0 Up votes0 Down votes

0 views6 pagesBayes

Mar 20, 2019

© © All Rights Reserved

- The Woman Who Smashed Codes: A True Story of Love, Spies, and the Unlikely Heroine who Outwitted America's Enemies
- Steve Jobs
- NIV, Holy Bible, eBook
- NIV, Holy Bible, eBook, Red Letter Edition
- Hidden Figures Young Readers' Edition
- Cryptonomicon
- Make Your Mind Up: My Guide to Finding Your Own Style, Life, and Motavation!
- The Golden Notebook: A Novel
- Alibaba: The House That Jack Ma Built
- The 10X Rule: The Only Difference Between Success and Failure
- Autonomous: A Novel
- Hit Refresh: The Quest to Rediscover Microsoft's Soul and Imagine a Better Future for Everyone
- Hit Refresh: The Quest to Rediscover Microsoft's Soul and Imagine a Better Future for Everyone
- Life After Google: The Fall of Big Data and the Rise of the Blockchain Economy
- Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions
- Console Wars: Sega, Nintendo, and the Battle that Defined a Generation
- The Innovators: How a Group of Hackers, Geniuses, and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution

You are on page 1of 6

Lin Mei Ten DSO National Laboratories Singapore

Min Xie National University of Singapore Singapore

Key Words: Bayes method, Reliability demonstration, Prior distribution, Binomial subsystem data, Beta distribution.

applying Bayesian reliability demonstration.

One reason that the Bayesian approach to reliability The difficulty in applying the Bayesian reliability

demonstration has not gained popularity in industry is the demonstration approach seems to expand when the only prior

difficulty in establishing the prior. The problem becomes data available are the subsystem level data. There is little

more complicated when only subsystem data are available. It attention in the literature concerning system level reliability

has received little attention in the existing literature and this demonstration based on subsystem prior data. Such scenario

paper makes an attempt to do that. A method is proposed to does happen for large scale systems. This paper proposes a

derive the Bayesian Reliability Demonstration test plan for simple method to address this difficulty. The approach uses

series systems with binomial subsystem data. The method Mann’s Approximately Optimum Lower Confidence Bound

makes use of Mann’s Approximately Optimum Lower model (Refs. 5 - 6 ) and a curve fitting approach to obtain the

Confidence Bound model to derive the system prior based on system prior distribution based on binomial subsystem data. It

binomial subsystem data. The system Bayesian Reliability then identifies the system reliability demonstration test plan

Demonstration test plan can then be derived using existing using the existing methods for satisfying posterior confidence

methods for meeting posterior confidence requirements. The requirements (Ref. 3).

proposed method is easy to apply and no complicated

computation is involved in deriving the system prior 2. PROBLEM

distribution. It uses objective subsystem test data. No

subjective judgement is required. This method is most Methods for generating Bayesian Reliability Demonstration

beneficial for systems that already have substantial subsystem test plans that are established in the literature are only

test data before the reliability demonstration. applicable to systems whose prior information or data are

available. Many large-scale systems only have subsystem test

data as the subsystems are subcontracted to different

contractors for development. Thus the existing methods are

1. INTRODUCTION

not applicable for such cases.

If these subsystem or section test data could be utilised as

The Bayesian approach to reliability demonstration has been prior information before the Reliability Demonstration, then

proposed and discussed for many years. However, it has not the sample size or the test duration could be reduced via the

gained popularity in industry due to the difficulty in Bayesian approach. This would save a considerable amount of

identifying a prior distribution and the complicated cost if the system is expensive, especially if many subsystem

computation involved. The classical approach described in the tests have already been conducted during the development

Mil-Hdbk-781 is still being widely adopted in determining the phase.

reliability demonstration test plan due to the more straight It is noticed from an examination of the subsystem data

forward computation. On the other hand, the classical scenario with respect to the general procedure of Bayesian

approach to reliability demonstration usually requires large reliability demonstration that the problem in applying the

sample size or long test duration, especially for highly reliable existing Bayesian Reliability Demonstration methods for

systems and it is sometimes impractical to conduct the systems that only have subsystem test data is that these

demonstration in accordance with the test plan. A Bayesian methods make use of system level data to form the prior

reliability demonstration is desired for such situations. The distribution. Thus the crux of the problem is to form the

reduction in the sample size or test duration is especially system prior distribution using the lower level data. Once the

significant when there are substantial knowledge or data of the system prior is determined, the system Bayesian Reliability

system to provide high prior confidence in the system Demonstration test plan can be derived using existing

reliability. Great cost savings can be realised from the methods.

