5 views

Uploaded by Sagar Dadhich

Well Problem Idenfication 4

- Two Phase Fluid Mechanics
- Mechanics of Fluids Nov2003 RR 212101
- Criteria for Gas-Lift Stability
- A TextBook of Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulic Machines - Dr. R. K. Bansal.pdf
- CFX-Intro 14.5 L07 Review Day1
- 1763
- Advanced Fluid Mechanics
- exploring liquids unit planning guide
- IES Mech Engg Syllabus-MeriView.in
- Abstrac1coutte flow with heat transfer: numerical studies
- Spring Paper About Models
- Severe Slugging in pipelines, Modeling, Simulation and Mitigation.pdf
- Ies Mechanical Paper
- Week 3 Lectures_differential Analysis
- PREDICTIVE_TOOL_FOR_BOTTOM-HOLE_PRESSURE_IN_MULTIP.pdf
- Flow Past a Rotating Circular Grooved Cylinder
- Bernoulli Conv Diverging Channel
- Bernoullis theorem
- Application of Computer Simulation for the Description of Devices With Suspended Layer Hydrodynamics
- Dimensional Numbers in Fluid Mechanics

You are on page 1of 12

Oil Zone

Cone

Water

8,800 2690

Pre Frac

9,000 Thermal Profile 2750

Conductivity Static

9,200 Effects Log 2810 Hole Depth(m)

9,400 2870

Hole Depth (ft)

Post Frac

9,600 Profile 2930

9,800 2990

Top Profiles

Separate

12,000 3110

10,400 3170

175 200 225 250 275

Temperature (ºF)

80ºC 93ºC 108ºC 121ºC 135ºC

Figure 15-17: Pre- and post fracture temperature logs identifying fracture height

(After Dobkins., 1981)

Figure 15-18: Spinner flowmeter log identifying a watered zone at bottom

15.5 Liquid Loading of Gas Wells

Gas wells usually produce natural gas carrying liquid water and/or condensate in the form of

mist. As the gas flow velocity in the well drops owing to the reservoir pressure depletion, the

carrying capacity of the gas decreases. When the gas velocity drops to a critical level, liquids

begin to accumulate in the well and the well flow can undergo annular flow regime followed by

a slug flow regime. The accumulation of liquids (liquid loading) increases bottom hole pressure

that reduces gas production rate. Low gas production rate will cause gas velocity to drop further.

Eventually the well will undergo bubbly flow regime and cease producing.

Several measures can be taken to solve the liquid loading problem. Foaming the liquid water can

enable the gas to lift water from the well. Using smaller tubing or creating a lower wellhead

pressure sometimes can keep mist flow. The well can be unloaded by gas-lifting or pumping the

liquids out of the well. Heating the wellbore can prevent liquid condensation. Down-hole

injection of water into an underlying disposal zone is another option. However, liquid loading is

not always obvious and recognizing the liquid loading problem is not an easy task. A thorough

diagnostic analysis of well data needs to be performed. The symptoms to look for include onset

of liquid slugs at the surface of well, increasing difference between the tubing and casing

pressures with time, sharp changes in gradient on a flowing pressure survey, and sharp drops in a

production decline curve.

Turner et al (1969) were the pioneer investigators who analyzed and predicted the minimum gas

flow rate to prevent liquid loading. They presented two mathematical models to describe the

liquid loading problem: the film movement model and entrained drop movement model. On the

basis of analyses on field data, they concluded that the film movement model does not represent

the controlling liquid transport mechanism.

Turner et al.’s entrained drop movement model was derived on the basis of the terminal free

settling velocity of liquid drops and the maximum drop diameter corresponding to the critical

Weber number of 30. Turner et al.’s terminal slip velocity equation is expressed in U.S. field

units as

1.3σ 1 / 4 (ρ L − ρ g )

1/ 4

v sl = . (15.23)

C d1 / 4 ρ g

1/ 2

According to Turner et al., gas will continuously remove liquids from the well until its velocity

drops to below the terminal slip velocity. The minimum gas flow rate (in MMcf/D) for a

particular set of condition (pressure and conduit geometry) can be calculated using Eqs. (15.23)

and (15.24).

3.06 pv sl A

Q gslMM = . (15.24)

Tz

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000 Unloaded

? Nearly loaded up

2000 Loaded up

Questionable

0

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Calculated Minimum Flow Rate (Mcf/D)

Figure 15-19: Calculated minimum flow rates with Turner et al.’s model and test flow rates

Figure 15-19 shows a comparison between the results of Turner et al.’s entrained drop

movement model. The map shows many loaded points in the unloaded region. Turner et al.

recommended the equation-derived values be adjusted upward by approximately 20% to insure

removal of all drops. Turner et al. believed that the discrepancy was attributed to several facts

including the use of drag coefficients for solid spheres, the assumption of stagnation velocity,

and the critical Weber number established for drops falling in air, not in compressed gas.

The main problem that hinders the application of Turner et al.’s entrained drop model to gas

wells comes from the difficulties of estimating the values of fluid density and pressure. Using an

average value of gas specific gravity (0.6) and gas temperature (120oF), Turner et al. derived an

expression for gas density as 0.0031 times the pressure. However, they did not present a method

for calculating the gas pressure in a multiphase flow wellbore. A spreadsheet program

TuurnerLoading.xls has been developed for quick calculation associated with this book.

Turner et al.’s entrained drop movement model was later modified by a number of authors.

Coleman et al. (1991) suggested to use Eq (15.23) with a lower constant value. Nosseir et al.

(2000) expanded Turner et al.’s entrained drop model to more than one flow regimes in a well.

Lea and Nickens (2004) made some corrections to Turner et al.’s simplified equations. However,

the original drawbacks (neglected transport velocity and multiphase flow pressure) with Turner

et al.’s approach still remain unsolved.

Starting from Turner et al.’s entrained drop model, Guo et al. (2006) determined the minimum

kinetic energy of gas that is required to lift liquids. A 4-phase (gas, oil, water, and solid particles)

mist-flow model was developed. Applying the minimum kinetic energy criterion to the 4-phase

flow model resulted in a closed form analytical equation for predicting the minimum gas flow

rate.

15.5.2.1 Minimum Kinetic Energy

Kinetic energy per unit volume of gas can be expressed as

ρ g vg 2

Ek = . (15.25)

2gc

Substituting Eq (15.23) into Eq (15.25) gives an expression for the minimum kinetic energy

required to keep liquid droplets from falling:

σ (ρ L − ρ g ) . (15.26)

E ksl = 0.026

Cd

If the value of drag coefficient Cd = 0.44 (recommended by Turner et al.) is used, and the effect

of gas density is neglected (a conservative assumption), Eq (15.26) becomes:

In gas wells producing water, typical values for water-gas interfacial tension and water density

are 60 dynes/cm and 65 lbm/ft3, respectively. This yields the minimum kinetic energy value of

2.5 lbf-ft/ft3. In gas wells producing condensate, typical values for condensate-gas interfacial

tension and condensate density are 20 dynes/cm and 45 lbm/ft3, respectively. This yields the

minimum kinetic energy value of 1.2 lbf-ft/ft3.

The minimum gas velocity required for transporting the liquid droplets upward is equal to the

minimum gas velocity required for floating the liquid droplets (keeping the droplets from falling)

plus the transport velocity of the droplets, i.e.,

v gm = v sl + vtr . (15.28)

The transport velocity vtr may be calculated on the basis of liquid production rate, geometry of

the conduit, and liquid volume fraction, which is difficulty to quantify. Instead of trying to

formulate an expression for the transport velocity vtr, Guo et al. used vtr as an empirical constant

to lump the effects of non-stagnation velocity, drag coefficients for solid spheres, and the critical

Weber number established for drops falling in air. On the basis of Turner et al.s work, the value

of vtr was taken as 20% of vsl in this study. Use of this value results in

v gm ≈ 1.2v sl . (15.29)

Substituting Eqs (15.23) and (15.29) into Eq. (15.25) results in the expression for the minimum

kinetic energy required for transporting the liquid droplets as:

E km = 0.0576 σρ L . (15.30)

For typical gas wells producing water, this equation yields the minimum kinetic energy value of

3.6 lbf-ft/ft3. For typical gas wells producing condensate, this equation gives the minimum

kinetic energy value of 1.73 lbf-ft/ft3. These numbers imply that the required minimum gas

production rate in water-producing gas wells is approximately twice of that in condensate-

producing gas wells.

