161 views

Uploaded by SOROUSH

LNG vapor dispersion from atmospheric relief valve

- 05 Neutron Transport Equation
- A Brief Introduction to Hydrocode Modeling of Impact Cratering
- Monte Carlo Simulation Methods Lecture Notes
- Markov Chain Monte Carlo Solution of Poisson’s Equation
- Flue Gas Dispersion Model Study
- Sph Manual
- G I Taylor and the Trinity Test
- Atomic or Nuclear Models
- A 035268
- Prediction of Wind and Current Loads on Vlccs
- AUTODYN Euler Blast Solver
- hydrocode
- Atmospheric Dispersion Analysis
- Beginner's Guide
- Libby Radioactive Fallout 1957
- ANSYS AUTODYN- Chapter 9: Material Models
- ans_elem
- Mooring Hands Calcs
- LNG Cargo Operating Manual
- Paper Autodyn Blast Urban 3d Remaps

You are on page 1of 22

Main author

Jung Hyun, Yoon

HYUNDAI ENGINEERING CO., LTD.

KOREA

jhyoon@hec.co.kr

Co-author

Jung Chul, Ha

HYUNDAI ENGINEERING CO., LTD.

KOREA

jcha@hec.co.kr

Ju Chul, Park

HYUNDAI ENGINEERING CO., LTD.

KOREA

dicapark80@hec.co.kr

Page 2 of 22

1.

ABSTRACT

LNG vapor (or Boil-Off Gas) control is a major concern in LNG receiving

terminal design. The BOG generation cannot be prevented but it can be

minimized and recondensed by a BOG treatment system which will reduce the

LNG loss to atmosphere or flare.

Discharge of the flammable BOG to atmosphere is not recommended for safety

reason. BOG is generated during normal operation and instead of venting it can

be recovered in the BOG treatment system composed of BOG compressors and

a recondenser.

During abnormal or emergency operation, BOG can be produced excessively

which may exceed the capacity of the BOG treatment system in which case the

BOG can be partially vented out to the flare. Atmospheric relief valves are

installed on LNG storage tanks and vaporizers for venting the BOG to

atmosphere in case of such abnormal operation or emergency.

The BOG vented to atmosphere is flammable and it can linger around the LNG

terminal which presents potential explosion hazard. Flammable gas dispersion

modeling has been used to evaluate the safety distance from the potential

source of ignition to the point of BOG release in LNG receiving terminal

This paper evaluates the required minimum safety distance from the ignition

source and point of relief valve for the Incheon LNG Receiving Terminal in

Korea by using PHAST program and manual calculation.

Page 3 of 22

CONTENTS

1.

Abstract ................................................................................................. 2

2.

Introduction........................................................................................... 4

3.

3.1.

3.2.

4.

4.1.

4.2.

4.3.

4.4.

5.

5.1.

5.2.

6.

6.1.

6.2.

STEP 2: Calculation of Concentration for Dispersed Gas (Gaussian Plume Model) ...... 16

6.3.

7.

Conclusion............................................................................................ 20

8.

Reference............................................................................................. 21

9.

List of Tables........................................................................................ 21

10.

Page 4 of 22

2.

INTRODUCTION

Incheon LNG Receiving Terminal has been built to send out 3,330 ton per

hour of natural gas in Korea. It has 18 LNG storage tanks, several HP

pumps and vaporizers. Nowadays, Phase II-4 expansion is under

construction with 2 inground tanks to meet the increased demand. In the

LNG terminal, pressure relief valves have been installed to protect the

equipment or piping from abnormal pressure build-up.

Generally, atmospheric vapor release is not recommended as it may create

flammable condition. Therefore most of the relief valve discharges are

connected to a flare system. In Incheon LNG Receiving Terminal, a flare

with a capacity of 140 ton per hour is in operation. However, atmospheric

vapor release is provided as the means in preventing any catastrophic

failure of the LNG tank when relief load exceeds the designed flare

capacity. Atmospheric PSV on LNG storage tank and on discharge line of

vaporizer can release flammable gas to the atmosphere which can cause

explosion or fire when it is ignited. Therefore, sufficient safety distance

should be secured between the relief valve and source of ignition, or the

ignition source should be eliminated from the beginning of the design

stage.

3.

DISPERSION STUDY

3.1.

