16 views

Uploaded by ranjithkraj

Control systems engieering- Liquid Level Control Example

- Rootlocus stability
- Design via Root Locus and Frequency Response
- Basic Control System 1
- Pdvsa Igv Control
- ece402
- Week 8 Updated2
- Adv Dyn Con Textbook
- Lab 3 - Inverted Pendulum - William Hoang
- Vs s Based Control
- Linear Regulators Theory
- Yan 2014
- Reshma Control Lab Manual
- notes_tee602_polar_plot.pdf
- LECTURE_1.pdf
- bates_ms
- Simulation Lab Full Manual
- Indraworks Ds Tuning Procedures Sercos
- Lecture1 Intro
- Control System Practice.pdf
- 13672.

You are on page 1of 47

Am plifier

Positioner Transducer

p eA

eE

xv Potentiom eter eR

K K

Bridge

eB hV

x

QM

hC

Float Level

Sensor

PU Rf QU

TANK

PUMP

Liquid Level Control 1

Objective

Maintain tank level hC at the desired level hV in the face

of disturbances pressure PU(t) (psig) and volume flow

rate QU(t) (ft3/sec). Rf is a linearized flow resistance with

units psi/(ft3/sec).

Equilibrium Operating Point

All variables are steady

Inflow QM exactly matches the two outflows

hC = hV and eE = 0

When eE = 0, QM can be nonzero since the electropneumatic

transducer has a zero adjustment and the valve positioner has a

zero adjustment, e.g., p = 9 psig and the valve opening

corresponds to equilibrium flow QM.

We will deal with small perturbations in all variables away from

the initial steady state.

Sensors & Actuators in Mechatronics K. Craig

Liquid Level Control 2

Assumptions and Equations of Motion

Tank Process Dynamics

Density of fluid is constant.

gh C PU dh C

QM QU = AT Conservation

Rf dt of

Rf 1 R Mass

( ps + 1) h C = g

QM +

g

PU f Q U

g

AT R f

p = process time constant

g

Liquid Level Control 3

Float Level Sensor

Assume a zero-order dynamic model, i.e., the dynamics are

negligible relative to the process time constant p since the

cross-sectional area of the tank is assumed large.

Consider the actual dynamics to justify this assumption:

B (Unavoidable Friction)

Buoyant

Force F B

h x Wf FB = Wf + A f g ( h x )

Tank

L f = float height Lf

W f = float weight

steady condition: h = x

Liquid Level Control 4

Equation of Motion

dx d2x

FB Wf B = Mf 2

dt dt

d2x dx

Mf 2 + B = A f g ( h x )

dt dt

d2x dx

M f 2 + B + A f gx = A f gh

dt dt

D 2 2 D

2 + + 1 x = Kh n =

A f g

n n

Mf

d

D B

dt Differential =

2 A f M f g

d2 Operator

D 2

2

K = 1.0

dt

Sensors & Actuators in Mechatronics K. Craig

Liquid Level Control 5

To measure rapid changes in h accurately, n must be

sufficiently large. The specific weight of the fluid (g)

is not a design variable, so strive for large values of

Af/Mf (i.e., hollow floats).

In our case, the tank has a large diameter and if the

inflow and outflow rates are modest, h cannot change

rapidly and so a zero-order model is justified.

Potentiometer Bridge and Electronic Amplifier

Obviously these two components are fast enough to be

treated as zero order in this system.

Liquid Level Control 6

Electropneumatic Transducer

This device produces a pneumatic

output signal closely proportional (

5% nonlinearity) to an electrical

input ( 5V and 3-15 psig).

dynamics from eA to p. The block

diagram shows a 4th-order closed-

loop differential equation.

response tests show typically a flat

amplitude ratio out to about 5 Hz.

This response is very fast relative to

p so we model the electropneumatic

transducer as zero order.

Liquid Level Control 7

Pneumatic Valve Positioner

We are only interested in the overall dynamics relating

xv to p. These are again quite fast relative to p, so we

model the component as zero order.

The valve positioner allows one to characterize the

static calibration curve between p and xv and thus

obtain desired linear or nonlinear relationships between

p and manipulated flowrate QM.