In order to evaluate the gas kinetic energy Ek in Eq. (15.25) at a given gas flow rate and compare

it with the minimum required kinetic energy Ekm in Eq. (15.30), the values of gas density ρg and

gas velocity vg need to be determined. Expressions for ρg and vg can be obtained from ideal gas

law:

2.7 S g p

ρg = . (15.31)

T

TQG

v g = 4.71 × 10 − 2 . (15.32)

Ai p

2

S g TQG

E k = 9.3 × 10 − 5 . (15.33)

Ai2 p

Equation (15.33) indicates that the gas kinetic energy decreases with increased pressure, which

means that the controlling conditions are bottom hole conditions where gas has higher pressure

and lower kinetic energy. This analysis is consistent with the observations from air-drilling

operations where solid particles accumulate at bottom hole rather than top hole. However, this

analysis is in contradiction with Turner et al.’s results that indicated that the wellhead conditions

are, in most instances, controlling.

In order to accurately predict the bottom hole pressure p in Eq. (15.33), a gas-oil-water-solid 4-

phase mist-flow model was developed by Guo et al. (2006). According to the 4-phase flow

model, the flowing pressure p at depth L can be solved numerically from the following equation:

144b( p − p hf ) +

1 − 2bm (144 p + m ) + n 2

(144 p hf + m)2 + n

ln

2

b(P − Phf ) +

1 − 2bm (P + m ) + n 2

(Phf + m)2 + n

ln

2

b

m+ n − bm 2 ⎡ −1 ⎛ 144 p + m ⎞ ⎛ 144 p hf + m ⎞⎤

c ⎟⎟ − tan −1 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎥

− ⎢ tan ⎜⎜ ⎟

n ⎣⎢ ⎝ n ⎠ ⎝ n ⎠⎦⎥

(

= a 1+ d 2 e L .) (15.34)

where

a= cos(θ )

10 3 Tav QG

b=

10 3 Tav QG

6.785 × 10−6 TavQG (15.37)

c=

Ai

Qs + 5.615(Qw + Qo ) (15.38)

d=

600 Ai

6f

e= (15.39)

gDh cos(θ )

2

⎡ ⎤

⎢ ⎥

(15.40)

fM = ⎢ ⎥

1

⎢ ⎛ 2ε ' ⎞ ⎥

⎢1.74 − 2 log⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥

⎢⎣ ⎝ Dh ⎠ ⎥⎦

cde

m= (15.41)

1 + d 2e

c 2e . (15.42)

n=

(1 + d e)

2 2

where

A = cross-sectional area of conduit, ft2

Dh = hydraulic diameter, in

fM = Moody friction factor

g = gravitational acceleration, 32.17 ft/s2

L = conduit length, ft

p = pressure, psia

phf = wellhead flowing pressure, psia

QG = gas production rate, Mscf/day

Qo = oil production rate, bbl/day

Qs = solid production rate, ft3/day

Qw = water production rate, bbl/day

Sg = specific gravity of gas, air =1

So = specific gravity of produced oil, fresh water =1

Sw = specific gravity of produced water, fresh water =1

Ss = specific gravity of produced solid, fresh water =1

Tav = the average temperature in the butting, oR

ε’ = pipe wall roughness, in

θ = inclination angle, Deg.

A logical procedure for predicting the minimum required gas flow rate Qgm involves calculating

gas density ρg, gas velocity vg, and gas kinetic energy Ek at bottom hole condition using an

assumed gas flow rate QG, and compare the Ek with Ekm. If the Ek is greater than Ekm, the QG is

higher than the Qgm. The value of QG should be reduced and the calculation should be repeated

until the Ek is very close to Ekm. For this procedure is tedious, a simple equation was derived by

Guo et al. for predicting the minimum required gas flow rate in this section. Under the minimum

unloaded condition (the last point of the mist flow regime), Eq (15.33) becomes:

2

S gTbhQgm

Ekm = 9.3 × 10− 5 (15.43)

Ai2 p

which gives:

2

S gTbhQgm . (15.44)

p = 9.3 × 10−5

Ai2 Ekm

b

m + n − bm 2

144bα1 +

1 − 2bm

2

ln α 2 − c [ ]

tan −1 β1 − tan −1 β 2 = γ (15.45)

n

where

2

α1 = 9.3 × 10 −5

S gTbh Qgm

− phf

(15.46)

Ai2 Ekm

2

⎛ S T Q2 ⎞

⎜1.34 × 10 −2 g 2bh gm + m ⎟ + n

⎜ Ai Ekm ⎟ (15.47)

α2 = ⎝ ⎠

(144 phf + m) + n

2

2

S gTbhQgm

1.34 × 10− 2 +m

Ai2 Ekm (15.48)

β1 =

n

144 phf + m (15.49)

β2 =

n

All the parameter values should be evaluated at Qgm. The minimum required gas flow rate Qgm

can be solved from Eq (15.45) with a trial-and-error or numerical method such as Bisection

method. It can be shown that Eq (15.45) is a one-to-one function of Qgm for Qgm values greater

than zero. Therefore, Newton-Raphson iteration technique can also be used for solving Qgm.

Commercial software packages such as MS Excel can be used as solvers. In fact, the Goal Seek

function built in the MS Excel was used for generating solutions presented in this chapter. The

spreadsheet program is named GaswellLoading.xls.

To demonstrate how to use Eq. (15.45) for predicting the minimum unloading gas flow rate,

consider a vertical gas well producing 0.70 specific gravity gas and 50 bbl/d condensate through

a 2.441-in. I.D. tubing against a wellhead pressure of 900 psia. Suppose the tubing string is set at

a depth of 10,000 ft, and other data are given in Table 15-1.

Table 15-1: Basic Parameter Values for Example Problem 15-1

Hole inclination 0 Deg

Wellhead temperature 60 oF

Geothermal Gradient 0.01 oF/ft

Condensate gravity 60 oAPI

Water specific gravity 1.05 water = 1

Solid specific gravity 2.65 water = 1

Interfacial tension 20 dyne/cm

Tubing wall roughness 0.000015 inch

Solution:

The solution given by the spreadsheet program GasWellLoading.xls is shown in Table 15-2.

Calculated Parameters:

Conduit cross-sectional area 0.0325 ft2

o

Average temperature 570 R

Minimum kinetic energy 1.6019 lbf-ft/ft3

a= 2.77547E-05

b= 1.20965E-07

c= 875999.8117

d= 0.10598146

e= 0.000571676

fM = 0.007481992

m= 53.07387106

n= 438684299.6

Solution:

Critical gas production rate 1059 Mscf/day

Pressure (p) = 1189 psia

Objective function f(Qgm) = -1.78615E-05

Figure 15-20 illustrates Eq (15.45)-calculated minimum flow rates mapped against the test flow

rates for the same wells used in Figure 15-19. This map shows 6 loaded points in the unloaded

region but they are very close to the boundary. This means Guo et al.’s method is more accurate

than Turner et al.’s method in estimating the minimum flow rates.

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000 Unloaded

? Nearly loaded up

2000 Loaded up

Questionable

0

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Calculated Minimum Flow Rate (Mcf/D)

Figure 15-20: The minimum flow rates given by Guo et al.’s model and the test flow rates

* * * * *

Summary

This chapter presented a guideline to identifying problems commonly encountered in oil and gas

wells. Well test analysis provides a means of estimating properties of individual pay zones.

Production logging analysis identifies fluid entries to the wellbore from different zones. Guo et

al.’s method is more accurate than Turner’s method for predicting liquid loading problems in gas

production wells.

References

Chaudhry, A. C.: Oil Well Testing Handbook, Gulf Professional Publishing, Burlington (2004).

Clark, N.J. and Schultz, W.P.: “The Analysis of Problem Wells,” The Petroleum Engineer (Sept.

1956) 28: B30-B38.

Coleman, S.B., Clay H.B., McCurdy, D.G., and Norris III, L.H.: “A New Look at Predicting Gas

Well Loading-Up,” JPT (March 1991), Trans., AIME, 291, 329.

Dake, L.P.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier, Amsterdam (2002).

Dobkins, T.A.: “Improved method to Determine Hydraulic Fracture Height,” JPT (April 1981),

719-726.

Economides, M.J., Hill, A.D., and Ehlig-Economides, C.: Petroleum Production Systems,

Prentice Hall PTR, New Jersey (1994).

EPS: FloSystem User Manu, E-Production Services, Inc., Edinburgh (2005).

EPS: PanSystem User Manu, E-Production Services, Inc., Edinburgh (2004).

Fekete: F.A.S.T. WellTest User Manu, fekete Associates, Inc., Calgary (2003).

Guo, B. and Ghalambor, A., and Xu, C.: A Systematic Approach to Predicting Liquid Loading in

Gas Well, SPE Production & Operations J. (Feb. 2006).

Horne, R.N.: Modern Well test Analysis: A Computer-Aided Approach, Petroway Publishing,

New York (1995).

Lea, J.F. and Nickens, H.V.: “Solving Gas-Well Liquid-Loading Problems,” SPE Prod. &

Facilities (April 2004), 30.

Lee, J.W., Rollins, J.B., and Spivey, J.P.: Pressure Transient Testing, Society of Petroleum

Engineers, Richardson (2003).

