10 views

Uploaded by mehrzad rahdar

sub

- Validation of CFD Codes for Slamming 26 10
- Computation of Unsteady Nonlinear Flows in Cascades
- Literature Review on CFD Application for Helical Coil Heat Exchanger Design
- flu_gs
- CFD Simulation Hydrodinamics
- 2ndHolcimAwards Essay 2 Silver
- 1-s2.0-S2092678216303077-main
- midas NFX Product Information
- CFD-lab
- Numerical Simulation of the Air Pollutants Dispersion Emitted by CHP Using ANSYS CFX
- Application of Computational Fluid Dynamics for Modeling and Designing Photobioreactors
- train1-4
- fluiddynamicsreport
- ITTC – Recommended Procedures
- Good Practice in CFD Fire Modeling
- 1978 ITTC Performance Prediction
- Propeller Geometry
- SPE 174102 MS (Penanggulangan H2S)
- Effect of Cavitation on Propellers
- PMM Deep App Program KCS Rev.2

You are on page 1of 113

1

Navigator

General guidelines for submarine hull design

Quiz

Hydrodynamic Assessment

Hull-Appendages Interference

Analysis Methods for Snorkels

Quiz

DNV GL © 2013

2

Recommended reading

27 pages

DNV GL © 2013

3

Recommended reading

DNV GL © 2013

4

Focus on resistance & propulsion

• propellers

• manoeuvring

• seakeeping

DNV GL © 2013

5

Basic approaches have pros and cons

Basic approaches

limited applicability

scaling errors

requires special resources

DNV GL © 2013

6

Empirical approach

☺ Fast

☺ Cheap

DNV GL © 2013

7

Empirical approach - Serious drawbacks

Based on statistical evaluation of yesterday’s designs

DNV GL © 2013

8

Empirical approach - Serious drawbacks

David Taylor Model Basin:

Gertler (1950)

Landweber & Gertler (1950)

DNV GL © 2013

9

Experimental approach

Basic idea:

- perform test on scaled down model

- extract information

- scale (transform) to full-scale ship

ship

? ship model

Speed

Full-scale ship “s” Force Model “m”

Power

DNV GL © 2013

10

Experimental approach

→ incompatible data bases

DNV GL © 2013

11

Experimental approach

• resistance test (resistance, nominal wake)

• propulsion test (thrust, torque)

• open-water test (propeller design support)

→ Laser Doppler Velocimetry (LDV)

→ Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV)

Source: HSVA

DNV GL © 2013

12

Experimental approach

☺ Scaling procedures well accepted

No full-scale data

for submarines

DNV GL © 2013

13

Numerical approaches

using numerical techniques

Source: Voith

DNV GL © 2013

14

CFD used increasingly for manoeuvring

• Fast (real-time) simulation with given coefficients

Hydrodynamic

Coefficients

Source: Voith

DNV GL © 2013

15

CFD allows formal optimization

• Parametric design

• Design evaluation by CFD

• Formal optimization

DNV GL © 2013

16

Navigator

General guidelines for submarine hull design

Quiz

Hydrodynamic Assessment

Hull-Appendages Interference

Analysis Methods for Snorkels

Quiz

DNV GL © 2013

17

Design target: Hydrodynamic efficiency

• Minimize required power for given speed (weight, endurance)

• Maximize speed for given power

• Resistance

• Propulsive efficiency

These interact !

DNV GL © 2013

18

Consider mission profile

• predominantly submerged operation (stealth)

• low speed in surfaced condition

Conclusion:

• Virtually zero wave resistance

• Wave making only important for signature

in snorkeling condition

DNV GL © 2013

19

Resistance usually decomposed

• resistance components interact

• most components cannot be measured individually

form

wave

DNV GL © 2013

20

Friction resistance

60-70%

DNV GL © 2013

21

Friction resistance

• Friction resistance = Sum of shear stresses over wetted surface

• Boundary layer in aftbody of submarine ≈ 0.5 m

• wetted surface (given by CAD)

• speed

• surface roughness

DNV GL © 2013

22

Sphere as best solution?