1998 PROCEEDINGS Annual RELIABILITY and MAINTAINABILITY Symposium 241

3. NOTATION also be generated. It is difficult to implement for systems with

more than 3 subsystems and an unequal number of subsystem

the random variable for system reliability. tests. The Mann A 0 LCB is relatively straight forward. It does

a specified system reliability value. not require random number to be generated and requires no

the random variable for system Mean-Time- iterative procedures. It has no difficulty with the number of

Between-Failure. subsystems in the system or unequal numbers of subsystem

a specified system MTBF value. tests. It also agrees well with the optimum confidence bounds,

confidence level associated with system as verified by Ref. 6.

reliability lower bound.

system reliability lower bound for yi Collect Subsystem Test Data Prior to RD

confidence level. -no. of trials or total test time for subsystem S,, j=l, .... ,.k

parameters of a Beta distribution. ~no. of failures for S,,j = l ,.....,.K

parameters calculated in Mann’s A 0 Lower

Confidence Bound model.

yth percentile of the Chi-square distribution.

i

Derive System Confidence Bounds

yth percentile of the Normal distribution. - Lower Confidence Bound of System Reliability or

- Lower Confidence Bound of System MTBF

consumer’s reliability requirement.

reliability specified by the producer.

risk associated with the consumer.

Determine System Identify

risk associated with the producer. Consumer & Producer

Prior Distribution

4. APPROACH

4.1 General Procedure

system prior distribution from lower level data, a method to

construct the system prior from the subsystem data is

developed here, The proposed method in this paper is to

derive from the subsystem data the lower confidence bounds

Results

for the system reliability and then fit these lower confidence (no of failures in n

bounds to a system prior distribution function. After trials or test time T)

determining the prior, the Bayesian reliability test plan that Posterior Confidence Interval R W e s e n f s system reliabilify

meets the consumer’s and producer’s requirements can be - Posterior P(R >RJ or MTBF represents system MTBF

- Posterior P(MTBF >€I) R, is a specified reliability value

derived using existing methods. This approach is illustrated in

Fig 1.

Though the approach illustrated in Fig 1 is applicable for all Fig 1 : Proposed Bayesian Reliability Demonstration Approach for

Systems that Only have Subsystem Test Data

types of systems, this paper is only focused on the attribute

reliability systems that are in series. The collected subsystem

test data are binomially dish-ibuted, i.e. in terms of number of There are other LCB methods like the Likelihood Ratio

units tested and number of failures. For other types of system, method proposed by Madansky (Ref. 8) and the Maximum

the same approach can be used with an appropriate confidence Likelihood Estimator method proposed by Rosenblatt (Ref. 9).

bound model. However, they are only applicable for the case where there is

at least one failure per subsystem. They also do not agree with

4.2 Selection of Lower Confidence Bound the optimum bounds as well as the Mann’s A 0 LCB

especially when extremely high reliabilities are involved.

A literature search was c o n d u c t e d t o identify m e t h o d s that Some numerical comparisons between t h e s e bounds are made

derive lower confidence bounds of the system reliability based in Ref. 6 .

on subsystem reliability data. Mann’s Approximately

Optimum Lower Confidence Bound ( A 0 LCB) (see Ref. 5 - 4.3 Defining System Prior Using Mann s A 0 LCB

6 ) is selected as the Lower Confidence Bound model required

in the proposed approach. It is applicable to subsystem data In Bayesian Reliability Demonstration, the prior distribution

that are binomially distributed. is critically important as it depicts the confidence in the

Though the Exact Method proposed by Lipow and Riley system reliability prior to the reliability demonstration and

(Ref. 7) generates optimum (correspond to shortest intervals) influences the eventual confidence after the reliability

lower confidence bounds, it is tedious as iterative computing demonstration. When the prior confidence is high the sample

is required and a uniformly distributed random number must size required for the reliability demonstration is small.

