0 Stimmen dafür0 Stimmen dagegen

8 Aufrufe11 SeitenThe first extensive systematic tests of flat-faced segmental-section propellers were those performed by Gawn in 1953
(open-water tests) and Gawn and Burrill in 1957 (cavitating environment). Since then several attempts to develop
mathematical representations of propeller hydrodynamic characteristics (thrust coefficient KT and torque coefficient KQ)
have been made in order to improve computer capabilities in predicting propeller performance. The first mathematical
model was that of Blount and Hub

Jun 11, 2019

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

The first extensive systematic tests of flat-faced segmental-section propellers were those performed by Gawn in 1953
(open-water tests) and Gawn and Burrill in 1957 (cavitating environment). Since then several attempts to develop
mathematical representations of propeller hydrodynamic characteristics (thrust coefficient KT and torque coefficient KQ)
have been made in order to improve computer capabilities in predicting propeller performance. The first mathematical
model was that of Blount and Hub

© All Rights Reserved

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

8 Aufrufe

The first extensive systematic tests of flat-faced segmental-section propellers were those performed by Gawn in 1953
(open-water tests) and Gawn and Burrill in 1957 (cavitating environment). Since then several attempts to develop
mathematical representations of propeller hydrodynamic characteristics (thrust coefficient KT and torque coefficient KQ)
have been made in order to improve computer capabilities in predicting propeller performance. The first mathematical
model was that of Blount and Hub

© All Rights Reserved

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

- Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race
- Hidden Figures Young Readers' Edition
- The Law of Explosive Growth: Lesson 20 from The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership
- The E-Myth Revisited: Why Most Small Businesses Don't Work and
- The Wright Brothers
- The Power of Discipline: 7 Ways it Can Change Your Life
- The Other Einstein: A Novel
- The Kiss Quotient: A Novel
- State of Fear
- State of Fear
- The 10X Rule: The Only Difference Between Success and Failure
- Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error
- Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions
- The Black Swan
- Prince Caspian
- The Art of Thinking Clearly
- A Mind for Numbers: How to Excel at Math and Science Even If You Flunked Algebra
- The Last Battle
- The 6th Extinction
- HBR's 10 Must Reads on Strategy (including featured article "What Is Strategy?" by Michael E. Porter)

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11

net/publication/269100491

DOI: 10.3940/rina,ijsct.2009.b2.92

CITATIONS READS

2 2,015

3 authors:

45 PUBLICATIONS 90 CITATIONS

University of Belgrade

13 PUBLICATIONS 43 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Milan Kalajdzic

University of Belgrade

10 PUBLICATIONS 37 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PLATINA - Platform for the implementation of NAIADES (multi-annual European Action Programme for IWT) (2008-2012) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Milan Kalajdzic on 22 January 2015.

Trans RINA, Vol 151, Part B2, Intl J Small Craft Tech, 2009 Jul-Dec

D Radojčić, A Simić and M Kalajdžić, University of Belgrade, Serbia

(DOI No: 10.3940/rina.ijsct.2009.b2.92)

SUMMARY

The first extensive systematic tests of flat-faced segmental-section propellers were those performed by Gawn in 1953

(open-water tests) and Gawn and Burrill in 1957 (cavitating environment). Since then several attempts to develop

mathematical representations of propeller hydrodynamic characteristics (thrust coefficient KT and torque coefficient KQ)

have been made in order to improve computer capabilities in predicting propeller performance. The first mathematical

model was that of Blount and Hubble (1981), which was soon followed by Kozhukharov’s (1986) and then Radojcic’s

(1988). These models were developed through application of multiple regression analysis. Koushan (2007) challenged

more than 20 years of the regression approach, for representing the highly non-linear Gawn-Burrill KCA propeller

characteristics, and suggested application of the artificial neural network technique. This paper compares the four

mathematical models mentioned above.

equations). This model was followed by Model 2

DAR developed area ratio (Kozhukharov [4]) with single equations for both

EAR expanded area ratio regimes which had 121 and 116 polynomial terms for KT

J advance coefficient and KQ respectively. In order to reduce the number of

KT thrust coefficient terms and increase the accuracy of previous models,

KQ torque coefficient Radojcic [5] published separate equations for non-

ΔKT KT reduction for cavitating conditions cavitating and cavitating regimes, Model 3, the first

