113 views

Uploaded by Vyssion

A Comparison of RANS-Based Turbulence Modeling for Flow Over a Wall-Mounted Square Cylinder

- commercial cfd codes
- Expermental Study of Open-Wheel Car Front Wings
- Computational Investigation of a Race Car Wing With Vortex Generators in Ground Effect
- An Angle of Attack Correction Scheme for the Design of Low Aspect Ratio Wings With Endplates
- Aerodynamic Design Considerations of a Formula 1 Racing Car
- Star Tutorial 1
- Effect of Oscillations on Airfoils in Close Proximity to the Ground
- Influence of Endplate on Aerodynamic Characteristics of Low-Aspect-ratio Wing in Ground Effect
- Effects of Rear Spoilers on Ground Vehicle Aerodynamic Drag
- Diffuser Design for PACE Global Formula One Racer
- Full-Scale, On-Road Study of the Effect of Automobile Shape on Its Aerodynamic Characteristics, And Comparison With Small-Scale Wind Tunnel Results
- Cranfield Team f1 - The Front Wing
- Computational Fluid-dynamics Investigations of Vortex Generators for Flow-separation Control
- fluid flow Q3D
- Airfoils at Low Speeds
- Enhanced Turbulence Model in FloEFD
- Computational Fluid Dynamics in Practice BOOK.pdf
- Fluids Biblio
- FLUENT Tutorial 1 - Developing Flow In a Channel.pdf
- Experimental and 3 D Numerical Simulation of Flow Over a Rectangular Broad Crested Weir

You are on page 1of 8

P. L. Davis1, A. T. Rinehimer2, and M.Uddin3

N C Motorsports and Automotive Research Center, Department of Mechanical Engineering and

Engineering Science, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223, USA

1

Email: pdavis24@uncc.edu

Email: arinehim@uncc.edu

3

Email: muddin@uncc.edu s

2

ABSTRACT

Using experimental data from a study of flow over a

wall-mounted square cylinder (h=4d) as a baseline,

three Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes turbulence

models are used in a commercial CFD code StarCCM+ to compare the relative accuracy of the tested

models. In virtually every standard of comparison

applied in this study, the Realizable with a twolayer treatment proved to be far superior to both the

V2F (All + hybrid wall treatment) and the

models.

To observe mesh dependence for each of the models,

all three were run on three different polyhedral mesh

cases. Resulting first prism-layer heights of y+12,

y+5, and y+1 allowed comparison of results with

the mesh resolved to the buffer layer, the buffer

layer/viscous sublayer transformation, and into the

viscous sublayer, respectively. In all cases, the

Realizable proved superior.

The mesh study also suggests that applying the twolayer treatment to Realizable allows it to

operate well into the viscous sublayer, an area in

which models are traditionally expected to

suffer degradation in accuracy. The scheme,

however, does not show improvements with

increased mesh quality. In contradiction to the

expected results, mesh independence is reached by

y+5 for in this study.

1. INTRODUCTION

turbulence models in predicting separated flows,

experimental data reported by Bourgeois et al is used

as a basis of comparison. The flow being examined

consists of a single wall-mounted square cylinder of

dimensions ( / =4) sitting within a steady, wellprofiled air flow of Reynolds number Re=12,000.1

Time and phase-averaged flow data sets as well as

velocity profiles for a three-dimensional grid are

made available by the organizers of the 2012 CFDSC

Challenge.2

2. COMPUTATIONAL EQUIPMENT

All CFD simulations were performed using the

commercial CFD code Star-CCM+ version 6.04 by

CD-Adapco. All simulations were performed on the

UNC-Charlotte cluster with 32 cores. Additional postprocessing was performed using EnSight by CEI.

3.

ANSA by Beta CAE. All volume meshing was

performed within Star-CCM+ using a polyhedral

meshing scheme. A polyhedral scheme was chosen

due to the omni-directional nature of wall-bounded

turbulent flows (Timothy Yen, CD-ADAPCO,

personal communication, February 23, 2012). For the

best computational accuracy, an ideal mesh would

have each cell oriented with one face normal to the

flow. When compared to a tetrahedral or hexahedral

cell, a polyhedral cell has more faces, and therefore it

has more optimal flow directions (normal to a face)

than a tetrahedral or hexahedral cell. With more

potential optimal flow directions, the polyhedral cell

has an increased likelihood of a particular flow

direction being at or near the optimal flow direction

of one of the polyhedral cell faces. Also, polyhedral

cells have more neighbors which allows for better

gradient approximations, especially near boundaries

and corners.3

As a starting point, a mesh with ~16x106 cells was

generated with polyhedral cells, to be called the

simulations and subsequent examinations of the +

values, two additional meshes were created. The

medium mesh with ~26x106 cells had further

refinements in the floor, behind the cylinder, and

around the cylinder surfaces in order to attain a

In the fine mesh case,

maximum + 5 .