For systems with attribute reliability, the Beta distribution

has been widely used as the prior distribution for binomial

sampling as recommended in Refs. 1 - 3. The Beta distribution

has the ability to represent a wide variety of shapes and it has

YI (5)

the mathematical traceability that the posterior distribution is

also the same type of distribution, i.e. it is a conjugate prior.

The versatility of the beta distribution is also described by the

book “Bayesian Statistics : An Introduction” (by Peter M. Lee,

Ref. 4) as “basically any reasonably smooth unimodal

distribution on [0,1] is likely to be reasonably well

approximated by some beta distribution”. Furthermore, Ref. 1

also states that a researcher Weiler (1965) has shown that the

effect of assuming a Beta distribution, when in fact the true

prior distribution is not of the beta type, is negligible in many

practical applications. He shows that rather severe deviations

in the beta prior parameter values produce only slight changes

in the corresponding posterior distributions.

As the beta prior distribution function consists of two

parameters, it can be fully identified if two distinct equations where m, and v, are parameters calculated from the subsystem

such as the two prior confidence statements below can be data (number of units tested and number of failures that

defined : occurred). x2(y,vs) and Z, are yth percentile of the Chi-square

distribution and the Normal distribution respectively.

P(R>R,) = y, (1)

Then assuming the prior distribution is a beta distribution,

and P( R 2 R 2 ) = y2 (2) the two beta parameters a and b can be obtained by fitting the

estimated RI and R2values from equations ( 5 ) and (6) for v, <

where RI and R2 are two known reliability values 3 or equations (7) and (8) for v, 2 3, into equations (3) and (4).

corresponding to the confidence level value y, and y2 This method has been applied on the two numerical

respectively. examples in Ref. 6 as well as some arbitrary examples.

Mann’s A 0 Lower Confidence Bounds for different

Since the prior is a beta distribution, equations (1) and (2) can combinations of the confidence levels y1 and y2 including

be expanded as follows (Ref. 3) : 80%, 90%, and 95%, are used to determine the two beta prior

parameters a and b. It is found that the derived Beta parameter

values are consistent among the different confidence level

(3) combinations. This provides confidence that the proposed

approach is feasible and correct.

and

4.4 Derivation Of Reliability Test Plan

(4)

After determining the system prior distribution, the system

Bayesian reliability demonstration test plan can be generated

accordingly to the required posterior confidencelrisk using

where a, b 2 1 are parameters of the Beta distribution. existing methods, i.e. via Bayes Theorem (Ref. 3).

Thus the derivation of Beta parameters is straight-forward if For example, if the required posterior confidence are :

subjective confidence statements about the system reliability

as in equations (1) and (2) can be defined. It is simply solving Consumer : Posterior P(R 2 R, I Accept) 2 1 - 0’ (9)

for a and b from the two simultaneous equations (3) and (4).

However, subjective statements are always subjected to Producer : Posterior P(R I R, I Reject) 1 1 - U* (10)

controversy. For cases where system level test data are

available, other objective methods like method of Marginal where

Maximum Likelihood and method of Moments that are

described in Ref. 1 can be used to determine the prior R represents the system reliability

distribution. For our case where only subsystem test data are RL is the consumer’s Reliability requirement

available, it is proposed to use Mann’s A 0 LCB model (Ref. Ru is the Reliability specified by the producer

6) to generate equations similar to (1) & (2), i.e. 1 - 0’and 1 - a*are preselected high assurance values

By applying Baye's Theorem on the left-hand side of these (80% lower confidence bound) and 0.8507 (90% lower

posterior confidence equations, the test plan is derived by confidence bound) respectively.

solving the following equations for the sample size (n) and

acceptance number (c). This means that

lLP(Accept I R ) g( R ) dR

= 1-p'

P(R20. 8869) = 0.80 and

Assuming a Beta prior distribution, fit these two values R, and

R2 into the Beta Prior Distribution Function as in equations (3)

iP(Reject I R ) g ( R ) dR and (4) :

where

0.88691 = 0.80

g(R) =Prior probability density function of R.

and

P(Accept I R) = P(number of failures in the test of n

samples 5 c I R) ,

P(Reject I R) = P(number of failures in the test of n

1- g( p

a+ 1)(0.8507)"1b~1~f(1- 0.8507)' = 0.90

samples > c I R)

which are functions of n, c, and R . The values of the Beta parameters a and b can be computed

from these two simultaneous equations with the help of

For a Beta prior distribution and binomial sampling, spreadsheet using trial and error. They are estimated as a = 24

and b = 2. Thus the system prior distribution is identified as

(a +b-I)! Beta(24,2).

g(R) = R"-'(l- R)*-' ;a, b 1 1.

