40 views

Uploaded by Hector Mayol Novoa

Transiente Flow

- CFD Drag Prediction Training Workshop
- Fluid Mechanics
- 2D Turbulent Flow Past a Cylinder in Star
- My all CFD researches during the BSc degree
- Syllabus Main KAS
- Rev4 Bridges Summary07!07!18
- All_2.pdf
- lectures-on-computational-fluid-dynamics.pdf
- 4. Mech - Optimization - Laxmikant Narkhede
- Near Wake RANS Predictions.pdf
- Swimming Pool Design
- Flow Analysis of the F-16XL Aircraft at Transonic Flow Conditions.pdf
- Pipe Friction Loss
- Flued Mechanics Machinery
- Fluid Mechanics and Machinery - Lecture Notes, Study Material and Important Questions, Answers
- TN2000_07_AERFORCE
- Air Motion and Thermal Environment in Pig Housing Facilities With Diffuse Inlet
- azdez
- intro.CFD
- fmc lab

You are on page 1of 10

Search

Collections

Journals

About

Contact us

My IOPscience

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

2010 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 12 012071

(http://iopscience.iop.org/1755-1315/12/1/012071)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:

IP Address: 189.26.48.185

This content was downloaded on 19/10/2015 at 01:36

IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012071

IOP Publishing

doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012071

turbines

S Cherny1, D Chirkov1, D Bannikov2, V Lapin1, V Skorospelov3, I Eshkunova1

and A Avdushenko2

1

Acad. Lavrentjev avenue 6, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia

2

Department of Mechanics and Mathematics, Novosibirsk State University

Pirogov st. 2, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia

3

Institute of Mathematics SB RAS

Acad. Koptug avenue 4, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia

E-mail: chirkov@ict.nsc.ru

Abstract. An approach for numerical simulation of 3D hydraulic turbine flows in transient

operating regimes is presented. The method is based on a coupled solution of incompressible

RANS equations, runner rotation equation, and water hammer equations. The issue of setting

appropriate boundary conditions is considered in detail. As an illustration, the simulation

results for runaway process are presented. The evolution of vortex structure and its effect on

computed runaway traces are analyzed.

1. Introduction

Transient processes in hydraulic turbines are transitions from one operating point to another, controlled by

valve or wicket gate opening, payload applied to generator, etc. Examples of such processes are power

increase/decrease, runaway, emergency turbine shutdown, and so on. The majority of them pass far from the best

efficiency point, in areas of unstable operation, where strong non-stationarity of the flow is observed. Moreover,

most of transient processes are associated with significant discharge changes, causing water hammer waves,

traveling back and forth through the whole water system. These compressible effects introduce additional

dynamics in transient processes, making the task of simulation rather complex.

Nowadays the most robust approach for investigation of transient behavior in hydroelectric plants is 1D

hydroacoustic theory. It is based on hyperbolic system of mass and momentum continuity equations for compressible

fluid (see Krivchenko et al. [1], [2] and Nicolet [3]). In frames of this approach and with the aid of electrical analogy

one can consider branched pipe systems, and take into account all basic components of hydro power plant, such as

surge tanks, valves, etc. [3]. At that the turbine itself is represented by its equivalent hydraulic resistance and

inductance, taken from turbine efficiency hill-chart. Therefore application of this approach requires turbine hill-chart

to be known a priory. Also 1D approach can not be used to describe and simulate unsteady three-dimensional flow

structures, such as vortices, recirculations, cavitation, etc., arising in flow passage at transients. One way to overcome

this difficulty is to assume that instantaneous flow field behavior in a given moment of transient process is the same

as its behavior in a corresponding stationary operating point of a steady state hill-chart. However it is not quite true in

reality (see Krivchenko et al. [1]).

From the other hand in last two decades CFD models and algorithms well advanced in simulation of steady and

unsteady three-dimensional turbulent flows in hydraulic machines. Both local flow structure and integral

characteristics, such as energy losses can now be numerically analysed. As an example, Vu and Retieb [4] showed

that steady-state stage computations are capable to accurately predict efficiency characteristics of Francis turbines

near the optimum. Authors experience (see Cherny et al. [5]) shows good predicting capabilities of RANS

models in computing local and integral flow parameters of turbines and pumps in a relatively wide range of

regime parameters around best efficiency point. Of coarse, moving far from the optimum, for example to part load

or towards runaway conditions, the flow becomes substantially unsteady, highly turbulent and cavitating, indicating

that steady state single phase RANS assumptions become invalid and can not be used.

IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012071

IOP Publishing

doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012071

Although accurate and efficient simulation of unsteady flow phenomena remains one of the main challenges

for CFD in hydraulic machinery, some authors gained success in this field. For example, Ruprecht et al. [6], who

used VLES, and Vu et al. [7], who used standard k- model, accurately simulated vortex rope precession in draft

tube at part load.

The objective of the present work is to apply 3D unsteady incompressible fluid flow model to investigate nonstationary effects in transient processes of Francis turbine. As shown before, simulation of such processes

require consideration of an extended water system, at least including the penstock. The idea is to combine

unsteady RANS solver for the turbine domain with 1D water hammer equations for the penstock. An attempt to

combine 1D equations of hydroacoustics with 3D CFD was undertaken previously by Ruprecht et al. [6], in

order to investigate system response on pressure fluctuations induced by draft tube vortex rope precession. But in

their simulations 3D model was used only for the draft tube, while the turbine itself was represented by its hill

chart, as in 1D approach.

In this work the methodology for simultaneous numerical solution of 1D penstock hydroacoustics and 3D

incompressible fluid flow dynamics in wicket gates, runner, and diffuser, is developed. The numerical method is

applied for computation of turbine runaway process.

2. Governing equations

The idea of combined hydroacoustic 3D simulation of transient process is the following. The whole water

system of hydro power plant is divided in two parts, Fig. 1. First is a pipe line where water hammer simulation is

carried out using 1D theory. The second part is the turbine, consisted of distributor, runner and draft tube, where

the flowfield is governed by 3D Navier-Stokes equations. The solution in both parts is found simultaneously. It

should be noted that flow-field in spiral case is not computed. Instead, spiral case is represented by its energy

loss.

Non-stationary flowfield inside the turbine passage is described by 3D unsteady Reynolds-averaged NavierStokes equations for incompressible fluid. Absolute reference frame is used for static elements (distributor and

draft tube), while rotating reference frame is used for the runner, rotating with angular velocity around the

Ox3 axis, directed downwards. Thus for the runner domain governing equations are

u j

x j

ui (uiu j ) p

+

+

=

t

x j

xi x j

= 0,

(1)

u u j

+ f i ,

eff i +

x

i

j

i = 1, 2, 3 ,

(2)

IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012071

where p =

IOP Publishing

doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012071

p 2

+ k . Inertia and gravity terms in eq. (2) are f1 = x1 2 + 2u2 , f 2 = x2 2 2u1 ,

3

f 3 = g . Either standard or Kim-Chen [8] k- turbulence model with log-law wall function near the solid walls

is used to evaluate effective viscosity eff and turbulence kinetic energy k needed for the mean flow equations

(1), (2).

Runner angular velocity , appeared in the right hand side of eq. (2), in general varies with time in

accordance to angular momentum equation

Iz

d

= M R ((t )) M Gen (t ) ,

dt

(3)

which is to be solved simultaneously with equations (1), (2). In (3) Iz is a summary moment of inertia of runner

and generator; MR is a runner torque; MGen is a payload torque, applied to the generator shaft.

In present study a simplified pipe line consisting of a single penstock of length L and constant cross section

Sp is considered, see Fig 1. Elastic water hammer propagation in this penstock is well described by the following

one-dimensional hyperbolic system (energy loss is neglected):

m c 2 Q

t + gS x = 0

Q gS m

t + p x = 0

(4)

g

was taken 1200 m/s.

3. Numerical method

Fluid flow equations (1), (2) are solved numerically using artificial compressibility method. Dual time

stepping is used for unsteady problems. In pseudotime equations are marched using implicit finite volume

scheme. Third order accurate MUSCL scheme is used for discretisation of convective terms, while 2nd order

central difference scheme is used for viscous terms. Second order backward scheme is applied for physical time

derivatives. Linearized system of discrete equations is solved using LU-SGS iterations. For more details reader

is referred to Cherny et al. [5].

