Contents

pH Control: A Magical Mystery Tour 1

Compressor Surge Control: Traveling in the Fast Lane 19
Pressure Control: Without Deadtime, I Might
Be Out of a Job 31
Advanced Control Algorithms: Beware of False Prophecies 43
Direct Temperature Rate Control Improves Reactor Yield 49
pH Titration Curves—Trick or Treat? 57
Wally and the Beave Automate Reactor Start-ups 67
Wally and the Beave Return To Automate
Another Reactor Start-up 79
Can You Say “Process Interlocks?” 85
The Survival of an Instrument Engineer 97
Woody’s Performance Review—What’s Inline Next
for pH Control? 105
What If the Starship Extraprize Had a DCS? 115
What If the Starship Rent-a-Ride Had an Expert System? 121
Funny You Should Ask a Process Control Engineer 127

vii

imo-mcmillan-00fm.indd vii 2/24/10 8:49 AM

 pH Control: A Magical
Mystery Tour

I do not pretend to be the world’s champion pH problem solver.

But, I have helped rescue over 50 foundering pH control systems
in the past 5 years and am still rational enough to tell you about it.
Most people hardly notice that I twitch at the mention of hydrogen
ion concentration.

WHY IT’S A PROBLEM

Why is pH control a problem? After all, you’ve got an odd but
simple scale of measurement from 0 to 14 dimensionless units,
measuring electrodes that have been around long enough to be
well understood and readily applied, and instrument vendors who
must have seen every possible application by now.

Rangeability and sensitivity

One basic source of difficulty is that—as countless articles, tech-

nical papers, and textbooks point out—the pH scale corresponds
to hydrogen ion concentrations from 100 to 10–14 moles per liter.
No other common measurement covers such a tremendous range.

imo-mcmillan-01.indd 1 2/4/10 3:14 PM

 2 Process Control Case Histories

Another intrinsic constraint is that measuring electrodes can re-

spond to changes as small as 0.001 pH, so instruments can track
hydrogen ion concentration changes as small as 5 × 10–10 moles per
liter at 7 pH. No other common measurement has such tremen-
dous sensitivity.
The implications of such great rangeability and sensitivity can
be illustrated by considering a continuous feedback neutraliza-
tion system for a strong acid and a strong base. The reagent flow
should essentially be proportional to the difference between the
hydrogen ion concentration of the process fluid and the set point.
A reagent control valve must therefore have a rangeability greater
than 10,000,000:1 for a set point of 7 pH when the incoming
stream fluctuates between 0 and 7 pH. Moreover, uncertainties in
the control valve stroke translate directly into pH errors, such that
stick-slip of only 0.00005% can cause an offset of 1 pH for a 7 pH
set point.
The situation is like playing golf. The distance from the tee to
the green represents rangeability and the ratio of the hole diam-
eter to this distance is analogous to sensitivity. For an application
requiring a strong base to neutralize a strong acid or vice versa, the
tee would be about 1,000,000 yards from the green and the hole
would be about 3-½ inches in diameter. A hole-in-one is impos-
sible. And using the same size control valve at each stage would be
like hiring a gorilla to drive the ball to the green in one stroke, then
finding that it tends to overshoot the hole on the putt.
How is it even possible to control a process under these condi-
tions? Rangeability and sensitivity limitations can be overcome by
approaching the set point in stages, using successively smaller con-
trol valves with high performance positioners.

The real world

A host of other constraints adds to the difficulties of pH control.

These range from the necessity of wetting the electrodes—with
consequent susceptibility to leakage and attack by the fluid—to
long delays introduced by the need to mix large volumes of process
material with small amounts of reagent. Even with a good under-
standing of measurement and control concepts, these real-world
effects introduce an element of magical mystery into pH.

imo-mcmillan-01.indd 2 2/4/10 3:14 PM

 pH Control: A Magical Mystery Tour 3

SOME TYPICAL PROBLEMS

No pH complications are really typical. And the systems that are easy
to implement don’t get referred back to those of us whom InTech
refers to as the noodnicks from Central Engineering. But the instal-
lations I will describe are typical of those I have encountered recently
and illustrate the types of problems that you can expect.
To avoid arguments with our Legal Department about propri-
etary information, I will not mention any places or names; I’d even
prefer that you forget my name when you finish reading. Also, to
help guide you through my tribulations, and those you will encoun-
ter yourselves, I’ve prepared Table 1, enumerating what you can
think of as the Facts of Life. Commit this Table to memory; you’ll
be quizzed on it in the morning.

