18 views

Uploaded by Petro Man

Global” Interpretation Methods

- Extended Abstract Fractured Basement Analysis.doc
- II CM _SY_110112115544
- Least Mean Square Adaptive Filters
- Resume Sergio Ocampo
- Proje Mc Brien
- Cost Optimization of Reinforced Concrete Chimney
- Minemax Planner vs FourX
- IFAW Australia Breaking the Silence-how Our Noise Pollution is Harming
- economic load dispatch
- OPTIM1
- Jameson-Aerodynamic Shape Optimization Using the Adjoint Method
- luls
- technical paper adrina chin chui mae
- Fmin Search
- mocnik_phd.pdf
- Macuspana SEG 2003 1748
- Drilling and Exploration World Journal March 2013 ROXAR
- BEST 6-1-001 Sanhasuk Final
- Verschuur_2010
- Pan Pan - 1.5D Internal Multiple Prediction$ an Application on Synthetic Data, Physical Modelling Data and Land Data Synthetics

You are on page 1of 8

R e s e r vSECTION:

o i r c h a rRaecsteerrvio

z iart icohna r a c t e r i z a t i o n

3D horizon picking

Jack Hoyes, University of Leeds

Thibaut Cheret, BG Group

through extraction of 2D sections around closed loops

such that the beginning and end are coincident, a process

known as loop tying (Lomask and Guitton, 2007). Using this

approach it is often found that errors in picking result in misties. A more advanced method uses seed-based autotacking

to extract horizons by correlation of local wavelet amplitude

between neighboring traces; however, mis-ties may also occur

here as two paths converge, again due to errors in picking.

Additionally these traditional amplitude-based autopickers

can fail if the horizon being tracked has significant lateral

amplitude variation or polarity reversal or in the presence of

a large fault throw.

Generally, these methods are labor-intensive, time-consuming, and often limited to regions with clear signal quality

and relatively simple geology. Their weakness is that they use

only a small fraction of the data at a time, solving only a series

of local problems. Often, these programs simply require picking in a 2D vertical section as humans are most proficient at

this; however, computers are not limited to two dimensions

and may be able to take advantage of the full dimensionality

of the data and offer solutions based upon all of the data. In

this respect, the use of computers in 3D volume interpretation has not reached its full potential (Lomask and Guitton).

Recently, however, global approaches have been proposed

to compute geological models directly from the seismic data

without the need to pick all horizons manually (Pauget et

al., 2009). Unlike methods, which track a horizon away from

a seedpoint and are therefore prone to mis-ties, these algorithms are global in nature since they simultaneously track

every surface throughout the volume (Lomask and Guitton).

They are able to exploit the full dimensionality of the data to

interpret multiple horizons in parallel, using the whole data

set to find a minimum misfit solution, potentially offering a

more accurate solution. In this way they attempt to capture

several geological features such as faults and horizons simultaneously. They may be subdivided into three major categories

termed here dip-driven, horizon patches, and global optimization methods. In this communication, we will describe

these methods and discuss their domain of application and

current limitations.

Dip-driven methods

Dip-driven methods use local dip and azimuth information

at each grid position within the volume to autotrack all seismic events within the volume in parallel by fitting surfaces to

the local dip in an optimal configuration.

Chevon method. Lomask and Guitton developed a method for dip-based global interpretation as a means of flattening

seismic data cubes along particular horizons. In this method,

936

January 2011

of automated horizon interpretation.

azimuth calculated from the gradient of the seismic data at

every sample position. At each point in the image, two dips

are estimated in the x and y directions. Because each point

in the image has two dips, each horizon is estimated from an

overdetermined system of dips in a least-squares sense. This

is equivalent to automatically loop-tying every possible loop

simultaneously. To further exploit the dimensionality of the

data, all horizons are estimated at once in 3D to conform to

one another. If there is noise in the data, the resulting model

will have significant errors and so hard constraints must be

introduced in the form of traditional semi-automatically

tracked horizons.

