doc

© All Rights Reserved

1 views

doc

© All Rights Reserved

- CV Stojkov Ivan en-V5
- 137703165-Final-Year-Project-Final-Report.docx
- Case Study for Soap Waste Water
- INFRASTRUCTURE - Sewage Removal System - Handout
- Nawamura
- Water Treatment
- Files_5306_articles_12450_369
- The Future of Prediction - Boston
- FollowingtheFlowBook4-26-2010
- Week2
- Nutrients Removal From Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Using Eichhornia Crassipes
- Treatment Plant Effects on Wastewater Irrigation Benefits
- Biological Treatment I- Trickling Filter
- 999C1400-global_brochure-web.pdf
- Project Print
- Ce2356 Environmental Engineering Laboratory
- Best Astrology Software Online
- O&M-011.pdf
- 170601_Final Year SylabusCivil -01062017
- Novi Sad April 2014

You are on page 1of 6

Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Vol 8(30), DOI:10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i30/76062, November 2015 ISSN (Online) : 0974-5645

Treatment Plants based on Conventional

Activated Sludge Process

R. Pannirselvam* and A. Navaneetha Gopalakrishnan

Centre for Environmental Studies, Anna University, Chennai – 600 025, Tamil Nadu, India; rpannir42@hotmail.com,

angkrishna@hotmail.com

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of the study is to develop CFs to estimate cost of STPs in the planning stage to facilitate

selection of technology for Sewage Treatment Plant (STP). Methodology: The cost data for 30 existing STPs based on

ASP technology, were collected, classified and updated to the base year of 2014 using the Construction Cost Indices (CCIs)

published by Construction Industry Development Council of India. The regression analysis was performed with unit cost

versus capacity in Microsoft EXCEL graphs and the equation with determination coefficient (R2) closer to one was selected

as the Cost Function (CF). Findings: For validating the developed CFs, costs were predicted using the developed CFs for

small, medium and large capacities and compared with the actual costs of STPs, Absolute Percentage Error (APE) for each

STP and the MAPE as the mean of APE values for the three groups of STPs were derived. Similarly the MAPE values by

comparing the predicted costs of STPs using common CF for all capacities with the actual costs were determined. The error

measures MAPE values (as percentage) for separate CFs were 3.22, 7.72 and 2.35 for small, medium and large capacity

groups respectively, which are within 10%, indicating highly accurate prediction of costs than with common function with

MAPE values of 15.92, 15.88 and 16.8% respectively indicating good prediction only. Further Polynomial, logarithmic and

power functions were found to be the best-fit equations for different capacity groups instead of power law as reported in

the literature. Conclusions: Since the accuracy of prediction by separate CFs was found to be very high separate functions

for each of the three capacity groups are necessary.

Keywords: Cost Function, Determination Coefficient, Mean Absolute Percentage Error, Regression Analysis, Sewage

Treatment

1.Introduction

implementation of sewerage system with Sewage Treat-

The urban population in India has increased from ment Plants (STPs) for all the cities/towns with the objec-

12% in 1901 to 31.2% in 2011 and it is predicted that it tives of avoiding environmental pollution, reducing the

would increase to 38.8% in 2026 and more than 50% in health risks and thereby improving the health and hygiene

2051 thus the demand for urban infrastructure facilities conditions of the people.

like water supply and sewage treatment and disposal is There are number of STP technologies available to

expected to rise sharply, posing a big challenge to urban treat the sewage and produce effluent suitable for different

planners and policy makers1. This has thrown up two options of disposal as well as reuse. To select the appropri-

self-perpetuating problems of providing water supply and ate STP technology from alternative treatment technolo-

collection and disposal of sewage from these towns/cities. gies economic analysis is required for which construction

Development of Cost Functions for Sewage Treatment Plants based on Conventional Activated Sludge Process

costs and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs of cost estimate and number of CFs may be required for dif-

STPs are required. ferent capacity ranges. Therefore, capacities of STPs were

In the framework of wastewater economics there are grouped into three capacity ranges viz., small, medium

three methodologies to develop CFs for STPs2: and large capacities as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Capacity ranges and suitability for types of

• The STP is viewed as a system consists of number of

towns

components or subsystems, each of which is simu-

lated in detail following an engineering approach to Suitable for

Classification Capacity

estimate cost. Population Towns/cities

of capacities range, MLD

• In the factor method, major cost drivers are related (thousands)

to specific major cost parameters and are directly Small, QS 0.5 –5 5 – 50 Class III –V

estimated. Medium, QM 5 – 50 50 –500 Class II

• Statistical methods are used to relate the cost to the Large, QL 50 – 120 500 –1200 Class I

main variable of the facility when actual cost data are

available. The methodology adopted for the development of CFs

for STPs based on ASP technology using the historic cost

The third methodology is generally adopted in the data consists of the following steps:

development of CFs for STPs by regression analysis of the

historical cost of the STPs. As stated by Qasim the CFs for • Collection of construction cost data of STPs.