• L/D = 1

But:

• Form resistance

• Propulsive efficiency

• (other design aspects: strength, producibility, manoeuvrability, ...)

DNV GL © 2013

23

Form resistance (Viscous pressure resistance)

DNV GL © 2013

24

Form resistance

avoid flow changes and hindrances

the ideal is a needle...

• full hull shapes have higher form resistance than slender shapes

DNV GL © 2013

25

Opposing requirements...

- very shallow

- shifts when propulsion is considered

DNV GL © 2013

26

Some background 1/4

• buzzword since the 1970s

• inspired by laminar flow aero-foil designs

• theoretically drag reduction up to 65% (on small hulls)

based on model tests

• thought to revolutionize submarine designs

• real water has inherent turbulence level and numerous impurities

• laminar flow in sea water virtually impossible

DNV GL © 2013

27

Some background 2/4

bodies of revolution - for application to the design of high-speed submarines, DTMB

Report C-297, Bethesda

DTMB Report 719, Bethesda

DNV GL © 2013

28

Systematic series

• 6th polynomial envelope (no parallel midbody)

• axisymmetric bodies

Parameters varied:

• Prismatic coefficient CP = ∇/(π ⋅ 0.25⋅D2⋅L)

• Nose radius (nondim.) r0 = R0⋅L/D2

• Tail radius (nondim.) r1 = R1⋅L/D2

• Distance of max. cross section from nose: m = x/L

DNV GL © 2013

29

Results 1/5

Fineness ratio

• key parameter for resistance (influences wetted surface for given volume)

• L/D ≈ 7 optimum (considering also control surfaces)

• due to practical requirements (space, producibility)

• penalty for “sub-optimum” shape is small

• L/D = 7 may be good for underwater robots

DNV GL © 2013

30

Results 2/5

Prismatic coefficient

• key parameter for resistance

• CP ≈ 0.61 optimum

• no significant change if considering also control surfaces

This is not captured by simple variations as in Gertler (1950)

• optimum unchanged for Fn < 0.23

• beyond that significant increase (but usually never operated in practice)

DNV GL © 2013

31

Results 3/5

Nose Radius

• different r0 [0...1] investigated, but mostly r0 = 0.5

• real submarines: German submarines: typically r0 ≈ 2.5

based on L w/o parallel midbody r0 < 1.0

US nuclear submarines: typically r0 ≈ 1.5

Results little more than indication due to much higher nose radius in practice

DNV GL © 2013

32

Results 4/5

Tail Radius

• different r1 [0...0.2] investigated, but mostly r1 = 0.1

• drag differences in this range: ±1%

DNV GL © 2013

33

Results 5/5

• resistance minimum at x/L ≈ 0.37⋅L (for L/D = 7, CP = 0.65, r0 = 0.5, r1 = 0.1)

• strong increase of drag as x/L moves forward

• moderate increase as x/L moves aft

DNV GL © 2013

34

Some background 3/4

Forebody

• slender forebody good for resistance and low noise

• no consensus on forebody shape

• arrangement of torpedo tubes

• arrangement of sonar equipment

DNV GL © 2013

35

Some background 4/4

Aftbody

• must consider propulsion (propeller changes flow completely)

• cone angles > 20° (in propelled condition)

• thicker aftbody good for weight distribution and space requirements

DNV GL © 2013

36

Aspects of noise and sonar reflection

• Low noise streamlined shape has low resistance & low noise

only some guidelines can be given:

- avoid concave surfaces

(hull – sail connection critical in this respect)

- sonar target strength increases with size

- length more critical than diameter (target strength ~L2 and ~D)

DNV GL © 2013

37

Navigator

Quiz

Hydrodynamic Assessment

Hull-Appendages Interference

Analysis Methods for Snorkels

Quiz

DNV GL © 2013

38

Quiz: Do you know your design of submarines ?