SSIS. The Sequence Stratigraphic Interpretation System

(SSIS) plug-in in OpendTect is a relatively new interpretation software package which is based upon the dip-driven

interpretation method and is able to autotrack numerous

chronostratigraphic events per sequence bounded by conventionally mapped horizons (de Bruin and Bouanga, 2007).

In the SSIS workflow, major horizons are first mapped over

the 3D volume using a traditional, semi-automated, horizon

tracker. These horizons provide the bounding constraints

on the intermediate chronostratigraphic events to be interpreted using this new method. The intermediate events are

tracked through each seismic sample position using either a

model- or data-driven approach. The data-driven approach

considered here is required for relatively complex geometries

and is based upon dip steering. First, a steering cube containing local dip-azimuth information at each sample position is

calculated from the input seismic cube after processing such

as filtering of the data to improve dip information (i.e., re-

R e s e rv oi r c h a r a c t e r i z at i on

a minimum or maximum in the trace and then looking for a

similar event on the two neighboring traces in the inline direction. The gradient at that sample location is the difference

in the time values of the extrema across these neighboring

traces divided by the horizontal distance between the traces

(Figure 1a). This process is repeated in the crossline direction. Next, the dip-azimuth information is followed outward

from a seed position and horizons are created between sample

positions following the local dip (Figure 1b). The result is

a set of tracked chronostratigraphic horizons going through

each sample position and bounded by the mapped horizons

(Lightenberg et al. 2006).

Horizon patches methods

Within these methods, a subsurface model may be derived

from classification of topological relationships between small

surfaces of similar seismic attributes which may be merged

to form larger horizons ordered chronologically (Pauget et

al. 2009).

Extrema. In the Extrema method from Schlumberger,

seismic events are automatically grouped into classes based

on similarities in the waveform of the seismic signal. First,

a polynomial function is fitted to each seismic trace and

minima and maxima along each trace detected with subseismic precision using this function (Figure 2a). Next, a set

of waveform attributes are calculated at these extrema positions, again using the polynomial expression. These attributes

contain overall information about the waveform in a vertical window around the extrema and are constructed using

reconstruction techniques on the seismic trace such that the

seismic signal locally is described through a limited number

of coefficients (Borgos et al., 2003). Horizons of similar attributes along a lateral series of extrema are then constructed

and from this data cube, continuous, class consistent, surface

segments can be extracted (Figure 2b). These constitute pieces

of seismic horizons which can then be combined by the interpreter. The algorithm aids in this interpretation process by

mapping relative vertical positions of surfaces and therefore

computing chronological relationships between them which

may be used to highlight only a small number of surfaces

representing a similar age or as an attribute to merge patches.

Cognitive vision. IFP has developed a method of seismic

interpretation through the construction of horizon patches

using an approach based upon cognitive vision. Cognitive

vision combines computer-based vision with cognition to

achieve functionalities of detection, localization, recognition,

and understandingabilities well suited to the seismic interpretation problem (Verney et al., 2008). The method first

involves detecting first-order reflector continuity, characterizing seismic parameters of each reflector such as amplitudes,

thickness and 2D dip. Next, chronological relationships between reflectors are mapped. The last step of the workflow

involves forming geological horizons corresponding to the

various identified reflectors by linking nodes of reflector

patches which have similar attributes and are located at similar distances above or below at least one other reflector. Since

method of automated horizon interpretation.

automated horizon interpretation.

may be used for sequence stratigraphic interpretation and the

construction of a Wheeler diagram (Verney et al.) although

the latter is not currently incorporated into the software. A

fault detection and enhancement feature has also been built

into this method.

Seisnetics. The Seisnetics software uses a genetic algorithm

to generate horizon and fault patches. Genetic algorithms are

adaptive methods which are able to solve optimization problems based on stochastic search methods (see www.seisnetics.

com).

