2 views

Uploaded by ramihey

pigging operation

pigging operation

© All Rights Reserved

- Statement of Purpose for Masters in Naval architecture
- PPL800 Operations and Maintenance
- Lessons Learned
- Dacon Brochure
- ipr-reservoir
- uTAS Manuscript 2010
- Stuck Pig (1)
- I&C HAZOP Report Response
- risk based inspection planning
- Omnidirectional Pig Signaller
- Turbulent Flow Cylinder Benin to Suh 2008
- M01 General Information
- LectureNotesEngineering
- ME 520 Syllabus
- Software
- Hydrodynamic
- Fire data
- Www.onepetro.org@Conferencepaperbhr2018229
- Smart_Trap.pdf
- May Exam Feedback

You are on page 1of 13

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269049201

Condensate Gas Pipelines

DOI: 10.1061/9780784413012.137

CITATIONS READS

0 246

2 authors:

University of Houston Southwest Petroleum University

6 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION 42 PUBLICATIONS 66 CITATIONS

All content following this page was uploaded by Wenlong Jia on 08 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document

and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.

Pipelines 2013 © ASCE 2013 1469

1

School of Petroleum Engineering, Southwest Petroleum University, No.8, Xindu

Road, Chengdu, 610500; email：2282417594@qq.com

2

CNPC Key Laboratory of Oil & Gas Storage and Transportation, School of

Petroleum Engineering, Southwest Petroleum University, No.8, Xindu Road,

Chengdu, 610500; email：jiawenlong08@126.com

ABSTRACT

Pigging is an effective way of removing condensate liquid and improving the

transportation efficiency of condensate gas transportation pipelines. Prediction of

pig velocity, total pigging time and slug length are of great importance for pigging

operation. The pipelines are divided into a reformation two-phase flow section,

single-phase gas section, liquid slug section and downstream undisturbed

two-phase flow section to model the pigging process. The dynamic model for

each section is built based on the mass, momentum and energy conversation

equations of the liquid and gas phase. Since the locations of the pig, liquid slug

front and reformation two-phase section front are moving, a couple of method

based on the fixed coordinate system and internal moving boundaries is applied

the pigging model. Finally, a condensate gas transportation pipeline is used to

validate the methods. The simulation results show how to predict total pigging

time, pig velocity and its position reasonably.

KEYWORDS

INTRODUCTION

liquid hydrocarbon, such as n-Heptane (C7H16+). The liquid condensation easily

occurs due to the temperature and pressure variation along the pipeline.

Throughout the operation’s duration, the total liquid volume of the pipeline will

Pipelines 2013 © ASCE 2013 1470

et al. 2013).

Pigging is an effective mechanical method for cleaning accumulated liquids in

the pipeline. McDonald and Baker (1964) pointed that a frequently pigged

two-phase gas pipeline is capable of transporting up to 70% more gas as

compared with an operation without pigging. The pipeline pig is launched from

the pipeline inlet, and it is received in the pipeline outlet catcher. It fits the inside

diameter of the pipeline and pushes the liquid along the pipeline by the pressure

difference across the pigs (Mokhatab, Poe and Speight 2006). During the pigging

process, the removed liquid will accumulate and increase in front of the pig, and a

larger pressure difference is required to push the pig. In other words, the pigging

is a dynamic hydraulic and thermal process. It is a challenge to predict the pig

speed, total pigging time and required pressure differences for researchers and

engineers (Esmaeilzadeh, Mowla and Asemani 2009).

