1.4 Electronic vs.

Pneumatic Instruments
H. L. FELDMAN (1969) R. K. KAMINSKI (1985) B. G. LIPTÁK (1995, 2005)

The debate concerning the relative merits of electronic versus
pneumatic instrumentation took place in the middle of the
20th century. As can be seen from the references for this sec-
tion, most of the arguments were published during that period,
and little additional knowledge has been obtained in more
recent decades. Although the debate has been concluded, and
the process control industry has decisively moved into the elec-
tronic and digital age, knowing the arguments — the advantages
and disadvantages of pneumatics versus electronics — can still
be educational. For this reason, and because pneumatics are
still used in the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning indus-
try and in the control valve portion of control loops, this section
has not been deleted from this handbook.
FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED
The main advantages of pneumatic systems over electronic
instruments lies in their safety in hazardous locations and in
the availability of qualified maintenance personnel. However,
electronic systems are favored when computer compatibility,
long transmission distances, or very cold ambient conditions
are expected, or when long-term maintenance is to be mini-
mized (Figure 1.4a).
Perhaps “Pneumatics versus High Technology” would
have been a better title for this section. If a process plant uses
digital electronic control, it is very difficult to justify the use
Signal transmission distance
Maintenance
Capital costs
costs
Electronic
or
pneumatic
?
Signal
Hazardous or safe
compatibility locations
of pneumatics. Naturally, when evaluating the advisability of
pneumatics, one must evaluate the options of analog elec-
tronics, digital controllers with or without computers, distrib-
uted control systems, and programmable logic controllers.
The relative merits of analog vs. digital controls are covered
in Section 1.1 of this volume. In the discussion here, refer-
ences are provided for further reading on the subject.
THE OLD DEBATE
In the debate some decades ago, some authors promoted
1–4 5–9
electronics and others pneumatics. Table 1.4b summa-
rizes the views on both pneumatic and electronic instruments
that are expressed in the first nine referenced articles.
1–18
In the area of maintenance, the referenced literature does
not present convincing evidence that electronics guarantees
reduced maintenance costs, but it does suggest that electronic
instrumentation is easier to maintain and that the life of elec-
tronic instruments is longer. This is because of the wear on the
pivot points, the change in spring elasticity and diaphragm
stretch in pneumatic designs. Maintenance publications, such
as those of ISA, have contributed to making maintenance easier
by promoting modular component designs and self diagnostics.
The argument that pneumatic instruments need dry, clean
air but electronic systems do not is not correct because many
electronic control system include I/P (current-to-air) convert-
ers and electro-pneumatic valve positioners, which also require
14
dry and clean air. Deuschle, in his detailed cost comparison,
points out that the capacity required for the air compressor
serving an electronic control system is about 60% of that
required for a pneumatic system. For a specific application,
17
the rating approach proposed by Tompkins can be considered
for comparing the choice of pneumatics versus electronics.
HVAC DAMPER ACTUATORS
The relative performance of electronic and pneumatic damper
actuators will be discussed below.

Pneumatic Actuators
Erection and maintenance
labor availability Pneumatic dampers are usually throttled over a 5 PSI spring
FIG. 1.4a range such as from 8 to 13 PSIG. Over this range, the damper
Electronic versus pneumatic systems. will move from the closed to the open position if there is no

41

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

42 General

TABLE 1.4b
Viewpoints Expressed on Electronics versus Pneumatics†
Features Electronics Superior Pneumatics Superior About Equal Remarks

Lower initial hardware cost 11,12,13,14,15,16,17*

Lower installation cost 10, 12, 13, 14 11 Ref. 13: Cost for either
varies all over the map
Lower total installed cost 12, 14, 15, 16*
Simpler system design 13, 15, 16*
Shorter check-out and start-up 11*
Shorter training period 11*
Higher dependability (reliability) 11, 15, 16*
Less affected by corrosive 13, 14, 17* Ref. 14: Air acts as a purge
atmospheres
Lower maintenance 12, 14, 17 11 * Ref. 12 cites
user experience
More compatible with 13, 14, 18*
control valves
Greater accuracy 11, 12, 16*
Superior dynamic response 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, Ref. 13: Normally, the fastest
18* response is not necessary
Better suited for long 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18*
transmission distances
Superior computer capability 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18* Ref. 13: This is the primary
reason for selecting electronic
instruments
†
Numbers refer to the references listed at the end of this section.
*
An asterisk marks the preference of this author.

