ units, whereas low

Reynolds number flows such as turbine blades may have an upper limit as little as 100 y+

units. In practice, this means that the use of wall functions for these class of flows should be

avoided as their use will limit the overall number of mesh nodes that can be sensibly placed

within the boundary layer. In general, it is recommended that you endeavour to place sufficient

inflation layer cells within the boundary layer, rather than simply focusing on achieving any

particular y+ value. This will be covered in detail in a future post

In addition to the concern about having a mesh with y+ values that are too large, you need to be

aware that if the y+ value is too low then the first calculation point will be placed in the viscous

sublayer (logarithmic) flow region and the Wall Functions will also be outside their validity

(below about y+ < 11). You can imagine that this would become an issue if a mesh intended to

be used with wall functions is then refined near the wall. Fortunately, the use of scalable wall

functions in ANSYS CFD products now takes care of these problems and produces consistent

results for grids of varying y+. Without any further user involvement, the scalable wall functions

activate the local usage of the log law in regions where the y+ is sufficiently small,

in conjunction with the standard wall function approach in coarser y+ regions.

So, where should you start? We have learnt that the wall function approach and y+ value

required is determined by the flow behaviour and the turbulence model being used. If you have

an attached flow, then generally you can use a Wall Function approach, which means a larger

initial y+ value, smaller overall mesh count and faster run times. If you expect flow separation

and the accurate prediction of the separation point will have an impact your result, such as the

drag or lift forces experienced by the ellipse below, then you would be advised to resolve the

boundary layer all the way to the wall with a finer mesh. Please refer to this post for a more

detailed explanation of appropriate turbulent wall function and modelling approaches.

Once we know our preferred approach, we can estimate the thickness for our first inflation layer

cell using the equation below, which can be used to calculate the distance value for a specific

velocity fluid and the required y+ value (based on the flow over a flat plate). This is usually a

good initial estimate and the y+ value we aim for will depend on our turbulence model selection.

Note that Δy is the distance of the first node from the wall, L is the flow characteristic length

scale, y+ is the desired y+ value, Re_L is the Reynolds Number based on your problem's

characteristic length scale.

Unfortunately, as the y+ value is dependent on the local fluid velocity which varies across the

wall significantly for most industrial flow applications, it is not possible to know your exact y+

prior to running an initial simulation. For this reason, it is important that you get into the habit of

checking your y+ values as part of your normal post-processing in ANSYS CFD-Post so that you

can make sure you are in the valid range for your flow physics and turbulence model selection.

Our next post in this series concentrates on the feasibility and selection of different wall

functions, based on the applied turbulence modelling strategy.

This is still an area of active research and is a hot topic for many of our CFD users. If you have

any questions or comments, please leave a message below or contact our CFD Technical Support

team for more detailed technical information on these topics.

In recent posts in our series of Turbulence Modelling posts, we have covered boundary layer theory and

touched on some useful meshing and post-processing guidelines to check you are appropriately

resolving the boundary layer profile. Today we will consider three critical questions that are often asked

by CFD engineers when developing or refining a CFD simulation:

- Am I using the correct turbulence model for the type of results I am looking for?

This topic is so important because we know that in turbulent flows the velocity fluctuations within the

turbulent boundary layer can be a significant percentage of the mean flow velocity, so it is critical that

we capture these effects with accuracy. A Reynolds averaging approach using turbulence models will

provides us with an estimate of the increased levels of stress within the boundary layer, termed the

Reynolds stresses. In order to appreciate the use of wall functions and the influence of walls on the

turbulent flowfield, we should first gain familiarity with the composite regions of the turbulent

boundary layer:

In the laminar sub-layer region (Y+ < 5) inertial forces are less domineering and the flow exhibits laminar

characteristics, which is why this is known as the low-Re region. Low-Re turbulent models (e.g. the SST

model) aim to resolve this area and therefore require an appropriate mesh resolution to do this with

accuracy. This is most critical for flows with a changing pressure gradient where we expect to see

separation, as observed below.

In the law of the wall region, inertial forces strongly dominate over viscous forces and we have a high

presence of turbulent stresses (this is known as the high-Re composite region). If using a low-Re model,

the whole turbulent boundary layer will be resolved including the log-law region. However, it possible to

use semi-empirical expressions known as wall functions to bridge the viscosity-affected region between

the wall and the fully-turbulent region.