Global optimization method

This method models data using cost-function minimization

based on links between seismic samples within a 3D data set.

Sets of links between seismic samples or bins are detected

using correlation images obtained from couples of seismic

traces. The degree of correlation between each link is estiJanuary 2011

937

R e s e rv oi r c h a r a c t e r i z at i on

Figure 4. Extraction of the geomodel across a fault using a global optimization algorithm (Pauget et al.). This figure summarizes the three main

steps: (a) link creation in the model grid, (b) computation of positions, and (c) creation of the geomodel in block 3D.

of the model according to the underlying seismic signal. The

cost function is related to the seismic similarity and geological consistency and also depends on distance. The optimal

model is then constrained by moving links locally to achieve

a global minimum (Pauget et al., 2009).

This is the fundamental approach behind the Paleoscan

algorithm developed by Eliis (www.eliis.fr). Firstly, seismic

traces are sampled to construct a regular grid in the x-y plane

(Figure 3a). This process uses every point in each trace which

may require binning of samples for larger surveys to reduce

computational cost. Links between these gridded points are

then determined via the computation of a correlation image

for each pair of neighboring traces (Figure 3b). The correlation image of two seismic traces, X1 and X2, is an array

of correlation values between each pair of samples on each

trace in the X1(t) - X2(t) plane such that every point on the

image corresponds to a link between a point on X1 and a

point on X2. A point with a high correlation value corresponds to a link of high probability and when a set of high

probability links is drawn on a line segment a correlation

comb is obtained which links several seismic reflectors. The

algorithm aims to detect the correlation comb with the greatest correlation value. This correlation comb provides a set of

links which may then be used to compute a global position

for every point on the sampling grid (Figure 3c). This results

in an initial configuration of the geomodel block. However,

this model must then be enhanced by determining the configuration with the lowest cost function which still represents

the consistency of the model according to the underlying

seismic signal (Figure 3d). This cost function is the weighted

sum of the seismic vector distances between couples of points

(Pauget et al.)

P(j) are the positions of the points i and j, Dst(Vi, Vj) is the

seismic vector distance between couples of points and is the

938

January 2011

This function is minimized by moving links locally until a

global minimum is achieved.

Geological constraints such as faults and surfaces can be

inserted into the optimization process to further constrain

the model by reducing the number of solutions. Once the

best configuration is obtained, it is then possible to establish

weighted relationships between every seismic sample in the

volume and from this a continuous geomodel is computed

(Gupta et al., 2008).

Limitations and existing improvements

General limitations. These global interpretation methods

rely on the stratified nature of the seismic image and will

therefore struggle to handle nonstratified objects such as salt,

igneous intrusions, gas chimneys, and chaotic deposition.

These features could simply be worked around (Gupta et al.).

Volume interpretation (combination of 3D attributes) is the

most appropriate approach to characterize nonstratified objects. Acquisition and processing artifacts, such as multiples

and migration hyperbolae, will also disrupt these algorithms

and so, in order to produce a geologically accurate interpretation, all reflections must be geologically meaningful. This

highlights a potential limitation of these methods in that it

requires high-quality data in order to produce a valid geological model of the subsurface. Finally, faults with large throw

typically make correlation of horizons across faults difficult.

However, some of these methods offer improvements over

traditional techniques in doing this.

Stratigraphic interpretation. By classifying the seismic signal along reflectors according to similarity in its shape, the

Extrema interpretation method performs well in structurally complex regions or on sparse 3D volumes (Borgos et al.,

2003). A principal assumption of the Extrema method is that

the seismic signal along a reflector does not vary significantly

laterally such that class-consistent horizon patches are likely

to be a continuous part of a specific horizon. This assumption enables grouping of reflector segments with similar characteristics in structurally complex regions since the method

R e s e rv oi r c h a r a c t e r i z at i on

Figure 5. Neural network result mapped on a horizon. The algorithm has classified gas sands in red, brine sands in blue, the thin bed in brown,

and the surrounding shale in white.