Nosseir, M.A., Darwich, T.A., Sayyouh, M.H., and Sallaly, M.E.: “A New Approach for

Accurate Prediction of Loading in Gas Wells Under Different Flowing Conditions,” SPE Prod.

& Facilities (Nov. 2000), 15, No. 4, 245.

Turner, R.G., Hubbard, M.G., and Dukler, A.E.: “Analysis and Prediction of Minimum Flow

Rate for the Continuous Removal of Liquids from Gas Wells,” JPT (Nov. 1969), Trans., AIME,

246, 1475.

Problems

15.1 Consider a gas well producing 50 bbl/d of condensate and 0.1 cubic foot of sand through a

2.441-in. I.D. tubing against a wellhead pressure of 500 psia. Suppose the tubing string is

set at a depth of 8,000 ft, use the following data and estimate the minimum gas production

rate before the gas well gets loaded.

Hole inclination 0 Deg

Wellhead temperature 60 oF

Geothermal Gradient 0.01 oF/ft

Condensate gravity 60 oAPI

Water specific gravity 1.07 water = 1

Solid specific gravity 2.65 water = 1

Oil-gas interfacial tension 20 dyne/cm

Tubing wall roughness 0.000015 inch

15.2 Consider a gas well producing 50 bbl/d of water and 0.2 cubic foot of sand through a 2.441-

in. I.D. tubing against a wellhead pressure of 600 psia and temperature of 80 oF. Suppose

the tubing string is set at a depth of 9,000 ft and geothermal gradient is 0.01 oF/ft, estimate

the minimum gas production rate before the gas well gets loaded.

15.2 Consider a gas well producing 80 bbl/d of water and 0.1 cubic foot of sand through a

1.995-in. I.D. tubing against a wellhead pressure of 400 psia and temperature of 70 oF.

Suppose the tubing string is set at a depth of 7,000 ft and geothermal gradient is 0.01 oF/ft,

estimate the minimum gas production rate before the gas well gets loaded.

15.4 Consider a gas well producing 70 bbl/d of oil and 0.1 cubic foot of sand through a 1.995-in.

I.D. tubing against a wellhead pressure of 600 psia and temperature of 80 oF. Suppose the

tubing string is set at a depth of 6,000 ft and geothermal gradient is 0.01 oF/ft, estimate the

minimum gas production rate before the gas well gets loaded.

- Two Phase Fluid MechanicsUploaded byNoolOotsil
- Mechanics of Fluids Nov2003 RR 212101Uploaded byNizam Institute of Engineering and Technology Library
- Criteria for Gas-Lift StabilityUploaded byAhmed Mamdouh
- A TextBook of Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulic Machines - Dr. R. K. Bansal.pdfUploaded byDavid Reinoso
- CFX-Intro 14.5 L07 Review Day1Uploaded byShaheen S. Ratnani
- 1763Uploaded bySharat Chandra
- Advanced Fluid MechanicsUploaded bymmilyas
- exploring liquids unit planning guideUploaded byapi-265908930
- Abstrac1coutte flow with heat transfer: numerical studiesUploaded byAlpesh Panchal
- IES Mech Engg Syllabus-MeriView.inUploaded byNatasha Roy
- Spring Paper About ModelsUploaded byDiego Rocha
- Severe Slugging in pipelines, Modeling, Simulation and Mitigation.pdfUploaded byViridiana Salazar
- Ies Mechanical PaperUploaded byVinod Kumar Verma
- Week 3 Lectures_differential AnalysisUploaded byboogolam
- PREDICTIVE_TOOL_FOR_BOTTOM-HOLE_PRESSURE_IN_MULTIP.pdfUploaded byZulfandi Fandhi
- Flow Past a Rotating Circular Grooved CylinderUploaded byInternational Journal of Advance Research, Ideas and Innovations in Technology (IJARIIT)
- Bernoulli Conv Diverging ChannelUploaded byamandig
- Bernoullis theoremUploaded byAkanksha Jagwani
- Application of Computer Simulation for the Description of Devices With Suspended Layer HydrodynamicsUploaded bySrashmi
- Dimensional Numbers in Fluid MechanicsUploaded bynites1
- Fluid Flow & BernoulliUploaded byKeith Ralph Vacio
- 2Uploaded bysouhir gritli
- ME 331 Syllabus and Schedule Fall2016Uploaded bymetalsonic
- 2.1 (a) Kinetic Theory of MatterUploaded bywannwa
- Understanding Kinetic Particle TheoryUploaded byozman
- Fenomenos de transporteUploaded byEdgar Murillo
- Guest Visit - UNIPAUploaded bycherfrans
- Char and Wood PropertiesUploaded bygftaleror
- 16_JensenValenteStone_Physics_of_Fluids_2014.pdfUploaded byShai Villalba
- flow oscillation simulationUploaded byapi-272723910

