80 views

Uploaded by Raniella Bianca Yim Coronado

Gas Absorption Lab Experiment

- A Numerical Investigation of Gas Flow Effects on High-Pressure Gas Atomization Due to Melt Tip Geometry Variation
- CFD for non-newtonian CMC fluid flow through concentric annuli with centre body rotation , International Journal on Science and Technology (IJSAT)Vol. 2, Issue 3, PP121-126, July-September, 2011
- Cobem-eli
- Pipeline System Design
- Pressure Drop and Flooding in a Packed Column
- SpiraxSarco-B4-Flowmetering
- Experimental and Numerical Investigation of the Flow Analysis of the Water Saving Safety Valve
- Rarefied Gas Flows
- Tese Iombriller SilviaF (1)
- Analysis of Results
- Modelling and Simulation of Coal Gasification Process in Fluidised Bed
- 2015_kumar_shellmodel.pdf
- ReportFormatProblem_1
- 5ChED Thurs-Group1 Packed Coulmn
- Kim_computational Fluid Mechanics
- 2
- Flow Simulation Report
- grupo_12 (1)
- ANSYS Fluent 723 Porousmediacondition See Page14 15
- khguqtfuv

You are on page 1of 15

Zapata, Rosette Anne Lea T.

5ChE-D

PROBLEM B1

PRESSURE DROP AND FLOODING IN A PACKED COLUMN

I.

Abstract

Pressure drop is one of the indicators of when flooding will occur in a packed column.

It is correlated with many aspects such as liquid hold up, void fractions, and the flow rates of

the gas and liquid being processed. In this experiment, the effect of liquid accumulation, the

packing factor, the gas and liquid flow rates on the pressure drop along a gas absorption

column was observed and discussed. This was done by measuring the height of fluid in a

manometer at different gas and liquid flow rates. The experimental pressure drop is then

calculated using appropriate equations discussed in section VIII of this paper. For dry packed

column, the experimental results was analyzed by comparing these data to the computed

values using the Ergun Equation and Robbins Equation. Meanwhile, experimental results for

the pressure drop in an irrigated packed column were compared with the values calculated

using the latter. Upon comparison, the results from the Ergun equation, relative to those

calculated using the Robbins Equation, deviated significantly from the experimental results.

On the other hand, for an irrigated column and constant liquid flow rate, a general trend

wherein a sudden increase in pressure drop was observed when the gas flow rate is further

increased. The packing factor and the void fraction was also computed.

II.

Objectives

Thisexperimentaimstodeterminethevoidfractionsofthepackedbeds,theeffects

ofliquidholdupsonthepressuredropofthecolumn,tofamiliarizewiththepartsofthe

equipmentandtodefinethepackingfactorexperimentallythroughtheuseoftheflooding

velocitycalculations.

III.

References

[1] McCabe, W., Smith, J. & Harriott, P. (1993). Unit Operations of Chemical

Engineering (5th ed.). Singapore: McGraw-Hill Book Co.

[2] Geankoplis, C. (2003). Transport Process and Unit Operation (4th ed.). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice Hall

[3] McCabe, W. L., Smith, J. C., & Harriott, P. (2005). Unit Operations of Chemical

Engineering (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

[4] Arachchige, U. & Melaaen, M. (2012). Selection of Packing Material for Gas

Absorption. European Journal of Scientific Research, 87: 117-126.

[5] Perfett, L. & Fisher, T. (1996). Gas Absorption Column. Retrieved from

http://chem.engr.utc.edu/Webres/435F/ABS_COL/abs_col.html

[6] Fahien, R. (1983). Fundamentals of Transport Phenomena. New York: McGraw-Hill,

Inc.

[7] Sharma, K. (2007). Principles of Mass Transfer. New Delhi, India: Asoke K. Ghosh,

Prentice Hall of India Private Limited, M-97, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001

http://nptel.ac.in/courses/103103035/module4/lec1.pdf

[9]

Column

Diameter

and

Pressure

Drop

(n.d.)

Retrieved

from

http://www.separationprocesses.com/Absorption/GA_Chp04a.htm#TopPage

[10] Shulman, H. L., Ullrich, C. F. and Wells, N. (1955), Performance of packed

columns. I. Total, static, and operating holdups. AIChE J., 1: 247253.

doi:10.1002/aic.690010219

[11] Zakeri, A., Einbu, A., Oi, L. & Svendsen, H. (2009). Liquid Hold-up and Pressure

Drop

in

Mellapak

2X.

