1 views

Uploaded by asdfasd alsdfjdisodfj askdfjdkls jdjiesdf

ejerciciso resueltos teoria de cola

- 1979 Lunar Resources Utilization Vol2
- DE001D461CD159BE1375DC125727A00529614
- Mercury Study Report to Congress V.3
- WAITING LINES AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
- Yuri Tarnopolsky and Ulf Grenander, HISTORY AS POINTS AND LINES
- Queuing-model-ps-ioenotes (1).pdf
- PR4GM4_31010_v03english
- Oracle Crystal Ball.pdf
- onestepeqse
- 167-168.pdf
- Sensitivity Analysis
- A Study of Risk Management in Nigerian Construction Projects From Contactors and Owners Perspective. a Case Study of Alhairi Construction Group of Companies__
- Quality Assurance in Siting_india
- Case Sensitivity Analysis Factors in Traffic Accidents
- Art07_eng
- Ch10 Dealing With Uncertainty
- 1-s2.0-s0920410511002750-main
- MCA Methods 150616
- Proc One
- Safety Assessment Methodology

You are on page 1of 24

Credit

Project

IE 417: Operations Research II

Travis Guzman

Amanda Smith

David Trigg

University, Pomona

Table of Contents

Problem Statement .......................................................................................................................................................3

Summary of the Problem ...............................................................................................................................................4

Kendell-Lee Notation ..................................................................................................................... 4

Queuing System Notations: .......................................................................................................... 4

Formulas .......................................................................................................................................... 5

Rate Diagram .................................................................................................................................. 5

Figure 1: Rate Diagram for M/M/s/GD/∞/∞ ........................................................................................... 5

Part A: ............................................................................................................................................................................6

Part B: ............................................................................................................................................................................8

Figure 3: Queuing System Diagram B........................................................................................................ 8

Part B: Performance Measures ....................................................................................................................................10

Table 1: Performance Measures Summary ............................................................................................. 10

Part C ...........................................................................................................................................................................11

Part D ...........................................................................................................................................................................13

WINQSB- Performance Measures & Cost Analysis ......................................................................................................14

Table 3: Cost Table .................................................................................................................................. 14

Figure 4: WinQSB Input ........................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 5: WinQSB Output- Performance Measure ................................................................................. 15

Figure 6: WinQSB Output- System Probability Summary ....................................................................... 16

WINQSB- Sensitivity Analysis .......................................................................................................................................18

Sensitivity Analysis #1: Arrival Rate ........................................................................................................ 18

Figure 7: WinQSB Input Parameters for SA #1........................................................................................ 18

Figure 8: WinQSB Output Table- SA #1 ................................................................................................... 19

Figure 9: WinQSB Output Utilization Graph- SA #1 ................................................................................ 20

Sensitivity Analysis #2: Service Rate ....................................................................................................... 21

Figure 10: WinQSB Input Parameters for SA #2...................................................................................... 21

Figure 11: WinQSB Output Table- SA #2 ................................................................................................. 22

Figure 12: WinQSB Output Utilization Graph- SA #2 .............................................................................. 23

Figure 13: WinQSB Output Utilization Graph- SA #1 & #2 Comparison ................................................. 23

Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................................................24

2|Page

Problem Statement

The problem statement can be found on page 1094, problem #3 from Operations

Research by Wayne L Winston, 4th edition.

a. At present, the finance department and the marketing department each have one

typist. Each typist can type 25 letters per day. Finance requires that an average

of 20 letters per day be typed, and marketing requires that an average of 15

letters per day be typed. For each department, determine the average length of

time elapsed between a request for a letter and completion of a letter.

b. Suppose that the two typists were grouped into a typing pool; that is each typist

would be available to type letters for either department. For this arrangement,

calculate the average length of time between a request for a letter and

completion of the letter.

d. Under the pooled arrangement, what is the probability that more than .200 day

will elapse between a request for a letter and completion of the letter?

3|Page

Summary of the Problem

Before beginning the problem, we must have an understanding of the type of queuing

system presented in the problem, as well as associated formulas that will be employed

with this type of queuing system.