Where’s the tank?

An application involved a strong acid waste flow, to be neutralized

by a strong basic reagent. I was called in because the pH was swing-
ing from 0 to 14 despite efforts to tune the controllers, manually
manipulate the reagent, and regulate the influent flow. When I got
to the plant, I gazed over the horizon and didn’t see any tanks. I
suddenly realized that I had a major problem.
Figure 1-1a shows the original control system. This used a ratio
controller to proportion reagent to acid waste flow upstream of
an in-line mixer. A separate pH controller was used in a loop on
a sump. The system designers did not realize that the flow mea-
surement error and the flow control valve stick-slip must both be
less than 0.00005% to stay within 1 pH of the 7 pH set point.
They assumed that disturbances would be small since the change in
waste composition was slow and its flow was fixed by a controller.
Their design team did not know Fact of Life #1.
A system involving a strong acid and a strong base normally
requires three stages of control to hold a solution to within 1 pH
of 7 pH (Ref 1). Since cost was stressed as a factor, I kept the
existing mixer and sump as one stage and added two vertical well-
mixed tanks downstream for the second and third stages. Further, I
agreed to not install controls on the third stage until the need was

imo-mcmillan-01.indd 3 2/4/10 3:14 PM

imo-mcmillan-01.indd 4
Figure 1-1. Where’s the tank? (a)-unsuccessful and (b)-successful pH control systems for a continuous neutralization process
initially having no mixing tank.

2/4/10 3:14 PM
 pH Control: A Magical Mystery Tour 5

demonstrated. The third stage volume therefore served as a filter

for the oscillation from the second stage.
For the first stage of control, we started by replacing the ratio
flow system with a fast in-line pH loop. This received a remote set
point from a second pH controller on the sump. The fast in-line
loop would initiate the correction and depend on the sump vol-
ume to average out hydrogen ion concentration deviations. Linear
control system analysis predicted that this combination would be as
effective as a single well-mixed vertical tank.
It didn’t work. Dynamic simulation showed that the in-line loop
would oscillate between 0 and 14 pH for all controller settings. A
plant test confirmed the result.
At first, I thought the sump was somehow not providing the
anticipated filtering. Then I remembered Fact of Life #2. The fil-
ter was acting on hydrogen ion concentration, not pH. The sump
was attenuating concentration oscillations by a factor of 100, but
this corresponded to a decrease of only 2 pH. Attenuation was
improved by reducing the distance from the mixer to the control
valve and electrodes so the oscillation was faster.
The second stage had a notch-gain pH controller with an out-
put that provided a pulse frequency proportional to an analog sig-
nal. Above 25% controller output, the valve was throttled normally;
below 25%, valve rangeability was extended using pulse frequency
or interval control.
Figure 1-1b shows the upgraded installation. This system could
keep pH within the desired offset band at the outlet of the third
stage. However, the sump controller was difficult to tune and recov-
ery from start-up or waste flow controller set point change was slow.
If I were designing this system today, I would place a feedfor-
ward loop on the sump and would install controls on the third stage.
I would also characterize the feedforward and feedback signals. The
characterization would involve calculating reagent demand from
the pH measurement using the titration curve, and using the result
as the control command. This would reduce nonlinearity, recovery
time, sensitivity, and tuning difficulty. Microprocessor-based con-
trollers can provide the necessary calculation accuracy and ease of
implementation.

imo-mcmillan-01.indd 5 2/4/10 3:14 PM

 6 Process Control Case Histories

As with any new system, start-up was not without bugs. Some
were of the common garden variety—like transposed wires and
incorrectly calibrated positioners. Others were of the magical mys-
tery type peculiar to pH systems.
For example, at high pH levels, the measurement went down-
scale as the strong base reagent flow increased. As you can imagine,
this drove the control system—and us—kind of crazy. The diffi-
culty turned out to be that the measuring electrodes in the in-line
loop were not specified with high-pH glass. Normally this would
cause the measurement to read low by about 1 pH at the upper end
of the scale. In our case, it caused a reversed response. This perfor-
mance was confirmed by the vendor and was corrected by replacing
the electrodes with low sodium ion error devices.