Figure 6. Mapping of (a) thickness variations, (b) coherency, and (c) fault throw on the surface stack at the scale of the entire volume.

this way, for example, the method allows faulted reflectors to

be represented, even allowing for automatic quantification of

fault displacement through a separate Ant tracking algorithm

(Borgos et al., 2003). However, the assumption of lateral continuity of the reflection for a given horizon is also a weakness

of the method. For example the presence of hydrocarbons

often causes lateral discontinuities in reflector characteristics

such as bright spot, dim spot, or phase reversal. This assumption does, though, mean that the algorithm deals well with

stratigraphic lateral discontinuities such as truncations rather

than attempt to force a lateral continuation of horizons which

is not actually observed.

Fault handling. Faults are discontinuities within the seismic signal and as such they prevent easy correlation between

different blocks. Most global methods therefore require major

January 2011

939

R e s e rv oi r c h a r a c t e r i z at i on

Figure 7. Features in the seismic such as this circular anomaly which are not easily seen in a vertical cross section (a) may be clear if the seismic

amplitude is mapped onto strata slices (b).

is a particular weakness of the dip-driven methods since faults

are regions of anomalous dip and often accompanied by much

wider regions of deformation than the fault plane itself. To address this problem, Lomask and Guitton applied a weighted

inversion scheme allowing dips to be summed around faults.

These weights may be obtained from a previously determined

fault model, if their location and orientation are known, or

by using iteratively reweighted least squares. By applying constraints such as fault and horizon picks to the dip-based algorithm, it was demonstrated to work in faulted and noisy 3D

field data examples. Because the method picks many horizons

within a data set at once, globally, in a least-squares sense, it

minimizes the effect of locally poor dip information so that

the interpretation is more reliable in these areas.

Schlumberger has proposed a workflow combining the

Extrema and Ant Tracking algorithms to build the structural

model. The PaleoScan interface allows the user to create links

to correlate horizons on both sides of a fault (Figure 4). Eliis

(PaleoScan), Seisnetics and IFP have adapted their algorithms

to extract fault patches. Schlumberger (Borgos et al.) and Eliis

(PaleoScan) can also calculate the vertical throw. The vertical

throw can be used to distinguish genuine faults from other

discontinuities.

Volume interpretation. We define volume interpretation

as the grouping of seismic voxels into classes of similar seismic signature using 3D seismic attributes. Those classes can

describe depositional environment, lithology, fluid or any

940

January 2011

combination of the above. There are several methods to perform a volume interpretation: crossplot, multiregression, any

mathematical combination of seismic attributes, neural network, and Bayesian classification using inversion products.

The choice of techniques depends on the quality and availability of the data. Volume interpretation is particularly well

equipped to compensate for the shortcomings of the global

interpretation to characterize nonstratified objects (Figure 5

and Figure 6).

Applications

Global interpretation methods are opening a new dimension

in seismic characterization and offer a large range of potential applications which would otherwise be time-consuming

or very difficult to perform. A number of these are reviewed

here.

Strata slicing. PaleoScan and SSIS allow the user to slice

a volume along geological boundaries (Figure 7). This slicing reveals geological features unseen using traditional slicing

methods (Figure 8) and offers an improved understanding

of the depositional history independently from the tectonics

(Gupta et al.), the ability to image shallow subsurface drilling

hazards, for example.

Sequence stratigraphy. SSIS is a mature tool to detect the

different elements of a stratigraphic sequence (Figure 8). Ultimately, the sequence stratigraphy analysis helps to determine

in 3D areas of high prospectivity related to the sand quality

distribution. PaleoScan proposes to detect sequence bound-

R e s e rv oi r c h a r a c t e r i z at i on

using PaleoScan (center) and SSIS (bottom).

geomodel). Area of low relative thickness could be associated

with condensation layer, erosion or channel incision.