First, we begin with the type of queuing system given. The Kendell-Lee Notation for

Queuing Systems can be described by six characteristics:

Kendell-Lee Notation

1/2/3/4/5/6

Arrival process/service process/parallel servers/ queue discipline/max customers/population size

For our problem the Kendell-Lee Notation looks like the following:

M/M/s/GD/∞/∞

Where

s = number of parallel servers

GD = General queue discipline

∞ = infinite numbers of customers; infinite population size

Queuing System Notations:

λ = Arrival rate approaching the system

λe= Arrival rate (effective) entering the system

µ = Maximum (possible) service rate

µe= Practical (effective) service rate

L = Number of customers present in the system

Lq = Number of customers waiting in the line

Ls = Number of customers in service

W = Time a customer spends in the system

Wq= Time a customer spends in the line

Ws= Time a customer spends in service

ρ = Traffic Intensity

4|Page

𝜋j = P(j) = Probability that j units are in the system

Formulas (for M/M/S)

𝜆

ρ = 𝑠µ < 1 1

0

s 1 ( s ) ( s ) s

i

i0 i! s!(1 )

𝑃(𝑗>𝑠)𝜌

Lq = (1−𝜌)

𝜆

Ls = µ ( s ) s 0

P( j s )

s!(1 )

Number in System:

L = Lq + Ls

𝐿𝑞

Wq = 𝜆 (s ) j 0

j

j!

Time Spent in System:

1

Ws = µ

𝐿 𝑃(𝑗>𝑠) 1 1−𝑒 −𝜇𝑡(𝑠−1−𝑠𝜌)

W=𝜆= + 𝑃(𝑊 > 𝑡) = 𝑒 −𝜇𝑡 {1 + 𝑃(𝑗 ≥ 𝑠) 𝑠−1−𝑠𝜌

}

𝑠µ− 𝜆 µ

***Note: Cost Formulas are located in cost analysis section for clarity****

Rate Diagram

5|Page

Part A:

First we extract the information the problem gives us:

s = 2 typist

λMarketing = 15 letters/day

The problem asks, “For each department, determine the average length of time elapsed

between a request for a letter and completion of a letter.” In essence this means find W,

the total time each letter is in the system for each department. The diagram below will

help in analyzing the problem:

𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠

λFinance=20 μFinance=25 𝑑𝑎𝑦

𝑑𝑎𝑦 Finance Dept.

𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠

μ = 25 𝑑𝑎𝑦

𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠

λMarketing=15 𝑑𝑎𝑦 MarketingDept. μMarketing=25 𝑑𝑎𝑦

𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠

μ = 25 𝑑𝑎𝑦

For this part, number of servers is equal to one when we are analyzing traffic intensity.

There is only one server in each department, and we are analyzing the departments

separately. Keep in mind that when we are analyzing departments separately we are

6|Page

looking at a M/M/1/GD/∞/∞. With the given information, we only need one formula, W,

from the M/M/1 system. We proceed to make the following calculations:

FINANCE MARKETING

𝜆 𝜆

ρ=µ ρ=µ

𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠

20 15

𝑑𝑎𝑦 𝑑𝑎𝑦

ρ= 𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 = .80 ρ= 𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 = .60

(25 ) (1 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑟)(25 )

𝑑𝑎𝑦 𝑑𝑎𝑦

ρ = 0.80 ρ = 0.60

0< ρ<1 0< 0.80<1so a steady state exists 0< ρ<1 0< 0.60<1so a steady state exists

Time in System: Time in System:

1 1 1 1 1 1

W = µ−𝜆 = = day W= µ−𝜆 = = 10 day

25−20 5 25−15

We also make the following extra calculations for later comparison purposes:

Number Waiting in Line: Number Waiting in Line:

𝑝2 .802 𝜌2 .602

Lq = (1−𝜌) = (1−0.80) = 3.2 letters . Lq = (1−𝜌) = (1−0.60)= 0.90 letters

𝑝 .80 𝑝 .60

L = (1−𝜌) =(1−0.80)= 4 letters L = (1−𝜌) =(1−0.60)= 1.5 letters

1

As you can see, it takes the finance department 5 day between a request for a letter and

1

completion of a letter. It only takes the marketing department 10 day between a request

for a letter and completion of a letter. This is expected since the marketing department

receives 5 less letters a day as compared to the finance department and both

departments have the same process time.