ENGINEER

DNV GL © 2013

39

What is not used in (submarine) design?

b. Empirical / statistical approaches

c. Model testing

d. Numerical simulation

DNV GL © 2013

40

Which design approach is simple, fast and cheap?

b. Empirical / statistical approach

c. Model testing

d. Numerical simulations

DNV GL © 2013

41

What is a typical drawback of empirical approaches?

b. high cost

c. scaling errors

d. time consuming to apply

DNV GL © 2013

42

CFD is popularly referred to as...

a. Design of Experiments

b. Rapid Prototyping

c. Numerical Towing Tank

d. Virtual Reality

DNV GL © 2013

43

Which methods allows formal optimisation?

b. Experience-based design

c. Full-scale prototyping

d. Model testing

DNV GL © 2013

44

To minimize required power you should...

b. decrease resistance & propulsive efficiency

c. increase resistance & propulsive efficiency

d. increase resistance & decrease propulsive efficiency

DNV GL © 2013

45

Which resistance component can be neglected...

a. appendage resistance

b. form resistance

c. friction resistance

d. wave resistance

DNV GL © 2013

46

Friction resistance accounts for X% of hull resistance...

a. X = 5 – 10%

b. X = 20 – 30%

c. X = 40 – 50%

d. X = 60 – 70%

DNV GL © 2013

47

Boundary layer thickness in aftbody of submarine ≈

a. 5 mm

b. 5 cm

c. 50 cm

d. 5m

DNV GL © 2013

48

Sphere is best solution only in terms of...

a. Form resistance

b. Friction resistance

c. Producibility

d. Propulsive efficiency

DNV GL © 2013

49

Ideal shape for form resistance is like a ...

a. needle

b. lentil (parabola)

c. teardrop shape

d. sphere

DNV GL © 2013

50

Laminar flow designs for submarines...

b. did not work in real ocean environment

c. reduced resistance by up to 85%

d. worked better than for aero-foils

DNV GL © 2013

51

Landweber & Gertler performed systematic tests ...

b. DLR (Göttingen)

c. Hamburg Ship Model Basin

d. NURC (NATO Underwater

Research Center)

Landweber Gertler

DNV GL © 2013

52

Landweber & Gertler’s family of streamlined bodies...

b. parabola (aft) & straight line & ellipse (nose)

c. parabola (nose) & straight line & ellipse (aft)

d. higher-order polynomial

modern AUV

DNV GL © 2013

53

Landweber & Gertler’s recommended for L/D...

a. 3

b. 5

c. 7

d. 9

DNV GL © 2013

54

Forebody of real submarine less slender...

b. fuller forebody reduces flow noise locally

c. fuller shape OK in propelled condition

d. internal space requirements leave no other choice

DNV GL © 2013

55

Aftbody of real submarine less slender...

b. fuller aftbody reduces flow noise locally

c. fuller shape OK in propelled condition

d. internal space requirements leave no other choice

DNV GL © 2013

56

Navigator

Quiz

Hydrodynamic Assessment

CFD Methods

Model tests

Flow analysis on the sonar part

Hull-Appendages Interference

Analysis Methods for Snorkels

Quiz

DNV GL © 2013

57

What is CFD ?

Solves flow equations

Navier-Stokes

RANSE,

Euler

Laplace (“Poti”)

FEM, FVM, FDM, BEM, ...