Few researchers have studied the dynamic simulation and modeling method

for pipeline pigging. McDonald and Baker were probably the first investigators

who proposed a quasi-steady model for the pigging simulation in two-phase

pipelines (McDonald and Baker 1964). Barua introduced a liquid slug

acceleration method into dthe McDonald and Baker model (Barua, 1982). Minami

and Shoham (1995) developed a pigging model and coupled it with quasi-steady

state gas flow. They used the Eulerean-Leagrange approach to simulate the pig

moving and slug increasing in front of the pig. Meanwhile, Pauchon and Dhulesia,

Lima (1998), and Larsen also proposed their pigging models based on the Minami

and Shoham (1995) method. Recently, Xu and Gong (2005) and Xu and Li (2011)

researched simplified pigging models for horizontal pipelines by coupling the

phase behavior model with the hydro-thermodynamic model. The accuracy of the

quasi-steady state pigging models is limited, because the pigging operation is

actually a dynamic process. Differing from the above quasi-steady models, Kohda,

Suzukawa and Furukawa (1998) first proposed a dynamic simulation model based

on the two-phase drift flux dynamic method.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a dynamic model for more accurate

prediction of the pigging process than the quasi-steady state model as well as its

solution method.

MATHEMATICAL MODEL

Physical Model. According to the liquid distribution along the pipeline, it can

be divided into four sections as shown in Figure 1 during pigging (Xu and Li

2011).

(1) Reformation two-phase flow section (A). Although the pig removed the

condensate liquid in the pipeline, the liquid condensate in the dry pipeline once

again due to the condensate gas mixture conforms with the liquid-gas phase

equilibrium law.

(2) Single-phase gas section (B). The pig just removed the liquid in the

section, and there is not enough time for new liquid condensation. The section is

Pipelines 2013 © ASCE 2013 1471

(3) Liquid slug section (C). Because the pig velocity is larger than that of the

liquid, the condensate liquid accumulates in front of the pig gradually. The liquid

slug will form if there is enough liquid in the pipeline.

(4) Undisturbed two-phase flow section (D). The section is downstream of

the slug section. It is similar to the steady state two-phase flow.

The flow patterns of two-phase flow reformation and undisturbed two-phase

sections can be depicted by the same model. The single-phase section and liquid

slug section are different from each other. Thus, three models should be built to

simulate the four sections.

uP uS ut uG

uB H llS ul Hl

A B C D

physical parameters of the condensate gas. It is composed of a basic physical

parameters model and liquid-vapor phase equilibrium model.

The densities, compressibility factors, and enthalpies are important basic

parameters for determination of the gas and liquid mass and temperature. Those

can be calculated from composition and physical parameters models. The

composition of the gas and liquid should be obtained by the liquid-vapor phase

equilibrium model, and physical parameters models are often derived from the

equations of state (EoS), such as the Peng-Robison(PR) EoS,

Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) EoS and Bennedict-Webb- Rubin-S tarling (BWRS)

EoS .

The liquid-vapor equilibrium model is used for describing the heavy

components condensation phenomenon, including the amount and composition of

liquid condensate from the gas mixture. The model is generally composed of the

mass conversation equations and thermodynamic equations in which the EOS also

is most important one. Many researchers have proved that the PR and SRK EOS

cannot predict liquid density, so the BWRS EoS is used to build the

Thermophysical model (Ali 1998).

only contains gas. The gas flow conforms to mass, momentum and energy

conversation law. The model can be expressed as follows (Li and Jia 2011):

∂ρ ∂

+ ( ρ v) = 0 (1)

∂t ∂x

Pipelines 2013 © ASCE 2013 1472

∂ ( ρ v) ∂ ( ρ v 2 ) ∂p λ v 2

+ = − g ρ sin θ − − ρ

∂t ∂x ∂x d 2 (2)

∂Q ∂⎡ v2 ⎤ ∂ ⎡ v2 ⎤

− ( ρ v) = ⎢ ρ (u + + gz ) ⎥ + ⎢ ρ v(h + + gz ) ⎥ (3)

∂x ∂t ⎣ 2 ⎦ ∂x ⎣ 2 ⎦

where ρ is gas density, kg/m3; p is pressure, Pa; θ is pipeline slope, rad; t is time, s;

v is gas velocity, m/s; d is pipeline internal diameter, m; g is gravitational

acceleration, m/s2; x is pipeline position, m; λ is pipeline friction factor; Q is the

heat flow rate from the gas to the ambient,W; u is internal energy of gas, J/kg; h is

the enthalpy of the gas, J/kg; z is height, m.