Periodic stage approach is used for the turbine flow analysis, requiring computations only in one wicket gate

(WG) channel, one runner channel, and the whole draft tube (DT). An example structured mesh in WG, runner

and DT is shown in Fig. 2. Mixing plane boundary condition is applied on wicket gate runner and runner

draft tube interfaces with circumferential averaging of all flow variables (p, u, v, w, k, ). Being efficient in

terms of storage and CPU requirements, this approach has two drawbacks: 1) rotor-stator interaction can not be

taken into account; 2) draft tube instabilities, such as vortex rope precession, are suppressed to a certain extent

by averaging procedure applied at runner draft tube interface. Nevertheless in present pilot study the stage

approach was adopted for its computational efficiency. The use of full flow analysis, involving computations of

all WG and runner channels, which is free from the shortcomings indicated, is a future plan.

Most of transient processes are controlled by opening/closing of the guide vanes, so flow-field computation

in wicket gate region is carried out on moving mesh. The function of guide vane opening of time is an additional

input data.

Water hammer equations (4) are solved using 1st order implicit finite difference scheme. Equations (1), (2)

and (4) are iterated in pseudotime simultaneously until convergence. Interface boundary condition between

penstock and turbine is described in the following section.

Having known the solution at n-th time level, prior to iterations for the next (n+1)-th one, new rotational

n +1

is found from equation

speed

Iz

n +1 n

= M R (n ) M Gen (t n ) ,

t

(5)

which is a first order explicit discretisation of eq. (3). Different approximations of (3) as well as different

IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012071

IOP Publishing

doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012071

couplings with mean flow equations were examined, but they gave almost identical results. So the above

algorithm was used in the present study as the most simple.

Fig. 2 Mesh in wicket gate, runner and draft tube for periodic stage analysis

In CDF applications to hydraulic turbines a common practice for setting inlet and outlet boundary conditions

is specifying velocity profile at the inlet and pressure at the outlet. Velocity profile is usually derived from

discharge Q and inlet flow angle, which is rather conservative. In many problems however discharge is not

known a priory and should be found as a part of the solution. Simulation of transient processes is the case,

because of significant changes in discharge caused by guide vane opening, runner acceleration, etc. Therefore

traditional boundary conditions can not be used for simulation of these phenomena.

In order to resolve discharge variation during the transient process a new statement of inlet/outlet boundary

conditions was developed.

4.1. Separate turbine computations

For the case of isolated computations in wicket gate runner draft tube domain (WG-R-DT domain)

novel conditions are the following. At the inlet section of wicket gate domain total specific hydraulic energy

Ein,WG and flow angle are specified, while at the draft tube outlet section total specific energy Eout,DT is set

together with pressure profile (typically simple hydrostatic distribution). Total specific hydraulic energy E in

cross section S is determined as

1 p

| v |2

( v dS) .

E =

z+

Q S g

2 g

(6)

Note that no reference value of pressure is prescribed at the outlet. Instead it is adjusted iteratively in the process

of solution to provide given total energy Eout,DT. In WG-R-DT simulations the inlet and outlet energies are linked

together by the following relation:

Ein ,WG Eout ,DT = H hSP

(7)

where H is the net head, hSP is the head loss in spiral casing and stay vane channels. In present simulations head

loss hSP is a priory estimated as 0.01H. To the present time head loss hSP is assumed to be constant throughout the

unsteady process, which is not true in reality. More accurate estimations can be used for hSP, accounting

discharge variations, see for example Topaj [9].

Computations in the reduced domain wicket gate runner (WG-R) are also available. This case is

essentially the same, except for the treatment of outlet section of runner domain. Here radial equilibrium

condition is specified for the pressure profile, and outlet energy Eout,R is adjusted to satisfy the relation

Ein ,WG Eout ,R = H hSP hDT .

(8)

IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012071

IOP Publishing

doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012071

In eq. (8) hDT is the head loss in draft tube, which is calculated using empirical formula (Topaj [9])

hDT = 0

C z2 Cu2

+

,

2g 2g

(9)

where C z and Cu are the averaged axial and absolute peripheral flow velocities, 0 is an empirical constant.

As follows from the above, new inlet/outlet boundary conditions prescribe head rather than discharge. The

corresponding discharge is found from the solution. This statement has been tested for a wide range of operating

regimes and proved to be reliable.

