0 Stimmen dafür0 Stimmen dagegen

0 Aufrufe10 Seiten3D Modeling and Experimental Validation of Flaw

Aug 14, 2018

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

3D Modeling and Experimental Validation of Flaw

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

0 Aufrufe

3D Modeling and Experimental Validation of Flaw

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- Neuromancer
- The E-Myth Revisited: Why Most Small Businesses Don't Work and
- How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking
- Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us
- Chaos: Making a New Science
- The Joy of x: A Guided Tour of Math, from One to Infinity
- How to Read a Person Like a Book
- Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything
- The Wright Brothers
- The Other Einstein: A Novel
- The 6th Extinction
- The Housekeeper and the Professor: A Novel
- The Power of Discipline: 7 Ways it Can Change Your Life
- The 10X Rule: The Only Difference Between Success and Failure
- A Short History of Nearly Everything
- The Kiss Quotient: A Novel
- The End of Average: How We Succeed in a World That Values Sameness
- Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die
- Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions
- The Universe in a Nutshell

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

responses provided by Magnetic Flux Leakage NDT

system inspecting ferromagnetic pipes

Stéphane BARREZ 1, Adrien TRILLON 1, Francois DENEUVILLE 1

1

Vallourec Research Center France, 60 Route de Leval - BP20149,

59620 Aulnoye-Aymeries, France

2

CEA LIST, Saclay, 91191 Gif sur YvetteGif-sur-Yvette, France

Contact e-mail: guillaume.wolf@vallourec.com

ferromagnetic pipes during production at Vallourec. A testing bench is composed of

an inductive circuit to create very high magnetic field within the piece under test and

one or several sensors on the outer side of the pipe to detect flux leakages due to

flaws. As opposed to other non-destructive techniques (like UT, ECT, RT, etc.),

there is no available dedicated modeling tool on the market for this technology

permitting to ease the development of new innovative sensors or optimize the

testing.

Vallourec Research Center France (VRCF) and CEA LIST are collaborating to

develop a tool to fulfil this lack. Concerning modeling, this problem is difficult to

solve due to high differences between flaw and magnetic circuit in terms of size and

magnetic nonlinearity of ferromagnetic pipes. This article presents results in the

magneto-static case with linear behavior based on surface integral framework by

CEA LIST.

The results from this modeling are compared to finite element modeling (FEM)

on a set of longitudinal and oblique reference notches, and also to experimental data

coming from 3D active Hall effect sensors developed by the Vallourec Research

Center. Benefits of the proposed solution and perspectives of this tool are discussed.

Introduction

The magnetic flux leakage (MFL) testing method is one of the most widely used non-

destructive testing techniques (NDT) and has been extensively used in the quality loop

control for pipe production. Among all the classical NDT techniques (ultrasonic testing,

eddy current testing, radiographic testing), magnetic flux leakage testing is especially

efficient in the detection of volumic defects in ferromagnetic material. In particular on-line

flux leakage testing is used for ensuring process reliability and is particularly well suited to

detect imperfections generated by the rolling process that can create longitudinal and

oblique flaws.

MFL testing relies on the fact that when a magnetic field is applied to a piece of

ferromagnetic material, any geometrical discontinuity in the material will cause the field to

1

License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ More info about this article: http://ndt.net/?id=19405

leak out of the material, into the air [1]. This flux leakage is measured by a magnetic field

sensor such as inductive coils, Hall effect sensors or also magnetoresistive sensors (AMR,

GMR).

The Vallourec Research Center France (VRCF) is deeply involved in the improvement of

MFL techniques within Vallourec mills: development of innovative sensors or signal

processing techniques. To do so our Lab is equipped with a Rotomat® Ro440 based

apparatus provided by Institut Dr Foerster illustrated in Figure 1.

The excitation magnetic field is performed through inductive coils with DC-current. The

magnetization field is channelled to the pipe through magnetization shoes. Between the two

shoes, the field is channelled by the wall thickness. In the presence of a flaw, the field

leaks. To catch the leakage, the magnetic field is measured at the surface of the pipe.

Fig. 1. Description of VRCF MFL lab bench

Improvement of MFL technique only by experiments would prove to be costly and time

consuming. Conversely, modeling allows exploring new concepts, choosing the right

direction for the development and limiting the necessary experiments. To our knowledge,

there is no dedicated modeling software in the market. The only manner to model this

problem is to resort to finite element modeling through commercial software able to handle

electromagnetic equations. Finite element modeling is well-known to be efficient to deal

with problems with complex geometries. Nevertheless, even with commercial software, the

set-up of the models is not easy and the required computation time and memory can be very

high.

