Modeling and control of level control process — A comparative study
Tank level control systems are everywhere. All of our process industries mostly depends on this tank level control systems. This paper deals with the modeling and control of a two tank liquid level control system. The considered non linear system is a Single Input Single Output (SISO) system. The goal of the level control is to track the desired level of liquid in to the second tank by controlling the flow rate of the first tank. The tanks are coupled in the interacting and non-interacting ways and a comparison is made between these two systems. The mathematical modeling is done by mass balance method and the PID controller is designed by the trial and error method. The system is simulated with both open loop and closed loop conditions. A comparative study of the time domain response of the two systems while using the PID controller is done by the MATLAB simulation.
The Separator, a Two-Phase Oil and Water Gravity CPS Separator Testbed
Industrial Control Systems (ICS) are evolving with advances in new technology. The addition of wireless sensors and actuators and new control techniques means that engineering practices from communication systems are being integrated into those used for control systems. The two are engineered in very different ways. Neither engineering approach is capable of accounting for the subtle interactions and interdependence that occur when the two are combined. This paper describes our first steps to bridge this gap, and push the boundaries of both computer communication system and control system design. We present The Separator testbed, a Cyber-Physical testbed enabling our search for a suitable way to engineer systems that combine both computer networks and control systems.
Time and Heritage
As a historian studying what can be considered a form of intellectual history, I have slowly come to adopt Michel de Certeau’s observation made at the end of the 1980s that ‘objectifying the past, for the last three centuries, has undoubtedly left unconsidered time within a discipline that has continued to use it as a taxonomic instrument’. To a certain degree, time has become commonplace for the historian who has preserved or instrumentalized it. It is not considered because it is inconceivable, but because we do not think of it or, more simply, we do not think about it. As a historian attempting to pay attention to the time I’m living in, I have thus, like many others, noticed the swift development of the category of the present until it has become obvious that the present is omnipresent. This is what I refer to here as ‘presentism’.