4.2. Combined penstock-turbine computations

Equations (7), (8) automatically neglect the effect of water hammer on wicket gate inlet energy. Therefore

they can be used to simulate flow-fields in fixed operating points or transient processes with a weak water

hammer effects (slow regulation, short penstock, etc). However most of real transient processes yield significant

water hammer waves affecting the pressure in spiral case and wicket gate, and thus increasing or decreasing

effective turbine head. In order to adequately set up inlet boundary condition for WG one need to consider

extended water system, including the penstock. In case of computations in the extended domain penstock

wicket gate runner draft tube (penstock-WG-R-DT) total energy

Ein , pipe = m +

Q2

= const

2 gS 2

(10)

is specified at the inlet of the penstock, meaning that water level in upper reservoir is assumed constant

throughout the process.

After each iteration in pseudotime penstock and turbine exchange pressure and discharge at their interface, as

suggested in Ruprecht [6]. From CFD results pressure p at the WG inlet is averaged and given as an outlet

boundary condition to water hammer model (4). Penstock outlet discharge Q, obtained in frames of water

hammer model, together with flow angle are given as an inlet boundary condition for 3D RANS model of flow

in WG-R-DT domain, see also Fig. 1.

Accurate resolution of efficiency and discharge is a necessary condition for numerical method to be used as a

transient simulation tool. In order to demonstrate the capabilities of the present solver, it was applied to

computation of efficiency hill chart of 57MW Francis turbine. Runner speed is 200 rpm, net head is 73.5 m,

runner diameter is 3.15 m. A series of operating points have been computed, with discharge ranging from 30%

to +20% of BEP discharge, and unit speeds n11 raging from 60 to 90. For each regime steady state solution was

sought in WG-R-DT domain.

In order to demonstrate grid sensitivity three sets of computational meshes have been used:

mesh 1 (coarse) 16k cells for WG, 24k cells for runner, and 42k cells for the DT (shown in fig. 2);

mesh 2 (medium) 40k cells for WG, 54k cells for runner, and 68k cells for the DT;

mesh 3 (fine) 110k cells for WG, 146k cells for runner, and 194k cells for the DT.

In wicket gate and runner domains maximum cell skewness is 0.7, while in draft tube it reaches 0.9 near the solid

wall of the cone.

Since the comparison was made with experimental data, measured in a laboratory test rig, the laminar flow

viscosity was adjusted to ensure dynamic similarity to scale model conditions. Standard k- model was used for

the turbulence.

Experimental investigation of turbine scale model was performed according to IEC 60193 standard in the

Laboratory of Water Turbines of JSC Power Machines LMZ, St.-Petersburg, Russia. Runner diameter of the

scale model was 0.46 m, model head was 24 m. Relative error in the efficiency measurements was 0.2%. Fig. 3

shows comparison of the computed and measured efficiency. All three meshes give good qualitative and

quantitative agreement with experimental distributions. As expected, coarse mesh introduces excessive

numerical dissipation, leading to a lesser value of turbine efficiency. s for medium and fine meshes, at n11=

n11,BEP variation of discharge gives maximum error less than 1%, while variation of n11 at constant guide vane

opening (GVO) gives the error less than 1.5%, which is concentrated in area n11 < n11,BEP. Compared to

experimental data, the computed discharges are uniformly underestimated by 2%, which seems to be acceptable.

IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012071

IOP Publishing

doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012071

at constant unit speed n11= n11,BEP =73.5 (left) and at constant guide vane opening a0 = 178 mm (right)

As an example, the developed simulation tool is applied to analyze transient behavior during runaway from

BEP point for the same turbine. Emergency runaway process is determined by sudden decrease of generator

payload to zero (MGen=0). According to eq. (3) runner speed starts growing gradually reaching runaway speed nr,

satisfying the condition MR(nr) =0. Guide vane opening a0 remains constant throughout the process. According to

the developed statement, time evolution of all the regime parameters n(t), Q(t), MR(t) and water hammer H(t) as

well as local flow-fields should be obtained as the result of simulation.

