Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

329 views

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- 03 Part2 Charging and Discharging Rigid
- ME2135E Fluid Mechanics Lab -2 Flow Past an Aerofoil
- Subsonic Airfoils and Wings
- lattttice_boltzmann
- DRAG FORCE EXPERIMENT
- Heat transfer – a review of 2000 literature
- Rr210106 Fluid Mechanics
- CONTROL VALVE SIZING.pdf
- Flow Past a Rotating Circular Grooved Cylinder
- Buzuzi PHD 2011
- Prowirl 72 73 F W Data Sheet
- FlowLabEOC2e_CH11.pdf
- moreau
- Two-Dimensional Numerical Simulation of the Combined Heat Transfer in Channel Flow
- Numerical solutions of 2-D steady incompressible flow over a backward-facing step, Part I: High Reynolds number solutions
- original work 1
- How Do Wings Work
- Civil_Syllabus and Scheme.pdf
- 27
- 3458750.pdf

You are on page 1of 19

Abstract

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) software was used to compare the performance of a handmade wind turbine blade with that of a conventional factory made model. The geometry was simplified to 2D aerofoils and the surrounding flow field was analysed at a Reynolds number of 80,000. It was found that the lift/drag characteristics of the two aerofoils across a range of angles of attack were virtually identical, meaning that the torque force exerted on the wind turbine blades would also be identical and therefore as would the power outputs of the two turbines. However, the simple model ignored a number of important issues, such as 3D effects and the influence of manufacturing quality on the idealised blade geometry. Further modelling and/or experimental validation work is needed to increase confidence in the quality of the results.

Table of Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 2 1 2 3 Introduction to Small Scale Wind Power .................................................................................... 3 Aims and Objectives .................................................................................................................. 3 Basic Aerodynamic Theory of Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines (HAWTs) ....................................... 4 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4 The Aerofoil ....................................................................................................................... 4 Lift and Drag, Thrust and Torque ........................................................................................ 5 Reynolds Number.............................................................................................................. 8 Boundary Layers................................................................................................................. 9 Stall.................................................................................................................................... 9 Aerofoil Geometry ........................................................................................................... 10

Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) ............................................................... 11 4.1 4.2 The Modelling Process ..................................................................................................... 11 CFD for Wind Turbine Analysis ......................................................................................... 12

Building the Model .................................................................................................................. 12 5.1 5.2 5.3 Modelling Software .......................................................................................................... 12 Modelling Strategy ........................................................................................................... 12 Aerofoil Geometry ........................................................................................................... 13 2D Modelling Domain ............................................................................................... 13 Turbulence Model .................................................................................................... 14

5.3.1 5.3.2 6 7 8 9 10

Small scale wind turbines can be used to provide power to remote areas of the developing world that are far away from any existing electrical grid system. The electricity they supply can be used to provide light in the mornings and evenings which can allow children to study and further their opportunities in later life or adults to continue working and provide that little bit of extra income for their families that could allow them to work their way out of poverty. Unfortunately, at a cost of thousands of pounds, factory built small scale wind turbines are expensive, even for reasonably well off citizens of the developed world. Families in the developing world living below the poverty line often have to survive on less than $US 1 (~70p) [3] per day, keeping these potentially revolutionary machines way out of their reach. However, it is possible to build small scale wind turbines by hand, using basic workshop tools and techniques. Designs for such machines are freely available as open source documents on the internet to Figure 1 - 1kW wind turbine installed in give people in the developing world access to the Tanzania [2] technology. Machines such as Hugh Piggotts [2] Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine (HAWT) shown in Figure 1 have been tried and tested throughout the developed and developing world and have proved an invaluable aid to the remote communities in which they have been installed. At around 500, they cost a fraction of their factory made counterparts and consequently bring wind power within the reach of isolated small community groups in the developing world.

Piggotts design may be tried and tested, but has it been truly optimised? Obviously a compromise has been struck between performance, cost, durability and manufacturability, but is there a way to improve the performance of the machine without significantly affecting the other factors? This project aims to: Compare the performance of Piggotts wooden hand carved wind turbine blades with those of a conventional factory made turbine. Propose and evaluate appropriate techniques for improving the efficiency of Piggotts turbine blades.