friction and no process load, which resist the movement of
the damper. Usually both are present.
Hysteresis
Resistance forces (FR ) are present, not only because there is
friction between the stem and the hole through which it passes
but because there also is linkage stiffness and axle bind at the
rotary joints. Therefore, because the air is both the control
signal and the power source, its pressure must rise beyond
that required to break free and initiate movement, which
results in overshoot. On the return stroke, the air signal pressure
must drop below the spring force (FS ) before the spring will
overcome friction and start returning the damper. On an actu-
ator with a 4” stroke, this can result in a hysteresis of 1”.
Spring Range Shift
When a process load (FL ) exists on the damper, it will shift
2
the throttling range of the damper. If the actuator area is 15 in. ,
each pound of air signal pressure will generate 15 lb of added
force on the diaphragm (FA ). Therefore, if the process load
(FL ) is, say, 45 lb, that load will shift the throttling range of
the damper by 3 PSIG. Depending on the failure position of
the damper, either the lower or the upper limit of the range
will be shifted. Consequently, if the process load (FL ) is 45 lb,
the throttling of a fail closed (FC) damper will not occur
between 8 and 13 PSIG, but the damper will throttle between
5 and 13 PSIG. Similarly a fail open (FO) damper will throttle
between 8 and 16 PSI.
Direct Coupled Electronic Actuator
When a 2- to 10-VDC signal, generated by a 4- to 20-mADC
signal passing through a 500-ohm resistor, directly operates
the damper, performance is improved. This is because the
direct coupled electronic actuator has a resolution of 160:1,
28
allowing a positioning accuracy that can be as high as 120:1,
which is much superior to that of a pneumatic actuator. This
actuator uses an internal potentiometer to verify its position
with respect to the control signal. Consequently, it is unaf-
fected by friction and process load forces and obeys the rela-
tionship between control signal and internal potentiometer
within +/–0.05 VDC.

