0 views

Uploaded by nsitaram.iitm

A comparison of single, two and four hole probes for three dimensional flow measurements

- Pitch Control of an Aircraft Using Artificial Intelligence
- Build Your Own Drone
- litreature on AUV1
- Control Part
- AUV Rendezvous Trajectories Generation for Underwater Recovery
- book.ps
- a-130814164705-phpapp02
- Wing Twist and Dihedral
- Introduction to Kinematics
- Hi Alpha Basics Pres
- Nptel 2018 Booklet
- 13751_FULLTEXT
- aerodynamics-of-hang-glider.pdf
- Airbus Flight Control Laws.pdf
- 28671
- Lateral Aerodynamic Parameters
- Aircraft II
- A02 Midwater Arch Systems
- Design and Comparison of Robust Nonlinear Controllers for the Lateral Dynamics of Vehicles.pdf
- Out 00001

You are on page 1of 9

December 28-30, 2017, IIT Kharagpur, India

ICTACEM-2017/498

Comparison of Single Hole, Two Hole and Four Hole Probes for

Three-Dimensional Flow Measurements

N. Sitaram* M. Suresh

School of Aeronautical Sciences Turbomachines Laboratory

Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science Department of Mechanical Engineering

1, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR), Padur, (Via) Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Kelambakkam, CHENNAI - 603 103, India CHENNAI - 600 03, India

ABSTRACT

The present paper compares the calibration curves and sensitivity curves of calibration coefficients of a four hole

probe, two-hole probe and single hole probe for three dimensional flow measurements. A 2.54 mm hemispherical

cantilever probe is calibrated in the yaw and pitch angle range of -60O to 60O and -50O to 30O at an interval of 5O.

This calibration data is used to calculate calibration coefficients and sensitivity curves of calibration coefficients for

the four hole, two-hole and single hole probes. From these curves best probe configuration is identified for three

dimensional flow measurements.

Keywords: Four hole probe, Two hole probe, Single hole probe, Non-nulling calibration, 3D flow measurements

NOMENCLATURE

CPPITCH Pitch coefficient (Defined in text) PC, PL, PR, PB Non dimensional pressures of the probe holes

CPSTATIC Static pressure coefficient and PT identified as center, left, right, bottom and top holes

(Defined in text) of a conventional five hole probe, Pa

CPTOTAL Total pressure coefficient (Defined P1, P2, P3 and P4 Pressures measured by probe holes 1 to 4, Pa

in text) p1, p2, p3 and p4 Pressures measured by probe holes 1 to 4, non-

CPYAW Yaw coefficient (Defined in text) dimensionalized with PO

Probe dynamic pressure, Pa Q Dynamic pressure=PO-PS=PO(Q→PO as PS→0), Pa

D (Defined in text) Yaw angle, Deg.

PO Total pressure, Pa

Pitch angle, Deg.

PS Static pressure, Pa

Cpi Sensitivity coefficient of calibration coefficient

Pk Maximum pressure, Pa

1. INTRODUCTION

Multi hole (4 hole, 5 hole, 7 hole) pressure probes are extensively used to measure three

dimensional flows in turbomachinery and other aerodynamic flows. In principle a four hole

probe can measure the four unknowns, namely, total and static pressures and two angles in two

mutually perpendicular planes in an incompressible flow. From these four parameters, velocity

and its three components can be determined. For measurements in compressible flows, a

thermocouple is added to the probe tip to measure temperature.

