© All Rights Reserved

5 vues

© All Rights Reserved

- Ramona Bombing Target
- 0structures Mono Slope
- Expermental Study of Open-Wheel Car Front Wings
- Chapter 2
- IS-802_3
- 1918 manualofaerograp00mcadrich
- 13325
- Aermet Aermod Tutorial
- Masters Project: Fighting fire with fire (Poster)
- Workshop
- Tall Buildings_New Brochure[1]
- 4.1_cmtr-07_cal Sheet of Load Matrix for Land Trans_c
- Wind
- Hood Vents Installation
- My
- Unimec Screw Jack
- Art Comportamiento Contaminantes
- part-one1
- wind-forces
- New Wind Design Criteria for Traffic Signal Support Structures

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9

Bluff Bodies Aerodynamics & Applications

Milano, Italy, July, 20-24 2008

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF WIND PRESSURES ON IRREGULAR-

PLAN SHAPE BUILDINGS

J. A. Amin

and A. K. Ahuja

Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India

e-mail: jamindce@iitr.ernet.in,

Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India

e-mails: ahuja_ak@rediffmail.com

Keywords: Wind Pressure Coefficients, L-shape Building, T-shape Building, Bluff Body,

Boundary Layer Flow, and Flow Separation.

Abstract

This paper presents the experimental results of wind tunnel model tests to evaluate wind

pressure distributions on different faces of typical-plan shape buildings. Models, having the

same plan area and height but varying plan shape (L and T) are tested in a closed circuit

wind tunnel under boundary layer flow. The models are made from Perspex sheets at a geo-

metrical scale of 1:500. The effectiveness of the model shape in changing the surface pressure

distribution is assessed over an extended range of wind directions from 0

0

to 180

0

at an inter-

val of 15

0

. Fluctuating values of wind pressure are measured at pressure points on all surfaces

and mean, maximum, minimum and r.m.s. values of pressure coefficients are evaluated. The

experimental data for L and T plan shaped building models showed different wall pres-

sure distributions from those expected for rectangular/square models. It is also observed that

there is a large variation in pressure along the height as well as along the width of different

faces of the models. The location and magnitude of the measured peak pressure co-efficient

vary considerably with wind direction. It is also observed that changing the plan dimensions

considerably affects the wind pressure distributions on different faces of the building models.

J. A. Amin and A. K. Ahuja

2

1 INTRODUCTION

Resent advances in the development of high strength materials coupled with more ad-

vanced computational methods and design procedures have lead to a new generation of tall

buildings which are slender and light. These buildings are very sensitive to the two common

dynamic loads-wind and earthquakes. It is necessary to address the serviceability issue, such

as human comfort and integrity of structural components during the strong winds. While de-

signing high-rise buildings and its cladding for wind load, the designers refer to relevant

codes/standards to pick the wind pressure coefficients and wind force coefficients [1-3]. The

Indian code IS: 875 (part-3)-1987 [3] gives the design pressure coefficients and force coeffi-

cients for square and rectangular buildings having different side ratios and height, but this

code remains silent about the pressure coefficients on typical plan shape tall buildings such as

L and T.

Further wind loads evaluated from codes have the following limitations. Wind

load/pressure information in codes/standards (i) does not account for the aerodynamic effect

of the actual shape of the structure since they are based on box like buildings and (ii) does not

allow for any detailed directional effects and assume that the design wind speed will always

occur from the aerodynamically severe wind direction. On the other hand, wind tunnel model

studies, which are often used to assist in the prediction of the design wind loads for the clad-

ding and structural frame specifically on tall buildings, (i) do physically simulate and predicts

the aerodynamics effect of the actual shape of the structure by modeling building in detail, (ii)

consider the directionality of the wind climate for the area where the study building is located,

and (iii) overall, provide indispensable wind-effect data for the design of the cladding and

structural frame work. Therefore, it is proposed to carry out wind tunnel studies on models of

L and T plan shape tall buildings in order to obtain appropriate values of wind pressure

coefficients as well as wind pressure distribution on different faces of models.

