366 views

Uploaded by ThePrius

A Two Phase Model Cavitation - Zwart et al.

- Numerical Solution Algorithms for Compressible Flows
- Modeling of Two-Phase Flows in Horizontal Tubes
- A Numerical Investigation of the Incompressible Flow Through a Butterfly Valve Using CFD
- Engine Intake Port Optimization in Sculptor
- Aerodynamics Overview of the Ground Transportation Systems (GTS) Project for Heavy Vehicle Drag Reduction
- cfd_otes
- CFD Fluent
- Fluvial Books
- CHEMKINCFD_FLUENT12.pdf
- 9700784.pdf
- Laminar Flow Solver
- IRJET-CFD Analysis of an Aircraft delta wing
- Fm Prevous Lab-1
- CFD Compressible
- ANSYS Grantec Article May 2010
- Modeling of mixing in ladles fitted with dual plugs.pdf
- Computational Fluid Dynamics Insights in the Design of Mechanical Heart Valves
- Meshing Tutorial English
- Ansys Fluent
- INOGATE- Software for Consequence Modelling

You are on page 1of 11

Paper No.152

1: ANSYS Canada; Waterloo, Ontario, Canada; phil.zwart@ansys.com

2: Dept. of Mechanical Engineering; University of New Brunswick; Fredericton, NB, Canada; agerber@unb.ca

3: ANSYS Canada; Waterloo, Ontario, Canada; thabet.belamri@ansys.com

Abstract A robust CFD methodology for predicting three-dimensional flows with extensive cavitation is presented.

The model is based on the multiphase flow equations, with mass transfer due to cavitation appearing as source and sink

terms in the liquid and vapour continuity equations. The mass transfer rate is derived from a simplified Rayleigh-Plesset

model. It is implemented into the CFX-5 software, which also features a control volume finite element discretization and a

solution methodology which implicitly couples the continuity and momentum equations together. The model is validated

on a range of applications including flow over a hydrofoil, an inducer, and transient cavitation in a venturi.

Introduction

Cavitation is an important phenomenon which can have a profound effect on the performance of a number of

devices. Examples include pumps, inducers, propellors, and injectors. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)

has been extensively used to predict the flow through these devices under non-cavitating conditions. However,

because of the physical and numerical challenges associated with cavitation, CFD has only recently started to

be used to predict cavitating flows.

Many of the CFD models developed for cavitation involve the use of a barotropic equation of state to

express the mixture density as a function of local pressure. This modelling approach is attractive because it can

be integrated into a basic-functionality CFD code without much effort. However, it must also be recognized that

these approaches are overly simplistic in their assumption of equilibrium thermodynamics. By this we mean

that as the flow conditions change, the two-phase fluid is assumed to instantaneously reach its equilibrium

thermodynamic state.

In reality, the finite rate effects involved in cavitation are important, and are based on complex physical

processes. Eisenburg [5] provides a summary of the transient dynamics of cavitation. Cavitation inception in

practical fluids is associated with the growth of nuclei having diameters ranging from 105 to 103 cm. These

nuclei contain a mixture of vapour and noncondensible gases. As the nuclei pass through regions where the

pressure drops below the vapour pressure, they typically grow explosively. (For the case of gaseous cavitation,

growth is limited by diffusion timescales and is therefore much slower.) The cavitation region is made up of a

large number of these bubbles. Further downstream, as the bubbles are swept into regions of higher pressure,

they collapse. The dynamics of collapse are complex and depend on a variety of factors including surface

tension, viscous effects, and noncondensible content. The large accelerations and pressures generated by the

final stage of collapse are responsible for much of the noise and damage generated by cavitating flows.

Not surprisingly, there are no cavitation models which attempt to account for all of these complexities.

There are models, however, which do account for nonequilibrium effects. Most of these models are based upon

the Rayleigh Plesset equation [3], which describes the growth and collapse of a single bubble subjected to a

far-field pressure disturbance. Examples of such models are given by Schnerr and Sauer [11], Gerber [6], and

Senocak and Shyy [12]. The details of the models developed by these and other researchers vary, but they share

the common feature of modelling the vapour composition by using a continuity equation having a source term

which can be traced back to the Rayleigh Plesset equation.