____________________________________________

* Corresponding author, E_mail: pt.nsitaram@hindustanuniv.ac.in

1

From these measurements, the unknown flow parameters namely, temperature, total and static

pressures, density and two angles in two mutually perpendicular planes are obtained. From these

parameters, Mach number, velocity and its three components can be determined. For

measurement of time dependent flows, fast response pressure transducers are embedded in the

probe tip or located in the connected tubes with some loss in frequency response. An alternative

to multi hole probes is a single hole probe, which is used in multiple positions to measure three

dimensional flow. The advantage of the single hole probe technique is reduced size of the probe

reducing spatial, gradient and wall vicinity errors. The disadvantages are increased data

acquisition time and complex data reduction techniques. Although multi hole probes and single

hole probes are used by many researchers to measure complex three dimensional flows, no

systematic investigations are made on the accuracy of measurements by these techniques. Hence

the present investigation is undertaken.

Schlienger (1) developed a cantilevered hemispherical four hole probe of 1.2 mm diameter. The

probe was calibrated in yaw and pitch angle range of + 20O and + 18O respectively. Suresh and

Sitaram (2) extended the calibration range of a similar probe to + 60O and -50O to 30O in yaw

and pitch plane respectively. Schlienger (1) also developed cantilevered hemispherical single

hole probes of 1.8 mm diameter of two different designs, namely V4S (Virtual Four Sensor) and

V5S (Virtual Five Sensor) probes. A fast response pressure transducer is embedded in this probe

to obtain time variant pressures, velocities and angles. These probes are to be used in multiple

positions to obtain three dimensional flow measurements. The probe, V4S uses two probes of

similar geometry, one at a tap angle of 0O and other at a tap angle of -30O. The probe with tap

angle of 0O is used in three positions and the probe with tap angle of -30O is used one position.

These positions correspond to centre, left, right and bottom holes of a cantilevered hemispherical

four hole probe. Using the pressures measured from these two probes, flow field of a three

dimensional flow can be determined. The probe, V5S uses one probe of hemispherical

cantilevered design with a tap angle of 0O. The probe is used at five yaw angles, 0, + 18O and +

48O corresponding to centre, left, right and bottom holes of a five hole probe. These probes and

measurement methods are described in detail in Pfau et al. (3) and Schlienger et al. (4)

respectively. The V4S probe is further modified by including a second sensor sensitive of pitch

angle variation of the flow on the inclined surface of the probe head by Porreca et al. (5). This

probe is named 2S-FRAP (Two Sensor Fast Response Aerodynamic Probe). Limited

2

comparison is made for the measurement accuracies of the three probes. Hence there is a need to

make a comprehensive comparison of the performance of these probes. Suresh and Sitaram (2)

had calibrated cantilevered hemispherical four hole probe of 2.54 mm diameter in the calibration

range of + 60O and -50O to 30O in yaw and pitch plane respectively. The calibration data of this

probe is utilised to use it as a four hole probe, a two hole probe in three positions (similar to the

virtual four hole probe, V4S) and a single hole probe in five positions (similar to the virtual five

hole probe, V5S) to determine their strengths and weaknesses, application range and

applications. This is the objective of the present paper.

The four-hole probe used in the present investigation is fabricated using a stainless steel tube of 2.54

mm diameter to which a probe head of 2.54 mm diameter and 8 mm length is silver brazed. Figure 1

shows the three orthogonal views of the probe head. The design and fabrication details of the probe

were described in detail in Suresh and Sitaram (2) and are not given here for the sake of brevity.

4

ho

3h

le

s

15

ole

di

s

R1.

dia

0.

27 A

0.4 1.

3

B

5 R

P2 .8

R0

50°

C P2 C

R 0.5

P4

P1

P4 P1

50°

P3 P3

0.514 0.

3 B

A

0.5

Section A-A 8

Section B-B 6.74

R 6.44

1.2 4

7

dia 2.54

dia 2.3

Four hole probe head (2.54 mm, 0.1 " Dia.)

Material: Stainless Steel

All dimensions in mm

Scale 10:1

0.3

0.