© 2006 by Béla Lipták


Pneumatic vs. Electronic
If the pneumatic actuator has no positioner, the problems of
hysteresis and spring range shift will make its performance
inferior to that of a direct coupled electronic design. If the
pneumatic actuator is furnished with a positioner, its perfor-
mance is improved. The amount of improvement depends on
the quality of the positioner, which will determine how close
the loop performance will approach that of the electronic
actuator. In any case, it is not likely that the positioning
accuracy of a pneumatic actuator will approach or reach that
of an electronic one.
The relative costs of the installed pneumatic and electronic
actuators are a function of the quality of the pneumatic posi-
tioner used. If the positioner is of reasonably high quality, the
installed costs will be similar.
CONTROL SIGNALS
Putting together a pneumatic system can be relatively simple.
The 3- to 15-PSIG (0.2- to 1.0-bar) air pressure signal range
permits the teeing in of different manufacturers’ equipment
with very few problems. Other pressure ranges are seldom
used, except when there is reason to amplify the range, such
as to 6 to 30 PSIG.
Much has been written about pneumatic transmission
19–23
lags. In this regard the electronic system is superior;
however, pneumatics systems have been successfully oper-
ated with 250- to 500-ft (75- to 150-m) lines. When boosters
are used, distances of 1000 ft (300 m) and more can be
considered.
21, 22
The longer distances can be attained by spec-
ifying such requirements as higher air capacities and the use
of volume boosters and 3/8 in. (9.38 mm) OD tubing. In order
to reduce transmission distances, field-mounted controllers
22
can also be used. According to Buckley, serious limitations
on performance are caused by:
1. Control valves without positioners
2. The use of 1/4 in. (6.25 mm) rather than 3/8 in. (9.38 mm)
OD tubing
3. Restrictions in manual/automatic switch blocks and
plug-in manifolds
4. Inadequate valve positioner air capacities
5. Single-acting (instead of double-acting) positioners on
cylinder operators
6. Inadequate field air supplies
7. Multiple process lags
The most common analog electronic control or trans-
mission signal is 4 to 20 mA DC. Considerable engineering
must go into all-electronic systems because of impedance
restrictions and polarity, power supply, shielding, and
grounding requirements. In digital control systems, the
© 2006 by Béla Lipták
1.4 Electronic vs. Pneumatic Instruments 43
buses and networks require substantial engineering, partic-
ularly in the area of the interfacing of different suppliers’
products.
The transmission range of the electronic system can be
a mile or more with no time lag. However, this feature is
important only in a minority of control loops.
With regard to electrical noise, pneumatic instruments
are, of course, immune. Electronic systems do experience
problems if shielding and grounding are inadequate. In recent
years, many manufacturers have designed instruments pro-
tected against RFI (radio frequency interference).
CONVERTERS
A pneumatic system does not need additional hardware to
operate an air-operated control valve, whereas an I/P con-
verter must be installed if an electronic loop is to operate a
pneumatic control valve. Because many transmitter outputs
are inherently electronic, pneumatic loops also require I/P
converters for applications involving such transmitters on
temperature, flow, or analytical measurements.
Electronic systems are superior for data loggers, comput-
ers, distributed control, and/or programmable controller
applications. The pneumatic system would require I/Ps, P/Is,
and pneumatic scanning devices for these applications.
ELECTRICAL SAFETY
In many process industries, some locations are hazardous
because of the presence of flammable gases, combustible
dusts, and ignitable fibers. Therefore, equipment in hazardous
areas must be designed so that it will not cause a fire or
explosion (see Section 7.1 in Volume 1 of this handbook for
details). Manufacturers and users agree that pneumatic instru-
ments are inherently safe to use in installations in hazardous
areas. On the other hand, analog and digital electronic instru-
ments require special protection features if they are to operate
in a hazardous environment.
If the area is Class I explosion-proof, where explosive
or ignitable mixtures (in air) of flammable gases or vapors
constitute the hazard, the electronics must meet different require-
ments. Divisions 1 and 2 are defined below:
Division 1: Location is likely to have flammable mix-
tures present under normal conditions or the oper-
ating process equipment is likely to require frequent
maintenance
Division 2: Location is likely to have flammable mix-
tures present only under abnormal conditions
The initial and installed costs for electronic systems will be
a function of the electrical classifications and of the selected
approaches, which are used to meet the requirements of the
44 General
National Electrical Code. The choices include explosion-
proof housings, purging, and intrinsically safe designs. For
Division 2, nonincendiary, nonarcing, and hermetically
sealed equipment can also be considered. (Refer to Chapter 7
in the Measurement volume and to References 24 to 26 in
this section for more information.)
THE MODERN DEBATE
In selecting a control system one must examine the advan-
27
tages and drawbacks of both analog and digital alternatives,
which was the topic of Section 1.1 in this chapter. Digital
controls are compatible with computers, distributed control
systems, programmable controllers, and digital controllers.
References
1. Mathewson, C. E., “Advantage of Electronic Control,” Instruments
and Automation, February 1955, pp. 258–269.
2. “Sun Oil Opts for Electronic Instrumentation,” Canadian Controls
and Instrumentation, February 1968, pp. 29–31.
3. “CPI Swing to Electronic Controls,” Chemical Week, April 13, 1968,
p. 53.
4. Hileman, J. R., “Practical Aspects of Electronic Instruments,” Instru-
mentation Technology, May 1968, pp. 43–47.