STPs are mathematical models and quantified as a func- • Categorization of cost data group-wise and deriving

tion of process size (e.g. capacity or flow rate) or popula- unit costs.

tion equivalent (PE) by the use of a non-linear function3. • Updating the unit costs to base year of 2014 using CCI.

Cost data collected were statistically analysed and CFs • Preparation of input data – capacity versus unit cost

were developed to predict unit cost of construction with for regression analysis.

PE as well as design flow as variables7. • Performing regression analysis in Microsoft EXCEL

Friedier and Pisanty have developed CFs for STPs by spread sheet.

statistically analyzing the costs of 55 STPs constructed in • Selection of the best-fit equation that has the determi-

Israel8. Nogueira et al. have developed CFs for investment nation coefficient R2 value closest to one.

and operation costs of STPs, using power law and found

that the per capita cost decreases with increase of popula- The construction cost data for 30 STPs based on ASP

tion served9. technology constructed in Tamil Nadu, were collected

In India no such studies has been reported on the and the unit costs (per MLD) of STPs were derived. The

development of CF for STPs. This paper presents a study data were categorized into three capacity groups and the

on the development of CF based on historic cost data for details are furnished in Table 2.

STPs based conventional Activated Sludge Process (ASP), These cost data were related to STPs constructed in

which is one of the popularly adopted technologies for the years from 2007 to 2012 and for updating the costs

STP in India and to test the suitability of a single common to the base year of 2014 the CCIs published by Construc-

CF for all capacities. tion Industry Development Council (CIDC) of India for

urban infrastructure with a base value of 100 in the year

2007 for Chennai city were used10. The CCIs for urban

2. Methodology infrastructure published by CIDC applicable for Chennai

In India 88% of the towns classified into class III–V are for the years from 2007 to 2014 are furnished in Table 3.

smaller and producing sewage flows of 0.5–5 Million With the updated cost data for 2014 two dimensional

Litres per Day (MLD), while class I and II cities are pro- input files of capacity with corresponding unit costs of

ducing sewage flows from 5–120 MLD. The unit cost STPs were prepared for regression analysis. The regres-

of STP in general decreases with increase in capacity sion analysis was performed in Microsoft EXCEL graphs

of STP following economy of scale and hence adopting with trend lines using five regression equations, viz.,

a single CF for all the capacities may not yield accurate polynomial function, power law, logarithmic function,

2 Vol 8 (30) | November 2015 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology

R. Pannirselvam and A. Navaneetha Gopalakrishnan

Table 2. Construction costs and unit costs of STPs Table 3. Construction cost index for Urban Infrastruc-

ture by CIDC10

Sl. Capac- Year of Cost Unit Unit cost

No. ity of Instal- of STP cost of of STP Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

STP lation (INR 106) STP (US$ 106)

CCI 100 108.79 110.98 116.19 121.29 127.05 129.73 130.57

(INR

106)

Small capacity STPs coefficient R2. The equation among the five equations that

has R2 value closest to one was selected as the best-fit CF.

1 2.20 2009 31.59 14.359 0.234

The developed CFs for the three capacity groups and

2 2.24 2009 32.64 14.571 0.237

the CF common to all capacities were validated by pre-

3 2.96 2009 40.40 13.649 0.222

dicting costs using each of the CFs for the capacities of

4 3.50 2009 42.10 12.029 0.196 STPs for which costs are available and comparing with

5 3.90 2010 47.31 12.131 0.197 construction costs and the error measures in terms of

6 3.99 2009 48.71 12.208 0.198 Absolute Percentage Error (APE) and Mean Absolute

7 4.20 2010 41.40 9.857 0.160 Percentage Error (MAPE) were determined using the

8 4.84 2012 49.00 10.124 0.165 Equation. (1) and (2) suggested by Ashuri and Lui5.