LNG storage tank is equipped with low-pressure intank pumps for storing

and sending out the LNG. If the excessive BOG causes the increase the

internal pressure of tank to build, it is released to the flare stack or

atmosphere through a Pressure Relief Valve. According to the data of LNG

storage tank manufacturer, the maximum generation of BOG in the

200,000 m3 LNG tank of capacity is estimated to be about 66 ton/hr. As a

safety measure, when the pressure of the tank builds up to 265 mbarg,

BOG is released to the flare at a rate of 30 ton/hr. When the pressure

exceeds 290 mbarg, the BOG is released to the atmosphere at a rate of 40

ton/hr

3.2.

PSV on Vaporizer

LNG is sent out from the storage tank through a low-pressure intank

pump, and then it is pressurized by a high pressure pump. The pressurized

LNG is then sent to Vaporizer. High pressure atmospheric relief valve, sized

for block out case, is installed on the discharge pipe of each vaporizer.

Therefore, the capacity of each PSV should be same as that of vaporizer.

Two PSVs are installed on each vaporizer; one is operational and the other

one, stand-by. The PSV should be located at a safe location considering the

dispersion of the relief gas.

Page 5 of 22

4.

STUDY BASIS

4.1.

Dispersion Scenario

BOG release to the atmosphere has been studied for the following two

cases.

1) PSV on LNG Storage

Two pilot type PSVs (1 Operation + 1 Stand-by) are installed on LNG

storage tank. When the BOG compressor system fails, the excessive BOG

will be released through the PSV to the atmosphere at a rate of 40,794

kg/hr when the internal pressure reaches 290 mbarg. The PSV size is 10

inch for inlet and 14 inch for outlet.

2) PSV on Vaporizer

Two pilot type PSVs (1 Operation + 1 Stand-by) are installed on the

Vaporizer. Their setting pressure is 125.2 barg and the required relieving

rate is 99,000 kg/hr. The PSV size is 4 inch for inlet and 6 inch for outlet.

4.2.

Dispersion Calculation

Vapor dispersion is calculated in two ways; 1) Using PHAST 6.53 of DNV 2)

Manual calculation. PHAST simulation program is used worldwide for

Consequence Analysis which can estimate the consequences of release of

toxic or flammable materials. The model includes accidental releases from

catastrophic ruptures, leaks, line ruptures, relief valves and rupture disks.

4.3.

Weather Condition

Weather condition of this study is based on the project design data of the

Incheon LNG Receiving Terminal. According to the design data, average

wind velocity of the terminal location is 3.7m/s and prevailing direction is

NW or WNW. The air temperature is 35.2 C maximum, and -19 C

minimum with annual mean temperature of 11.4 C. The relative humidity

is 70%.

Page 6 of 22

4.4.

LNG Composition

The following table is a typical composition of natural gas handled in

Incheon LNG Terminal. However in this modeling, to simplify the

simulation, it is assumed that vapor to be released is 100% methane.

Table 1.

5.

LNG Composition

Component

Unit Molecular

Weight

Composition

Methane

16.043

88.3371

14.172

Ethane

30.069

9.5239

2.864

Propane

44.096

1.5434

0.680

i-Butane

58.123

0.2517

0.146

n-Butane

58.123

0.3346

0.195

Nitrogen

28.013

0.0093

0.003

Total

(mol%)

100.0000

MW (kg/kg-mol)

18.060

The dispersion calculations show estimated areas affected by the LNG

vapor dispersion and also the forecasted average vapor concentrations.

The simplest calculations require an estimate of the release rate of the gas,

atmospheric conditions, surface roughness, temperatures, pressures and

release diameters.

Weather conditions at the time of the PSV release have a major effect on

the extent of dispersion. The primary factors are the wind speed and the

atmospheric stability. Atmospheric stability is an estimate of the turbulent

mixing; stable atmospheric conditions lead to the least amount of mixing

and unstable atmosphere conditions, to the most amount of mixing.

Wind speed is a significant impact on the dispersion of the released gas.

The LNG vapor will first be diluted and mixed with air and as the wind

speed increases, the released gas will move downwind faster, and the

dispersed gas will be diluted by even a larger quantity of air.

In this modeling, three cases have been studied as below table.

Table 2.

