19 views

Uploaded by bernice ajeng

Match factor for heterogeneous truck and loader fleets

- Prince Hydraulics - LVS Loader Valve Offered by PRC Industrial Supply
- Wipro Infrastructure Engineering
- Kramer 880
- Control System Plc Liebherr Lhm 400
- October 2014
- Firm Dynamic
- Week 29 Classifieds
- Dingo Brochure 490-7556
- KEGs in Region 1 Trainable Skills.pptx
- HRM Synopsis
- Equipment Document Details
- Terex 33 09 Rock Truck
- Alan Heap-improving Site Productivity Intheconstruction Industry - Ilo
- Big Bertha Dumpbody Vibrator Catalog
- O&M 730E SERIES A30597 & UP CEAM022201
- 305574392-2-Crane-Models-and-Geometry.pdf
- India HDV Market 20150809
- IJER_2016_418.PDF
- c 10437180
- The Case of the Troubled Truckers

You are on page 1of 10

Environment

fleets

To cite this article: C. N. Burt & L. Caccetta (2007) Match factor for heterogeneous truck and

loader fleets, International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 21:4, 262-270, DOI:

10.1080/17480930701388606

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nsme20

Download by: [McGill University Library] Date: 29 September 2017, At: 07:21

International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment

Vol. 21, No. 4, December 2007, 262 – 270

and loader ﬂeets

C. N. BURT* and L. CACCETTA

Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:21 29 September 2017

GPO Box U1987 Perth, Western Australia 6845, Australia

The mining and construction industries have used match factor for many decades as

an indicator of productivity performance. The term match factor is usually deﬁned

as the ratio of truck arrival rate to loader service time. This ratio relies on the

assumption that the truck and loader ﬂeets are homogeneous. That is, all the trucks

are of the same type, and all the loaders are of the same type. In reality, mixed

ﬂeets are common. This paper proposes a method of deﬁning match factor for

heterogeneous ﬂeets: in particular, a heterogeneous trucking ﬂeet, a heterogeneous

loading ﬂeet, and the case where both truck and loader ﬂeets are heterogeneous.

ﬂeets; Mixed ﬂeets

1. Introduction

The earthmoving industry is continuously searching for ways to predict productivity and select the

best ﬂeet for a given operation. Douglas (1964) published a formula that determined a suitable

number of trucks, Mb, to balance shovel output. Truck cycle time is deﬁned for equation (2) as

the sum of non-delayed transit times, and includes haul, dump and return times. This formula is

the ratio of loader productivity to truck productivity, but as it makes use of equipment capacity it

is considering the potential productivity of the equipment. More precisely:

Loader productivity ¼ ; ð1Þ

ðloader cycle timeÞ

Truck productivity ¼ ; and ð2Þ

ðtruck cycle timeÞ

ðLoader productivityÞ

Mb ¼ : ð3Þ

ðTruck productivityÞ

International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment

ISSN 1748-0930 print/ISSN 1748-0949 online Ó 2007 Taylor & Francis

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

DOI: 10.1080/17480930701388606

Match factor for heterogeneous truck and loader ﬂeets 263

Note that the Douglas ratio is restricted to one loader. Morgan and Peterson (1968) published a

simpler version of the ratio, naming it the match factor (MF):

MF ¼ : ð4Þ

ðnumber of loadersÞðtruck cycle timeÞ

The truck cycle times (for equation (4)) do not include waiting times, although it is not clear

why. This ratio uses the actual productivities in the ratio, rather than potential productivities, and

therefore achieves a diﬀerent result to equation (3).

The concept of match factor provides a measure of productivity of the ﬂeet. The ratio is so

called because it can be used to match the truck arrival rate to shovel service rate. This ratio

removes itself from equipment capacities, and in this sense, potential productivity, by including

Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:21 29 September 2017

the loading times in both the loader and truck cycle times. Also, the formula captures the ratio of

truck arrival time to loader serving rate.

In the Morgan and Peterson paper, cycle times do not include waiting or queuing times.

However, if the ratio is applied after the ﬂeet and an estimate of cycle time has been determined,

then an estimate of queue and wait times can be built into the match factor as a component of the

truck and loader cycle times. The truck cycle time as employed in this paper is considered to be

the time taken to be loaded with material, travel to the dumpsite, dump the load, travel back to the

loader and queue for the next load (ﬁgure 1). The time taken to load the trucks can also be

averaged into a single overall truck cycle time. Alternatively unique truck cycle times can be easily

introduced for improved calculations if needed: the heterogeneous truck and loader ﬂeet match

factor ratio presented in section 4 accommodates diﬀering truck cycle times.