Lift-based Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines (HAWTs) have today become the standard mechanism for harnessing the power in the wind and converting it into electricity. They evolved from the grain grinding drag-based windmills of yesteryear. As aeronautics took off during the last century with the commercialisation of aeroplane technology, more and more became known about wing technology. The threebladed wind turbines we see all around us today evolved from aircraft wing theory and are essentially three wings bolted onto a generator with a common central axis. They use lift from the oncoming wind to rotate themselves about this central axis, which points horizontally into the wind, Figure 2 - 2D Aerofoil section through a 3D lift-based HAWT blade hence the name HAWT. Vertical (Adapted from [1]) Axis Wind Turbines (VAWTs) are also used, but the higher efficiencies of HAWTs have made them the dominant technology in todays society.

LIFT

DRAG

An aerofoil (or airfoil in the USA) is a 2D shape capable of producing a reactive lift force when in motion relative to the surrounding air. Most commonly known as the cross-sectional profile of an aircrafts wing, Figure 2 shows how the 3D geometry of a lift-based HAWT blade also consists of a series of aerofoil profiles. Figure 3 gives an overview of the basic aerofoil terminology.

LEADING EDGE

THICKNESS

TRAILING EDGE

AIRFLOW

CHORD

Figure 3 Aerofoil terminology

The forces of lift and drag can be easily visualised by considering the force propelling two identical sailing boats with different types of sails. A boat equipped with a Spinnaker sail, as shown in Figure 4 will be pushed along in the direction of the wind by drag forces. However, a Bermuda rig sail will be pushed in a direction perpendicular to the wind due to the action of lift forces.

Figure 5 shows how the lift and drag forces are defined on an aerofoil as forces perpendicular and parallel to the airflow. As the air travels over the top of the aerofoil, it accelerates and consequently pressure decreases in this area. Lower pressure on the top of the aerofoil than the bottom creates a suction force called lift. Lift is the force that keeps aeroplanes in the sky. Drag on the other hand, acts in the same direction to the airflow and is generally considered a nuisance, as for example in an aeroplane, extra fuel must be used to overcome the drag forces. Drag forces arise mainly from

friction between the viscous fluid and the surface of the aerofoil (skin friction drag) and the difference in pressure between the leading and trailing edges of the aerofoil (form drag).

LIFT

RESULTANT FORCE

AIRFLOW

DRAG

When comparing different aerofoils, it is often more useful to look at lift and drag coefficients rather than the total lift and drag forces on acting on the aerofoil. Lift and drag coefficients are nondimensional numbers used to quantify the amount of lift or drag on a given aerofoil under a given set of flow conditions, e.g. Reynolds number or AoA. They can be defined as follows:

CL = Lift coefficient (dimensionless) CD = Drag coefficient (dimensionless) 3 = Fluid density (kg/m ) V = Velocity (m/s) 2 A = Area of blade (m ), for 2D aerofoil calculations a blade length of 1 is used and only the chord length (m) is required

It should be noted that in the context of a wind turbine, the airflow seen by the aerofoil is not equal to the oncoming wind velocity. Figure 6 illustrates how the airflow onto the aerofoil (the relative wind velocity) is a result of both the oncoming wind velocity and the airflow due to blade rotation.

AIRFLOW

Figure 6 Velocity triangle relating oncoming wind velocity and blade rotation to the relative velocity seen by an aerofoil section of a wind turbine blade

The Tip Speed Ratio (TSR) is a commonly used parameter in wind turbine design and relates the speed at which the blade tip is travelling (r) to the velocity of the oncoming wind:

TSR = Tip speed ratio (dimensionless) = Angular velocity of the turbine (Hz) r = Turbine radius (m), i.e. blade length V = Wind velocity (m/s)

When calculating the power output of a wind turbine, it is often more relevant to resolve the resultant aerodynamic force into torque and thrust rather than lift and drag. Torque is the useful force that causes the blades to rotate, whilst thrust is the redundant component that merely pushes against the tower. The power produced by a wind turbine can be calculated very simply as follows:

It can be clearly seen from Figure 7 that increasing the ratio of lift to drag will result in maximum torque.