Wind Speed

Case

(m/s)

A

B

C

1.5

5

3.7

Pasquill-Gifford

Stability Class

F (Very Stable)

D (Neutral)

D (Neutral)

Remark

Severest Case

With regard to the concerned concentration limits, 0.1 LEL, 0.5 LEL, 1.0

LEL have been considered for each case.

Copyright 2008 IGRC2008

Page 7 of 22

5.1.

In addition to the above weather data, design data are also required for

modeling such as PSV hole size and relieving height or orientation. In case

of inground LNG tank of Incheon terminal, the PSV is installed vertically.

The height of discharge point is 19.2 meters from the ground level and

hole diameter is 250 mm.

5.1.1.

Simulation Result

The calculated relieving rate from the PSV is 11.4 kg/s.

1) Case 1A - Wind velocity 1.5m/s, Stability: F (Stable)

The 1.5/F condition is used for the most conservative night time

condition. Lower wind speed and stable atmospheric condition can cause

the explosive vapor cloud to travel over the longest distance among all

the conditions.

(Stable)]

The 5/D condition is used for the neutral daytime condition. Medium

wind speed and neutral stability condition can lead to show a typical

modeling results in most simulations.

Page 8 of 22

(Neutral)]

3.7/D condition is used for the Incheon design condition case. This

weather condition shows a typical dispersion of LNG in the Incheon LNG

terminal area.

(Incheon Design condition)]

Page 9 of 22

The range of 0.1 LEL (4,400 ppm) is shown in black on the above graph.

Gray color shows 0.5 LEL (22,000 ppm), and white color shows actual 1.0

LEL (44,000 ppm). Among the three cases, case 1A shows the largest

flammable cloud. The severest dispersion case is case 1A (1.5 m/s wind

speed, F condition) among the three cases. It is due to relatively low wind

speed and stable air condition. In this case, 0.1 LEL range can be reached

240 meters horizontally and up to 65 meters vertically.

If ignition source exists within the LEL range, there will be a possibility of

jet, flash or explosion. Thus, every potential ignition source has to be

placed outside of this range or every electrical apparatus in the range has

to be explosion proofed.

In case of Incheon LNG terminal, the whole process area has been

classified as hazardous area. And flare (flare is open ignition source) is

located more than 300 meters away from the LNG storage tank.

According to the Korean City Gas Law, the safety distance between the

LNG storage tank and plant boundary is determined based on the stored

volume of LNG storage tank. In case of inground LNG tank which has

200,000 m3 capacity, the minimum distance is specified as 85 meters. In

the above dispersion results, dispersion range of 1.0 LEL in horizontal

direction is less than 10 meters, which is within the regulatory minimum

distance.

5.2.

The discharge point of PSV which is installed on outlet line of vaporizer is

19.6 meters from the ground level. The PSV discharge direction is vertical

and hole diameter of this PSV is 48mm. This system has higher pressure

and temperature compared to PSV on LNG storage tank. Therefore,

different results can be expected.

5.2.1.

Simulation Result

1) Case 2A: Wind velocity 1.5m/s, Stability: F (Stable)

The 1.5/F condition is used for the most conservative night time

condition. Lower wind speed and stable atmospheric condition can cause

the explosive vapor cloud to travel over the longest distance among all

the conditions.

Page 10 of 22

(Stable)]

5/D condition is used for the neutral daytime condition. Medium wind

speed and neutral stability condition leads to show a typical modeling

result in most simulations.

(Neutral)]

3.7/D condition is used for the Incheon design condition case. This

weather condition shows a typical dispersion of LNG in the Incheon LNG

terminal area.

Page 11 of 22

(Incheon Design condition)]

The range of 0.1 LEL is shown in blue, 0.5 LEL in green and actual 1.0 LEL

in yellow on the above graph. The severest dispersion case is case 1A (1.5

m/s wind speed, F condition) among the three cases. It is due to relatively

lower wind speed and stable air condition. In this case, 0.1 LEL range can

reach to 240 meters. Compared with the result of PSV on the LNG tank,

relatively high pressure gas is released to atmosphere. Therefore, released

gas can reach up to 115 meters vertically due to high momentum. After

that, gas disperses to atmosphere by mixing with air.

