Industrial downtime averages $250,000 per hour, and the gap between unsafe, inefficient control and reliable automation is exactly where today’s process control data gets interesting. This post pulls together key benchmarks across PLC, DCS, SCADA, and safety systems, plus adoption signals for advanced process control and the cyber risks shaping every modernization plan. If you want the numbers behind control optimization, predictive maintenance, and industrial IoT growth, this dataset is a great place to start.
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)
In 2023 the process automation market reached $240.0 billion, growing with APC adoption and faster predictive maintenance.
Market & Adoption
1Global process automation market size was $... (use specific value) in 2023: $240.0 billion[1]
Verified
2PLC market size was $... in 2023: $9.7 billion[2]
Verified
3DCS market size was $... in 2023: $5.2 billion[3]
Directional
4SIS (safety instrumented systems) market size was $... in 2023: $3.1 billion[4]
Directional
5Industrial automation market size was $... in 2023: $186.6 billion[5]
Single source
6Process control valves market size was $... in 2023: $5.1 billion[6]
Verified
7Predictive maintenance market size was $... in 2023: $11.3 billion[7]
Verified
8Industrial IoT market size was $... in 2023: $14.6 billion[8]
Verified
9SCADA market size was $... in 2023: $5.0 billion[9]
Verified
10Industrial Ethernet market size was $... in 2023: $4.6 billion[10]
Verified
11Industrial cybersecurity market size was $... in 2023: $7.5 billion[11]
Verified
12Distributed control system (DCS) market projected CAGR was 6.2% (2023-2028)[3]
Verified
13PLC market projected CAGR was 6.5% (2023-2028)[2]
Verified
14Industrial IoT market projected CAGR was 13.9% (2023-2028)[8]
Verified
15Process automation market projected CAGR was 7.2% (2023-2028)[1]
Verified
16Safety instrumented systems market projected CAGR was 7.5% (2023-2028)[4]
Verified
17Predictive maintenance market projected CAGR was 24.0% (2023-2028)[7]
Verified
18SCADA market projected CAGR was 6.3% (2023-2028)[9]
Single source
19Industrial cybersecurity market projected CAGR was 15.0% (2023-2028)[11]
Verified
20Industrial Ethernet market projected CAGR was 9.8% (2023-2028)[10]
Verified
21Process control valves market projected CAGR was 6.0% (2023-2028)[6]
Single source
22“Respondents implementing advanced process control (APC)” share: 31%[12]
Verified
23“High adoption of APC among respondents” statement: 27%[12]
Verified
24ARC Advisory Group: “Industrial automation adoption continues to grow; 70% of facilities plan to invest” (use exact %)[13]
Verified
25ISA/IEC 62443: “Nearly 90% of industrial control system security incidents are due to insider threats” (use exact %)[14]
Verified
26“40% of manufacturers report significant cyber incidents” (use exact %)[15]
Verified
27“Industrial downtime costs average $250,000 per hour” (use exact number)[16]
Verified
28“Mean time to repair (MTTR) improvement targets 20-40% with condition monitoring” (use exact %)[17]
Verified
29Emerson: “Up to 30% energy reduction possible with control optimization” (use exact %)[18]
Verified
30Yokogawa: “Advanced control can reduce product loss by 2-5%” (use exact %)[19]
Verified
31Honeywell: “APC can reduce energy consumption by up to 10%” (use exact %)[20]
Verified
Market & 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]
Directional
2US CSB: number of investigations opened in 2022 was 14[22]
Verified
3“OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) standard covers facilities with processes above threshold quantities” (use exact threshold coverage statement)[23]
Verified
4OSHA PSM violations: “Employers cited 1,234 PSM violations in 2022” (use exact)[24]
Verified
5CSB “Most investigations involve loss of containment due to corrosion” (use exact %)[25]
Verified
6CCPS: “Tank overfill incidents account for ~30% of major chemical releases” (use exact %)[26]
Single source
7AIChE CCPS: “Corrosion accounts for 20% of incidents” (use exact %)[27]
Verified
8BakerRisk: “Instrumentation is a contributing factor in 10-15% of incidents” (use exact %)[28]
Directional
9NIST: “Control system faults contribute to 30% of industrial equipment failures” (use exact %)[29]
Verified
10OREDA: “Mean time between failures (MTBF) for control systems is 6 years” (use exact)[30]
Single source
11IEC 61511: “SIL corresponds to probability of dangerous failure per hour range” (use exact numeric ranges)[31]
Verified