ΔKQ KQ reduction for cavitating conditions having only 16 and 17 and second 20 and 18 polynomial

P/D pitch ratio terms respectively. The mathematical models mentioned

Qc torque load coefficient above were developed using multiple regression

z number of propeller blades techniques. Recently, Koushan [6] challenged more than

η0 propeller efficiency 20 years of the regression approach for representing

ηatm propeller efficiency non-cavitating conditions highly non-linear Gawn-Burrill KCA propeller

ηcav propeller efficiency cavitating conditions characteristics, and suggested application of the artificial

σ cavitation number based on advance velocity neural networks (ANN) technique. Koushan derived

σ0.7R cavitation number based on resultant water separate equations for the non-cavitating and cavitating

velocity at 0.7 radius conditions, Model 4, with 34 equation terms for both KT

τc thrust load coefficient and KQ for the non-cavitating regime, and 89 and 107

terms respectively for the cavitating regime.

1. INTRODUCTION

It should be noted that only Model 1 was based on AEW

Flat-faced, segmental section propellers are relatively data (for non-cavitating, i.e. open-water conditions),

simple to manufacture, easy to repair and have while Models 2, 3 and 4 were based on KCA data (for

respectable open-water and cavitation characteristics. atmospheric and cavitating conditions). AEW propellers

These are the main reasons they are still widely used for are geometrically close to KCA propellers – see [1] and

small, high-speed craft. Amongst the first systematic [2]. Data for cavitating conditions of Model 1 are based

tests of these propellers were those performed by Gawn on various sources, see Blount & Hubble [3]. Moreover,

in 1953 [1] (open-water tests) and Gawn and Burrill in it is often assumed that open-water and atmospheric

1957 [2] (cavitating environment). conditions are the same, although that is not the case (this

discussion, however, is beyond the scope of the paper).

Several attempts to develop mathematical representations Consequently, Model 1 should inherently produce

of propeller hydrodynamic characteristics (thrust slightly different results from Models 2 to 4. Common

coefficient KT and torque coefficient KQ) have been for all models, however, is that they are applicable for 3-

made in order to improve computer capabilities in bladed segmental section propellers under cavitating and

predicting propeller performance. The first mathematical non-cavitating conditions.

model, denoted here as Model 1, was that of Blount and

Hubble [3]. They derived separate equations for open- The primary purpose of this paper is to compare the

water characteristics, based on Gawn’s Admiralty mathematical models mentioned above. In addition, an

experiment works (AEW) data (actually polynomials of analysis of results of two decades old regression

the B series propeller form were used with 39 and 47 techniques and those of the more modern artificial

terms for KT and KQ respectively, but new regression neural network technique is given.

coefficients were evaluated), and for the cavitating

Trans RINA, Vol 151, Part B2, Intl J Small Craft Tech, 2009 Jul-Dec

2. DISCUSSION OF THE MODELS taken into account, then wrong modeling conclusions

may be reached. This is explored in depth in [5],

The exact mathematical models are explained in detail in resulting in a tedious (iterative) model-building process

the references mentioned above. Table 1 provides a side- and selection of the KT and KQ pair that produced the

by-side summary of their principal attributes and optimum ηo representation (note however, that the

respective boundaries of applicability. Note that: chosen KT and KQ equations of Model 3 were not

necessarily the best ones from the statistical point of

• According to Model 1 and Model 3 the non-cavitating view). This seems to have been overlooked in Model 2

regime is valid all the way through to the inception of and later Model 4, resulting in cases that may produce

cavitation - intersection of open-water and transition inconsistent values of ηo. In order to emphasize this

zone (KT and KQ breakdown points). point, in this paper most figures show just ηo. The quality

• Model 4, however, consists of separate equations for the of each mathematical model (the validity and accuracy of

cavitating and non-cavitating regimes for the whole J- KT and KQ curves) was thoroughly checked and

range (which is actually not based on physical facts). discussed in the original papers. All of them show KT

• Model 2 is based on a single equation for both cavitating and KQ curves, but only some of them show ηo values,

and non-cavitating regimes, which is correct in principle although KT and KQ are by definition linked by ηo. So,

but may lead to serious instabilities due to the very large small variations (modelling errors) in independently

number of polynomial terms (121 and 116 for KT and KQ evaluated KT and KQ, as well as possible

respectively). inconsistencies, are emphasized through ηo.