7|Page

Part B:

Essentially, Part B asks the same question as Part A, but in this scenario, the typists

can type letters for either department.

s = 2 typist

Service Rate Arrival Rates

typists are working

λMarketing = 15 letters/day as a team, the

Now, the service

rate doubles since arrival rates are

two typists are additive. The new

working together; arrival rate is then

together their λFinance +λMarketing =

service rate is twice 35 letters/day

as fast or 2µ =2(25

letters/day) = 50

letters/day

The diagram below will help in analyzing the problem:

Finance Dept.

𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠

μ = 25 𝑑𝑎𝑦

𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠

λM&F=35 𝑑𝑎𝑦

μM&F=50 𝑑𝑎𝑦

MarketingDept.

𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠

μ = 25 𝑑𝑎𝑦

8|Page

Then, we proceed to the calculations. Now, we don’t have to perform calculations for

separate departments since we are viewing the departments as one team.

Traffic Intensity:

𝜆

ρ = 𝑠µ < 1

𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠

35

𝑑𝑎𝑦

ρ= 𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 <1

(2 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑟)(25 )

𝑑𝑎𝑦

Number Waiting in Line:

𝑃(𝑗>𝑠)𝜌 𝑃(𝑗>2).70 (.57)(.70)

Lq = = = = 1.33 letters

(1−𝜌) (1−0.70) (.30)

Operations Research by Wayne L Winston, 4th edition

when ρ=.7 and s = 2.

Number in System:

𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠

35

𝑑𝑎𝑦

L = Lq + Ls = 1.33 𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡. + 𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 = 2.73 letters

25

𝑑𝑎𝑦

Time in System:

𝐿 2.73 𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡.

W=𝜆= 𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 = .078 days

35

𝑑𝑎𝑦

Thus, when the typists were grouped the new average length between a request for a

letter and completion of the letter is .078 days.

9|Page

Part B: Performance Measures

Performance measures were added for Part B of this problem because in this section of the

problem the typists reflected two true parallel servers with one arrival rate and one service rate.

All performance measures learned in lecture regarding queuing theory thus far were

calculated and placed in the summary table below. Thus you can ask any question of

the name given and find its corresponding value from this table.

Performance Measures Summary

Notation Name Given Calculation Value

1 35 𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠

λ=λE Arrival Rate = Effective AR n/a 𝑑𝑎𝑦

2 50 𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠

μ Service Rate n/a 𝑑𝑎𝑦

3 35 𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠

μE Effective Service Rate n/a 𝑑𝑎𝑦

4

Lq Number in Queue see Part B 1.33 letters

5 𝜆 35

=

Ls Number in Service 𝜇 25 1.4 letters

6 L Number in System see Part B 2.73 letters

7 𝐿𝑞 1.33

= 35

Wq Time in Queue 𝜆 .038 days

8 1

=

1

Ws Time in Service 𝜇 25 .04 days

8 W Time in System Wq + Ws = .038+.04 .078 days

10

Probability 0 Units in

𝜋0 Service 0.1764

11 Probability 1 Unit in ( s ) 0 (2 x.7) .1764

j 1

j

𝜋1 Service j! 1! 0.2470

12 Probability 2 Units in ( s ) 0 (2 x.7) .1764

j 2

j

𝜋2 Service j! 2! 0.1729

13 P0 Probability Teller Idle P0 = 𝜋 0 0.1764

14 Probability Arriving Unit P( j s )

( s ) 0 (2 x.7) .1764

s

2

15 U Teller Utilization 1 - 𝜋0 = 1-0.1764 0.8236

16 Probability More than 1 1-P(J<1)=1-( 𝜋0+ 𝜋1) = 1-

P(J>1) Unit (.1764+.2470) 0.5766

17 Probability More than 2 1-P(J<2)=1-( 𝜋0+ 𝜋1+ 𝜋2)

P(J>2) Units = 1-(.1764+.2470+.1729) 0.4037

10 | P a g e

Part C

The results of parts (a) and (b) can be summarized in the following table:

Finance Department Marketing Department

λ= 20 ltrs/day λ= 15 ltrs/day

Part A

W = 1/5 day = .2 days W= 1/10 day = .1 days

λ= 35 ltrs/day

Part B

W = .078 days

When we analyzed part (a) by itself, we see that the marketing department has a

shorter time in system value (W) than the finance department. This is expected because

the marketing department receives less letters a day than the finance department, while

both have the same processing capabilities. However, we can note that the effective

service rate for each department is equal to the arrival rate of letters to each

department. Therefore, within the same time span, the marketing department must type

15 letters while the finance department must type 20.