2

45° 0.884

Probe Head Section C-C

Figure 1. Orthogonal views of the four-hole pressure probe head and schematic of the probe (From Suresh and Sitaram, 2016)

The four-hole probe was calibrated in an open-jet, low speed calibration tunnel facility (100 mm

nozzle exit diameter) of Turbomachines Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, IIT

Madras at a velocity of 60 m/s in the yaw and pitch angle range of -60O to 60O and -50O to 30O at

an interval of 5O. The details of the calibration tunnel and calibration method were described in detail

in Suresh and Sitaram (2) and are not given here for the sake of brevity. The paper also presents

sample calibration data to verify the data obtained is correct and follows the expected trends.

3

4. DEFINITION OF CALIBRATION COEFFICIENTS OF ONE, TWO AND FOUR

HOLE PROBES

The calibration data of the probe are used in the following modes:

1 Four hole probe using all holes, (similar to the method of Schlienger, 1 and Suresh and

Sitaram, 2).

2 Two hole probe using the bottom and center holes (similar to virtual the four hole probe of

Pfau et al., 4).

3 Single hole probe using the center hole, (similar to virtual the five hole probe of Schlienger

et al., 3).

The definition of the calibration coefficients for the three probes is presented in Table 1 given

below. For each of the probe, the pressures corresponding to centre, left, right, bottom and top (PC,

PL, PR, PB and PT) holes as used in a five hole probe are identified from the measured pressures,

P1, P2, P3 and P4 corresponding to the centre, left, right and bottom holes of the four hole probe.

This approach is taken instead of using different probes, to avoid the effect of fabrication

inaccuracies on the comparison of the probe performance. The definition for the calibration

coefficients of the single hole probe differ from those of V5S probe in the following ways:

1 For V5S probe, peak pressure, Pk instead of PC is used in the definition of calibration

coefficients. The value of Pk is obtained by curve fitting PC vs. . For the single hole probe, the

value of PC is used in the definition of calibration coefficients. It is found from the curve fitting

that the value of Pk is almost equal to the value of PC and occurs close to zero yaw angle.

2 The single hole probe is used at five yaw angles, 0, + 15O and + 45O instead of at five yaw

angles, 0, + 18O and + 48O used by the V5S probe, corresponding to centre, left, right and

bottom holes of a five hole probe. The probe is calibrated at a yaw angle interval of 5O.

Hence the pressure data at the five yaw angles, 0, + 15O and + 45O is chosen for the

definition of calibration coefficients.

Further the shape of the head of the two hole probe is hemispherical instead of a 45O slanted

shape of the of 2SFRAP. This shape has the advantage of reduced distance of 0.884 mm (0.35

times the probe head diameter) between the two holes for the probe head of 2.54 mm diameter

compared to 2.2 mm (1.22 times the probe head diameter) distance between the two sensors of

2SFRAP of 1.8 mm diameter probe head. Hence the two hole probe has reduced spatial errors.

This is very important in highly sheared flows such as boundary layers. Schlienger (1) used a

semi elliptical head with major to minor axes of 2 for the four hole probe, whereas the present

four hole probe has hemi spherical head. The distance between the centre and pitch holes is 1

mm (0.63 times the probe head diameter) for a probe head of 1.2 mm diameter.

4

Table 1 Definition of calibration coefficients

Probe Model Four Hole Probe Two Hole Probe Single Hole Probe

PC P1 P1 P1

PL P2 P1 (-40O) P1 (-45O)

PR P3 P1 (+40O) P1 (+45O)

PB P4 P4 P1 (-20O)

PT - - P1 (+20O)

D PC-(PL+PR)/2 PC-(PL+PR)/2 -

Q PO PO PO

CPYAW (PL-PR)/D (PL-PR)/D (PL-PR)/[PC-(PL+PR)/2]

CPPITCH (PC-PB)/D (PC-PB)/D [PC-(PL+PR)/2]/[PC-(PB+PT)/2]

CPSTATIC [(PL+PR)/2-PS]/Q=(PL+PR)/2PO [(PL+PR)/2-PS]/Q=(PL+PR)/2PO PO/[PC-(PL+PR)/2]

CPTOTAL (PO-PC)/Q=1-PC/PO (PO-PC)/Q=1-PC/PO (PO-PC)/[PC-(PL+PR) /2]

HOLE PROBES

The calibration curves for the three probes are presented in Figs. 2 to 4. They are presented as

follows for the four hole and two hole probes:

1 CPPITCH vs. CPYAW curves for various values of yaw and pitch angles. The calibration curves

are presented in intervals of 10O instead of 5O for the sake of clarity.