This paper focuses on the application of match factor as a productivity indicator, and therefore

assumes that queue and wait times are included in the cycle times. With this idea of cycle time in

mind, a match factor of 1.0 represents a balance point, where trucks are arriving at the loader at

the same rate that they are being served. Typically, if the ratio exceeds 1.0, this indicates that the

trucks are arriving faster than they are being served. In this instance, we can expect the trucks to

queue. A ratio below 1.0 indicates that the loaders are serving faster than the trucks are arriving.

In this case, we expect the loaders to wait for trucks to arrive. Unfortunately, in practice a

theoretical match factor of 1.0 may not correlate with an actual match factor of 1.0 because of

truck bunching. In this sense, the calculated match factor value is optimistic. The match factor

ratio has been used to indicate the eﬃciency of the truck or loader ﬂeet and in some instances has

264 C. N. Burt and L. Caccetta

been used to determine a suitable number of trucks for the ﬂeet (Cetin 2004, Kuo 2004). Both the

mining and construction industries have adopted this ratio (Morgan 1994, Smith et al. 1995). The

construction industry may be interested in achieving a match factor close to 1.0, which would

indicate that the productivity levels of the ﬂeet are maximised. However, the mining industry may

be more interested in lower levels of match factor, which correspond to smaller trucking ﬂeets and

increased waiting times for loaders, as this usually correlates with a lower operating cost for the

ﬂeet.

Some literature hints at using the match factor formula to determine an optimistic eﬃciency

indicator of the overall ﬂeet (Smith et al. 1995). Figure 2 demonstrates the change in total

optimistic eﬃciency with increasing match factor. A low match factor (0.5) correlates to low

overall eﬃciency of the ﬂeet (50%), while the truck eﬃciency is 100%. This is a case of under-

trucking, where the loader’s eﬃciency is reduced while it waits for further trucks to arrive. A high

Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:21 29 September 2017

match factor (1.5) indicates over-trucking. In this case, the loader works to 100% eﬃciency, while

the trucks must queue to be loaded.

The match factor ratio, in equation (4), relies on the assumption that the operating ﬂeets are

homogeneous; that is, only one type of equipment for both trucks and loaders is used in the

overall ﬂeet. When used to determine the size of the truck ﬂeet, some literature simpliﬁes this

formula further by assuming that only one loader is operating in the ﬂeet (Morgan 1994, Smith

et al. 1995, Nunnally 2000). In practice, mixed ﬂeets and multiple loaders are common because of

pre-existing equipment or optimal ﬂeet selection that minimises the cost of the project (Burt et al.

2005).

While the formula can be used to give an indication of eﬃciency or productivity ratios, it fails to

take truck bunching into account. When trucks are operating in a cycle, the truck cycle time will

tend towards the slowest truck cycle time, unless overtaking is permitted. That is, faster trucks will

Match factor for heterogeneous truck and loader ﬂeets 265

bunch behind the slower trucks, causing a drop in the average cycle time. Queuing has the eﬀect of

‘resetting’ the truck cycles, and reduces the eﬀect of bunching. Bunching in oﬀ-road trucks is not

well studied, and typically, reducing factors are used to shrink the eﬃciency to account for

bunching (Douglas 1964, Morgan 1994, Smith et al. 2000). Further modelling of the true bunching

eﬀect would be a helpful asset to the mining and construction industries, as the issue is currently

unresolved.

The aim of this paper is to provide extensions to the productivity and eﬃciency measures

currently available in the literature. We derive several extensions to the match factor ratio that

provides greater ease of calculation for heterogeneous ﬂeets: in particular we present a new way of

calculating match factor for the cases of heterogeneous ﬂeets truck ﬂeets, heterogeneous loader

ﬂeets, and where both truck and loader ﬂeets are heterogeneous.

Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:21 29 September 2017

In this section we outline some parameters that are used throughout the paper (table 1) and derive

a simple extension to the match factor ratio for heterogeneous trucking ﬂeets. The ratios presented

in sections 3 and 4 are extensions of this result.

We begin by considering the truck arrival rate (TAR) and the case of a heterogeneous truck ﬂeet

with homogeneous loading ﬂeet:

ðnumber of trucksÞ

TAR ¼ : ð5Þ

ðtruck cycle timeÞ

This rate is unaﬀected by the number of truck types, as an averaged truck cycle time is used. The

loader service rate is the number of trucks that are served per second. The loader cycle time may

vary between diﬀerent truck types. The loader service rate (LSR) must reﬂect the time taken to

service one truck (where i denotes truck type):

LSR ¼

ðtotal loader cycleÞ

ðnumber of loadersÞðnumber of trucksÞ

¼ P : ð6Þ

i ðtrucksi truck loading timei Þ

As the MF is the ratio of truck arrival rate to loader service time, we have:

P

i ðtrucksi truck loading timei Þ

MF ¼ : ð7Þ

ðnumber of loadersÞðtruck cycle timeÞ

Number of loaders The total number of loaders in the ﬂeet

Trucksi The number of trucks of type i in the ﬂeet

Loadersj The number of loaders of type j in the ﬂeet

Truck loading timei The cycle time of one loader type when working with a truck type i

Unique loading timei, j The cycle time of the loader j when working with a truck type i

Total loader cycle The time taken for one loader to serve all trucks in the ﬂeet

Truck cycle timei The cycle time of truck type i

Truck cycle time The average cycle time for all trucks in the current period

266 C. N. Burt and L. Caccetta

It is clear that if only one type of truck is operating in the ﬂeet, then equation (7) will produce

the same results as equation (4). An alternative method for calculating the match factor for

heterogeneous truck ﬂeets is to add the individual match factors from each of the homogeneous

sub-ﬂeets (ﬁgure 3). Note that this alternative method is only appropriate for the case of

homogeneous loader ﬂeets working with heterogeneous trucking ﬂeets.

Sometimes it may be relevant to use unique truck cycle times for diﬀerent truck types in the

ﬂeet. In addition to discernibly diﬀerent loading times, the larger equipment may be used to

haul waste while the smaller trucks are used to haul ore. The waste and ore may be sent to diﬀerent

locations with signiﬁcantly diﬀerent cycle lengths. Also, we may consider the loading time

diﬀerence between two diﬀerent truck types signiﬁcant. When diﬀering individual truck cycle

times are used, the times must be weight averaged to produce an accurate match factor. Equation

(7) can be easily extended to account for unique truck cycle times. The average cycle time is

Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:21 29 September 2017

given by:

P

i ðtrucksi

truck cycle timei Þ

truck cycle time ¼ : ð8Þ

ðnumber of trucksÞ

Now, substituting this new total truck cycle time into equation (7), we have:

P

ðnumber of trucksÞ i ðtrucksi truck loading timei Þ

MF ¼ P : ð9Þ

ðnumber of loadersÞ i ðtrucksi truck cycle timei Þ

For completeness, the following extensions to the match factor ratio should include equipment

availability. Equipment availability is the proportion of time that a truck or loader is available to

work. This is used to account for loss in availability due to maintenance and breakdowns. For the

purpose of clarity, availability has not been built into the following derivations.

The following two sections will extend the match factor ratio for the cases of heterogeneous

loader ﬂeets, and the case where both truck and loader ﬂeets are heterogeneous. Both of these

sections make use of equation (9).

This section considers the case of mixed loaders in the ﬂeet, while the trucks remain uniform in

type. The loading time may be diﬀerent for various sized trucks. In order to determine an accurate

Figure 3. The match factor for the overall ﬂeet is the sum of the match factors for the

homogeneous sub-ﬂeets.

Match factor for heterogeneous truck and loader ﬂeets 267

loader service rate we can make use of the least common multiple (lcm) of the unique loading

times for each truck and loader pair. The least common multiple of numbers a and b is the smallest

number that both a and b multiply into. For example, lcm(2, 3) ¼ 6. Additional parameters in the

formula are in table 2.

The loader service rate reﬂects the amount of time taken to serve one truck. In a heterogeneous

ﬂeet, the time taken to serve a truck may diﬀer between the varying loader types. Suppose we have

two loader types and one truck type. The corresponding loading times are a and b. The least

common multiple of a and b is the smallest amount of time that both a and b multiply into evenly.

If we can calculate how many times a occurs within lcm(a, b), and similarly for b, then we can

determine the number of trucks that are served in that time period. Note that j denotes a loader

type.

Ph i

Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:21 29 September 2017

i ðloaders j Þ unique loading timej

LSR ¼ : ð10Þ

lcmðunique loading timesÞ

Recall that the match factor is the ratio of truck arrival rate to loader service rate. Thus we

have:

MF ¼ P h i : ð11Þ

lcmðunique loading timesÞ

j ðloaders j Þ unique loading time ðtruck cycle timeÞ

j

When only one type of loader operates in the ﬂeet, equation (11) reduces to equation (4). In the

case of multiple dump locations, equation (11) can be expanded to account for diﬀering truck

cycle times:

MF ¼ P lcmðunique loading timesÞ P : ð12Þ

j ðloadersj Þ unique loading time i ðtrucksi truck cycle timei Þ

j

3.1 Example

The following example calculates the match factor of a heterogeneous loader ﬂeet. Table 3 outlines

the equipment set.

The cycle time for the loader is the time taken for one full swing of the bucket. Some trucks may

take several buckets to ﬁll its tray. The ﬁrst step is to determine the unique loading time for each

lcm(unique loading times) The least common multiple of the unique loading times for all j.

Unique loading timej The cycle time of the loader j when working with one truck type.

Table 3. Example data: heterogeneous loader ﬂeet with common truck cycle time.

1 Loader type B 60 35

1 Loader type C 42 35

268 C. N. Burt and L. Caccetta

truck. If the truck capacity is not a round multiple of the loader capacity, then a rule is used to

determine how many swings are required to ﬁll the truck. The rule of thumb used here is if the

modulus of the truck capacity to loader capacity is less than a third of the loader bucket size, it is

not worth the extra swing to ﬁll that last amount.

150

Truck type A and loader type B : ¼ 2:5 3 swings; 3 35 ¼ 105 s

60

150

Truck type A and loader type C : ¼ 3:6 4 swings; 4 35 ¼ 140 s

42

First, we must calculate the least common multiple, or lcm of the unique loading times. The lcm

is the smallest number that both 105 and 140 multiply into. In this case it is 420.

Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:21 29 September 2017

MF ¼ P h i

lcmðunique loading timesÞ

j ðloadersj Þ unique loading times ðtruck cycle timeÞ

j

22 420

¼ 420 420

105 þ 140 1500

¼ 0:88:

This solution describes an overall ﬂeet with under-trucking. When a minimum cost ﬂeet is

desired under-trucking usually provides better solutions.

When both truck and loader ﬂeets are heterogeneous we must combine equations (7) and (11). As

in section 3, the truck cycle time is assumed to be an average for the entire truck ﬂeet for that

period. An additional parameter in the formula is denoted by lcm(unique loading times)j, which is

the least common multiple of all the truck loading times for loader type j.

Equations (7) and (11) combine to create the match factor formula for heterogeneous ﬂeets:

Ph i

j ðnumber of trucksÞ lcmðunique loading timesÞj

MF ¼ P hP lcmðunique loading timesÞj i : ð13Þ

loadersj j i unique loading time ðtruck cycle timeÞ

i;j

In the instance of unique truck cycle times, equation (13) can be easily extended as follows:

Ph i

ðnumber of trucksÞ j ðnumber of trucksÞ lcmðunique loading timesÞj

MF ¼ P hlcmðunique loading times Þi P : ð14Þ

loadersj j unique loading time j i ðtrucksi truck cycle timei Þ

i;j

When only one type of truck and one type of loader operate in the ﬂeet, both equations (13) and

(14) reduce to equation (4), as expected.

4.1 Example

This example determines the match factor of a heterogeneous truck and loader ﬂeet. Table 4

presents the data set.

Match factor for heterogeneous truck and loader ﬂeets 269

Table 4. Example data: heterogeneous truck and loader ﬂeet with common truck cycle time.

7 Truck type B 230 1500

1 Loader type C 60 35

1 Loader type D 38 30

The unique loading times for each truck are determined by the rule of thumb described in

section 3.1.

150

Truck type A and loader type C : ¼ 2:5 3 swings; 3 35 ¼ 105 s

Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:21 29 September 2017

60

150

Truck type A and loader type D : ¼ 3:9 4 swings; 4 30 ¼ 120 s

38

230

Truck type B and loader type C : ¼ 3:8 4 swings; 4 35 ¼ 140 s

60

230

Truck type B and loader type D : ¼ 6:1 6 swings; 6 30 ¼ 180 s

38

As in section 3, we must calculate the least common multiples of the two truck loading times for

each loader.

Truck type B : lcmð140; 180Þ ¼ 1260

Ph i

ðnumber of trucksÞ j ðnumber of trucksÞ lcmðunique loading timesÞj

MF ¼ P hlcmðunique loading times Þi P

loadersj j unique loading times j i ðtrucksi truck cycle timei Þ

i;j

22 ð840 þ 1260Þ

¼ 840 840 1260 1260

105 þ 120 þ 140 þ 180 ðtruck cycle timeÞ

¼ 0:994

This solution is close to the theoretical perfect match of 1.0. Although this is a good result in

terms of overall eﬃciency and productivity of the ﬂeet, the ﬂeet would be cheaper to operate if the

match factor was lower.

5. Conclusions

Match factor is an important eﬃciency indicator in the mining and construction industries, and

therefore accuracy in calculation is highly expected. These new formulae provide a sensible

extension to the original equation and bring greater accuracy to the cases where mixed ﬂeets

operate together. All of these formulae can be implemented easily in spreadsheet software such as

Microsoft Excel (with the Analysis ToolPak add-in that enables lcm calculations).

Some project managers may use the match factor formula to determine the ideal number of trucks

in the ﬂeet. Using the new formulae, they are less restricted in their choice of equipment, and can

select mixed ﬂeets to suit the productivity requirements and minimise materials handling expense.

270 C. N. Burt and L. Caccetta

In truck and loader equipment selection, a desired range for match factor can be built into the

constraint set. This can prevent selected ﬂeets from having long waiting times for either trucks or

loaders, or can boost the productivity levels that are critical to the construction industry.

Match factor and truck bunching are closely related topics in these industries. The true eﬀect of

bunching, however, remains elusive. Mixed ﬂeets may exacerbate bunching and consequently the

match factor may require a diﬀerent correcting factor than that used for a match factor calculated

with a homogeneous ﬂeet. Bunching modelling in oﬀ-road equipment is necessary in order to

determine the optimal ﬂeet for a given project. Such modelling will bring greater understanding of

the changes in eﬃciency relative to diﬀerent equipment types and truck-loader pairs, and

consequently permit a true optimal selection of equipment.

Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:21 29 September 2017

Acknowledgements

This project is supported through the Australian Research Council Linkage Grant No:

LP0454362.

References

Burt, C., Caccetta, L., Hill, S. and Welgama, P., Models for mining equipment selection. In MODSIM 2005 International

Congress on Modelling and Simulation, edited by A. Zerger and R.M. Argent, pp. 170 – 176, 2005 (Modelling and

Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand: Canberra).

Cetin, N., Open-pit truck/shovel haulage system simulation. PhD thesis, Middle East Technical University, 2004.

Douglas, J., Prediction of shovel-truck production: a reconciliation of computer and conventional estimates. Technical

Report no. 37, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, 1964.

Kuo, Y., Highway earthwork and pavement production rates for construction time estimation. PhD thesis, University of

Texas, 2004.

Morgan, B., Optimizing truck-loader matching. In Mine Planning and Equipment Selection 1994: Proceedings of the Third

International Symposium on Mine Planning and Equipment Selection, edited by A. Pasamehmetoglu, 1994 (Balkema:

Rotterdam). Istanbul, Turkey, 18 – 20 October 1994. ISBN: 90-5410-327-2.

Morgan, W. and Peterson, L., Determining shovel-truck productivity, Min. Eng., December 1968, 76 – 80.

Nunnally, S., Managing Construction Equipment, 2nd edn, 1988 (Prentice-Hall: New Jersey).

Smith, S., Osborne, J. and Forde, M., Productivity estimation in back-acter/dump-truck earth-moving operations. Proc.

Inst. Civil Eng. Transport, 1995, 111, 125 – 131.

Smith, S., Wood, G. and Gould, M., A new earthworks estimating methodology. Construction Mgmt. Econ., 2000, 18, 219 –

228.