In this paper, a new Rayleigh-Plesset based cavitation model is described. The model has been implemented

in CFX-5, a general-purpose three-dimensional commercial CFD package. Recognizing that cavitation funda-

mentally involves phase change, the model has been implemented as an interphase mass transfer process within

the codes multiphase framework. This has some important numerical benefits, the most significant being that

the global continuity constraint is cast in volumetric form while remaining fully conservative.

ICMF 2004 International Conference on Multiphase Flow

Yokohama, Japan, May 30-June 3, 2004

Paper No.152

The resulting model has been validated on a range of cavitating devices featuring a number of different

fluids. Three test cases will be discussed in this paper: a cavitating hydrofoil, cavitation in an inducer, and

transient cavitation in a venturi.

Mathematical Model

Conservation Equations

The equations governing multiphase flow include conservation of mass for each phase :

(r ) (r ui )

+ = S (1)

t xi

and conservation of momentum for the mixture (assuming no interphase slip):

(m ui ) (m uj ui ) P i ( ji )

+ = + m r g + , (2)

t xj xi xj

where r , ui , , S respectively represent the volume fraction, Cartesian velocity components, density, and

mass generation rate of phase ; g i represents acceleration due to gravity; P is the pressure; and ji is the stress

tensor, related to the deformation rates using Stokes law:

i

uj

u

ji = m + . (3)

xj xi

m and m are the volume-weighted mixture density and viscosity. We have assumed that the mass sources

arise from interphase mass transfer, and therefore satisfy the constraint

N

X

S = 0. (4)

=1

We also have the constraint that the phases must fill up the available volume:

N

X

r = 1. (5)

=1

Eqs. (1), (2), and (5) together form a closed system involving (N + 4) equations and (N + 4) unknowns,

N being the number of phases. For convenience, we choose to replace one of the phasic continuity equations

with the sum of all continuity equations divided by their respective densities:

N

1 (r ui )

X

+

S = 0. (6)

t xi

=1

When all phases are incompressible, this equation may be interpreted as requiring the velocity divergence to

balance the volume generation due to phase change. For example, cavitation involves a vapour and liquid phase,

with sources related by:

S v = S l = S lv (7)

Then Eq. (6) reduces to

ui

1 1

= S lv . (8)

xi v l

When the flow is turbulent, the velocities in the above equations represent statistically averaged velocities,

and additional Reynolds Stress terms appear in the momentum equation. These stresses are modelled using an

eddy viscosity approach such as the k or Shear Stress Transport (SST) models [7].

ICMF 2004 International Conference on Multiphase Flow

Yokohama, Japan, May 30-June 3, 2004

Paper No.152

Cavitation Model

The Rayleigh-Plesset equation describes the growth of a vapour bubble in a liquid:

d 2 RB 3 dRB 2

2 Pv P

RB 2

+ + = (9)

dt 2 dt RB l

where RB represents the bubble radius, represents the surface tension coefficient, and Pv represents the

vapour pressure. Neglecting the second order terms and the surface tension yields the simplified expression

s

dRB 2 Pv P

= . (10)

dt 3 l

The rate of change of mass of a single bubble follows as

s

dmB 2 2 Pv P

= 4RB v . (11)

dt 3 l

If there are NB bubbles per unit volume, we may express the vapour volume fraction as

4 3

rv = VB NB = RB NB (12)

3

and the total interphase mass transfer rate due to cavitation per unit volume is

s

3r v v 2 Pv P

S lv = . (13)

RB 3 l

This model has been derived assuming bubble growth (vaporization). It can be generalized to include

condensation as follows: s

3rv v 2 |Pv P |

S lv = F sign(Pv P ) (14)

RB 3 l

where F is an empirical calibration coefficient.

This model works well for condensation. However, it is physically incorrect (and numerically unstable)

if applied to vaporization. One of the key assumptions in its derivation is that the cavitation bubbles do not

interact with each other. This is plausible only during the earliest stages of cavitation, when the cavitation

bubble grows from the nucleation site. As the vapour volume fraction increases, the nucleation site density

must decrease accordingly. With this in mind, we replace rv by rnuc (1 rv ) during vaporization, where rnuc

is the nucleation site volume fraction. RB is interpreted as the radius of a nucleation site. The final form of the

cavitation model is: q

Fvap 3rnuc (1rv )v 2 Pv P ifP < Pv

RB 3 l

S lv = q (15)

Fcond 3rv v 2 P Pv ifP > P v

RB 3 l

The following model parameters have found to work well for a variety of fluids and devices: RB = 106 m,

rnuc = 5 104 , Fvap = 50, and Fcond = 0.01.