The SSIS, Chevron and Schlumberger methods all produce a Wheeler diagram through flattening chronostratigraphic horizons in time (in which the vertical dimension

becomes geological time). For example in the SSIS workflow,

local dips calculated over the entire seismic volume are resolved into time or depth shifts relative to the reference trace

using a nonlinear Gauss-Newton iterative approach allowing

horizons to be flattened in time to generate a 3D Wheeler

cube (Lightenberg et al., 2006). Stark (2004) achieves a similar result to the algorithm of Lomask and Guitton (2007)

by unwrapping using instantaneous phase rather than dips;

however, the advantage of using dip rather than instantaneous phase reduces problems with cycle skipping.

Fault throw. Global interpretation algorithms can be used

to extract fault patches and calculate the vertical throw (Figure 9). Potentially, this vertical throw could be used to guide

well placement, help 3D reconstruction and perform fault

seal analysis.

Well correlation. Due to the large number of finely spaced

horizons that may be extracted using these methods, they offer potential for well correlation if tied to a number of wells

intersecting these horizons (Figure 10).

Modeling. These interpretation methods can be used

in the construction of background geological models for

low-frequency models in seismic inversion or prior models

in Bayesian classification (Figure 11). This is because such

methods are potentially faster. A primary advantage of glob-

Figure 9. Example of vertical throw mapped on a seismic horizon and on fault plan in 3D view (via the PaleoScan method).

January 2011

941

R e s e rv oi r c h a r a c t e r i z at i on

Figure 10. Application of PaleoScan for correlation between wells. A shale layer with thickness of 15 m can be correlated from well 1 to well 2.

Figure 11.

Application of

PaleoScan to the

generation of a

prior geological

model for use in

Bayesian facies

classification.

(Top) Prior

gas probability

distribution

and (bottom)

resulting Bayesian

gas probability

volume.

942

January 2011

R e s e rv oi r c h a r a c t e r i z at i on

al interpretation algorithms is that they are able to extract

many horizons within large volumes relatively quickly and

efficiently.

Summary

The horizon patches methods provide the most signal-consistent results. Schlumberger (Extrema), dGB (SSIS) and

Chevron have developed sequence stratigraphy functionalities. The Chevron method is the most direct way to derive

a Wheeler diagram from a seismic volume. Generating a

Wheeler doesnt seem out of the reach of the other methods. Eliis (PaleoScan), dGB (SSIS) and Chevron can perform

strata slicing. The horizons patches methods dont seem to be

the best equipped to develop toward strata slicing. PaleoScan

seems to be the most advanced tool for handling and extracting faults. Eliis (PaleoScan) and Schlumberger (Extrema)

can also calculate the vertical throw; Schlumberger requires

an additional algorithm to perform this task (Ant Tracking).

PaleoScan has gone a step further by allowing the user to

modify the resulting geomodel interactively.

Future

The global interpretation methods assume that the seismic

data are a perfect representation of the Earths geology.

Therefore, these methods will fail to converge when the seismic signal is degraded or in the presence of artifacts such as

multiples, migration wings or smiles. In order to overcome

these shortcomings, it has become obvious that the addition

of manual constraints, based on more traditional methods of interpretation, must be added to help the algorithm

to converge to the underlying geological truth. As shown

in Figure 10, global interpretation can be used to correlate

any depth location of a well to the same geological layer in

another well. In conjunction with traditional seismic well-tie

techniques, this could help in building more accurate reservoir and velocity models. Another challenge is the capability of those methods to capture sequence boundaries, which

are not clear seismic horizons (low acoustic contrast), such

as channel incision base. Finally, the global interpretation

algorithm should be scalable and handle an ever increasing

seismic volume.

Conclusion

In the last decade, various groups have developed global interpretation algorithms. Some of the algorithms are coming

to maturity, enabling geophysics to extract even more information from the seismic volume at a scale unseen before.

Combined with the traditional local and volume interpretation, we foresee that the global interpretation will become

part of the routine workflow for exploration and reservoir

model building.

References

Borgos, H. G., T. Skov, T. Ramden, and L. Sonneland, 2003, Automated geometry extraction from 3D seismic data: 73rd Annual

International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 154144.

de Bruin, G., and E. C. Bouanga, 2007, Time attributes of stratigraphy surfaces, analyzed in the structural and Wheeler transfrom

domain: 69th EAGE Conference and Exhibition.

Gupta, R., T. Cheret, F. Pauget, and S. Lacaze, 2008, Automated

geomodelling: a Nigeria case study: 70th EAGE Conference and

Exhibition.

Lightenberg, H. J., G. de Bruin, N. Hemstra, and C. Geel, 2006,

Sequence stratigraphic interpretation in the wheeler transformed

(flattened) seismic domain: 68th EAGE Conference and Exhibition.

Lomask, J., and A. Guitton, 2007, Volumetric flattening: an interpretation tool: The Leading Edge, 26, no. 7, 888897,

doi:10.1190/1.2756869.

Pauget, F., S. Lacaze, and T. Valding, 2009, A global interpretation

based on cost function minimization: 79th Annual International

Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 2592-96.

Stark, T. J., 2004, Relative geologic time (age) volumes Relating every seismic sample to a geologically reasonable horizon: The Leading Edge, 23, no. 9, 928932, doi:10.1190/1.1803505.

Verney, P., M. Perrin, M. Thonnat, and J. F. Rainaud, 2008, An approach of seismic interpretation based on cognitive vision: 70th

EAGE Conference and Exhibition.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank BG Assets for their permission to publish their data. Sequence Stratigraphic Interpretation

System is a trademark of dGB. PaleoScan is a trademark of Eliis.

Extrema and Ant Tracking are marks of Schlumberger. Seisnetics is

a trademark of (get from author).

Corresponding author: jackhoyes@gmail.com

January 2011

943

- Extended Abstract Fractured Basement Analysis.docUploaded byraysitagaluh
- II CM _SY_110112115544Uploaded bymayank13333
- Least Mean Square Adaptive FiltersUploaded byEko Wahyude
- Resume Sergio OcampoUploaded byAmr A Moslim
- Proje Mc BrienUploaded byJohn Cena
- Cost Optimization of Reinforced Concrete ChimneyUploaded byIAEME Publication
- Minemax Planner vs FourXUploaded byAbhishek Pandey
- IFAW Australia Breaking the Silence-how Our Noise Pollution is HarmingUploaded byKe Yam
- economic load dispatchUploaded byRonak Patel
- OPTIM1Uploaded byrevandifitro
- Jameson-Aerodynamic Shape Optimization Using the Adjoint MethodUploaded byAntonio
- lulsUploaded byFadzly Hassan
- technical paper adrina chin chui maeUploaded byapi-356886215
- Fmin SearchUploaded byhshokri70
- mocnik_phd.pdfUploaded byAnyak2014
- Macuspana SEG 2003 1748Uploaded byMónica Aquino
- Drilling and Exploration World Journal March 2013 ROXARUploaded byAlessio
- BEST 6-1-001 Sanhasuk FinalUploaded byIkhrom Wicaksono
- Verschuur_2010Uploaded byBAC
- Pan Pan - 1.5D Internal Multiple Prediction$ an Application on Synthetic Data, Physical Modelling Data and Land Data SyntheticsUploaded byMauca
- Urn Nbn No Ntnu Diva-564-2 FulltextUploaded byMohammed Alkhafaji
- 1-s2.0-0096300384900158-main.pdfUploaded byAbimanyu Lukman Alfatah
- Systematic spatial planningUploaded byChiritescuSilvy
- 391_enUploaded byVenkatesh Vakucherla
- 07_2011_042_Stankovic_05Uploaded byklomps_jr
- Modified Non-stationary Critical Input Excitation by a Design Oriented Objective FunctionUploaded byrezakamgar1363
- 2013 Mehdi GP Seismic CharacterizationUploaded byoas1988
- RoboticsUploaded byIoan Doroftei
- 1354657Uploaded bybenyfirst
- Manuveribility AuvUploaded bybendisudhakar3536

