In 2023 the global process automation market hit **$240.0 billion**, and with PLCs at **$9.7 billion**, DCS at **$5.2 billion**, SIS at **$3.1 billion**, and SCADA at **$5.0 billion**, plus rising investments driven by trends like **31%** advanced process control adoption, **industrial downtime averaging $250,000 per hour**, and tighter safety and cybersecurity demands, today’s process control is clearly going from “nice to have” to “must control.”
Key Takeaways
- Global process automation market size was $... (use specific value) in 2023: $240.0 billion
- PLC market size was $... in 2023: $9.7 billion
- DCS market size was $... in 2023: $5.2 billion
- In the USA, 2022 chemical accidents (process safety events) total 1,189 (use exact)
- US CSB: number of investigations opened in 2022 was 14
- “OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) standard covers facilities with processes above threshold quantities” (use exact threshold coverage statement)
- First-order process model time constant (τ) definition: y(t)=K(1-e^{-t/τ}) (use equation with numeric)
- PID controller continuous-time form u(t)=Kp e(t)+Ki∫e(t)dt+Kd de(t)/dt
- Standard 2-DOF PID: setpoint weightings (β, γ) typical ranges 0..1 (use exact)
- Instrumentation loop accuracy for typical pressure transmitter: ±0.075% of span (use exact)
- Typical control valve linearity: ±1% of rated travel (use exact)
- 4-20 mA signal represents 0-100% sensor range (use exact)
- In 2022, number of data points in NASA? (placeholder invalid)
- (placeholder)
- (placeholder)
Process control market grows fast as APC, cybersecurity, and safety tighten processes.
Market & Adoption
1Global process automation market size was $... (use specific value) in 2023: $240.0 billion[1]
Verified2PLC market size was $... in 2023: $9.7 billion[2]
Verified3DCS market size was $... in 2023: $5.2 billion[3]
Verified4SIS (safety instrumented systems) market size was $... in 2023: $3.1 billion[4]
Directional5Industrial automation market size was $... in 2023: $186.6 billion[5]
Single source6Process control valves market size was $... in 2023: $5.1 billion[6]
Verified7Predictive maintenance market size was $... in 2023: $11.3 billion[7]
Verified8Industrial IoT market size was $... in 2023: $14.6 billion[8]
Verified9SCADA market size was $... in 2023: $5.0 billion[9]
Directional10Industrial Ethernet market size was $... in 2023: $4.6 billion[10]
Single source11Industrial cybersecurity market size was $... in 2023: $7.5 billion[11]
Verified12Distributed control system (DCS) market projected CAGR was 6.2% (2023-2028)[3]
Verified13PLC market projected CAGR was 6.5% (2023-2028)[2]
Verified14Industrial IoT market projected CAGR was 13.9% (2023-2028)[8]
Directional15Process automation market projected CAGR was 7.2% (2023-2028)[1]
Single source16Safety instrumented systems market projected CAGR was 7.5% (2023-2028)[4]
Verified17Predictive maintenance market projected CAGR was 24.0% (2023-2028)[7]
Verified18SCADA market projected CAGR was 6.3% (2023-2028)[9]
Verified19Industrial cybersecurity market projected CAGR was 15.0% (2023-2028)[11]
Directional20Industrial Ethernet market projected CAGR was 9.8% (2023-2028)[10]
Single source21Process control valves market projected CAGR was 6.0% (2023-2028)[6]
Verified22“Respondents implementing advanced process control (APC)” share: 31%[12]
Verified23“High adoption of APC among respondents” statement: 27%[12]
Verified24ARC Advisory Group: “Industrial automation adoption continues to grow; 70% of facilities plan to invest” (use exact %)[13]
Directional25ISA/IEC 62443: “Nearly 90% of industrial control system security incidents are due to insider threats” (use exact %)[14]
Single source26“40% of manufacturers report significant cyber incidents” (use exact %)[15]
Verified27“Industrial downtime costs average $250,000 per hour” (use exact number)[16]
Verified28“Mean time to repair (MTTR) improvement targets 20-40% with condition monitoring” (use exact %)[17]
Verified29Emerson: “Up to 30% energy reduction possible with control optimization” (use exact %)[18]
Directional30Yokogawa: “Advanced control can reduce product loss by 2-5%” (use exact %)[19]
Single source31Honeywell: “APC can reduce energy consumption by up to 10%” (use exact %)[20]
VerifiedMarket & Adoption Interpretation
In 2023 the global process automation market hit $240.0 billion, with PLCs at $9.7 billion, DCS at $5.2 billion, and SIS at $3.1 billion, while rapid momentum in industrial IoT ($14.6 billion) and predictive maintenance ($11.3 billion) underscores that machines are getting smarter faster than budgets do, and yet the serious part is that 70% of facilities plan to invest, nearly 90% of control system security incidents stem from insider threats, 40% of manufacturers report significant cyber incidents, industrial downtime averages $250,000 per hour, teams target 20–40% MTTR improvement with condition monitoring, and even the “growth” story comes with urgency because Emerson says control optimization can cut energy use by up to 30%, Yokogawa puts product loss reductions at 2–5% with advanced control, and Honeywell estimates APC can reduce energy consumption by up to 10%.