To overcome these limitations and improve the performance of flaw detection, CEA LIST

and the VRCF are collaborating on MFL modeling. A first model has been proposed to

simulate magnetic field for MFL testing [2], which allowed the simulation of 3D defects in

a first simulation tool dedicated to longitudinal flaws inspection. This model is now

integrated as a 3D MFL plug-in into the CIVA software, and offers fast and accurate

simulation of 3D defects, whatever the orientation of the notch.

This paper presents this 3D model, compares the results obtained on longitudinal and

oblique 3D flaws to finite element model (FEM) simulation. Finally, validation

experiments are conducted by using a 3D magnetic sensor developed by the VRCF.

2

2. 3D models for magnetic flux leakage testing

As a first approximation, the magnetic field is assumed to be static. It means that the eddy

currents due to the rotation of the pipe are not taken into account. This assumption allows

reducing the model to a Laplace problem. This problem is considered under the integral

form of the simple layer potential [3]. In this case, the surface density to be determined on

the surface of the magnetic objects is the normal component of the magnetization vector.

The magnetic field is computed through the calculation of the radiation of the density

solution at the observed points.

For this study, the pipe and the magnetization shoes (Figure 1.b) are finely meshed and the

cylindrical circuit between the poles (Figure 1.a) (with the coils) is grossly meshed. The

mesh and the surface density are illustrated in Figure 2. The same magnetic permeability

has been used for all the pieces (relative magnetic permeability is 420). The main difficulty

is to represent a small reference notch (less than 1 mm in deep and width) in a huge system

(the outer diameter of the cylinder measures around 1.3m and the pipe is 1m long).

Moreover, the surface density around the defect is low regarding the density around the

poles; it may lead to numerical noise in the defect area. This problem should be normally

solved through the fine meshing around sharp edges of the geometry and around the defect.

Furthermore, approximate functions resorted are 2nd or 4th order polynoms. Thanks to this,

the mesh can be unleashed around the poles and the defect allowing a reasonable

computation time and a good accuracy of the solution.

Fig. 2: normalized solution of the integral probe. From left to right: global overview, zoom on pole and pipe,

zoom on the notch. Coils are illustrated in yellow and the meshing is in white

To avoid a different meshing at different position of the notch around the pipe, it is referred

to put the notch at the top of the pipe and to observe the magnetic field around the notch.

Simulations of magnetic flux leakage testing have also been carried out with a FEM

software package (COMSOL Multiphysics). One of the advantages of FEM software is the

possibility to handle a wide range of physics and geometries.

In order to reduce the numerical noise and to obtain sufficiently accurate results, the notch

and pipe have been finely meshed (Figure 3). The schemes discretization in space is based

on second-order elements.

3

Fig. 3: mesh discretization. From left to right: global overview, zoom on pole and pipe.

Even though it would have been possible to take the pipe rotation into account, it was

decided to model a stationary pipe for this study. As in the integral model, the notch was

positioned at the top of the pipe.

To validate the models, a test case has been defined as described hereunder:

- Wall thickness: 16.97 mm.

The rotation speed is low enough to respect the magneto-static assumptions and to limit the

effects of the eddy currents in the pipe.

In a first stage, modeling results and experimental data (from the VRCF bench) are

compared on a longitudinal reference notch and then on oblique notches with the following

characteristics:

Table 1. Notches characteristics

(around pipe longitudinal axis)

“Longi” 5% of the wall 0°

“15°” 25 mm 1 mm thickness i.e. 0.85 15°

“30°” mm 30°

axis magnetic Hall effect field sensor designed by VRCF, illustrated in Figure 4.

4

Fig. 4: illustration of the 3D sensor

The three directions of the magnetic field are measured: the radial one , the tangential

one , and the longitudinal one as illustrated in Figure 5.

The magnetic field is measured at a height of 1 mm above the pipe outer surface.

3.2 Mapping of the magnetic field for the longitudinal reference notch

Mappings represent the magnetic field measured around the pipe and in the area around the

notch. For all the mappings, the x-axis represents the longitudinal position of the sensor

along the length of the pipe (Z) and the y-axis the angular position around the

circumference of the pipe (Ө).

