Safety control structure analysis of intersecting air routes in CNS/ATM

Author(s):  
Li Dongbin ◽  
Zhao Hongsheng ◽  
Liu Yumei
2007 ◽  
Vol 40 (5) ◽  
pp. 251-256
Author(s):  
Jobrun Nandong ◽  
Yudi Samyudia ◽  
Moses O. Tadé

Processes ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 190
Author(s):  
Sveinung Ohrem ◽  
Håvard Skjefstad ◽  
Milan Stanko ◽  
Christian Holden

To enable more efficient production of hydrocarbons on the seabed in waters where traditional separator equipment is infeasible, the offshore oil and gas industry is leaning towards more compact separation equipment. A novel multi-pipe separator concept, designed to meet the challenges of subsea separation, has been developed at the Department of Geoscience and Petroleum at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. In this initial study, a control structure analysis for the novel separator concept, based on step-response experiments, is presented. Proportional-integral controllers and model reference adaptive controllers are designed for the different control loops. The proportional-integral controllers are tuned based on the well-established simple internal model control tuning rules. Both control methods are implemented and tested on a prototype of the separator concept. Different measurements are controlled, and results show that the performance of the separator under varying inlet conditions can be improved with proper selection of control inputs and measurements.


2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 1118-1124
Author(s):  
Weixing Ji ◽  
Yuanhong Huo ◽  
Yizhuo Wang ◽  
Yujin Gao ◽  
Feng Shi

Author(s):  
Robert D. Levine

The complement structure of tough constructions containing VP complements with gap sites linked to the tough predicate subject has been subject to considerable discussion in the syntactic literature, with an apparent consensus that in John is easy for us to please, for us is a PP constituent which controls the subject specification of the following infinitival constituent. I reexamine the classical arguments for this position, including Bresnan's seminal 1971 paper which first argued for this control structure analysis, and argue that none of these arguments are empirically tenable. In all cases, data exist which convincingly undermine central claims or assumptions, and hence there turns out to be no convincing reason to prefer the control structure over the clausal analysis, introduced in Postal's 1971 monograph on crossover and defended in the Gazdar et al. monograph on generalized phrase structure grammar, in which for us to please is a clausal complement to easy. I then offer a number of arguments for the superiority of the clausal analysis, appealing to data from comparatives, parasitic gap constructions and extraposition. My claim that tough complementation of the kind alluded to is clausal must, if sound, be compatible with standardly assumed semantics for these constructions, in which the subject of the complement clause must also serve as an argument of the tough predicate — a conclusion seemingly at odds with a clausal complement syntax. The difficulty is that a constituent whose denotation is one of the terms in the relation denoted by the tough predicate must be retrieved from with a clause, where it is presumably inaccessible under normal Montegovian compositional assumptions. I offer further cross-linguistic evidence based on Guyanese Creole that such an apparent conflict between syntax and semantics is unavoidable, and then offer a syntactic solution, based on work by Detmar Meurers which posits a HEAD feature for verbs structure-shared with their SUBJspecification. This device, which also can be argued for in English on the basis of the Richard construction and several other phenomena, offers a way for information about the subject to be accessible to specifications of the selecting head in a way which compromises locality to the minimal extent possible.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document