When the typists for each department work together, we have the lowest time in system

value (W) of 0.078 days. Letters arrive at a rate of 35 letters per day while they can be

processed at 50 letters per day. Because a letter can go to either typist, the W value is

lower since a letter is not waiting on only one typist. This queuing system is the more

opportune system.

diagrams above and below each other. Pay attention to the white boxes that show traffic

intensity, number in line, number in system, and time in system.

11 | P a g e

ρ = .80

λFinance=20 μFinance=25 𝑑𝑎𝑦

𝑑𝑎𝑦 Finance Dept.

L = 4 Letters

𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠

W = 1/5 day μ = 25 𝑑𝑎𝑦

WAVG = 0.15

day

ρ = .60

𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠

λMarketing=15 𝑑𝑎𝑦

Lq = .9 Letters MarketingDept. μMarketing=25 𝑑𝑎𝑦

L = 1.5 Letters

𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠

μ = 25 𝑑𝑎𝑦

W = 1/10 day

VS

Finance Dept.

𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠

μ = 25 𝑑𝑎𝑦

ρ = .70

𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠

λM&F=35 Lq = 1.33 Letters μM&F=50

𝑑𝑎𝑦 𝑑𝑎𝑦

L = 2.73 Letters

W = .078 day

MarketingDept.

𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠

μ = 25

𝑑𝑎𝑦

12 | P a g e

Part D

The problem states, “Under the pooled arrangement, what is the probability that more

than .200 day will elapse between a request for a letter and completion of the letter?”

In other words, what is the probability that the total time in the system, W, is more than

.200 day.

First off, we must locate the necessary formula to calculate the distribution of waiting

time. To determine the probability, we need to know the distribution of a letter’s waiting

time. On page 1090 the following formula is given:

1 − 𝑒 −𝜇𝑡(𝑠−1−𝑠𝜌)

𝑃(𝑊 > 𝑡) = 𝑒 −𝜇𝑡 {1 + 𝑃(𝑗 ≥ 𝑠) }

𝑠 − 1 − 𝑠𝜌

The t value given in the problem statement is .200 day. From Part C, we know all other

values in the equation. Now, we just have to plug and chug numbers:

𝟏 − 𝒆−𝟐𝟓(.𝟐)(𝟐−𝟏−𝟐(.𝟕))

𝑷(𝑾 > .200) = 𝒆−𝟐𝟓(.𝟐) {𝟏 + (. 𝟓𝟕) }

𝟐 − 𝟏 − (𝟐)(. 𝟕)

13 | P a g e

WINQSB- Performance Measures & Cost Analysis

Cost values were chosen for this problem and their relative calculations were made in

the table below. The following costs given are:

Cs (Cost of Busy Server) at $72/day. This value was chosen based on an 8 hour

Notice work day and a typist working at $9/hour.

these Ci (Cost of Idle Server) at $72/day. This value was chosen based on an 8 hour

values are work day and an idle typist costing the company $9/hour.

the same Customer Waiting- It costs the company $1/day for a letter to be waiting in the

queue to be typed.

Loss in Good Will- It costs the company $.08/letter of the goodwill of the

customer bringing the letters to be typed.

Cost of Space- Since letters are so small, the cost of space is almost negligible

at $.02/letter. However, to reflect understanding of material, it was calculated in

the cost table.

Loss of Customer- N/A with ∞ Capacity

Cost Table

Cost Calculation In WinQSB? Value per Day

Busy Server/Typist Csρs =

($72)(.70)(2) Yes $100.80

Idle Server/Typist Ci(1-ρ)s =

($72)(1-.70)2 Yes $43.20

Customer/Letter Waiting ($/unit of time)λeWq =

𝑙𝑡𝑟𝑠

($1/day)(35 𝑑𝑎𝑦 )(.0384dy) Yes $1.34

Customer/Letter being Served

WinQSB Yes $0.70

Loss in Goodwill ($/part)λePw=

𝑙𝑡𝑟𝑠

($.08/ltr)(35 𝑑𝑎𝑦 ) (.5762) No $1.61

Cost of Space = Almost Neglible ($/part)Lq=

($.02/letter)(1.33 letters) No $0.03

Loss of Customer N/A with ∞ Capacity -----

TOTAL

$147.68

14 | P a g e

The Queuing System problem was input into WinQSB. The values calculated in the

Cost Table (Table 3) and Performance Measure Summary (Table 1) match that of

WinQSB.