Table 1-1 The Facts of Life

1. Instrumentation is frequently the source of disturbance for

pH systems, through repeatability error, measurement noise,
or valve stick-slip.
2. In-line pH loops will oscillate, regardless of controller modes
and tuning, if set points are on the steep parts of the titra-
tion curves.
3. pH electrode submersion assemblies with unencapsulated
terminations below the liquid surface will eventually have
wet terminations.
4. Reagent control valves that are not close-coupled to the
injection point on in-line systems will cause reagent delivery
delays large enough to describe the tools of your trade in
words your sister may not even know.
5. You need either a flowmeter or a seer to diagnose reagent
delivery problems.
6. Flow feedforward signals should be corrected by pH con-
troller outputs and employed to operate linear reagent
valves directly or to establish reagent flow control set points.
7. Transportation delays to pH electrodes in analyzer houses
will exceed mixing deadtimes—such that increasing com-
fort in checking the electrodes is offset by decreasing
comfort in checking trend recordings.
8. Injection electrodes should be preferred to sample holder
assemblies whenever possible to reduce maintenance prob-
lems and improve response times—but not all injection
electrodes are created equal.

imo-mcmillan-01.indd 6 2/4/10 3:14 PM

 pH Control: A Magical Mystery Tour 7

9. Large tanks are fine if you don’t have to control them; use
the volume upstream to reduce reagent consumption or the
volume downstream to reduce control error.
10. Install one or three but never two electrodes for a pH mea-
surement. Use middle signal selection for three measure-
ments for inherent protection for all types of an electrode
failure and minimization of error and noise.

Another magical mystery effect was that the electrode response

for the well mixed tank became erratic. We found water on the
terminals inside the submersion assembly. The vendor told us if
we bought an assembly that cost twice as much, the leakage would
stop. We did; it didn’t. The vendor then told us to buy a newly
developed assembly for four times the price of the original and the
leakage would surely stop. Rather than make the same mistake three
times, I shopped around and found a throwaway electrode assem-
bly completely encapsulated in plastic—at half the price of the origi-
nal. It worked like a charm. A similar experience with a submersion
assembly from another vendor led me to Fact of Life #3.

Where’s the valve?

Another application required small quantities of a highly concen-

trated viscous reagent for continuous neutralization of a waste
stream. The control system was so slow that disturbances passed
through the plant long before any corrective action took effect;
further, the pH trend recording had a noise band that far exceeded
the allowable set point offset. When I inspected the system, I stood
near the injection point at the inlet to the pipeline mixer, scanned
the horizon and didn’t see any reagent control valve. I quickly
deduced I had a major problem. Figure 1-2a shows what I found.
Can you spot a control problem exclusive of the pH loop in this
figure? The sump level controller sets the flow in the upper outlet
branch. The mixer flow controller simultaneously manipulates the
valve in the lower branch to keep a constant flow out of the sump.
The system is obviously overcontrolled. We got out of this mess by
cascading the level controller output to the flow controller set point.
Now for the pH loop. The reagent was being injected into
the pipeline under the control of a positive displacement metering

imo-mcmillan-01.indd 7 2/4/10 3:14 PM

imo-mcmillan-01.indd 8
Figure 1-2. Where’s the valve? (a)-unsuccessful and (b)-successful pH control systems for a process involving a highly viscous
concentrated reagent.

2/4/10 3:14 PM
 pH Control: A Magical Mystery Tour 9

pump. The pump was about 300 feet away from the mixer. This
distance caused a delay when the pump was activated—because
process fluid would backfill the injection piping and had to be
pushed out of the line before any reagent could be delivered. It
doesn’t take much fancy mathematics to figure that at one gallon
per hour, it takes an hour to push a gallon through a pipe. This led
to Fact of Life #4.
We also found a delay when the speed of the pump changed
but never really identified the cause. We would have blamed it on
air pockets, if there had been any. The answer probably lies in the
ketchup bottle—related to low flow of viscous fluids.
Anyway, we reduced the delays and resulting noise band by an
order of magnitude when we replaced the remote metering pump
with a close-coupled control valve. The valve was manipulated using
a ratio controller to proportion the reagent flow to the sump dis-
charge flow, correcting the ratio with the in-line pH loop.
Some noise still remained, due to poor distribution of the
injected reagent into the pipeline. This couldn’t be eliminated,
because it required making the injection port smaller so the reagent
velocity would be larger. Unfortunately, a hole small enough to do
the job was too small to keep from plugging. The noise was more
of a nuisance on the trend chart than in the system, so the record
was cleaned up by passing the measurement signal through an elec-
tronic filter.
We thought our problems were over, when magical mystery
reared its ugly head. As the miniature reagent valve was stroked
from closed to open, the reagent flow measurement momentarily
increased and then went to zero. The magnetic flowmeter was
immediately suspect—but came through with a clean bill of health;
we checked the wiring and found it to be correct; the vendor
examined and verified the integrity of the electronics; we tested the
meter on water and observed that it responded correctly. We than
tried changing valve trim, but several tests yielded the same results.
I was about to throw the tiny but costly trims away, leave the
engineering profession, and enter a seminary. During this period
of contemplation, I suddenly noticed what looked to be a reverse
taper on the trims. It was hard to tell for sure, because the parts
were small, but I confirmed the observation with a micrometer. In