Retrieved

from

http://ena.chemeng.ntnu.no/TrondheimJointAbsorptionSeminar/Zakeri

%20_Trondheim150609.pdf

[12] Elgin, J. C. & Weiss, F. B. (1939), Liquid holdup and flooding in packed towers.

Ind. Eng. Chem, 31 (4): 435445. doi:10.1021/ie50352a010

[13] Cussler, E. L. (1984). Diffusion: Mass Transfer in Fluid Systems. New York, USA:

Cambridge University Press.

[14] Brenner, H. (1989). Gas-Liquid-Solid Fluidization Engineering. USA: Butterworth

Publishers

[15] Yuan, J., Yan, L., & Hlavka, D. (2009). Flow through packed beds. Retrieved from

http://www.me.rochester.edu/courses/ME241.gans/PackedBeds(11).pdf

IV.

Equipment/Materials

The equipment used in this experiment was the Gas-Liquid Absorption Column.

Rachig rings

V.

Theory

by means of a variety of industrial and chemical processes [1]. Gas absorption is one of the

well-known unit processes and is commonly utilized in the food industry. In this process, a

gas mixture consisting mainly of an inert gas and a soluble gas is made in contact with a

liquid acting as a solvent to separate the gas mixture [2]. Absorption technology is widely

applied in the removal of H2S and CO2 from natural or synthesis gas by absorption in amines

or alkaline salt solutions.

One common instrument used in this process is the packed tower which is shown in

Figure 1 below. This apparatus entails a cylindrical column or tower outfitted with a liquid

inlet and gas outlet at the top and a gas inlet and liquid outlet at the bottom, and a collective

mass of inert solid shapes known as tower packings [3].

Several packing types available for gas absorption can be utilized depending on

different parameters like flow rate, temperature, pressure, etc. [4]. The shape of the packing

inhibits it from being to compact thus, enhancing the bed porosity [3].

Liquid will flow through the packed column and dispense uniformly over the packing

surface in an ideal operation. Gas will enter the tower from below the packed section and

move upward countercurrent to the flow of the liquid through the small spaces between the

packing material. Efficient mass transfer can be obtained by the large amount of intimate

contact between the liquid and gas streams [5]. Pressure drop can be described as the pressure

loss due to the frictional resistance of the components the gas touches, velocity variations,

back flows and eddy formation [2]. A linear relationship between the pressure drop and the

gas velocity can be observed in a constant diameter packed column. The pressure drop

increases as we increase the gas velocity at a constant liquid flow rate. In addition, the

pressure drop is larger when we increase the gas velocity at a higher liquid rate [6].

For this experiment, numerous equations can be used. First is the Ergun equation

formulated by a Turkish chemical engineer, Sabri Ergun. This equation is used to get the

pressure drop across a certain length of packing.

2

2

P 150 v o ( 1 ) 1.75 g v o ( 1 )

=

+

(1)

Z

2 D 2p

3 D p

Two equations coming from the first and second term of the Ergun equation were also

formulated. The Blake-Kozeny equation derived from the first term is applicable for laminar

regions and the Burke-Plummer equation which is the second term is relevant for turbulent

regions. Both equations are only valid for void fractions less than 0.5 [2]. Later on, Fahien

and Schriver adapted the Ergun equation and modified it for broader values of porosity and

Reynolds number resulting to the following equations for laminar (2), turbulent (3) and

intermediate (4) regions given below:

L=

136

0.38

(1 )

(2)

0 /75

1.87 N , p

29

T =

+

1.45 2

(1)

(1)0.26

(3)

I =q L +(1q) T

(4)

Where:

2

q=e

(1 )N , p

12.6

(5)

P DP

=

2

Z v o (1)

(6)

A correlation of the pressure drop for wet packing was also made my Leva and later

on, Robbins developed a pressure correlation using the similar approach by Leva:

Pt = Pd + PL

Pd =C 3 G 2f 10C L

4

P d 4

0.00005 Lf 0.1

P L=0.4

0.5

0.05 F pd

G f =986 F s

62.4

)

L

Lf =0.1

L

0.05 F pd 0.5 (

(7)

F pd =

VI.