2 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME

2.1 Details of models

The models used for the experiments are made of transparent perspect sheets (6 mm thick-

ness) at a geometrical model scale of 1:500. Plan area (10,000 mm

2

) and height (300 mm) of

both the models having L and T plan shape are kept same for comparison purpose. The

plan and isometric view of the building models are shown in Fig. (1). Both the models are in-

strumented with more than 150 numbers of pressure taps at six different height levels 25,

75,125,175, 225 and 275 mm from bottom to obtain a good distribution of pressures on all the

faces of building models. These pressure taps are placed as near as possible to the edges of the

faces to capture the high pressure variation at the edges of the faces.

2.2 Wind flow characteristics

The experiments are carried out in closed circuit wind tunnel at Indian Institute of Tech-

nology Roorkee (India) under boundary layer flow. The wind tunnel has a test section of 8.2

m length with a cross sectional dimensions of 1.15 m (width) x 0.85 m (height). Models are

placed at a distance of 6.1 m from the upstream edge of the test section. A reference pitot tube

is located at a distance of 3.5 m from the grid and 500 mm above the floor of wind tunnel to

measure the free stream velocity during experiments. The variation of mean wind velocity

with height at the test section is shown in Fig. (2). Velocity profile inside the tunnel has a

power-law index () of 0.133.

J. A. Amin and A. K. Ahuja

3

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Mean, r.m.s., maximum and minimum pressure coefficients on all the surfaces of L-and

T-shape building model are evaluated from the fluctuating wind pressure records at all pres-

sure points over an extended range of wind incidence angle namely 0

0

to 180

0

at an interval of

15

0

. This information is much useful while designing claddings and structural systems of this

type of high-rise building for lateral load.

3.1 L-shape building model

Fig. (3a) and (3b) show the pressure coefficient contours on L-shape building model for

wind incidence angle of 0

0

and 30

0

respectively. The general characteristics and observed

pressure distribution on different faces of L-shape building model are summarized as follows:

For wind incidence angle of 0

0

, it is observed that the frontal face-A is subjected to posi-

tive pressure. However, wind pressure coefficients distribution does not remain symmetrical

about the vertical centerline as in the case of rectangular/square bluff body. It increases from

left edge to right edge (towards the re-entrant corner) of face-A. It is also observed that the

positive mean pressure coefficient increases along the height on face-A of the building model

due to increase in wind velocity with height and it varies from 0.35 to 1. Inner faces B and C

are also subjected to pressure of almost uniform intensity. Although face-B is parallel to face-

F, which is a side face, it is subjected to pressure and not suction due to blockage of flow by

face-C, which causes stagnation of flow in that re-entrant corner. It is the peculiar characteris-

tics of L-shape building. Side faces D and F are subjected to negative pressure, which in-

creases slightly from windward to leeward edge due to separation of flow. The leeward face-E

Model-1 (L-shape) Model-2 (T-shape)

Fig. 1 Plan and isometric view of building models Fig. 2 Velocity profile at the test suction

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 5 10 15 20

Velocity (m/s)

H

e

i

g

h

t

(

m

m

)

J. A. Amin and A. K. Ahuja

4

is subjected to suction but the variation of suction along the height as well as along the width

is almost negligible. Value of mean wind pressure coefficient near the base is around -0.55

and its value near the top is around -0.7.

As the angle of incident wind increases, a positive pressure on the frontal wall (face-A) re-

duces. However, higher positive pressure still exists on the re-entrant corner. At the skew

wind incidence angles between 30

0

and 60

0

, portion of inner faces B and C towards the re-

entrant corners attracts more wind pressures (Fig. (3b)). Wind incidence angle in the range of

30

0

and 60

0

, depending up on the width of the inner faces, governs the cladding design of

faces B and C. The face-D is subjected to a maximum negative pressure coefficient of the or-

der of -1.2 at wind incidence angle of 30

0

. Beyond the wind incidence angle of 45

0

, the face-A

is subjected to a negative pressure and a maximum negative pressure coefficient of -1.6 is no-

ticed at wind incidence angle of 60

0

. The faces E and F are subjected to negative pressures up

to wind incidence angle 90

0

and the values of mean wind pressure coefficients are in the range

of -0.7 and -1.0. Contours for other wind incidence angle are not shown here due to paucity of

space.