imo-mcmillan-01.indd 9 2/4/10 3:14 PM

 10 Process Control Case Histories

desperation to get home from this start-up, I calculated the con-

tour of the plug for a linear characteristic, made a sketch, and had
the parts machined.
The valve worked fine with the homemade trim. The reverse
taper had caused the flow to decrease as the stroke increased. The
momentary surge inflow at the start of the stroke was caused by
the plug lifting off the seat just enough to provide a small annular
clearance. How did the reverse taper get there in the first place? I
never found out for sure but did learn that the trims were too small
to be standard and were specially machined by the vendor for the
order. As far as I was concerned, they were too special. You can
imagine how difficult it would have been to diagnose this valve
problem if there was no reagent flow meter. This leads to Fact of
Life #5.
Another instrumentation problem occurred later, when one of
the design engineers decided to modify the system and recover
some panel space. He installed a feedforward controller in place of
the ratio station and pH-based flow controller. The device added the
flow feedforward signal to the flow command from the pH con-
troller. The vendor, anxious to sell a feedforward element, thought
it was a great idea. In operation, as you should have guessed, the
flow controller readjusted its output to cancel the effect of the
feedforward signal and maintain flow at its set point. To work as
expected, the feedforward action would have to be on the flow
controller set point to provide a ratio of reagent to process flow-
corrected by the pH controller output. The ratio should force the
reagent flow to zero if the process fluid flow is zero Also for you
control jocks, the change in controller gain with flow is negligible
since the inline system’s deadtime is larger than its time constant.
This leads to Fact of Life #6.
All of these corrections are reflected in Figure 1-2b. The sys-
tem, as shown, has been controlling well since start-up.

Where’s the agitator?

A process used a vertical tank for neutralization. Performance was

poor because response was slow and the effluent was not uniformly
mixed. I looked at the drawings and noted that the vertical unit
seemed a bit tall for its diameter. I asked how high it was, and the

imo-mcmillan-01.indd 10 2/4/10 3:14 PM

 pH Control: A Magical Mystery Tour 11

designer said, “50 feet.” I gasped, “It’s not nice to kid an old engi-
neer.” He responded, “Who’s kidding?” I then asked, “Where’s
the agitator?” He replied, “You’re the only agitator on this proj-
ect.” I instantly knew I had a major problem.
Figure 1-3a shows how the pH was originally being controlled.
Axial agitation probably would have corrected the difficulties but
could not be provided economically because the tank was too tall.
A shorter tank would also have worked—again at a higher price
than the plant wanted to pay.
I decided that the best way to cope with the tank would be
to use its volume as a filter, estimating that it would attenuate the
hydrogen ion concentration oscillations of an in-line loop by a
factor of 10,000—4 pH units. A circulation pump was installed as
a low-deadtime in-line mixer. Influent and reagent were added to
the new suction; an injector probe was installed on the pump dis-
charge. The new system is shown in Figure 1-3b.

Figure 1-3. Where’s the agitator? (a)-unsuccessful and (b)-successful pH

control systems for a process involving an extremely tall mixing
tank without an agitator.

imo-mcmillan-01.indd 11 2/4/10 3:14 PM

 12 Process Control Case Histories

Upsets still occurred, due mainly to the quick opening charac-

teristic, the poor sensitivity of the spool positioner, and the stick-
slip of the rotary cylindrical plug valve on the influent. However,
the in-line pH loop returned rapidly to set point after a disturbance.
Further, after passing through the tank volume, the pH drew the
straightest line I have ever seen; for a moment, we thought some-
one had tied down the pointer.
Performance was so good that the plant suggested we stan-
dardize on this type of system for pH control. I warned them that
the set point of this system was several pH units below the neutral
zone, on a relatively flat position of the titration curve. On a steep
part of the curve, Fact of Life #2 would prevail and there would be
lots of oscillations.