Relation between QM and xv

This relationship is assumed to be statically linear and

dynamically instantaneous and thus a zero-order model.

Although the dynamic response of QM to xv is not

instantaneous due to fluid inertia and compliance, the

response is much faster than the tank-filling dynamics.

Sensors & Actuators in Mechatronics K. Craig

Liquid Level Control 8

Closed-Loop System Block Diagram and

Differential Equation P U 1 + - QU

Rf

eR eE eA p xv +

hv + R f / g hC

Kh Ka Kp Kx Kv

+

ps + 1

- QM

eB x

Kh 1.0

Rf

1 g

( K h h V K h h C ) K a K p K x K v + R PU Q U s + 1 = h C

f p

K 1 Rf

( ss + 1) h C = hV + PU QU

K +1 g ( K + 1) g ( K + 1)

p Closed-Loop 1

s = System

K + 1 Time Constant

K=

g

( K h K a K p K x K v R f ) System Loop

Gain

Liquid Level Control 9

Speed of Response

Response for a step input in hv (hold perturbations PU

and QU at zero) t

K s

hC = h Vs 1 e

K +1

Response for a step input in disturbances PU and QU

(hold hV = 0)

1 t

s

R f t

s

hC = PUs 1 e hC = Q Us 1 e

g ( K + 1)

g ( K + 1)

p

s = = closed-loop system time constant

K +1

Sensors & Actuators in Mechatronics K. Craig

Liquid Level Control 10

Steady-State Errors

A procedure generally useful for all types of systems

and inputs is to rewrite the closed-loop system

differential equation with system error (V-C), rather

than the controlled variable C, as the unknown.

In this case we have:

K 1 Rf

( ss + 1) h C = hV + PU QU

K +1 g ( K + 1) g ( K + 1)

hE = hV hC

K 1 Rf

( ss + 1)( h V h E ) = hV + PU QU

K +1 g ( K + 1) g ( K + 1)

1 1 Rf

( ss + 1) h E = ss + hV PU + QU

K +1 g ( K + 1) g ( K + 1)

Sensors & Actuators in Mechatronics K. Craig

Liquid Level Control 11

For any chosen commands or disturbances, the steady-

state error will just be the particular solution of the

equation:

1 1 Rf

( s ) E s

s + 1 h = s + h

V P + QU

g ( K + 1) g ( K + 1)

U

K +1

increase the loop gain K.

For any initial equilibrium condition we can trim the

system for zero error but subsequent steady commands

and/or disturbances must cause steady-state errors.

Ramp inputs would cause steady-state errors that increase

linearly with time, the rate of increase being proportional

to ramp slope and inversely proportional to K+1.

Sensors & Actuators in Mechatronics K. Craig

Liquid Level Control 12

Stability

All aspects of system behavior are improved by

increasing loop gain up to a point! instability may

result, but our present model gives no warning of this.

Why?

We neglected dynamics in some components and a

general rule is:

If we want to make valid stability predictions we must

include enough dynamics in our system so that the

closed-loop system differential equation is at least third

order. The one exception is systems with dead times

where instability can occur even when dynamics are

zero, first, or second order.

Is our model then useless?

Sensors & Actuators in Mechatronics K. Craig

Liquid Level Control 13

No! It does correctly predict system behavior as long

as the loop gain is not made too large. As K is

increased, the closed-loop system response gets faster

and faster. At some point, the neglected dynamics are

no longer negligible and the model becomes inaccurate.

We neglected dynamics relative to p, but in the closed-

loop system, response speed is determined by s.

Exercise:

Compare the responses of the following 3 systems for

K = 1, 5, 10 with 1 = 1.0, 2 = 0.1, and 3 = 0.05. The

input is a unit step.

Examine speed of response, steady-state error, and

stability predictions.