Additionally, WinQSB contains a probability and cumulative probability feature that can

be seen Figure 6 below:

15 | P a g e

Figure 6: WinQSB Output- System Probability Summary

The application/use of the system probability summary in Figure 6 can be utilized in situations

like:

Finding the probability that there are more than a specific number of letters in the

system. For example, what is the probability that there are more than 5 letters in the

system? 7 letters? 10 letters? 20 letters?

P(j>7) = 1-P(j<7) = 1 – 0.9322 = .0678 = 6.78%

P(j>10) = 1-P(j<10) = 1 – 0.9767 = .0233 = 2.33%

Finding the probability that there are a specific number of letters in the system. For

example, what is the probability that there are 0 letters in the system? 11 letters? 15

letters? 20 letters?

P(j=11)= .0070 = .7%

P(j=15)= .0017 = .17%

Finding the probability that there are less than a specific number of letters in the system.

For example, what is the probability that there are less than 3 letters in the system? 5

leters? 10 letters?

16 | P a g e

P(j<5) = 1-P(j>4) = 1-.8023 = .1977 = 19.77%

P(j<10)= 1-P(j>10) = 1-.9767 = .0233 = 2.33%

Finding the probability that there are less than or equal to a specific number of letters in

the system. For example, what is the probability that there are less than or equal to 5

letters in the system? 10 letters? 20 letters?

(j<10) = 0.9767 = 97.67%

P(j<20) = 0.9993 = 99.93%

17 | P a g e

WINQSB- Sensitivity Analysis

We chose to do our first sensitivity analysis on Arrival Rate. Currently, the arrival rate is

35 letters/day. We created a range above and below this number. From past research,

we know that a minimum of 25 letters/day arrive for the typists to type and at maximum

50 letters/day. We decided to stop at 50 because when arrival rate equals the service

rate (which is currently 50), the system will blow up due to variation.

and all costs go up. This was expected because naturally, having more letters in the

system causes such a relationship (common sense).

18 | P a g e

Figure 8: WinQSB Output Table- SA #1

WinQSB also has the capabilities of showing all the performance measures given in the table above in a graphical form.

We chose to graph the system utilization graph. As was already discussed, as arrival rate increase so does the system

utilization. This is indicated by the positive slope of the graph in Figure 9.

Figure 9: WinQSB Output Utilization Graph- SA #1

Sensitivity Analysis #2: Service Rate

We chose to do our second sensitivity analysis on Service Rate. Currently, the service

rate is 25 letters/day. We created a range above and below this number. From past

research, we know that a minimum of 10 letters/day can be typed by the typists and a

maximum 35 letters/day.

From the output, at service rates ranging from 10 letters/day to 17 letters/day the

system is unstable. At a service rate of 18/letters per day, the system can begin to

handle the 35 letters/day arrival rate.

and all costs decrease. This was expected because naturally, processing letters at a

faster rate causes such a relationship (common sense).

21 | P a g e

Figure 11: WinQSB Output Table- SA #2

Again, we chose to graph the system utilization graph. As was already discussed, as service rate increases system

utilization decreases. This is indicated by the negative slope of the graph.

Figure 12: WinQSB Output Utilization Graph- SA #2

When we put the two graphs from Figures 9 and 12 side by side in Figure 13, we can

see that there is an inverse relationship of system utilization when we either increase

arrival rate (left graph) system utilization goes up or increase service rate (right graph)

system utilization goes down.

Acknowledgments

Bibliography:

Chang, Yih-Long, and Kiran Desai. WinQSB Version 2.0. New York: Wiley, 2003. Print

Winston, Wayne L. Operations Research Application and Algorithms. 4th Edition. New York;

Software Used:

24 | P a g e

- 1979 Lunar Resources Utilization Vol2Uploaded bySean
- DE001D461CD159BE1375DC125727A00529614Uploaded byJigyasa Gautam
- Mercury Study Report to Congress V.3Uploaded byEn Mahaksapatalika
- WAITING LINES AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTIONUploaded byM S Sridhar
- Yuri Tarnopolsky and Ulf Grenander, HISTORY AS POINTS AND LINESUploaded byYuri Tarnopolsky
- Queuing-model-ps-ioenotes (1).pdfUploaded byRaman Kapoor
- PR4GM4_31010_v03englishUploaded byMihai Mihailescu
- Oracle Crystal Ball.pdfUploaded byppdat
- onestepeqseUploaded byapi-271860894
- 167-168.pdfUploaded bygetsweet
- Sensitivity AnalysisUploaded byeviroyer
- A Study of Risk Management in Nigerian Construction Projects From Contactors and Owners Perspective. a Case Study of Alhairi Construction Group of Companies__Uploaded bychinedu henry
- Quality Assurance in Siting_indiaUploaded byherysujarwo
- Case Sensitivity Analysis Factors in Traffic AccidentsUploaded byManuel Garcia Lacayo
- Art07_engUploaded bycerbu_bass_cdc
- Ch10 Dealing With UncertaintyUploaded byMichelle Arellano
- 1-s2.0-s0920410511002750-mainUploaded bysaeidian
- MCA Methods 150616Uploaded byShinekhuu99
- Proc OneUploaded byyaser50
- Safety Assessment MethodologyUploaded byalex9and9ru9
- 153839005-Or-Project-on-ATM.docxUploaded bySaurabh
- 2010 Singgih M.L. M. Suef and C. a. Putra Waste Reduction With Green Productivity ApproachUploaded byAuliarakhma
- peds.2013-0332.fullUploaded byRaisa Cleizera
- Taller EsUploaded byandre1991
- Long Intl Applications of Monte Carlo Simulations in Dispute ResolutionUploaded bysoumen
- DocumentpaperUploaded byHidayah Nurul Hasanah Zen
- Cff312.pptUploaded bydaidaina
- US Federal Trade Commission: rdactiveUploaded byftc
- GasLiftDesign PTCUploaded byJose Antonio Olvera Jimenez
- model1Uploaded byNarendiran Ram

- Maria Sharapova-Marketing a ChampionUploaded bygorgeous1986
- 0018 Ipm Pro Pu Vlp GenerationUploaded byRahul Saraf
- Linear Technology-Understanding IP2 and IP3 Issues in Direct Conversion Receivers for WCDMA Wide Area BasestationsUploaded byMichael Graham
- 2010 - Practical Aeroservoelasticity in-Flight Identification and Adaptive ControlUploaded byFedericoBetti
- Sub Rosa issue 1.pdfUploaded bysergiomonge
- OverTheOverflow WorkbookUploaded byBlaga MIhai Raul
- IpoUploaded byVanessa Edaniol
- An Examination of Minimalist Tendencies in Two Early Works by Terry RileyUploaded byFzl Faizal Rizky
- G3.1 Sustainability ReportingER GuidelinesUploaded byChahat Sosa Mayor
- Final Report LSS SportUploaded byabdulaziz
- The Five Mindfulness TrainingsUploaded byKanneryBosch
- 3D Hydroelastic Analysis of Very Large Floating Bodies Over VariableUploaded bygertruna3
- Security Services NC IIUploaded byMong Raymond Cape
- altoids final projectUploaded byapi-317238267
- page-1Uploaded byMonster Bebe
- Major genomic mitochondrial lineages delineate early human expansions Maca-Meyer.pdfUploaded byspanishvcu
- Serial Data Communication.pptxUploaded byAkshat Gupta
- At the Court of Itzam Nah_BootUploaded byRogelio Valencia Rivera
- A Harmonic Analysis of the Baker and His Wife in Stephen Sondheim's Musical: Into the WoodsUploaded byColin Sanders
- CCDP_Arch_300-320_by_Gon_Oct_2018_172QUploaded byAnonymous NATHxmGl8
- Illustration of the IPA European PortugueseUploaded bytacarvalho
- The Holy Quran on the Frontal InterlopeUploaded byhaitham
- 04-People v. Manuel Delpino GR. No. 171453 June 18, 2009Uploaded byJopan SJ
- Taran Swan Case AnalysisUploaded byLuis Angel Quispe Peña
- CHAPTER 2.docUploaded byHayat Ali Shaw
- Bbp June08 OtolUploaded bymofiw
- Financial Statement AnalysisUploaded byBoen Jayme
- Financial Daily The EdgeUploaded byChan Keng Chun
- ROC Credit Risk Management DatasheetUploaded byDeepak Singh
- 0814-H GI Bleeding Sample Issue2(2)Uploaded byshashwathh