Where’s the electrode?

I was called in to troubleshoot the pH system shown in Figure 1-4a.

This simple configuration should have worked flawlessly, but was
plagued by an unacceptably wide control band about the set point.
I went down to look at the exit nozzle of the vessel and couldn’t
find the electrodes. I rapidly surmised that I had a major problem.
In this case, the source of the difficulty was political. The instru-
ment maintenance department had specified that the electrodes be
located in the analyzer house to avoid the discomfort of servicing
them outside during the winter. Unfortunately, this location intro-
duced excessive deadtime in the loop. To help avoid this problem
in other situations, I feel compelled to state Fact of Life #7.
I succeeded in getting the electrodes moved by arguing about
the extreme safety hazards and product quality problems that accom-
panied large pH excursions. The change, indicated in Figure 1-4b,
narrowed the control band to about 0.1 pH.
We used injector electrodes for this application. Experience
shows that these provide better performance and require less main-
tenance than sample chamber electrode holders. These benefits
are especially evident when the electrodes are mounted in the dis-
charge nozzle piping where fluid velocity is high—because the flow
ensures rapid response by minimizing boundary layer thickness and
prevents electrode coating by impurities in the stream.

imo-mcmillan-01.indd 12 2/4/10 3:14 PM

 pH Control: A Magical Mystery Tour 13

Figure 1-4. Where’s the electrode? (a)-unsuccessful and (b)-successful pH

control systems for a process in which electrodes have to be
installed in inconvenient locations.

Injection electrodes also appear to be less prone than sample

chamber elements to leakage. In checking 30 installations of injec-
tion devices from one manufacturer, I found no instances of leak-
age; in fairness, when we obtained products from a different source,
some leakage did occur. However, every sample chamber electrode
holder I have ever encountered has eventually leaked. Moreover,
leakage is visible with injector assemblies but not with sample
chambers. For hazardous fluids, you don’t want any surprises when
you open the top cover of the electrode holder. This leads me to
Fact of Life #8.

Is bigger better?

A plant used the system of Figure 1-5a for waste neutralization.

The eductor shown in the figure had been added because mixing
deadtime was too long. But even with this device, the deadtime
appeared to be over 40 minutes. The consequent natural period of
the pH loop was 160 minutes, so the maximum reset should have
been less than 0.01 repeats per minute. Since this was below the

imo-mcmillan-01.indd 13 2/4/10 3:14 PM

imo-mcmillan-01.indd 14
Figure 1-5. Is bigger better? (a)-unsuccessful and (b)-successful pH control systems for a process in which an extremely
large tank was initially employed for mixing.

2/4/10 3:14 PM
 pH Control: A Magical Mystery Tour 15

minimum setting on the controller, the loop was in a continuous

reset cycle; further, the integrated error—which is proportional to
the deadtime squared—was out of this world. I looked at the engi-
neering flow diagram and spotted the largest storage tank I had
ever seen. I asked the process engineer where the neutralization
tank was, and he pointed to the elephant I had just thought was
for storage. I immediately understood that I had a major problem.
The intent of the large tank was plausible. It would serve to blend
acidic and basic waste streams from different sources and minimize
the reagent demand. Now, as long as you don’t have to put control
loops on them, large tanks are useful. Upstream of a control loop,
a large tank can filter out disturbances and reduce reagent require-
ments; downstream, it can filter out loop oscillations—which is par-
ticularly advantageous because these fluctuations are usually faster
than variations in influent concentration and are therefore more
effectively attenuated. This reminds me of Fact of Life #9.
The new control system is shown in Figure 1-5b. The large tank
was replaced with two small vessels in series. A pulse frequency con-
troller was installed to avoid valve pluggage at low reagent flows
and to meet the extreme rangeability requirements imposed by the
wide variations in influent flow and pH. Signal characterization
was used to counteract the steep slope of the titration curve at
the set point.
Start-ups are no fun without magical mystery. In this instance,
we noticed that the pH measurement on the first tank was erratic.
The problem could not be duplicated when we removed the elec-
trodes and inserted them directly into the buffer solution or con-
nected them to the measurement system of the second tank. We
replaced the pH transmitter, preamplifier, cable, and electrodes
individually, but the erratic measurements continued. Eventually,
someone remembered that the fiberglass preamplifier enclosure
supplied by the manufacturer was replaced by the field mainte-
nance department with a metal housing—to provide more room for
access. The enclosure mounting plate was grounded. This created a
second ground point in the circuit, and caused a significant current
flow through the circuit. The problem did not occur on the second
tank because the preamplifier housing was not mounted on a con-
ductive structure. Likewise, the erratic behavior was not observed