At wind incidence angle of 105

0

, the positive pressure increases near the outer side of inner

face-B. This can be attributed to the direct incidence of flow on that small area, after skipping

over the opposing wing, with a consequent increase of the values.

For wind incidence angles between 120

0

and 180

0

, the inner faces of the L-shaped model

are not directly exposed to the flow, being rather under the wake region influence. As a con-

sequence, the pressure coefficient distribution is negative (suction) and almost uniform. When

the wind incidence angle is 180

0

i.e. normal to face-E, positive pressures are developed on the

frontal face-E similar to the square/rectangular bluff body with a parabolic variation across

the width. The central portions of the face-E are subjected to more pressure as compared to

the edge portion with values of maximum mean wind pressure coefficient as 1.07. All the re-

50 100

Face-F

20 40 60

Face-B

10 20 30 40

50

100

150

200

250

Face-A

20 40 60

Face-C

10 20 30 40

Face-D

50 100

Face-E

Fig. 3a Mean surface pressure coefficient distribution- Model-1 (Angle-0

0

)

J. A. Amin and A. K. Ahuja

5

maining five faces of the model are subjected to negative pressure in the range of -0.69 to -

1.08 without any significant changes across the section.

Influence of wind incidence angle on wind pressure values on different surfaces of L-shape

building model are shown in Figs. (4a) and (4b). It is observed from Figs. (4a) and (4b) that

the wind incidence angle has great influence on the pressure values. At the same section on

the model, pressure varies from 1.0 to 1.0 approximately, when wind incidence angle

changes from 0 to 180. Further it is noticed that, whereas suction does not vary with height

appreciably, pressure values increase with height of the building.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

-1.25 -0.75 -0.25 0.25 0.75 1.25

Mean pressure coef f icients

H

e

i

g

h

t

(

m

m

)

0-degree

15-degree

30-degree

45-degree

60-degree

75-degree

90-degree

105-degree

120-degree

135-degree

150-degree

165-degree

180-degree

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

-1.250 -0.750 -0.250 0.250 0.750 1.250

Mean pressure coef f icients

H

e

i

g

h

t

(

m

m

)

0-degree

15-degree

30-degree

45-degree

60-degree

75-degree

90-degree

105-degree

120-degree

135-degree

150-degree

165-degree

180-degree

Fig. 4a Variation of mean pressure coefficients with

height at 7.5 mm from re-entrant corner on Face-B

(model-1)

Fig. 4b Variation of Mean pressure coefficients along

the vertical centerline of Face-C (model-1)

10 20 30 40

50

100

150

200

250

Face-A

20 40 60

Face-B

20 40 60

Face-C

50 100

Face-E

50 100

Face-F

10 20 30 40

Face-D

Fig. 3b Mean surface pressure coefficient distribution- Model-1 (Angle-30

0

)

J. A. Amin and A. K. Ahuja

6

Fig. (5a) and (5b) show the variation of wind pressure coefficient values with wind inci-

dence angle at two typical points, one on face-A and another on face-B. It is seen from Fig.

(5a) that point P1 on face-A experiences pressure for wind incidence angle of 0

0

to 40

0

, after

which it experiences suction, where as positive pressure is maximum at 0

0

wind incidence an-

gle, i.e.1.0, suction is maximum i.e. -1.35 at 60

0

. Variations of C

p, max

, C

p, min

, C

p, mean

and

C

p,rms

with wind direction are also identical. Pont P2 on face-B is subjected to pressure for

wind direction 0

0

to 105

0

, after which it experiences suction. Pressure remains almost constant

(0.75 to 1.0) for wind direction 0

0

to 75

0

. Similarly suction remains almost constant (-0.75 to -

0.9) for wind direction 120

0

to 180

0

.