There are five variables (ρ, p, u, h, v,) and three equations in the model, so two

additional equations are required to solve the model. The two equations are the

EoS and enthalpy equation.

P = P(ρ , T ) (4)

h = h( ρ , T ) (5)

Equations 1-5 are the basic dynamic simulation model for single-phase section.

two-phase flow sections. Considering low liquid hold up, the flow pattern in the

condensate gas pipeline is the stratified flow which has an explicit interface

between the liquid and gas phase, as depicted in Figure 2. Then, we can obtain the

calculation methods of unknowns which are dependent on the constitutive

equations (Juan, 2011).

∂ ∂

∂t

( ρ gψ A ) + ( ρ gψ Awg ) = Δm& gl

∂x (6)

Liquid phase continuity equation:

∂ ∂

( ρl H l A ) + ( ρl H l Awl ) = Δm& lg

∂t ∂x (7)

Pipelines 2013 © ASCE 2013 1473

∂ ⎡ ⎛ wg2 ⎞ ⎛ wl2 ⎞⎤

ρ ϕ

⎢ g ⎜⎜ g

A h + + gz ⎟⎟ + A ρ H L⎜ l

h + + gz ⎟ ⎥

∂t ⎢⎣

l

⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎥⎦

∂ ⎡ ⎛ wg2 ⎞ ⎛ wl2 ⎞⎤

+ ⎢ Aρ gϕ wg ⎜ hg + + gz ⎟ + Aρl H L wl ⎜ hl + + gz ⎟ ⎥ + K π D (T − T0 ) = 0

∂x ⎢⎣ ⎜ ⎟

⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎥⎦

(8)

Gas-liquid phase momentum equation:

∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂P

( ρ gϕ wg A ) + ( ρl H l wl A ) + ( ρ gϕ wg2 A) + ( ρl H l wl2 A) + A

∂t ∂t ∂x ∂x ∂x (9)

= − Fgw − Flw − ( ρ gϕ + ρl H l ) gA sin θ

In view of the slow dynamic behavior in condensate gas pipeline, we can obtain

equation (10) by ignoring velocity variation and pressure terms in equation (9):

Fgw ⎛ 1 1⎞ F

− − Fgi ⎜ + ⎟ + lw − ( ρl H L − ρ gϕ ) g sin θ = 0

Ag ⎜A ⎟

⎝ g Al ⎠ Al (10)

where, Δm& gl is mass rate of phase change from gas to liquid, (kg/s.m); Δm& lg is

mass rate of phase change from liquid to gas, (kg/s.m). HL is liquid hold up; ϕ is

gas hold up; w is velocity, m/s; Fw is wall shear force of liquid phase, N/m3; Fi is

interfacial drag force, N/m3; D is the external diameter of pipe, m; T is fluid

temperature, K; T0 is ambient temperature, K; Subscript l represents liquid, and

g represents gas.

Equations 6-10 construct the basic model for condensate gas pipe flow

simulation.

Mathematical Model for liquid slug section. The mass and momentum

conservation equations are used for the liquid slug section expanding and moving

simulation. An expanding and a fixed coordinate system are chosen as shown in

Figure 1. A general mass conversation equation for the liquid slug section is as

follows:

v uv uv

d

dt ∫ ( )

V t

ρ dV + A t

u (

∫ ( ) −ω d A = 0

ρ )

(11)

A general momentum conversation equation for the liquid slug section is as

follows:

v v v uv uv uv

d

dt ∫ V (t ) ( )

ρ udV + ∫ A(t ) ρ u u − ω d A = F

(12)

v

where, V(t) is the volume of control volume,m3; u is the fluid average velocity in

uv uv

the control volume, m/s; ω is the surface velocity of the control volume; A is

uv

the area of the control surface, m2; F is external force on the control volume, N

Assume the density, liquid fraction and velocity of the slug section are

Pipelines 2013 © ASCE 2013 1474

dLs

H ls + ( us − ut ) H l + u p (1 − E ) = 0

dt (13)

where, A is the pipe cross area, m2; d is the internal diameter, m; x is location; E is

the pigging efficiency which is actually the gas void fraction left after the passage

of the pig. Subscript s represents liquid slug section; t represent slug front; l

represent the undisturbed two-phase flow section.