9 4.86 2010 43.94 9.041 0.147

| YP (i) YA (i)| 100

Medium capacity STPs APE

YP (i)

1 6.92 2010 68.20 9.855 0.164 (1)

2 7.00 2009 66.82 9.546 0.155 1 N | YP (i) YA (i)| 100

3 7.38 2008 70.01 9.486 0.154

MAPE

N i 1 YP (i)

(2)

4 7.65 2010 73.30 9.582 0.156

5 8.70 2009 79.69 9.160 0.149 Where

6 9.63 2009 86.71 9.004 0.146 YP is the predicted cost,

7 9.00 2009 81.05 9.006 0.146 YA is the updated actual cost, and

8 9.00 2009 82.00 9.111 0.148

N is the number of data considered in the analysis.

The following interpretation of MAPE values sug-

9 10.62 2008 92.10 8.672 0.141

gested by Lewis was used to find the accuracy of predic-

10 12.05 2010 103.88 8.621 0.140

tion by the CFs11.

11 12.25 2009 102.00 8.327 0.135

12 13.07 2007 103.40 7.911 0.129 • Less than 10% is highly accurate prediction,

13 23.65 2009 171.72 7.261 0.118 • 10% to 20% is good prediction,

14 23.85 2009 179.90 7.543 0.123 • 20% to 50% is reasonable prediction, and

15 40.00 2007 194.79 4.870 0.079 • 50% or more is inaccurate prediction.

16 40.00 2007 208.30 5.208 0.085

Large capacity STPs 3.Results and Discussion

1 54 2007 501.06 9.279 0.156

The developed CF graphs with the capacities of STPs in

2 54 2007 500.55 9.269 0.152

X-axis and unit costs of STPs (US$ 106) in Y-axis with

3 60 2007 548.37 9.140 0.152

trend lines for small, medium and large capacity STPs

4 60 2008 562.06 9.368 0.152 based on ASP technology and one common to all capaci-

5 110 2007 785.16 7.138 0.164 ties using the updated actual costs to the base year 2014

Note: Conversion 1US$ = INR 60.00 are furnished in Figures 1 to 4.

The developed CFs for small, medium and large capac-

exponential function and liner equation for the devel-

ity groups of STPs and one common to all capacities are

opment of CFs for each group of capacities and one as

furnished in Equation (3) to (6).

common for all the capacities. The graphs provided

the regression equations and values of determination Cs = –0.008Qs2 + 0.014Qs + 0.293 (R2 = 0.934) (3)

Vol 8 (30) | November 2015 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology 3

Development of Cost Functions for Sewage Treatment Plants based on Conventional Activated Sludge Process

Figure 4. Common cost function graph for all capacity

STPs.

MLD,

QS, QM, QL and QC are the capacities of small, medium,

large and common for all capacity, MLD.

In this study it was found that the CF equations for

small, medium and large capacities are based on poly-

nomial, exponential and power law respectively and the

common CF for all capacities was based on logarithmic

function as against the power law, as the general form

of non-linear function for most of the CFs reported

Figure 2. Cost function graph for medium capacity STPs.

by Sato et al4. The values of determination coefficient

R2 of the CFs for small, medium and large capacities

were 0.934, 0.975 and 0.963 respectively and are closer

to one and therefore, these CFs represent the data very

well, while R2 value for the common CF is only 0.369

and hence the equation is not well representing the

data.

Further for validating the CFs, costs were predicted

using the developed Equation (3) to (5) for small, medium

and large capacities and compared with the updated con-

struction costs of STPs for the base year of 2014, APE for

each STP and the MAPE as the mean of APE values for

the three groups of STPs were derived. Similarly the APE

Figure 3. Cost function graph for large capacity STPs.

values and MAPE value by comparing the predicted costs

of STPs using common CF as per Equation (6) with the

CM = 0.205ex–0.01Qm (R2 = 0.975) (4)

updated construction costs were determined. The com-

CL = 0.864QL–0.36 (R2 = 0.963) (5) parisons for the three groups of capacities with separate

CFs and common CF with APE and MAPE values are fur-

CC = 0.021n(QC) + 0.245 (R2 = 0.369) (6)

nished in Tables 4 to 6 respectively.

