Construction Digital Twin: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Catherine Yang and Version 1 by Iraj Esmaeili.

The Digital Twin (DT), as a real-time and data-connected virtual replica of a physical asset, introduces a new paradigm in the construction industry. Industry 4.0 encompasses ample benefits for various industries such as manufacturing, aerospace, systems engineering, oil and gas, construction, etc. As one of the main concepts of Industry 4.0, Digital Twin bespeaks a new paradigm in the construction industry as a real-time virtual replica of a physical asset. Several industries, such as manufacturing, automotives, aviation and healthcare, are extensively using the concepts of Industry 4.0, but the construction industry is in its infancy in terms of adopting and implementing Industry 4.0 principles. Moreover, to date, most construction industry studies and practices have focused on implementing DT in the operation and maintenance phase of facilities and the use of DT in the construction phase has not been addressed sufficiently.

  • construction digital twin
  • construction phase
  • data-driven construction

1. Introduction

Although the ample benefits of Industry 4.0 have been proven, and industries such as automotive manufacturing and maintenance are focusing on the interaction between industry elements and IoT devices, the construction industry is lagging in the implementation of Industry 4.0 technologies such as Digital Twin (DT) [1,2][1][2]. In the embracing of Industry 4.0 concepts, Construction 4.0 initially relied on the extensive application of Building Information Modeling (BIM) in different stages of the product/asset lifecycle, while subsequently focusing on different areas of innovation such as industrial modular production, cyber-physical systems (CPS), supply chain and construction site works monitoring and data analytics including big data, Artificial Intelligence (AI), cloud computing and blockchain [3,4][3][4]. In addition to BIM, Digital Twin (DT), as one of the main concepts of Industry 4.0 and a subset of a CPS, bespeaks a new paradigm in the construction industry as a real-time virtual replica of a physical asset.
Construction companies are seeking to adopt new technologies to increase their profits and add value for their customers. Particularly in a context where construction project complexity is growing and coupled with the need for higher productivity, innovative solutions for tackling such challenges, such as Industry 4.0 technologies, are in demand [4]. Hence, a general contractor can benefit from a Construction Digital Twin (CDT) during its construction activities to increase its profits, decrease risks and also increase its customer satisfaction at the delivery and hand-over stage.

2. Digital Twin—An Industry 4.0 Concept

Industry 4.0 is a collective term for a number of building blocks consisting of Internet of Things (IoT), Big Data, Cloud Computing, the Internet of Services, Cyber-Physical System (CPS), Smart Factories, Advanced Manufacturing, Digital Twin, etc. [5,6,7][5][6][7]. The essential building blocks of Industry 4.0 are cyber-physical systems (CPS) that link the digital and physical worlds through networks and computational resources [2,7][2][7].
As a specific form of a CPS, Digital Twin aims to provide a digital replica of the physical product or process in real time or near real time and capture all useful information throughout the product or process’s lifecycle [6,8][6][8]. Serving as the virtual and computerized counterpart of a physical system, DT enables the simulation and real-time synchronization of the sensed data from the field acquired via enabling technologies of Industry 4.0 such as IoT [5].