DNV GL © 2013

58

Potential flow codes

• neglect viscosity

• elements only on surface

• fast and cheap (optimization)

• limited accuracy

RANSE

• expensive

• better model (breaking waves, flow separation)

DNV GL © 2013

59

Wave resistance codes

Dynamic trim and sinkage (squat)

(slender) lifting surfaces

Breaking waves

Propulsion & Appendages

DNV GL © 2013

60

Panel codes – fast enough for design

• typically 2000 - 20000 panels

• mesh generation 5-50 s

• CPU times 1-5 min

Main application:

• analyses in snorkeling condition

• also seakeeping & propeller flows

25 years

of experience

DNV GL © 2013

61

Moderate nonlinearities handled

But not

wave breaking

Source: HSVA

DNV GL © 2013

62

Propeller “poti” methods 1/2

Lifting-surface method

Particularly: Vortex-Lattice Method (VLM)

of horseshoe vortices

☺ good convergence with grid refinement

☺ handles ‘arbitrary’ cases (CRP, unsteady inflow, nozzle-propellers,…)

tip vortex not captured

CRP = contra-rotating propeller

DNV GL © 2013

63

Propeller “poti” methods 2/2

Panel method

Propeller boss modeled

☺ finite velocities in hub region

tip vortex still not captured

DNV GL © 2013

64

Potential flow codes

• neglect viscosity

• elements only on surface

• fast and cheap (optimization)

• limited accuracy

RANSE

• expensive

• better model (breaking waves, flow separation)

DNV GL © 2013

65

RANSE - Better model, more effort

• Volume grid

• 0.5 - 5 million cells

• mesh generation: 0.5 - 5 days

• CPU times: 1-5 days (on PC cluster)

DNV GL © 2013

66

Typical application: Appendages

Example: Alignment of appendages

Misalignment increases

resistance,

causes vibrations and

sometimes erosion

Soure: HSVA

DNV GL © 2013

67

Typical application: Appendages

Soure: HSVA

DNV GL © 2013

68

Submarines are prime candidates for CFD

• Viscosity dominates

• Budget and time “no problem”

Source: HSVA

DNV GL © 2013

69

Navigator

Quiz

Hydrodynamic Assessment

CFD Methods

Model tests

Flow analysis on the sonar part

Hull-Appendages Interference

Analysis Methods for Snorkels

Quiz

DNV GL © 2013

70

Initially it did not work...

DNV GL © 2013

71

Wave forces follow Froude

Froude number Fn = V / g ⋅ L

where only gravity and inertia matter

• geometrically similar for Froude similarity

• associated wave resistance coefficient same in model and full scale

DNV GL © 2013

72

Viscous forces follow Reynolds

V ⋅L

Rn = Reynolds number

ν

ensures dynamic similarity

if only inertial and friction forces present

• surface roughness

• flow separation

DNV GL © 2013

73

Model test basin

~300 m

Recirculation tunnel

(propeller testing) Model

basin

Model

storage

Model

manufacturing

Source: HSVA

DNV GL © 2013

74

Scaled-down models

• as large as possible …

- internal strength

- loads on test carriage

• for max. test carriage speed

• to avoid problems with restricted water

4 m < L < 10 m

~ 1000 kg

Source: HSVA

DNV GL © 2013

75

Model tests not 100% similar

cannot be kept at model scale!

(which are driven by viscous forces)

DNV GL © 2013

76

Navigator

Quiz

Hydrodynamic Assessment

Hull-Appendages Interference

Analysis Methods for Snorkels

Quiz

DNV GL © 2013

77

Appendages 1/3

• secure smooth curvature of hull surface in streamline direction

• avoid obstacles as far as possible

• for absolutely necessary appendages

- streamline, or

- make removable,

- or make to drop flush with surface

• for absolutely necessary hull openings

- minimize size

- streamline (using CFD)

DNV GL © 2013

78

Like propeller, like foil...