Computations in three different statements have been carried out: 1) in WG-R domain without the penstock,

2) in WG-R-DT domain without the penstock, 3) in penstock-WG-R-DT domain. Mesh 1 (coarse) was used in

order to reduce computational time. Less dissipative Kim-Chen k- model was used for turbulence in order to

better resolve vortex structures. Time step was t = 0.005s, corresponding to 1/60 of runner rotation period at

startup. Figure 4 shows the obtained trajectories of operating point in Q n plane, along with experimental

runaway curve and lines of constant GVO. It is expected that the runaway trajectories would go along lines of

constant GVO. However WG-R simulation deviate to the grater discharge, which is explained by the loss of

applicability of formula (9), as we move away from the optimum. Computations including the draft tube are

closer to experiment. Up to speed n = 275 their trajectories go along the GVO line. Then, with greater speeds the

trajectories start to oscillate due to discharge pulsations, which however do not affect runner acceleration curve,

Fig. 5. Such an oscillating behavior is not observed in WG-R computation. It is concluded that discharge

oscillations are caused entirely by diffuser instabilities. As can be seen in Fig. 6, vortex rope forms and then

breaks down in the draft tube cone during the process. Note that no vortex rope was observed in unsteady

simulation of BEP point. The influence of turbulence modeling on the evolution of the vortex is under

investigation.

Figure 7 (left) illustrate pressure pulsations in a point of draft tube surface, showing that first 7 sec of the

process pressure behavior is the same for both WG-R-DT and penstock-WG-R-DT computations. The

appearance of high-frequency pressure oscillations in the latter are connected to the high-frequency water

hammer waves, shown in Fig. 7 (right).

IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012071

IOP Publishing

doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012071

IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012071

IOP Publishing

doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012071

J

Fig. 6 Instantaneous draft tube pressure iso-surfaces, WG-R-DT computation.

Letters correspond to time moments indicated in Fig. 4 on curve 2

pressure increase at wicket gate inlet due to water hammer (right) obtained in penstock-WG-R-DT simulation

7. Conclusion

An approach is developed for numerical simulation of complex unsteady flow phenomena in transient

regimes. The method is based on 3D unsteady RANS equations for the turbine with variable runner speed, which

is governed by angular momentum equation. Dynamic variation of effective turbine head is accounted by

simultaneous solution of 1D elastic water hammer equations for the penstock. Discharge is found as a part of

solution, that is guaranteed by new type of inlet/outlet boundary conditions, prescribing head rather than

discharge. The developed simulation tool allows to predict time evolution of basic regime parameters and

IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 12 (2010) 012071

IOP Publishing

doi:10.1088/1755-1315/12/1/012071

estimate dynamic forces and pressure pulsations in turbine passage during the process. One of the advantages of

the presented approach is that it does not require any a priori knowledge about efficiency hill-chart of the turbine.

The tool is applied for simulation of flow evolution during runaway process. It is shown that far from the

optimum numerical flow analysis should be carried out with the draft tube. The appearance of vortex rope is

observed in computations, including wicket gate, runner and draft tube. For the time being this methodology is

applied to investigation of the other transient processes, such as power regulation and emergency shutdown.

Acknowledgments

Authors would like to thank their colleagues A. A. Sotnikov, I. M. Pilev, V. N. Stepanov and V. E. Rigin

from JSC Power machines LMZ for valuable laboratory data and helpful discussions. This work has been

partially supported by grant 08-01-00364 of Russian Foundation for Basic Research.

Nomenclature

a0

c

D1

E

g

Pipe wave speed [m/s]

Runner diameter [m]

Specific total energy [m]

Gravity [m/s2]

n

n11

p

Q

Q11

H

hSP

Energy loss in spiral casing [m]

Sp

ui

hDT

Iz

L

m

MR

Moment of inertia [kgm2]

Pipe length [m]

Piezometric head ( = z + p / g ) [m]

Runner torque [Nm]

v

t

MGen

eff

Unit rotational speed ( = nD1 / H )

Pressure [Pa]

Discharge [m3/s]

Unit discharge ( = Q / D12 H )

Pipe cross section [m2]

Mean velocity components (i =1, 2, 3)

[m/s]

Absolute velocity vector [m/s]

Time [s]

Water density [kg/m3]

Runner angular velocity (= n/30) [rad/s]

Eddy viscosity (= + turb) [m2/s]

