FEATURE SERIES: PRACTICAL PROCESS CONTROL

FEATURE SERIES PRACTICAL PROCESS CONTROL

19: Split-ranging
Myke King explains the history of split-ranging and looks at more effective
alternatives

F
IGURE 1 shows a common application of split-rang-
ing. Under normal conditions, the column pressure QUICK READ
is controlled by manipulating the condenser duty Split-ranging and Dual-acting Valves: Split-ranging
– in this case the flow of cooling water. Should allows a single controller to sequentially operate multiple
incondensable components build up, so that the valves, but dual-acting valves, which move simultaneously,
pressure controller fully opens the coolant valve, it will begin can provide more precise control in certain applications
to manipulate the flow of vapour leaving the overhead drum.
This sequential operation of the two manipulated variables is Tuning Challenges and Solutions: Split-ranging can
achieved by applying split-ranging. complicate tuning due to differences in process dynamics.
Using separate controllers for each valve can improve both
tuning and operator understanding
DUAL-ACTING VALVES Avoiding Overlap and Deadband: Overlap and deadband
Control valve positioners are generally calibrated to travel over in valve calibration can cause instability or inefficiency, but
their full range as the controller output varies from 0 to 100%. these issues can be mitigated by using dual controllers and
However, this calibration is configurable. So, while we would careful calibration
often require the valve to move from fully shut to fully open,
many other options are possible. For example, we might require
the valve to close as the controller output increases. Figure 2
shows two potential schemes for controlling the temperature pass through the cooler. By adopting the second scheme, as the
leaving a product cooler. The first relies on a single, conven- controller opens the bypass valve A, it simultaneously closes
tionally calibrated, control valve in the bypass. Should the valve B in the line through the condenser. This is achieved by
product temperature be too low, the controller will open the calibrating the valve positioners as shown in Figure 3. While
bypass valve. However, this may not offer a sufficient range of drawn in the same way as a split-range scheme, because the
operation. Even with the bypass fully open, some product will valves move simultaneously, they are described as dual-acting.

Figure 1: Split range example Figure 2: Dual-acting valves

PC 50–100%

TC TC

0–50%
A B

FEBRUARY 2025 | The Chemical Engineer | PAGE 64

Process Control [Link] 64 23/01/2025 [Link]

 FEATURE SERIES PRACTICAL PROCESS CONTROL

dedicated connections to each valve is now negligible. This

Figure 3: Dual-acting valve calibration
also means that the valve positioners can be calibrated as full
range, with the split-ranging done within the control system.
120
However, rather than simply replicate the original pneumatic
VALVE POSITION (% OPEN)

100 system, we can now engineer better solutions.

80 VA
LV EA
60 CHOOSING THE SPLIT
A key disadvantage of split-ranging is that the column
40
EB pressure controller will require very different tuning, depend-
LV
20 VA ing on which valve it is manipulating. Split-ranging compels
us to choose a single set of tuning constants. A potential
0
solution is to move the split away from 50%. Figure 5 illus-
-20 trates this. The blue line shows how column pressure varies
0 20 40 60 80 100
as we move the coolant valve; the red line as we move the
CONTROLLER OUTPUT (% OF RANGE) vapour valve. Data to plot these lines could come from the
plant historian or from a test run. They illustrate the tuning
problem. As the controller output crosses the current split
at 50% the slope of the line, which is the process gain (Kp),
HISTORY changes by a factor of around 2. Using the formula below
Figure 4 shows how the valve positioners would be calibrated we can calculate that the split should be moved to 46.5%.
for our distillation example. The controller output range of 0
to 100% has been split into two ranges – one for each valve.
Split-ranging, however, has some limitations. Before describ-
ing these, we should understand the history of the technique
which was commonplace long before digital, or even elec-
tronic analog controllers. Taking our distillation example, a T WO CONTROLLERS
pneumatic controller would provide an output signal – typi- While this accommodates the change in process gain, it does
cally ranged from 3 to 15 psi. This would be transmitted to not compensate for any significant change in deadtime or lag.
the two valves via a shared pneumatic line. One valve would Opening the coolant valve will have a much slower impact on
be calibrated to operate over the range 3–9 psi, the other pressure than opening the vapour valve. The heat capacity of the
over 9–15 psi. It therefore had the advantage of avoiding the condenser will cause a significant lag in the response, whereas
costly installation of a second line. These days, control signals a change in vent flow will be almost instantaneous. Our choice
are electronic and transmitted through multicore cables or, of tuning constants would have to be some compromise that
more recently, via a digital network. The incremental cost of would probably perform poorly over the whole operating range.