TORQUE

AIRFLOW

DRAG

THRUST

TORQUE

TORQUE

THRUST THRUST

TORQUE

Figure 7 Aerodynamic forces on an aerofoil resolved as torque and thrust forces on a wind turbine (Adapted from [1])

Reynolds Number is a ratio of the inertial forces to the viscous forces acting within a fluid. It can be used to characterise flow types: for example laminar flow occurs at low Reynolds numbers, where viscous forces are dominant, and is characterised by smooth, constant fluid motion, while turbulent flow occurs at high Reynolds numbers and is dominated by inertial forces, which tend to produce random eddies, vortices and other flow instabilities. It can be calculated as follows:

Re = Reynolds number (dimensionless) 3 = Fluid density (kg/m ) V = Fluid velocity (m/s) L = Characteristic length (m), e.g. aerofoil chord length = Dynamic viscosity (kg/ms)

The boundary layer is a thin layer of fluid near the surface of an aerodynamic body which is affected by the friction between the surface of the body and the viscous fluid flowing around it. This friction results in the force of skin friction drag. The properties of the boundary layer depend on the Reynolds number of the overall flow and on the local conditions. The properties of the boundary layer around an aerofoil can be grouped together into three categories: Laminar flow at low Reynolds numbers layers of fluid slide smoothly over each other in a thin boundary layer resulting in low skin friction drag. The flow over an aerofoil will usually start off laminar before transitioning into turbulent as it travels away from the leading edge. The position of the transition point is dependent on Reynolds number and the localised flow conditions. Turbulent flow at higher Reynolds numbers, or after the transition point, the flow near the surface becomes unstable and the boundary layer thickens, leading to higher skin friction drag. Separated flow a high adverse pressure gradient occurring towards the trailing edge of the aerofoil can cause the flow to separate. Flow near the surface reverses direction and a large turbulent wake is created from swirling eddy currents that dramatically increases skin friction drag.

3.5 Stall

The lift force produced by a given aerofoil can be increased by raising the angle of attack (AoA), i.e. lifting the leading edge. At low AoAs, air flows smoothly over the aerofoil and lift increases linearly. Drag also increases, but not as rapidly as lift, resulting in an increased torque force and therefore

increased power output for the wind turbine. However, as the AoA increases further, the separation point (which previously had been nestled at the trailing edge, having little influence on the flow characteristics) jumps forward. Lift reaches a maximum at the stall angle and drag increases dramatically as the boundary layer becomes separated over the majority of the aerofoils upper surface. Beyond the stall angle, the large turbulent wake greatly reduces lift and as a result a wind turbine with stalled blades will become both noisy and inefficient.

X LIFT

X ANGLE OF ATTACK

Figure 9 The development of stall with increasing angle of attack and its effect on lift.

Aerofoils are used in a variety of applications, from jumbo jet wings to racing car spoilers to wind turbine blades. For each application, an optimised aerofoil geometry will have been selected to give to give maximum performance. Figure 10 depicts a number of conventional aerofoil geometries and their respective characteristics. In general, aerofoils with higher camber tend to give more lift and although thicker aerofoils have higher drag, they tend to maintain the same level of drag over a wider range of AoAs and therefore are more stable. For a wind turbine blade, a low speed aerofoil with high lift to drag ratio would be most desirable.