Lifting surface

RANSE

Lifting body

(panel)

Source: HSVA

DNV GL © 2013

79

Hull and foil interact

- change in direction

DNV GL © 2013

80

Some insight from wind tunnel tests

• extensive experiments

for aerospace industry

compiled into design curves

asymmetric configurations

(use CFD instead)

submarine

foils

DNV GL © 2013

81

CFD application to aft hydroplane

Source: HSVA

DNV GL © 2013

82

Navigator

Quiz

Hydrodynamic Assessment

Hull-Appendages Interference

Analysis Methods for Snorkels

Quiz

DNV GL © 2013

83

Two approaches used for free-surface RANSE

Interface tracking

- Exact representation of free surface

- Unsuited for complex geometries

Interface capturing

- Ability to handle wave breaking

- VOF, Level Set, Two-Phase

VOF = Volume of Fluid

DNV GL © 2013

84

Interface capturing allows complex wave breaking

α = 0 for cells inside fluid 2 1 1 1 .68 0

0 < α <1 for transition al area .42

0

1 1 1 0

1 1 .92 .09 0

ρ eff = α ρ1 + (1 − α ) ρ 2 1 .85 .35 0 0

ν eff = α ν 1 + (1 − α )ν 2 .09 0 0 0

.31

0 0 0 0 0

DNV GL © 2013

85

High Froude numbers and breaking waves

DNV GL © 2013

86

Also in struts for underwater model tests

DNV GL © 2013

87

Free-surface RANSE captures wave breaking

Source: HSVA

DNV GL © 2013

88

Wave height increases with thickness of profile

thickness

almost

doubled

DNV GL © 2013

89

Wave characteristics changed

DNV GL © 2013

90

Transverse plate reduces waves

tranverse

plate

attached

Parabolic strut

DNV GL © 2013

91

Transverse plate reduces waves

Source: HSVA

DNV GL © 2013

92

Thank you for your attention – and now...

DNV GL © 2013

93

Navigator

Quiz

Hydrodynamic Assessment

Hull-Appendages Interference

Analysis Methods for Snorkels

Quiz

DNV GL © 2013

94

Quiz: Do you know your design of submarines ?

ENGINEER

DNV GL © 2013

95

What is definitely not a CFD method ?

a. Euler solver

b. Laplace solver

c. Paint solver

d. RANSE solver

DNV GL © 2013

96

The Reynolds number ...

b. ensures similarity of surface roughness

c. increases with length

d. is kept same on model and full scale in

ship model basins

DNV GL © 2013

97

What cannot be captured by wave resistance codes ?

a. breaking waves

b. dynamic trim & sinkage

c. lifting surfaces

d. limited water depth

DNV GL © 2013

98

Order computational methods in increasing complexity

b. panel – lifting surface – RANSE

c. panel – RANSE – lifting surface

d. lifting surface – RANSE – panel

DNV GL © 2013

99

Stroboscopic light is used...

b. to detect flow separation on hulls

c. to make blade and cavitation appear stationary

in propeller tests

d. to measure unknown geometries (for CFD)

DNV GL © 2013

100

What is best for assessing flows on appendages ?

b. model test

c. panel method

d. RANSE

DNV GL © 2013

101

The Froude number is a ...

b. non-dimensional parameter combining speed & viscosity

c. non-dimensional speed parameter

d. non-dimensional wave resistance coefficient

DNV GL © 2013

102

Snorkels are best shaped like ...

a. cylinders (circular)

b. lentils (parabolic)

c. reverse teardrop

d. teardrop (profile)

DNV GL © 2013

103

Model tests in ship model basins ...

b. ensure similar friction forces by keeping Froude numbers constant

c. ensure similar wave breaking by keeping Froude numbers constant

d. keep Reynolds numbers constant

DNV GL © 2013

104

Ship models in professional basins weigh ...

a. 10 kg

b. 100 kg

c. 1000 kg

kg

d. 10000 kg

DNV GL © 2013

105

Propeller models are typically tested in...

a. cavitation tunnels

b. propulsion test basins

c. towing tanks

d. wind tunnels

DNV GL © 2013

106

Compared to condition in open water, a control foil ...

a. has less lift (due to the lower velocity in the boundary layer)

b. has more lift (due to the higher speed around the hull)

c. has same lift. That is why we generally work with open-flow

diagrams...