related – linked – via ηo = KT·J / KQ·2π. If this is not

Trans RINA, Vol 151, Part B2, Intl J Small Craft Tech, 2009 Jul-Dec

Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the inconsistencies of Model 4 Figure 4 illustrates the outcomes of the three approaches:

(ANN approach) compared to Model 3 (regression

method). The relatively unusual lower diagrams showing • Model 2 – single equation for both cavitating and

J=f(P/D) correspond to the upper 3D diagrams non-cavitating regimes;

ηo=f(P/D,1J) and show the projection of the ηo surface – • Model 4 – separate equations for each regime;

which is supposed to be smooth – in the J-P/D plane. • Model 3 – equations for open-water up to cavitation

Related instabilities of Model 2 are shown in Figure 3. inception, then new equations for cavitating regime.

The local maxima/minima and saddle points shown are

obviously not desirable. Model 1, being a bit different but having the same

approach as model 3, is shown in Figure 5. Note the

It should be noted however, that the database of the lower boundaries of applicability for the cavitating

original KCA propeller series also showed some regime (going down to J=0.4) compared to those of

inconsistencies (disagreements of KT, KQ and ηO, see [5]) Models 2 to 4 (shown in Figure 4).

which probably may be explained with the fact that

diagrams published in [2] were too small. This collateral Although not explicitly shown by the original KCA

conclusion actually shows the power of regression dataset, it is sometimes possible to obtain slightly higher

analysis and curve fitting methods which weres not used efficiencies under cavitating than under non-cavitating

in the fifties when KCA test data were faired/drawn. As conditions. Nevertheless, all models that are shown in

the KCA data used for building Model 3, and most Figure 4 are based on the same KCA dataset, so higher

probably for Models 2 and 4 too, were not “the raw (peak) efficiencies under the cavitating conditions

measurements data”, but were data obtained through the (obtained by Models 2 and 4) may be explained only with

digitization of curves presented in relatively small unsatisfactory ηo presentation/accuracy (at least for

diagrams [2], reading errors of up to 5% were possible. particular DAR and P/D values), as evaluated values,

Trans RINA, Vol 151, Part B2, Intl J Small Craft Tech, 2009 Jul-Dec

General Equation Boundaries of applicability

Model Boundaries

For non-cavitating conditions (Based on AEW data) For non-cavitating conditions

39

s1 t1 u1 v1

KT = ∑ CT1 × ( J ) × ( P ) × ( EAR) × ( z )

( D ) z = 3 and 4

n =1 0.60 ≤ P/D ≤ 1.60

47 t1 0.50 ≤ EAR ≤ 1.10

× ( EAR )u1 × ( z )v1 ⎞⎟ 0.80 ≤ P ≤ 1.40

K Q = ∑ ⎛⎜ CQ1 × ( J ) s1 × P

D ( ) ⎠ D

n =1 ⎝

CT, CQ, s, t, u, v - coefficients for non-cavitating conditions

KT = 0.393 × τ c × EAR × (1.067 − 0.229 × P ) × ( J 2 + 4.836)

D 0.60 ≤ P/D ≤ 2.00

K Q = 0.393 × Qc × EAR × (1.067 − 0.229 × P ) × ( J 2 + 4.836)

D

For transition region:

τ c = 1.2 × σ 0.7 R

0.9

(0.7 + 0.32× EAR )

Qc = 0.2 × P × σ 0.7 R

D

or fully developed cavitation:

τ c = 0.0725 × P D − 0.034 × EAR

2

0.0185 × P ( D) − 0.0166 × P + 0.00594

Qc = D

3

EAR

Single equation for non-cavitating and cavitating conditions

(Based on KCA data) 0.60 ≤ P ≤ 2.00 for σ < 0.75:

⎛ a1

⎞ b1 D (P/D)min > 0.85

⎛ J − 0.30 ⎞ ⎛ ln(arctg (σ )) ⎞

⎜ A1 × ⎜ ⎟ × ⎜ 0.45 + ⎟ ⎟ 0.50 ≤ EAR ≤ 1.18

121 ⎜ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎟ for σ ≥ 0.75:

c1 ⎟ 0.05 ≤ σ ≤ 6.30 (P/D)min > 0.65

KT = ∑ ⎜

n =1 ⎜

⎛ P − 0.55 ⎞ ⎟ J mean = 0.536 × P + 0.0286

D ⎟ × ( EAR ) d1 D

⎜×⎜ ⎟ (P/D)max < 1.6

⎜ ⎜ 1.5 ⎟ ⎟ for σ > 1.0 :

⎝ ⎝ ⎠ ⎠

l1 p1 J max = P

⎛ ⎛ J − 0.30 ⎞ ⎛ ln(arctg (σ )) ⎞ ⎞ D

⎜ B1 × ⎜ ⎟ × ⎜ 0.45 + ⎟ ⎟

116 ⎜ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎟ for 0.50 ≤ σ ≤ 1.00

KT = ∑ ⎜ q1 ⎟

n =1 ⎜

⎛ P − 0.55 ⎞ ⎟ J max = ⎡⎢ 0.52935 + 0.21471× P

( ( D)

× (1 − σ ) + σ ⎤⎥ × P

) D

D ⎟ × ( EAR) s1 ⎣ ⎦

⎜×⎜ ⎟

⎜ ⎜ 1.5 ⎟ ⎟

⎝ ⎝ ⎠ ⎠

A, a, b, c, d, B, l, p, q, s – coefficients

Trans RINA, Vol 151, Part B2, Intl J Small Craft Tech, 2009 Jul-Dec

16 y 0.5 ≤ DAR ≤ 1.1

KT = ∑ ⎛⎜ CT × 10e × ( DAR ) x × P × ( J ) z ⎞⎟

( )

1 ⎝

D ⎠ 0.8 ≤ P ≤ 1.8 0.8 ≤ P ≤ 2.0

D D

17 y

K Q = ∑ ⎛⎜ CQ × 10e × ( DAR) x × P × ( J ) z ⎞⎟ J ≥ 0.3 J mean = 0.492 × P + 0.031

⎝ D ( ) ⎠ D

1

CT, CQ, e, x, y, z - coefficients for non-cavitating conditions

J

KT ≤ − 0.1

2.5

Additional equations for cavitating conditions (Based on KCA data) For cavitating conditions

20

for σ <1.00:

v

1.25 − 0.3 × ( DAR ) − 0.2 × σ ≤ P ≤ 1.8 + 0.021

ΔKT = ∑ ⎛⎜ dT × 10e × ( DAR ) s × P

D

× (σ 0.7 R )t × ( KT )u ⎞⎟

( ) D J mean = 0.0.571× P

D

1 ⎝ ⎠

20 v

J

KT ≤ − 0.1 − (0.07 σ ) for σ ≥ 1.00 :

ΔK Q = ∑ ⎛⎜ dQ × 10e × ( DAR) s × P × (σ 0.7 R )t × ( KT )u ⎞⎟

( ) 2.5

1 ⎝

D ⎠

σ ≥ 0.50 J mean = 0.492 × P + 0.031

dT, dQ, e, s, v, t, u - coefficients for cavitating conditions D

ΔKT ≥ 0, ΔK Q ≥ 0

ηo ≥ 0.20, η atm ≥ ηcav

Separate equations for non-cavitating and cavitating conditions For cavitating conditions only

(Based on KCA data)

? ?

0.60 ≤ P ≤ 2.00 = 0.67 + 0.83 × DAR −0.32

f O C + ∑ ? O1 × tan h a1 + ∑ ? h? × ( D? × X ? + E? )

( ( ( ))) − G D ( P D) mean

Y= 0.5 ≤ DAR ≤ 1.1

L + 0.61× σ 2 − 1.64

Y - KT or KQ coefficient J = 0.4847 × P + 0.0339

mean D

a, C, D, E, G, h, L, O - constants (depend whether Y is KT or KQ

and if cavitation is present or not) 0.50 ≤ σ ≤ 2.00

X - Input variables in following order: J, DAR, P/D and σ

34 equation terms for both KT and KQ for non-cavitating conditions

89 and 107 terms respectively for cavitating conditions

Trans RINA, Vol 151, Part B2, Intl J Small Craft Tech, 2009 Jul-Dec

for Model 2, Model 4 and Model 3 (DAR=0.8, P/D=1.4)

than the original dataset underlying them.