3. Digital Twin

Grieves and NASA provided the first definitions of Digital Twin. Although there is no universally accepted definition of Digital Twin due to different viewpoints, researchers and institutions have provided broader definitions of Digital Twin [6,9][6][9]. Table 1 provides various definitions provided in the literature with respect to their associated industry.
Table 1.
Definitions of Digital Twin in various industries.
Reference Definition Industry
Glaessgen and Stargel [10] A Digital Twin is an integrated multi-physics, multiscale, probabilistic simulation of an as-built vehicle or system that uses the best available physical models, sensor updates, fleet history, etc., to mirror the life of its corresponding flying twin. Aeronautics
Negri et al. [5] the virtual and computerized counterpart of a physical system that can be used to simulate it for various purposes, exploiting a real-time synchronization of the sensed data coming from the field. Manufacturing
Hasan et al. [2] a representation of a physical entity via a virtual model that mimics its change in state whether it is mechanical motion or physical/dimensional changes. Construction
Xu et al. [11] a comprehensive virtual copy of the physical operating facility throughout its complete lifecycle—starting from idea and up to decommissioning and project closure. Construction
LaGrange [12] advanced 3D models, representing dynamic, cross-domain digital models that mirror the performance and operation of a physical asset or process as it moves through the lifecycle—from design, engineering, construction, commissioning, and finally, into operation. Oil and Gas
Khajavi et al. [13] The digital counterpart of a physical asset designed to integrate real-time sensor readings to analyse and improve asset’s operational efficiency and interaction with the environment and users, and to enable predictive maintenance. Construction
National Infrastructure Commission [14] A digital twin is a virtual representation of a physical object or system across its lifecycle, using real-time data to enable understanding, learning and reasoning. Infrastructure
Madni et al. [15] A digital twin is a dynamic virtual representation of a physical system that is continually updated with its physical twin’s performance, maintenance, and health status data throughout its life cycle. Systems Engineering
Jones et al. [16] a system that couples physical entities to virtual counterparts, leveraging the benefits of both the virtual and physical environments to the benefit of the entire system. Manufacturing
Bolton et al. [17] a realistic digital representation of assets, processes or systems in the built or natural environment. Built Environment
Pan and Zhang [18] a mirror and digital depiction of the actual production process, which can imitate all aspects of physical processes under the integration of physical products, virtual products, and relevant connection data. Construction
B.I.M. Dictionary [19] A set of digital assets—models, documents and datasets—that mirror a physical Asset for part/whole of the Asset Life Cycle. Built Environment
Grieves [20] a virtual, digital equivalent to a physical product … [and] rich representations of products that are virtually indistinguishable from their physical counterparts. Manufacturing
Boje et al. [21] the digital representation of the building, enriched by the addition of sensing capabilities, big data and the Internet of Things from site to building operation. Construction
Barricelli et al. [22] A DT is a living, intelligent and evolving model, being the virtual counterpart of a physical entity or process. General
Grieves and Vickers [23] the Digital Twin is a set of virtual information constructs that fully describes a potential or actual physical manufactured product from the micro atomic level to the macro geometrical level. Manufacturing
A close look at the provided definitions leads to the understanding that, regardless of the industry type, a DT is basically composed of a physical entity, a virtual entity that represents its respective physical peer and a data link to couple these two to capture the status of the physical entity. Moreover, the various definitions provided in Table 1 imply the spread of the DT in different industries, including construction and the built environment.

4. Digital Twin in the Construction Industry

Increased interest in the Digital Twin has encouraged the construction industry to follow this concept. However, in the AEC/FM industry, the DT has not been defined comprehensively by both academia and practitioners, and it is often confused with BIM models for design, construction and operation/maintenance [9,12,24][9][12][24]. Unlike BIM, which reflects the states of a project in a static manner, Digital Twin is dynamic and holds a bi-directional connection with the physical asset and captures its status in real time or near real time.
In the construction industry, improving productivity, sustainability, safety and achieving other organization or project goals are the key purposes of a DT [25]. Infrastructures, the built environment and city assets can benefit from the applications of DT in monitoring, managing and predicting an asset’s current and future status. For instance, Pan and Zhang [18] proposed a Digital Twin framework integrating BIM, IoT and data mining techniques for a more efficient project management. Lu et al. [1] presented a system architecture to implement the DT at building and city levels, focusing on Facility Management (FM). Ham and Kim [26] worked on the DT at the city level by proposing a method for leveraging unstructured crowdsourced visual data for locating objects in urban areas that are vulnerable and have potential risks for citizens. A number of researchers conducted studies in the area of the DT in the construction industry [2,4,27,28,29,30,31,32][2][4][27][28][29][30][31][32] and, as Boje et al. [21] and Wanasinghe et al. [9] revealed, using DT in various industries, especially the construction industry, has gained momentum in the recent years.