Figure 4: Split-range valve calibration Figure 5: Choosing the split

120 15
(OPmin , PVminOP)
VALVE POSITION (% OPEN)

100
13
COLUMN PRESSURE

K=
p -
80 0. 2
4

60 11

NT UR K
40 LA P O (OPsplit , PVsplit)
9 =
O VA
p
-0
CO .5
1
20
7
0 (OPmax , PVmaxOP)

-20 5
0 20 40 60 80 100 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
CONTROLLER OUTPUT (% OF RANGE) VALVE POSITION (% OPEN)

FEBRUARY 2025 | The Chemical Engineer | PAGE 65

Process Control [Link] 65 23/01/2025 [Link]

 FEATURE SERIES PRACTICAL PROCESS CONTROL

Figure 6: Preferred scheme Figure 8: Valve position controller

SP PV
50% VPC
PC PC

LARGE

SMALL
FC

single control valve. Two differently sized valves provide the

turndown we require. However, rather than allow the smaller
Another area for improvement is the operator display. With valve to fully open, we want to use it to retain fine control of
split-ranging we need to explain why the cooling water valve flow. We require both valves to move simultaneously, but with
indicates 100% open when controller output shows as 46.5%. the larger valve opening so that the smaller valve remains in its
Further, if the output increases to 60%, why does the vapour controlling range. We achieve this with a valve position controller
valve show as 25% open? (VPC), shown as Figure 8. Strictly, its measurement is not the
Both the tuning and display issues can be resolved by install- actual valve position, but the output of the flow controller. We
ing two separate pressure controllers, as shown in Figure 6. assume that the controller is working well, such that these are
Importantly, though they share the same measurement, they the same (although, these days, smart instrumentation might
can be individually tuned. To provide the sequential mecha-
nism we choose a slightly higher setpoint for the controller
manipulating the vapour valve.
Figure 9: Two flow controllers

VALVE POSITION CONTROL

There are other occasions in which we require a controller to
manipulate two valves. The scheme shown in Figure 7 applies FC
the same technique that we’ve developed for the column. We
require to operate over a range of flow that is too wide for a

LARGE

Figure 7: Separate controllers

SMALL
VALVE
POSITION

100%

FC PID
SP

LARGE
SP
ER

ER
GH

FC2 SMALL
LO
HI

H
ITH

IT

SP=50%
W
2W

FC2
+ -
FC
FC

TOTAL
FLOW SP
B
FLOW

FEBRUARY 2025 | The Chemical Engineer | PAGE 66

Process Control [Link] 66 23/01/2025 [Link]

 FEATURE SERIES PRACTICAL PROCESS CONTROL

include the measured position). The flow controller manipulates

Figure 11: Valve calibration overlap
the smaller valve, as normal, but its output is the measurement
of a separate PID controller – the VPC. In this example, the
120
operator has specified that, to keep within the operating range,

VALVE POSITION (% OPEN)

the position of the smaller valve should be maintained at 50%. 100
The VPC achieves this by adjusting the position of the larger
80
valve. While the scheme will work well, it does require the total
E
flow to be disturbed if the operator changes the valve position 60 LV

N2
E VA

VA
target. The VPC will change the larger flow, disturbing the A R
FL

LV
40

E
total flow and requiring correction by the total flow controller.
We can reduce its impact by tuning the VPC to correct slowly. 20
Provided the small valve stays within range, it is not important
0
to hold it tightly at 50%.
However, the design also assumes that a single flow instru- -20
0 20 40 60 80 100
ment can cover the operating range. An improved scheme is
shown as Figure 9. A change to the valve position target will CONTROLLER OUTPUT (% OF RANGE)
change the setpoint of the larger flow controller, but the same
change is sent to a bias algorithm which maintains a constant
total flow by immediately making the opposite change to the
setpoint of the smaller flow controller. we open the flare valve, this may not be the case. As Figure 11
shows, there is a small overlap. The first issue is that, within
this overlap, we have effectively doubled the process gain. This
DEADBAND AND OVERL AP could cause instability but, more importantly, costly nitrogen
Figure 10 shows the application of the split-range technique to is being needlessly flared. Valves can also be slightly miscal-
nitrogen blanketing of a process vessel. Should the pressure be ibrated so that there is a deadband at the switchover point.
above setpoint, the controller output will increase. Because it is This again can cause an apparent tuning problem, because the
reverse-calibrated the nitrogen valve will initially close. Should process gain falls to zero within the deadband.
the controller output exceed 30%, the valve venting to flare will To ensure the valves operate over their whole range, some
begin opening. Both importing and venting gas are likely to leeway is included in their calibration. It is common to allow
have similar dynamics and so a single controller is probably a controller output to vary over the wider range of (say) -5 to
adequate. The problem here lies within the valve calibration 105% to ensure that the valve can be truly fully closed and fully
itself. Precisely calibrating valve positioners is a challenge. So, opened. We can exploit this by following the same approach
while we expect the nitrogen valve to be fully closed before as that on the column. Installing two pressure controllers will
then avoid overlap and deadband.

Figure 10: Nitrogen blanket

NEXT ISSUE
Our next issue will be the first of four articles covering the
N2 FLARE development and use of inferential properties. Also known
as soft sensors or virtual analysers, they are often key to the
success of an advanced control project. Perhaps of all the
30–0% 30–100% control technologies, they benefit the most from the appli-
cation of sound chemical engineering.

PC

Myke King CEng FIChemE is director of Whitehouse Consulting, an

independent advisor covering all aspects of process control. The
topics featured in this series are covered in greater detail in his book
Process Control – A Practical Approach, published by Wiley in 2016

Disclaimer: This article is provided for guidance alone. Expert

engineering advice should be sought before application.

FEBRUARY 2025 | The Chemical Engineer | PAGE 67

Process Control [Link] 67 23/01/2025 [Link]