5. “A Plug for Pneumatics,” Chemical Week, December 14, 1968, pp. 77
and 79.
6. Maas, M. A. “Pneumatics: It’s Not Dead Yet,” Instruments and Con-
trol Systems, November 1974, pp. 47–52.
7. Martin, R. L., “Simple Solutions to Control Problems,” Chemical
Engineering, May 22, 1978, pp. 103–111.
8. Bailey, S., “Pneumatic Process Controls: An Eternal Case of Bor-
rowed Time,” Control Engineering, October 1978, pp. 39–42.
9. Farmer, E., “Pneumatics in a Digital World,” Instruments and Control
Systems, March 1979, pp. 31–35.
10. Teed, J. T., “Comparative Installation Costs for Miniature Pneumatic
and Electronic Instruments,” Paper 1-LA61, Fall Instrument-Automa-
tion Conference, Instrument Society of America, 1961.
11. Palmer, O. J., “Instrumentation — Pneumatic Versus Electronic,
Which Way To Buy?” Paper 5.4-4-64, 19th Annual Conference,
Instrument Society of America, 1964.
12. Savage, H. L., “Electronic vs. Pneumatic Control Systems,” unpub-
lished paper, 1964.
13. Lynch, B., “Comparison of Electronic and Pneumatic Control Systems,”
Paper presented at the 6th Annual Maintenance Management Sym-
posium, Instrument Society of America, 1971.
14. Deuschle, R., “Pneumatic? Electronic? Which to Buy?” Instruments
and Control Systems, February 1975, pp. 51–54.
15. Lommatsch, E. A., “Pneumatic versus Electronic Instrumentation,”
Chemical Engineering, June 21, 1976, pp. 159–162.
16. Hordeski, M., “When Should You Use Pneumatics, When Electron-
ics?” Instruments and Control Systems, November 1976, pp. 51–55.
17. Tompkins, J., “Pneumatic or Electronic Instrumentation?” Instru-
ments and Control Systems, January 1979, pp. 55–57.
18. Marcovitch, M. J., “Whither Pneumatic and Electronic Instrumenta-
tion?” Chemical Engineering, Deskbook Issue, October 13, 1979,
pp. 45–49.
19. Harriott, P., Process Control, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964,
pp. 204–210.
20. Warnock, J. D., “How Pneumatic Tubing Size Influences Controlla-
bility,” Instrumentation Technology, February 1967, pp. 37–43.
© 2006 by Béla Lipták
21. Buckley, P. S., “Dynamic Design on Pneumatic Control Loops, Part
I: Analysis by Segments,” Instrumentation Technology, April 1975,
pp. 33–40.
22. Buckley, P. S., “Dynamic Design of Pneumatic Control Loops, Part
II: Application Principles and Practices,” Instrumentation Technology,
June 1975, pp. 39–42.
23. Shinskey, F. G., Process Control Systems, 2nd ed., New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1979, pp. 38–40.
24. Magison, E. C., Electrical Instruments in Hazardous Locations, 3rd
ed., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: Instrument Society of
America, 1978.
25. Oudar, J., “Intrinsic Safety,” Measurements and Control, October
1981, pp. 153–160.
26. Garside, R., Intrinsically Safe Instrumentation: A Guide, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina: Instrument Society of America, 1982.
27. Kaminski, R. K., “The Basic Control Choice,” Instrumentation Tech-
nology, July 1973, p. 41.
28. Belimo Aircontrols Inc., Electronic vs. Pneumatic Actuation, Dan-
bury, CT, 2003.
Bibliography
Bailey, S. J., “Process Control 1979: A Year of Drastic Change, and More
To Come,” Control Engineering, October 1979.
Bailey, S. J., “The Programmable Controller Is Finding Its In-Line Niche,”
Control Engineering, February 1980.
Bowron, J., “DCS vs. PLC — Enough Already!” InTech, September 1992.
Cocheo, S., “How to Evaluate Distributed Computer Control Systems,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, June 1981.
“The Configurations of Process Control: 1979,” Control Engineering,
March 1979.
D’Abreo, F. A., “Replacing Installed Process Control Computers,” Instru-
mentation Technology, July 1982.
Dartt, S. R., “Distributed Digital Control — Its Pros and Cons,” Chemical
Engineering, September 6, 1982.
Giles, R. G., and Bullock, J. E., “Justifying the Cost of Computer Control,”
Control Engineering, May 1976.
Hall, J., and Kuhfeld, R., “Industry Leaders Look at 1982,” Instruments and
Control Systems, January 1982.
Hickey, J., “The Interconnect Dilemma,” Instrument and Control Systems,
December 1981.
Kompass, E. J., “The Long-Term Trends in Control,” Control Engineering,
September 1979.
Ledgerwood, B. K., “Trends in Control,” Control Engineering, May 1982.
McAdams, T. H., “Digital Control at Half the Cost of Analog,” Instruments
and Control Systems, April 1977.
McNeil, E. B., “A User’s View of Instrumentation,” Chemical Processing,
October 1982.
Merritt, R., “Large Control Systems: Big Price Tags but Even Bigger
Returns,” Instrument and Control Systems, December 1981.
Miller, T. J., “New PCs Exemplify Trends to Smaller Size and Distributed
Network Compatibility,” Control Engineering, January 1983.
Morris, H. M., “Operator Convenience Is Key as Process Controllers Evolve,”
Control Engineering, March 1981.
Neal, D., “The Datalogger Moves into Control,” Instruments and Control
Systems, November 1982.
Pluhar, K., “International Manufacturers Offer Many Choices in Process
Control Systems,” Control Engineering, January 1980.
Rapley, D. E., “How to Select Distributed Control and Data Systems,”
Instrumentation Technology, September 1980.
Sheridan, T. B., “Interface Needs for Coming Industrial Controls,” Instru-
mentation Technology, February 1982.
Smith, D. R., “Is Your Control Computer Obsolete?” Instruments and Control
Systems, February 1982.
“Special Report on Programmable Controllers,” Plant Services, June 1982.
 1.4 Electronic vs. Pneumatic Instruments 45

Stanton, B.D., “Designing Distributed Computer Control Systems,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, June 1981.
Stanton, B.D., “Reduce Problems in New Control System Design,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, August 1982.
Thurston, C. W., “Experience with a Large Distributed Control System,”
Control Engineering, June 1979.
Warenskjold, G. A., “Microprocessor vs. Analog Control for the Nicholasville
Water Treatment Facility,” Annual Conference, Instrument Society of
America, 1978.
Williams, T. J., “Two Decades of Change — A Review of the 20-Year History
of Computer Control,” Control Engineering, September 1977.

© 2006 by Béla Lipták