6(1 )

3 D p

(8)

Beforerunningtheactualexperiment,preliminaryprocedureswereconductedstarting

withdeterminationofthelengthofthepackedbeds,thediameterofthegascolumnand,the

dimensionsofthepacking.Afterwhich,thesumptankwascleanedandwasfilledwithwater

ofabout75%ofitscapacity.Itwasalsomadesurethatthepartsoftheequipmentwere

properlycheckedsuchthattheonoffswitchknobs wereturnedoff,theflowmeterand

drainagevalveswereclosedand,thereturnlinevalveandpressuretapswerefullyopened.It

wasnotedthatallentrainedliquidinthetubesconnectedtothepressuretapsweredrained.

Forthestartup,thesecondmanometerintheequipmentwasfilledwithcoloredwater

tobeusedassubstituteformercury.Themainswitch,thecompressorandthepumpwere

turnedonandgaswasallowedtoflowwithinthesystematarateof140L/minfor15

minutes,totallyremovingallthewaterfromthecolumn.Thethreewayglasscockswerealso

adjustedtoensurethatthegasflowingoutofthepressuretapsweredirectedtotheleft

manometeronly.

Oncethestartupwascompleted,thegasratewasreturnedto60L/min.Differential

pressures, in mmH2O, across the upper and lower packed beds were then measured by

adjustingthethreewaycocksconnectedtothepressuretapatthemiddleofthecolumn.The

adjustments were done slowly so as to minimize the effects of surface tension on the

manometerfluid.Suchwasrepeatedwithincreasinggasflowrateswithincrementsof10

L/minuntiltheratereached140L/min.

Additionally,pressuredropreadingsduetoliquidholdupswereacquired.The

gasratewasfirstresetto60L/minandtheliquidcontrolvalvewasopenedsuchthatthe

liquidratewassetto1L/min.Periodicthrottlingwasobservedandcontrolledtolowerthe

chances of sudden increase in pressure which could result to fluid overflowing. After

obtainingthemeasuredpressuredrop,anothertrialwasperformedbysettingnewflowrates

forbothgasandliquid.Theliquidratewasincreasedbyanincrementof10L/minuntilit

reached140L/min,whereastheliquidflowratewasincreasedbyanincrementof1L/min

untilitachievedaflowrateof7L/min.

After the measurements were read and noted, the equipment was prepared for

shutdown.Thepumpwasfirstlyturnedoffandtheliquidintheflowmeterwasdrained

beforefullyclosingthecontrolvalve.Thegasratewasonceagainsetto140L/minandwas

allowedtorunfor15minutespriortotheclosingofthegascontrolvalve.Subsequently,the

compressorwasturnedoffandsowastheonoffswitchoftheequipment.

VII.

Presented in table 1 are the experimental data gathered from the experiment.

Table 1 Difference between the manometer fluid heights at varying gas and liquid flow rate

Liquid

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

6.5

7

Flow Rate L/mi

n

Air Flow

R (in cm)

Rate

20 L/min

0.2

0.2

2

2.2

0.4

2.6

2

2

1.2

30

0.4

0.4

2.2

0.8

2.8

2.6

2.8

2.6

40

0.6

0.6

2.4

1.4

3.4

3.8

6.4

50

0.8

0.8

1.6

2.6

4.6

6.8

11.8

60

3.2

5.4

6.2

15.6

19.8 F

70

1.2

1.2

2.4

3.6

4.8

6.6

15.6

27.4 F

80

1.4

3.2

4.4

6.4

11.6

30.0 F

90

1.6

2.2

3.4

8.4

18.4

100

1.8

2.4

4.6

5.6

15

30.6 F

110

3.2

5.4

6.2

16.2

120

2.6

3.8

7.6

21

130

2.8

4.6

7.2

8.8

24.2 F

140

5.4

10.2

150

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

160

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

170

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A flow rate cannot be attained by the system

VIII.