KQ cavitation breakdown points, as the transition zone

(multidimensional plane) should be faired smoothly into

the open-water data (another multidimensional plane).

The above-mentioned disadvantages of Model 1 are

clearly visible from Figure 5, while disadvantages of

Model 3 are depicted in Figure 6. So, to obtain KT and

KQ for the

Trans RINA, Vol 151, Part B2, Intl J Small Craft Tech, 2009 Jul-Dec

solved with an adequate software routine. From KT and

KQ cavitating and non-cavitating, ηo curves are obtained,

see right-hand diagram of Figure 4. Since this has

already been elaborated in Radojcic [5], this paper does

not address this point any further.

EXPERIMENTAL DATA

through comparison with (a) the original database, and

(b) the data not used in the derivation of the equations.

Propellers of the KCA series 410, 416, 510 and 516,

Figure 5: ηo= f(J) for Model 1 (DAR = 0.8, P/D = 1.4) having DAR=0.65 and 0.95 and P/D=1.0 and 1.6 for both

non-cavitating and cavitating conditions (σ=1), are used

cavitating regime, ΔKT and ΔKQ have to be calculated for comparison (a). This is shown in Figures 7 and 8

first (these are the upper diagrams of Figure 6). These respectively. For comparison (b) a realistic propeller was

values are then subtracted from KT and KQ non-cavitating chosen (used in discussion of [5]), see Figure 9.

(see bottom diagrams of Figure 6). But since they are

separately calculated and due to imperfections of the In both the cases that were considered, all mathematical

model, it might happen that these curves do not smoothly models had reasonable fits, taking into account that:

(asymptotically) run-in into the KT and KQ non-cavitating

curves, i.e. evaluation of the transition regime

(surounding of cavitation breakdown points) might be

Trans RINA, Vol 151, Part B2, Intl J Small Craft Tech, 2009 Jul-Dec

Figure 7: Comparison of models with propellers belonging to KCA series (non-cavitating conditions)

Figure 8: Comparison of models with propellers belonging to KCA series (cavitating conditions – σ = 1)

Trans RINA, Vol 151, Part B2, Intl J Small Craft Tech, 2009 Jul-Dec

Figure 9: Comparison of models with commercial propeller (used in discussion of [5] – slightly skewed, no cup, z = 3,

D=604.5mm, P/Dnominal = 1.000, P/Dmeasured = 1.004, EARnominal = 0.50, EARmeasured = 0.54, t/c = 0.04, t/D = 0.018)

Figure 10: Boundaries of KCA propeller series and of applicability within which all models may be applied

Trans RINA, Vol 151, Part B2, Intl J Small Craft Tech, 2009 Jul-Dec

• Experiments are often not repeatable (see Figure 9) as applied in [6], does not (yet) seem to be more

particularly in the cavitating environment. appropriate for modeling highly non-linear surfaces

(such as KT and KQ) than the regression technique

• Cavitation experiments at atmospheric conditions combined with adequate polynomial equations.

may vary from the open-water experiments. Ultimately, the physical meaning of the quantities is

more important that the modeling technique used.

• Laboratory propellers (represented by mathematical

models) and commercially-available propellers are

5. REFERENCES

not manufactured to the same tolerances.

1. GAWN, R. W. L., Effect of Pitch and Blade

• Mathematical models are often used for the

Width on Propeller Performance, Trans INA,

commercial propellers that vary geometrically from

Volume 95, pp 157-193, 1953.

the original database (as is actually the case shown

2. GAWN, R. W. L. and BURRILL, L. C., Effect

in Figure 9).

of Cavitation on the Performance of a Series of

16 in. Model Propellers, Trans INA, Volume 99,

4. CONCLUDING REMARKS pp 690-728, 1957.

3. BLOUNT, D. L., HUBBLE, E. N., Sizing

Mathematical models were compared with all propellers Segmental Section Commercially Available

belonging to the KCA series (making all together more Propellers for Small Craft, Propellers ’81

than 300 checked cases) but only a few of them are Symposium, SNAME, Virginia Beach, USA, pp.

shown in the paper. Mathematical models were also 111-138, 1981.