3.2 T-shape building model

Fig. (6a) and (6b) show the pressure coefficient contours on T-shape building model for

wind incidence angle of 0

0

and 30

0

respectively. The general characteristics and observed

pressure distribution on different faces of T-shape building model are summarized as follows:

Since the flow is symmetrical about the central axis when the wind incidence angle is 0

0

,

the stagnation point is in the middle of the front face-A. It is observed that the frontal face-A

is subjected to a positive pressure and value of mean pressure coefficients is observed to be

increasing with height in the range of 0.6 to 1.0. It is also noticed that face-B and face-H of

the T-shape model are subjected to negative pressures, where as face-B of the L-shape model

is subjected to positive pressures. The exterior edge of face-C is subjected to a positive wind

pressures due to direct incidence of flow on that small area, where as the portion towards the

re-entrant corner of the face-C and G is partially submerged by the shear layers emanating

from the upstream edge/block, thus subjected to suction. The pressure variation and magni-

tude of pressure coefficients on face-B is, thus largely affected by the length of face-C. The

side face-D, face-F and leeward face-E are subjected to negative pressures, whereas the nega-

tive pressure coefficients on side face-D increases from windward to leeward edge. The varia-

tion of suction on leeward face-E along the height as well as along the width is almost

negligible. The suction on the leeward and side faces of the building model is significantly

affected by the ratio of the width of face-B and face-C.

At wind incidence angle of 15

0

, inner faces-B and C are subjected to positive pressures and

attract more pressure as compared to the 0

0

wind incidence angle. It is observed that as wind

incidence angle increases the mean pressure coefficients on faces-B and C increase up to 45

0

.

The pressure coefficients at this wind incidence angle govern the cladding design of face B

and C. For the wind incidence angle of 30

0

, face-D is subjected large suction with a maximum

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180

Wind incidence angle

C

p

Mean Cp

max Cp

min Cp

rms Cp

-1.50

-1.25

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180

Wind incidence angle

C

p

Mean Cp

Max Cp

Min Cp

Rms Cp

Fig. 5a Variation of wind pressure coefficients at

point P1 (x=42.5 & y=225 mm) on Face-A (model-

1)

Fig. 5b Variation of wind pressure coefficients at

point P2 (x=67.5 & y=225 mm) on Face-B (model-

1)

J. A. Amin and A. K. Ahuja

7

10 20 30 40

50

100

150

200

250

Face-A

20 40 60

Face-B

10 20 30

Face-C

10 20 30 40

Face-D

50 100

Face-E

10 20 30 40

Face-F

10 20 30

Face-G

20 40 60

Face-H

Fig. 6b Mean surface pressure coefficient distribution- Model-2 (Angle-30

0

)

value of mean wind pressure coefficients as -1.35. Similarly face-A of the model is subjected

to a maximum suction at a wind incidence angle of 60

0

.

10 20 30 40

50

100

150

200

250

Face-A

20 40 60

50

100

150

200

250

Face-B

10 20 30

50

100

150

200

250

Face-C

10 20 30 40

50

100

150

200

250

Face-D

50 100

50

100

150

200

250

Face-E

Fig. 6a Mean surface pressure coefficient distribution- Model-2 (Angle-0

0

)

J. A. Amin and A. K. Ahuja

8

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

-1.25 -0.75 -0.25 0.25 0.75 1.25

Mean pressure coef f icients

H

e

i

g

h

t

(

m

m

)

0-degree

15-degree

30-degree

45-degree

60-degree

75-degree

90-degree

105-degree

120-degree

135-degree

150-degree

165-degree

180-degree

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

-1.25 -0.75 -0.25 0.25 0.75 1.25

Mean pressure coef f icients

H

e

i

g

h

t

(

m

m

)

0-degree

15-degree

30-degree

45-degree

60-degree

75-degree

90-degree

105-degree

120-degree

135-degree

150-degree

165-degree

180-degree

Fig. 7a Mean pressure coefficients variation at a distance

of 7.5 mm from re-entrant corner on Face-B (model-2)

Fig. 7b Mean pressure coefficients variation along the verti-

cal centerline of Face-C (model-2)

At wind incidence angle of 90

0

, the inner faces B and C are subjected to a positive pressure

as in the case of L-shape building model. The highest positive pressures on front wall-D are

no longer in the middle of the faces as in the case of square/rectangular building models but

are moved to position near the re-entrant corner. This is due to the effect of flow separation

that leaves stagnant flow in that re-entrant corner.

For wind incidence angle of 105

0

and 120

0

, the positive pressure still exists on face-B and

face-C. This can be attributed to the direct incidence of flow on the face-B, after skipping

over the opposing wing, with a consequent increase of the values.