Liquid Level Control 14

1

K C1

tau1.s+1

Step Input

System 1

1 1

K C2

tau1.s+1 tau2.s+1

Step Input System 2

1 1

K C3

tau1.s+1 tau2.s+1

Step Input

System 3

1

tau3.s+1

Sensors & Actuators in Mechatronics K. Craig

Liquid Level Control 15

Response for K = 1

0.5

C3

0.45

0.4

0.35

C2

C1

response: C1 C2 C3

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

time (sec)

Liquid Level Control 16

Response for K = 5

1

0.9

C3

0.8

0.7

C2

response: C1 C2 C3

0.6

C1

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

time (sec)

Sensors & Actuators in Mechatronics K. Craig

Liquid Level Control 17

Response for K = 10

1.4

1.2

C3

1

response: C1 C2 C3

0.8

C2

0.6

C1

0.4

0.2

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

time (sec)

Liquid Level Control 18

Response of C1 for K = 1, 5, 10

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

K=10

0.6

response: C1

K=5

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

K=1

0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

time (sec)

Liquid Level Control 19

Response of C2 for K = 1, 5, 10

1.4

1.2

K=10

1

response: C2

0.8

K=5

0.6

0.4

0.2

K=1

0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

time (sec)

Liquid Level Control 20

Response of C3 for K = 1, 5, 10

1.4

1.2

K=10

1

response: C3

0.8

0.6

K=5

0.4

K=1

0.2

0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

time (sec)

Liquid Level Control 21

Note that as loop gain K is increased, the speed of

response is increased and the steady-state error is reduced.

For what value of loop gain K will any of these systems

go unstable?

Lets look at the closed-loop system transfer functions and

characteristic equations:

Transfer Functions

C1 K (The characteristic equation

= is obtained by setting the

V 1s + 1 + K

denominator polynomial

C2 K equal to zero.)

=

V 12s 2 + ( 1 + 2 ) s + 1 + K

C3 K ( 3 + 1)

=

V 12 3s3 + ( 12 + 2 3 + 13 ) s 2 + ( 1 + 2 + 3 ) s + 1 + K

Liquid Level Control 22

C1 K

=

V s +1+ K

C2 K

=

V 0.1s 2 + 1.1s + 1 + K

C3 K ( 0.05s + 1)

=

V 0.005s3 + 0.155s 2 + 1.15s + 1 + K

gain K is increased is the third system; its characteristic

equation is third order. The first two systems will

continue to show improved speed of response and

reduction of steady-state error without any hint of

instability!

Liquid Level Control 23

Lets apply the three methods of determining closed-

loop system stability Routh, Nyquist, and Root-Locus

- to the third system and determine the value of K for

which this system becomes marginally stable.

Routh Stability Criterion

Closed-Loop System Characteristic Equation

Routh Array 0.005 1.15

0.155 1+ K

(0.155)(1.15) (1 + K)(0.005)

0

0.155

1+ K 0

Liquid Level Control 24

For stability we see that:

1+ K > 0

This leads to the result that for absolute stability:

A simulation with the loop gain set to K = 34.65 should verify

this result. The value of gain K = -1 will give the closed-loop

system characteristic equation a root at the origin but that value

is of less interest, since we rarely use negative gain values.

Note that at the loop gain value of 34.65, only system 3 is

marginally stable. Systems 1 and 2 show no signs of

instability, only improved speed of response and reduced

steady-state error.

Liquid Level Control 25

Response for K = 34.65

2.5

C3

1.5

response: C1 C2 C3

C2

1

0.5

C1

0

-0.5

0 0.5 1 1.5

time (sec)

Liquid Level Control 26

Root-Locus Interpretation of Stability

The open-loop transfer function is:

K

( 1s + 1)( 2s + 1)( 3s + 1)

K

=

12 3s3 + ( 12 + 2 3 + 13 ) s 2 + ( 1 + 2 + 3 ) s + 1

K

=

0.005s3 + 0.155s 2 + 1.15s + 1

marginally stable. For that value of K, the closed-loop poles

are at: -31 and 15.1658i.

Liquid Level Control 27

30

20

K = 34.65

10

Imag Axis

-10

Open-Loop Poles:

-20 -20, -10, -1

-30

-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5

Real Axis

Liquid Level Control 28

Nyquist Stability Criterion

A polar plot of the open-loop transfer function for the gain K =

34.65 goes through the point 1, indicating marginal stability

of the closed-loop system.

A polar plot of the open-loop transfer function for the gain K =

10 shows a gain margin = 3.46.

The Bode plots for a gain K = 10 show a gain margin = 10.794

dB = 3.46 and a phase margin = 40.5 degrees.

Liquid Level Control 29

Nyquist Diagrams

From: U(1)

25

20

15

K = 34.65

10

Imaginary Axis

= -

5

= 0-

To: Y(1)

= 0+

= +

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Real Axis

Liquid Level Control 30

Nyquist Diagrams

From: U(1)

6

2

K = 10

Imaginary Axis

To: Y(1)

-0.289

-2

Gain Margin = 1/.289 = 3.46

-4

-6

-2 0 2 4 6 8 10

Real Axis

Liquid Level Control 31

Bode Diagrams

K = 10 Gm=10.794 dB (at 15.166 rad/sec), Pm=40.539 deg. (at 7.4486 rad/sec)

20

0

Phase (deg); Magnitude (dB)

-20

GM = 10.8 dB

-40 PM = 40.5 deg

-60

-100

-200

-300

10-1 100 101 102

Frequency (rad/sec)

Liquid Level Control 32

Saturation

The amplifier, electropneumatic transducer, and valve

positioner all exhibit saturation, limiting their output

when the input becomes too large.

All real systems must exhibit such power limitations

and one of the consequences is that the closed-loop

response speed improvement will not be realized for

large signals.

Exercise:

Simulate the following two systems for gains of K = 1,

10 and a unit step input.

Examine speed of response and steady-state error.

Liquid Level Control 33

1

K C1

s+1

Step Input

M1

M2

1

K C2

s+1

Step Input Saturation

Upper Limit: +1

Lower Limit: -1

Liquid Level Control 34

Unit Step Response for C1 and C2 with K = 1

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

C1 and C2 responses are identical.

response: C1 C2

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

time (sec)

Liquid Level Control 35

Unit Step Response for C1 and C2 with K = 10

1

0.9

0.8

C1

0.7

response: C1 C2

0.6

C2

0.5

0.4

Speed of response is

0.3

affected, but steady-state

0.2

error is not.

0.1

0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

time (sec)

Liquid Level Control 36

Step Response of Magnitude 1.5 for C1 and C2 with K = 10

1.4

1.2

C1

1

response: C1 C2

0.8

C2

0.6

0.4

and steady-state error are

0.2

affected.

0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

time (sec)

Liquid Level Control 37

Lets make the system model more realistic by

modeling the pneumatic valve positioner as a first-

order system:

xv Kx

(D) =

p vp D + 1

loop system differential equation is now:

D 2 2 D K vp D + 1 R f ( vp D + 1)

2 + + 1 h C = hV + PU QU

n n K +1 g ( K + 1) g ( K + 1)

K +1 p + vp 1

n = = K= ( K h K a K p K x K v R f )

p vp 2 p vp ( K + 1) g

Liquid Level Control 38

To get fast response (large n) for given lags p and vp,

we must increase loop gain K. How does K affect ?

If p = 60 sec and vp = 1.0 sec and we desire = 0.6,

what is K? What is n ? Is absolute instability possible

with this model? What does the Nyquist plot show as

K is increased? What does the root-locus plot show as

K is increased?

Consider Gain Distribution

How does gain distribution affect stability and dynamic

response of the closed-loop system?

Are steady-state errors for disturbances sensitive to

gain distribution?

Should one optimize the distribution of gain so as to

minimize steady-state errors?

Sensors & Actuators in Mechatronics K. Craig

Liquid Level Control 39

K2n

G(s) = 2

s + 2n s + 2n

Location of Poles

s1,2 = n in 1 2 Of

Transfer Function

s1,2 = id

y (t ) = 1 e t

cos d t + sin d t

d

1.8

tr rise time

n

4.6

ts settling time

n

General All-Pole

Mp = e 1 2

( 0 < 1) overshoot 2nd-Order

Step Response

1 ( 0 0.6 )

0.6

Sensors & Actuators in Mechatronics K. Craig

Liquid Level Control 40

1.8 4.6

n

tr ts

0.6 (1 M p ) 0 0.6

Sensors & Actuators in Mechatronics K. Craig

Liquid Level Control 41

Integral Control

Consider integral control of this liquid-level process.

Replace the amplifier block Ka by KI/s.

The closed-loop system differential equation is:

Rf

Kh KIKpK x K v 1 g

( h V h C ) + PU Q U = hC

s Rf ps + 1

1 Rf

( p D + D + K ) h C = Kh V + g DPU g DQU

2

1 Rf

( p D + D + K ) h E = ( p D + D ) h V + g DPU g DQU

2 2

K h K I K p K x K v R f loop system

K= gain h E = h V h C error

g

Sensors & Actuators in Mechatronics K. Craig

Liquid Level Control 42

Note the following:

Step changes (constant values) of hV, PU, and/or QU

give zero steady-state errors.

For ramp inputs, we now have constant, nonzero

steady-state errors whose magnitudes can be reduced

by increasing K.

The characteristic equation is second order, so define:

K 1

n = =

p 2 Kp

increase in K to gain response speed or decrease ramp

steady-state errors will be limited by loss of relative

stability (low ).

Sensors & Actuators in Mechatronics K. Craig

Liquid Level Control 43

If we design for a desired , the needed K is easily

found and n is then fixed.

Absolute instability is not predicted; the model is too

simple.

See the comparison between proportional control and

integral control: root locus plots and Nyquist plots.

Note the destabilizing effects of integral control.

Liquid Level Control 44

V + K C V + K C

ps + 1 s ( p s + 1)

- -

Proportional Integral

Control Control

Root

Loci

x x x

1 1

p p

-1 -1

Nyquist

Plots

Sensors & Actuators in Mechatronics K. Craig

Liquid Level Control 45

What if we change the controlled process by

closing off the pipe on the left side of the tank.

This not only deletes PU as a disturbance but also

causes a significant change in process dynamics.

Take Rf = . The from Conservation of Mass we

have: 1

hC = ( QM QU )

ATs

The original tank process had self-regulation.

If one changes QM and/or QU the tank will itself in time

find a new equilibrium level since the flow through Rf

varies with level.

Liquid Level Control 46

With Rf not present, the tiniest difference between QM

and QU will cause the tank to completely drain or

overflow since it is now an integrator and has lost its

self-regulation.

Even with proportional control, the integrating effect in

the process gives zero steady-state error for step

commands, but not for disturbances.

If we substitute integral control to eliminate the QU

error, the system becomes absolutely unstable.

Liquid Level Control 47

- Rootlocus stabilityUploaded byBhamini Venkat
- Design via Root Locus and Frequency ResponseUploaded byBran Wz
- Basic Control System 1Uploaded byidhoido
- Pdvsa Igv ControlUploaded byDenis Jimenez
- ece402Uploaded byNayan Chauhan
- Week 8 Updated2Uploaded byMayank Singh
- Adv Dyn Con TextbookUploaded bySaifizi Saidon
- Lab 3 - Inverted Pendulum - William HoangUploaded byWilliam Sun
- Vs s Based ControlUploaded byHarsha Vardhan
- Linear Regulators TheoryUploaded bydennycollina
- Yan 2014Uploaded byKheira Rom
- Reshma Control Lab ManualUploaded byrameshsme
- notes_tee602_polar_plot.pdfUploaded bytansnvarma
- bates_msUploaded byVikas Patel
- LECTURE_1.pdfUploaded byAhmad Elsheemy
- Simulation Lab Full ManualUploaded byRajendra Prasad
- Indraworks Ds Tuning Procedures SercosUploaded byCésar Tapia
- Lecture1 IntroUploaded byROBERT
- Control System Practice.pdfUploaded byEkansh Dwivedi
- 13672.Uploaded byTấtAnPhan
- Generating Bode PlotsUploaded byRavinder Kumar
- Grafica de BodeUploaded byFrancisco Hernandez
- MIT2_04AS13_PractProblem2Uploaded byjuansantospalacios
- Lindsey Hines Final ReportUploaded byvyasmonarchu
- Fans for the Closed-Loop Control of a Cooling CircuitUploaded bylin2m3
- AbstractUploaded bynive r
- 5Uploaded bySahitya16
- Design of Decoupling Controllers for an MIMO SystemsUploaded byRicardo Villalonga
- 26817991.pdfUploaded byiso9002
- 1-s2.0-S0019057807601062-mainUploaded byAnonymous WkbmWCa8M