additional refinements were made to the cells around

the cylinder edges and the prism-layer meshes on the

tunnel floor. This increased the total cell count to

~29x106 and reduced the first prism layer heights

down to produce a + 1 . Even though some

simulations may have suggested further refinements

could yield slight improvements, for comparative

purposes all simulations were run on these three

meshes.

Total Volume Cells

Floor Tot. Prism Hgt.

Floor Prism Levels

Floor Prism 1st Hgt.

Cyl. Total Prism Hgt.

Cyl. Prism Levels

Cyl. Prism 1st Hgt.

Cyl. Corners

Coarse

~16x106

4mm

12

0.185mm

4mm

12

0.185mm

0.25mm

Medium

~26x106

9mm

12

0.0186mm

9mm

12

0.0186mm

0.125mm

Fine

~29x106

9mm

20

0.0186mm

9mm

20

0.0186mm

0.125mm

4. TURBULENCE MODELS

In order to examine a range of RANS modeling, three

versions of and turbulence models are

selected from the available Star CCM+ physics

models for detailed examination. The three models

are used with all default settings given in version

6.04. The first model, the Standard , is a wellestablished model capable of resolving through the

boundary layer.4 The second model is Realizable

, an improvement over the standard model.5

schemes model turbulence based on turbulent

core flows, making them traditionally unsuitable for

applications in the viscous sublayer.6 And finally the

third model examined is the V2F variant of .

This model is expected to offer the possibilities of

capturing near-wall turbulence effects more

accurately.7

4.1 Setup

boundary layer, accuracy is expected to improve as

the mesh size is reduced to move + into the viscous

sublayer ( + 5). Salim and Cheah6 suggested this

approach and, accordingly, the fine mesh was tuned

to result in a near-wall prism layer of + 1.

As mentioned, the traditional model is not

well-suited in resolving flows in near-wall regions.

At or near the viscous sublayer, the viscous forces are

dominant over the turbulent forces, effectively

damping any effects of turbulence. Due to this

damping, traditional cant resolve flows in this

region, and thus the medium mesh is designed with a

near-wall prism layer that yields + 5. It could be

expected that resolving at a lower value, such

as the fine meshs value of + 1, could potentially

show no improvement. There is likelihood that this

may even be detrimental to the accuracy of the

solution, a reason why a two-layer wall treatment is

also applied.

The two-layer approach8 applies a modified model in

the viscous sublayer region, allowing to be

applied in meshes that could otherwise be unsuitable

for such a model. Because three common meshes are

being used rather than an optimized mesh for each

individual model, the two-layer approach is expected

to produce better results with a mesh that is otherwise

not optimized for a scheme. One drawback of

the two-layer approach in this study is the fact that, as

mentioned, more traditional schemes could be

expected to perform poorly with + < 5. The twolayer approach will likely mitigate these effects, so a

full understanding of the effects of + may not be

possible in this study.

4.3 K-Epsilon V2F Setup

additional transport equations, and is expected to

more accurately predict the effects of turbulence near

walls.9 It is to be expected that this scheme will

require more computational time, but with such

complex wall-bounded flows as this problem, the

additional time could be a solution cost worth paying.

After running several simulations with this model,

the actual difference in computational time was

significant, requiring approximately six-fold more

time to perform the same iteration count with

V2F.

V2F model: All + and Low + . The Low +

treatment is intended for situations where the mesh

resolves the viscous sublayer, and would likely be

suited for the fine and possibly even the medium

mesh. But the resolution of the coarse mesh is

insufficient for the Low + . Since all three meshes

were to be run on the identical modeling setup, the

All + was the necessary choice.