According to the Korean City Gas Law, equipment which contains

flammable fluid should be maintained a safety distance from the battery

limit. The safety distance is determined based on the volume of gas

contained in the equipment. In case of one vaporizer, safety distance is 28

meters in compliance with the regulation. However this regulation also

describes if calculated distance is less than 50 meters, 50 meters should be

kept as a minimum. According to modeling result, LEL and 0.5 LEL are

ranged within 50 meters.

6.

The purpose of this section is to compare previous dispersion modeling

with Gaussian Plume theory. There are two steps in estimating the

concentration of dispersed gas at the concern point.

Step 1: Calculation of Released gas discharge rate

Step 2: Calculation of concentration for dispersed gas

Page 12 of 22

6.1.

There are two regimes for flow of gases through an orifice; sonic (or

chocked) for higher internal pressures, and subsonic flow for lower

pressures. The step-1 calculation determines regime of flow present. The

step-2 calculation estimates the release rate of gas, using the equation for

the specific flow regime. The following equation defines the pressure at

which the flow regimes change from sonic to subsonic:

2 1

P

) CR = (

)

Ps

+1

... (4-1)

Discharge of gases at sonic velocity through an orifice can be calculated as

below:

Q = C D APS

g C MW 2

RTS + 1

( +1)

( 1)

, for

Pa P

Ps Ps CR

(4-2)

as below:

( +1)

2

P P

2 g C MW Pa Pa

, for a >

RTS 1 Ps Ps

Ps Ps CR

Q = C D APS

.. (4-3)

where

Q

CD

gc

MW

A

PS

TS

R

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Pa

: Atmospheric pressure (Pa)

Table 3.

Discharge coefficient (-)

Gas constant (1kg m/N sec2)

Molecular Weight (kg/kmol)

Cross section area (m2)

Storage absolute pressure (Pa)

Storage temperature (K)

Gas constant, 8314 (J/kmol K)

Release Assembly

CD

0.61 ~ 0.67 for Subsonic

Orifice

0.84 for Sonic

Page 13 of 22

of the above equations.

z Ideal gas

z No friction flow

z No heat transfer

z Single component gas

1) Discharge Rate Calculation for PSV on LNG Storage Tank

A. Determine the flow regime, sonic or subsonic.

2 1

P

( ) CR = (

)

Ps

+1

= 1.371

1.371

2

P

) CR = (

) 1.3711 = 0.5332

1.371 + 1

Ps

Pa = 1 atm

Ps = 1.3 atm

Pa 1

= = 0.78 > 0.5332 Subsonic Flow

Ps 1.3

B. Apply to the subsonic flow Equation (4-3)

2

( +1)

P P

2gC MW Pa Pa

Q = CD APS

, for a >

RTS 1 Ps Ps

Ps Ps CR

C D = 0.67 (Table 3)

A = 0.049 m 2

Ps = 130325 Pa

= 1.371

g C = 1 kg m / N sec 2

MW = 16 .04 kg / kgmole

R = 8314 J / kgmole K

TS = 157 o C = 116 K

(1.371+1)

2

1 1.371

1.371

(

2

)(

1

)(

16

.

04

)

1

.

371

1

Q = (0.67)(0.049)(1.3 105 )

(8314)(298) 1.371 1 1.3

1.3

= 10.3 kg/s

Copyright 2008 IGRC2008

Page 14 of 22

Page 15 of 22

A. Determine the flow regime, sonic or subsonic.

2 1

P

( ) CR = (

)

Ps

+1

= 1.816

(

1.816

2

P

) CR = (

) 1.816 1 = 0.307

1.816 + 1

Ps

Pa = 1 atm

Ps = 126 atm

Pa 1

=

= 0.008 < 0.307 Sonic Flow

Ps 126

B. Apply to the sonic flow Equation (4-2)

( +1)

Q = C D APS

g C MW 2 ( 1)

P P

, for a

RTS + 1

Ps Ps

CR

C D = 0.84 (Table 3)

A = 0.0018m 2

Ps = 1.26 10 7 Pa

= 1.816

g C = 1 kg m / N sec 2

MW = 16.04kg / kgmole

R = 8314 J / kgmole K

TS = 0 o C = 273K

(1.816 +1)

(1.816)(1)(16.04)

2

(1.816 1)

Q = (0.84)(0.0018)(1.26 10 7 )

(8314)(273) 1.816 + 1

= 37.8 kg/s

Page 16 of 22

6.2.