The change rate of the liquid slug length is dependent on the velocity difference

between the pig and slug front.

dLs

= ut − u p

dt (15)

Substitute Eq (15) into Eq(13), we can obtain the velocity of the slug front as

follows:

H ls u p − H Lul − u p (1 − E )

ut =

H ls − H l (16)

The following equation can be derived from the mass conversation equation by

assuming there is a little liquid slippage behind the pig.

H ls ( u p − us ) = (1 − E ) ( w p − 0 )

(17)

The velocity of the liquid slug is as follows:

⎛ 1− E ⎞

us = u p ⎜ 1 − ⎟

⎝ H ls ⎠

(18)

The pig is pushed by the gas behind it, then the pig velocity is equal to gas

velocity. In addition, the slug holdup is usually taken as a function of slug velocity

as in the Gregory correlation (Gregory 1978).

1

H Ls = 1.39

⎛ w ⎞

1+ ⎜ s ⎟

⎝ 8.66 ⎠ (19)

All the velocities and the liquid hold up of slug section can be obtained by

solving Eq.(16), (18) and (19). Substitute the parameters into Eq.(14), and the

pressure drop of the slug section can be obtained.

MODEL SOLUTION

Pipeline discretization. The single-phase flow model and two-phase flow

model can be used for the dynamic simulation of the upstream of the pig and

Pipelines 2013 © ASCE 2013 1475

downstream of the slug section. The liquid slug section model can simulate the

slug delivery. However, the pig, liquid slug front and reformation two-phase flow

front are moving. In the paper, the fixed coordinate system and movable internal

boundaries tracing method are used to trace the critical locations and solve the

model.

The pipeline is discrete to a number of grids in length as shown in Figure 3.

Assume the total grids is N, and the total nodes is L1. The pig locates at xP which

is between the Jth and J+1 th boundary. The reformation two-phase flow front

locates at xB which is between the Nth and N+1th boundary. The slug front locates

at xF which is between the Mth and M+1th boundary. There are three moving grids

in the pipeline to trace all the moving boundaries.

xB xP xF .

Figure 3. Discrete grids of the pipeline

At each time step, the new location of the pig is calculated by the follow equation:

x kp +1 = x kp + u kp +1Δtk (20)

u kp +1 is the velocity of the pig, m/s. Assume the pig velocity equal to the gas

velocity behind it, the following equation can be obtained:

u kp +1 = uGk +,i1

(21)

The new location of the liquid slug front is calculated by the following equation:

xFk +1 = xFk + u Fk +1Δtk

(22)

u Fk +1 is the velocity of the liquid slug front. It is calculated from Eq. (16).

The new location of the reformation two-phase section front is calculated by

Eq.(23).

xBk +1 = xBk + u Bk +1Δtk

(23)

u Bk +1 is the liquid velocity at reformation two-phase section front. It is calculated

by the two-phase flow dynamic simulation model.

running time in the pipeline. In the simulation, the timed step is assumed to be

constant. The pressure, flow rate, temperature and liquid hold along the pipeline at

each timed step are calculated based on the last timed step. So, the two-phase

steady-state simulation must be carried out before pigging simulation.

Pipelines 2013 © ASCE 2013 1476

At each timed step, locations of pig, liquid slug front and reformation two-phase

flow front are moving; therefore, the pigging model should be solved with the

following procedures:

Step 1: Calculate the locations of the pig, liquid slug front and reformation

two-phase flow front based on Eqs. 20-23.

Step 2: Calculate the pressure, flow rate and temperature at each grid in the

downstream undisturbed two-phase flow section by solving the

two-phase dynamic model with implicit difference method. The pressure

and temperature at the liquid slug front are the inlet boundary conditions.