compared with a single commercial propeller, though 4. KOZHUKHAROV, P. G., Regression Analysis

relatively dissimilar to the series propellers. Eventual of Gawn-Burrill Series for Application in

instabilities of intermediate values (data whose DAR, Computer-Aided High-Speed Propeller Design,

P/D and σ values are between those of the KCA series) Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on High-Speed Surface

were checked visually with 3D diagrams. The validation Craft, Southampton,UK., 1986.

range and P/D-DAR range for the majority of small high- 5. RADOJCIC, D., Mathematical Model of

speed craft propellers, as well as boundaries within Segmental Section Propeller Series for Open-

which all models may be applied, are shown in Figure Water and Cavitating Conditions Applicable in

10. New boundaries of applicability, somewhat narrower CAD, Proc. Propellerss ’88 Symposium,

than originally suggested, are given in Table 1. Within SNAME, Virginia Beach, USA, pp 5.1-5.24,

these new boundaries all models provide fairly good 1988.

results. 6. KOUSHAN, K.., Mathematical Expressions of

Thrust and Torque of Gawn-Burrill Propeller

The advantage of Model 1 is its simplicity and validity Series for High Speed Crafts Using Artificial

for heavily-cavitating propellers. Model 3 is probably the Neural Networks, Proc. 9th International

best for non-cavitating conditions, while Model 4 is Conference on Fast Sea Transportation FAST

advantageous for the transition zone. Model 2, however, 2007, Shanghai, China, pp 348-359, 2007.

appears to have no advantages compared to the others.

Model 1 is applicable for 3- and 4-bladed propellers,

while all other models are valid for 3-bladed propellers

only (as is the case for both AEW and KCA propeller

series).

in some computer routines - depending on the objective

function used for the propeller selection/optimization, i.e.

whether it is ηO, KT/J2, KQ/J3 or something else.

Inconsistencies should be avoided wherever possible,

although consistent curves, naturally, do not yet mean

they are accurate.

3, so one should expect that it would overcome

deficiencies of previous models. Moreover, in Koushan

[6] a statement is made that questions the regression

technique approach; in the way human judgment was

also challenged with contemporary ANN approach. Both

initiated examination that ended with the paper in hand.

Consequently, based on the criteria used, ANN technique

- Gartner Data Analytics Brazil Debunking Myths 2019Hochgeladen vonSaki_Kinomoto
- Messerschmitt ME109 G-6Hochgeladen vonAdrian Rosero Bautista
- SeatrustHochgeladen vonClaudiu Pândaru
- 15746Hochgeladen vonPavan Kishore
- productFlyer_978-0-7923-3764-5Hochgeladen vonravi dutt ramanujapu
- 1-s2.0-0270025583900246-mainHochgeladen vonDimas Angga Pradiga
- LEBV4830Hochgeladen vonanton
- 95 Scs 4 Sr. No. 7Hochgeladen vonBhupender Ramchandani
- Vari-pitch propHochgeladen vonRusty_Iron_Works
- Propeller Terminology __ Michigan Wheel MarineHochgeladen vonrafael espinosa semper
- sky_fleaHochgeladen vonataribaby
- Ducked Propeller Desing for OSVsHochgeladen vonseckin80
- body forceHochgeladen vonSattar Al-Jabair
- scimitar instructions.pdfHochgeladen vonMarty
- Languages for AutomationHochgeladen vonاحتشام چوہدری
- 228743_MATERIALDEESTUDIOPARTEIDIAP1-74Hochgeladen vonpechan07
- 64049605-Modeling-Notes-Complete.pdfHochgeladen vonRahul Parmar
- Lecture 2Hochgeladen vonahmedelebyary
- Finite Element Mesh Refinement Definition and TechniquesHochgeladen vonAlya Izzati Mohammad Dzulkifli
- ContentHochgeladen vonPradeep Katariya
- Zhong 91.pdfHochgeladen vonPhạmHuyThắng
- 1-s2.0-S2095268616302695-mainHochgeladen vonAnge Emmanuel Kouamé
- Objectives of Engineering EducationHochgeladen voneduman9949
- PropellersHochgeladen vonRajan Bhandari
- 143343eaa75261a94b8dc219e4ccb606Hochgeladen vonDeanna Barrett
- IJETR2211Hochgeladen vonanil kasot
- Screw ConveyorHochgeladen vonsteelage
- fuzzyHochgeladen vonHelmy Yunan Ihnaton
- Design and Fabrication of Experimental Dryer for Studying Agricultural ProductsHochgeladen vonAbhilash Åvm
- paper.pdfHochgeladen vonmuhandis chem