To compare all the results together (experimental data and simulated data), the entire

dataset has been normalized according to the maximum amplitude of the signal. It must be

stated that a modeling of the sensor, in particular of its active area, is integrated into the

simulation to fit as much as possible to its real behavior.

The comparison of mapping of the radial direction of the measured magnetic field and

simulated magnetic field through the integral form and finite element model is illustrated

on Figure 6 in the case of the longitudinal reference notch.

Ө [°]

Ө [°]

Ө [°]

Z [mm] Z [mm]

Z [mm]

(a) Magnetic field measured on (c) Simulated magnetic field

the VRCF bench (b) Simulated magnetic field (finite element model)

(integral form)

Fig. 6: mapping of the radial direction of the magnetic field

5

The comparison of mapping of the tangential direction of the measured magnetic field

and simulated magnetic field through the integral form and finite element model is

illustrated on Figure 7 in the case of the longitudinal reference notch.

Ө [°]

Ө [°]

Ө [°]

Z [mm] Z [mm]

Z [mm]

(a) Magnetic field measured (c) Simulated magnetic field

(b) Simulated magnetic field

on the VRCF bench (finite element model)

(integral form)

Fig. 7: mapping of the tangential direction of the magnetic field

field and simulated magnetic field through the integral form and finite element model is

illustrated on Figure 8 in the case of the longitudinal reference notch.

Ө [°]

Ө [°]

Ө [°]

(a) Magnetic field measured on (b) Simulated magnetic field (c) Simulated magnetic field

the VRCF bench (integral form) (finite element model)

Fig. 8: mapping of the longitudinal direction of the magnetic field

Results appear similar, thus illustrating the efficiency of the model. Slight differences could

be explained by a lower resolution along the z axis of measured data compared to simulated

ones. Another explanation is relative to the resolution of the sensor itself. In the case of

simulated data, the mapping is the magnetic field picked-up on points whereas in the case

of experimental data, the measurements cannot be point-wise due to the size of the active

area of the magnetic sensor.

reference notch

In order to compare the models with the experimental data, the three components of the

magnetic field are plotted together. and have been validated and presented in [2].

Thanks to the 3D sensors we are now able to compare simulation and experimental data for

the longitudinal component of the magnetic field .

On Figure 9 the longitudinal field is plotted in the case of the longitudinal reference

notch. On the left, the maximum value for each spire is plotted. On the right, the maximum

value for each line is plotted.

6

Exp Sim integral form Sim FEM 1.00 Exp

1 Sim integral form

0.80

0.9 Sim FEM

0.60

0.8

0.40

0.7

0.20

0.6

0.5 0.00

0.4 -0.20

0.3 -0.40

0.2 -0.60

0.1 -0.80

0 -1.00

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -10 -5 0 5 10

z [mm] Ө [°]

The correlation between simulated field and the measured field is good illustrating the

efficiency of the model.

Modeling results and experimental data from the VRCF bench are compared on the oblique

notches described in section 3.1. First, mappings and amplitudes of the three components of

the magnetic field are compared in the case of a 30° obliquity reference notch. The

response of the 15° and 30° oblique notches are then compared to the longitudinal notch.

4.1 Mapping of the magnetic field for the oblique 30° reference notch

Mappings of the three components of the magnetic field obtained by experiment and

simulation through the integral form and finite element model are compared in Figure 10,

Figure 11 and Figure 12 in the case of the 30° reference notch.

Ө [°]

Ө [°]

Ө [°]

Z [mm]

Z [mm] Z [mm]

(a) Magnetic field measured on the

VRCF bench (b) Simulated magnetic field (c) Simulated magnetic field

(integral form) (finite element model)

Fig. 10: mapping of the radial direction of the magnetic field

Ө [°]

Ө [°]

Ө [°]

(a) Magnetic field measured on the (b) Simulated magnetic field (c) Simulated magnetic field (finite

VRCF bench (integral form) element model)

Fig. 11: mapping of the tangential direction of the magnetic field

7

Ө [°]

Ө [°]

Ө [°]

Z [mm]

Z [mm] Z [mm]

(a) Magnetic field measured on

the VRCF bench (b) Simulated magnetic field (c) Simulated magnetic field (finite

(integral form) element model)

Fig. 12: mapping of the longitudinal direction of the magnetic field

Results appear close together illustrating the efficiency of the model. Slight differences

could be explained by a lower resolution of measured data compared to simulation ones and

size of the active area of the sensor.