2 Contours of CPTOTAL and CPSTATIC with CPPITCH and CPYAW on X and Y-axes.

For the four and two hole probes, the yaw and pitch angle ranges are + 20O and -50O to 30O. For the

four hole probe, calibration curves in the extended yaw angle range of + 60O by Suresh and Sitaram

(2) using zonal method. While it is possible to extend the yaw angle for the two hole probe, it is

not attempted here as the calibration of the probe was carried out in the yaw angle range of + 60O

only. The data upto + 60O are required to generate calibration coefficients upto + 20O. Furthermore

the probe can always rotated so that the yaw angle to be measured is within + 15O.

2

o

CPTOTAL CPSTATIC

o =-20o 20

=30 o

0.6 -0.2

-10 0o -10

o

o

20 -0.3

-0.4

CPPITCH

0.5 0.4

o

10 -0.6 -0.5

o

o

10 0.3

0 0.2 0.1 -0.5

o

-10 0.2

o -0.5

0 -20

o 0.2 -0.4

-30 0.3

0.4

o 0.5 -0.3

-40 0.6

0.7

o

-50

-2

-2 0 -2 0 -2 0 2

CPYAW

Figure 2. Calibration curves of four-hole probe (Modified from Suresh and Sitaram, 2016)

5

O

==-20O -20 CPTOTAL 0.7

CPSTATIC

2 O

-0.04

30

O

O O 10 0.6

O -10 0

20

-0.08

-0.08

CPPITCH

O

10 0.2 -0.08

O -0.04

0 0.1

O 0.3 0.04

-10

0 -20

O 0.12

O

-30

0.08

O 0.4 0.00

-40 0.2 0.5

O

0.7 -0.08 -0.08

-50

-2 0.8

-2 0 2 -2 0

CPYAW 2 -2 0 2

For the single hole probe, the calibration curves are presented as follows:

Contours of CPTOTAL, CPSTATIC, CPPITCH and CPYAW with yaw and pitch angles on X and Y-axes.

The yaw and pitch angle ranges are + 15O and -50O to 30O respectively. While it is possible to

extend the yaw angle for the two hole probe, it is not attempted here as the calibration of the

probe was carried out in the yaw angle range of + 60O only. Furthermore the probe can always

rotated so that the yaw angle to be measured is within + 15O.

-1.0 -0.7-0.4-0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.7 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

30

1.6 1.6 0.8 1.0

4.2 1.8

4.4 1.4

4.2 0.8

0.8 1.2

4.0 0.6

0.4

10 0.2

-0.4

C CPSTATIC

Pitch Angle, (Deg.)

CPYAW 4.6

5.2PPITCH CPTOTAL

-0.1

-1.0 0.0

1.4 5.0

5.6 4.2

5.8

1.1 1.0

-0.7

5.4 4.4

-30 0.2

0.5 4.8 1.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

1.4

1.6 1.0

0.8

1.8

4.8 4.64.6 1.2 1.6

-50 2.0 2.2 2.4 1.4

-15 -5 5 15 -5 5 15 -5 5 15 -5 5 15

Yaw Angle, (Deg.)