Viewing the various flow visualizations comparing the

three turbulence models shows distinct differences in

the accuracy of the simulations. Observations from all

the figures show that and V2F produced

nearly identical results, in spite of using significantly

different modeling techniques. However, despite their

close agreement, neither nor V2F

produces results as close to the experimental data as

the Realizable scheme. Figs. 1 and 2 show that

Realizable produces a wake shape in the X-Z

plane that most closely resembles the experimental

datas profile. While and V2F show

significantly more downward motion (Fig. 2b and 2d)

than the experiment, Realizable shows very

similar characteristics at the mid-plane. A look at the

mid-plane vector plot sheds some light as to why this

difference exists.

shows a recirculation region immediately behind the

rear top edge of the cylinder, something which also

exists in the Realizable case. Also visible in

both the experiment and the Realizable case is

a distinct saddle region as described by Perry and

Chong10, although it is located slightly higher and

farther back in the Realizable . Looking at Fig.

3b and 3d, neither the recirculation at the top nor the

saddle region is visible in the and the

V2F cases.

the and the V2F cases the streamlines

closest to the top of the cylinder are already slightly

downturned by the time they reach the rear edge, and

continue to turn until they reach an approximately

45 approach angle with the ground. They continue

with this direction until they interact with the ground,

a)

a)

b)

b)

c)

c)

d)

d)

b) k- c) k- Real. d) k- V2F

b) k- c) k- Real. d) k- V2F

a)

Saddle Region

a)

b)

b)

c)

Saddle Region

c)

d)

Experimental b) k- c) k- Real. d) k- V2F

then turn to a horizontal direction by about 1h behind

the rear of the cube. This strong 45-downward flow

explains the significant negative flow to the near-floor

region in Fig. 2b and 2d. Both the experimental data

and the Realizable show that the flow close to

the top of the cylinder is still upwards at the rear edge

of the cylinder, but then quickly curves downward and

becomes the recirculation zone. The next layer above

this passes over the recirculation zone, and curves

more slowly towards the ground at somewhat less than

45. But, unlike in the and the V2F cases,

the downward flow is deflected by the saddle region

and thus approaches the ground at a much lower angle

of approach. While Fig. 3b and 3d show the downward

flow interacting with the floor at ~1h, Fig. 3b and 3d

show a flow with such a shallow approach that they

have not reached the floor even at the end of the

visible region (2.5h). This difference in approach

angle is visible in other views as well.

d)

Experimental b) k- c) k- Real. d) k- V2F

Viewing from above, Fig. 4 again shows the closest

simulation to be the Realizable . At 0.5h, the

flow-direction wake is nearly horizontal and passing

through the 0.5h plane all the way to the 2.5h end of the

view in both Fig. 4a and 4c. But the downward angle of

approach in the and the V2F may be seen

as a significantly shorter region of influence by the

wake in the 0.5h plane in Fig. 4b and 4d.

a)

of Fig. 6 show twin counter-rotating regions behind

the cylinder. The flow past these regions curves first

inward then back outward in a bottleneck fashion

in both the experiment and the Realizable case.

The and V2F cases do not show this

bottlenecking, and instead continue to converge

towards the mid-plane.

a)

b)

c)

b)

d)

c)

b) k- c) k- Real. d) k- V2F

Cross-flow velocities in Fig. 5 are also very telling as

to the difference in structures generated by the three

turbulence models. Again, both the experiment and

Realizable are in close agreement. Both

produce three pairs of evenly-spaced counter-rotating

regions in the twin wake trails. By comparison,

and V2F show a single pair directly

behind the cubes (as does the experiment). But

instead of the two additional pairs of counter-rotating

confined regions, a single long region continuing

well past the viewing area are visible.

d)

Experimental b) k- c) k- Real. d) k- V2F

produce the best results (and in fact the only

observable structure in any manner throughout this

entire study where Realizable was not best) is

in the size and intensity of the recirculating regions in

Fig. 6. All three turbulence models demonstrate a

larger and more organized rotation region than the

experiment, with Realizable being the largest.

The flow visualization in Fig. 6 may, however, be

somewhat misleading when it comes to recirculation

strength due to the large differences in vector seeding

density by EnSight between the experimental and

CFD data.

the experimental data as having a pair of large

regions of cross-flow, with two more pairs of

counter-flowing areas below this. While all three

turbulence models show this structure to some extent,

the Realizable most closely matches the

experimental structure in size, location, and intensity.