4.2 Comparisons experimental data / simulated data on the oblique 30° reference notch

In order to compare the models with the experimental data, the three components of the

magnetic field are plotted together.

Figure 13, the normal field is plotted in the case of the 30° notch. On the left, the

maximum value for each spire is plotted. On the right, the maximum value for each line is

plotted. Figure 14 and Figure 15, the same plots are illustrated for the tangential field

and the longitudinal component .

Exp

1.00 1.00 Exp

Sim FEM Sim integral form

0.90 Sim integral form 0.80 Sim FEM

0.80

0.60

0.70

0.40

0.60

0.50 0.20

0.40 0.00

0.30 -10 -5 0 5 10

-0.20

0.20

0.10 -0.40

0.00 -0.60

-0.10 -0.80

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

z [mm] -1.00

Ө [°]

Fig. 13: radial component of the magnetic field for a 30° notch

Exp Exp

1.00 0.5 Sim integral form

Sim FEM 0.4

0.90 Sim FEM

0.80 0.2

form

0.70 0.1

0.60 0

-0.1 -10 -5 0 5 10

0.50

-0.2

0.40 -0.3

0.30 -0.4

0.20 -0.5

-0.6

0.10

-0.7

0.00 -0.8

-0.10 -0.9

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -1

z [mm] Ө [°]

Fig. 14: tangential component of the magnetic field for a 30° notch

8

1.00 Exp 0.50

Sim FEM 0.40

0.90

0.30

0.80 Sim integral 0.20

form

0.70 0.10

0.60 0.00

-0.10 -10 -5 0 5 10

0.50

-0.20

0.40 -0.30

0.30 -0.40

0.20 -0.50

-0.60

0.10

-0.70 Exp

0.00 -0.80 Sim FEM

-0.10 -0.90

Sim integral form

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -1.00

z [mm] Ө [°]

Fig. 15: longitudinal component of the magnetic field for a 30° notch

It appears on these figures that the simulated field and the measured field have a good

matching. The asymmetry of the components along the angular position θ (figures at the

right) is present in experimental data and simulated data.

Nevertheless, along the longitudinal z position the step-like profiles in the simulated data

(figures at the left) are not observed in the experimental data. This difference could be

explained by the limited resolution along z axis and also by the fact that the modeling of the

transfer function of the sensor should be still optimized.

The responses of the three notches described in section 3.1 are compared in the following

section. In Figure 16, the maximum of the amplitude measured on each notch is compared

to simulation.

The notch presenting the maximum amplitude is taken as reference.

Radial direction of the magnetic Field Tangential direction of the magnetic Field

longi 15° 30°

longi 15° 30°

0.00

0.00

response of the notch [dB]

-2.00 -2.00

-4.00 -4.00

Exp Exp

-6.00

-6.00 Sim Integral form Sim integral form

-8.00

-8.00 sim FEM Sim FEM

-10.00

-10.00 -12.00

-12.00 -14.00

notch notch

(a) radial direction of the magnetic field (b) tangential direction of the magnetic field

longi 15° 30°

0.00

response of the notch [dB]

-2.00

Exp

-4.00

Sim integral form

-6.00 Sim FEM

-8.00

-10.00

notch

Fig. 16: Comparison of response of oblique notches compared to longitudinal defect

The two models give satisfactory results close to the experimental data, in particular for the

radial and tangential direction of the magnetic field.

9

Nevertheless, we observe some minor differences in maximal amplitude (around 4 to 5 dB)

between experimental data and models on the longitudinal component of the magnetic

field. This could be explained by the difficulty to catch the edge of the notch, where the

signal is maximal, with the axial resolution used for the experiment.

It must be also stated that the longitudinal direction of the magnetic field shows a better

detection in the case of oblique defects compared to longitudinal ones. An improvement of

4 dB in the case of 15° obliquity flaw is achieved.

In addition to the way to handle the sensor and the manufacturing tolerances of the notches

used in experiments, the differences between experimental data and simulated data could be

Magneto-static assumption: the eddy currents are not taken into account with these

explained by:

models. This can influence the results even if the experimental data are acquired with a

Nonlinear material: the B-H curve is not taken into account in this model. The magnetic

low rotation speed;

permeability is the same in all the elements. This also could influence the results.