Treatment of Results

The pressure drop across the whole column was calculated by using the measurement of the

manometer fluid level and the formula:

P=

gR

gc

(8)

Where,

P = pressure drop across the column, Pa

= density of fluid, kg/m3

R = height of manometer fluid, m

The results obtained was then plotted against the respective Reynolds number for packed

beds at different gas flow rates by using the equation:

N, p=

D p vo

(1 )

(9)

Where,

NRe,p = Reynolds number for packed beds

Dp = particle diameter,m

vo =superficial gas velocity, m/s

= fluid density, kg/m3

= fluid viscosity, Pa-s

= void fraction of packing

350

300

250

200

-P, Pa

150

100

50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

NRe,p

Figure 2. Plot of pressure drop across the gas absorption column with dry packings vs. the

Reynolds number for packed beds

The void fraction of the column was then calculated by using the modifications of Fahien and

Schriver in the Ergun equation. Equations (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) were used to perform

calacutions.

The void fraction of the column was calculated using three different gas flow rates and was

averaged to obtain the experimental void fraction. From the graph, the flow rates used were

30, 70, and 110 L/min.

Table 2 The calculated void fraction using the chosen flow rates

Flow rate

-P

Void Fraction

30

39.088

0.36

110

195.4402

0.4075

70

117.2641

0.3833

Average

0.3836

For operation involving liquid flow, the gas velocity was calculated using the continuity

equation:

GS=vS

(10)

To compare the behavior of the pressure drop across the column at different gas and liquid

flow rates, two graphs were plotted: log(P/Z) vs. log(G) and P vs Gf.

3.7

3.4

3.1

2.8

Dry

1 L/min

2

3

4

5

2.2

1.9

6

6.5

7

1.6

1.3

Figure 3. The logarithmic plot of pressure drop per unit of the column (P/Z) versus the

superficial gas mass velocity (G)

Dry

1 L/min

2

3

4

5

6

6.5

7

Figure 5. The plot of the pressure drop, P, versus the gas loading factor, Gf=Utg0.5;

wherein Ut is the superficial gas velocity and g is the gas density

The packing factor was obtained by using flooding velocity calculations (Fig. 14-55

of the Handbook). The experimental pressure drop at a gas flow rate and a liquid flow rate

of 60 L/min and 2 L/min, respectively, was used for the calculation.

The packing factor, Fp, was then calculated using the equation

(11)

From figure 6, the obtained capacity factor, CP, was 0.46. The calculated Fp is 689.35 ft-1.

IX.

Analysis/Interpretation of Results

equation were used to compare the results for the pressure drop across the dry packed

column.

Table 3 Comparison of pressure drop in dry packed column

Air Flow Rate

-P (mm H2O)

L/min

Experimental

Ergun Equation

20

1.9544

1.6091

Robbins

Equation

0.4469

30

3.9088

2.9521

1.0055

40

5.8632

4.6539

1.7875

50

7.8176

6.7146

2.7929

60

9.7720

9.1342

4.0218

70

11.7264

11.9127

5.4742

80

13.6808

15.0501

7.1499

90

15.6352

18.5464

9.0491

100

17.5896

22.4016

11.1718

110

19.5440

26.6158

13.5179

120

25.4072

31.1888

16.0874

130

27.3616

36.1207

18.8803

140

29.3160

41.4115

21.8967

As shown in Table 3, results obtained from all treatment depicts an increase in pressure drop

as the air flow rate increases. However, a significant difference between the experimental

values and those obtained from the Ergun Equation can be observed. This may be attributed

to the assumptions and considerations made by Ergun in establishing the equation. Erguns

equation is applicable for the range of flow rate meaning from laminar flow to turbulent

flow. He assumed that the viscous losses due to laminar flow and the kinetic losses due to

turbulent flow are additive. Upon deriving the equation, he made an assumption wherein the

friction factor during laminar flow mainly depends on the void fraction and is independent of

the Reynolds number. On the other hand, it is dependent only on the Reynolds number and

not on the void fraction when the flow is turbulent [15]. This assumption does not take into

account the nature of the packing and the gas loading factor which are both taken into

consideration in Robbins equation, explaining why the values calculated using this equation

are closer to the experimental values. Figure 7 shows the comparison between the pressure

drop among the three treatment method.