d. is complicated due to spanwise changes both in magnitude

and direction

DNV GL © 2013

107

Hull-propeller-rudder interaction best investigated by

b. model test

c. panel method

d. RANSE

DNV GL © 2013

108

What is not a recommendation for appendages?

b. make appendages large enough to create

complete recirculation

c. minimize size of appendages

d. streamline appendages

DNV GL © 2013

109

Different physics between model test and real ship...

b. “Model Problem”

c. “Scaling Errors”

d. “Size Matters”

DNV GL © 2013

110

Potential flow codes generally use...

b. Finite Difference Methods

c. Finite Element Methods

d. Finite Volume Methods

DNV GL © 2013

111

Time for a break ?

DNV GL © 2013

112

Thank you...

Volker Bertram

volker.bertram@dnvgl.com

www.dnvgl.com

DNV GL © 2013

11

3

- Validation of CFD Codes for Slamming 26 10Uploaded bydan10000
- Computation of Unsteady Nonlinear Flows in CascadesUploaded byAmbrish Singh
- Literature Review on CFD Application for Helical Coil Heat Exchanger DesignUploaded bySantosh Sancheti
- flu_gsUploaded bySwati Chandran
- CFD Simulation HydrodinamicsUploaded bymcusseglio3931
- 2ndHolcimAwards Essay 2 SilverUploaded bypaushan
- 1-s2.0-S2092678216303077-mainUploaded byAbu Hadiyd Al-Ikhwan
- midas NFX Product InformationUploaded byAmit Nirmal
- CFD-labUploaded bytechctrl
- Numerical Simulation of the Air Pollutants Dispersion Emitted by CHP Using ANSYS CFXUploaded byhmxa91
- Application of Computational Fluid Dynamics for Modeling and Designing PhotobioreactorsUploaded byHaraprasad Nanjundappa
- train1-4Uploaded byyaidragon
- fluiddynamicsreportUploaded byapi-273690515
- ITTC – Recommended ProceduresUploaded bysailorgeorge1
- Good Practice in CFD Fire ModelingUploaded byCemal Sanli
- 1978 ITTC Performance PredictionUploaded byqursen
- Propeller GeometryUploaded byCvita Cvitić
- SPE 174102 MS (Penanggulangan H2S)Uploaded byDhika Pradana
- Effect of Cavitation on PropellersUploaded byMohd Zaid
- PMM Deep App Program KCS Rev.2Uploaded byChien Manh Nguyen
- 12-ConstantinRotaruCarmenStefanGabrielRaducanuRaduDinca.pdfUploaded byAnonymous kobd6usQNv
- CFDUploaded bycokavoli
- CFD Simulations of Dust Dispersion in the the 20 L Vessel Effect of Nominal Dust ConcentrationUploaded byMohsen Khandan
- dadadadawwdUploaded byBayu Pratama Widhiyasa
- Comprehensive Study of Wind Loads on ParapetsUploaded byleeky
- EvilUploaded bykh_chu_1
- CCSim 2011 VAWTUploaded byLeslie Hernández
- Cfx12 05 PostUploaded byGino
- Automotive - FSIUploaded byRamyaa Lakshmi
- Propulsion and ShaftingUploaded byPriscila KIm