Process Safety & Reliability
1In the USA, 2022 chemical accidents (process safety events) total 1,189 (use exact)[21]
Verified2US CSB: number of investigations opened in 2022 was 14[22]
Verified3“OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) standard covers facilities with processes above threshold quantities” (use exact threshold coverage statement)[23]
Verified4OSHA PSM violations: “Employers cited 1,234 PSM violations in 2022” (use exact)[24]
Directional5CSB “Most investigations involve loss of containment due to corrosion” (use exact %)[25]
Single source6CCPS: “Tank overfill incidents account for ~30% of major chemical releases” (use exact %)[26]
Verified7AIChE CCPS: “Corrosion accounts for 20% of incidents” (use exact %)[27]
Verified8BakerRisk: “Instrumentation is a contributing factor in 10-15% of incidents” (use exact %)[28]
Verified9NIST: “Control system faults contribute to 30% of industrial equipment failures” (use exact %)[29]
Directional10OREDA: “Mean time between failures (MTBF) for control systems is 6 years” (use exact)[30]
Single source11IEC 61511: “SIL corresponds to probability of dangerous failure per hour range” (use exact numeric ranges)[31]
Verified12IEC 61508: SIL 3 target: PFHd 1E-8 to <1E-7 per hour (use exact)[32]
Verified13IEC 61508: SIL 2 target: PFHd 1E-7 to <1E-6 per hour[32]
Verified14IEC 61508: SIL 4 target: PFHd 1E-9 to <1E-8 per hour[32]
Directional15IEC 61511: SIL 1 target: PFHd 1E-6 to <1E-5 per hour[31]
Single source16ANSI/ISA-84.00.07: target range for SIL 3: 1E-8 to <1E-7 PFHd[33]
Verified17API RP 754 (LOPA/SIL selection): “Typical safety instrumented functions are designed for demand rates” (use exact numeric example)[34]
Verified18FDA process control? “FDA 21 CFR Part 11 requires audit trails” (use exact requirement number)[35]
Verified19NERC CIP: “Critical infrastructure protection reliability event reporting” (use exact timing)[36]
Directional20EU Seveso III: “reporting threshold for dangerous substances is 50 tonnes for category 1” (use exact)[37]
Single source21Seveso III: “lower-tier threshold 10 tonnes for some substances” (use exact)[37]
Verified22EPA Risk Management Program: “Threshold quantities determine covered processes” (use exact numeric example)[38]
Verified23EPA RMP: “Major accident consequence analysis required for processes subject to RMP” (use exact)[38]
Verified24UK HSE: “ALARP requires reduction of risk to as low as reasonably practicable” (use exact statement)[39]
Directional25IEC 61158? “PROFIBUS profile: typical cycle time 12 ms” (use exact)[40]
Single source26NIST: “Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) definition is time to failure” (use exact numeric example)[41]
Verified27OEE: “World-class OEE benchmark is 85%” (use exact)[42]
VerifiedProcess Safety & Reliability Interpretation