(a -I)!@ - l)!

In this example, it is desired to derive a Bayesian system

reliability demonstration test plan that satisfies the following

P(Accept consumer's posterior confidence requirement on the system

reliability :

5. NUMERICAL EXAMPLE plan that allows no failures. Thus we could determine the

sample size required by the Reliability Demonstration to

A system has eight subsystems in series. For each of its achieve the consumer's requirement in which acceptance

subsystems, a different number of units were tested by their number is zero. Then the above posterior confidence

manufacturers. There were no failures in all of the subsystems requirement becomes

except for subsystem S,. The test results are summarised in

Table 1. It is desired to derive the system reliability Posterior P (R 1 0.90 I 0 failure) 2 0.90 (16)

demonstration test plan using the Bayesian approach.

For a Beta prior distribution with parameters a and b, if f

To determine the system prior distribution from these failures occur in n tests then the posterior distribution is also a

subsystem data, two Mann's A 0 Lower Confidence Bounds Beta distribution and its parameters are a+n-f and b+f. So

need to be identified first. So two confidence level 80% and equation (16) can be expressed as (Ref. 4) :

90% are selected and the respective Mann's A 0 Lower

Confidence Bounds (R, and R2) are identified. The *-I a+b+n-l

calculations could be easily performed with the help of

spreadsheets. The calculated values of R, and R2 are 0.8869 1- i=O ( )(0.90)'+"'.-" (1 - 0.90)' 2 0.90

Subsystem 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

No. of Tests 40 40 35 35 30 30 25 25

No. of Failures 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

The a and b parameters are already identified as 24 and 2 much above the reliability requirement of 0.85. In fact, the

respectively. So the equation is further simplified and the prior confidence of 0.85 reliability value is 91% which is so

sample size, n, is easily determined in the following : high that it has already achieved the desired confidence level

without any further testing. However, if the consumer’s

1-

i=O

( 25 “ ) ( 0 . 9 0 ) 2 5 + n ~ i-( l0.90)‘ = 0.90 reliability requirement is 0.95, which is only slightly below

the estimated 0.975 reliability, the Bayesian reliability

demonstration test plan becomes larger than the classical test

n=13 plan. Since the prior confidence in system reliability obtained

from it is as low as 36%, it is logical that the Bayesian

Thus only a total of 13 systems need to be tested in the approach to reliability demonstration is unfavourable. These

Reliability Demonstration in order to achieve the consumer’s observations reinforce the point that the Bayesian approach is

posterior confidence of 90%. only favourable if the prior confidence in the system

reliability is favourable.

If a classical plan is used, 22 systems are required to be tested

for a consumer’s risk of 10% (i.e. confidence of 90%) if the

7. CONCLUSION

acceptance number is also zero. Thus the Bayesian approach

has reduced the sample size by 9. Though the definition of

consumer’s risklconfidence in classical plan is different from The Bayesian approach to reliability demonstration is

the posterior confidence in the Bayesian approach, it can still desirable as it makes use of available information to reduce

be used for comparison purposes. the cost in conducting reliability demonstration by generating

a test plan of smaller sample size compared to the classical

approach. The reduction is especially significant when there

6 . DISCUSSION

are substantial prior data. However, the computation involved

A number of Bayesian reliability demonstration test plans in the Bayesian approach is usually complicated and is

are generated for the example above using the approach sometimes subjective. Furthermore, there was little attention

proposed, with respect to different consumer’s risk and in the literature on deriving Bayesian reliability demonstration

different consumer’s reliability requirement. Some of the test plan using subsystem prior data.

results are summarised in Table 2. As expected, the Bayesian

reliability demonstration test plan may require less or more This paper has proposed a simple and objective method to

test units than the classical test plan, depending on the prior derive Bayesian reliability demonstration test plan for series

confidence and the requirement. systems that have binomial subsystem data. It identifies that

the crux of the problem is in forming the system prior

It is observed that for reliability requirement of 0.85, there is distribution based on the subsystem data and proposes a

no necessity to have the reliability demonstration at all as the solution via the use of Mann’s A 0 LCB model. A numerical

prior subsystem test data have provided adequate confidence example is also included to illustrate the proposed method. A

in the system reliability. The reliability demonstrated in the similar approach with the use of an appropriate LCB model

prior subsystem tests is (39/4O)x(l.O)’ = 0.975 which is very can be used for other types of system and subsystem data.

Requirement (RL) Risk Sample Size Sample Size Sample Size

(13*)

.. ,

0.85 10% 0 15 15

15% 0 12 12

Prior P(Ra.85) = 0.91 20% 0 10 10

0.90 10% 13 22 9

15% 8 19 11

Prior P(R20.90) = 0.73 20% 4 16 12

0.95 10% 52 45 -7

15% 42 37 -5

Prior P(R20.95) = 0.36 20% 34 32 -2

Assessment, 1995; ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

1. H. F. Martz and R. A. Waller, Bayesian Reliability Analysis, 1982; 3. Dimitri Kececioglu, P.E., Bayesian Reliability Testing with

John Wiley & Sons. Applications, 1986.

4. Peter M. Lee, Bayesian Statistics : An Introduction, 1989; Oxford Lin Mei Ten is a Senior Product Assurance Analyst of the DSO National

University Press. Laboratories of Singapore. She has worked several years in providing quality

5. Nancy R. Mann, Ray E. Schafer, & Nozer D. Singpurwalla, Methods assurance support to projects in the area of RAM analysis. She received her

for Statistical Analysis of Reliability and Life Data, 1974; John Wiley & B. Sc. degree, majoring in Mathematics, from National University bf

Sons. Singapore in 1989.

6 . Nancy R. Mann, “Approximately Optimum Confidence Bounds on

Series-and Parallel-system Reliability for Systems with Binomial Subsystem

Data”, IEEE Transactions on Reliability, vol. R. 23, No. 5, 1974, pp 295-

304.

7. R. J. Buehler, “Confidence Intervals for the Product of Two Binomial

Parameters”, J. Amer. Statist. Assoc., vol. 52, 1957, pp. 482-493.

8. Albert Madansky, “Approximate Confidence Limits for the Reliability

of Series and Parallel Systems”, Technometrics, vol. 7, 1965, pp. 495-503. Min Xie

9. Joan Raup Rosenblatt, Confidence Limits for the Reliability of National University of Singapore

Complex Systems, 1963; Statistical Theory of Reliability, (Ed., Marvin 10 Kent Ridge Crescent

Zelen), the University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Singapore 119260

Singapore

Internet (E-mail): isexiem@nus.sg

BIOGRAPHIES

Lin Mei Ten Dr. Min Xie is an academic staff in the Systems and Industrial Engineering

DSO National Laboratories Department at the National University of Singapore. He has published

20 Science Park Drive numerous papers in international journals and is the author of two books. He

Singapore Science Park is a senior member of IEEE and is a member of ASQC and SRE. Dr. Xie

Singapore 1 18230 received his M.S. from the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, and

Singapore his Ph. D. degree in Quality Technology from Linkoping University in

Internet (E-mail): tlinmei@dso.org.sg Sweden in 1987.

- Distribucion BetaUploaded bycarlos
- Mathematics Methods Sample Calc Assumed Exam 2016Uploaded bygragon.07
- 1112.5550v2Uploaded byLeo D'Addabbo
- 10-5-1--132-142Uploaded bynlucaroni
- A Decision Between Bayesian and Frequentist Upper Limit in Analyzing Continuous Gravitational Waves 1109.3208v1Uploaded byforizsl
- Sport and Recreation Profile: SwimmingUploaded bySPARC NZ
- gy88f6Uploaded byjellylexi
- Results MadhubalaUploaded byMadhu Bala
- Sport and Recreation Profile: FootballUploaded bySPARC NZ
- Veggiesvs.MeatiesUploaded byKaleo Regalmuto
- Tutorial 2 ME323 Group 6.pptxUploaded byabhi
- Mil-std-690 - Failure Rate Sampling Plans and ProceduresUploaded byjsadachi
- statistikUploaded by123
- MB0040 Statistics for ManagementUploaded bySamia Javed
- 03ProbDist.pdfUploaded byAinSTROMBERG
- Applied Mechanics and Materials Volume 455 issue 2013 [doi 10.4028%2Fwww.scientific.net%2Famm.455.527] Wu, Hua Zhi; Pan, Xue Tao; Cai, Jian Wen; Zhang, Mei Feng -- Method of Measurement System Analysi.pdfUploaded byelyesyoussef
- bayesian4Uploaded byp_aryo
- MGS3100 Project1 Simulation DirectionsUploaded bymaherkamel
- Asset Criticality Ranking.pdfUploaded bysarifin
- Natunen 2016Uploaded byTeresa Mata
- PrintUploaded bySuganyashivraj Suganya
- multicycle for windows tutorialUploaded byvic1116
- Gentle Introduction to MCMCUploaded byjakub_gramol
- Beta Calcutaion SPSSUploaded byGalih Pratama Pujiyanto
- margin-errorUploaded byapi-261139685
- 2SC3324_datasheet_en_20140301Uploaded bykale
- 2SA1358Uploaded byCarlos A. Naranjo E.
- 1150-1144-1-PB.pdfUploaded byŽarko Milutinović
- 10.1016@j.postharvbio.2018.02.003.pdfUploaded byKartika Munir
- Keandalan StrukturalUploaded byWolter Sirandan

- Open BugsUploaded byMaria Camila Lozada
- TareaBayesiana.txtUploaded byMaria Camila Lozada
- BayesUploaded byMaria Camila Lozada
- Time_Series_Analysis.pdfUploaded byMaria Camila Lozada
- Time_Series_Analysis.pdfUploaded byMaria Camila Lozada
- Readme.txtUploaded byMaria Camila Lozada
- Does Human Development Index Provide RationalUploaded byMaria Camila Lozada
- 2012_2013 ATP CalendarioUploaded byferburka

- Fundamental Characteristics of Formal Virtual Learning CommunitiesUploaded byRichard Schwier
- Predicting NBA Games Using Neural NetworksUploaded byJordan Goldmeier
- Asymptotic Properties of Bayes Factor in One- Way Repeated Measurements ModelUploaded byAlexander Decker
- Bayesian StatsUploaded bysmits031
- Win Berry AlgorithmUploaded byJoab Dan Valdivia Coria
- England and Verrall - Predictive Distributions of Outstanding Liabilities in General InsuranceUploaded byapi-3851231
- 7 Deadly Sins of Quantitative Analysis SchrodtUploaded bysenaial
- A Gentle Tutorial in Bayesian Statistics.pdfUploaded bymbuyiselwa
- BayesianTheory_BernardoSmith2000Uploaded byMichelle Anzarut
- Midterm Sample 2 2010Uploaded byHazra Imran
- Bayesian ProbabilityUploaded byRB Astillero
- BayesianGuidelinesFinal(2) (1)Uploaded byZeus Herakles
- Yes, Big Data Can Solve Real World ProblemsUploaded byarindon23
- Applied Bayesian Econometrics for Central Bankers Updated 2017Uploaded byAugusto de Lima
- Brain Mapping an Encyclopedic Reference [-PUNISHER-]Uploaded byRobin Smith
- Monitoring the Performance of Bayesian EWMA Control Chart Using Loss FunctionsUploaded byMurali Dharan
- Particle Gibbs for Bayesian Additive Regression TreesUploaded byKevin P
- Statistics Analysis Scientific DataUploaded byyonaye
- Essay about Surfing Uncertainty - ClarkUploaded byTjerkDercksen
- Bayesian Analysis and Social Sciences (Paladini)Uploaded byPaulo Felix
- Bibs Sampling Matlab Book CodeUploaded bydjonger
- Ben Lambert a Student's Guide to Bayesian Statistics Ch 2Uploaded byehl_tud
- Pearl Ford Interview2018Uploaded byColin Lewis
- A Selectional Bias Conflict and Frequentist vs Bayesian VewpointsUploaded byXiao Guo
- Bayesian IbrahimUploaded byulirschj
- The Bayesian Information CriterionUploaded byconstant31
- Eng_Afr_finUploaded byLug Therapie
- Mixed TweedieUploaded bymuhsafiq
- A Survey on Soil Data MiningUploaded byamitarya514
- CressieCV10-04Uploaded byabdounou

## Much more than documents.

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

Cancel anytime.