Experimental

Ergun Equation

Robbins Equation

Figure 7. The comparison between the values of pressure drop at a given flow rate obtained

by experimentation (blue), Ergun Equation (red), and Robbins Equation (green)

For irrigated or wetted packed column, the experimental pressure drop at a given flow

rate was compared with the pressure drop calculated using Robbins Equation since it takes

into account the pressure drop contributed by the liquid loading or hold-up within the

packings. Figure 3 and 8 shows the logarithmic plot of pressure drop per unit height of

packing versus the superficial gas mass velocity. Theoretically, at low liquid flow rates and

increasing gas flow rate, pressure drop increases in a similar behavior (slope) when no liquid

flow is present in the column as seen in Figure 8. During this scenario, the pressure drop in an

irrigated packed bed is higher than that of the dry column, but having similar slopes, because

the liquid consumes part of the voids along the column, hence decreasing the portion where

gas can pass through. As the liquid flow rate increases, drastic and sudden increase in

pressure drop can be observed at high gas flow rates. At this point, liquid is starting to load or

accumulate inside the voids, hence resulting to the sudden increase in pressure drop.

Generally, such trend can also be observed in the experimental results depicted in Figure 3.

Some of the overlap among lower liquid flow rates and higher liquid flow rates may be due to

the effects of surface tension inside the manometer. Also, the system is not ideal, hence it may

deviate from the theoretical or expected outcome.

Dry

1 L/min

2

3

4

5

6

6.5

7

Figure 8. The logarithmic plot of the pressure drop per unit of height packing calculated

using the Robbins Equation versus the superficial gas mass velocity

Looking back at figure 5, the loading point can for the gas absorption column can be

estimated. Loading point is the point wherein liquid starts to be trapped or accumulated inside

the voids and spaces present, resulting to the drowning of the column. For a given liquid

flow rate, drowning of the column will result to flooding when the gas flow rate is further

increased. Loading point is signified by a sudden and drastic increase in pressure drop (see

figure 9). Also, as seen in the figure, liquid flow rates below 4 L/min do not intersect the

loading line.

Dry

Loading

P, psf

1 L/min

2

3

4

5

6

6.5

Gf, lb/hr-ft2

Figure 9. The black line intersects the loading point for each given liquid flow rate.

X.

Answers to Questions

What are the characteristics that a packing should have for it to be employed in mass

transfer operation?

Packings in mass transfer unit operations are designed to increase the interfacial area

of contact between the two phases (gas and liquid) as well as enhance their flow [7]. Mass

transfer operations account for the interfacial area of contact, void volume, fouling resistance,

etc. of the packings. Thus, packing materials should have large interfacial area of contact for

a larger pressure drop and high void of volume to maintain a low pressure drop, high fouling

resistance, good mechanical strength and uniform void spaces for uniform flow of streams

[8].

Explain the mechanism of gas flow through a packed bed with liquid flowing

countercurrently.

When there is a liquid flowing countercurrently with a gas in a packed column,

irrigation of the packings occurs and the cross-sectional area available for the gas is reduced void volume in the packings is filled with liquid. During constant flow of liquid at low to

moderate gas velocity, we can observe that the pressure drop resembles that of dry packings.

More so, there is a systematic flow of the liquid in the column and no sign of liquid holdup.

However, as we increase the gas velocity, a sudden rise in the pressure drop can be seen and

liquid starts to be trapped in the packings. Increasing it further will start the build-up of the

liquid which will soon result to flooding [9].

Differentiate between static and dynamic or operating holdup. How does this affect the

pressure drop through a packed column?

Liquid holdup ensues when the gas velocity in a packed column is further increased

and is considered as a significant hydrodynamic framework for gas and liquid flow in

columns. Shulman et al. (1955) reported that total liquid holdup is composed of a dynamic

and static segment under gas-liquid flow conditions. Operating or dynamic holdup appears as

the volume of liquid per volume of packing that gushes out of the bed right after the flow of

gas and liquid in the column is stopped. Contrarily, static liquid holdup is known to be the

volume of liquid per volume of packing that is retained in the packed bed after all the flows

are stopped and the bed is drained [11]. Liquid holdup gives a sudden rise of the pressure

drop through a packed column due to the entrainment of the liquid by the gas [12].

Define loading and channeling. Give the relevance of these two factors in packed column

operation.