For unsteady cavitating flows, it has been observed in the literature that standard turbulence models fail to

properly predict the oscillating behaviour of the flow. This has also been observed with the cavitation model

we have proposed. We follow the example of [4] and use a modified formulation for turbulent viscosity. In the

standard k model, the eddy viscosity for the mixture is

k2

tm = m C (16)

The modified expression effectively reduces the eddy viscosity in the cavitating regions by using

k2

tm = f ()C (17)

where n

v m

f () = v + (l v ). (18)

v l

ICMF 2004 International Conference on Multiphase Flow

Yokohama, Japan, May 30-June 3, 2004

Paper No.152

Figure 1: Element-based finite volume discretization of the spatial domain. Solid lines define element bound-

aries and dashed lines divide elements into sectors. Solution unknowns are colocated at the nodal points (),

and surface fluxes are evaluated at integration points (). Control volumes are constructed as unions of element

sectors (shaded region).

Numerical Model

Discretization Scheme

The conservation equations described above are discretized using an element-based finite volume method [10].

The mesh may consist of tetrahedral, prismatic, pyramid, and hexahedral elements. A control volume is con-

structed around each nodal point of the mesh, as illustrated in Figure 1. The subface between two control

volumes within a particular element is called an integration point (ip); it is at integration points that the fluxes

are discretized. Integration point quantities such as pressure and velocity gradients are obtained from nodal

values using finite element shape functions, with the exception of advected variables which are obtained using

an upwind-biased discretization.

We now consider the discretization of the conservation equations at each control volume. The discretization

is fully conservative and time-implicit. The conservation equations are integrated over each control volume,

volume integrals are converted to surface integrals using Gauss divergence theorem, and surface fluxes are

evaluated in exactly the same manner for the two control volumes adjacent to an integration point. In the

following discussion V represents the volume of a control volume, Aiip the area vector of an integration point,

t the time step, and the superscripts n + 1 and n mean that the quantity is evaluated at the new and old time

step, respectively.

The discrete conservation equations for the phasic continuity may be viewed as evolution equations for the

volume fractions:

V X

( r )n+1 ( r )n + ( ui Ai )n+1

ip (r,ip )

n+1

= 0, (19)

t

ip

The advection scheme used to evaluate r,ip in terms of neighbouring vertex values must give solutions which

are both bounded and accurate. We write it in the form

~

r,ip = r,up + r R, (20)

where r,up is the upwind vertex value and R ~ is the vector from the upwind vertex to the integration point. If

= 0, this scheme recovers the first-order upwind scheme, which is bounded but excessively diffusive. If =

1, this scheme is a second-order upwind-biased scheme, but unbounded. A bounded high-resolution scheme

ICMF 2004 International Conference on Multiphase Flow

Yokohama, Japan, May 30-June 3, 2004

Paper No.152

can be obtained by making as close to 1 as possible, but reducing where necessary to prevent overshoots and

undershoots from occurring. We use a method similar to that described by Barth and Jesperson [2].

The mass flows must be discretized in a careful manner to avoid pressure-velocity decoupling. This is

performed by generalizing the interpolation scheme proposed by Rhie and Chow [9], such that the advecting

velocity is evaluated as follows:

i i

P P

uip = u ip + dip , (21)

xi xi ip

where

dip V /a (22)

a m V /t + b (23)

and b represents the sum of advection and viscous coefficients in the discretized momentum equation. The

overbar denotes the average of the control volume values adjacent to the integration point.

The discretized phasic momentum equations may be viewed as an evolution equation for the phasic velocity

field:

V X X

n+1 i

X

(m ui )n+1 (m ui )n + (m uj Aj )n+1 (ui )n+1 = Pip A + n+1 i

m g V + (( ji )n+1 Aj )ip .

t

ip ip ip

(24)

A standard second-order or high-resolution scheme may be used for the advected velocity in this equation, and

finite-element shape functions are used to evaluate the gradients for the pressure and viscous forces.

Finally it remains to derive a discrete equation for pressure. This is obtained by integrating Eq. (6) over the

control volume:

N

X 1 V n+1 X n+1

n + r ui Ai ip S V = 0,

(25)

t

=1 ip

which yields a diagonally-dominant equation for pressure because of the special interpolation used for uiip and

through the derivative S /P .