5. Digital Twin in the Construction Phase: Construction Digital Twin (CDT)

In the product manufacturing stage, DT can realize real-time product monitoring and accurately predict performance. In addition, with the utilization of DT, the consistency of the final product with the required specifications can be evaluated at this stage [33]. In this sense, the building products constructed, fabricated and installed by the general contractor can be monitored and checked against the required performance level by using a DT. Having said that, the DT can verify or predict the effective performance of the building component in real time, which can be the basis for quality check assessments and, subsequently, payments to the general contractor. Monitoring the building components, workers and construction equipment is a challenge during the construction phase. Therefore, the DT approach for the construction stage can often be highly desirable since it enables actionable knowledge and effective decision making in the construction phase based on real-time data and measured productivity and performing “what-if” scenarios, which in turn reduces the construction waste (in the broad sense of time, effort, materials) to a great extent [3,9,12,34][3][9][12][34].
Although the design and construction phases of a project account for a considerable portion of the total project’s cost (up to 40 percent), most construction industry studies and practices have focused on the implementation of the DT in the operation and maintenance phase of facilities [35] and the level of DT development during construction is still very low [21]. Considering the substantial impact of the design and construction processes of an asset on its operation costs [21], any benefit from the DT during construction will have added value. In addition, the gathered data from the current monitoring technologies (e.g., range finders, laser scanning, GPS, RFID, Wi-Fi, UWB, smart sensors, etc.) in the construction industry are generally used in an isolated fashion with a single-subject focus where there are very few cases of the integrated use of more than one technology [3]. There is also a lack of clarity on the potential technologies for higher levels of CDT in terms of integration with socio-technical platforms and using simulation, optimization, learning and end-user engagement, mainly due to a lack of implementation and research at such levels of sophistication [21].
Sacks et al. [3] focus on developing a Digital Twin Construction workflow for the design and construction processes of a product. Depending on the nature of the contract and the project delivery system (Design Bid Build, Design Build, etc.), a general contractor might or might not be engaged with the design process. In addition, in many processes, such as construction supply management and construction equipment management, the general contractor intends to control and improve its internal processes rather than having a comparison between the as-design and as-built statuses. They present a conceptual workflow for the planning and control of the design and construction processes using Digital Twin information systems while leaving the researchers/practitioners without solid practices in the design or construction process. Their emphasis on the impossibility of having a closed loop model of construction control prior to the new enabling technologies is not valid in the real construction practice. They define Plan, Do, Check and Act cycles as the structure to achieve a closed loop production control. Either manually or automatically, by any technology, if not all for most construction processes, monitoring, comparing current and designed/planned status and acting accordingly is a routine project control practice.
Essential to the execution of a process or producing a product in construction, a flow of information including material, labor and equipment information is needed. Capturing the information flow about the product and process and considering their constraints on a specific time basis, which is determined by the project specifications, nature of the product/process, etc., would enable actionable decisions. Despite the existing literature that focuses on a single stream of information (material, or labor, or equipment), as depicted in the case study, the CDT framework developed in this research requires the acquisition of all the necessary information of the product or process through the deployment and integration of the enabling technologies.