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is a powerful tool used to model the real life behaviour of fluids. It allows the optimisation of design parameters without the need for the costly testing of multiple prototypes. What is more, it is also a powerful graphical tool for visualising flow patterns that can give insight into flow physics that otherwise would be very difficult and costly to discover experimentally, if possible at all. Governing equations exist to model fluid behaviour, but it is not always possible to apply them to many of the complex flow patterns we see in the real world directly as there would be too many unknown variables. However, CFD involves creating a computational mesh to divide up real world continuous fluids into more manageable discrete sections. The governing equations for fluid flow can then be applied to each section individually, but as the properties of each section are inevitably linked to its neighbouring sections, all the sections can be solved simultaneously until a full solution for the entire flow field can be found. This method obviously requires a huge amount of computational power, nevertheless with the advancement of modern computing, solutions that would take months to compute by hand can now be found in seconds using nothing more than an ordinary desktop or laptop computer. As with everything, CFD is not without its limitations. Its accuracy or validity are dependent on a multitude of different factors: the quality and appropriateness of the mesh, the degree to which the chosen equations match the type of flow to be modelled, the interpretation of the results, the accuracy of the boundary conditions entered by the user or the level of convergence of the solution, to name but a few. Often it comes down to the skill of the user, as each flow problem will be slightly different and as a result, will require a slightly different modelling approach. However, experimental data can provide a valuable reference point with which to check the validity of CFD models.

The modelling process consists of first taking the real world fluid geometry and replicating this in the virtual environment. From here, a mesh can be created to divide the fluid up into discrete sections. Boundary conditions must then be entered into the model to designate parameters such as the type

of fluids to be modelled or the details of any solid edges or flow inlets/outlets. The simulation is then ready to be run and when a converged solution is found, it must be carefully analysed to establish whether the mesh is appropriately modelling the flow conditions. Generally, some form of mesh refinement will be necessary to put in further detail around the areas of interest.

CFD allows virtual experimentation with and consequently optimisation of the design parameters such as airfoil shape or angle of attack across a wide range of operating conditions. It is very attractive to industry as it saves both time and effort during the design process when compared alongside traditional experimental methods. However, the degree of confidence in the results is dependent on many factors and as a result; data should be compared with and validated against experimental findings wherever possible.

5.1 Modelling Software

The mesh generation programme Gambit version 2.2.30 was used in conjunction with the solver Fluent version 6.3.26 to perform the CFD analysis for this project.

A 2D model of an aerofoil section from the blade tip (Figure 12) was created, with the aim of calculating lift and drag data for the aerofoil at varying AoAs. This data can give an estimation of the relative performance of the modelled wind turbines. The aerofoil at the blade tip was chosen as this is the part of the blade that generates the most lift and therefore its performance is most critical to the overall power output of the turbine. Varying the AoA simulates the varying wind conditions that the turbine is likely to experience in service.

Figure 12 Cross-section of a wind turbine blade showing the 2D aerofoil section to be modelled (turquoise) and the airflow around it (red)

The NACA0012 aerofoil was modelled first, as the low Reynolds number experimental data necessary to validate the model is widely available for this aerofoil in the literature [5]. Once a satisfactory 2D model had been constructed, the aerofoil of a conventional HAWT blade (LS0413 [6]) and the aerofoil profile from the tip of the Piggott turbine blade would then be modelled and their performances compared. Figure 13 shows the geometries of the three aerofoils to be modelled. With reference to Figure 10, the NACA0012 aerofoil is a thin symmetric aerofoil, so zero lift at zero AoA would be expected. Both the LS01413 and Piggott aerofoils are cambered and as a result, some lift would be predicted even at zero AoA. The Piggott aerofoil resembles the high speed, low drag aerofoil at the top of Figure 10; however this does not correlate well with the low speed application of a wind turbine. As a result, the performance of the LS0413 aerofoil is expected to be superior to the Piggott aerofoil in the context of wind turbine blades. Specifically, whilst the Piggott aerofoil may be expected to have lower drag, the LS0413 aerofoil would be expected to create far more lift, resulting in a much higher thrust force to drive the wind turbine.

Figure 13 Geometry of the standard NACA0012 aerofoil (top left), conventional wind turbine blade tip LS0413 aerofoil (top right) and the Piggott turbine blade tip aerofoil (bottom)

In order to accurately simulate free-stream conditions, a far-field boundary was used at a distance of at least 12 chord lengths [7] from the aerofoil surface to create the control volume for the analysis.

To model varying AoAs, the free-stream airflow was rotated, whilst the aerofoil remained horizontal. A wind velocity of 4.5m/s with a TSR of 5.5 was used, giving an inlet velocity of 25.155m/s. As the geometry was relatively simple, a structured quadrilateral mesh was used to maximise the accuracy of the model.