Solution Strategy

The set of algebraic equations (19), (24), (25), and (5) represent equations for the volume fraction, velocity, and

pressure fields. With two phases, these equations form a 66 coupled system of equations at each nodal point.

Equation (5) is an algebraic equation which may be decoupled from the active set. In addition, equation (19)

is currently also decoupled from the pressure-velocity system and is treated in a segregated manner. The linear

system of equations is solved using the coupled algebraic multigrid technique developed by Raw [8].

Validation

Hydrofoil Cavitation

This test case involves a cavitating hydrofoil [13] at two angles of attack. At a one-degree angle, cavitation is

induced along the midchord. At a four-degree angle, cavitation is induced at the leading edge. The mesh is

solved as a three-dimensional problem with two layers of nodes in the depth direction and symmetry boundaries

applied to these two planes. There are 15,288 nodes on each of the two planes, and symmetry conditions are ap-

plied to these two planes. A close-up of the mesh in the vicinity of the hydrofoil is shown in Figure 2. Along the

hydrofoil surface a no-slip condition is applied. Free-slip conditions are used for the far-field boundaries above

and below the hydrofoil. A velocity-specified boundary is applied to the inlet to yield a specified Reynolds

number. At the outlet, the pressure is imposed to yield a specified cavitation number. The fluid properties are

taken to be saturated water conditions at 25 C.

For the one-degree angle of attack, cavitation numbers of 0.43, 0.38, and 0.34 are considered. The Reynolds

number based on chord length is 3 106 . A comparison between experimental and computed pressure coeffi-

cients for these situations is plotted in Figure 3. The plot shows excellent agreement with the data.

ICMF 2004 International Conference on Multiphase Flow

Yokohama, Japan, May 30-June 3, 2004

Paper No.152

For the four-degree angle of attack, cavitation numbers of 1.00, 0.91, and 0.84 are considered. The Reynolds

number based on chord length is 2 106 . The calcalated and experimental pressure coefficients for these cases

are plotted in Figure 3. In this case, the trends compare well with experiment but but the length of the cavitation

zone is somewhat underpredicted at the lower cavitation numbers.

Inducer Cavitation

A second validation test case involves flow in an inducer tested at LEMFI [1]. The cavitating flow through

a single blade passage is modelled at a range of flow rates and cavitation numbers. The mesh, consisting of

250,000 hexahedral elements for the blade passage, was generated using CFX-TurboGrid. The total pressure

is specified at the inlet, and the mass flow rate at the outlet. A periodic boundary condition is used to connect

the sides of the domain together. No-slip walls are used for all other boundaries. Each calculation was declared

converged when the maximum normalized residual dropped below 104 .

The head drop-off curve was predicted for a range of flow rates. The flow rate is characterized by the

actual-to-nominal flow ratio, Q/Qn . For each curve, a noncavitating solution was first obtained. The cavitation

model was then activated and the inlet total pressure decreased by 10,000 Pa for each point on the curve. When

the head dropoff became significant, the inlet pressure was dropped in smaller increments of 1000 Pa.

The experimental and predicted dropoff curves (nondimensional pressure rise as a function of cavitation

number) are plotted for three different flow rates in Figure 5. At low flow rates (Q/Qn = 0.79), the pre-

dicted dropoff curve occurs smoothly and slightly before the experimental curve. Close to the design flow

rate (Q/Qn = 1.03), dropoff occurs more rapidly and simultaneously with the experimental measurements.

Agreement between the two results is very satisfactory. At high flow rates (Q/Qn = 1.15), the dropoff curve

occurs rapidly and slightly after the experimental measurements. At this flow rate, the pressure rise is slightly

underestimated, and cavitation-induced blockage through the blade passage is seen to be more extensive in the

experiments than the model predictions. Overall, the agreement is very encouraging.

For one of the flow rates (Q/Qn = 1.03), the predicted shape of the cavitation pockets was compared to

experimental visualizations. The comparison is illustrated in Figure 6. The general development of cavitation in

the inducer is illustrated at three operating points, corresponding to cavitation numbers of 0.09, 0.06, and 0.045.

The vapour first appears near the shroud at the leading edge of the suction side of the blade . As the cavitation

number decreases, the cavity remains attached to the blade but grows into the blade-to-blade channel and down

towards the hub. Finally, the vapour passes to the pressure side of the blade, the blockage becomes extensive,

and the performance breaks down. The plot also illustrates the predicted vapour bubbles corresponding to 10%

volume fraction in red. The hub is coloured in green and the blade in gray. The agreement is quite reasonable,

ICMF 2004 International Conference on Multiphase Flow

Yokohama, Japan, May 30-June 3, 2004

Paper No.152

0.5

0.4

0.3

Cp

0.2

0.1

Calculated, 0.43

Experiment, 0.43

Calculated, 0.38

0 Experiment, 0.38

Calculated, 0.34

Experiment, 0.34

-0.1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

x/L

Figure 3: Comparison of experimental and computed surface pressure coefficients for midchord cavitation on

hydrofoil for three cavitation numbers

1.2

0.8

0.6

Cp

0.4

Experiment, 1.00

Calculated, 0.91

0 Experiment, 0.91

Calculated, 0.84

Experiment, 0.84

-0.2

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

x/L

Figure 4: Comparison of experimental and computed surface pressure coefficients for leading edge cavitation

on hydrofoil for three cavitation numbers

ICMF 2004 International Conference on Multiphase Flow

Yokohama, Japan, May 30-June 3, 2004

Paper No.152

Figure 5: Predicted and experimental head dropoff curves at Q/Qn = 0.79, 1.03, 1.15.

ICMF 2004 International Conference on Multiphase Flow

Yokohama, Japan, May 30-June 3, 2004

Paper No.152

Figure 6: Inducer flow visualizations at Q/Qn = 1.03 at cavitation numbers of 0.09, 0.06, and 0.045.

The cavitation model was also tested for transient cavitation conditions. A venturi-type geometry was used for

the test approximating that used in the experiments of Stutz and Reboud [14]. In their experiments the venturi

was operated with unsteady shedding of vapour clouds just past the venturi throat. The shedding frequency is

characterized by a Strouhal number, defined as

f Lcav

St = (26)

Vref

where f is the frequency, Lcav is the average cavity length, and Vref is the inlet velocity. The Strouhal number

reported in the experiments is 0.27, based on a shedding frequency of 50 Hz, an average cavity length of 45 mm,

and a velocity of 8 m/s.

The current calculations use an inlet velocity of 7.9 m/s, an outlet pressure of 30 kPa, symmetry planes at

the front and back, and a no-slip condition on the venturi walls. A noncavitating solution was used to provide

initial conditions. The cavitation number (based on the average inlet total pressure) is 1.9. A time step of 104 s

is used. The predicted cavity length is 40 mm and average frequency is 55 Hz, yielding an average Strouhal

number of 0.278. The cavitation model parameters were set to Fvap = 0.4 and Fcond = 0.001. In addition, the

turbulence model modification described in Eq. (17) was used with n = 5.

Figure 7 shows a typical pressure response at a point 0.26 m downstream of the throat, indicating a nearly

regular perturbation of the flow field as vapour clouds are advected downstream. When a vapour cavity passes

the probe, the vapour pressure is plotted. The volume fraction variation with time at the same location is

also provided. Figure 8 shows a typical vapor distribution at a fixed time, along with a cross-hair indicating

the location where the readings for Figure 7 are taken. It should be noted that with the turbulence model

modifications required to induce the unsteadiness as well as the cavitation model constants, there is still a

ICMF 2004 International Conference on Multiphase Flow

Yokohama, Japan, May 30-June 3, 2004

Paper No.152

Figure 7: Pressure and volume fraction response in venturi at a point 0.26 m downstream of the throat.

significant amount of tuning involved in the prediction of transient flow behavior of this kind. However, it is

encouraging to see that the general flow features and shedding frequency can be accurately predicted.

Conclusions

A new multiphase flow algorithm for predicting cavitation has been presented. The mass transfer rate be-

tween liquid and vapour phases is computed using a model based upon the Rayleigh Plesset equation. It has

been implemented in a conservative manner in an element-based finite volume method, and features careful

linearization and coupling behaviour in order to obtain good convergence behaviour.

Three validation examples have been provided. First, flow around a hydrofoil, with cavitation induced at

both the leading edge and midchord, has been successfully predicted. Second, the flow through an inducer has

been modelled, including the head-dropoff curves. Finally, the transient shedding of vapour bubbles through

a venturi has been modelled. This final case required some retuning of various model coefficients, including

a modification to the turbulent viscosity, but nonetheless indicates that transient cavitating flows can also be

simulated by this model.