For wind incidence angle between 135

0

and 180

0

, the inner faces of the T-shape model are

not directly exposed to the flow, being rather under the wake region influence. As a conse-

quence, the pressure coefficient distribution is negative (suction) and almost uniform.

For wind incidence angle of 180

0

(i.e. normal to face-E), the wind flow is very similar to

that of rectangular block in the upwind region. Two symmetrical vortices are formed on the

either side of central portion of T-shaped model in the cavity on downwind side. The pressure

coefficient on face-E along the height is increases due to boundary layer wind profile. The

face-E subjected to maximum mean wind pressure coefficients of 1.02. All the remaining

faces are subjected to a negative pressure in the range of 0.68 to 1.0 without any significant

changes across the section

Fig. (7a) shows the variation of mean wind pressure coefficients along the height at a dis-

tance of 7.5 mm from the re-entrant corner on face-B. Fig. (7b) shows the variation of center-

line mean wind pressure coefficients along the height on face-C of T-shape model. Great

influence of wind incidence angle on mean wind pressure coefficient is observed.

Fig. (8a) and (8b) show the variation of wind pressure coefficients at point Q1 having a co-

ordinate of x = 42.5 mm and y = 225 mm on face-A and at point Q2, having a co-ordinate of x

= 67.5 mm and y = 225 mm on face-B respectively. The origin of the each face is assumed at

lower most left corner of each face to represent the co-ordinate of different points on the

building models. It is observed from Fig. (8a) that face-A is subjected to a positive pressure

up to wind incidence angle of 45

0

and there after is subjected to suction with maximum suc-

tion at 60

0

. Beyond the angle of 90

0

, the pressure coefficients on face-A do not change sig-

nificantly. In case of point-B of face-B, positive pressure is maximum at 45

0

angle; where as

absolute value of negative pressure is maximum at 150

0

angle.

J. A. Amin and A. K. Ahuja

9

4 CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions are drawn from the study reported in this paper.

(i) The wind pressure distribution on the frontal face-A of the L-shape building is not

symmetrical about centre line of face as in case of T-shape building.

(ii) As the angle of incidence wind increases beyond 120

0

, the pressure field in the inner

faces of the L-shape building turns out to be negative and almost uniformly distributed.

(iii) The wind pressure coefficients distribution on inner faces-B and C of both buildings

largely depend on the plan-shape and dimension of the inner faces of the buildings.

(iv) Change in the plan-shape of buildings considerably affects the suction on side faces

and leeward faces.

(v) The results presented in the present paper can be incorporated in Indian Code IS: 875

(part-3)-1987 for the design of claddings and structural systems of typical plan shape

buildings.

REFERENCES

[1] AS/NZS: 1170.2 (2002), Structural Design Actions, Part-2: Wind Actions, Australia/

New Zealand Standard, Sydney, Wellington.

[2] ASCE: 7-02 (2002) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and other Structures, Struc-

tural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston.

[3] IS: 875 (part-3) (1987), Code of Practice for the Design Loads (other than Earthquake)

for Buildings and Structures, B.I.S., New Delhi, India.

[4] BS: 63699 (1995) Loading for Buildings: Part 2- Code of Practice for Wind Loads,

BSI Standards.

[5] NBC (Part-4) (1995), Structural Commentaries, National Research council of Canada,

Canada.

Fig. 8a Variation of wind pressure coefficients at point

Q1 (x=42.5 & y=225 mm) on Face-A (model-2)

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180

Wind incidence angle

C

p

Mean Cp

Max Cp

Min Cp

Rms Cp

-1.25

-0.75

-0.25

0.25

0.75

1.25

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180

Wind incidence angle

C

p

Mean Cp

Max Cp

Min Cp

Rms Cp

Fig. 8b Variation of wind pressure coefficients at point Q2

(x=67.5 & y=225 mm) on Face-B (model-2)

