When OOB emission is analyzed, configuration with large number of subcarriers, i.e., case 1 is taken into account while PAPR is analyzed for configuration with small number of subcarriers, i.e., case 2. Both configurations are evaluated in terms of error performance and numerical complexity.
Both the second and the third configurations, Figs. 13b and 13c, represent an attempt in redistributing loads on the main beams based on the column configuration and expected load transfer and both these configurations were evaluated for 3, 5 and 7 grid beams.
Different reinforcement configurations were evaluated.
In developing of the ANN model, several configurations were evaluated.
Different GA configurations were evaluated considering different weights in the aggregation function.
Ten different process configurations were evaluated in terms of reboiler duty and total equivalent work.
In order to test their behavior, the different cells configurations were evaluated by electrochemical techniques.
These configurations were evaluated regarding their crack turning behaviour (T-stress).
The existing and proposed configurations were evaluated and optimized by simulation in Aspen Plus.
These three front-light configurations were evaluated in comparison to the standard configuration (a single central white headlight).