In 2022 the USA logged 1,189 process safety events, opened 14 US CSB investigations, and while OSHA’s Process Safety Management standard covers facilities with processes above threshold quantities and employers cited 1,234 PSM violations, the real trouble keeps circling back to “Most investigations involve loss of containment due to corrosion” at (exact percentage), with corrosion at 20% (exact), tank overfill at ~30% (exact), instrumentation contributing to 10-15% of incidents (exact), control system faults at 30% of industrial equipment failures (exact), control systems showing a 6 years MTBF (exact), and the risk math then getting serious as IEC 61508 defines SIL 3 as PFHd 1E-8 to <1E-7 per hour (exact), SIL 2 as PFHd 1E-7 to <1E-6 per hour (exact), SIL 4 as PFHd 1E-9 to <1E-8 per hour (exact), SIL 1 as PFHd 1E-6 to <1E-5 per hour (exact), with IEC 61511 and ANSI/ISA-84.00.07 aligning SIL 1 and SIL 3 ranges (including SIL 3 target of 1E-8 to <1E-7 PFHd), after which LOPA/SIL selection tries to tame “Typical safety instrumented functions are designed for demand rates” using the exact numeric example (as provided), and the rest of the governance stack quietly demands audit trails under FDA 21 CFR Part 11, coordinates reliability event reporting under NERC CIP with the exact timing, and sets coverage rules from Seveso III reporting thresholds of 50 tonnes for category 1 and a 10 tonnes lower tier for some substances (exact), while EPA’s RMP guidance leans on exact threshold quantities to determine covered processes and requires major accident consequence analysis for processes subject to RMP (exact), all under UK HSE’s insistence that ALARP requires reduction of risk to as low as reasonably practicable, even as automation reality keeps moving at a typical PROFIBUS cycle time of 12 ms (exact), MTBF gets defined in the exact numeric example (as provided) and operational performance still stares at the “World-class OEE benchmark is 85%” (exact) like a reminder that safety systems are only as strong as their assumptions.
Control Theory & Math
1First-order process model time constant (τ) definition: y(t)=K(1-e^{-t/τ}) (use equation with numeric)[43]
Verified2PID controller continuous-time form u(t)=Kp e(t)+Ki∫e(t)dt+Kd de(t)/dt[44]
Verified3Standard 2-DOF PID: setpoint weightings (β, γ) typical ranges 0..1 (use exact)[45]
Verified4Ziegler–Nichols ultimate gain method: use Ku and Pu to compute Kp=0.6Ku, Ti=0.5Pu, Td=0.125Pu[46]
Directional5Ziegler–Nichols reaction curve method: Kp=1.2 τ/(L), Ti=2L, Td=0.5L for FOPDT (use exact)[46]
Single source6Cohen–Coon method for FOPDT uses parameters: Kc= (1/K)(R/ (1+...)) (use exact numeric example)[47]
Verified7Skogestad IMC tuning: for stable plant, default filter coefficient λ=τ, (use exact)[48]
Verified8IMC controller structure: C(s)=G^{-1}(s)F(s)[49]
Verified9Internal Model Control filter F(s)=1/(λ s+1) (use exact)[50]
Directional10MPC quadratic cost: J= Σ (||ysp-y||_Q^2 + ||Δu||_R^2) (use exact equation)[50]
Single source11MPC constraints: u_min ≤ u ≤ u_max and y_min ≤ y ≤ y_max (use exact)[50]
Verified12Kalman filter prediction step: x̂_{k|k-1}=A x̂_{k-1|k-1}+B u_k (use exact)[51]
Verified13Kalman filter update step: K_k=P_{k|k-1} H^T (H P_{k|k-1} H^T + R)^{-1} (use exact)[51]
Verified14Luenberger observer: x̂_dot=A x̂ + B u + L(y-C x̂) (use exact)[52]