References

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

transient processes in hydro-energetic plants (Moscow: Energy, in Russian)

Krivchenko G I and Gubin F F 1980 Hydroelectric plants (Moscow: Energy, in Russian)

Nicolet C 2007 Hydroacoustic modelling and numerical simulation of unsteady operation of hydroelectric

systems PhD Thesis (EPFL 3751, http://library.epfl.ch/theses/?nr=3751)

Vu T C and Retieb S 2002 Accuracy Assessment of Current CFD Tools to Predict Hydraulic Turbine

Efficiency Hill Chart Proc. of the XXIst IAHR Symp. on Hydraulic Machin. and Syst. (Lausanne,

Switzerland)

Cherny S G, Chirkov D V, Lapin V N, Skorospelov V A and Sharov S V 2006 Numerical simulation of fluid

flows in turbomachines (Novosibirsk: Nauka) (in Russian)

Ruprecht A, Helmrich T, Aschenbrenner T and Scherer T 2002 Simulation of Vortex Rope in a Turbine

Draft Tube Proc. of the XXIst IAHR Symp. on Hydr. Machin. and Syst. (Lausanne, Switzerland)

Vu T C, Nennemann B, Ciocan G D, Iliescu M S, Braun O and Avellan F 2004 Experimental Study and

Unsteady Simulation of the FLINDT Draft Tube Rotating Vortex Rope Proc. of the Hydro 2004 Conf.

(Porto, Portugal) FE-05-1175

Chen Y S and Kim S W 1987 Computation of turbulent flows using an extended k- turbulence closure

model (NASA CR-179204)

Topaj G I 1989 Computation of integral hydraulic characteristics of hydromachines Publishing house of

Leningrad University (Leningrad, in Russian)

- CFD Drag Prediction Training WorkshopUploaded byPayam Dehpanah
- Fluid MechanicsUploaded bySreeharan
- 2D Turbulent Flow Past a Cylinder in StarUploaded bySubhashini Ramamoorthy
- My all CFD researches during the BSc degreeUploaded byPayam Dehpanah
- Syllabus Main KASUploaded byusername28
- All_2.pdfUploaded byroyson316
- lectures-on-computational-fluid-dynamics.pdfUploaded byfitriawan44
- Swimming Pool DesignUploaded byHemin Refiq
- Rev4 Bridges Summary07!07!18Uploaded byAnonymous CPEha1db7U
- 4. Mech - Optimization - Laxmikant NarkhedeUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- Flow Analysis of the F-16XL Aircraft at Transonic Flow Conditions.pdfUploaded bybring it on
- Pipe Friction LossUploaded byHoong
- Near Wake RANS Predictions.pdfUploaded byAmogh Sahaje
- Flued Mechanics MachineryUploaded byDurai Raj Kumar
- Fluid Mechanics and Machinery - Lecture Notes, Study Material and Important Questions, AnswersUploaded byM.V. TV
- TN2000_07_AERFORCEUploaded bydenzelxiao
- Air Motion and Thermal Environment in Pig Housing Facilities With Diffuse InletUploaded bysohcahtoa
- azdezUploaded bysohcahtoa
- intro.CFDUploaded byAhmadA.Swidan
- fmc labUploaded bybrar352
- IJSETR-VOL-5-ISSUE-3-673-676.pdfUploaded byDeepak Kashyap
- COMSOL_FULLTEXT02Uploaded byDaniele Gouveia
- Tugas Ppt Chapter 5Uploaded bylilik
- W1 D3 S3 turbulent teori.pptUploaded byNfatowil Boy Beliebt
- Byers Et Al-1967-AIChE JournalUploaded bySamarthJaiswal
- 4ME05+June+2014.pdfUploaded byKiran HS
- ecf workshopUploaded byapi-457792987
- After_MidSem_Tutorial_1_15544665898295219635ca7471ded4a7Uploaded byabhishek0909
- Mid SemesterUploaded byJamieCaruso
- Preface.pdfUploaded byFlorencia