Where From Tables 4 to 6 it could be seen that the error

CS, CM and CL are unit costs of STPs for small, medium measures MAPE values (as percentage) for CFs for each

and large capacity STPs respectively; US$ 106/MLD, group (3-5) are 3.22, 7.723 and 2.354 for small, medium

4 Vol 8 (30) | November 2015 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology

R. Pannirselvam and A. Navaneetha Gopalakrishnan

Table 4. Comparison of predicted costs for small capacity STPs from the developed CFs with updated construction

costs (all the costs are in Million US$)

capacity of Error APE Error APE

struction cost of cost of STP STP with com-

STP, MLD (Col.3-Col.2) (%) (Col.6-Col.2) (%)

STP (US$ 106) with CF mon CF

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

2.20 0.282 0.285 0.004 1.234 0.229 -0.052 22.829

2.24 0.286 0.284 -0.002 0.530 0.229 -0.057 24.842

2.96 0.268 0.264 -0.003 1.242 0.223 -0.044 19.855

3.50 0.236 0.244 0.008 3.334 0.220 -0.016 7.238

3.90 0.227 0.226 -0.001 0.567 0.218 -0.009 4.326

3.99 0.239 0.221 -0.018 8.074 0.217 -0.022 10.150

4.20 0.185 0.211 0.026 12.370 0.216 0.032 14.647

4.84 0.173 0.173 0.000 0.030 0.213 0.040 18.764

4.86 0.169 0.172 0.003 1.597 0.213 0.044 20.641

MAPE= 3.220% MAPE= 15.921%

Table 5. Comparison of predicted costs for medium capacity STPs from the developed CFs with updated construction

costs (all the costs are in Million US$)

Capacity of Error Error

construction cost cost of STP APE of STP with APE

STP, MLD (Col.3-Col.2) (Col.6-Col.2)

of STP (US$ 106) with CF common CF

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

6.92 0.185 0.191 0.007 3.506 0.206 0.022 10.530

7.00 0.187 0.191 0.004 2.073 0.206 0.019 9.173

7.38 0.190 0.190 0.001 0.344 0.205 0.015 7.445

7.65 0.179 0.190 0.010 5.499 0.204 0.025 12.161

8.70 0.180 0.188 0.008 4.421 0.202 0.022 10.966

9.63 0.177 0.186 0.010 5.167 0.200 0.023 11.589

9.00 0.177 0.187 0.011 5.748 0.201 0.024 12.170

9.00 0.179 0.187 0.009 4.643 0.201 0.022 11.141

10.62 0.173 0.184 0.011 5.896 0.198 0.024 12.273

12.05 0.161 0.182 0.020 11.152 0.195 0.034 17.292

12.25 0.163 0.181 0.018 9.976 0.195 0.032 16.223

13.07 0.172 0.180 0.008 4.293 0.194 0.021 11.070

23.65 0.142 0.162 0.019 12.018 0.182 0.039 21.656

23.85 0.148 0.162 0.014 8.417 0.182 0.034 18.537

40.00 0.106 0.137 0.031 22.881 0.171 0.065 38.107

40.00 0.113 0.137 0.024 17.532 0.171 0.058 33.815

MAPE= 7.723% MAPE = 15.884%

and large groups respectively, which are within 10%, indi- The MAPE values (as percentage) when predicted with

cating highly accurate prediction of costs according to common function for all capacities are 15.921, 15.884 and

Lewis11. 16.799 respectively for small, medium and large groups,

Vol 8 (30) | November 2015 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology 5

Development of Cost Functions for Sewage Treatment Plants based on Conventional Activated Sludge Process

Table 6. Comparison of predicted costs for large capacity STPs from the developed CFs with updated construction

costs (all the costs are in Million US$)

Error Error

of STP, construction cost cost of STP APE STP with common APE

(Col.3-Col.2) (Col.6-Col.2)

MLD of STP (US$ 106) with CF CF

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

54 0.202 0.206 0.004 1.749 0.165 -0.037 22.215

54 0.202 0.206 0.004 1.849 0.165 -0.036 22.091

60 0.199 0.198 -0.001 0.516 0.163 -0.036 21.934

60 0.187 0.198 0.010 5.299 0.163 -0.024 14.880

110 0.155 0.159 0.004 2.356 0.151 -0.004 2.875

MAPE= 2.354% MAPE = 16.799%

which are between 10 and 20% indicating good predic- for Spain. Desalination and Water Treatment. 2013;

tion of STP costs. However the accuracy of prediction 51(28-30):54154–20.

with separate CFs for small, medium and large capacities 3. Qasim SR. Wastewater treatment plants. 2nd ed. CRC

is very high than that of single common CF, hence, single Press: LLC; 1999. p. 1037–49.

common CF for all capacities is not preferable and num- 4. Sato N, Okubo T, Onodera T, Agrawal LK, Ohashi A,

Harada H. Economic evaluation of sewage treatment pro-

ber of CFs for different groups of STPs is required.

cesses in India. J Environ Manag. 2007; 84(4):447–60.