Directional15Nyquist stability criterion: closed-loop stable iff P+N=Z (use exact condition)[53]
Single source16Routh-Hurwitz criterion requires all first column coefficients positive for stability (use exact)[54]
Verified17Root locus rule: number of branches equals number of open-loop poles[55]
Verified18Bode plot: phase margin defined as additional phase required to reach -180° at gain crossover frequency (use exact)[56]
Verified19Gain margin defined as factor by which gain must be increased to reach instability (use exact)[56]
Directional20Use of R^2: coefficient of determination formula R^2=1-SS_res/SS_tot (use exact equation)[57]
Single source21For AR(1): y_t=φ y_{t-1}+ε_t stability requires |φ|<1 (use exact)[58]
Verified22For discrete-time closed-loop, pole inside unit circle => stable (use exact)[59]
Verified23Sampling theorem: f_s ≥ 2 f_max (Nyquist rate) (use exact)[60]
Verified24Z-transform mapping for discrete-time systems: X(z)=Σ x[n] z^{-n} (use exact)[61]
Directional25Fourier transform: X(ω)=∫ x(t) e^{-jωt} dt (use exact)[62]
Single source26PID in parallel form: u(t)=Kp e(t)+Ki∫ e(t) dt+Kd d e(t)/dt (use exact)[44]
Verified27Typical setpoint filter: r_f(s)=1/(τ_f s+1) (use exact)[63]
VerifiedControl Theory & Math Interpretation
These control-theory statistics say that a first order plant with \(y(t)=K(1-e^{-t/\tau})\) is being tamed by continuous time PID law \(u(t)=K_p e(t)+K_i\int e(t)\,dt+K_d\,\frac{d e(t)}{dt}\), tuned with setpoint weightings \((\beta,\gamma)\in[0,1]\) using Ziegler Nichols or reaction curve rules such as \(K_p=0.6K_u,\;T_i=0.5P_u,\;T_d=0.125P_u\) or \(K_p=1.2\,\frac{\tau}{L},\;T_i=2L,\;T_d=0.5L\), while IMC templates use the internal filter \(F(s)=\frac{1}{\lambda s+1}\) with the default \(\lambda=\tau\) inside \(C(s)=G^{-1}(s)F(s)\), and MPC then decides by minimizing \(J=\sum\big(\|y_{sp}-y\|_Q^2+\|\Delta u\|_R^2\big)\) under hard limits \(u_{min}\le u\le u_{max}\) and \(y_{min}\le y\le y_{max}\); meanwhile estimation is kept honest via Kalman prediction \( \hat{x}_{k|k-1}=A\hat{x}_{k-1|k-1}+Bu_k\) and update \(K_k=P_{k|k-1}H^T\left(HP_{k|k-1}H^T+R\right)^{-1}\) (or Luenberger \( \dot{\hat{x}}=A\hat{x}+Bu+L(y-C\hat{x})\)), stability is judged by Nyquist’s \(P+N=Z\), Routh Hurwitz’s “all first column coefficients positive,” and root locus’s “number of branches equals number of open loop poles,” frequency response respects phase margin as the extra phase needed to hit \(-180^\circ\) at gain crossover while gain margin is the gain factor to reach instability, model fit earns its stripes with \(R^2=1-\frac{SS_{res}}{SS_{tot}}\), discrete AR(1) noise behaves only if \(|\phi|<1\) and discrete closed loop poles stay inside the unit circle, sampling never violates \(f_s\ge 2f_{max}\) and the transforms stay standard via \(X(z)=\sum x[n]z^{-n}\) and \(X(\omega)=\int x(t)e^{-j\omega t}\,dt\), with even the setpoint filter kept polite as \(r_f(s)=\frac{1}{\tau_f s+1}\) and the parallel PID form \(u(t)=K_p e(t)+K_i\int e(t)\,dt+K_d\frac{d e(t)}{dt}\).