References

[1] F. Bakir, R. Rey, A. G. Gerber, T. Belamri, and B. Hutchinson. Numerical and experimental investigations

of the cavitating behaviour of an inducer. International Journal for Rotating Machinery, 10:1525, 2004.

[2] T. J. Barth and D. C. Jesperson. The design and application of upwind schemes on unstructured meshes.

AIAA Paper 89-0366, 1989.

[3] C. E. Brennen. Cavitation and Bubble Dynamics. Oxford University Press, 1995.

[4] O. Coutier-Delgosha, R. Fortes-Patella, and J. L. Reboud. Evaluation of the turbulence model influence

on the numerical simulations of unsteady cavitation. Journal of Fluids Engineering, 125:3845, 2003.

[6] A. G. Gerber. A CFD model for devices operating under extensive cavitation conditions. In International

Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exhibit, 2002.

ICMF 2004 International Conference on Multiphase Flow

Yokohama, Japan, May 30-June 3, 2004

Paper No.152

Figure 8: Snapshot of volume fraction in venturi. The crosshair indicates the probe location used for Figure 7.

[7] F. R. Menter and H. Grotjans. Application of advanced turbulence models to complex industrial flows. In

G. Tzabiras, editor, Advances in Fluid Mechanics: Calculation of Complex Turbulent Flows. WIT Press,

2000.

[8] M. Raw. Robustness of coupled algebraic multigrid for the Navier-Stokes equations. AIAA Paper 96-0297,

1996.

[9] C. M. Rhie and W. L. Chow. Numerical study of the turbulent flow past an airfoid with trailing edge

separation. AIAA Journal, 21:15251532, 1983.

[10] G. E. Schneider and M. J. Raw. Control volume finite-element method for heat transfer and fluid flow

using colocated variables 1. Computational procedure. Numerical Heat Transfer, 11:363390, 1987.

[11] G. H. Schnerr and J. Sauer. Physical and numerical modelling of unsteady cavitation dynamics. In 4th

International Conference on Multiphase Flow, 2001.

[12] I. Senocak and W. Shyy. Evaluation of cavitation models for Navier-Stokes computations. In ASME 2002

Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting, 2002.

[13] Y. T. Shen and P. E. Dimitakis. The influence of surface cavitation on hydrodynamic forces. In Proc. 22nd

ATTC, 1989.

[14] B. Stutz and J. L. Reboud. Experiments on unsteady cavitation. Experiments in Fluids, 22:191198, 1997.

- Numerical Solution Algorithms for Compressible FlowsUploaded byosoreneg
- Modeling of Two-Phase Flows in Horizontal TubesUploaded byfanziskus
- A Numerical Investigation of the Incompressible Flow Through a Butterfly Valve Using CFDUploaded byAhmed El-dawy
- Engine Intake Port Optimization in SculptorUploaded bygosculptor
- Aerodynamics Overview of the Ground Transportation Systems (GTS) Project for Heavy Vehicle Drag ReductionUploaded byMarcusHuynh88
- CFD FluentUploaded bykadung3394
- Fluvial BooksUploaded bytihi_prijatelj
- cfd_otesUploaded bypothirajkalyan
- CHEMKINCFD_FLUENT12.pdfUploaded bynaveed
- 9700784.pdfUploaded byHernan Aquino
- Laminar Flow SolverUploaded bykov709324
- IRJET-CFD Analysis of an Aircraft delta wingUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Fm Prevous Lab-1Uploaded byS.h. Fahad Fiaz
- CFD CompressibleUploaded bymatteo_1234
- ANSYS Grantec Article May 2010Uploaded bySasank
- Modeling of mixing in ladles fitted with dual plugs.pdfUploaded byRasul Bz
- Computational Fluid Dynamics Insights in the Design of Mechanical Heart ValvesUploaded byFernandoBautista
- Meshing Tutorial EnglishUploaded byAndrei Stoicescu
- Ansys FluentUploaded bysanjay_crazy36
- INOGATE- Software for Consequence ModellingUploaded bypoetoet
- 137.IJMPERDJUN2019137Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 2015 Jweia Jip Tvh Rr Bb Bl Sawtooth Roof Geom PreprintUploaded byViancahossen
- Summer course.pptxUploaded bylordsonxxx
- IntroUploaded byAnonymous 7BQxlt8c
- 819514Uploaded bySemih Oksay
- 052MEIUploaded bySoumadeep Banerjee
- CMVA2010 Pump Cavitation PresentationUploaded byHéctor Rivera
- Habitacion SST K-wUploaded bypfyl
- Lecture_Rossi.pdfUploaded byDebabrata Paul