Loading, for mass transfer operations, is the condition when the liquid starts to

accumulate in the packed column and generates pressure drop. Loading is known to be

desirable for mass transfer. On the other hand, channeling is observed when the liquid or gas

flow at some points are greater than other points. This is not an ideal condition for packed

columns and is usually avoided by choosing the right packing material. Under normal packed

column operations, both loading and channeling can occur. In order to attain a good mass

transfer, high liquid flow rate can be used to generate loading and eliminate channeling [13].

How does the packing factor obtained from the flooding velocity differ from the one

estimated empirically with the use of the correlation of Lobo et al?

The correlation of Lobo et al for packing factor showed only a lone curve predicting

packing flooding points which is based solely from bed porosity. On the other hand, the

packing factor procured using the flooding velocity considers the flooding of the packed bed

thereby giving a more accurate result [14].

XI.

One of the objectives of this experiment is to determine the void fraction of the gas

absorption column. By using equations (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6), the experimental void

fraction along the column was calculated using three different gas flow rates 30, 70, and 110

L/min. It was found that the void fraction is around 0.36 to 0.4075. Getting the average, the

experimental void fraction of the packed column was calculated to be 0.3836.

Another objective of this experiment was to determine the experimental packing

factor using flooding velocity calculations. The computed packing factor, F p, using the graph

for flooding velocity and equation (11) is 689.35 ft-1.

Lastly, another objective of this experiment is to determine the effect of liquid hold up

or loading on the pressure drop in the packed column. By comparing the experimental values

for an irrigated column and the calculated values using the Robbins equation, a general trend

was observed wherein the accumulation of liquid within the voids and spaces resulted into

sudden and drastic increase in pressure drop. The loading point time when liquid starts to

hold up or accumulate inside the voids on the logarithmic plot of the pressure drop per unit

height of packing versus the superficial gas velocity is signified by the sudden change in

slope of the curve. As the gas velocity at a given liquid flow rate is further increased, the

occurrence of flooding advances which is a result of the reduction of the cross-sectional area

available for the gas.

The differences between the experimental results and the calculated pressure drop

using the Ergun equation and Robbins equation can be attributed to the assumptions and

considerations made while deriving and establishing these said equations.

Recommendation

It is necessary to double check the flow of the gas from the pressure taps. Gas flow

should always be directed to the left manometer which is the water manometer. In addition to

this, if you only want to account for the pressure drop across the whole packed column, the

three-way valve around the middle pressure tap should be closed to block the flow of the gas

from the center. This way, only the gas flow from the top and bottom of the column will be

accounted. Also, in order to minimize, if not prevent, the effect of surface tension on the

reading of the height of fluid in the manometer, throttle the gas control valve periodically.

To further understand the concept of flooding and pressure drop, the experiment can

further be extended by utilizing the separate parts of the packed column. Also, to appreciate

the concept of gas absorption, other experiments involving different process fluids, such as

carbon dioxide and water, may be performed.

- A Numerical Investigation of Gas Flow Effects on High-Pressure Gas Atomization Due to Melt Tip Geometry VariationUploaded byMolly0630
- CFD for non-newtonian CMC fluid flow through concentric annuli with centre body rotation , International Journal on Science and Technology (IJSAT)Vol. 2, Issue 3, PP121-126, July-September, 2011Uploaded byDr. Engr. Md Mamunur Rashid
- Cobem-eliUploaded byYeeXuan Ten
- Pipeline System DesignUploaded byjafarimehdi17
- Pressure Drop and Flooding in a Packed ColumnUploaded byEdu Cordon
- SpiraxSarco-B4-FlowmeteringUploaded bydanenic
- Experimental and Numerical Investigation of the Flow Analysis of the Water Saving Safety ValveUploaded byIJSTR Research Publication
- Rarefied Gas FlowsUploaded byajd.nanthakumar
- Tese Iombriller SilviaF (1)Uploaded byFabioSilvaMachado
- Analysis of ResultsUploaded byWincy Sta Ana
- Modelling and Simulation of Coal Gasification Process in Fluidised BedUploaded byapi-3799861
- 2015_kumar_shellmodel.pdfUploaded bySauravDutta
- ReportFormatProblem_1Uploaded byPiyush Agrawal
- 5ChED Thurs-Group1 Packed CoulmnUploaded byRaniella Bianca Yim Coronado
- Kim_computational Fluid MechanicsUploaded bykatevazo
- 2Uploaded bysouhir gritli
- Flow Simulation ReportUploaded byJefferson Negreiros Polo
- grupo_12 (1)Uploaded byRoxanna Patiño Robinson
- ANSYS Fluent 723 Porousmediacondition See Page14 15Uploaded bySaptarshee Mitra
- khguqtfuvUploaded bykoushikthephoenix1
- 1B2PUploaded byOmar Malik
- PopBalPPTUploaded bykbs_prasad
- Fluid Mechanic, Cengel - Chapter 01Uploaded byZandrik Arismendi
- GSD_PointSplineLoftFromExcelUploaded byVignesh Durai
- GRE-Prep (1)Uploaded bykabbirhossain
- IRJET-CFD Modelling and Simulation of 500mw Bisector Airpreheater and its PerformanceUploaded byIRJET Journal
- 1763Uploaded bySharat Chandra
- Criteria for Gas-Lift StabilityUploaded byAhmed Mamdouh
- FLOW 3D MP v6 BrochureUploaded byhhad
- Low Reynolds Number FlowsUploaded byRo Ramos