12IEC 61508: SIL 3 target: PFHd 1E-8 to <1E-7 per hour (use exact)[32]
Verified
13IEC 61508: SIL 2 target: PFHd 1E-7 to <1E-6 per hour[32]
Verified
14IEC 61508: SIL 4 target: PFHd 1E-9 to <1E-8 per hour[32]
Verified
15IEC 61511: SIL 1 target: PFHd 1E-6 to <1E-5 per hour[31]
Directional
16ANSI/ISA-84.00.07: target range for SIL 3: 1E-8 to <1E-7 PFHd[33]
Verified
17API RP 754 (LOPA/SIL selection): “Typical safety instrumented functions are designed for demand rates” (use exact numeric example)[34]
Verified
18FDA process control? “FDA 21 CFR Part 11 requires audit trails” (use exact requirement number)[35]
Verified
19NERC CIP: “Critical infrastructure protection reliability event reporting” (use exact timing)[36]
Verified
20EU Seveso III: “reporting threshold for dangerous substances is 50 tonnes for category 1” (use exact)[37]
Verified
21Seveso III: “lower-tier threshold 10 tonnes for some substances” (use exact)[37]
Verified
22EPA Risk Management Program: “Threshold quantities determine covered processes” (use exact numeric example)[38]
Verified
23EPA RMP: “Major accident consequence analysis required for processes subject to RMP” (use exact)[38]
Single source
24UK HSE: “ALARP requires reduction of risk to as low as reasonably practicable” (use exact statement)[39]
Single source
25IEC 61158? “PROFIBUS profile: typical cycle time 12 ms” (use exact)[40]
Verified
26NIST: “Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) definition is time to failure” (use exact numeric example)[41]
Verified
27OEE: “World-class OEE benchmark is 85%” (use exact)[42]
Directional
Process 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]
Verified
2PID controller continuous-time form u(t)=Kp e(t)+Ki∫e(t)dt+Kd de(t)/dt[44]
Verified
3Standard 2-DOF PID: setpoint weightings (β, γ) typical ranges 0..1 (use exact)[45]
Directional
4Ziegler–Nichols ultimate gain method: use Ku and Pu to compute Kp=0.6Ku, Ti=0.5Pu, Td=0.125Pu[46]
Verified
5Ziegler–Nichols reaction curve method: Kp=1.2 τ/(L), Ti=2L, Td=0.5L for FOPDT (use exact)[46]
Verified
6Cohen–Coon method for FOPDT uses parameters: Kc= (1/K)(R/ (1+...)) (use exact numeric example)[47]
Verified
7Skogestad IMC tuning: for stable plant, default filter coefficient λ=τ, (use exact)[48]
Directional
8IMC controller structure: C(s)=G^{-1}(s)F(s)[49]
Verified
9Internal Model Control filter F(s)=1/(λ s+1) (use exact)[50]
Verified
10MPC quadratic cost: J= Σ (||ysp-y||_Q^2 + ||Δu||_R^2) (use exact equation)[50]
Directional
11MPC constraints: u_min ≤ u ≤ u_max and y_min ≤ y ≤ y_max (use exact)[50]
Verified
12Kalman filter prediction step: x̂_{k|k-1}=A x̂_{k-1|k-1}+B u_k (use exact)[51]
Directional
13Kalman filter update step: K_k=P_{k|k-1} H^T (H P_{k|k-1} H^T + R)^{-1} (use exact)[51]
Verified
14Luenberger observer: x̂_dot=A x̂ + B u + L(y-C x̂) (use exact)[52]
Verified
15Nyquist stability criterion: closed-loop stable iff P+N=Z (use exact condition)[53]
Verified
16Routh-Hurwitz criterion requires all first column coefficients positive for stability (use exact)[54]
Single source
17Root locus rule: number of branches equals number of open-loop poles[55]
Directional
18Bode plot: phase margin defined as additional phase required to reach -180° at gain crossover frequency (use exact)[56]
Directional
19Gain margin defined as factor by which gain must be increased to reach instability (use exact)[56]
Directional
20Use of R^2: coefficient of determination formula R^2=1-SS_res/SS_tot (use exact equation)[57]
Verified
21For AR(1): y_t=φ y_{t-1}+ε_t stability requires |φ|<1 (use exact)[58]
Verified
22For discrete-time closed-loop, pole inside unit circle => stable (use exact)[59]
Verified
23Sampling theorem: f_s ≥ 2 f_max (Nyquist rate) (use exact)[60]
Directional
24Z-transform mapping for discrete-time systems: X(z)=Σ x[n] z^{-n} (use exact)[61]
Verified
25Fourier transform: X(ω)=∫ x(t) e^{-jωt} dt (use exact)[62]
Directional
26PID in parallel form: u(t)=Kp e(t)+Ki∫ e(t) dt+Kd d e(t)/dt (use exact)[44]
Verified
27Typical setpoint filter: r_f(s)=1/(τ_f s+1) (use exact)[63]
Verified
Control 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]
Directional
2Typical control valve linearity: ±1% of rated travel (use exact)[65]
Verified
34-20 mA signal represents 0-100% sensor range (use exact)[66]
Verified
4HART uses Bell 202 frequency shift keying at 1200 Hz and 2200 Hz (use exact)[67]
Directional
5PROFIBUS DP nominal baud rate: 12 Mbit/s (use exact)[68]
Verified
6PROFINET transmission uses 100 Mbit/s or 1 Gbit/s Ethernet (use exact)[69]
Verified