FAR-FIELD BOUNDARY

AIRFLOW

AEROFOIL

A number of different turbulence models were suitable candidates for modelling the flow over a 2D aerofoil. The k- RNG and k- SST models are both popular choices, however during preliminary modelling it was found that the S-A (Spalart-Allmaras) model most accurately predicted the lift and drag characteristics of the NACA0012 aerofoil. The S-A model was designed specifically for lowReynolds number aerospace calculations and has been shown to give good results when simulating boundary layers subjected to adverse pressure gradients [8]. Figure 15 shows how the k- RNG and S-A models both gave fairly similar predictions of for the lift coefficient up until the stall angle. Due

to the turbulent nature of the physical flow conditions that are being modelled close to and beyond the stall angle, complex time-varying simulations would be required to correctly simulate this behaviour. As a result, the data obtained from this simple steady-state model in this region cannot be considered reliable. With regards to the drag coefficient, Figure 15 clearly demonstrates that the S-A model gives a far better match to the experimental data. As a result, it was decided to use the SA turbulence model for the main analysis.

Experimental, Re=160,000 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 5 10 Angle of Attack 15 20 k-E RNG, Re=80,000 S-A, Re=80,000

Lift Coefficient

k-E RNG, Re=80,000 0.35 0.3 Drag Coefficient 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Experimental, Re=160,000 S-A, Re=80,000

Angle of Attack

Figure 15 - Comparison of k- RNG and S-A turbulence models for the NACA0012 aerofoil for validation against low Reynolds number experimental data

As previously mentioned, accurately modelling the boundary layer is critical for successfully predicting the drag on an aerofoil. It is necessary to have sufficient mesh in the area adjacent to the aerofoil surface to accurately resolve the rapidly spatially varying fluid properties within this region. In order to establish the validity of the model within the boundary layer, a mesh independence study was carried out. This involved doubling the resolution of the mesh in the region closet to the aerofoil surface and re-running the model to see the impact on the parameters of interest, in this case, lift and drag. This is an iterative process and the model is said to be mesh independent when the parameters of interest no longer change between iterations. Throughout the process, y+ values around the aerofoil were monitored. y+ is a non-dimensional measure of the height of the cell adjacent to the aerofoil surface against the height of the boundary layer (and other turbulence parameters) and is an indicator of how accurately the boundary layer is being modelled. After successfully conducting the mesh independence study, the y+ values were found to be 1.4 or below (when using the S-A turbulence model, it is recommended that the values of y+ around the aerofoil are around 1 or below [8]). Figure 16 graphically demonstrates the ability of the refined model to resolve the boundary layer sufficiently. Each arrow on the illustration begins in the centre of an individual cell and it is clear to see that the higher cell density close to the aerofoil surface allows the correct velocity profile (as seen in Figure 8) to be resolved.

Figure 16 Vector plot showing the development of the boundary layer around the aerofoil. Colours and arrow length represent the magnitude of the velocity with arrow direction representing the direction.

6 Results

Using the validated model, simulations were run of the conventional wind turbine blade tip aerofoil (LS0413) alongside the Piggott turbine blade tip aerofoil. The angle of attack was varied between 0 and 15 at a Reynolds number of 80,000. Figure 17 displays the lift and drag coefficient data for both aerofoils.

Conventional Wind Turbine Blade Tip (LS01413) 1.4 1.2 1.0 Lift Coefficient 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Piggott Turbine Blade Tip

Conventional Wind Turbine Blade Tip (LS0413) 0.18 0.16 0.14 Drag Coefficient 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Piggott Turbine Blade Tip

7 Analysis

Figure 17 clearly indicates that the performance of the two wind turbine blade tip aerofoils is virtually identical. This result is highly unexpected as the geometries of the two aerofoils are very different. This would seem to suggest that wind turbines using either of these profiles would produce similar amounts of power. The Piggott aerofoil is a far simpler shape to manufacture, as the lower surface is effectively a flat surface and therefore it is a far more appropriate design for lowcost hand manufacturing as virtually no performance is sacrificed.