Figure 4. Calibration curves of the single-hole probe

6

Comparison of calibration curves for the four and two hole probes shows that the two hole probe

has larger range of both CPYAW and CPPITCH. One would expect nearly same range for both

probes. The most probable reason is that the left and right holes of the four hole probe are drilled

at 50O, while pressures measured the centre hole at + 45O are used for left and right pressures for

the two hole probe. Recent investigations by Sitaram and Srikanth (6) had shown that small

chamfer angle gave larger operating range for a five hole probe. Curves of CPPITCH with CPYAW

and contours of CPTOTAL and CPSTATIC are almost symmetrical with CPPITCH for the two hole

probe, while this is not the case for the four hole probe. The probable reason is inaccuracy in the

drilling of left and right holes. For two hole probe, pressures measured the centre hole at + 45O

are used in the calculation of the calibration coefficients. For the single hole probe, the yaw

coefficient is almost symmetrical about yaw angle.

COEFFICIENTS OF ONE, TWO AND FOUR HOLE PROBES

The sensitivity coefficients of the calibration coefficients for the three probes are defined as follows:

Cp(i1) Cp(i1)

ΔCpi

Angle (i 1) Angle (i 1)

Where Cpi is any calibration coefficient at a yaw or pitch angle, i. The sensitivity coefficients for

the three probes are presented in Fig. 5 to 7 as follows:

1 Sensitivity coefficients of calibration coefficients, CPTOTAL, CPSTATIC, CPPITCH and CPYAW vs.

pitch angle for different yaw angles.

2 Sensitivity coefficients of calibration coefficients, CPTOTAL, CPSTATIC, CPPITCH and CPYAW vs.

yaw angle for different pitch angles.

From the sensitivity curves, it can be seen that the sensitivity of the calibration coefficients,

other than the pitch coefficient for the two hole probe has a larger value compared to that for the

single and four hole probes. However the single hole probe has a lower value of sensitivity of

the pitch coefficient, as expected. But still the single hole probe can be used for a large range of

pitch angle (-50O to 30O). The lower yaw angle range is not critical as the probe can always be

rotated about the yaw angle, when the yaw angle exceeds + 15O.

7

0.02

-0.04

-0.02

CPYAW

CPYAW

0.04

CPPITCH

-50O

CPPITCH

-30O

-10O

0.00

10O

-0.06 0.02 30O

-0.04

-20O 0.02

0.02

-10O

-0.02 0O

CPTOTAL

10O

-0.08

30O -0.06 0.00

CPTOTAL

CPSTATIC

0.02

CPSTATIC

-0.02

-0.02

-50 -10 30 -0.02-50 -10 30 -0.02

Pitch Angle, (Deg.) Pitch Angle, (Deg.) 0.00

-0.02 -0.04

-20 0 20 -20 0 20

Yaw Angle, (Deg.) Yaw Angle, (Deg.)

Figure 5. Sensitivity curves of calibration coefficients of the four-hole probe

0.01 -0.08

-0.02

CPYAW

-50O

0.04

-30O

0.02 -10O

CPPITCH

-0.10

-0.01 10O

CPSTATIC

-0.04

CPYAW

30O

CPPITCH

0.02

0.00 -0.12

-0.06

0.00

(Deg.)

O

-20

O -0.14 0.00

0.01 -0.02 -10

O

0

-0.02

CTOTAL

-0.08 O

10

CPTOTAL

O

20

0.01 -0.02

-0.01 -0.04

-50 -30 -10 10 30 -50 -30 -10 10 30

Pitch Angle, (Deg.)

CPSTATIC

-0.01 -0.06

-20 0 20 -20 0 20

Yaw Angle, (Deg.) Yaw Angle, (Deg.)

Figure 6. Sensitivity curves of calibration coefficients of the two-hole probe

0.04

0.05 -50

O

0.01

CPPITCH

-0.08 O

-30

CPYAW

CPSTATIC

O

CPYAW

-10

O

10

O

0.00 -0.12 30

0.00

-0.01

O

0.1

-15

0.1 -5

O

O

5

O

-0.05 15

CPPITCH

0.1

CPSTATIC

0.0

-0.10

-0.01

CPTOTAL

CPTOTAL

0.0

0.0

-0.1

-0.06

-15 -5 5 15 -15 -5 5 15

Yaw Angle, (Deg.)