Fig. 8 also shows that the vertical velocity profile of

Realizable most closely matches the

experimental data. The experiment shows a confined

core of downward flow at the top half of the cylinder,

while and the V2F show a core nearly

the full height of the cylinder.

a)

a)

b)

b)

c)

c)

d)

b) k- c) k- Real. d) k- V2F

d)

b) k- c) k- Real. d) k- V2F

10

10

0

0

50

100

150

200

-5

-10

Velocity (m/s)

15

Velocity (m/s)

15

0

0

50

100

150

200

-5

Position (mm)

Coarse Mesh X Velocity

Medium Mesh X Velocity

Fine Mesh X Velocity

Coarse Mesh Z Velocity

Medium Mesh Z Velocity

Fine Mesh Z Velocity

Mesh Cases

6. MESH INDEPENDENCE

In order to examine mesh independence, all

simulations were monitored with a set of velocity

profiles in various regions of the flow path, as well as

with visual comparisons of flow structure and scalar

plots. Two samples of these velocity profiles may be

seen in Fig. 9 and 10 for and Realizable .

Due to computational time, a mesh-dependence study

was not performed on V2F.

As previously discussed, it could be expected that k would improve with an increasing resolution in

the boundary layer. With the medium mesh (y+5)

resolving to the edge of the viscous sublayer and the

fine mesh (y+1) resolving well into the viscous

sublayer, it was expected that some improvement in

accuracy would be yielded by the fine mesh. Salim

and Cheah also predicted such behavior.6 However,

Fig. 9 shows that, at least for velocity profiles, this

was not the case. As can be seen, there is no

significant difference between the medium and fine

mesh cases in velocity profiles at the selected

regions, suggesting that the scheme used in

this study reached mesh independence by y+5.

This unexpected result was also seen by Salim and

Cheah. In their study, their fine mesh (y+2) did

improve the accuracy of skin friction predictions, but

-10

Position (mm)

Coarse Mesh X Velocity

Medium Mesh X Velocity

Fine Mesh X Velocity

Coarse Mesh Z Velocity

Medium Mesh Z Velocity

Fine Mesh Z Velocity

with Three Mesh Cases

their fine mesh showed no improvements in

predicting velocity profiles compared to either their

coarse (y+32.5) or medium mesh (y+12.5).

Also as discussed, unlike , was expected

to not see improvement with a mesh resolved into the

viscous sublayer. But again, this study did not

support the initial assumptions for , at least not

with the two-layer treatment applied. Instead, the fine

mesh case produced the best results for the

Realizable , as may be seen in Fig. 10. Salim

and Cheah had similar results. In their study at the

finest mesh (y+2) Realizable , with a Standard

Wall Function (SWF), did perform the worst of any

model tested. But by adding an Enhanced Wall

Function (EWF), a two-layer treatment similar to that

used here in Star-CCM+, Salim and Cheah found that

Realizable was among the best model tested

with the fine mesh. It is likely that, had this current

study compared a Realizable without the twolayer treatment, poor results similar to Salim and

Cheah would have been seen with the fine mesh.

7. CONCLUSION

When comparing the three models used in this study,

one model has shown a clear and distinct advantage

in predicting the flow of a wall-mounted square

Realizable demonstrates a superior ability to

capture the mean flow of the complex structures

measured in the experimental data. Neither nor

V2F is able to predict the complex saddle

structure behind the cylinder or the trail-edge

recirculation zone at the top of the cylinder as seen in

Fig.3. Without accurately predicting these structures,

and V2F are also unable to predict the

complex pattern of counter-rotating and alternately

shedding vortices captured by the experiment.

Realizable , on the other hand, shows very good

ability in predicting these complex patterns. While

not an exact representation, the Realizable

cases are able to very closely predict the three pairs

of counter-rotating regions behind the cylinder seen

in Fig. 5.

The results of the study of any correlation between

mesh quality and turbulence modeling are not nearly

as straight-forward. The model, which is

capable of modeling flows throughout the boundary

layer, was expected to see improvements with a mesh

resolved into the boundary layer. But in the case

observed in this study, reached mesh

independence with the medium mesh despite being

resolved only to y+5, a distance at the edge of the

viscous sublayer.

To the contrary, Realizable k- did not demonstrate

mesh independence at y+5, and instead showed

further improvements all the way to y+1. This

contradicts the traditional assumption that

models perform poorly when resolved into the

viscous sublayer. In the case of this study, just as in

the literature, the likely reason for the improving

results with a viscous sublayer-refined mesh is the

application of the two-layer treatment.