8 Evaluation

Although the Piggott aerofoil may seem to have an identical performance to the conventional LS0413 aerofoil, the model used was very simple and a number of factors that will influence the performance of a wind turbine blade in real life were not included, for example:

3D effects Real wind turbine blades are both twisted and tapered and encounter increasing relative wind speeds towards the tip due to the rotation of the blade. Vortices are also created at the ends of the blades due to the difference in pressure between the upper and lower surfaces of the aerofoil. In order to correctly model the geometry of a wind turbine blade, a 3D model would need to be built. Transition point The point along the surface of the aerofoil at which the flow transitions from laminar to turbulent is of critical importance to determining the drag on the aerofoil. To date, no computational techniques are capable of predicting the location of this point and experimental measurements must be taken to determine its location. As a result, the entire boundary layer was modelled as turbulent and the drag is likely to be an overprediction. Idealised geometry The wind turbine blade tips were modelled as ideal aerofoil geometries, however this would not be the case in the real world. In particular, a hand-made wind turbine blade is likely to be full of defects arising from poor manufacturing technique, especially at the tip where the size of the aerofoil relative to the size of the tools is smallest. These defects, although they may seem small, could have a critical impact on the aerofoils performance as they could trip the flow from laminar to turbulent and consequently increase drag. The surface roughness of the wind turbine blades was also not modelled, which could also similarly affect the drag. Accuracy of CFD As shown by Figure 15, the model still has a significant degree of inaccuracy, especially near and above the stall angle. Further modelling is required to increase the accuracy of the model, in particular unsteady simulations to more accurately determine performance around stall angle. Experimental validation Although the model was validated using the NACA0012 aerofoil, the flow physics may be slightly different around the two test aerofoils and as a result experimental data for these would give more confidence in the results.

9 Conclusion

Hugh Piggotts DIY wind turbine has been shown to have comparable performance to that of a conventional wind turbine. In the simplified model of the aerofoils at the blade tips, both exhibited virtually identical lift and drag characteristics, implying that the torque force exerted on the blades

and consequently the power produced by the turbine would also be identical. However, the simple model neglects many important factors such as 3D effects, geometric variations deriving from manufacturing defects and the location of the transition point. As a result, further modelling and/or experimental work is required to give more confidence in the results of this study.

10 References

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

How Stuff Works.com. Available: www.howstuffworks.com, Accessed 18th July 2010 H. Piggott. (2010, Scoraig Wind. Available: www.scoraigwind.com A. Doig, "Off-grid Electricity for Developing Countries," IEEE Review, pp. 25-28, 1999. 16th July). My Aviation Tutor. Available: http://myaviationtutor.com R. E. a. K. Sheldahl, P. C., "Aerodynamic Characteristics of Seven Airfoil Sections Through 180 Degrees Angle of Attack for Use in Aerodynamic Analysis of Vertical Axis Wind Turbines," Sandia National Laborotories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA1981. K. Kishinami, et al., "Theoretical and Experimental Study on the Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine," Elsevier, 2005. R. Bhaskaran. 1st July). Cornell Fluent Tutorials - Flow Over an Airfoil . Available: http://courses.cit.cornell.edu/fluent/airfoil/index.htm Fluent_Inc. (2005). Fluent 6.3.26 User Manual.