- Ramona Bombing TargetTransféré parCAP History Library
- 0structures Mono SlopeTransféré parAlbert Dimayuga
- Expermental Study of Open-Wheel Car Front WingsTransféré parVyssion
- Chapter 2Transféré parKarthik Sarvanan
- IS-802_3Transféré parSourav Hait
- 1918 manualofaerograp00mcadrichTransféré parUlf Dunell
- 13325Transféré parAnonymous 07A7rmh
- Aermet Aermod TutorialTransféré parAhmed Mian
- Masters Project: Fighting fire with fire (Poster)Transféré parcwolnicki
- WorkshopTransféré parsonukuldeep
- Tall Buildings_New Brochure[1]Transféré parAbdul Rauf Mukaddam
- 4.1_cmtr-07_cal Sheet of Load Matrix for Land Trans_cTransféré parKannan As
- WindTransféré parAnirudhPandey
- Hood Vents InstallationTransféré parapi-26140644
- MyTransféré parAKVISHWA
- Unimec Screw JackTransféré parRohit Kumar Singh
- Art Comportamiento ContaminantesTransféré parLinda Gutierrez Rivera
- part-one1Transféré parianwinson
- wind-forcesTransféré parJournalNX - a Multidisciplinary Peer Reviewed Journal
- New Wind Design Criteria for Traffic Signal Support StructuresTransféré parleodegarioporral
- Wind PresentationTransféré parHaris Bin Khalid
- TR2130C Environmental Tests for Motorway Communication Equipment Portable Permanent Control EquipmentTransféré parAntónio Miranda
- ASD362 2019 WTT3 Wind Tunnel Calibration.pdfTransféré parSharvani
- WIND LOAD COMPUTATION OF TRUSS.docxTransféré parKian Bautista
- Report Towers DelhitranscoTransféré parRagavan
- 911 WS Wind SensorsTransféré parNguyễn Văn Trung
- 188451302-Gland-seal-system.docxTransféré parryan hardianto
- b2-105__2012_Transféré paralen123456
- MW 35 and MW 36 Wind Sensors_LRTransféré parchristianson_87
- CH002Transféré parShanti Pandey

- Designing Airflow SystemsTransféré parg2999
- CFDTransféré parYousaf Raza
- St Venant EquationsTransféré parHelun Ben Liu
- CFD Analysis and Optimization of Geometrical Modifications of Ahmed BodyTransféré parIOSRjournal
- 2009 Separator CalcsTransféré parneel
- Momentum Transfer ReviewerTransféré parNeil Dominic Dasallas Careo
- pitot tube exper.Transféré parAbdulrazzaqAL-Maliky
- 10J01762-ICT-DS-000-004-D1Transféré parSardar Perdawood
- Derivation of Reynolds Equation in Cylindrical Coordinates Applicable to Pin-On-Disk and CMPTransféré parAziz Ozan Öztürk
- 8BTransféré parvinothenergy
- Static MixersTransféré parhwang2
- Chapter 8bTransféré parDVPRADHAN
- CI3906Ferraris.pdfTransféré parManu K Mohan
- RA 9A23303 Fluid Flow in Bio ProcessesTransféré parsivabharathamurthy
- 8th Paper - CFD Study of NACA 0018 for Diffuser Design of Tidal Current TurbinesTransféré parAmber Malik
- Tank ExampleTransféré parsiva_hps
- AGA 3Transféré parUniversum Australia
- fm.docxTransféré parSaurabh Tiwari
- Critical Mach NumberTransféré parFabian Torres
- PENSTOCK Optimization ResearchTransféré parAnjan Sigdel
- Implementation of Level Set Method Based on OpenFOAM for Capturing the Free Interface in In Compressible Fluid FlowsTransféré parAghajani
- CBE Course Description AY1314Transféré parKaylio
- C2 Manual Issue 18Transféré parZha Ieza
- Solution to 2D Incompressible Navier-Stokes EquationsTransféré parEtsu Koo
- Darcy - Weisbach_equationTransféré parachmadh_2010
- jet pumpTransféré parboygoodboy
- Fluid Mechanics-I Lab ManualTransféré parउमेश गावंडे
- Compressible Flow Tut AddTransféré parPeter Adam
- Natural Convection Heat Transfer From Inclined Cylinders a Unified CorrelationTransféré parmarutsharma9771
- Subsonic similarityTransféré paryaktup