Contours of the eddy viscosity ratio on a low-Re grid illustrating high turbulent viscosity in the log-law

region as opposed to the laminar sub-layer

The main benefit of this wall function approach lies in the significant reduction in mesh resolution and

thus reduction in simulation time. However, the shortcoming lies in numerical results deteriorating

under subsequent refinement of the grid in wall normal direction (thus reducing the Y+ value into the

buffer layer zone). Continued reduction of Y+ to below 15 can gradually result in unbounded errors in

wall shear stress and wall heat transfer (due to the damping functions inherent within the wall function

approach).

Bearing all of the above in mind, and keeping our eye on finding the right balance between accuracy,

stability and speed, we can tackle a wide variety of CFD problems using the following guidelines:

If our aim is to accurately predict the boundary layer velocity or thermal profile, or if the developing

boundary layer will tend to separate (due to a changing pressure gradient – and not because of sharp

edges or discontinuities in the geometry), then we recommend the use of a low-Re model. Low-Re

models are also required for accurate pressure-drop or drag calculations. We highly recommend the use

of the Shear Stress Transport (SST) model, but all ω-based models or ε-based models with enhanced wall

treatment may be used. For high speed external aerodynamic flows, the one-equation Spalart-Allmaras

model (with Y+ < 2) may also be considered to reduce the computational time. Alternatively, for flows

where wall-bounded effects are not a priority, or if separation is expected to occur only due to sharp

changes in the geometry, an ε-based wall function approach is more than sufficient. In ANSYS CFD, all ω-

based models and the SST model are capable of resorting to a wall function formulation (automatic wall

treatment) in the presence of coarse mesh resolutions near the wall without any further user input. Wall

function models are also useful for calibrating our CFD models, due to the decreased simulation time.

When using low-Re models or any models with enhanced wall treatment, the average Y+ value should

be on the order of ~1 to ensure we are capturing the laminar sub-layer. When using wall function

models, the Y+ value should ideally be above 15 to avoid erroneous modelling in the buffer layer and the

laminar sub-layer. High quality numerical results for the boundary layer will only be obtained if the

overall resolution of the boundary layer is sufficient. This requirement in some cases is more important

than achieving certain Y+ values. The minimum number of cells to cover a boundary layer accurately is

around 10, but values of 20 are desirable. The total thickness of the prisms should be implemented such

that around 15 or more nodes are actually covering the boundary layer. Our next post in this series on

the turbulent boundary layer will cover a very useful and practical technique to post-process the

resolution of the boundary layer, and offer insight into modifications required to improve accuracy.

Boundary layer velocity profile modeled with standard k-e for three different mesh densities using

Enhanced Wall Treatment

In ANSYS CFD, all turbulence models are y-plus independent. However selecting the most appropriate

wall function is dependent on level of refinement of our wall adjacent mesh, or the relative scales in our

flow. Use of the standard wall function (ε-based models) implies that our boundary layer mesh lies

entirely within the log-law region of the boundary layer. For industrial applications, this in fact might be

difficult to achieve due to varying geometrical and velocity scales associated with our model – and

therefore grids inherently designed with arbitrary refinement. We highly recommend the use of the

scalable wall function, which offers an elegant solution to this ambiguity often encountered. This wall

function virtually displaces the mesh to a Y+ ~ 11.225 (transition to the log-law composite layer)

irrespective of the level of refinement, thereby avoiding the erroneous modelling of the laminar sub-

layer and buffer region. It is also important to note that for grids designed with a Y+ > 11.225, the

scalable wall function will provide identical results to the standard wall function. Enhanced wall

treatment may further be selected for ε-based models on refined low-Re grids, and is also formulated

such that it can perform well for meshes of intermediate resolution. However the use of enhanced (or

non-equilibrium) wall treatment for low-Re modelling of the turbulent boundary layer is generally not

recommended and more confidence in our solution can be obtained by selecting a suitable ω-based

formulation, such as the SST model.

In recent posts we have comprehensively discussed inflation meshing requirements for resolving

or modeling wall-bounded flow effects due to the turbulent boundary layer. We have identified

the y-plus value as the critical parameter for inflation meshing requirements, since it allows us to

determine whether our first cell resides within the laminar sub-layer, or the logarithmic region.

We can then select the most suitable turbulence model based on this value. Whilst this theoretical

knowledge is important regarding composite regions of the turbulent boundary layer and how it

relates to y-plus values, it is also useful to conduct a final check during post-processing to ensure

we have an adequate number of prism layers to fully capture the turbulent boundary layer profile,

based on the turbulence model used (or more precisely, whether we aim to resolve the boundary

layer profile, or utilize a wall function approach). In certain cases, slightly larger y-plus values

can be tolerated if the boundary layer resolution is sufficient.

How can I check in CFD-Post that I have adequately resolved the boundary layer?

For the majority of industrial cases, it is recommended to use the two-equation turbulence

models, or models which utilize the turbulent viscosity concept and the turbulent viscosity ratio

(i.e. the turbulent viscosity over the molecular viscosity). We can make use of this concept to

visualize the composite regions of the turbulent boundary layer, and ultimately visualize how

well we are resolving the boundary layer profile. Consider the conceptual case-study of the

turbulent flow over an arbitrarily curved wall. Prism layers are used for inflation, and tetra

elements in the free-stream. Once we have calculated the solution, within CFD-Post we can

create an additional variable for the eddy viscosity ratio. Then by plotting this variable on a

suitable plane, and superimposing our mesh in the near-wall region, we can visualize the

boundary layer resolution.

Figure 1: RKE with standard wall function – y-plus of 75 with 10 prism layers

Figure 1 provides an example of a reasonable wall function mesh. There is a good cell transition

from the prisms to the free stream tetra elements. The y-plus we have prescribed at the first cell

indicates we are in the logarithmic composite region of the turbulent boundary region, which is

the region largely dominated by inertial forces and thus we have high levels of turbulence. The

turbulence gradually dissipates as we approach free stream conditions (where the levels of

turbulence are governed by inlet conditions), which is expected. At this stage, we could even

reduce the number of cells in the inflation layer as we are clearly capturing the logarithmic

region layer before approaching the free stream. Correspondingly, we could aim to reduce the y-

plus value (y-plus ~ 20) to better capture the increase in turbulent viscosity as we move from the

inner layer to the outer layer of the logarithmic region.

Figure 2 provides a good mesh for a low-Re turbulence model. We observe that the transition in

size from the final prism layer to the free stream tetra elements has been regulated well. Since we

have prescribed a y-plus value of 1 we are within the laminar sub-layer, which exhibits laminar

flow characteristics (thereby resulting in no turbulent viscosity). As we gradually move through

the buffer region and into the logarithmic region we see a large rise in the viscosity ratio before it

dissipates into the free stream. This maximum value will generally occur near the middle of the

boundary layer, which also gives us an indication of the physical boundary layer thickness (twice

the location of the maximum eddy viscosity ratio gives the boundary layer edge). As per the

example given in Figure 2, it is essential that the prism layer is thicker than the boundary layer as

otherwise there is a danger that the prism layer confines the growth of the boundary layer.

Figure 3 ia an example of a poor quality mesh for a low-Re turbulence model (such as SST k-

omega). In this case we have unnecessarily prescribed a very low y-plus value yet we have not

compensated by appropriately allowing for more prism layers in the inflation layer. Therefore,

we are capturing the laminar sub-layer to an excessive detail, and the boundary layer does not

transition to the logarithmic region until we are well inside the free stream. Consequently there

are cells which are not aligned with the direction of the flow and thus our boundary layer profile

will not be well resolved (its growth may be confined by the extent of the prism layers), hence

affecting our drag or pressure-drop calculations.

Figure 4: RKE with standard wall function – y-plus of 1 with 20 prism layers

Figure 4 is an example of a poorly defined mesh for a standard wall function turbulence model.

The accuracy of wall function or high-Re turbulence models (e.g. the k-epsilon variants) cannot

be confirmed modeling the laminar sub-layer and thus should be avoided. In ANSYS Fluent, the

laminar stress-strain relationship is employed when the mesh is below a y-plus of 11.225 (noted

as the transition to the logarithmic region). After which, the logarithmic wall functions are

employed. This is an example where a low-Re turbulence model should be used (c.f. Figure 2),

or alternatively we could aim to increase our y-plus value such that it resides in the logarithmic

region (c.f. Figure 1).

Figure 5: RKE with scalable wall function – y-plus of 1 with 20 prism layers

The problems in Figure 4 can be overcome using scalable wall functions, as shown in Figure 5

using the same mesh. The purpose of scalable wall functions is to force the usage of the

logarithmic law. Here we can see a turbulent viscosity distribution which is analogous to the case

presented in Figure 1 (with the exception that we are now capturing the increase in turbulent

viscosity as we move from the inner layer to the outer layer of the logarithmic region). For this

simple case, we could potentially save simulation time by coarsening the mesh immediately

adjacent to the wall, or alternatively we could opt for a low-Re turbulence model. The real

advantages of the scalable wall functions arise for complex flows on grids of arbitrary refinement

(or correspondingly flows with various boundary layer scales) since it will provide consistent

modelling.

In previous posts we have stressed the importance of using an appropriate value in

combination with a given turbulence modelling approach. Today we will help you calculate the

correct first cell height ( ) based on your desired value. This is an important first step as

the global mesh resolution parameters will also be influenced by this near-wall mesh as well as

the Reynolds number.

Let's review the two main choices we have in choosing a near-wall modelling strategy:

Involves the full resolution of the boundary layer and is required where wall-bounded

effects are of high priority (adverse pressure gradients, aerodynamic drag, pressure drop,

heat transfer, etc.)

Wall adjacent grid height must be order

Must use an appropriate low-Re number turbulence model (i.e. Shear Stress Transport)

Involves modelling the boundary layer using a log-law wall function. This approach is

suitable for cases where wall-bounded effects are secondary, or the flow undergoes

geometry-induced separation (such as many bluff bodies and in modern automotive

vehicle design).

Wall adjacent grid height should ideally reside in the log-law region where

All turbulence models are applicable (e.g. Shear Stress Transport or k-epsilon with

scalable wall functions)

During the pre-processing stage, we need to estimate the first cell height ( ) so that

our falls within the desired range. The computed flow-field will dictate the actual value

which in reality will vary along the wall. In some cases, we may need to locally refine our mesh

to achieve the desired value in all regions.

Firstly, we should calculate the Reynolds number for our model based on the characteristic

scales of our geometry such that:

where and are the fluid density and viscosity respectively, is the freestream velocity,

and is the characteristic length (e.g. pipe diameter, body length, etc.).

The definition of the value is such that:

The target value and fluid properties are known a priori, so we need to calculate the

frictional velocity , which is defined as:

The wall shear stress, can be calculated from skin friction coefficient, , such that:

The ambiguity in calculating surrounds the value for . Empirical results have been used

to provide an estimate to this value:

Internal Flows

External Flows

We can then input these known values into the above equations to estimate our value for .

When considering simple flows and simple geometry, we might find this correlation is highly

accurate. However, when considering complex geometry, refinement in the boundary layer may

be required to ensure the desired value is achieved. In these cases, you can choose to re-

mesh in ANSYS Meshing or use anisotropic mesh adaption (ie. adaption of local cells only in the

wall-normal direction) to achieve your desired Y+ value across the entire model. Please leave a

comment below or contact our support line if you have any questions.

For the lazy CFD-ers out there, we have written an applet for you to estimate the cell height

quickly.

- Noise from Forced MixersUploaded by4953049530
- Performance Based Wind EngineeringUploaded byprakashcg123
- eddy simulUploaded byManu Chakkingal
- Unsteady Airfoil Flows with Application to Aeroelastic StabilityUploaded bymscafe
- Fluent-Adv Turbulence 15.0 L02 Rans ModelsUploaded byEnrique Flores
- CFD-aided modelling of activated sludge systems – A critical review.pdfUploaded byCarlos Gamarra
- Development Turbulent Pipe Flow 1Uploaded byedhy_03
- 110725 Fundamentals of Fluid MechanicsUploaded byAchal Jain
- TurbolenceUploaded byFolpo
- Heat Transfer in Cross FlowUploaded bythermo_k
- pdf . dcf analisisUploaded byEduard Avila Meriño
- Turbulent Mixing Annual ReviewUploaded byhyperliz
- Florence 1993Uploaded bydr_m_azhar
- Development of a Near-wall Turbulence Model and Application to Jet, TaeUploaded byIsaac Arrieta
- Turbulent Flows.pdfUploaded bypadmanathan
- manuscript_Kraev_YanyshevUploaded byDmitry Yanyshev
- Guelph.pdfUploaded byAnonymous 7BQxlt8c
- hhahahUploaded byDanang Joyoe
- IJETAE_0813_122Uploaded byvinodsingoria
- Cfdb TurbulenceUploaded bycristi01068468
- Rt 01 Intro Tut 11 SRFUploaded byramgopaljha
- mcmullanUploaded byndoye
- Marusic, Mathis, Hutchins (2010) - Predictive Model for Wall-bounded Turbulent FlowUploaded byscottytheghoti
- 03Lect9BluffBodyAeroUploaded byAlpha Samad
- 1-s2.0-S0142727X09000824-mainUploaded byAbhinivesh Beechook
- mridha et alUploaded byAmlan Chakraborty
- ANSYS Analysis.docxUploaded byPRIYA TANDEL
- Gourlay-2007-Flow Beneath a Ship at Small Underkeel ClearanceUploaded byAlexandre Gonçalves da Rocha
- Flack Schultz2005Uploaded bygorkem atay
- IJEART02609Uploaded byerpublication

- Unit 1 the Capitalist Revolution 1.0(1)Uploaded byknowme73
- Unit-5-Property-and-power-1.0.pptxUploaded byknowme73
- Unit 3 Scarcity Work and Choice 1.0Uploaded byknowme73
- Unit-3-Scarcity-work-and-choice-1.0.pptxUploaded byknowme73
- Unit 2 Technological Change Population and Growth 1.0Uploaded byknowme73
- Introduction to Turbulence ModellingUploaded byknowme73
- Boundary Layer CalculationUploaded byknowme73
- Turbulence -1.docxUploaded byknowme73
- xword001Uploaded byknowme73
- Dynamics of Marine VehiclesUploaded byknowme73
- Thesis_Nigeria's Shipbuilding CapabilityUploaded byknowme73
- Lecture 1Uploaded byknowme73
- Calculation of Hydrodynamic DerivativesUploaded byknowme73
- Seakeeping LectureUploaded byknowme73
- Synopsis of Midway PaperUploaded byknowme73
- Assignment Coupled Heaving and PitchingUploaded byknowme73
- L 19_Machinery Selection for Modern WarshipUploaded byknowme73
- Innovation in Ship DesignUploaded byknowme73
- Innovation in Ship DesignUploaded byknowme73

- W G LIUploaded byvishallchhaya
- nSolution 2Uploaded byShankar Dakshinamurthi
- ALCO-001Uploaded bySergioi Indurain
- Advances in Aerodynamic Shape Optimization.pdfUploaded byChegrani Ahmed
- Conversion and Reactor Sizing.pdfUploaded byahmad
- 120+H+DIAGRAMA+HIDRAULICO.pdfUploaded byVitalo Montesinos
- VentilationUploaded byTanam Swarup Gupta
- fluid mechanics reportUploaded byChan Jiun Haur
- Exercise A1 - Simple Ogee SetupUploaded byCarlos Luis Oyuela Gomez
- HYDRAULIC 992G_AZX.pdfUploaded byGuzti
- Assignment 3 SU18Uploaded byAhmed Mujtaba
- The Effects of Non-Darcy Flow on the Behavior Of Hydraulically Fractured Gas WellsUploaded byShone David
- PIPE SCHEDULE.xlsUploaded byVipin Peter
- Fire Sprinkler Valve - FM GlobalUploaded bydg ds
- Wind Tunnel Testing AerospaceUploaded byAliakbar Thandlawala
- Us 5767165Uploaded byRyan Wahyudi
- Fire Resistant Hydraulic Fluids_Die CastingUploaded bySatyan Gupta
- Condenser Backpressure High.pdfUploaded byYulianto Kartono
- Data Sheet Booster CR_15-1_A-A-A-E-HQBE.PDFUploaded byAdil Aziz
- KILSHEET.xlsUploaded byscrbdgharavi
- KFR 25GWVWaservice ManualUploaded byespagnita
- Pid Tagging Isa s5.1Uploaded byvivek1280
- LPS 1131-Issue 1.2-Requirements and testing methods for pumps for automatic sprinkler installation pump sets.pdfUploaded byHazem Habib
- UNIT 3Uploaded bySufiyan Khan
- ONE-DIMENSIONAL FLOW OF WATER TROUGH SOILSUploaded byVerra Myza Arat
- ReportUploaded bygemechu mengistu
- TEG Dehydration Design BasisUploaded byWade Coleman
- 1-s2.0-036012859390003W-main.pdfUploaded byAnonymous pv63gnBMAZ
- Chapter 3Uploaded byTony Reddy
- Aramco SRV.pdfUploaded byANIL