This

treatment applies a different model to the

scheme in the viscous sublayer region, allowing for

much finer meshes to be used without sacrificing

accuracy.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This material is based upon work supported by the

national Science Foundation Graduate Research

Fellowship under Grant No. 0900860.

Also, the authors would also like to thank Timothy

Yen of CD-Adapco and Bill Dunn of CEI for their

assistance with this project.

REFERENCES

[1]

Alternating half-loop shedding in the turbulent

wake of a finite surface-mounted square

Fluids, 23(9):095101, 2011

[2]

www.cfdcanada.ca/challenge/data. Retrieved :

March 16, 2012.

[3]

Polyhedral Meshes. Technical Report, CD

Adapco Group, 2005. www.cd-adapco.com

[4]

2nd ed. DCW Industries, 2006

[5]

and J. Zhu. A New k- Eddy Viscosity Model

for High Reynolds Number Turbulent Flows

Model

Development

and

Validation.

Computers Fluids. 24(3):227-238, 1995

[6]

Strategy for Dealing with Wall-Bounded

Turbulent

Flows.

Physics

of

Fluids,

23(9):095101, 2011

[7]

of the v2-f Model for Computing the Flow in a

3D Wall Jet. Turbulence, Heat and mass

Transfer, 23:577-584, 2003

[8]

Combining the k-e Model with a One-Equasion

Model Near the Wall. 29th Aerospace Sciences

Meeting, January 7-10, Reno, NV. 91-0216,

1991

[9] Star CCM+ Help Manual. What is the V2F LowReynolds Number K-Epsilon Model. CDAdapco Group. www.cd-adapco

[10] A.E. Perry and M. S. Chong. A Description of

Eddying Motions and Flow Patterns Using

Critical-Point Concepts. Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech.,

19:125-155, 1987

- commercial cfd codesUploaded byashwinsherief
- Expermental Study of Open-Wheel Car Front WingsUploaded byVyssion
- Computational Investigation of a Race Car Wing With Vortex Generators in Ground EffectUploaded byVyssion
- An Angle of Attack Correction Scheme for the Design of Low Aspect Ratio Wings With EndplatesUploaded byVyssion
- Aerodynamic Design Considerations of a Formula 1 Racing CarUploaded byVyssion
- Star Tutorial 1Uploaded byDeepto Banerjee
- Effect of Oscillations on Airfoils in Close Proximity to the GroundUploaded byVyssion
- Influence of Endplate on Aerodynamic Characteristics of Low-Aspect-ratio Wing in Ground EffectUploaded byVyssion
- Effects of Rear Spoilers on Ground Vehicle Aerodynamic DragUploaded byVyssion
- Diffuser Design for PACE Global Formula One RacerUploaded byVyssion
- Full-Scale, On-Road Study of the Effect of Automobile Shape on Its Aerodynamic Characteristics, And Comparison With Small-Scale Wind Tunnel ResultsUploaded byVyssion
- Cranfield Team f1 - The Front WingUploaded bypremselva
- Computational Fluid-dynamics Investigations of Vortex Generators for Flow-separation ControlUploaded byVyssion
- fluid flow Q3DUploaded byAnonymous K48Tgvi
- Airfoils at Low SpeedsUploaded byTiago Crepaldi
- Enhanced Turbulence Model in FloEFDUploaded byrianima-omb
- Computational Fluid Dynamics in Practice BOOK.pdfUploaded byZikic Dejan
- Fluids BiblioUploaded byNivethithaa Dhanraj
- FLUENT Tutorial 1 - Developing Flow In a Channel.pdfUploaded byAlexander
- Experimental and 3 D Numerical Simulation of Flow Over a Rectangular Broad Crested WeirUploaded byLuay Kadhum Alwaili
- 5 Modeling of Turbulent FlowsUploaded byAlex Daniel
- kundu-fluid-mechanics-6th-edition-solution-manual.pdfUploaded byDGIGDI
- Mcphee 1992Uploaded bysebadilla
- sm ch (15)Uploaded byFlya Leung
- 5-thermodUploaded byYuvaraj Venkat
- 1975 B ArticleUploaded byEugenio Durban
- CFD Modified Robin-Type Wall Functions for Turbulence IndustriesUploaded byiGedeAS
- 39-DehbiUploaded bygarridolopez
- 82883_01Uploaded byEddieq
- Failure Analysis of FEVUploaded byNashrif Karim