- 03 Part2 Charging and Discharging RigidUploaded byGunabalan Sellan
- ME2135E Fluid Mechanics Lab -2 Flow Past an AerofoilUploaded byLinShaodun
- Subsonic Airfoils and WingsUploaded bySaravana Kumar Lakshmanan
- lattttice_boltzmannUploaded byjbhappy11
- DRAG FORCE EXPERIMENTUploaded byRyshal Zeffrey
- Heat transfer – a review of 2000 literatureUploaded byAdinath Shirsat
- Rr210106 Fluid MechanicsUploaded bySrinivasa Rao G
- CONTROL VALVE SIZING.pdfUploaded byOutofbox
- Flow Past a Rotating Circular Grooved CylinderUploaded byInternational Journal of Advance Research, Ideas and Innovations in Technology (IJARIIT)
- Buzuzi PHD 2011Uploaded byMadhav Ch
- Prowirl 72 73 F W Data SheetUploaded byCarlos Javier Torrico Barrero
- FlowLabEOC2e_CH11.pdfUploaded byAravindha Bhat
- moreauUploaded byluisfm22
- Two-Dimensional Numerical Simulation of the Combined Heat Transfer in Channel FlowUploaded byAnonymous pKuPK3zU
- Numerical solutions of 2-D steady incompressible flow over a backward-facing step, Part I: High Reynolds number solutionsUploaded byMNirooei
- original work 1Uploaded byapi-303093249
- How Do Wings WorkUploaded byalbanso2002
- Civil_Syllabus and Scheme.pdfUploaded byUdaysingh Patil
- 27Uploaded bymohammed qasim
- 3458750.pdfUploaded byNikola Mijalić
- Advanced Technology and Aircraft TypesUploaded byAnkur Bansal
- SummaryUploaded byNindya Bestari
- Useful List for Matlab Command PreviewsUploaded byhemanth_aero78931
- Aerodynamic Heating of Ballistic Missile Including the Effects of GravityUploaded byJonas
- 2005 [Daniel Arking] Investigating the Small-Gap Limit in Taylor Couette FlowUploaded byTont Ekawuth
- Waveinduced Velocities Inside a Model Seagrass BedUploaded byGutierrez Acosta Raul
- 10255842%2E2015%2E1015527Uploaded byMohammed Al-Azawy
- s 002211205600007 xUploaded bySafaa Hameed Al Nasery
- cekkUploaded byIftitah Imawati

- Ship ManeuverabilityUploaded byEugenes Gumera
- Thrust Reversers.pdfUploaded bykuldeep
- Using FioSIM3 to Simulate Airfoil - Student ProjectUploaded byicetrap
- ManeuversUploaded byrid1988
- ME 570 - Dynamics of Aerospace Vehicles - Lateral_Directional Dynamics of Aerospace VehiclesUploaded byOğuzhan Köksal
- Tcds Beech 3Uploaded bysnappish1
- A 318Uploaded byPedro Casas Espinosa
- Cessna Model 182Q Skylane - Pilot's Operating Handbook and Flight Manual4Uploaded bymuya78
- JAR ATPL (5).pdfUploaded byMohamed Fariz
- [Schiffer] Nuclear Weapons of the United States - An Illustrated HistoryUploaded byEmilio Navarro
- f35_brochure_a11-34324e001Uploaded byyou would like to now
- Airbus Flight Control Laws.pdfUploaded byAshley John Pereira
- Pres4_Aerodynamics.pdfUploaded byjonthemes
- Contractors Flight and Ground Operations[1]Uploaded byMark A Charles
- Aoa 737ngx Groundwork Autoflight HandoutUploaded bygelliott7639
- Radio Telephony (CAAB)Uploaded byMoshiurRahman
- Longitudinal AutopilotUploaded bySyed Shoaib Farid
- ZeppelinNT LZ N07-100 Type Certificate - AS1CEUploaded byairshipworld
- ME6604 Gas Dynamics and Jet Propulsion 2 MarksUploaded byjamin2020
- VFR-Flight-Planner-Dax.pdfUploaded byr14N_hartanto
- ISRO Mars Mission MangalyanUploaded byRanjeet Kumar
- Dornier 328Jet AutoflightUploaded byMurat Görükmez
- Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine Working at Maximum Power Coefficient ContinuouslyUploaded byLiviu Mateescu
- NASA Facts F-15 B Aerodynamic Flight FacilityUploaded byBob Andrepont
- Space Engineering Question Bank 04.04.2018Uploaded bysanjay
- 295740168-Mel-boeing-767.pdfUploaded byEddy Jhet
- Blackwell.S11Uploaded byelnmanea
- Bottle Rockets; To infinity and beyond!Uploaded bydavid_acadecap4725
- airlawUploaded byIludiran Kola
- [VJC-A320] QUESTION.pdfUploaded bymiew