- BioWallUploaded byranjithkraj
- I C Engines and Fluid Machinery LabUploaded byranjithkraj
- PHS 05B-1A48.pdfUploaded byranjithkraj
- Civil Engineering.pdfUploaded byranjithkraj
- Matlab TutorialUploaded byPinaki Mishra
- VIBRATION ANALYSIS OF RECTANGULAR PLATE WITH CIRCULAR HOLESUploaded byranjithkraj
- Journal on vibrationUploaded byranjithkraj
- Civil III Strength of Materials [10cv33] NotesUploaded bySaiSowmithGoudNaramala
- Buckling Behaviour of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composite Plates With CutoutsUploaded byranjithkraj
- Accident Zone Analysis PptUploaded byranjithkraj
- CNC Turning Centre ManualUploaded byranjithkraj
- CONTROL SYSTEMS.pdfUploaded byranjithkraj
- Turbomachines(May.june 2010Uploaded byranjithkraj
- Axisymmetry Problem FE AnalysisUploaded byranjithkraj
- Numerical Analysis Low Speed Impact CompositesUploaded byranjithkraj
- Abaqus-Composites.pdfUploaded byranjithkraj
- journal on composite analysisUploaded byranjithkraj
- Bode_Plots[1]Uploaded byMuhammad Abu Bakar
- MatlabUploaded byminhtaispkt
- Assignment SOMUploaded byranjithkraj
- Question PaperUploaded byranjithkraj
- Mechanics of materials NotesUploaded byranjithkraj
- Statistical Analysis of the Experimental DataUploaded byranjithkraj
- Statistical Analysis of the Experimental DataUploaded byranjithkraj
- Experiment PlanningUploaded byranjithkraj
- Unit_2_DFMAUploaded bypushparajpingulkar
- Lesson 2 Fillers FibersUploaded byranjithkraj
- Air Pollution Dec2010Uploaded byranjithkraj

- Engine Modelling and Heat TransferUploaded byRepo_67
- The Macro Environment Plays Big Role for Making Marketing EnvironmentUploaded byAbdul Akif
- syllabusEcon5072011.pdfUploaded byRoger Asencios Nuñez
- Appendix E1 - Geotech Site B 4-1-13.pdfUploaded byLeonardo Cruz
- Release Notes - Instrument Inspector 2_0_2_0Uploaded byAdrian Reyes
- annotated bibliographyUploaded byapi-396718184
- Plain Text TestUploaded byrex5485-1
- Underwater Architecture 1Uploaded byRishi Kalia
- The Radio Chemistry of Palladium.us AECUploaded bylondonbluetopaz
- bmiforpactitionersUploaded byvaluat
- Saya Recognition Dragon ReportUploaded byGautham Padmaraju
- preparation of methanolUploaded byGopal Agarwal
- Developing a Software Component Design SpecificationUploaded byStelvio Barros da Silva
- Mws SlideUploaded byPanoot Pattapongse
- EIA Complaints and AppealsUploaded bycankawaab
- Vectors IntroUploaded byabraham_sse1594
- Ultrasonic Cavitation Based Processing of Metal Matrix.pdfUploaded byirajfarji2481
- The Role of Progressive Overload in Sports Conditioning.pdfUploaded byManuel Ferreira
- Mufon Ufo JournalUploaded bySAB78
- lesson 4-thinking addition to 18 to subtractUploaded byapi-273444334
- Fundamentals of Computer for BusinessUploaded bysudhakar12aug8457
- GATE-2015 Cut-Off Marks, Result Analysis, Toppers Name, PSU RecruitmentsUploaded bySantosh Kumar
- 3x300 Mw_td Bfp DataUploaded byAnonymous BzGb2fnfE
- KP-Astrology-Learning-Video-Course-Material-Advanced.pdfUploaded bySanjay Ekbote
- Ryan Galloway Curriculum Vitae 9222010Uploaded byrsgalloway
- RRLUploaded byCaryl Faye Monreal
- Neural Networks and Deep Learning Chap3Uploaded byMohit Duseja
- Or Nek FinalUploaded bycinarsercan_69627706
- Spaulding Decon Opens Franchise in Galveston, TexasUploaded byPR.com
- Ocular Inspection ReportUploaded byDan Emmanuel R. Ventura