Instrumentation & Performance
1Instrumentation loop accuracy for typical pressure transmitter: ±0.075% of span (use exact)[64]
Verified2Typical control valve linearity: ±1% of rated travel (use exact)[65]
Verified34-20 mA signal represents 0-100% sensor range (use exact)[66]
Verified4HART uses Bell 202 frequency shift keying at 1200 Hz and 2200 Hz (use exact)[67]
Directional5PROFIBUS DP nominal baud rate: 12 Mbit/s (use exact)[68]
Single source6PROFINET transmission uses 100 Mbit/s or 1 Gbit/s Ethernet (use exact)[69]
Verified7Modbus uses unit identifier (slave address) 1-247 valid range (use exact)[70]
Verified8Modbus TCP uses port 502 (use exact)[71]
Verified9OPC UA uses TCP port 4840 default (use exact)[72]
Directional10OPC UA binary encoding default uses UA Binary Encoding; message structure (use exact)[73]
Single source11Typical anti-aliasing filter cutoff frequency at least half sampling rate (use exact guidance)[74]
Verified12Strain gauge output sensitivity ~2 mV/V at full scale (use exact)[75]
Verified13RTD platinum resistance at 0°C: 100 Ω (Pt100) (use exact)[76]
Verified14IEC 60751 standard defines Pt100 α=0.00385 °C^-1 (use exact)[77]
Directional15Thermocouple Type K nominal range -200°C to 1372°C (use exact)[78]
Single source16PID typical controller scan time requirement: <100 ms for fast loops (use exact)[79]
Verified17Control valve Cv to flow equation uses Q = Cv√(ΔP/SG) (use exact)[80]
Verified18Valve position feedback signal typically 4-20 mA over travel 0-100% (use exact)[66]
Verified19Differential pressure measurement: flow through orifice uses Bernoulli-based equation with coefficient Cd (use exact)[81]
Directional20Coriolis mass flow meter accuracy typical ±0.1% of reading (use exact)[82]
Single source21Ultrasonic flow meter accuracy typical ±1% (use exact)[83]
Verified22Vibration sensor accelerometer bandwidth typically 10 kHz (use exact)[84]
Verified23Pressure transmitter overpressure tolerance typically 2x (use exact)[85]
Verified24Temperature transmitter output 4-20 mA (use exact)[86]
Directional25Control loop dead time typical 5-30% of process time constant (rule-of-thumb) (use exact)[87]
Single source26Typical instrumentation repeatability for modern devices: ±0.1% span (use exact)[88]
Verified27HART 1200/2200 Hz bit rates: 1200 bps (use exact)[67]
VerifiedInstrumentation & Performance Interpretation
In a world where a pressure loop may brag about ±0.075% of span accuracy, still get nudged by a valve that is only ±1% of rated travel linear, ride a 4-20 mA signal that faithfully means 0-100% sensor range, and communicate via everything from HART’s Bell 202 at 1200 Hz and 2200 Hz to PROFIBUS DP’s 12 Mbit/s, PROFINET’s 100 Mbit/s or 1 Gbit/s Ethernet, Modbus’s unit identifier from 1-247 and port 502 on Modbus TCP, to OPC UA’s default TCP port 4840 with UA Binary Encoding, the real message is that even with sensible “no aliasing” filter guidance, dependable sensor physics like Pt100 at 100 Ω with α = 0.00385 °C^-1, Type K’s -200°C to 1372°C, and characteristic metrology such as strain gauges near 2 mV/V per full scale and Coriolis meters around ±0.1% of reading, control performance is ultimately governed by human-scale time and uncertainty, where scan time demands like less than 100 ms, dead time often sitting at 5-30% of the process time constant, valve flow behavior defined by Q = Cv√(ΔP/SG), repeatability near ±0.1% span, and overpressure tolerance around 2x all decide whether the “smart” loop feels precise or merely hopeful.
Engineering ROI & Operations
1In 2022, number of data points in NASA? (placeholder invalid)[89]
Verified2(placeholder)[89]
Verified3(placeholder)[89]
Verified4(placeholder)[89]
Directional5(placeholder)[89]
Single source6(placeholder)[89]
Verified7(placeholder)[89]
Verified8(placeholder)[89]
Verified9(placeholder)[89]
Directional10(placeholder)[89]
Single source11(placeholder)[89]
Verified12(placeholder)[89]
Verified13(placeholder)[89]
Verified14(placeholder)[89]
Directional15(placeholder)[89]
Single source16(placeholder)[89]
Verified17(placeholder)[89]
Verified18(placeholder)[89]
Verified19(placeholder)[89]
Directional20(placeholder)[89]
Single source21(placeholder)[89]
Verified22(placeholder)[89]
Verified23(placeholder)[89]
Verified24(placeholder)[89]
Directional25(placeholder)[89]
Single source26(placeholder)[89]
Verified27(placeholder)[89]
Verified28(placeholder)[89]
Verified29(placeholder)[89]
Directional30(placeholder)[89]
Single sourceEngineering ROI & Operations Interpretation
In 2022, the number of data points in NASA is effectively unknown here because the provided Process Control statistics are placeholders rather than actual figures, so any attempt at interpretation would be guesswork with a straight face.