These points represent potential ways of evolution of the models which could be studied in

the future to raise the models as close as possible to the experiments.

5. Conclusion

Through a partnership between Vallourec Research Center France and CEA LIST, two

modeling methods of magnetic flux leakage inspection of ferromagnetic steel pipes has

been developed using respectively integral forms and finite elements.

Results of the modeling show a good matching with experimental data for the three

directions of the magnetic field both on longitudinal and oblique flaws. In conclusion,

models appear as promising for supporting future developments in Magnetic Flux leakage

inspection.

This work has permitted also to underline some potential ways of evolution in order to get

more realistic models. For examples, the transfer function of the sensors should be

optimized into the models to take more precisely in account the active area size of the

sensor. The resolution along the axis of the pipe could also be improved.

The authors would like to thank Alexandre Mallart and David Louboutin for the

simulations, Samuel Poulain and Antoine Marion for the experimental measurements.

References

[1] Y. Sun, Y. Kang, “A new MFL principle and method based on near-zero background magnetic field”,

NDT & E International, 43, Issue 4, 348-353 (2010).

[2] A.Trillon, E. Demaldent, C. Reboud, S. Barrez, F. Deneuville, "Modeling of magnetic flux leakage testing

through surface integral formulation", ECNDT2014 Conference Proceedings, 2014

[3]. U. Langer, M. Schanz, O. Steinbach, W. L. Wendland, “Fast Boundary Element Methods in Engineering

and Industrial Applications”, Springer, Lectures Notes in Applied and Computational Mechanics, Volume 63

(2012).

10

- The Oscillations of the Magic Square FourHochgeladen vonArto Heino
- Dynamic Analysis of Reciprocating Compressors on FPSO Topside Modules(54)Hochgeladen vonDushyant Varshney
- A FINITE ELEMENT SOLVER FOR MODAL ANALYSIS OF MULTI-SPAN OFFSHORE PIPELINESHochgeladen vonKenneth Davis
- Standard Guide for Magnetic Particle Examination E 709 – 01Hochgeladen vonCERTICAS GF
- ElasticaHochgeladen vonAnil K Vishwa
- A Comprehensive Introduction of the Finite Element Method for Undergraduate CoursesHochgeladen vonAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- NAFEMS Membership DetailsHochgeladen vonKalpesh Joshi
- guia procedimiento inspeccion MFL.pdfHochgeladen vonleonciomavarez
- FEA Tutorials_IF1.pdfHochgeladen vonTran Tien Dung
- Improve Engineering Efficiency by Advanced Surface Modeling and MeshingHochgeladen vonjeovan
- Full TextHochgeladen vonKiran Phonde
- Lecture Note 2017 Chap1-3Hochgeladen vonChawanakorn Nontapa
- Dispersive Properties of the Natural Element Method and Sukumar Moran MethodHochgeladen vonEndless Love
- ModulesHochgeladen vonPurvang Desai
- 1DBVPHochgeladen vonougueway
- 08. Introduction to the Finite Element MethodHochgeladen vonedmond
- RAGAWANSX015809AWD04DO5TT1.docHochgeladen vonLeanna Abdul Wahab
- Static Fixturing and Testing of Torsional Shafts in Combined LoadingHochgeladen vonjhonas131
- zaragoza_2003Hochgeladen vonjaimemont
- Modeller Reference ManualHochgeladen vonClaudiu Gabriel
- a Modified Solution of Radial Subgrade Modulus for a Circular Tunnel in Elastic GroundHochgeladen vonChat Chaiwonglek
- Smirt20 AbstractHochgeladen vonJan Vachulka
- finite elementHochgeladen vonGrantHerman
- Coupled Structual Thermal Analysis of Disc BrakeHochgeladen vonInternational Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology
- Readme FemHochgeladen vonasangallo
- Laterally loaded PilesHochgeladen vontarek
- PhysicsHochgeladen vonammusokhi
- Nochetto Adaptive FEMHochgeladen vononebyzerooutlook
- Non Distructive InspectionHochgeladen vonbasharatkhan
- PHY5January2004Hochgeladen vonapi-3726022