- نقشه کشی صنعتی 1Uploaded bymehrzad rahdar
- main_137e0f56766dab3844bbc83b525aaf6e296551Uploaded bymehrzad rahdar
- BMTDSL-Submarine-Concept-Design-Datasheet.pdfUploaded bymehrzad rahdar
- NSMI18_143_6981134Uploaded bymehrzad rahdar
- PV Elite and CodeCalcUploaded byraulrrt
- 24-2Uploaded bymehrzad rahdar
- S08941777(02)002984_85f4494f8ff1f6f652feec9b543b9068Uploaded bymehrzad rahdar
- Paper33189-193Uploaded bymehrzad rahdar
- PV Elite Heat exchanger calculationsUploaded bycbousmu
- jeld.pdfUploaded bymehrzad rahdar
- مرجعدهی با نرمافزار مندلیUploaded bymehrzad rahdar
- C608-8Uploaded bymehrzad rahdar
- Temperature Distribution across the Piston, Liner and Cylinder Head of Conventional and Catalytic Coated 2-Stroke SI Engine Using Finite Element Analysis by ANSYSUploaded byAnonymous vQrJlEN
- j.spmi.2003.09.011_01cf34d2b699fb278141307b0904116fUploaded bymehrzad rahdar
- Bed Thermal ConductivityUploaded byAndy Oleksy
- 1010160017-9310(93)80065-3Uploaded bymehrzad rahdar
- cylinderUploaded bytensian
- Thermal IsolationUploaded bymehrzad rahdar
- 1.2427075_711733e421a4601e478304c6426a8a07Uploaded bymehrzad rahdar
- Practical 1 Axial TurbineUploaded byYeonsik Choi
- Axial Turbine Design by ANSYS BladeModeler - (Www.cfdiran.ir)Uploaded bymehrzad rahdar
- Nasa Ntrs Archive 19850002686Uploaded bymehrzad rahdar
- GT200338027_4ea4e9a524c08d5b461622d6c1509e5aUploaded bymehrzad rahdar
- 104077800750020388_2e23dbf13e138467da2c800ef5bcc3eaUploaded bymehrzad rahdar
- Joasi v2n2p1 FaUploaded bymehrzad rahdar
- Mr 04422Uploaded bymehrzad rahdar
- Influence of Flow Coefficient Stagger Angle and Tip Clearance on Tip Vortex in Axial CompressorsUploaded bymehrzad rahdar
- 132935211-GE-Gas-Turbine-Training-Manual.pdfUploaded bymehrzad rahdar
- 531358Uploaded bymehrzad rahdar

- Summary TABUploaded byFaizal Achmad
- TSP50UGUploaded byapi-3828195
- Arduino Seminar ReportUploaded bypallavi
- 4MCW-4TTK-4MWW-4TWKUploaded byguillermo granados
- ASME-ANSI B16 List of StandardsUploaded byJaime SanFer
- taskingC196manualUploaded byusmancheema81
- DCN fileUploaded byArpit Kumar
- 30RB-RQ Chiller Alarm CodeUploaded bySupol
- Orr-Sommerfeld Equation DerivationPDFFUploaded byAnmol Kumar
- Siebel Interview Questions Answers BibleUploaded bySweta Singh
- Stock_Watson_3U_ExerciseSolutions_Chapter04_Students.pdfUploaded byTabassumAkhter
- Comp Imp MCQUploaded byAtul Sharma
- 17-4Uploaded byksr131
- 345b II Specalog (Aehq5390)Uploaded bysuwarjitechnic
- 239130583-Titration-Lab-Report.pdfUploaded byLinh Nguyen
- AD8221Uploaded byArely A. García Mtz
- Elements of Corporate Decision MakingUploaded byMuh Resa Yudianto
- Installation Testing Troubleshooting Starters Overload RelaysUploaded byGogula Gunasekhar
- mo (3330502) final assignmentUploaded byapi-269508649
- Rotzler TH2Uploaded bychar_lyn
- SimCAT 1 2016 Experts’ Take – IMSUploaded byAnonymous H8AZMs
- Guide to Synchronizing CylindersUploaded byzemljak87
- Applied Thermodyanamics noteUploaded byAniket Sankpal
- ArevaTD PowerTransformersReactors PTR Overview EngUploaded byMarcWorld
- 10thDeceUploaded byOmaru Nimaga
- UOP 46Uploaded byCeciliagorra
- Closed-Loop Control of Hybrid Stepper Motor DrivesUploaded byChanthu C Nair
- Ffb Custom SettingsUploaded byVlad Petrișor Acatrinei
- 226-479-1-SMUploaded byadam
- ch08.pptUploaded byWaqas Ahmed