- 5ChED_Wed-Group1_Level and Flow SensorsUploaded byRaniella Bianca Yim Coronado
- ChE514L Plate and Frame Filter Press (1)Uploaded byRaniella Bianca Yim Coronado
- Flow and Level SensorsUploaded byRaniella Bianca Yim Coronado
- 5ChED_Wed-Group1_Level and Flow SensorsUploaded byRaniella Bianca Yim Coronado
- 5ChED Thurs-Group1 Packed CoulmnUploaded byRaniella Bianca Yim Coronado
- Unit Operations of Chemical EngineeringUploaded byD.KANNAN
- Material Balance (Purge Etc)Uploaded byRaniella Bianca Yim Coronado
- Reaction PaperUploaded byRaniella Bianca Yim Coronado
- Diffusivity CorrelationsUploaded byRaniella Bianca Yim Coronado

- Exact analytical solutions for shallow impurity states in symmetrical paraboloidal and hemiparaboloidal quantum dotsUploaded byhhakim32
- IRC Loadings for BridgesUploaded bynandi_scr
- A Dual Band Orthomode Transducer in K or Ka Bands for Satellite Communications ApplicationsUploaded bySaisriram Karthikeya
- PIPESIM- Fluid CalibrationUploaded byAjoy Lal Dutta
- Finite Element Analysis StructursUploaded byhas960
- Staining Techniques and Dark Field MicroscopyUploaded bySarc Ali
- Design_of_Anchor_bolts-Recent_Developments-ICJ_103.pdfUploaded bySheiss Nabi
- Sinter Diffusion Idler SprocketUploaded bySuhail Ahamed
- 31 Example 2Uploaded byLih Medrano
- Fea Interp ExampleUploaded byKannan Muthusamy
- ASTM 1074Uploaded byJonathan Mena Fuentes
- Final Exam LabUploaded byash_alsh
- Lawrence 1997Uploaded byEst
- Activation EnergyUploaded byRoberto Castilho
- Maths Course Work Type 1Uploaded byDaniel Echeverria
- 3 Work, Energy and PowerUploaded byUnsa Manjud
- Review of Selective Laser Melting, Materials and ApplicationsUploaded byLe Thanh Long
- Help for the Choking Coil DesignUploaded bybuditux
- Chapter 6.pdfUploaded byHotib Perwira
- Assignment-1-Soln.pdfUploaded byJawahar Khetan
- tmp20DC.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- Short NotesUploaded byRahique Shuaib
- Delay. Differential EquationsUploaded byRicardo
- FSI of WT AirfoilsUploaded byIva Hrgovan
- High Temperature Sliding Wear Behaviour of Inconel 617 and Stellite 6 AlloysUploaded byMely Reyna
- Impact of JetUploaded byUmmi Suraya
- Life Cycle of Star LabUploaded byanicitoa
- Rt AdvancedUploaded byamogh kumar
- Uranus_Faye_Cossar.pdfUploaded byfarzana25
- International Journal of Engineering Science Volume 34 issue 1 1996 [doi 10.1016_0020-7225(95)00058-5] D.A.S. Rees_ Andrew P. Basson -- The Blasius boundary-layer flow of a micropolar fluid.pdfUploaded bySrinivas Jangili