The gas and liquid velocities at the pipeline outlet are the outlet

boundary conditions.

Step 3: Apply Eq. (14) to calculate the pressure drop of the liquid slug section.

Since the pressure, temperature and flow rate at the liquid slug front

have been calculated from Step 2, the pressure at the pig location can be

calculated by adding the pressure at the pipeline outlet and the pressure

drop of the liquid slug section.

Step 4: Calculate the pressure, flow rate and temperature at each grid in the

single-phase section by solving the single-phase simulation model with

implicit difference method. The pressure at the pig, the gas flow rate and

temperature at the reformation two-phase section front are boundary

conditions.

Step 5: Apply the two-phase dynamic model to calculate the pressure, flow rate

and temperature at each grid in the reformation two-phase flow section.

The liquid and gas flow rate, temperature at the inlet of pipeline, and the

pressure at the reformation two-phase section front are boundary

conditions.

One horizontal condensate gas pipeline in Tarim Oil Field in Western China is

used to validate the pigging model (Xu and Gong 2005). The fluid composition

and pipeline basic data are given in Tables 1 2.

Component C1 C2 C3 iC4 nC4 iC5

mol% 88.73 7.1 1.31 0.29 0.34 0.17

Component nC5 C6 C7+ CO2 N2

mol% 0.10 0.22 0.14 0.09 1.51

Pipelines 2013 © ASCE 2013 1477

Parameters Value

Length (km) 199

External diameter (mm) 599

Wall thickness (mm) 11.9

Wall roughness (mm) 0.02

Ambient temperature (℃) 3.0

Total thermal conductivity (W/(m2.K)) 3.0

Flow rate at input (kg/s) -90.6

Temperature at input (℃) 20.0

Pressure at input (MPa) 9.0

Since there is no practical pigging data of the condensate gas pipeline, the world

famous dynamic multiphase simulation software SPT Group OLGA 7.1 is used to

validate the model proposed in the paper.

The comparisons of the initial pressure and liquid hold up along the pipeline and

are shown in Figures 4 and 5.

Figures 4 and 5 show the initial liquid hold up along the pipeline that calculated

by the model is slightly larger than the OLGA results. The higher liquid hold up

causes greater pressure drop in the pipeline.

Pipelines 2013 © ASCE 2013 1478

The comparisons of the pig position, pig speed and total liquid volume in the

pipeline with time are shown in Figures 6-8 which also show that the simulation

results obtained by the model are in accordance with those calculated by OLGA

7.1. The total pigging time is slightly longer than the time calculated by OLGA.

This may be caused by the larger liquid amount in the pipeline. As can be seen in

Figure 7, the initial liquid amount is 328m3, and the liquid amount is 149m3 when

Pipelines 2013 © ASCE 2013 1479

the pig leaves the pipeline. The remaining liquid is from the reformation

two-phase flow section.

CONCLUSION

The authors used this paper to build a condensate gas pipeline pigging simulation

model. The pipeline was divided into the reformation two-phase flow region,

single-phase gas section, liquid slug section and downstream undisturbed

two-phase flow section to simulate the pigging operation. The dynamic

mathematical model for each section was built based on the mass, momentum and

energy conversation equations of the liquid and gas phase. In order to solve the

model, the locations of the pig, liquid-slug front and reformation two-phase flow

front were treated as internal moving boundaries, and the fixed coordinate system

was used to unite all four sections of the model. The solution procedures were

discussed in detail.

A horizontal condensate gas transportation pipeline in China and the dynamic

multiphase simulation software package OLGA7.1 were used for the validation of

the pigging model. The two-phase flow and pigging simulation results obtained

by the model are in accordance with those obtained by OLGA. The achievements

provide an accurate method to simulate the pigging operation of condensate gas

pipelines.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research was partially funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of

China (No.51174172) and a sub-project of the National Science and Technology

major project of China (No.2011ZX05054, No. 2011ZX05026-001-07).