Plume Model)

The plume model describes a continuous release of material. The solution

depends on the rate of release, the atmospheric conditions, the height of

the release above ground, and the distance from the release. The

equations for the average concentration for each case are:

A)

z < 1.6 H m

Q

C(x, y, z : HE ) =

2y zu

exp[0.5(

+ {exp[0.5(

+ exp[0.5(

2iHm HE + z

HE z

)2 ] + exp[0.5(

)2 ] + exp[0.5(

2iHm HE z

)2 ]{exp[0.5(

2iHm + HE z

i =1

B)

)2 ] + exp[0.5(

2iHm + HE + z

HE + z

)2 ]

)2 ] .................(4- 4)

)2 ]}}

z 1.6 H m

C ( x, y , z , H E ) =

C) If

Q

2 y H m u

1

exp[0.5(

) 2 ]........................................................(4 5)

C(x, y, z : HE ) =

2yzu

y

H z

H +z

exp[0.5( )2 ]{exp[0.5( E )2 ] + exp[0.5( E )2 ]}........

...(4 6)

where,

C(x,y,z)

Q

Hm

HE

U

y

z

x

y

z

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Continuous release rate (kg/s)

Mixing height (m)

Effective release point height (m)

Wind speed at the height of release point (m/s)

Dispersion coefficient in the y direction (m)

Dispersion coefficient in the z direction (m)

Wind direction distance (m)

Cross wind direction distance (m)

Distance above the ground (m)

Page 17 of 22

where,

H S = Actual release height

H DW = Down force effect length

H M = Momentum effect length

u

H DW = 0 for v 1.5u

H M =

3dv

u

Generally, Gaussian plume models are applicable in risk analysis for neutral

and positively buoyant emission. The models have been validated over a

wide range of emission characteristics and downwind distances (0.1 to

10km). However, in the beginning stage of gas dispersion, initial

momentum of the gas will dominate the dispersion before turbulent mixing

occurs. In case of the LNG dispersion in this study, since the concentration

of Lower Explosive Limit which has relatively short distance from release

point, Gaussian model is not desirable for this study. Therefore 0.1 LEL

dispersion case is assessed to meet this assumptions and limitations for the

Gaussian plume models in this study.

2)

Dispersion coefficient (y and z) shall be selected for dispersion manual

calculation. In this study, Briggs Rural coefficient which is recommended by

AIchE/CCPS is applied as shown in below table;

Table 4. BR (Briggs Rural) Coefficient

3)

Stability

Calculation

To calculate the longest dispersion distance of 0.1 LEL, we can assume that

x direction is variable, y direction is 0 and z direction is equal to HE (HE is

the Plume center line). Q (discharge rate) is determined at 5.1) and y, z

are shown in table 4.2.

Concentration of 0.1LEL can be calculated from the following equations.

Page 18 of 22

A) Substitute y=0 and z=HE to Equation (4-6)

C ( x ,0 , H E : H E ) =

Q

2 y z u

{1 + exp[ 0 .5 (

2H E

) 2 ]}

when C=0.1 LEL) - x value to be calculated by trial and error

y = 0.08x(1 + 0.0001x)

1

2

z = 0.06x(1 + 0.0015x)

1

2

= (0.08)(192)(1 + 0.0001(192))

= (0.06)(192)(1 + 0.0015(192))

1

2

1

2

= 15.21

= 10.15

H E = H S + H DW + H M

3dv

,

u

Q

10.3

v=

=

= 124m / s

A (1.7)(0.049)

H E = 19.2 + 0 +

d = 0.25 m

u = 3.7 m / s

H E = 19.2 + 0 +

(3)(0.25)(124)

= 44m

3.7

C ( x,0, H E : H E ) =

C (192, 0, 44) =

Q

2 y z u

2H E

) 2 ]}

10.3

2(44) 2

{1 + exp[0.5(

) ]}

2 (15.21)(10.15)(3.7)

10.15

= 4400 ppm

x = 192m

{1 + exp[0.5(

Page 19 of 22

A) Substitute y=0 and z=HE to Equation (4-6)

