## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

2nd IAHR International Meeting of the Workgroup on Cavitation and Dynamic Problems in Hydraulic Machinery and Systems Timisoara, Romania October 24 - 26, 2007

**NUMERICAL MODELLING COMPARISON BETWEEN AIRFLOW AND WATER FLOW WITHIN THE ACHARD-TYPE TURBINE
**

Andrei-Mugur GEORGESCU *

Hydraulic and Environmental Protection Department, Technical Civil Engineering University Bucharest

**Sanda-Carmen GEORGESCU
**

Hydraulics and Hydraulic Machinery Department, University “Politehnica” of Bucharest

Mircea DEGERATU

Sandor BERNAD

Hydraulic and Environmental Protection Department, Centre of Advanced Research in Engineering Sciences, Technical Civil Engineering University Bucharest Romanian Academy – Timişoara Branch

**Costin Ioan COŞOIU
**

Hydraulic and Environmental Protection Department, Technical Civil Engineering University Bucharest

*Corresponding author: 124 Bd Lacul Tei, Sector 2, Bucharest, 020396, Romania Tel.: +40212433660, Fax: +40212433660, E-mail: andreig@mail.utcb.ro ABSTRACT The purpose of the present numerical study is to assess a relatively rough, but quick way, to estimate the forces acting on an experimental model of the Achard cross-flow turbine that is to be tested in an aerodynamic wind tunnel. Under normal conditions, the Achard turbine runs in water, but in order to accurately investigate the flow field inside the turbine, an experimental set-up of a 1:1 geometric scale model has to be built, and measurements have to be performed in a wind tunnel (at such a scale, the model would require a huge channel if tested in water). Building the model in itself requires at least an approximate knowledge about the values of forces that will act upon it during the experiments; such values can be obtained conveniently through numerical simulations. Using COMSOL Multiphysics 3.3a software, a 2D numerical study of the unsteady flow inside the Achard turbine has been performed, both for water and air (the latter based on criteria derived for such a case of similitude). The computed dynamic forces for a horizontal cross-section of the turbine agree well with experimental data available for twin cases, and could be used, in the sequel, to compute roughly the forces acting on the turbine experimental model. KEYWORDS Achard turbine, cross-flow water turbine, airfoil, pressure coefficient, force coefficient 1. INTRODUCTION In 2001, the Geophysical and Industrial Fluid Flows Laboratory (LEGI) of Grenoble, France, launched the HARVEST Project (Hydroliennes à Axe de Rotation VErtical STabilisé), to develop a suitable technology for marine and river hydro-power farms using cross-flow current energy converters piled up in towers [1−3]. In 2006, the Technical Civil Engineering University Bucharest, in collaboration with the University “Politehnica” of Bucharest and the Romanian Academy - Timisoara Branch, started the THARVEST Project, within the CEEX Program sustained by the Romanian Ministry of Education and Research [4]. The THARVEST Project aims to study experimentally and numerically the hydrodynamics of this new concept of water-current turbine, called Achard turbine, in collaboration with the LEGI partners involved in the HARVEST Project. The Achard turbine, a cross-flow marine or river turbine with vertical axis and delta blades is suitable to produce the desired power by summing elementary power provided by small turbine modules. In Figure 1 we present the Achard turbine module. It consists of a runner with three vertical delta blades, sustained by radial supports at mid-height of the turbine, and stiffened with circular rims at the upper and lower part. The blades are shaped with NACA 4518 airfoils [5]. The turbine main geometric dimensions are: the runner radius R = 0.5 m, the runner height H = 1 m, and the shaft radius of 0.05 m.