REFERENCES

Ali. D. (1998). PVT and Phase Behavior of Petroleum reservoir Fluids. Elsevier

Science, the Netherlands.

McDonald-Baker Pigging Model for Horizontal Flow. MS thesis, University of

Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Esmaeilzadeh, F., Mowla, D., and Asemani, M., (2009). “Mathematical modeling

and simulation of pigging operation in gas and liquid pipelines.” J. Petroleum

Science and Engineering, 69(1-2),100-106.

volume fraction in the slug for horizontal fast-liquid slug flow.” Int. J. Multiph.

Flow, 4(1), 33–39.

Publisher, Zagreb, Crotia.

Pipelines 2013 © ASCE 2013 1480

Kohda, K., Suzukawa, Y., and Furukawa, H. (1998). Pigging Analysis for

Gas-Liquid Two-Phase Flow in Pipelines. Annual Energy Resources Technology

Conference and Exhibition, ASME, New Orleans, USA.

Lima, P. C.R. (1998). “Modeling of dynamic two phase flow operations and

offshore pigging.” Proc., SPE Ann. Tech. Conf. and Exhi., New Orleans, LA,

USA.

Li, C. J., and Jia, W. L. (2011). “Dynamic Modeling and Simulation of Coal Bed

Methane Transmission Pipeline.” J., of Computers, 6(3), 329-336.

McDonald, A.E., and Baker, O., (1964). “Multiphase Flow in (Gas) Pipelines.”

Oil and Gas J., 62(24), 68–71.

Transmission and Processing, Elsevier, Gulf Professional Publishing, Burlington,

UK,

pipeline: Experiment and Modeling.” J. SPE Production & Facilities, 10(4),

225-231.

assessment of condensate in south Paris gas processing plant sea pipeline (a case

study).” J., Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 10(1), 25-40.

pipelines with low-liquid loading.” J. of Petroleum and Science and Engineering,

48(3-4),272-280.

gas-liquid two-phase flow pipelines.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Pipelines and

Trenchless Technology, ASCE, Reston, VA.

- Statement of Purpose for Masters in Naval architectureUploaded byRatnakar Gadi
- PPL800 Operations and MaintenanceUploaded byBobbi Middleton
- Lessons LearnedUploaded bydani2611
- Dacon BrochureUploaded byMohammed Ilyas Mohiuddin
- ipr-reservoirUploaded byJitendra Vaish
- uTAS Manuscript 2010Uploaded byMallory Blair
- Stuck Pig (1)Uploaded byfederm
- I&C HAZOP Report ResponseUploaded byZizoGamed
- risk based inspection planningUploaded byASAPASAPASAP
- Omnidirectional Pig SignallerUploaded bymsjadeja
- Turbulent Flow Cylinder Benin to Suh 2008Uploaded byMehdi Kamal
- M01 General InformationUploaded byZhanara Sherkeshbaeva
- LectureNotesEngineeringUploaded byJanakiraman Mohan
- ME 520 SyllabusUploaded byHAHAHAHEIHEIHEI00
- SoftwareUploaded byRaj
- HydrodynamicUploaded byjulesjusayan
- Fire dataUploaded byJustice Mbam Chinedu
- Www.onepetro.org@Conferencepaperbhr2018229Uploaded byhahahahaha
- Smart_Trap.pdfUploaded bydmitos
- May Exam FeedbackUploaded byadeelsn
- 45 - 3FAQUploaded byJose Rattia
- 35 Redacted SlidesUploaded byLmao
- 1-s2.0-S1004954108602694-mainUploaded byMohanad El-Harbawi
- Pre Mult Hor 12Uploaded byAbhishek Sarmah
- Piggable Pipe System.pdfUploaded byhkamal68
- Ex Summary Completed Projects 31aug06Uploaded byKula
- AME101-LectureNotesUploaded byShiva Krishna Bhagavatula
- Hydraulic_Fracture_Mechanics_Valko_1995.pdfUploaded byDeepak Biju
- IRJIE::Three Dimensional Non-Hydrostatic Free-Surface Flow Simulation Over Curved and Sharp Crested WeirsUploaded byIRJIE
- PETSOC-89-40-18Uploaded byJessica King