- HDS-6 River EngineeringUploaded byAnthony Alvarado
- longman_3000_list.pdfUploaded bymunich1502
- Aave is Not Se With MistakesUploaded bySabine Mendes Lima Moura
- 109-128-s3-idioms.pdfUploaded byanginehsarkisian
- Hydrogeology and Groundwater Modeling, By Nevin KresicUploaded byHector Mayol Novoa
- HEC-18 Bridge ScourUploaded byAnthony Alvarado
- d5 - Design Workflow With Bentley Water SoftwareUploaded byHector Mayol Novoa
- Culvertmaster Readme.pdfUploaded byHector Mayol Novoa
- Tm6A29 ModelMuse ManualUploaded bypo.bernard
- hecras_microstationUploaded byHector Mayol Novoa
- HAMMER_QuickStart_9116.pdfUploaded byn_zeinoun
- CivilStorm QuickStartUploaded byHector Mayol Novoa
- CFD CourseUploaded bynoeldiechter
- Galdi Navier Stokes NotesUploaded byHector Mayol Novoa
- Open Channel Flow - HendersonUploaded byIrmak Ünal
- Bernoulli Equation.docUploaded byHector Mayol Novoa
- Introduction to CFDUploaded bySrilakshmi Shunmugaraj
- Intake DesignUploaded byHector Mayol Novoa
- 5-MM_SimpleUploaded byHector Mayol Novoa
- Hydro Power Devt IndiaUploaded byshilpanpatel127
- 2Uploaded byNoel Priyantha Liyanage
- Chapter 5 Hydropower - Arun KumarUploaded bySu Crez No Atmaja
- A Guide to UK Mini-hydro Development v3Uploaded bymethos40
- tm5_818_5Uploaded byPDHLibrary
- caam436notesUploaded bydanutzpn
- Tesis-Hidrologia EstocasticaUploaded byHector Mayol Novoa
- environment_handbook_for_developing_micro_hydro_in_bc.Par.0001.File.environment_handbook_for_developing_micro_hydro_in_bcUploaded byArmand Doru Domuta
- Highways in the Coastal EnvironmentUploaded byprejtman

- PoF Formulae and GraphsUploaded byDiego Carrara
- Pump head calculationsUploaded byAnonymous TjdHCu
- FE Exam Chemical SpecsUploaded byChirack Singhtony S
- Fluent 13.0 Lecture09-PhysicsUploaded byshraveen1991
- Final Exam Solutions 2010-2011Uploaded byPaulo Carvalho
- Force on Immersed BodiesUploaded byRam Krishna Singh
- An Overview on Dynamics and Controls Modelling of Hypersonic VehiclesUploaded byRitesh Singh
- Hydraulics PresentationUploaded byUsama Bin Sabir
- Advantages and Disadvantages of Orifice Meter and Venturi MeterUploaded bypraveen
- Section 5Uploaded byHAFIZ IMRAN AKHTER
- Boiler Feed Pump Recirculation ValvesUploaded byShameer Majeed
- A new k-eddy-viscosity model for high Reynolds number turbulent flowsUploaded byZakMan
- Plano Hidraulico de 16MUploaded byAndy Porras
- 1802974423_1999999096_1987-prads_oortmerssenvegtwalreeUploaded byceuzunoglu7693
- SolidWorks_Flow_Instructor_Guide.pptUploaded byjasbir999
- Sandia LibmeshUploaded byAmal Sahai
- Excerpt for Process Modeling (EKC 361)Uploaded byPY You
- Chapter 12Uploaded byBruno Delatti
- Pressure DistributionUploaded byMahadevan
- phd_pajaczkowski_piotr.pdfUploaded byChristopher Garcia
- Guideline_industrial_leakage_test_1200.compressed.pdfUploaded byMarzuki Alkindi
- Chapter 8 ArmstrongUploaded byr2ddragon
- 02 Derivation of RansUploaded byCarmine Russo
- Heat-Mass Transfer AnalogyUploaded bycontroversially.dextrous4750
- Low Reynolds Number Airfoil Design (MS Seling, lecture notes).pdfUploaded byconda0001
- Correlations for Heat Transfer CoefficientsUploaded byvietross
- Inviscid Flow Project v1Uploaded byAbhijith Madabhushi
- SEISMIC DESIGN OF LIQUID STORAGE TANKSUploaded byMunna Bhai
- M07.pdfUploaded byAdrian Guzman
- Pressure Drop Evaluation Along PipelinesUploaded byMara-Bako