- Prince Hydraulics - LVS Loader Valve Offered by PRC Industrial SupplyUploaded byPRC Industrial Supply
- Wipro Infrastructure EngineeringUploaded bySoumitra Mistified Banerjee
- Kramer 880Uploaded byForomaquinas
- Control System Plc Liebherr Lhm 400Uploaded byLiebherr
- October 2014Uploaded byCleaner Magazine
- Firm DynamicUploaded bykahramaa
- Week 29 ClassifiedsUploaded bychronicleads1
- Dingo Brochure 490-7556Uploaded byCARLOSWAR101
- HRM SynopsisUploaded bySanket Shivansh Srivastava
- KEGs in Region 1 Trainable Skills.pptxUploaded byCatherine Nieveras
- Equipment Document DetailsUploaded byjacklin2012
- Terex 33 09 Rock TruckUploaded byAmol Jdv
- Alan Heap-improving Site Productivity Intheconstruction Industry - IloUploaded byAfris Ramadhan
- Big Bertha Dumpbody Vibrator CatalogUploaded bycasarrubiasv
- O&M 730E SERIES A30597 & UP CEAM022201Uploaded byLuis Alberto Ramirez Perez
- 305574392-2-Crane-Models-and-Geometry.pdfUploaded bygiapy0000
- India HDV Market 20150809Uploaded byGanesan Thangasamy
- IJER_2016_418.PDFUploaded byInnovative Research Publications
- c 10437180Uploaded byNelio Lara Ricaldi
- The Case of the Troubled TruckersUploaded byJoe Moxon
- Group 1 - A21Uploaded byFrancis Raagas
- Death of a Coach DriverUploaded byCsilla Kecskés
- Regulation, Productivity and Growth-OECD EvidenceUploaded byHenry
- 82 - Doosan 160S-5Uploaded byStoianovici Cristian
- Transportation Statistics: table 05 03Uploaded byBTS
- 24_2018-vol.3 issue 1-5(1)Uploaded byDr. Engr. Md Mamunur Rashid
- Subchapter kUploaded bybilly dillpicker
- 45669138-doneUploaded bykashish_goyal
- NcrmUploaded byApoorv Srivastava
- progressive_bootloader.pdfUploaded byNoel

- Fathy LectureUploaded byAhmed Alkhatib
- U3.2bUploaded byyunohu
- 2005_Sur,Rubenstein_patterning and Plasticity of the Cerebral CortexUploaded byToretto Dominic
- Reward SystemUploaded bymitalpt
- Muhurta, astrology, vedic astrology, JyotishUploaded bykodatic
- Design of RC Structural Elements for ShearUploaded byVasu Dharmar
- Group TechnologyUploaded byVelsami AmmasaiGounder
- The Jamaica Racing IndustryUploaded byBasil Donovan Fletcher
- Experiment No.1 Specific Gravity and Absorption of Coarse AggregateUploaded byJohn Robert Banez
- sqaUploaded byanish5596
- Atomic Quantam TheoryUploaded byTariq Ahmed Baloch
- Vinformax Corporate ProfileUploaded byvinformax
- 109646499 Baroque Town PlanningUploaded byDaryl Santiago Delos Reyes
- PLS2601 (PLS120Y) - Summaries.xlsUploaded byjanine
- BBA Model Questions Computer FundamentalsUploaded byscribdbillionaire
- CT3_QP_0509Uploaded byNitai Chandra Ganguly
- Science QuizUploaded byAnonymous 0TP7Qf
- Questionnaire for Training Need AnalysisUploaded byLenin Nd
- Troubleshoot Offset Taxes in EBTaxUploaded bySrinivasa Rao Asuru
- CatalogUploaded bylangtu2011
- Dynamic Stark Effect for the Jaynes-Cummings SystemUploaded bykeesvankooten
- Netiquette for Online DiscussionUploaded byTara_VanGeons
- 66-123-1-SM.pdfUploaded byVisionPurpose
- IJISR-14-124-01Uploaded byLizee Ameh
- 5-3-Way Valve, Series ISO2Uploaded byJairoHernanLopera
- User_Manual_B2.pdfUploaded byMOHD NASIR KAMARUDDIN
- Admission 11th BatchUploaded byShahid9
- Intra ENB Intra-frequency A5 HOUploaded byFukho Jayanugeraha
- 2014 Crispin Lee - Haptic Experience in the Writings of Georges Bataille Maurice Blanchot and Michel Serres_RebolUploaded byFederico Erostarbe
- Peffers Et Al.. 2007. a Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems ResearchUploaded byBoban Celebic