0 Up votes0 Down votes

1 views11 pagescc

May 13, 2018

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

cc

© All Rights Reserved

1 views

cc

© All Rights Reserved

- 427_1
- Air Pressure Ipbd
- Consequence Modelling
- 88643main_H-2344
- 164MIS
- Full Text 01
- Study of Dynamic Stresses
- HW14 Catalogue
- 1. CFD Analysis of Cross-Ventilation of a Generic Isolated Building With Asymmetric Opening Positions - Impact of Roof Angle and Opening Location
- 1-s2.0-S1877705813001033-main
- Seminar Cfd
- tm101067
- IBCAST
- Bosma Pres
- Uso Su Tre Casi Dei Modelli Cfd Per Prevedere l'Andamento Dei Fumi in Ambienti Chiusi Complessi
- Lecture 1 - Introduction to CFD
- 092Hwa
- Applied Mathematical Modelling Volume 37 Issue 4 2013 [Doi 10.1016_j.apm.2012.04.016] S. Moradi; A. Yeganeh; M. Salimi -- CFD-modeling of Effects of Draft Tubes on Operating Condition in Spouted Beds - Salin - Salin
- iwwwfb27_35
- Computation of Wind Structure Interaction on Tension Structures

You are on page 1of 11

Validation against Experiments

E. Gharaibah, Y. Zhang, R. Paggiaro, J. Friedemann, GE Oil & Gas

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference Brasil held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 29–31 October 2013.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been

reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its

officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to

reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract

Sand erosion in oil and gas production units can present rigorous system and production design challenges. Erosion is a

complex process that is affected by numerous factors such as the piping geometry, flow conditions, fluid properties and sand

characteristics. Choke valves are used to control the flow in the production units and subject to significant sand erosion. At

high differential pressure across the choke, flow accelerations may occur in the choke valve and result in extremely high flow

and particle velocities (up to 500 m/s) within the choke valve and in the downstream pipes. Consequently, the erosion rates

may become very high, which can effectively shorten the service life of choke valves. Therefore, the knowledge of the flow

characteristics and the capability to predict erosion rates in choke valves is essential for determining the choke’s service life

and guaranteeing system integrity.

The paper describes methods of using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) for examining the choke valve fluid and particle

flows as well as predicting the choke erosion. A 3D CFD choke flow simulation model is developed and validated against

experimental data. The model is based on the Eulerian approach for simulating the flow while sand particles are tracked in

the flow field using Lagrangian methodology and the erosion is predicted by implementing literature erosion correlations

(TULSA and DNV) in the 3D CFD model.

The CFD flow and sand particle tracking simulations show excellent agreement between the predicted flow parameters and

experimental data. Erosion hotspot locations are well predicted in the simulations while the erosion rates are underestimated.

This discrepancy is caused by two main reasons. The first one is some numerical issues associated with extremely high

velocities of the sand particles. The second one is that steady-state simulation neglects the geometry changes due to the

erosion in the real test.

Current CFD tools can resolve the complex choke flows very well. Particle tracking accuracy depends on the particle size and

sand loading. Erosion prediction accuracy is directly affected by the accuracy of the particle flow prediction and the

applicability of the erosion correlation.

Introduction

Sand erosion in subsea components can cause serious design and production problems. Choke valves are especially affected

by sand production and the resulting erosion due to the high fluid and sand particle velocities in the choke valves. Therefore,

the knowledge of the flow characteristics and the capability to predict erosion rates in choke valves is essential for

determining the choke’s service life and guaranteeing system integrity. Physical laboratory erosion tests have been the base

of the choke qualification and the characterization of the complex flow in the choke valves. However, the physical sand-

erosion tests are extremely time consuming and costly. The development of validated 3D simulation tools can reduce the

effort and lead time associated with the choke design verification and optimization as well as the choke qualification for a

particular field application. Furthermore, the simulation models are also the base of erosion diagnostic and monitoring

systems. Computational Fluid Dynamics for the flow and the particle tracking simulation, in conjunction with erosion models

became an established tool to quantitatively predict the erosion distribution generated by sand flows in the last few years.