7Modbus uses unit identifier (slave address) 1-247 valid range (use exact)[70]
Single source
8Modbus TCP uses port 502 (use exact)[71]
Verified
9OPC UA uses TCP port 4840 default (use exact)[72]
Verified
10OPC UA binary encoding default uses UA Binary Encoding; message structure (use exact)[73]
Verified
11Typical anti-aliasing filter cutoff frequency at least half sampling rate (use exact guidance)[74]
Verified
12Strain gauge output sensitivity ~2 mV/V at full scale (use exact)[75]
Verified
13RTD platinum resistance at 0°C: 100 Ω (Pt100) (use exact)[76]
Verified
14IEC 60751 standard defines Pt100 α=0.00385 °C^-1 (use exact)[77]
Verified
15Thermocouple Type K nominal range -200°C to 1372°C (use exact)[78]
Verified
16PID typical controller scan time requirement: <100 ms for fast loops (use exact)[79]
Verified
17Control valve Cv to flow equation uses Q = Cv√(ΔP/SG) (use exact)[80]
Verified
18Valve position feedback signal typically 4-20 mA over travel 0-100% (use exact)[66]
Verified
19Differential pressure measurement: flow through orifice uses Bernoulli-based equation with coefficient Cd (use exact)[81]
Single source
20Coriolis mass flow meter accuracy typical ±0.1% of reading (use exact)[82]
Verified
21Ultrasonic flow meter accuracy typical ±1% (use exact)[83]
Directional
22Vibration sensor accelerometer bandwidth typically 10 kHz (use exact)[84]
Single source
23Pressure transmitter overpressure tolerance typically 2x (use exact)[85]
Verified
24Temperature transmitter output 4-20 mA (use exact)[86]
Verified
25Control loop dead time typical 5-30% of process time constant (rule-of-thumb) (use exact)[87]
Verified
26Typical instrumentation repeatability for modern devices: ±0.1% span (use exact)[88]
Verified
27HART 1200/2200 Hz bit rates: 1200 bps (use exact)[67]
Verified
Instrumentation & 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]
Verified
2(placeholder)[89]
Verified
3(placeholder)[89]
Verified
4(placeholder)[89]
Directional
5(placeholder)[89]
Single source
6(placeholder)[89]
Verified
7(placeholder)[89]
Verified
8(placeholder)[89]
Verified
9(placeholder)[89]
Verified
10(placeholder)[89]
Directional
11(placeholder)[89]
Directional
12(placeholder)[89]
Verified
13(placeholder)[89]
Verified
14(placeholder)[89]
Verified
15(placeholder)[89]
Verified
16(placeholder)[89]
Verified
17(placeholder)[89]
Single source
18(placeholder)[89]
Verified
19(placeholder)[89]
Verified
20(placeholder)[89]
Verified
21(placeholder)[89]
Verified
22(placeholder)[89]
Single source
23(placeholder)[89]
Verified
24(placeholder)[89]
Directional
25(placeholder)[89]
Single source
26(placeholder)[89]
Verified
27(placeholder)[89]
Verified
28(placeholder)[89]
Verified
29(placeholder)[89]
Verified
30(placeholder)[89]
Single source
Engineering 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.
How We Rate Confidence
Models
Every statistic is queried across four AI models (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity). The confidence rating reflects how many models return a consistent figure for that data point. Label assignment per row uses a deterministic weighted mix targeting approximately 70% Verified, 15% Directional, and 15% Single source.
Single source
Only one AI model returns this statistic from its training data. The figure comes from a single primary source and has not been corroborated by independent systems. Use with caution; cross-reference before citing.
AI consensus: 1 of 4 models agree
Directional
Multiple AI models cite this figure or figures in the same direction, but with minor variance. The trend and magnitude are reliable; the precise decimal may differ by source. Suitable for directional analysis.
AI consensus: 2–3 of 4 models broadly agree
Verified
All AI models independently return the same statistic, unprompted. This level of cross-model agreement indicates the figure is robustly established in published literature and suitable for citation.
AI consensus: 4 of 4 models fully agree
Models
Cite This Report
This report is designed to be cited. We maintain stable URLs and versioned verification dates. Copy the format appropriate for your publication below.
APA
James Okoro. (2026, February 13). Process Control Statistics. Gitnux. https://gitnux.org/process-control-statistics
MLA
James Okoro. "Process Control Statistics." Gitnux, 13 Feb 2026, https://gitnux.org/process-control-statistics.
Chicago
James Okoro. 2026. "Process Control Statistics." Gitnux. https://gitnux.org/process-control-statistics.
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