imo-mcmillan-01.indd 15 2/4/10 3:14 PM

 16 Process Control Case Histories

during buffering because the bottle was plastic. The problem was
solved by isolating the preamplifier enclosure from ground with a
plastic mounting plate.
The control system has performed well from start-up except for
periodic pluggage of the electrodes in an overflow sample line.
Liquid head is too low to achieve a sample velocity sufficient to
sweep the electrodes clean. A new electrode holder that provides
a large flat electrode surface will be tried. If that doesn’t work, we
may have to shake loose enough money to install a sample pump
and an injector electrode assembly.

Where’s the reagent piping?

The pH in a neutralization tank was fluctuating in what appeared

to be a square wave. The system was also subject to periodic glass
electrode failures caused by etching and severe upsets due to a high-
temperature interlock that shut off the reagent flow. Plant people
were especially anxious to improve this system because reliability
was critical to plant productivity. I stood at the top of the ves-
sel wondering what to do and noticed that the reagent was being
transported by a conveyor rather than a pipe. I soon perceived that
I had a major problem.
Figure 1-6a shows the original installation. The reagent, pul-
verized lime, was controlled by a rotary feeder at the discharge
of the hopper. Feeder speed was set by the pH controller output.
Reagent delivery was subject to several minute’s lag due to trans-
portation delay on the conveyor and solids dissolution time. We
made precise measurements of the pH in the tank and found that
the square waves were worse than the plant thought—the process
instruments recorded only the high end of the pH scale, but the
fluctuations actually covered almost the whole range from 0 to 14.
Luckily, a huge tank upstream of the waste flow provided enough
inventory so the pH controller could be used to throttle the waste
stream. The lime feeder speed was determined by selecting the lower
of a manually entered throughput set point and a command from
the temperature override controller. The low signal selector there-
fore provided smooth transition between normal and override con-
trol. The feeder speed signal is also multiplied by the pH controller
command, passed through a lag unit whose delay is set equal to the

imo-mcmillan-01.indd 16 2/4/10 3:14 PM

imo-mcmillan-01.indd 17
Figure 1-6. Where’s the reagent piping? (a)-unsuccessful and (b)-successful pH control systems for a process in which a
powdered line reagent is delivered by a conveyor.

2/4/10 3:14 PM
 18 Process Control Case Histories

reagent delivery time and fed forward to establish the waste flow
set point.
To eliminate downtime due to electrode failures, a system
was installed using three measuring elements and voting logic to
establish the output signal. Use of three rather than two electrode
assemblies makes it possible to determine which signal to use, if the
electrode outputs disagree. This leads me to Fact of Life #10.
Control improved dramatically. Electrode failure due to etch-
ing that had occurred when the solution was acidic—at the unre-
corded lower portion of the square wave—also stopped. And the
use of voting logic to control using three electrode assemblies
has virtually eliminated downtime, even when an element becomes
nonfunctional.

USING YOUR SKILLS

One of the prices you pay for being an instrumentation expert
in the processing industries is that occasionally someone will ask
you to control pH. The job rarely proves to be easy, for instance,
because you are on a flat portion of the titration curve or have wide
tolerance on response and accuracy, because chances are then high
that someone has done it satisfactorily without you. So the prob-
lems you get are usually major problems. You’ll have to call on all
you know about the installation and operation of electrodes, con-
trol valves, piping, and mixing equipment. You’ll have to brush the
cobwebs off your basic understanding of feedback and feedforward
loop strategies. You’ll have to hone your skills as a diplomat to get
the plant to install, replace, or eliminate vessels or instruments that
make life convenient for the operators or maintenance people—
or represent investments for which somebody has a neck on the
line—but are preventing satisfactory pH control. And you’ll have
to resign yourself to living out of your suitcase for a while, while
the plant starts up and experiences the magical mystery of pH.

REFERENCE
1. McMillan, G K. and Cameron, R.A.; Advanced pH Measurement and
Control. 3rd edition. ISA (Research Triangle Park NC), 2005.

imo-mcmillan-01.indd 18 2/4/10 3:14 PM