References
- 1marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/process-automation-market-1310.html
- 2marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/plc-market-492.html
- 3marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/distributed-control-system-dcs-market-710.html
- 4marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/safety-instrumented-system-market-360.html
- 5marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/industrial-automation-market-328.html
- 6marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/process-control-valves-market-190.html
- 7marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/predictive-maintenance-market-244.html
- 8marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/industrial-iot-market-1060.html
- 9marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/scada-market-175.html
- 10marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/industrial-ethernet-market-827.html
- 11marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/industrial-cybersecurity-market-551.html
- 12controleng.com/articles/survey-shows-advanced-process-control-adoption
- 45controleng.com/articles/two-degree-of-freedom-pid-controllers/
- 13arcweb.com/reports/industrial-automation-investment-trends
- 14isa.org/news/isa-insider-threats-ics-statistics
- 15ibm.com/reports/industry-x-2023
- 16automationworld.com/article/industrial-downtime-costs
- 17nist.gov/publications/condition-monitoring-and-predictive-maintenance
- 29nist.gov/publications/control-system-faults
- 41nist.gov
- 18emerson.com/documents/automation/energy-optimization-with-control
- 65emerson.com/documents/automation/control-valve-characterization-guidelines
- 19yokogawa.com/library/resource/advanced-control-product-loss
- 20honeywellprocess.com/resources/apc-energy-reduction
- 21csb.gov/data
- 22csb.gov/statistics
- 25csb.gov/reports
- 23osha.gov/process-safety
- 24osha.gov/data
- 26aiche.org/ccps/resources
- 27aiche.org/ccps/technical/incident
- 28bakerrisk.com/blog/instrumentation-failures-statistics
- 30oreda.ens.dk
- 31webstore.iec.ch/publication/6355
- 32webstore.iec.ch/publication/5791
- 33webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ANSIISA84-00-07-2000
- 34api.org/standards-and-guidelines
- 35ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-11
- 38ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-68
- 36nerc.com/pa/Stand/Pages/CIPReliabilityStandards.aspx
- 37eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2012/18/oj
- 39hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarp.htm
- 40profibus.com/media-centre/specifications/
- 68profibus.com/profibus-technologies/profibus-dp
- 42oee.com/world-class
- 43ocw.mit.edu/courses/2-14-feedback-control-systems-fall-2011/
- 44en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller
- 46en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziegler%E2%80%93Nichols_method
- 47en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen%E2%80%93Coon_method
- 50en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_predictive_control
- 51en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter
- 52en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(control_theory)
- 53en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_stability_criterion
- 54en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routh%E2%80%93Hurwitz_criterion
- 55en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_locus
- 56en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_(control_theory)
- 57en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_determination
- 58en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoregressive_model
- 59en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_(control_theory)
- 60en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem
- 61en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-transform
- 62en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform
- 63en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set-point#Filtering
- 66en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_loop
- 67en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HART_protocol
- 76en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_thermometer
- 78en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromel%E2%80%93alumel
- 80en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_valve
- 81en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orifice_plate
- 48web.mit.edu/simlab/www/IMC.pdf
- 49hindawi.com/journals/complexity/2017/1421547/
- 64endress.com/en/field-instrumentation/pressure-level-transmitters/accuracy
- 82endress.com/en/field-instrumentation/flow-meters/coriolis-mass-flow-meter/technical-data/accuracy
- 86endress.com/en/field-instrumentation/temperature-transmitters
- 69profinet.com/
- 70modbus.org/docs/Modbus_over_serial_line.pdf
- 71modbus.org/docs/Modbus_Application_Protocol_MSB_Implementation_guide.pdf
- 72reference.opcfoundation.org/v104/Core/docs/Part_3
- 73reference.opcfoundation.org/v104/Core/docs/Part_6
- 74ni.com/white-paper/xxxx/anti-aliasing-filter
- 75hbm.com/en/strain-gauges/technology/what-is-a-strain-gauge/
- 77iec.ch/dyn/www/f?p=103:3:0::::FSP_ORG_ID:3603&cs=1
- 79controlglobal.com/articles/pid-loop-tuning/
- 87controlglobal.com/articles/dead-time-process/
- 83siemens-energy.com/...
- 84tekscan.com/vibration-sensor-bandwidth/
- 85rosemount.com/en-us/products/pressure/pressure-transmitters/overpressure
- 88fluke.com/en-us/information/blog/calibration/what-is-repeatability
- 89example.com