2 0. Combining the second and third criteria.4 0. The values of these scales are presented in Table 1. we obtain 4 non-dimensional 0.6 −0. Combining the last two non-dimensional criteria. which is the blade Reynolds number. namely a single blade runner model. the chord based Reynolds number (where ν = µ ρ is the kinematic viscosity of the fluid). These similitude criteria will impose values of the different physical quantities that are to be realized on the experimental model. chord length of the blade. ρ . and by considering the above mentioned similitude criteria.3a software [6].179 m.290 Proceedings of the 2nd IAHR International Meeting of the Workgroup on Cavitation and Dynamic Problems in Hydraulic Machinery and Systems of the 2D numerical simulations of the three blades runner model from Fig. in order to preserve the similarities with the natural phenomenon. 120o .4 −0.2 0 x [m] 0. The simulations are performed with COMSOL Multiphysics 3.5 −0. 2.2 −0. which is known as the tip speed ratio. U ∞ . 2). the 2D computations correspond to the horizontal cross-plane placed at mid-height of the turbine. 2 turning in water and air. The Achard turbine [LEGI courtesy] Within this paper.2 0. Applying the principles of Dimensional Analysis. we can compute values of the scales of physical quantities that influence the phenomenon. R c . The values of the azimuthal angle of the blades are θ = 0o . dynamic viscosity of the fluid. From the tip speed ratio and the chord based Reynolds number.1 −0. the following 7 dominant physical quantities were identified: c . For the phenomenon we are studying. radius of the turbine (of the runner). density of the fluid.6 θ = 120o θ = 240 o Figure 2. and the chord length c = 0. A complete 360° turn of the blades is analysed. and particularly. without radial supports (Fig. which is known as the solidity. where the three blade profiles have the mean camber line length c0 = 0. The results . Computational runner cross-section In this paper we focus on the 2D numerical modelling of the unsteady flow inside the Achard turbine. U ∞ and ρ . certain similitude criteria must be ascertained between the hydraulic phenomena that occur in nature (N) and on the model (M).3 −0. For the case of modelling a water phenomenon in air with the length scale of 1:1. R . µ .18 m (the maximum value of c0 along the delta wing). a criteria related to the geometry of the runner. we get λ = ωR U ∞ . HYDRAULIC SIMILITUDE Figure 1. and B . by choosing three of these quantities as fundamental. as well as the results obtained for a twin unsteady test case. in counter clockwise direction.5 0.4 0. A test case of the steady flow around a cylinder is performed in order to tune up the input parameters for the unsteady computations. to the one in nature). we get σ = cB R . angular velocity of the turbine. together with the supports that will hold the model inside the wind tunnel. y [m] 0 −0. B . ω c U ∞ . velocity of the fluid upstream of the turbine module. number of blades. to design the system that will ensure its rotation. a criteria that equals the number of blades (it has to be identical on the model. namely: c . 240o . { } In order to accurately design the experimental model of the Achard turbine module that is to be tested in the wind tunnel. a criteria related to the velocity. we get Reb = ωRc ν . are compared to similar experimental data available in the literature [7]. ω .3 0.4 −0.1 θ=0 o criteria specific to this application: Rec = U ∞ c ν .

0012 SB Sν = ν air ν water S ρ = ρ air ρ water Sc = SL 1 15 15 15 0. and the turbulence length scale Lt .19 15.70 10.8 3. p∞ is the upstream uniform pressure. number of blades large rivers) the velocity of the fluid can be considered in the range U ∞ N = 0.0 60 9. radius RN = 0. namely the turbulent intensity it .6 2.573 34. Type imposed Scale length (radius) scale number of blades scale viscosity scale density scale chord scale angular velocity scale Table 1.8 0. and by taking into account that in the area where it will work (sea. BN = 3 . Scales definition Symbol SR = SL Relationship – – – – Sc = −1 SRSB Value 1 1 15 0.0 48 7.382 22. we can compute the values of the angular velocity and rotational speed for the experimental model (Table 2). implemented within the finite element scheme with unstructured mesh. kinematic viscosity ν N = 10 −6 m2/s. Numerical results were com- .92 9.0 24 3.191 11.0 m/s.0 0.59 515 1.5 18 2. at different Reynolds numbers.7 2.5 m. The cylinder test case focused on the differences that appear in the pressure distribution on the cylinder surface.0 36 5. tip speed ratio λN = 2 .67 400 0.2 0.5 2. the pressure coefficient is defines as: cp = p − p∞ .27 Sω Sn −1 −1 −1 Sω = Sν S R S c = Sν S B −1 S n = Sω = Sν S B derived rotational speed scale fluid velocity scale aerodynamic force scale pressure scale SU SF Sp SU = Sω S R = −1 Sν S B SL 2 2 4 2 −2 SF = Sρ SL SU = S ρ S L Sν S B 2 2 2 −2 S p = S ρ SU = Sρ SL Sν S B Table 2. and solidity σ N = 1 .6 0.27 0. for several values of the parameters that can be set in the computer code.46 4.4 1.38 13.3 1.54 12.e.509 30.6 0. For the flow around a cylinder of diameter D.0 4. preliminary tests of the code used in the numerical simulations were performed on a benchmark case of steady flow around a cylinder.445 26.Proceedings of the 2nd IAHR International Meeting of the Workgroup on Cavitation and Dynamic Problems in Hydraulic Machinery and Systems 291 Starting from the characteristics of the Achard turbine module.5 42 6. and U ∞ is the upstream velocity.08 7.3 …1. We also investigated the influence of the dimensions of the computational domain on the pressure coefficients c p .254 15. i.63 458 0.77 286 0.81 229 0.5 54 8.637 38.4 0. for the minimum and maximum values of the Reynolds number that are supposed to appear in the unsteady numerical simulations.2 0.55 573 3.5 30 4. and for the experimental model Nature (N) Model (M) U∞N U∞M ωN nN nN ωM nM nM [rad/s] [rot/s] [rot/min] [rad/s] [rot/s] [rot/min] [m/s] [m/s] 0. The associated Reynolds number is: Re = U ∞ D ν .28 6. The turbulence model that was used is the k − ε one.0 0. Angular velocity and rotational speed in nature. 2 ρU ∞ 2 (1) where p is the pressure on the cylinder. STEADY FLOW AROUND A CYLINDER − TEST CASE In the effort to predict the forces acting on the Achard turbine module during experimental work.9 3.73 344 0.86 172 0.318 19.

we can see that none of the tested values assures a very good mach of the numerical results on the experimental curves.5} .7 ⋅ 105 and Re = 8. (c) numerical domain limits . 0.1 for the turbulence length scale. and Lt = 0. then made tests for some values in the range recommended by the software manufacturer [6]. 0.05. We must mention that.25. we present the variation c p = c p (θ . The turbulent intensity and the turbulence length scale are requested by the code to compute the turbulent kinetic energy and dissipation rate that are used by the turbulence model.2 for city areas [9]. as c p = c p (θ . 0.c. 3).01 for open sea. We add that for wind flow in the atmospheric boundary layer. for it = {0. and choose the values that match best the experimental results. for Lt = {0. namely: (20 D × 40 D ) and (10 D × 25D ) . Thus. 3. with respect to the Reynolds number Re and to the variation of the: (a) turbulent intensity it . with respect to the turbulent intensity. with respect to the turbulence length scale. (b) turbulence length scale Lt . From the presented results. Re ) with respect to the rectangular computational domain limits. 3. as c p = c p (θ . for finally trying up values outside of that range. Lt ) . from it = 0. The computed pressure coefficients variations are presented in Fig. In figure 3. Our results are compared to available experimental data [8].4 ⋅106 . during a complete rotation. the measured turbulent intensity values range. for Re = 106 and Re = 3 ⋅106 . the irrotational case is also plotted (Fig.b. to it = 0.005. Re. 0. Re.292 Proceedings of the 2nd IAHR International Meeting of the Workgroup on Cavitation and Dynamic Problems in Hydraulic Machinery and Systems pared to the well known experimental data presented in Batchelor [8].a. (a) (b) (c) Figure 3. in the sequel. As long as the turbulent intensity and turbulence length scale are concerned. although we looked up the values corresponding to marine currents or river flow of those parameters in the literature.05. Test case of steady flow around a cylinder − experimental data [8] and computed results for the pressure coefficient c p versus azimuthal angle θ . Firstly. 3. in order to make the pressure coefficients distributions fit as well as possible the experimental data. it ) .5} .005. we could not find any information. as multiple of the cylinder diameter D. at 30 m above ground.2 for the turbulent intensity. the minimum and maximum values of the Reynolds number. 0. is presented in Fig. The pressure coefficient variation upon θ . As a consequence. for Re = 6. it is straight forward to notice that the influence of the domain extent is not that important for the pressure coefficients (if the domain limits are selected big enough to avoid blockage effects). we started with the values of it and Lt available by default within the numerical code. is presented in Fig. we will consider the values of those parameters just as some tuning constants with no other physical meaning. which are supposed to appear in the unsteady numerical simulations. the pressure coefficient variation upon the azimuthal angle θ . The values that we used in the unsteady flow inside the Achard turbine are: it = 0.

5 and the same solidity (σ = 1) . and a fixed one (outside the former). turbulent intensity and turbulence length scale on the left hand side of the domain. we also performed numerical simulations for a tip speed ratio of 2. termed further as single blade model). 397 boundary elements and 142 vertex elements for the three blades model (see Fig. 98 . We considered first the three blades model from Fig. In order to achieve more accurate results.b). with a chord length c = 0.36 corresponds to a single rotating blade of our model. logarithmic wall function with the offset of h / 2 on the blades and on the turbine shaft. 4. Each of those figures contains 8 frames of the flow at four different azimuthal angles. The boundary conditions used were the following: inflow with a specified velocity. All tests were performed for both water flow and airflow (air being considered an incompressible fluid. Then. 62 .6 m radius that incorporates the blades). where the three NACA 4518 airfoils. rotating counter clockwise. 6. zero pressure on the right hand side of the domain. The investigated domain consists of an unstructured mesh having 6549 triangular elements.36 (the value σ = 0. 2. 35 . The blade geometry was generated in MATLAB. in Fig. from 42 points on each blade cross-section (the points were unevenly distributed on the airfoil. the base 10 logarithm of the vorticity. A complete 360o turn of the blades was investigated. 5. at θ = 8 .Proceedings of the 2nd IAHR International Meeting of the Workgroup on Cavitation and Dynamic Problems in Hydraulic Machinery and Systems 293 4. neutral identity pair on the boundaries between the fixed and rotating sub domains. and only the second complete turn was used to yield results. we present the results corresponding to the three blades model. and 3240 triangular elements. For both types of models. 5). it was imported into COMSOL Multiphysics and converted to boundaries by spline interpolation. We present firstly the results corresponding to the single blade model (see Fig. 4.a). at θ = 105 . On the 4 frames from the left hand side of each figure. are positioned on a circle of 0.179 m. No data was recorded for the first turn of the turbine. 242 . NUMERICAL RESULTS To illustrate the flow structure obtained in the numerical simulations. as well as for a tip speed ratio of 2. the radius of the turbine shaft is of 5 cm. The tip speed ratio value was taken λ = 2 (as prescribed for the Achard turbine) and the approximate value of the solidity was σ = 1 . NUMERICAL SET-UP The numerical set-up aimed at the simulation of the turbulent flow inside a horizontal cross-section of the Achard turbine module. we present the velocity field.5 and a solidity of 0. slip symmetry on the upper and lower boundaries. we used two sub domains: a rotating one (a circular area of 0. with 120° span. Computational mesh for the three blades model (left). The rotating sub domain modelled the rotation of the turbine. the evolution of the flow is presented in figures 5 and 6. { } { } Figure 4. In order to be able to compare the computed results with experimental data [7]. we simulated two complete turns of the turbine. as the velocities in the numerical set-up have moderated values). to better describe the leading and the trailing edges). Then. 191 . 140 . and on the 4 frames from the right hand side.5 m radius. 243 boundary elements and 54 vertex elements for the single blade model (see Fig. and single blade model (right) .

Flow structure for the single blade model − velocity field (left hand side frames).294 Proceedings of the 2nd IAHR International Meeting of the Workgroup on Cavitation and Dynamic Problems in Hydraulic Machinery and Systems (a) (b) (c) (d) Figure 5. (b) θ = 140 . at different azimuthal angles: (a) θ = 105 . (c) θ = 191 . and base 10 logarithm of the vorticity (right hand side frames). (d) θ = 242 .

Proceedings of the 2nd IAHR International Meeting of the Workgroup on Cavitation and Dynamic Problems in Hydraulic Machinery and Systems 295 (a) (b) (c) (d) Figure 6. and base 10 logarithm of the vorticity (right hand side frames). at different azimuthal angles: (a) θ = 8 . (c) θ = 62 . (b) θ = 35 . Flow structure for the three blades model − velocity field (left hand side frames). (d) θ = 98 .

One set was obtained from integrated pressure measurements. 8. while the experiments were performed on straight airfoils. λ ) . with a tip speed ratio of 2. and of the single blade model. λ ) . tsr = 2. number of blades in our case) can be also determined from the differences between the curves for the single blade model and the three blades model.5 θ [deg] 180 225 270 315 360 Figure 9. 10. tsr = 2 are presented in Fig.296 Proceedings of the 2nd IAHR International Meeting of the Workgroup on Cavitation and Dynamic Problems in Hydraulic Machinery and Systems For the single blade model. obtained for the numerical models running in water.5 match well with the experiments. with respect to the tip speed ratio λ (denoted as tsr in the legend): computed values (solid lines) and experimental data [10] (discrete marks) Similarly.) 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360 -1 -2 -3 -4 θ [deg] (2) The variations of the normal force coefficients versus the azimuthal angle θ . with respect to the tip speed ratio λ (denoted as tsr in the legend). single blade water. tsr = 2. and not only the one for which the azimuth angle was calculated. C Ft (θ . For the three blades model.25 ) and a tip speed ratio of 2. which represents a solidity of 0. [10].5 experimental (strain method) experimental (pressure meth.36 (the closest value to the experimental one. Tangential force coefficient C Ft versus the azimuthal angle θ . The experimental blade forces were measured for a tip speed ratio of 2. we presented results for azimuth angles in the range 0° to 100°. We have to bear in mind that our numerical simulations were performed on a curved airfoil. are presented in Fig.5.5 experimental (strain method) experimental (pressure meth. one can see that numerical data obtained for the single blade model.5. The influence of the solidity (i. 7. tsr = 2 air. we cover a complete rotation. tsr = 2.5 and solidity σ = 0.e. which are both presented as there are some differences between the data sets. Normal force coefficient vs the azimuthal angle θ . tsr = 2 water.5 ). obtained for the same models. tsr = 2. with two different methods. with respect to the tip speed ratio λ (denoted as tsr in the legend): computed values (solid lines) and experimental data [10] (discrete marks) From the presented results. Computed normal force coefficients C Fn (θ . the tangential force coefficients. are compared to the experimental data presented in Oler et al. but taking into account that the blades are shifted by 120°.5 air. and that the results were recorded for the second rotation. are presented in Fig. single blade water. the dynamic forces are computed per unit length. obtained for the three blades model running in water and in air. for the three blades model running in water (solid line) and in air (discrete marks) . For the 2D modelling. with respect to the tip speed ratio values ( λ = 2 and λ = 2.5. computed for the models running in water. tsr = 2 water. for both 2. The numerical results of the three blades model. 15 10 5 CFn [-] 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 0 45 90 135 θ [deg] 180 225 270 315 360 Figure 7. 20 15 10 water. Normal force coefficient C Fn versus the azimuthal angle θ . while the tangential force coefficients. by observing all the three blades.25 . we only presented results for azimuth angles in the range 100° to 250°.5 and 2 tip speed ratios. are presented in Fig. 2 ρ c U∞ 2 CFn [-] (3) 0 water. 2 ρ c U∞ 2 4 3 2 CFt [-] 1 0 water. tsr = 2. -5 -10 -15 0 45 90 135 water. tsr = 2. σ = 0. C Ft = Ft . 9. where the main dynamic-stall region is located.) Figure 8. and the other one from strain gage measurements. The corresponding normal force coefficient is defined as: C Fn = Fn .

The dynamic forces. computed for a horizontal cross-section of the turbine. The similitude criteria derived for the modelling of the airflow in the turbine are accurately chosen. to determine roughly the forces acting on the turbine model that we have to test in the wind tunnel. In the first half rotation.5 turbulence model.5 0 -0. there are practically no differences between the airflow and water flow for the values of the velocities in the limits of the current experimental model. NOMENCLATURE CF [-] -1 -1. were selected through a test case related to the steady flow around a cylinder. The turbulent intensity and the turbulence length scale values. in the sequel. for the three blades model running in water (solid line) and in air (discrete marks) As shown by the graphs from figures 9 and 10. used within the unsteady simulations. show clearly the distinct features of the Achard cross-flow turbine. 0. and will be used. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS CFt [-] Authors gratefully acknowledge the CEEX Programme from the Romanian Ministry of Education and Research. tsr = 2. although the values of the forces in air are approximately 10 times smaller than the corresponding ones in water. In figure 11 we present the variation of the force coefficients C F (θ ) with respect to the Ox axis (parallel to the flow direction).5 -1 -2 -3 0 45 90 135 θ [deg] 180 225 270 315 360 Figure 10. tsr = 2 water. the dynamicstall duration is shorter. and to the Oy axis (cross flow direction) 6. CNRS Research Director.3a software. and to PhD student Ervin Amet from LEGI Grenoble. Special thanks are addressed to Dr Jean-Luc Achard. tsr = 2 air. The generation of leading vortices.5 air. with respect to the Ox axis (flow direction). with a k − ε Subscripts and Superscripts n normal direction t tangential direction ∞ upstream . for consultancy on the Achard turbine. is not clearly observed. and to the Oy axis (perpendicular to the flow). Tangential force coefficient vs θ . 192/2006. corresponding to the whole three blades model.5 -2 -2. a large dynamic-stall is generated. as described in Oler et al. for a complete 360° turn of the model. Results obtained for the tested models (a three blades model. for its financial support under the THARVEST Project no. for both water and air. while in the second half.5 -3 0 45 90 135 flow direction cross flow direction B [−] C F [−] H [m] R [m] Rec [−] U ∞ [m/s] c [m] c p [−] c0 [m] 360 number of blades force coefficient turbine height turbine radius chord based Reynolds number upstream velocity airfoil chord length pressure coefficient airfoil mean camber line length tip speed ratio kinematic viscosity angular velocity fluid density solidity azimuthal angle θ [deg] 180 225 270 315 Figure 11. CONCLUSIONS λ ν ω ρ σ θ [−] [m2/s] [rad/s] [kg/m3] [−] [grd] The 2D numerical modelling of the unsteady flow inside the Achard turbine has been performed using COMSOL Multiphysics 3. This was to be expected as long as the similitude criteria are respected. with respect to the tip speed ratio λ (denoted as tsr in the legend). for the three blade model. agree well with the experimental ones. [10] and in Paraschivoiu [7]. Force coefficients C F versus the azimuthal angle θ . tsr = 2. and a single blade model).Proceedings of the 2nd IAHR International Meeting of the Workgroup on Cavitation and Dynamic Problems in Hydraulic Machinery and Systems 3 2 1 297 0 water.

J. [2] Achard. Brevet déposé.-C.. B. I. 16th edition.-L. Ph. Bernad. Special Issue. and Graham.. Resiga. G. “Dispositif de maintien d’une turbomachine hydraulique”. Code FR 04 50209. France. 2002. stabilised. Wind turbine design with emphasis on Darrieus concept. J. 2_192/2006. “Marine turbine development: Numerical and experimental investigations”. S. S. Cambridge University Press. 5.-M. S.. T... [9] Georgescu. and Maître.. Report No. Guittet.-L. and Bernad. J-L. Chap..W. [4] Georgescu. Sci. I. and Maître. Cambridge.K. http://hidraulica. 1983.utcb.-C. 52(66). Achard. J. Politehnica University of Timişoara.. S. USA. of Timişoara. J. Georgescu. J.. S. Politehnica Univ. Montréal. 2004. Mechanics. 59-66. “Turbomachine hydraulique”.. Code FR 05 50420. C.D.. 2007. Im. Sandia National Laboratories. Imbault. A. Bucharest. COMSOL AB. Muntean.. 1999. Technical Civil Engineering University.. CEEX Programme. Bull. Chap. [8] Batchelor.-M.H. S. . [7] Paraschivoiu. Bucharest (in Romanian).ro/tharvest/ [5] Georgescu. [11]SAND83-7029. and Ploeşteanu. [6] *** 2006. L. Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble.. Bull. “COMSOL Multiphysics versus Fluent: 2D numerical simulation of the stationary flow around a blade of the Achard turbine”. C. D. Titulaire: Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble..3. “Dynamic-stall regulation of the Darrieus turbine”. A.-M. Stockholm. Bernad. Albuquerque.. 2005.H.. Brevet déposé. User’s Guide. 1994. AMCSIT Politehnica. T. Trans. COMSOL Multiphysics 3. Technical Report No. Mechanics. and Coşoiu. Strickland.. T. G.298 Proceedings of the 2nd IAHR International Meeting of the Workgroup on Cavitation and Dynamic Problems in Hydraulic Machinery and Systems REFERENCES [1] Achard. An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics. [3] Maître. 50(64). “Contribuţii în ingineria vântului” (Contributions in Wind Engineering)... 2007. Trans. pp 13-22. “Interinfluence of the vertical axis. 2005. Achard type hydraulic turbines (THARVEST)”.. eds.. R. Georgescu. pp. Polytechnic International Press.. 5. A. [10]Oler. thesis.. Sci.

- Flow instability
- 7.5-02-07-03.9
- Similitude in Hydrosimilitude in hydrodynamicsdynamics
- Wrap Thesis Jouvray 2003
- ContentServer (1)
- Bradley 1994
- Experiment 3
- Laminar and Turbulent Flow in Water
- 54 Hydrodynamics Influence on Light Conversion in Photobioreactors an Energetically
- Reynolds Number
- IJMF2009
- Hidro 2
- Laboratory Work
- 1.Viscous Flow in Pipes
- 3. Túnel Turbulento de Baja Velocidad
- 00-sllbs
- Numerical Simulation of the Flow Around the Ahmed Vehicle Model
- IRJIE::Three Dimensional Non-Hydrostatic Free-Surface Flow Simulation Over Curved and Sharp Crested Weirs
- 2008 Pascheke and Hancock - Wake Development and Interactions Within an Array of Large Wind Turbines
- Franca_FLOW DYNAMICS OVER A GRAVEL RIVERBED
- Erturk(2009)IntJNumMethFluids
- IRJET-Evaluation of Numerical Methods of Solution and Resistance Equations Applicable to Unsteady Flow Situation in Surge Tank
- Lab_Report_Solteq_Osborne_Reynolds_Demon.pdf
- Perforated Plate 8
- Pipeline_Lec01
- Paper 293487
- M.tech Chemical Engg Syllabus
- Fluent-Adv Turbulence 15.0 L03 Wall Modeling
- HT-2081 (1)
- Pipe Fd Tutorial

- Gambit.mesh.Control Most Important
- Gambit.mesh.Control Most Important
- Cfd-tut Profil h105
- 2 1 2 Basic Principles
- 1300 Math Formulas
- Matrix
- 2012_JCSME
- Zee News_ Latest News Headlines, Current Live Breaking News From India & World
- Main
- 72717891-2-D-truss
- ans_tut
- Main
- ambit-Tutorial-2010.pdf
- List of Integrals of Trigonometric Functions - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia
- Governor Handoutg
- LM-39
- B2Creep
- 36_Georgescu
- A Param Current Turbine
- Feedback and Temperature Control
- turblt
- FIR 02a Robotics and Automation
- TMC-Cutting Tool Materials
- Robot - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia
- Ppt End Effector Design
- Presentation EDM 8
- 150215739 Grid Postprocessing Cfd
- Robot Dynamics and Control
- Feedback and Temperature Control

Close Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Loading