-50 -30 -10 10 30 -50 -30 -10 10 30 Yaw Angle, (Deg.)

Pitch Angle, (Deg.) Pitch Angle, (Deg.)

Figure 7. Sensitivity curves of calibration coefficients of the single-hole probe

8

7. CONCLUSIONS

From the present investigation carried out on the comparison of single, two and four hole probes

for three dimensional flow measurements, the following conclusions are drawn.

1 The performance of the single and two hole probes is comparable to that of the four hole

probe. While the four hole probe requires less time to acquire measurement data, the single

and two hole probes require about 2-3 times more time to acquire the same amount of

measurement data. This is not a major constraint as the data acquisition system can be

completely automated. In fact by utilizing flow adaptive traversing of the aerodynamic

probes developed by Lenherr et al. (7) and Bartsch et al. (8) the time required for data

acquisition by the single and two hole probes can be further reduced.

2 The single and two hole probes have the advantage of smaller size when fast response

pressure transducers are embedded in the probe compared to the four hole probe. This is a

major advantage for measuring time dependent flows.

REFERENCES

1 J. P. Schlienger, Evolution of unsteady secondary flows in a multistage shrouded axial turbine, ETH No. 15230, Ph.D.

Dissertation, ETH, Zurich, Switzerland, 2003.

2 Suresh Munivenkatareddy and Nekkanti Sitaram, “Extended Calibration Technique of a Four-Hole Probe for Three-

Dimensional Flow Measurements”, International Journal of Rotating Machinery Volume 2016, Article ID 5327296, 12

pages, http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/5327297.

3 J. Schlienger, A. Pfau, A.I. Kalfas, and R. S. Abhari, “Single Pressure Transducer Probe for 3d Flow Measurements”, Proc.

of The 16th Symposium on Measuring Techniques in Transonic and Supersonic Flow in Cascades and Turbomachines,

September 2002, Cambridge, UK.

4 A. Pfau, J. Schlienger, A.I. Kalfas, and R. S. Abhari, “Virtual Four Sensor Fast Response Aerodynamic Probe (FRAP®)”,

Proc. of The 16th Symposium on Measuring Techniques in Transonic and Supersonic Flow in Cascades and

Turbomachines, September 2002, Cambridge, UK.

5 Luca Porreca, Marc Hollenstein, Anestis I. Kalfas, and Reza S. Abhari, “Turbulence Measurements and Analysis in a

Multistage Axial Turbine”, Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 227-234, Jan.–Feb. 2007.

6 Nekkanti Sitaram and Kancherla Srikanth, “Effect of Chamfer Angle on the Calibration Curves of Five Hole Probes”,

International Journal of Rotating Machinery, Vol. 2014, Article ID704315, 10 pages, http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/704315.

7 C Lenherr, A I Kalfas and R S Abhari, “A flow adaptive aerodynamic probe concept for turbomachinery”, Measurement

Science and Technology, Volume 18, Number 8, pp. 2599-2608, 2007.

8 Christian Bartsch, Magnus Holle, Peter Jeschke and Timo Metzler, “Quasi Two-Dimensional Flow-Adaptive Algorithm for

Pneumatic Probe Measurements”, Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, Vol. 139, pp. 071011-1 to

071011-10, July 2017.