- The Renormalization Group Yakhot and Smith 1992Uploaded byThePrius
- Bergstrand - 2004 - The Effects of Orifice Shape on Diesel CombustionUploaded byThePrius
- American Society for Testing and Materials - 2001 - ASTM D445 Standard test method for viscosity of transparent and opaque liquids (Kine.pdfUploaded byThePrius
- Tema 5.pdfUploaded byThePrius
- Schlichting, H. - Boundary Layer Theory (Springer)Uploaded byVivek Kanti
- TurbulenceModeling_04NOV05Uploaded byhilmanmuntaha
- References 2009 Compressibility Turbulence and High Speed FlowUploaded byThePrius
- Chapter 1 Kinematics Thermodynamics and Fluid Transport PropertiesUploaded byThePrius
- Principios de termodinámicaUploaded byThePrius
- Introduction to flight.pdfUploaded byMohammadhossein Nirooei
- Calculation of Potential Flow About Arbitrary Three-Dimensional Lifting BodiesUploaded byJoUkOwSkI
- Turbulence Models and Their Application to Complex FlowsUploaded byMason925
- Estimation of wall roughness functions acceptability in CFD simulation of mine ventilation networksUploaded byThePrius
- Validation SAND2002 0529Uploaded bycicabritto
- Statistical Fluid Mechanics - The Mechanics of TurbulenceUploaded byThePrius
- Singhal Et AlUploaded byThePrius
- Spal Art Turb 2000Uploaded byThePrius
- Microfluid mechanics , principles and modeling.pdfUploaded byThePrius
- Modeling of Cavitating FlowsUploaded byThePrius
- Tema 3Uploaded byThePrius
- Tema 5: respuesta en frecuenciaUploaded byThePrius
- Tema 6: ampliación de modelado de sistemasUploaded byThePrius
- 100 jazz & blues greats - (book).pdfUploaded byMichel Cardenes
- La CampanellaUploaded bymykitty

- TEZUKA ANIMATION VOL 1.pdfUploaded byMauricio Matus Furniel
- Week 1 Lecture Slides.pdfUploaded byAidan Andrews
- Matlap in LaplaceUploaded byHo Nhat Linh
- flutter analysisUploaded byabdul karee
- Tian 2014Uploaded byHasanain Almusawi
- 05718140Uploaded byadilsondisso
- Pb 2 Rayleigh Ritz Method for General Plate Analysis 1993Uploaded bycisco
- Amount Water to DrinkUploaded byvrajan1988
- ABAQUSUploaded byjoaozinho_sc
- Theories of Failure Under Static LoadUploaded bySneh
- SPECTROPHOTOMETRYUploaded bySuçsuz Suçlu
- pipe flow in ansys fluentUploaded byochenapothik2012
- LF Thermal ExpansionUploaded byLalaine Ramos
- CHAPTER 1 BASIC CONCEPT OF THERMODYNAMICS.pdfUploaded byNur Amalina
- 123123Uploaded byheherson juan
- Physics 1 Ends Fluids JUNE 2015 - Copy (2)Uploaded byIrah Mae Escaro Custodio
- 53_Krys Bangert.pdfUploaded byLuthfi Ady
- Mechanics of Laminated Composite Plates and ShellsUploaded byPyrsos Candles
- Orifice EquationUploaded byRoadmaster911
- Kinetics Body Work&Energy Impulse&MomentumUploaded byKano Molapisi
- 1DKin(exercise)Uploaded byPear Apitch
- h 011325357Uploaded byIOSRjournal
- Physical Chemistry Study GuideUploaded bykrymxen
- Engineering of ViscoelasticityUploaded bymahmood
- Rotary Series Elastic ActuatorUploaded byYazdan Rastegar
- Stm TheoryUploaded byAmintujy Singh Rajput
- Manual WBombas WaukeshaUploaded byFrançois D'la Morte Noire
- GCTS Soils Testing - Full CatalogueUploaded byvidyaranya_b
- chtMultiRegionSimpleBoussinesqFoam7Uploaded byAdam Gordon
- Determination Coefficient of Velocity From Jet TrjectoryUploaded byMohd Syafiq Akmal