5. Ashuri B, Lu J. Time series analysis of ENR construction cost

4. Conclusion index. ASCE J Con Eng Manage. 2010; 136(11):1227–37.

6. USEPA. An analysis of construction cost experiences for

From the study it was found that the best-fit equations wastewater treatment plants. Washington, DC: US Envi-

depend on the nature of the data. Polynomial, logarithmic ronmental Protection Agency; 1976. p. 17–8.

and power functions were found to be the best-fit equa- 7. Shah KL, Reid GW. Techniques for estimating construction

tions for the CFs for small, medium and large groups of costs of wastewater treatment plants. Journal of Water Pol-

capacities of STPs instead of power law as suggested in the lution Control Federat. 1970; 42(5):776–93.

literature. Further the accuracy of prediction with CFs for 8. Srimani PK, Patil MM. Regression model using instance

small, medium and large capacities was found to be very based learning stream. Indian Journal of Science and Tech-

high than that of single common CF and hence separate nology. 2014; 7(6):864–70.

9. Friedier E, Pisanty E. Effects of design flow and treatment

CFs for each of the three capacity groups are necessary

level on construction and operation costs of municipal

instead of single CF for all capacity STPs to predict accu-

wastewater treatment plants and their implications on pol-

rate costs of STPs. icy making. Water Research. 2006; 40(20):3751–8.

10. Nogueira R, Ferreira I, Janknecht P, Rodriguez JJ, Olive-

5. References ria P, Brito AG. Energy-saving wastewater treatment sys-

tems: Formulation of cost functions. Water Sci Tech. 2007;

1. Kamyotra JS, Bhardwaj RM. Municipal wastewater man- 56:85–92.

agement in India. India Infrastructure Report; 2011. p. 11. CIDC. 2015. Available from: http://www.cidc.in/new/cci-

299–311. new.html

2. Molinos-Senante M, Hernandez-Sancho F, Sala-Garrido 12. Lewis CD. Industrial and business forecasting methods: A

R. Cost modeling for sludge and waste management practical guide to exponential smoothing and curve fitting.

from wastewater treatment plants: An empirical approach London, UK: Butterworth Scientific; 1982.

6 Vol 8 (30) | November 2015 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology

- CV Stojkov Ivan en-V5Uploaded byivan_pa
- 137703165-Final-Year-Project-Final-Report.docxUploaded byMuhammad Zakwan Hamizi
- Case Study for Soap Waste WaterUploaded byKari Conway
- INFRASTRUCTURE - Sewage Removal System - HandoutUploaded byYannick Beckford
- NawamuraUploaded bymatbiec_tdt
- Water TreatmentUploaded bybekku
- Files_5306_articles_12450_369Uploaded byNicol Sketo
- The Future of Prediction - BostonUploaded byRicardo DelRio
- FollowingtheFlowBook4-26-2010Uploaded bybdiehm
- Week2Uploaded bypradip_kumar
- Nutrients Removal From Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Using Eichhornia CrassipesUploaded byLydia Utami
- Treatment Plant Effects on Wastewater Irrigation BenefitsUploaded bypeagriculture
- Biological Treatment I- Trickling FilterUploaded bynitin_verma30
- 999C1400-global_brochure-web.pdfUploaded byRose Adeline
- Project PrintUploaded byChiranjeevi Chanakya
- Ce2356 Environmental Engineering LaboratoryUploaded bymohana
- Best Astrology Software OnlineUploaded byMohan Astro
- O&M-011.pdfUploaded byIsmael Khalil
- 170601_Final Year SylabusCivil -01062017Uploaded byMohit Rajai
- Novi Sad April 2014Uploaded byBiljana Isić
- water pollution control plant annual report 2011Uploaded byapi-387758499
- R1Uploaded byBirat Dhakal
- Article 4enUploaded byyazan aboissa
- 426-Wastewater Treatment ProcessesUploaded byj4leschel
- FINAL MQA OF MIWWE DEC-18-19Uploaded byM G patel
- SummaryUploaded byNagarjuna Srd
- RED MUD & GRAPHENE OXIDE BLEND AS AN EFFECTIVE COAGULANT AND ADSORBENT FOR THE TREATMENT OFWASTE WATER FROM VARIOUS INDUSTRIESUploaded byIAEME Publication
- 10.Earth Sci1Uploaded byErica Garcia
- Chemistry PresentationUploaded bySana TK
- 022_41S_BE_1665(1)Uploaded byGowri Ajith