- Pitch Control of an Aircraft Using Artificial IntelligenceUploaded bySCIENCEDOMAIN_STAFF
- Build Your Own DroneUploaded byHafiz Arqursoy
- litreature on AUV1Uploaded byyamraj86
- Control PartUploaded bymanikandan_murugaiah
- AUV Rendezvous Trajectories Generation for Underwater RecoveryUploaded byRuchit Pathak
- a-130814164705-phpapp02Uploaded bytricky777
- Wing Twist and DihedralUploaded bychirag
- Hi Alpha Basics PresUploaded bybring it on
- book.psUploaded byaravind kumar
- Introduction to KinematicsUploaded byRahul Kumar K
- Nptel 2018 BookletUploaded byAdhiraj C Choudhary
- 13751_FULLTEXTUploaded bychandran
- aerodynamics-of-hang-glider.pdfUploaded byNeetu Sharma
- Airbus Flight Control Laws.pdfUploaded byAshley John Pereira
- 28671Uploaded byShahid Ul Islam Alig
- Lateral Aerodynamic ParametersUploaded bylynda1025
- Aircraft IIUploaded byhggsd
- A02 Midwater Arch SystemsUploaded byJym Genson
- Design and Comparison of Robust Nonlinear Controllers for the Lateral Dynamics of Vehicles.pdfUploaded byRay Alejandro Lattarulo Arias
- Out 00001Uploaded bymohan chand mulpuri
- 20070005804Uploaded bydptirkey
- Admas RolloverUploaded byUtkarsh Singh
- Testing HiResUploaded bypitillin
- 3D TransformationUploaded byvijay9994
- sdarticle(13)Uploaded byzeradmsk
- Flight Control Final Sem 6.pdfUploaded byAsylum Tsott
- 00463536 f de 85 Be 132000000Uploaded byPCezzz
- Self Study NAACUploaded by10aer007
- 1-s2.0-S0017931011005394-mainUploaded byFrancisco Opps
- E 907 - 96 _RTKWNW__.pdfUploaded byTuan Trinh Dinh

- Simplifying Rational Algebraic ExpressionsV3 (1)Uploaded byCarlo Dean Guilles
- Ancient Indian MathematicsUploaded byभारतीय संस्कृति
- Cycloids and PathsUploaded byJuanita Dominguez
- Non Linear Buckling Analysis of RC-SIFCON Column Subjected to Lateral and Axial LoadingUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Tikz TutorialUploaded bygilberto_san
- CS144 - 01 - Structure of SystemUploaded byXavier Valenzuela
- Properties of Pure SubstancesUploaded byUzair Chaudhary
- Tolerances - 1Uploaded byPrince Pham
- BUS 511 PresentationUploaded byAfzal Hossain Riaz
- What Makes a Good Diagram? Improving the Cognitive Effectiveness of Diagrams in IS DevelopmentUploaded bysmosmoroulis
- 2007 Batch ArrearUploaded byBewic John
- DTFT Tables DetailedUploaded byFarhan Saeed
- IJETR042197Uploaded byerpublication
- Merged DocumentUploaded byAshokAbi
- An Introduction to the Theory of StatisticsUploaded byRahul Biswas
- K Amadori On Conceptual Aircraft DesignUploaded byIván Spielman
- ULTIMATE 5 Cyl Plenum Design SummaryUploaded byinfo6276
- Applet ExamplesUploaded byManoj Kavedia
- A Friendly Mathematics Competition - 35 Years of Teamwork in Indiana [Gillman] 0883858088.pdfUploaded byAliBenMessaoud
- Harmonic FunctionsUploaded byacroxmass
- Alp19.1 ManualUploaded byJorge Gtz
- ADAM-6022 Manual.pdfUploaded bybrctln
- homework 2Uploaded byapi-315569462
- Control Systems KuestionUploaded byRose Kayo
- 7. Questions & Answers on MagnetosticsUploaded bykibrom atsbha
- Communication Protocols for W SeriesUploaded byNguyen Danh Huy
- engineering math2Uploaded byAbdullah Yasir Altınyüzük
- IJDE_V2_I3Uploaded byAI Coordinator - CSC Journals
- FeedFowradNet Image CompressionUploaded bysophiaR
- International Refereed Journal of Engineering and Science (IRJES)Uploaded bywww.irjes.com