- Drilling ToolsUploaded byMokr Achour
- Reservoir FluidsUploaded byWilliam Ampomah
- Open topic with navigation.docxUploaded bySagar Dadhich
- PVT Properties of Reservoir Fluids.docxUploaded bySagar Dadhich
- Lab 5 Reservoir Fluid StudiesUploaded byIrwan Januar
- Exploitability of CCS in EORUploaded bySagar Dadhich
- Reservoir Fluid Properties.docxUploaded bySagar Dadhich
- Assignment 2Uploaded bySagar Dadhich
- Exploitability of CCS in EORUploaded bySagar Dadhich
- Chapter 3 OCWUploaded bydraggonboy
- Assignment 7Uploaded bySagar Dadhich
- Assignment 8Uploaded bySagar Dadhich
- Assignment 5Uploaded bySagar Dadhich
- Assignment 4Uploaded bySagar Dadhich
- Assignment 3Uploaded bySagar Dadhich
- Assignment 2Uploaded bySagar Dadhich
- Assignment 6Uploaded bySagar Dadhich
- Clay ChemistryUploaded bySagar Dadhich
- 1_IntroductionDrillingFluidsUploaded byDon Pope
- 56573987 Clay ChemistryUploaded byDhwani Shah
- Corrosion.pptxUploaded bySagar Dadhich
- Cementing 1.pdfUploaded bySagar Dadhich
- Carbon Capture and Storage ABSTRACT RGIPT SRINIVASUploaded bySagar Dadhich
- Lab 5 Reservoir Fluid StudiesUploaded bySagar Dadhich
- Reservoir TechnolgyUploaded byreservoirengr
- Reservoir EvaluationUploaded bydiillaa
- Well Testing and the Ideal Reservoir ModelUploaded byhorns2034
- Gas-rateUploaded bySagar Dadhich
- 00149953-c0b5-4706-b1bb-57b004cfe479-161228095758Uploaded bySagar Dadhich
- (Www.entrance-exam.net)-MAT Sample Paper 2 (1)Uploaded byRohit Raman

- TEST.docxUploaded byMelissa Favila Panaga
- Basic Aerodynamics module 4Uploaded byAsyraf Samad
- Iast.lect22Uploaded byShyam Radsun
- Harmonic and Periodic MotionsUploaded byC V CHANDRASHEKARA
- 1-Seismic Behaviors of Columns in Ordinary and Intermediate Moment Resisting Concrete FramesUploaded bysharif
- IAU 2000A and IAU 2006 Precession-Nutation Theories and Their Implementation_CoppolaUploaded bydbowden@bigpond.net.au
- ppa6 conceptests ch 16Uploaded byapi-313188130
- Prestero_thesisUploaded byMohsen Khavarinia
- 8-437-446Uploaded byamit_iit
- Passive Isolation of Deep FoundationsUploaded byrameshkaa
- elastic stressUploaded bywingnut999
- Lab Circular Motion LabUploaded bycalculusdouche
- Chapter 3Uploaded byManas Xabat Nigam
- Engineering Mechanics Lab ManualUploaded byprathameshbhat88
- 2-Lectures LEC 19 Modifications of the Mohr Theory for Brittle MaterialsUploaded byNagaraj Ramachandrappa
- Curvatura en CigueñalUploaded byMelquisedec Batista
- Gear NotesUploaded byKunal Singh
- Pressure Recovery and Loss Coefficient Variations in the Two Different Centrifugal Blower Volute DesignsUploaded byJoseph Alexander Borg
- Physics of Wall BallsUploaded byErika Morrison
- Chapt-09-tidal.pdfUploaded byAnonymous MAQrYFQDzV
- hw3Uploaded byleeynsn
- Week 12Uploaded byFajar Nur Hidayati
- Theory of FlightUploaded bynichitacristina66
- tmpB375.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- Short Question Bank Physics IIUploaded byAshish Vimal
- RH085 AR G2 PerformanceUploaded bySalomé Leal
- Classification Requirements for Shaft Alignment CalculationUploaded byaytepe
- thdUploaded bySingh Anuj
- 21712_03a.pdfUploaded byGaettan Katamba
- Increase TorqueUploaded byJohnSmith