- AFCAT Question Paper Series DUploaded byMota Chashma
- personal management noteUploaded byvijaykumarlamba
- Admissions open for the academic year 2018.docxUploaded byvijaykumarlamba
- Report on International Yoga DayUploaded byvijaykumarlamba
- 1Uploaded byvijaykumarlamba
- (www.entrance-exam.net)-RIMC MODEL- MATHEMATICS.pdfUploaded byvijaykumarlamba
- new add1Uploaded byvijaykumarlamba
- allain2015Uploaded byvijaykumarlamba
- report 3Uploaded byvijaykumarlamba
- 191 Sample ChapterUploaded byvijaykumarlamba
- 266651133-S-T-P-DESIGNUploaded byvijaykumarlamba
- 7Zlib7vF47Pav85iwkmxLA==Uploaded byvijaykumarlamba
- Aug29_ywanUploaded byvijaykumarlamba
- 1844394013Uploaded byvijaykumarlamba
- 47728_CH01_SampleUploaded byvijaykumarlamba
- 10211Uploaded byvijaykumarlamba
- Geography_Ch3201804260617201524723440Uploaded byvijaykumarlamba
- 5-6-18 B Tech 1st Year Batch 2018 FinalUploaded byvijaykumarlamba
- 5-6-18 B Tech 1st Year Batch 2018 FinalUploaded byvijaykumarlamba
- lab.docxUploaded byvijaykumarlamba
- kUploaded byvijaykumarlamba
- 2Uploaded byvijaykumarlamba
- concrete lab.docxUploaded byvijaykumarlamba
- Concrete LabUploaded byvijaykumarlamba
- Lab RequirementsUploaded byvijaykumarlamba
- Proforma for Affiliation 2018 19Uploaded byvijaykumarlamba

- Guaranteed Ellipse Fitting With the Sampson DistanceUploaded byBikram Kesharee Nayak
- Release Notes V2013.2Uploaded bySonal Goyal
- gps polynomial extrapolation and curve-fitting projectUploaded byapi-134494316
- EMM 3514 - Numerical MethodUploaded byAdhar Good
- Evaluation and analysis of DDG-81 simulated athwartship shock response.pdfUploaded byFernando Raúl LADINO
- Equillibrium dialysis Manual.pdfUploaded byOwen Chen
- Construction of Transmission Line Catenary From Survey DataUploaded byAndrés Mayorga
- 01 Parameter Estimation(1)Uploaded byRalph Carlo Evidente
- gravitational-acceleration-labUploaded byapi-272832836
- MANA_C01Uploaded byrongrs1
- Swinging PendulumUploaded bysusanstr10
- Flow-After-flow Tests for Gas WellsUploaded byTino Nassel
- OBTL COE60Syllabus(revised) (3) (1)Uploaded byAlvin1621
- Peak FitUploaded byPrianurraufikachmad
- 16 Matlab PlottingUploaded byJansen Gunardi
- Method Least SquaresUploaded byps_ham
- Inverse Analysis Procedures for Determining the Tensile Stress Crack Openong Curve of ConcreteUploaded byourebooks
- M Turhan Numerical Analysis With Java ExamplesUploaded byAkira Kawa
- Best Fit ParaboloidUploaded byManoj Kumar
- Random Walk ProblemUploaded byAdam
- Conat20104030 PaperUploaded bySandeep Kumar
- Curve FitUploaded byYuvarekha Senthilkumar
- Problem Solving in Chemical Engineering With Matlab[1]Uploaded byweijee
- Curve Fitting With ScilabUploaded byDiana Nahiely
- Chp 2 Linear Law (AddMaths Form 5)Uploaded bymohamad_bidari
- Optimization techniques - P vs NPUploaded byhammad1122
- PeakFit_4.12Uploaded byRomerophysical
- CMM_Tutorial-AlignmentRegistration.pdfUploaded byBianca Darie
- Mastering EES Themechangers.blogspot.inUploaded byGabrielle Tan
- Part 2 Modelling and Simulation in MATLAB - OverviewUploaded byROBERT

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.