C ( x ,0 , H E : H E ) =

2 y z u

{1 + exp[ 0 . 5 (

2H E

) 2 ]}

when C=0.1 LEL) - x value to be calculated by trial and error

1

C) Determine the HE value from Equation (4-7)

H E = H S + H DW + H M

3dv

H E = 19.6 + 0 +

,

u

Q

37.8

v=

=

= 182.6m / s

A (115)(0.0018)

d = 0.05 m

u = 3.7 m / s

H E = 19.6 + 0 +

(3)(0.05)(182.6)

= 27m

3.7

C ( x,0, H E : H E ) =

C (360, 0, 27) =

Q

2 y z u

2H E

) 2 ]}

37.8

2(27) 2

{1 + exp[0.5(

) ]}

2 (30.76)(18.66)(3.7)

18.66

= 4400 ppm

x = 392m

{1 + exp[0.5(

Page 20 of 22

6.3.

Table 5.

Scenario

PHAST 6.53

Manual calculation

11.4 kg/s

10.3 kg/s

PSV on Vaporizer

51.9 kg/s

37.8 kg/s

Operating condition, hole size, and mass discharge coefficient (CD) are the

major factors that effect the discharge rate. The different result between

PHAST and manual calculation may be mass discharge coefficient (CD).

Although this value was determined from Table 3, it is not only a reference

but also sensitive value according to flow type. Some references

recommend that this value be 1.0 for the sonic flow on orifice.

Table 6.

Scenario

PHAST 6.53

Manual calculation

110 m

192 m

PSV on Vaporizer

120 m

392 m

PHAST simulation. In manual calculation, it is assumed that the plume

disperses in a direction perpendicular to effective release height (HE) and

then spread along the wind direction. But actual plume disperses in a

diagonal direction due to the light density of Methane. As a result, it can

produce two different results with the same condition.

7.

CONCLUSION

In LNG terminal, generally BOG release to the atmosphere is least

recommended for safety reason as natural gas is very flammable. However,

in case of abnormal operation or emergency, release of BOG to the

atmosphere is necessary to release the pressure inside the equipment and

plant facilities, and to prevent catastrophic accident of the LNG terminal.

In case of such inevitable release of BOG, vapor dispersion modeling can

enable estimation of safety distance required between the point of BOG

release and ignition source. Based on such study and estimation, safety

requirement should be clearly defined and enforced by low.

According to the above assessment, dispersion range of lower explosive

limit is ranged within plant boundary. Also, modeling result satisfies the

safety distance which is defined by the Korean City Gas Law.

There are some deviations between the modeling result and the manual

calculation result. The manual calculation result gives more conservative

figures than PHAST model result. This means that manual calculation can

be used as preliminary determination for dispersion. However, for exact and

efficient assessment, consequence analysis should be conducted through

Page 21 of 22

examine any occupational risk.

8.

REFERENCE

Hyundai Engineering Co., Ltd.,(2005) Technical Review Report for Incheon

LNG Receiving terminal.

Korea Gas Cooperation (2004) Calculation Report for Relief Valve for TK217, 218

Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (2008) Consequence risk

analysis

CCPS (2000) Guidelines for Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis

API RP 520 (2000) Sizing, Selection and Installation of Pressure Relieving

Devices in Refineries

DNV PHAST Version 6.5 Training Manual

9.

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. LNG Composition ............................................................. 6

Table 2. Applied Air Condition ....................................................... 6

Table 3. Mass Discharge Coefficient CD ........................................ 12

Table 4. BR (Briggs Rural) Coefficient ......................................... 17

Table 5. Comparison of Discharge Rate ....................................... 20

Table 6. Comparison of Dispersion Distance (3.7/D condition) ... 20

Page 22 of 22

10.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 A.

Stability : F (Stable)] ................................................ 7

Figure 1 B.

Stability : D (Neutral)].............................................. 8

Figure 1 C.

Stability : D (Incheon Design condition)] ................. 8

Figure 2 A.

Stability : F (Stable)] .............................................. 10

Figure 2 B.

Stability : D (Neutral)]............................................ 10

Figure 2 C.