References

  1. Lu, Q.; Parlikad, A.K.; Woodall, P.; Don Ranasinghe, G.; Xie, X.; Liang, Z.; Konstantinou, E.; Heaton, J.; Schooling, J. Developing a Digital Twin at Building and City Levels: Case Study of West Cambridge Campus. J. Manag. Eng. 2020, 36, 05020004.
  2. Hasan, S.M.; Lee, K.; Moon, D.; Kwon, S.; Jinwoo, S.; Lee, S. Augmented reality and digital twin system for interaction with construction machinery. J. Asian Arch. Build. Eng. 2021, 21, 564–574.
  3. Sacks, R.; Brilakis, I.; Pikas, E.; Xie, H.S.; Girolami, M. Construction with digital twin information systems. Data-Cent. Eng. 2020, 1, e14.
  4. Turner, C.J.; Oyekan, J.; Stergioulas, L.; Griffin, D. Utilizing Industry 4.0 on the Construction Site: Challenges and Opportunities. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2021, 17, 746–756.
  5. Negri, E.; Fumagalli, L.; Macchi, M. A Review of the Roles of Digital Twin in CPS-based Production Systems. Procedia Manuf. 2017, 11, 939–948.
  6. Kan, C.; Anumba, C.J. Digital Twins as the Next Phase of Cyber-Physical Systems in Construction. 2019. In Proceedings of the Computing in Civil Engineering 2019: Data, Sensing, and Analytics—Selected Papers from the ASCE International Conference on Computing in Civil Engineering 2019, Atlanta, Georgia, 17–19 June 2019; American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): Reston, VA, USA, 2019; pp. 256–264.
  7. Klinc, R.; Turk, Ž. Construction 4.0-digital transformation of one of the oldest industries. Econ. Bus. Rev. Cent. South-East. Eur. 2019, 21, 393–496.
  8. Uhlemann, T.H.-J.; Lehmann, C.; Steinhilper, R. The Digital Twin: Realizing the Cyber-Physical Production System for Industry 4.0. In Proceedings of the Procedia CIRP, Kamakura, Japan, 8–10 March 2017; Elsevier B.V.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 335–340.
  9. Wanasinghe, T.R.; Wroblewski, L.; Petersen, B.; Gosine, R.G.; James, L.A.; De Silva, O.; Mann, G.K.I.; Warrian, P.J. Digital Twin for the Oil and Gas Industry: Overview, Research Trends, Opportunities, and Challenges. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 104175–104197, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.
  10. Glaessgen, E.; Stargel, D. The digital twin paradigm for future NASA and US Air Force vehicles. In Proceedings of the 53rd AI-AA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference 20th AIAA/ASME/AHS Adaptive Structures Conference 14th AIAA, Honolulu, HI, USA, 23–26 April 2012; p. 1818.
  11. Yusen, X.; Bondaletova, N.F.; Kovalev, V.; Komrakov, A. Digital Twin Concept in Managing Industrial Capital Construction Projects Life Cycle. In Proceedings of the 2018 11th International Conference “Management of Large-Scale System Development”, MLSD, Moscow, Russia, 1–3 October 2018; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018.
  12. LaGrange, E. Developing a digital twin: The roadmap for oil and gas optimization. In Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers—SPE Offshore Europe Conference and Exhibition, OE 2019, Aberdeen, UK, 3–6 September 2019; Society of Petroleum Engineers: Richardson, TX, USA, 2019.
  13. Khajavi, S.H.; Motlagh, N.H.; Jaribion, A.; Werner, L.C.; Holmstrom, J. Digital Twin: Vision, Benefits, Boundaries, and Creation for Buildings. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 147406–147419.
  14. National Infrastructure Commission. Data for the Public Good, National Infrastructure Commission. 2017. Available online: https://nic.org.uk/app/uploads/Data-for-the-Public-Good-NIC-Report.pdf (accessed on 18 May 2021).
  15. Madni, A.; Madni, C.; Lucero, S. Leveraging Digital Twin Technology in Model-Based Systems Engineering. Systems 2019, 7, 7.
  16. Jones, D.; Snider, C.; Nassehi, A.; Yon, J.; Hicks, B. Characterising the Digital Twin: A systematic literature review. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 2020, 29, 36–52.
  17. Bolton, A.; Enzer, M.; Schooling, J.; Blackwell, B.; Dabson, I.; Evans, M.; Fenemore, T.; Harradence, F.; Keaney, E.; Kemp, A.; et al. The Gemini Principles: Guiding Values for the National Digital Twin and Information Management Framework, Centre for Digital Built Britain. 2018. Available online: https://www.cdbb.cam.ac.uk/system/files/documents/TheGeminiPrinciples.pdf (accessed on 4 June 2021).