- bagci2010Uploaded byLazarin Zidan
- bybee2011(1)Uploaded byramihey
- Bruning s 2013Uploaded byramihey
- Arellano 2013Uploaded byramihey
- srp pumpUploaded byramihey
- Gas Lift.-NECHEM Toufik.pdfUploaded byramihey
- 160Uploaded byramihey
- khjgfi 1232010Uploaded byramihey
- larijani2010.pdfUploaded byramihey
- tleukhabyluly2014Uploaded byramihey
- ageh2010Uploaded byViệt Toàn Đỗ
- Sham Mari 2014Uploaded byramihey
- lmpkUploaded byramihey
- Bahri 2014Uploaded byramihey
- qadmani2011.pdfUploaded byramihey
- almutairi2010Uploaded byramihey
- Eli 2013Uploaded byramihey
- Bartolomeu 2014Uploaded byramihey
- Campos 2010Uploaded byramihey
- 10.4043@24924-MSUploaded byramihey
- 10.2118@138888-MSUploaded byramihey
- Ultrasonic Measurement of Multiphase Flow Erosion Patterns in a Standard ElbowUploaded byKarthik R
- 10.4043@28904-MSUploaded byramihey
- Ngo 2018Uploaded byramihey
- Zhou 2018Uploaded byramihey

- EN8 materialUploaded bySwaran Singh
- Inelastic Buckling of ColumnsUploaded byRameez Bilwani
- Cummins Generators 1000kvaUploaded bymuqtar4u
- Variable Shunt ReactorsUploaded byAdeniji Olusegun
- 3 - Dannny Walsh_23 TOCPA_USA 21-22 March 2016Uploaded byJelena Fedurko
- Software ReuseUploaded byjain
- 00188___2d9df1f71f8fe1a82604f5920da5d778Uploaded bymyatchitshin4121
- MMS NOTES BY POLARAO SIRUploaded bysanyasirao1
- Seismic Methods and Applications: A Guide for the Detection of Geologic Structures, Earthquake Zones and Hazards, Resource Exploration, and Geotechnical EngineeringUploaded byUniversal-Publishers, Inc.
- Church of the Flying Spaghetti MonsterUploaded byTodd
- 7463Uploaded bySuhas Kawle
- Ch022Uploaded bySusana
- TC1107Uploaded byReigel Aldo
- Tidal Wave Propagation in the Yellow Sea.pdfUploaded byIdlir
- Minimum Standards for Slope Stability Analyses - City of Cottonwood HeightsUploaded bysteverr
- Thyristor-Based HVDC Link __ Transients and Power Electronics..Uploaded bychemical engineer
- CHE 04 (Assignment 2015) (English)Uploaded byRamBabuMeena
- Datasheets_MW05-0202-2f MagWave Configuration GuideUploaded byzayk_86
- Fast-Switch Integration Scenarios to a Different SAP PI Runtime - Webinar PresentationUploaded bySwarup Sawant
- numerical methods-lab-manualUploaded byapi-315485367
- Alignment of the Microwave AntennasUploaded byChristopher Bennett
- Gold PicUploaded byBalbalaManiuk
- 08~Model Solutions 8Uploaded byWala' Saleh
- Shelf SedimentsUploaded byRachel Vega
- project management tools and techniquesUploaded byFarhan Hasni
- Option H5, H7, H12 and H13 MTU MDEC, ADEC, J1939 CANbus engine interface 4189340674 UK.pdfUploaded byNSee5
- YARA User's Manual 12323Uploaded byc121
- User ExitsUploaded bygeneralkiran
- ANSYS Fluent Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) Module Manual.pdfUploaded byyan9naing9shin
- Handheld 2 4 GHz Spectrum a..Uploaded byztmpztmp