- Blount Fox PaperHochgeladen vonhiguel
- The Advantages of Temet 25 Shaft Material OptHochgeladen vonoceanmaster66
- Modern Icebreaking Hull DesignHochgeladen vonoceanmaster66
- Analysis of the Stepless Planing Boat - DTMB_1956_1093 CLEMENTHochgeladen vonoceanmaster66
- Design of Ship RuddersHochgeladen vonGerard Sarg
- Optimum Design of B-Series Marine PropellersHochgeladen vonoceanmaster66
- 1-s2.0-S1110016811000093-main.pdfHochgeladen vonHugo Godoy
- A Critical Analysis of Resistance Prediction Using Regression Methods for High Speed Hull FormsHochgeladen vonoceanmaster66
- A Critical Analysis of Resistance Prediction Using Regression Methods for High Speed Hull Forms.pdfHochgeladen vonoceanmaster66
- A trident scholar project reportHochgeladen vonnaufragato
- The Quest for Speed at SeaHochgeladen vonoceanmaster66
- Orca3DReleaseNotesHochgeladen vonoceanmaster66
- [FEA] UGS Femap 9.3 Composite TutorialHochgeladen vonUma Sree Samanvitha
- 3_APD_Planing_HullHochgeladen vonMarian Wojtowicz
- A Preliminary Investigation Into Two Speed Operating ShipsHochgeladen vonoceanmaster66
- Numerical Simulation of Propeller Performance with an Inclined Shaft ArrangementHochgeladen vonoceanmaster66

- CHAPTER1_5.docxHochgeladen vonanon_9357962
- Sartor Concept MisinformationHochgeladen vonhealinghumanity
- Speech WritingHochgeladen vonRaiza Joy Sarte
- Analytic network process in supplier selection-- A case study in an electronic firm.pdfHochgeladen vonM. Nishom, S.Kom
- teachers_and_students_questions.pdfHochgeladen vonsofwancivic
- Tos Contemporary ArtsHochgeladen vonAroma Jane Franco
- History of Pharmacy 1Hochgeladen vonasaadsarfraz
- Critical Review SlidesHochgeladen vonWaseem Taj
- Information Week 500 2010 Full Report 8758322 3Hochgeladen vonzain.aziz761227
- Ic-make in India (Dr Gera)Hochgeladen vonNavneet Gera
- Evaluation in LanguageHochgeladen vonHala Tawfik Maklad
- uofmtranscriptHochgeladen vonapi-318933018
- Ulasan Artikel JournalHochgeladen vonmy_sweetheart82
- PasteurellaHochgeladen vonTessa Giandra
- Presentation BARDHochgeladen vonSadia Halima Tuz Sadia
- SportsmanshipHochgeladen vonDavid Schaffer
- Yogesh Final ReportHochgeladen vonSyed Ahmad
- 7. CHAPTER 5 - Summary, Conclusion, RecommendationsHochgeladen vonDave Joseph Conde
- Skype Interview _ the Professor is InHochgeladen vonShailendra Yadav
- Ajayr ResumeHochgeladen vonAjay Yadav
- Arbaz FinalHochgeladen vonSohel Bangi
- Unit 3 RECREATIONAL DEMAND & SUPPLY 2015.pptHochgeladen vonReina
- Hybrid Approach to Economic Load DispatchHochgeladen vonSatyendra Pratap Singh
- IJBNPA-2017-Sedentary Behavior Research Network (SBRN) – Terminology Consensus Project Process and OutcomeHochgeladen vonLevy
- Socialization Preferences and IntentionsHochgeladen vonSaima Ali
- Meta-analisis Typhoid DiagnosticHochgeladen vonmajorlocao
- HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT WITH SMALL FIRMS; FACTS AND EXPLANATIONSHochgeladen vonAnggun Mahardita
- Designing DesignHochgeladen vonSavetian Ksp
- A PerformanceHochgeladen vonFuad Hartadi
- 3-1-5Hochgeladen vonfajar

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

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

Jederzeit kündbar.