Models are validated in (Zhang, Y, 2007), (Xianghui Chen, 2004), (Gary Brown, 2006), (Manickam, 1999), and (Graham,

2009).

GE Oil & Gas Flow Assurance Center of Excellence for Erosion has developed a 3D CFD model to estimate erosion and

lifetime of choke valves by using flow and particle tracking models implemented in commercial CFD software packages. The

2 OTC 24271

developed choke model is based on the Eulerian approach for simulating the flow while sand particles are tracked in the flow

field using the Lagrangian methodology. The erosion is predicted by implementing literature erosion correlations (TULSA

and DNV) in the 3D CFD model. The model has been validated using test data collected in a real choke valve. The

experiments are performed for the qualification of one of the GE Oil & Gas choke valves. The paper describes the developed

CFD choke model and is outlined according to the project objectives:

o Development of a 3D CFD choke erosion prediction model that is capable of reproducing the choke fluid

flow and sand particle tracking as well as predicting the erosion rates correctly.

o The validation of the developed model against real test data.

o Model calibration to increase confidence in the predicted erosion rates and location of the erosion hot spots

where maximum material loss rates are predicted to occur.

Computational modeling

Computational Fluid Dynamics for the flow and the particle tracking simulation, in conjunction with erosion models became

an established tool to quantitatively predict the erosion distribution generated by sand flows in the last few years. Models are

validated in (Zhang, Y, 2007), (Xianghui Chen, 2004), (Gary Brown, 2006), (Manickam, 1999), and (Graham, 2009).

In this study, the commercial CFD software package ANSYS CFX® was used to calculate the fluid velocity field, particle

trajectories and consequent erosion. The fluid velocity field without particles is solved first, followed by Lagrangian particle

tracking.

The fluid flow modeling is performed using the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes equations with the standard k-ε model for

turbulence closure and the total energy equation to account for compressibility effects. Table 1 summarizes the main

characteristics of the flow model.

Criteria Definition

Flow solver Steady-state

Wall boundary conditions Smooth wall

Turbulence model Standard k-ε

Fluid model pure CH4 (compressible gas)

Fluid-particle coupling Fully coupled

The gas was considered to be compressible following the ideal gas law but with a corrected molecular weight to account for

real gas effects. The molecular weight was corrected using an averaged compressibility factor over the pressure and

temperature ranges used in the test. The steady-state compressible flow field was solved using a 3D unstructured computation

mesh resolving the entire geometry of the choke valve under the assumption that both the inlet velocity field and particle

distribution are uniform.

Particle tracking was performed with the standard transport model in CFX using the Lagrangian approach and accounting for

particle drag, gravitational force, virtual mass force, pressure gradient force and turbulent dispersion forces. The particles

were fully coupled to the gas flow. Dry graded sharp sand as used in the tests was considered in the simulations – sand size

distribution as used in the test and simulations is shown in Table 2. Initial studies were performed to ensure that the

numerical solutions are independent of the sand particle number – 50000 particles were released in random uniform

distribution at the inlet at zero-slip velocity.

OTC 24271 3

0.71 0.1

0.5 0.7

0.355 8.8

0.25 40.5

0.18 36.8

0.125 13.1

Erosion Equations

In the CFD simulations, erosion equations are used to calculate erosion rate caused by each impingement. The major input

for most of the erosion equations is particle impact information, such as impact angle, impact speed, and impact location. A

wide variety of erosion equations has been developed by many investigators. Among those the erosion equations developed

by Tulsa E/CRC (Zhang, Y, 2007) and DNV (DNV, 2007) are most commonly used in the oil and gas industries. In this

work, the DNV erosion equation, as shown in Equation 1, is applied.