- Computational Analysis of a Inverted Double-Element Airfoil in Ground EffectUploaded byVyssion
- Racing Simulation Tuning GuideUploaded byVyssion
- A structure in the early Universe at z ∼ 1.3 that exceeds the homogeneity scale of the R-W concordance cosmologyUploaded byVyssion
- Computational Analysis of Pressure and Wake Characteristics of an Aerofoil in Ground EffectUploaded byVyssion
- Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis on Race Car Scale Model Compared With Wind Tunnel TestsUploaded byVyssion
- B.C Kuo Solutions 1Uploaded bysimply_tom
- Analysis of the Effects of Different Underbody Exhaust Geometries in the Car AerodynamicsUploaded byVyssion
- Comparison Study of Drag Prediction by Structured and Unstructured Mesh MethodUploaded byVyssion
- Effects of Rear Spoilers on Ground Vehicle Aerodynamic DragUploaded byVyssion
- An Investigation on the Aerodynamics of a Symmetrical Airfoil in Ground EffectUploaded byVyssion
- An Investigation Into Wing in Ground Effect Aerofoil GeometryUploaded byVyssion
- Diffuser Design for PACE Global Formula One RacerUploaded byVyssion
- Essays on AerodynamicsUploaded byVyssion
- Airfoils at Low SpeedsUploaded byTiago Crepaldi
- Effect of Oscillations on Airfoils in Close Proximity to the GroundUploaded byVyssion
- Calibration and Use of Internal Strain- Gage Balances With Application to Wind Tunnel TestingUploaded byVyssion
- Endurance Motor RacingUploaded byBasara Mladen
- Design and Analysis of Vortex Generator for a HEV ModelUploaded byVyssion
- CFX Optimization (Airfoil) ANSYSUploaded byVyssion
- Computational Fluid-dynamics Investigations of Vortex Generators for Flow-separation ControlUploaded byVyssion
- Cranfield Team f1 - The Front WingUploaded bypremselva
- Can an F1 Car Drive Upside DownUploaded byVyssion
- Comparison of Ground-Plane Pressure Signatures for the Model and Full-Scale MIRA Reference CarUploaded byVyssion
- 散热器-Fluent_分析Uploaded byJishinchina
- Brake and Engine Cooling Flows Influences and InteractionsUploaded byVyssion
- External AerodynamicsUploaded byBharath Dv

- CAMS M2 HydrodynamicsUploaded bypostingidsg
- Zaman of Chapter 1 - Introduction of HydraulicsUploaded byFatin Hazwani
- Topic-8-Class-Notes1.pdf.pdfUploaded bysugmah
- Answer 2 16 Marks HMTUploaded byfahamith ahamed
- Complete WF Manual CobbUploaded byBogdan Davidescu
- SDM Pulp Calculations.xlsUploaded byMohsen Aghaei
- CoL,NP,AC,CGUploaded byAnuj Arora
- Suction PipelineUploaded bymhsalih
- hydrolics and fluid mechanics termsUploaded byRalph Reinier D. Raquepo
- Emulsion and SuspensionsUploaded byMario André Oreamuno
- 58441606 ME 1305 Applied Hydraulics and PneumaticsUploaded byApril Romero
- Anatomy of a ViscometerUploaded byPauloAntal
- C11-02Uploaded byFrancisco Valdes
- UnsteadyUploaded byRegis Ngenzi
- 1How to Calculate a Fire Sprinkler SystemUploaded byprasad_rvs
- Lect 2 - 4 - Momentum TransportUploaded bySatyajit Samal
- PCVUploaded bylutfi awn
- An Engineering Approach to Gas Anchor DesignUploaded byandrea
- Articulo - Equations for Estimation of the Friction FactorUploaded byDaniel Solar
- Prediction of Wing Downwash Using CFDUploaded byBurak
- Me2204 Unit Wise QuestionsUploaded byMohanraj Subramani
- Lecture 05Uploaded bygunjandpatel05
- Open Channel Hydraulic Theory.pdfUploaded byNabilah Hhm
- Sun Orifice Pressure Drop ChartsUploaded byViji Svr
- Cyclone Design - Stairmand MethodUploaded byFaizan Ahmed
- Azmi 2014Uploaded byMALA
- HP Industrial Lubricants Product GuideUploaded bymrbairwa
- Wind Tunnel Tests on a Model CessnaUploaded byLuis Guillermo
- Micro Hydro PowerUploaded bysrk2002
- hjhdUploaded bypavlosmakridakis2525