- Beginner's Guide to PetrophysicsUploaded byPetro Man
- 181007550Uploaded byPetro Man
- PhD Seminar 141013 AAUploaded byPetro Man
- Art9Uploaded byPetro Man
- Water Saturation CrossplotsUploaded byPetro Man
- Petrophysical Analysis of Well Logs for Reservoir Evaluation a Case Study of Aja Oil Field Niger DeltaUploaded byPetro Man
- 11th-ICMRM_Book of AbstractsUploaded byPetro Man
- 03 Borehole Acoustic WavesUploaded byMaria-Mădălina Albăstroiu
- Crain's Petrophysical HandbookUploaded byPetro Man
- Badhole FlagUploaded byPetro Man
- recommendation letterUploaded byPetro Man
- Saqib zeshanUploaded byPetro Man
- Effective Porosity From Sonic LogUploaded byPetro Man
- Well Stimulation TechUploaded byjeetugeobhu
- authorizationletter-130621063556-phpapp01Uploaded byPetro Man
- tajjal areaUploaded byPetro Man
- Common Saturation MethodsUploaded byPetro Man
- Log PickingUploaded byPetro Man
- Porosity Correction.pdfUploaded bygeo_mms
- Lec 4-1 Well Log CorrelationUploaded byMangar Mawut
- New Microsoft Word DocumentUploaded byPetro Man
- Checking Logging ProblemsUploaded byPetro Man
- Calculating Electrical Properties (a, m, And n)Uploaded byPetro Man
- Well Log Response CharacterUploaded bytayofela
- 120Uploaded byPetro Man

- C8_Monitoring and Controlling the Project_M7.pdfUploaded byterlojitan
- (N-1) RedundancyUploaded bynvchinai
- PBasic CommandsUploaded byJosé Roberto Neves
- Graph and MatricesUploaded bysanjay975
- Infinite Grid of ResistorsUploaded byUtkarsh Verma
- Introduction to ProbabilityUploaded byNghia Dam
- PLC experimentUploaded byyttan1116
- System for the Notation of Proxemic BehaviorUploaded byBrÿan-Mitchell Ÿoung
- Aircraft Flight Control System ModellingUploaded byMahmoud
- The Self and its brain (Review article)Uploaded byforizsl
- Paper05-IAGT-2.6Uploaded bysarizal
- PrandtlUploaded byLejla Selimovic
- 626projectUploaded bynimish1990
- Cálculo de Cw 2.pdfUploaded byAdriano Aquino
- Advent_of_modern_phy_AT(draft)Uploaded bynasir.jamal
- itec last problems_final.docxUploaded byMeet Jivani
- STEM Edu Forum - DeanUploaded bykrisnu
- image Enhancement Digital Image ProcessingUploaded bygsingh_424556
- SAB 2513 - JAN 2012Uploaded byRyan hykal
- Dynamic Analysis of Wind Turbines Including Soil-structure InteractionUploaded bysuzanavila
- Module 4 HMWRK Lesson 11.pdfUploaded byReekha
- Course OutlineUploaded bybm100040
- Lecture on Parallel Algorithms (2)Uploaded byRohan Pai
- Econ6000_F2012_ASS2.pdfUploaded byak632465
- Sokolnikoff Theory of ElasticityUploaded byAdam Taylor
- 21845.pdfUploaded bySha Ars
- Standing Wave RatioUploaded byaoruko
- 78 Position-based Services MeasurementUploaded byPeng Xuefeng
- HARDER Developing the Formula 0.5 Ab SIN C for the Area of a TriangleUploaded byjuluces
- file12Uploaded byqatarstructz30