E = m p K U pn F (α )

n (1)

F (α ) = ∑ Aiα i

i =1

Where:

E = erosion rate or the material mass loss rate [kg/s]

mp = amount of sand hitting the surface [kg/s]

Up = sand particle impact speed [m/s]

K, n = constants dependent on the material

α = sand particle impact angle [rad]

Ai = coefficients given in (DNV 2007).

Computation Model

Figure 1 (left) shows the 3D geometry model of the choke valve that was built according to the real product drawings used in

the test. Figure 1 (right) shows the unstructured computation mesh. The computation mesh resolves the entire internal parts of

the choke, including all cage holes to reflect the real flow behavior in the CFD simulations. Initial mesh sensitivity studies

were performed to ensure that the numerical solution of flow field is independent of the computation mesh resolution. The

final fine mesh that was proved to deliver a mesh-independent solution has a total of about 5 million tetra-mesh elements

with fine prism layers regions at the walls. These prism layers are essential for accurate prediction of the boundary layer

velocity-profiles, especially in and around the cage holes.

4 OTC 24271

Figure 1: Choke geometry (left) 3D CFD model and (right) computation mesh

In this section the results of the 3 cases are presented. The simulation cases are summarized in Table 3. The choke parts in

cases A, B, and C are manufactured from different materials than in case D. Three different choke openings are tested and

simulated.

[kg] 200 200 150 1000

injected in the test

The boundary conditions of the simulations have been set in accordance to the nominal operational conditions of the tests as

listed in Table 4. Experimental measurements show that the choke inlet pressure varies between 50 bara and 59 bara, and the

choke inlet temperature varies between 7 °C and 26 °C. In the simulations, gas inlet conditions have been set to constant

values representing the averaged values observed in the experiments: 15 °C and 55 bara. The choke differential pressure was

required to be 15 bar. The choke outlet pressure has therefore been set to 40 bara in the simulations.

Value

Parameter Units

Experiment Simulation

Fluid Natural gas with sand Natural gas with sand

Inlet temperature °C 7 - 26 15

Choke Inlet Pressure Bara 50 - 59 55

Choke Differential Pressure Bar 15 15

Choke Outlet Pressure Bara - 40

Nominal Sand Feed Rate kg/hr 50 50

OTC 24271 5

As mentioned above, in the CFD erosion study, the sand particles are tracked in the calculated flow field. It is crucial to

ensure that the calculated flow field is predicted correctly. Figure 2 compares the flow rates from experiments and simulations

for all test cases (at a choke differential pressure of 15 bar). An excellent agreement can be seen since all points lie on or are

very near to the perfect agreement line. Thus, the results indicate that the modeling of the flow field is adequate, as far as the

relation between flow rate and choke pressure drop are concerned.

Figure 2: Comparison of flow rates through the choke between simulations and experiments for different opening positions and at a

choke differential pressure of 15 bar.

The Erosion results (weight loss) predicted in the CFD simulations for all cases shown and compared against the test data in

Table 5. As it can be seen, the predicted erosion is systematically underestimated. Table 5 gives also the ratio of the

experimental to predicted erosion for each component of the choke for all cases. It can be seen that the ratio ranges from

around 2 to 30 for A, B, and C cases (Material 1) and from around 20 to 40 for D case (Material 2). The discrepancy is

caused by two main reasons:

- Geometry changes due to erosion in the erosion test are not accounted for in the simulations. The geometry changes

can greatly affect the flow and particle conditions.

- The empirical constants of the erosion equation lead to inadequate material erosion relationships for this specific

case.

The geometry changes caused by erosion influence the flow field at the erosion locations. The particle dynamics will be

altered, resulting in altered erosion rates. The geometry changes may not significantly change the mean flow field, but

changes in the surface shape alter the impact angle and velocity of the particles and thus the erosion rates. In the simulations,

the model geometry does not change as erosion occurs, so these effects are not accounted for and remain a subject to be

considered in later studies using moving mesh approaches. Geometry changes may have a considerable influence on the

erosion of the plug head and plug nose due to very deep erosion depressions or even parts been eroded through.