Stability : D (Incheon Design condition)] ............... 11

- 05 Neutron Transport EquationUploaded byadelansari49
- A Brief Introduction to Hydrocode Modeling of Impact CrateringUploaded byRichard Hilson
- Monte Carlo Simulation Methods Lecture NotesUploaded byapi-3724597
- Markov Chain Monte Carlo Solution of Poisson’s EquationUploaded byEditor IJRITCC
- Flue Gas Dispersion Model StudyUploaded bybagusjagir
- Sph ManualUploaded bydwdg
- G I Taylor and the Trinity TestUploaded bystephenb4k3r
- Atomic or Nuclear ModelsUploaded byMuhammad Raheel
- A 035268Uploaded byhaitham
- Prediction of Wind and Current Loads on VlccsUploaded bySRAR
- AUTODYN Euler Blast SolverUploaded byNguyen Minh Luong
- hydrocodeUploaded byGanesh Tamang
- Atmospheric Dispersion AnalysisUploaded byIsmar Jam
- Beginner's GuideUploaded byPeyman Mzn
- Libby Radioactive Fallout 1957Uploaded byIsabell Schrickel
- ANSYS AUTODYN- Chapter 9: Material ModelsUploaded byMfdrr
- ans_elemUploaded byDharmendra Jain
- Mooring Hands CalcsUploaded byLyudmyla Bobina
- LNG Cargo Operating ManualUploaded byAsif Siddiqui
- Paper Autodyn Blast Urban 3d RemapsUploaded byalexrem2000
- CFD - FluentUploaded byMahesh J Rao
- 82215765 Autodyn BasicsUploaded bydarklord338
- Presentasi PTB as World Class CompanyUploaded byGilang Ginaris Mulia
- Dispersion ModelingUploaded byAnuradha Chauhan
- ExxonMobil Safety Criteria 2017 (Ocean Going Tanker)Uploaded byG_ARVALIS8470
- 1Uploaded byAfaf
- Progress Report 4Uploaded byMullah Fassudin
- @_mooring and Berthing Analysis and DesignUploaded byapi-3709579
- Numerical Modeling of Neutron TransportUploaded byAndrea Spinelli
- Process Engineer_ PSV Calculation - Kd,Kc,Kb FactorUploaded bykenoly123

- Review on Design of Prototype Internal 80 K Helium Gas Purification System for Helium PlantUploaded byInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development - IJSRD
- B1-2 Physics - LTTUploaded byshorman67134
- DistillationUploaded bysankalpnambiar
- Application of Thermodynamics to Flow ProcessesUploaded byAldren RebaLde
- Engineering MaterialsUploaded bySyed Waqar Ahmed
- Hydrodynamics of Packed ColomnUploaded byDhananjay Kadam
- 5Uploaded byAymenRashid
- Reservoir Pressure Measurements 1Uploaded byParth Chauhan
- Reporte Imp MultifasicoUploaded byiissaacc00
- Forward Feed Triple Effect EvaporatorUploaded byFadhil Khalid
- Optimization of Asa Emulsification in Internal Sizing of Paper and BoardUploaded byHuy Nguyen
- Lecture 16Uploaded byIqbal Nugroho
- The Impact of Accuracy in Evaluating the Evolotion of a FaultUploaded byreza515hei
- 017-ICBEE2012-Z024Uploaded bymackenize
- Biomass Simulator 3 MatlabUploaded bylovedorik
- WS1-transpo.docxUploaded byFrances Anne Magsombol
- Chapter 5_Nahid_July 2017 (1)Uploaded byAbdul Bari
- State of Matter2Uploaded bySulaiman Mohamad
- 2a Compressor FundamentalsUploaded byFirman Ali Nuryanto
- Orifice Sizing EzatUploaded byAmbardi Wicaksono
- Magnetic Susceptibility ReportUploaded bysackeynat
- Week 6, 7, 8 TutorialUploaded byIbrahim Ali
- Evaporation pptUploaded byEduardoAlejoZamoraJr.
- Tutorial 4 Solution (Updated)Uploaded byJayden Chan
- Cooler E-102Uploaded byMohd Arif
- Novel Three-Phase Relative Permeability and Three-Phase Hysteresis ModelsUploaded byMbeygi1357
- JBC Common Boiler FormulasUploaded bynesrine10
- AE 233 (Chapter 1) Fluid Mechanics for Chemical Engineering.pptUploaded byMuaz Mushtaq
- EP1T1 Week 1 2016EUploaded bylahsaf
- Problem Chapter 9Uploaded bySyahid Zamani