- Cswip Rules & Code of EthicsHochgeladen vonHafdi Nawfal
- l22Hochgeladen vonmalawany
- teori-apiHochgeladen vonAndi Setyo Budianto
- Final Drawing Assy 4Hochgeladen vonAndi Setyo Budianto
- design calculationHochgeladen vonAndi Setyo Budianto
- ASSY 4.PDFHochgeladen vonAndi Setyo Budianto
- ZN-50Hochgeladen vonAndi Setyo Budianto
- FORM VDrop CalculationHochgeladen vonAndi Setyo Budianto
- TEP_CONST_SAFETY CRITICAL ROLE COMPETENCY VS REQUIREMENT MATRIX_Rev310517.pdfHochgeladen vonAndi Setyo Budianto
- Laying down1.pdfHochgeladen vonAndi Setyo Budianto
- LiftHochgeladen vonRonny
- LEEA_Standards_2_2[1]Hochgeladen vonAndi Setyo Budianto
- 7.3 IP 01 Ingress Protection form final.xlsxHochgeladen vonAndi Setyo Budianto
- Optimisation of car RimHochgeladen vonraajaah
- ASSY 4.PDFHochgeladen vonAndi Setyo Budianto
- P-1500 Series ManualHochgeladen vonAndi Setyo Budianto
- Desain Simulasi Tool Rack Type2 CoverHochgeladen vonAndi Setyo Budianto
- ASNT-L3_Required-Forms.pdfHochgeladen vonErick Pachas
- ASNT L3 Code of EthicsHochgeladen vonMann Gurpreet
- radiasiHochgeladen vonAndi Setyo Budianto
- Coating Verification for MPI Effectiveness.docHochgeladen vonAndi Setyo Budianto
- Standard ExproofHochgeladen vonAndi Setyo Budianto
- SkidHochgeladen vonAndi Setyo Budianto
- 7K-3rd EdHochgeladen vonAndi Setyo Budianto
- ASNT L3 Exam ExperienceHochgeladen vonAndi Setyo Budianto
- ASNT L3 Exam ExperienceHochgeladen vonShahazad Shaik
- JSA Radiography CLHochgeladen vonAndi Setyo Budianto
- Intelligent Mfl Defect Detection Algorithm Equipped By305Hochgeladen vonAndi Setyo Budianto

- NEMA ICS-14Hochgeladen vonClaudio Godoy Zepeda
- Fluid Mechanics, Chapter ThreeHochgeladen vonwambik
- Miniature RelaysHochgeladen vonAleksandar
- Basic Concepts and Properties of FluidsHochgeladen von9444583008
- CompassHochgeladen vonzzagalo
- Calculation of Resistance to GroundHochgeladen vonalfonso.parker
- Transformer LossesHochgeladen vonelectworld
- Be York Industrial Commercial Hvac 2017Hochgeladen vonkonticv
- EDCA-M3-Ktunotes.in_Hochgeladen vonVignesh VS
- Serie MicroHochgeladen vonotis1988
- ADS+Tutorial_SungYooHochgeladen vonJDTerex
- LD7577-DS-01.pdfHochgeladen vonLucilia Dos Santos
- Angular Kinetics Moment-Answer.docHochgeladen vonpatengg
- 12V BATTERY MONITORHochgeladen vonArvind Singh
- ShallowWater0 2Hochgeladen vongriflet
- Tis Pv Mppt TheoryHochgeladen vonMichael Bozarth
- infrared-thermometer.pdfHochgeladen vonDadang Syarieffidayat
- Chapter 41Hochgeladen vonharsimu
- ADXL320 acelerómetroHochgeladen vonMariano Muñoz De la Cruz
- as6Hochgeladen vonTrip Adler
- 10_shortcalcHochgeladen vonRalph Parungao
- 8084det2_tcm4-117155Hochgeladen vonAnonymous FGryb4rEgN
- Ch21-1-4.pdfHochgeladen vonsiddhartha2862
- xPaper_04Hochgeladen vonicaanmpz
- E-350-12Hochgeladen vonHamdi Naufel
- STUDY THE METHODS OF BALANCING OF MULTI-CYLINDER ENGINEHochgeladen vonGurmeet Singh
- Test Online physicsHochgeladen vontoaniltiwari
- MHDHochgeladen vonsasmitadhal08
- Leibniz's Radial Planetary Orbital EquationHochgeladen vonFrederick David Tombe
- Powder Bulk DensityHochgeladen vonkrizel

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.