Empirical constants of the erosion model might also contribute to the discrepancy between test data and simulation results.

Empirical constants have been determined for a certain set of target material and sand type and flow conditions, which do not

necessarily coincide to the setup and conditions used in this paper.

6 OTC 24271

Opening

[%] 20 40 45.7 45

position

Mass of sand

[kg] 200 200 150 1000

flowed

Exp. Sim. Exp. Sim. Exp. Sim. Exp. Sim.

Part Ratio* Ratio* Ratio* Ratio*

[g] [g] [g] [g] [g] [g] [g] [g]

Guide 15.7 3.21 4.89 16.3 2.74 5.96 22.3 5.08 4.39 4.1 0.17 23.73

Lower guide 18 4.67 3.86 11 2.85 3.86 14 3.24 4.32 28 70 0.40

Plug head 325.2 118.1 2.75 220.5 100.8 2.19 141.1 72.36 1.95 30 4.03 7.44

Plug nose 32.9 1.61 20.40 11.9 0.71 16.83 9.3 0.27 34.29 0.7 0.02 38.1

Seat 8 0.35 23.15 3.1 0.16 19.57 2.3 0.21 11.01 1.2 0.07 17.0

5 5 5 20

for simulation results

Table 5: Experimental and simulated erosion weight loss for all cases

Table 5 also gives a proposed scaling factor for the simulation results. This factor has been chosen to be the same for each

target material and this is the factor that will be used to scale the erosion results in the simulations under field conditions. The

scaling factor for Cases A-C has the same value because the target material (the material of the choke parts) for these cases is

the same (Material 1). Case D has a different scaling factor as its target material is different from the other cases. The

proposed scaling factor corresponds to an averaged ratio of experimental to predicted weight loss. However, when

performing this average, parts with minor geometrical changes due to erosion, such as the guide and lower guide, were more

strongly weighted than parts with significant geometrical changes, such as the plug. Note that the scaling factor adjusts the

instantaneous erosion rate in the simulations and not the total weight loss directly, so that the factor is not a function of test

duration or total mass of sand flowed through.

Figure 3 compares the experimental to the scaled simulation results. Cases A-C are scaled by a factor of 5 while Case D by a

factor of 20. Several findings can be observed from the presented results:

- Very good agreement between simulated and experimental weight loss can be seen for the guide and lower

guide. The deviation for these parts is well below the uncertainties related to erosion.

- Simulated weight loss for the plug head is always higher than the test value. The test shows that the plug

head geometry suffers significant geometrical changes caused by erosion, in some cases even being eroded

through. The model does not consider this effect and estimates erosion loss using the instantaneous weight

loss rate in a pristine choke geometry, which may be higher than the instantaneous rate as erosion takes

place and changes the plug head geometry.

- Good agreement can be seen between simulated (scaled) and experimental weight loss for the other parts:

plug head, plug nose and seat. Deviations between -80% and 150% can be seen, but this is considered good

due to all the uncertainties related to erosion.

- Simulated weight loss for the plug nose is always lower than in the test. The tests show that the plug nose

geometry suffers significant changes caused by erosion, in some cases causing partially closed choke holes

to become fully opened. This effect considerably changes the erosion pattern locally, which may be the

reason for the under prediction of the simulations. Moreover, as the plug nose is eroded, a sloped surface

relative to the flow direction in the holes is created, which is more susceptible to erosion (see Figure 15-A).

- Simulated weight loss for the seat is always lower than in the test. The erosion pattern on the seat indicates

that seat erosion may be caused by sand particles hitting the sloped surface created on the plug nose

(previous bullet) and being redirected to the seat. This effect does not occur in the simulations as erosion

does not cause the model geometry to change. Thus, erosion on the seat is under-predicted.

- The very good agreement for the guide and lower guide may be related to the fact that erosion causes only

minor changes on the geometry of these parts.

OTC 24271 7

Figure 3: Comparison of test data against predicted weight losses – scaled simulation results

8 OTC 24271

This section shows photographs of the choke parts after testing and compares them with the erosion hotspots obtained

from the CFD simulations for selected parts and case studies. The local penetration maps shown here have been

corrected by the scaling factor within the model calibration as introduced in the previous section.

There are four major erosion areas in the plug head, each 90° apart, matching up with the opened guide holes as

shown in Figure 4. The simulation predicts very well the erosion locations. Erosion locations in the plug due to partly

opened holes are also predicted. One jet has severely eroded through the plug (jet corresponds to the guide hole at

the back side of the choke). The simulation does not predict a higher erosion rate for that hole. The reason for that

might be the geometry changes caused by erosion in the plug nose and head in the real test, which completely opens

up the initially partly opened hole, thus increasing gas flow rate through that hole and changing sand flow

distribution through the opened holes.

Figure 4: Case A - Erosion on the Valve Plug Head and Nose - Simulation vs. Test

In the guide (see Figure 5), the simulation has predicted that significant erosion occurs on the corners of the open

guide holes, and this is confirmed in the experiments due to the well-rounded corners. One hole had a slot eroded at

the bottom and the simulation shows a high erosion rate at that site, as shown in the figure. Most of the open holes

have been elongated to some degree in the experiments. This is caused by erosion on the inner surface of the holes,

as correctly predicted in the simulation.

OTC 24271 9

Figure 5: Case A – erosion on the guide. Erosion hotspots – test vs. simulation

The experimental picture shows severe erosion damage on the plug head. The simulation also predicted several sites

with deep erosion penetration, especially the erosion on the plug due to partly open guide holes (Figure 6).

In the test, there are a number of erosion hotspots on the guide, such as elongation of some holes as well as scars on

some of the areas around the open holes. Both mentioned scars were predicted by the simulation. There are some

scars on the outlet side of the guide near the interface with the plug nose. These are not seen in the simulation as

they might be caused by impinging jets being deflected on the altered plug geometry – see Figure 7.

10 OTC 24271

Figure 6: Case B – erosion on the plug head and plug nose. Erosion hotspots – test vs. simulation

Figure 7: Case C – Erosion on the guide. Erosion hotspots – test vs. simulation

OTC 24271 11

Conclusions

GE Oil & Gas Flow Assurance Center of Excellence for Erosion has developed a 3D CFD model to estimate erosion and

lifetime of choke valves by using flow and particle models implemented in commercial CFD software packages. The

developed choke model is based on the Eulerian approach for simulating the flow while sand particles are tracked in the flow

field using Lagrangian methodology. The erosion is predicted by implementing literature erosion correlations (TULSA and

DNV) in the 3D CFD model. The model has been validated and calibrated using test data of real choke valve flow and

material losses performed for the qualification of one of GE’s choke valves.

The CFD flow and sand particle tracking simulations show excellent agreement between the predicted flow parameters and

experimental data. Erosion hotspot locations are well predicted in the simulations while the erosion rates are underestimated.

This discrepancy is caused by two main reasons. The first one is some numerical issues associated with the extremely high

velocities of the sand particles. The second one is that the steady-state simulation neglects the geometry changes due to the

erosion in the real test.

Current CFD tools can resolve the complex choke flows very well. Particle tracking accuracy depends on the particle size and

sand loading. Erosion prediction accuracy is directly affected by the accuracy of the particle flow prediction and the

applicability of the erosion correlation.

References

Graham, L.J.W. et al., 2010, “Quantification of erosion distributions in complex geometries”, L.J.W. Graham et al. / Wear

268 (2010) 1066–1071

Zhang, Y., Reuterfors, E.P., McLaury, B.S., Shirazi, S.A., and Rybicki, E.F., 2007,“Comparison of Computed and Measured

Particle Velocities and Erosion in Water and AirFlows,” Wear, 263, pp. 330-338.

Xianghui Chen, Brenton S. McLaury and Siamack A. Shirazi, 2004, “Application and experimental validation of a

computational fluid dynamics (CFD)-based erosion prediction model in elbows and plugged tees,” Computers and

Fluids, v33 (19), pp.1251-1272.

Gary Brown, 2006, “Use of CFD to Predict and Reduce Erosion in an Industrial Slurry Piping System,” Fifth International

Conference on CFD in the Process Industries, CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia, 13-15 December 2006.

Manickam, M. , Schwarz, M. P. and Mcintosh, M. J. 1999, “CFD Analysis of Erosion of Bifurcation Duct Walls,” Second

International Conference on CFD in the Minerals and Process Industries, CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia, 6-8 December

1999.

DNV 2007, “Recommended Practice RP O501 Erosive Wear in Piping Systems,” DNV RP O501 – rev 4.2 - 2007

- 427_1Uploaded byTapanVaishnav
- Air Pressure IpbdUploaded byriddler_007
- Consequence ModellingUploaded byvignesh
- 88643main_H-2344Uploaded byIbsonh
- 164MISUploaded byArianna Bellamy D'Aulisa
- Full Text 01Uploaded byMarcoFranchinotti
- Study of Dynamic StressesUploaded byssjuned
- HW14 CatalogueUploaded byafegao2
- 1. CFD Analysis of Cross-Ventilation of a Generic Isolated Building With Asymmetric Opening Positions - Impact of Roof Angle and Opening LocationUploaded byNikola Misic
- 1-s2.0-S1877705813001033-mainUploaded bygunjandpatel05
- Seminar CfdUploaded byDavid Isu
- tm101067Uploaded byGheorghe Macaraua
- IBCASTUploaded byNaveed Durrani
- Bosma PresUploaded byhardik_cat2k8
- Uso Su Tre Casi Dei Modelli Cfd Per Prevedere l'Andamento Dei Fumi in Ambienti Chiusi ComplessiUploaded byAndrea Nicola Turcato
- Lecture 1 - Introduction to CFDUploaded byHegespo Mwanyika
- 092HwaUploaded byMuhammadRiady
- Applied Mathematical Modelling Volume 37 Issue 4 2013 [Doi 10.1016_j.apm.2012.04.016] S. Moradi; A. Yeganeh; M. Salimi -- CFD-modeling of Effects of Draft Tubes on Operating Condition in Spouted Beds - Salin - SalinUploaded byAnggraeni Tribuana Tungga Dewi
- iwwwfb27_35Uploaded byTrần Văn Cường
- Computation of Wind Structure Interaction on Tension StructuresUploaded byAli Saeed
- sanaullah2015.pdfUploaded byAhmed Farooqi
- sdarticle1Uploaded bydiwanpankaj2002
- HE08_Presentazione_#26.pdfUploaded byDubey Deepak
- paperid-2820144-140904025906-phpapp02.pdfUploaded byMohsen Khabir
- Prop comparisonUploaded bymuseblade
- 10.0000@Pubs.casi.CA@Generic A6504037A4BFUploaded bySyed Shah Jehan Gillani
- Computation of Turbulent Jets in Annular Counter FlowUploaded byKaffel
- Cfd Jd SampleUploaded bySariya V
- fourier pptUploaded byManu Chakkingal
- The Usability and Limits of the Steady Flamelet Approach in Oxy-fuel CombustionsUploaded byCehan

- 10.2118@191613-MSUploaded byViệt Toàn Đỗ
- ageh2010Uploaded byViệt Toàn Đỗ
- Ahmed 1997Uploaded byViệt Toàn Đỗ
- Bell 2006Uploaded byViệt Toàn Đỗ
- bell2006.pdfUploaded byViệt Toàn Đỗ
- Pas CompanyUploaded byViệt Toàn Đỗ
- IPM Remote InstallerUploaded byViệt Toàn Đỗ
- DrillingUploaded byViệt Toàn Đỗ
- paggiaro2013Uploaded byViệt Toàn Đỗ
- Complex well.txtUploaded byViệt Toàn Đỗ
- InstallationUploaded byegv2000
- Pipe Elbow Water ErosionUploaded bydioniewilsonatyahoo
- DNVGL-RP-O501.pdfUploaded byhoomanam
- Chapter IVUploaded byViệt Toàn Đỗ
- HW 1 Solution (1)Uploaded byViệt Toàn Đỗ
- Fluid FlowUploaded byViệt Toàn Đỗ
- Bai Giang PTTKK-Rotary SystemUploaded byViệt Toàn Đỗ
- 314973340-Sand-Mass-Prediction-in-a-North-Sea-Reservoir.pdfUploaded byViệt Toàn Đỗ
- Pandya_uta_2502D_12458Uploaded byViệt Toàn Đỗ
- spe73738CoupledReservoir-GeomechanicsModelWithSandErosionforSandRateandUploaded byViệt Toàn Đỗ
- Estimation of Sand Production Rate Using GeomechanUploaded byViệt Toàn Đỗ
- Do Phu Sang_1512780Uploaded byViệt Toàn Đỗ
- Keyword Table LynaUploaded byNguyen Le
- Simon's Rask 2 SamplesUploaded byNguyễn Tú Linh
- Ielts Writing 05.03.2016Uploaded byLê Trung Kiên
- 05-Chapter5 Generation Migration New.ppt [Last Saved by User]Uploaded byViệt Toàn Đỗ

- Snap Loads in Lifting and mooring cable system induced by surface wave conditionUploaded bycxb07164
- Slope Stability Problem in Hong KongUploaded byJesus Daniel Ruelas Lopez
- Refractometry.docUploaded byLoveFreequency
- 3136Cosmo5_9_nucleoUploaded byRoy Vesey
- Lab 6 Magnetic FieldUploaded byMatt Grojean
- Photon TheoryUploaded byallanrnmanaloto
- 1492Uploaded byqiritical99
- Chapter 1 PropagationUploaded byEric Doctore Krage
- Cyclohexanone ModelUploaded byVelan Thrumaran
- 83781057 Flying Windmills or Flying Electric Generator Feg TechnologyUploaded byarattupuzha
- Final Exam Questions #3- RefractionUploaded byanonslu2012
- State Space Modeling and Simulation and Analysis of Sensor-less BLDC motor Using MATLAB/SIMULINKUploaded byIJSRP ORG
- CSM_Chapters12.pdfUploaded byClau Amaiia
- 1.3.1 Equations & Graphs of Motion MS.pdfUploaded bynaziya begum
- What the Difference Between a Matrix and a Tensor DLUploaded byDuy Nguyen
- Virtual Bio Instrumentation Lecture 03Uploaded byDIm
- Temp Maxwell 2017Uploaded byBOUZ2010
- [Preskill, J.] Entanglement=Wormholes & The Black Hole Firewall ControversyUploaded bylev76
- Cellular Automata Modeling of Physical SystemsUploaded byyasir9909
- Earthing, Grounding and BondingUploaded byVenkat Cherukuri
- Optical Properties of Thin FilmUploaded byOmed Ghareb
- 4 Rainbows and DiffractionUploaded byrebbieg
- PHY-TEST-EM05(3-3)Uploaded byphysicspalanichamy
- Thomas Aquinas and Big Bang CosmologyUploaded byRyan Hayes
- Analysis by CFD for Flow Past Circular and Square CylinderUploaded byKhaled Chaib
- Principios de La MediciónUploaded byWalter Malaver
- BSphysics.pdfUploaded byluqman
- Coulomb LawUploaded byDaniyal Akram
- AIiTS-5(XII)_SET-AUploaded bySuryansh Srivastava
- Pengendalian ProsesUploaded byfia

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.