  18. Pan, Y.; Zhang, L. A BIM-data mining integrated digital twin framework for advanced project management. Autom. Constr. 2021, 124, 103564.
  19. Dictionary, B.I.M. BIM Dictionary (2021), Digital Twin, English, Version 1. 2021. Available online: https://bimdictionary.com/en/digital-twin/1 (accessed on 25 May 2021).
  20. Grieves, M. Digital twin: Manufacturing excellence through virtual factory replication. White Pap. 2014, 1, 1–7.
  21. Boje, C.; Guerriero, A.; Kubicki, S.; Rezgui, Y. Towards a semantic Construction Digital Twin: Directions for future research. Autom. Constr. 2020, 114, 103179.
  22. Barricelli, B.R.; Casiraghi, E.; Fogli, D. A survey on digital twin: Definitions, characteristics, applications, and design implications. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 167653–167671.
  23. Grieves, M.; Vickers, J. Digital twin: Mitigating unpredictable, undesirable emergent behavior in complex systems. In Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Complex Systems: New Findings and Approaches; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 85–113.
  24. Camposano, J.C.; Smolander, K.; Ruippo, T. Seven Metaphors to Understand Digital Twins of Built Assets. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 27167–27181.
  25. Sepasgozar, S.M.E. Differentiating Digital Twin from Digital Shadow: Elucidating a Paradigm Shift to Expedite a Smart, Sustainable Built Environment. Buildings 2021, 11, 151.
  26. Ham, Y.; Kim, J. Participatory Sensing and Digital Twin City: Updating Virtual City Models for Enhanced Risk-Informed Decision-Making. J. Manag. Eng. 2020, 36, 04020005.
  27. Kan, C.; Fang, Y.; Anumba, C.J.; Messner, J.I. A cyber–physical system (CPS) for planning and monitoring mobile cranes on construction sites. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Manag. Procure. Law 2018, 171, 240–250.
  28. Zhou, H.A.; Gannouni, A.; Otte, T.; Odenthal, J.; Abdelrazeq, A.; Hees, F. Towards a Digital Process Platform for Future Construction Sites. In Proceedings of the 2020 ITU Kaleidoscope: Industry-Driven Digital Transformation, ITU K, Ha Noi, Vietnam, 7–11 December 2020; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2020.
  29. Anumba, C.J.; Akanmu, A.; Messner, J. Towards a cyber-physical systems approach to construction. In Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress 2010: Innovation for Reshaping Construction Practice—Proceedings of the 2010 Construction Research Congress, Alberta, Canada, 8–10 May 2010; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2010; pp. 528–537.
  30. Akanmu, A.; Anumba, C.J. Cyber-physical systems integration of building information models and the physical construction. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2015, 22, 516–535.
  31. Greif, T.; Stein, N.; Flath, C.M. Peeking into the void: Digital twins for construction site logistics. Comput. Ind. 2020, 121, 103264.
  32. Rotilio, M.; Simeone, D. Digital Twinning processes for the built heritage construction site: Opportunities and implementation scenarios. Tema 2022, 8, 38–51.
  33. Zheng, Y.; Yang, S.; Cheng, H. An application framework of digital twin and its case study. J. Ambient. Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 2019, 10, 1141–1153.
  34. Roxin, A.; Abdou, W.; Ginhac, D.; Derigent, W.; Dragomirescu, D.; Montegut, L. Digital building twins—Contributions of the ANR McBIM project. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Signal Image Technology and Internet Based Systems, SISITS, Sorrento, Italy, 26–29 November 2019; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 404–410.
  35. El Jazzar, M.; Piskernik, M.; Nassereddine, H. Digital Twin in construction: An Empirical Analysis. In Proceedings of the EG-ICE 2020 Proceedings: Workshop on Intelligent Computing in Engineering, Berlin, Germany, 1–4 July 2020; pp. 501–510.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback