MLM Ma

Graphical Abstract
Is the Future of Manufacturing Wireless? Experimental Investi-

gation of 5G Performance based on a Digital Twin for a Machine
Tool
Jan Mertes, Christian Schellenberger, Li Yi, Marius Schmitz, Moritz Glatt,
Bahram Ravani, Hans D. Schotten, Jan C. Aurich
This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4585316
Highlights
Is the Future of Manufacturing Wireless? Experimental Investi-
gation of 5G Performance based on a Digital Twin for a Machine
Tool
Jan Mertes, Christian Schellenberger, Li Yi, Marius Schmitz, Moritz Glatt,
Bahram Ravani, Hans D. Schotten, Jan C. Aurich
• A framework for 5G-enabled digital twins in cyber-physical production

systems is developed and evaluated. Therefore, we implement a dig-
ital twin of a 3-axis milling tool with different functions migrated to
different computing devices in the network (edge computing).
• The framework focuses on different communication requirements and

the resulting opportunities for edge computing in manufacturing.
• An experimental evaluation of 5G performance in a real-world manu-

facturing scenario with various 5G configurations is conducted. Key
performance indicators of the communication (latency, jitter) as well
as the influence of 5G on the digital twin of the milling tool (continuity
between digital and real process) is determined.
• A comparison between the performance of 5G mobile communication

and the current wireless communication technology (WiFi 6) in an ex-
isting manufacturing system is conducted, confirming the better per-
formance of 5G.
• The experimental results show that 5G is suitable for a digital twin of

a machine tool for monitoring and manual control. In addition, the
results emphasize that 5G can serve a variety of use cases in man-
ufacturing. However, it is shown that hardware developers have to
implement new features of the 5G standard.
Is the Future of Manufacturing Wireless? Experimental
Investigation of 5G Performance based on a Digital
Twin for a Machine Tool
Jan Mertesa, Christian Schellenbergerb, Li Yia, Marius Schmitza, Moritz
Glatta, Bahram Ravanic, Hans D. Schottenb, Jan C. Auricha
a
Institute for Manufacturing Technology and Production Systems, RPTU
Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, 67663, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany
b
Institute for Wireless Communication and Navigation, RPTU
Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, 67663, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany
c
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of
California Davis, Davis, 95616, California, USA
Abstract
The cellular network standard 5G can potentially meet the networking re-
quirements for different industrial use cases simultaneously due to the promised
low latency, high bandwidth, and high device density while providing a very
good quality of service. These capabilities enable the realization of digital
twins (DTs) that are based on edge computing for time- and safety-critical
wireless applications. However, the investigation of the applicability of 5G
for DTs in real-world manufacturing scenarios is still lacking. In this work,
we have developed and evaluated a framework for DTs using extensive exper-
iments. In addition, we have focused on the needed communication technol-
ogy and requirements to enable edge computing-based functionalities. The
key contribution of this paper is a comprehensive experimental study on 5G
performance characteristics in an existing manufacturing system. Moreover,
the influence on the functionality of the edge-based DT is evaluated and dis-
cussed. Full factorial experiments with different network configurations are
designed and conducted. The performance of the communication character-
istics (latency, jitter) as well as the impact on continuity between real and
digital processes is evaluated. The results are also compared to the WiFi
standard using experimentation. At last, the limits of current 5G networks
for manufacturing are discussed.
Keywords: 5G, digital twin, experiments, edge computing, manufacturing
Preprint submitted to Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 2023-09-26
PACS: 0000, 1111
2000 MSC: 0000, 1111
1. Motivation
Edge computing, digital twins (DTs), and data-driven process optimiza-
tion are key technologies of Industry 4.0 [1]. The resulting so-called cyber-
physical production systems (CPPS) require high interconnectivity to enable
intelligent manufacturing with advanced possibilities for process optimization
and control [2]. However, the inherent complexity of these manufacturing sys-
tems necessitates the use of DTs, which provide a virtual representation of
physical assets [3].
To leverage the potential of DTs in manufacturing, suitable information
exchange is crucial to enable decentralized edge computing and bidirectional
interaction of the physical and digital world [4]. While wired communica-
tion technologies are often considered reliable and powerful regarding latency,
they can be limited due to constraints in scalability, flexibility, and installa-
tion costs. Similarly, current wireless solutions may not adequately meet the
demands of real-time communication and reliability in manufacturing.
The 5G mobile communication standard addresses these challenges and
has the potential to facilitate intelligent manufacturing by interconnecting
manufacturing systems with the required communication performance, such
as low-latency, reliability, existence of many interconnected devices and
high data rates [5]. To process the large amount of data generated by CPPS
correspondingly high computing power is required. To decrease additional
communication latencies and bandwidth bottlenecks in CPPS, edge com-
puting is required. Edge computing distributes computing performance and
operations to different devices and levels to accommodating time-critical and
reliable information exchange [6].
Currently, in manufacturing research, the application-driven evaluation
of the communication technology, which is required to exploit the potential
of edge-based DTs is rarely investigated [7]. In addition, current research is
still limited to conceptual levels or design steps of edge computing for man-
ufacturing [1]. To bridge this gap, we develop, implement, and evaluate a
framework for DTs, whose functions can be distributed in a decentralized
fashion on different edge layers and nodes. We focus on the dependence of
the communication requirements on different iterations of the 5G
standardization. Edge computing serves the specific communication
requirements for
different functions of DTs. By combining with 5G mobile communication,
the manufacturing system becomes more flexible and robust, ensuring real-
time responsiveness, thus enabling a versatile CPPS.
Moreover, this paper addresses the current lack of research in the
empir- ical evaluation of 5G for edge computing in real-world
manufacturing scenarios. In our experiments, the full factorial
experimental evaluation of 5G performance in real-world scenarios is
conducted, and the influence on the digital twin (DT), the real process, as
well as the implications for manufacturing is determined. In addition, an
experimental comparison with the current WiFi standard is conducted.
2. Related Literature
2.1. 5G communication standard
The fifth mobile communication standard - 5G - was introduced in 2018
by 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) [8]. 5G specifically considers
industrial communication requirements and improves most important perfor-
mance characteristics of mobile communication networks beyond the existing
4G networks [9].
The radio access network (RAN) of the classic architecture of mobile
networks consists of multiple remote radio heads and aggregating baseband
units. Newer approaches are so-called small cells where radio unit and base-
band unit are combined into one physical device, and the disaggregation into
central units (CUs), distributed units (DUs) and radio units (RUs) are per-
formed in accordance with the Open-RAN architecture. Together with the
core network, these different RAN architectures form the mobile network. A
distinction has to be made between 5G networks, whose core network relies
on 4G technology (non-standalone (NSA) 5G networks) and those that rely
entirely on 5G technology, both in the core and in the RAN (standalone (SA)
5G networks) [10].
In addition, 5G networks provide various management functions for
performance improvements and optimization [11]. As a result, 5G aims at
enabling the following performance characteristics [9]:
• Ultra reliable and low latency communications (uRLLC) with an
user plane latency down to 1 ms and reliability of 99.9999 %.
• Enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB) with bandwidths more than 100

MHz and data rates up to 20 Gbit/s.
• Massive machine-type communication (mMTC) with up to 106 devices
per km2 and thus high device density.
In the context of manufacturing (e.g., for machine tool control),

achieving both low latency and high reliability is required for fast and
safety-critical communication. However, the different performance
characteristics are in conflict with each other, making it difficult to achieve
minimum latency, maximum data rate and maximum device capacity
simultaneously [12].
Thus, 5G incorporates new functionalities such as network functions vir-
tualization (NFV) and software defined networking (SDN), which facilitates
network slicing [13]. This enables the physical network to be divided into
multiple logical networks (slices) with different network characteristics. Thus,
different communication requirements for different use cases can be achieved
simultaneously in one 5G network [14], reducing the effort required to ensure
interconnectivity in manufacturing systems.
Public networks operated by telecommunication companies are generally
optimized for download speed but most factory applications need higher up-
link throughput or low-latency communication. A use-case-dependent opti-
mization of the public 5G networks is only possible in collaboration with the
mobile network operators (MNO). Private networks or campus networks can
be the solution to independently operate a mobile network [15]. They can be
operated by the individual organization or a third party without an MNO.
Such a network requires its own spectral resources and thus is separate from
the public networks. This allows for more flexibility to meet the needs of
factory operation without having to be optimized for regular cellular users
[16].
Due to its performance characteristics and the deployment of private
networks, 5G shows high potential as a communication platform for
industrial automation, control, and comprehensive interconnectivity -
including safety- critical applications - for manufacturing systems [17].
For example, wireless migration of different control tasks [18, 19], in-
dustrial Internet of Things (IoT) networks and wireless sensor networks for
monitoring and diagnosis [20, 21], flexible human-machine interfaces includ-
ing modern visualization techniques [22, 23]), or digital twinning [24, 25]
show high potential for manufacturing.
However, it should be emphasized that the 5G standardization is an
ongoing process in different so-called releases from 3GPP. The first 5G
iteration was the release 15 in 2019 with commercial availability in 2020
[26]. The
latest full release is number 17, which was completed in late 2022.
Currently, release 18 is under development, which marks the start of 5G-
Advanced [27]. Finalization of the standard, however, does not mean that
ready-made hardware is already available. At the time of writing, chip-sets
with release 16 functionalities are available for user equipment, but radio
hardware is expected to become available in late 2023. Therefore,
currently, just 5G networks based on release 15 can be deployed.
Accordingly, the aforementioned performance characteristics of 5G
(uRLLC, eMBB, mMTC) are not fully achievable, since not all functionalities
are integrated in the first 5G release (release 15). For example, uRLLC
with a user plane latency below 0.5 ms will be part of release 16 [28, 29].
For release 17 and beyond, enhanced positioning, power savings for user
equipment, [30] enhanced integration of machine learning [27], and much
more will be added to the 5G functionalities. For achieving the defined low-
latency for uRLLC, an unloaded condition of the network in both download
and upload without users other than the observed one with a small packet
size (zero payload and only Internet Protocol (IP) header) is assumed [31],
which does not represent
a real-world scenario for manufacturing.
Thus, validation for real-world applications in manufacturing are
needed. However, currently the literature regarding 5G network performance
is sparse. For example, Senk et al. develop flexible 5G NSA and SA campus
network testbeds with artificially generated data [32]. For the measurements
of signal strength parameters and simple data rate and network performance
measurements of the 5G SA Network at RPTU Kaiserslautern, refer to [33].
In a first experimental study for campus networks performance, Rischke et al.
develop a testbed to measure performance on the packet-level for generic
UDP data [34]. These authors also mentioned the missing evaluation of
packet-level performance for 5G SA campus networks. For detailed
overview of literature regarding performance evaluation of 3G, 4G, and 5G
public networks, refer to [34].
An evaluation of 5G performance on the packet-level and the resulting
influence on manufacturing processes (such as monitoring and control of ma-
chines) has not yet been conducted. Therefore, we develop such an experi-
mental setup by developing a 5G-enabled DT, which functions are migrated
to different edge layers of the 5G network and develop an experimental design
for evaluation 5G SA performance on a packet-level.
2.2. Digital Twins in Manufacturing
The term ”Digital Twin” was coined in 2002 by Michael Grieves to de-
scribe a digital representation of a physical system that is linked to its real-
world counterpart, aiming at providing comprehensive information about the
product life cycle [35].
According to the original concept of DT, which has its roots in
aerospace, three main functions can be distinguished: (1) Prediction for
pre-process simulation, (2) monitoring and control for analysis and
interaction with the ongoing process, and (3) diagnosis after the process
[36].
Besides these functionalities, DTs can also be classified according to dif-
ferent phases of their product life-cycle, such as digital twins for design,
manufacturing, service, retirement, and full life-cycle [37]. For manufactur-
ing, a DT enables the simulation and optimization of the production system
and provides a comprehensive visualization of the manufacturing process [38].
Thus, according to the objects that are mirrored in the virtual world, DTs for
manufacturing can be further subdivided for manufacturing assets, human
operators, factories, and production networks [39].
For manufacturing assets, DTs can be implemented for different purposes
[37], such as real-time monitoring [40, 41], workpiece performance prediction
[42], human-robot collaboration [43, 44], process evaluation and optimization
[45]. For an overview of DTs of machine tools refer to Mertes et al. [46].
Another element of DTs to ensure comprehensibility for and interaction
with human operators are visualization technologies. In assessing approaches
of DTs for manufacturing, it is observed that virtual reality (VR) and aug-
mented reality (AR) are important tools for developing the digital worlds
because they can provide immersive and multi-perception interaction experi-
ences that can enhance the performance of DTs [47]. Examples of AR-based
DTs are the applications for the process monitoring of conventional
machine tools [48] or additive manufacturing equipment [41]. For more
examples refer to the review by Yin et al. [49]. For VR-based DTs,
examples are VR applications for human-robot collaborations [50, 51].
In addition to virtual tools such as VR and AR, a high-performance
communication network is another element for the successful development of
DTs, especially in the context of Industry 4.0 [52].
For the effective integration of DTs into CPPS, a seamless and reliable
interconnection is needed. This requires a robust linkage between digital
models and the physical system, achieved through real-time data
augmenta- tion and a reliable communication infrastructure. Recent
research highlights
the significance of the data link and the communication system for ensuring
interoperability and scalability of DTs [53]. Furthermore, certain use cases
demand fast and reliable bidirectional communication to enable the real sys-
tem to be controlled based on simulation-based instructions [54]. Considering
the high requirements of machine tool control, including low cycle times and
safety criteria, the DTs of machine tools need very fast and reliable connec-
tivity.
A promising communication technology is 5G mobile communication as
described in Section 2.1. It provides reliable, low-latency communication,
high data rates, and allows for many interconnections simultaneously.
There- fore, 5G provides a secure, stable, and fast communication
environment that is highly scalable and flexible [55]. In assessing the
literature related to 5G- enabled digital twins, only a limited number of
cases have been found in the non-manufacturing domain, such as 5G-
enabled digital twins for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) [56] and traffic
flow monitoring [57]. In the manufacturing domain, only few works
currently exist.
For example, Groshev et al. [24] validated a DT-based control of a
robotic arm by migrating the control unit to an edge server. Moreover, this
DT can be used for remote monitoring and control of various machines and
robots [19]. Our previous work [46] has elaborated on the potential of 5G
for monitoring and control of machine tools and has proposed a conceptual
framework for the application of the network technology for DTs.
However, there is currently no implemented DT for machine tools that
exploit the potential of 5G, especially for latency-critical communication
such as machine tool control. Current safety-critical and time-critical
applications are still wired and the physical communication layer is not
sufficiently addressed at the technology level [4]. Edge computing as well
as 5G mobile communication are seen as key enablers for real-time
capable, wireless DTs [4]. However, methods for integrating these
technologies are some of the ongoing areas of research and have not yet
been implemented for DTs of machine tools, especially for applications that
require real-time decision-making [58].
2.3. Cloud and edge computing for manufacturing

In interconnected CPPS, large amounts of data is collected, transferred,
and processed to enable data-driven manufacturing leading to process opti-
mization, monitoring, and analysis [59]. Cloud computing - as a concept for
on-demand access to configurable computing resources (e.g., servers, stor-
age, etc.) - enables a cost-effective solution to manage and process this
huge amount of data in CPPS [60]. However, for applications that require
time- critical and reliable communication, so-called fog and edge computing
can be mandatory [61].
In general, edge computing is the operation of computational processes
at the edge of the network in which the corresponding data is collected [62].
Currently, there exists no standardized definition for edge and fog computing
[63]. The notion of ”edge” varies based on applications and devices used for
edge computing. Thus, different hardware setups (e.g., cloudlets, microdata
centers, or fog computing clusters) have been considered as edge computing
device [63]. Therefore, no distinction between fog and edge computing is
made in this work and only the term ”edge computing” is used.
Key features of edge computing include physical proximity of the nodes,
scalable storage and computation capabilities, real-time capability, as well
as distributed and virtualized computing [1]. Thus, edge computing
increases computation efficiency and reduces the generated data traffic to
cloud instances [64]. For a detailed review of the capabilities of edge
computing refer to [1].
The majority of current research focuses on conceptual approaches and
frameworks for intelligent manufacturing based on edge computing [65, 61,
66]. Literature regarding implemented and evaluated approaches -
especially for machine tools - is limited. For example, Lou et al. [67]
develop an intelligent machine tool based on edge-cloud collaboration.
They utilized the real-time capabilities of edge computing and the processing
capacity of cloud computing to facilitate machine tool intelligence. Zhang et
al. [64] develop a DT of a machine tool based on edge computing to enable
remote sensing, real-time monitoring, and scalability. In other research,
edge computing has been utilized to overcome limited computing power and
network resources for DT implementation of computerized numerical
control (CNC) machine tools [68]. In addition, Siriwardhana et al. [69]
develop a mobile AR environment based on edge computing and 5G mobile
communication and Um et al. [70] compare the performance of edge
computing with cloud computing for object detection in manufacturing.
In summary, due to the characteristics of edge computing, new applica-
tions in manufacturing can be enabled, especially for low-latency applications
such as DTs for machine tool control and real-time monitoring. However,
this new paradigm for manufacturing is still in its infancy, especially for
wireless,
Table 1: Communication performance requirements for different applications for machine
tools based on [4].
Use Case Latency Availability Reliability Data size
(ms) (%) (PLR) (bytes)
Monitoring 45 >99.9 10−3 varies

Remote control 45 >99.99 10−5 varies
Closed-loop control 0.5 >99.9999 10−9 40 - 60
real-time capable edge computing systems.

To enable these systems for manufacturing (e.g. in the context of DTs),
high communication requirements have to be met. An overview of some
key requirements regarding the communication performance of machine tools
in manufacturing systems can be seen in Table 1. As shown, a distinction
must be made between remote control, wherein only the target positions of
a system are transmitted, and closed-loop control, wherein the full control
loop is migrated on the edge. Closed-loop control has significantly higher
demands on the communication infrastructure than the remote control. In
addition, for future use cases, time determinism is required [71].
To ensure these requirements, an ubiquitous interconnection between dif-
ferent assets and nodes is needed. Therefore - as described in Section 2.1
- 5G provides a good basis to develop and implement edge-based DT with
those high communication requirements.
Currently, there exists no implementation and evaluation of 5G-
enabled, edge-based DT for machine tools and time-critical processes in
existing manufacturing systems.
2.4. Research objectives

After reviewing the state-of-the-art, it can be concluded that 5G has the
potential to disruptively change the manufacturing environment and enable
new applications due to the inherent performance characteristics as well as
the resulting scalability and flexibility of the CPPS. One key technology
that can enhance the future of intelligent manufacturing is wireless DTs for
time-critical functions such as machine tool control and optimization, while
relying on edge computing. However, there are no such implemented and
evaluated DTs in a real-world scenario. In addition, current approaches
do not consider the communication requirements and match them with the
current 5G standardization process. There is also no real-world validation of
the 5G performance in an existing manufacturing system regarding network
key performance indicators (KPIs) and regarding the influence on the real
process and the DT.
Aiming at the above research gap, the following research objectives are
defined in this work:
• The first objective of this paper is to perform a comprehensive assess-

ment of 5G performance for edge computing in manufacturing using a
full factorial experimental design with various 5G configurations. The
experiments will be conducted in a real-world scenario based on an im-
plemented edge-based DT for monitoring and control of a machine tool.
In addition, 5G performance will be compared to other conducted ex-
periments with competing wireless communication technology (WiFi).
• The second objective is to develop and implement a framework for

5G- enabled DTs for CPPS with different functions on different edge
layers. The focus will be on different network and response time
requirements of different functions of the DTs. Thus, the different
standardization phases of 5G and beyond are addressed.
In the remainder of the paper, the methods and results to fulfill the
above research objectives are described. In Section 3, the framework for edge-
based DTs is outlined depending on different phases of the 5G
standardization. In addition, the framework is implemented for a DT for
monitoring and control of a 3-axis CNC milling machine in an existing
manufacturing system. Section 4 describes the experimental design
including factorial and response variables. In Section 5, the results of the
experiments are discussed and interpreted. Section 6 gives a brief summary
of the paper and an outlook for future research.
3. Framework for 5G-enabled Digital Twins based on edge com-

puting
3.1. Development requirements
One main objective in this paper, is the development of an architecture
for DTs based on edge computing (see Section 2.3). The architecture should
address the required communication infrastructure according to the needed
communication performance. As a result of the analysis of the state of the art,
10
our approach addresses several objectives for DTs in manufacturing
systems as follows:
• Flexibility and scalability: It should be possible to implement mul-

tiple DTs within the manufacturing system without significant addi-
tional infrastructure investment. In addition, the physical location of
each connected device should not matter. Moreover, both the imple-
mentation of new DTs and the expansion of existing DTs by merging
new information (e.g., by sensors, actors, inputs/outputs (I/Os) of
control units) should be facilitated, especially in the brownfield.
• Full functionality of DT: The DTs should allow all key functional-
ities (monitoring, control, simulation, diagnosis) of bidirectional DTs
as outlined in Section 2.2. Therefore, different performance charac-
teristics regarding the communication infrastructure have to be met
simultaneously depending on the use case.
• Edge computing capabilities: The architecture should meet the

requirements regarding CPPS and enable decentralized as well as cen-
tralized operation of different functions of the DTs. This increases the
robustness due to the possibility of load-balancing and redundant
computing resources. Moreover less computing units and thus
investments
are required.
• Real-time capability and reliability: The architecture should en-

able the migration of real-time operations of the DT to any device on
the edge of the network. This is especially needed for edge-based reli-
able and low-latency operations such as closed-loop motion control
or safety-critical process control.
To achieve those objectives, a wireless interconnection between different

systems is required to enable the needed edge-capabilities, flexibility, and
scalability. For manufacturing, high reliability with a packet loss rate (PLR)
down to 10−9, low latencies around 0.5 - 45 ms (see Table 1) is needed.
3.2. System Structure

As shown in Figure 1, the architecture consists of three different hierar-
chical layers: (1) the manufacturing system or physical layer, (2) the edge
layer, and (3) the cloud layer.
11
On the physical layer, different devices are located that are needed for
the implementation of DTs. These devices represent the lower levels of the
classical hierarchical automation pyramid that mainly include the field and
control level, such as sensors and actuators. Moreover, industrial machin-
ery such as machine tools and robots as well as devices for human-machine
interaction such as human-machine-interfaces (e.g. head-mounted displays,
monitors), smart devices (e.g. smartphones, tablets), and personal comput-
ers are be part of the physical layer. Specialized and generic computing units
(e.g. FPGA, single-board computer) are also part of this layer.
On the edge layer, there are multiple edge instances for different require-
ments of the individual DT. The edge layer is defined by the spatial
proximity of the computing units and an interconnecting network. As a
result, fast response times and migration of different operations and
software functions of the DT can be realized. For example, a real-time
layer can be optimized for time-critical and reliable functions such as
closed-loop motion control or safety mechanisms. Another layer , the
interaction layer, has lower requirements for real-time capability and is
primarily used for operations with human interactions, such as process
monitoring, simulation, visualization, and manual process control.
Moreover, there could exist further different, use case-specific optimized
sub-layers for different operations. For example, an edge node with high GPU
power can be deployed for time-critical machine learning applications,
centralized computation with high load, or centralized rendering of
applications for the industrial metaverse.
The cloud layer integrates cloud computing services by an interface with
a public or private cloud. This layer provides high computing power as cost-
effective as possible and has no requirements for fast system responsiveness.
The main applications migrated to the cloud layer are data analysis and
diagnosis, training of machine learning models, or remote supervision and
event-based, remote control of the DT.
Another key technology of the architecture is 5G mobile communication
for wireless interconnectivity of all parts of the system. Moreover, the dis-
tinction between different communication requirements for functions of
DTs and the respective 5G technology is determined. As outlined in Section
2.1, the term ”5G” does not always include the same performance
characteristics and can vary depending on the current state of
standardization.
For the real-time layer, 5G release 16 and beyond is needed to enable
uRLLC and thus real-time and reliable communication. This is especially
needed to migrate functions of the DTs associated to the field and control
12
level. Communication-based on 5G release 16+ enables a wide range of
new wireless use cases. Moreover, for future releases, time-sensitive
networking and thus time determinism will be integrated into the 5G
standard [72], enabling further real-time applications. In addition,
enterprise resource planning and manufacturing execution systems can
also be part of or connected to the interaction layer.
The interaction layer does not have such hard latency and reliability
constraints. Therefore, the communication based on 5G release 15 is
sufficient. This is because mainly high data rates and thus high bandwidths,
as well as mMTC are required. Particularly, DTs for monitoring and manual
control of industrial machinery or for human-machine-interaction can be
deployed on the interaction layer. The cloud layer also has no hard
requirements regarding communication characteristics. However, a
sufficiently high data rate would be beneficial for fast data exchange. Data
can be transmitted directly from the physical layer (e.g. with 5G release
15+) or pre-processed data can be transferred from the edge layer (wired
or wireless).
In addition, the individual layers on the edge can exchange information
due to the ubiquitous network. This ensures high data integrity between
different functions of the DTs and their needed data. Moreover, all
information exchange of different functions of the DT are independent of
the location (physical, edge, cloud layer). Thus, bidirectional
communication leads to information exchange from the upper to lower
layers, and vice versa.
3.3. Use Case: Machine Tool control
One typical use case for DT in CPPS is associated with machine tools.
The following implementation is based on our preliminary work about 5G-
enabled DT and enables pre-process simulation, inline monitoring, and
manual control during, as well as diagnosis after the process [73].
As shown in Figure 2, in the system considered, the physical layer con-
sists of a 3-axis milling machine with an Ethernet-based field-programmable
gate array (FPGA) for motion control. The FPGA is 5G-enabled to realize
offloading motion control on a real-time edge layer. However 5G release 16
hardware is needed, which is - as described in Section 2.1 - not available
yet. Moreover, a CNC based on LinuxCNC is part of the physical layer.
The CNC unit is 5G enabled utilizing a 5G modem based on Snapdragon
X55 in an M2 module from Quectel (RM500Q-GL)1. The communication
from
1
Naming of specific manufacturers is done solely for the sake of completeness and does
13
Cloud layer
Big data analysis

Information
Diagnosis
Remote Work
…
(open) internet
Information
Edge Layer
Real-time layer Interaction layer
… …
Safety-critical applications Manual SimulationVisualizationcontrol
Closed-loop Control Monitoring
Manufacturing system/Physical layer
Field and control level

Rel. 16+ Rel. 15+
Sensors Actuators SPS
Information
Rel. 15+
Industrial automation machinery
Real-time information
Machine Tools Robotics AGV
Edge internal communication 5G mobile communication

Human- Machine- Interaction and computing capacity (open) internet connection
Smart Devices Computing units HMD
Figure 1: Architecture for 5G-enabled, edge-based DT in manufacturing.
14
the manufacturing system to the edge layer is based on 5G and utilizes the
MQTT protocol. Input and output values (I/Os) are published directly from
the CNC unit with a Python interface. Another Python interface allows
manipulation of I/Os of the CNC unit for 5G-based manual control by the
DT.
On the edge layer, an interaction layer is deployed to operate the DT
and the MQTT broker for orchestrating the communication. The edge layer
can be processed on any edge device with 5G access that has sufficient
computational power (e.g. server, personal computer, single-board
computer, further smart device). For subscribing and publishing data to and
respec- tively from the DT to LinuxCNC, a Python interface based on
Paho MQTT is utilized. The DT is based on the unity gaming engine for
physics-based pre-process simulation using G-Code interpretation. In
addition, monitoring, manual control, and post-process analysis are the
main functionalities of the DT running on the edge layer. Currently, 44
different I/Os from LinuxCNC and data from a 5G-enabled acceleration
sensor are transmitted to the DT via MQTT. The DT receives this
information via 5G for discrete-event simulation based on the different
positions (X,Y,Z), feed rates, spindle rotation, and machine states (enabled,
error, etc.). Based on this, the movement of the machine tool is interpolated
linearly and anomalies, as well as error states, are simulated and
monitored.
In addition, a cloud layer is implemented for spectral analysis of the
provided acceleration data and further data analysis, as well as remote work
and an instance for computer-aided manufacturing. However, the cloud layer
is not focus of this paper.
To sum up, the implemented setup enables flexible, and scalable
deployment of different DTs in CPPS. Due to the utilization of 5G and
the MQTT protocol, the DT itself as well as the visualization of
information of the DT can be operated on any 5G-enabled device in the
manufacturing system. In combination with the Unity game engine as well
as the Python interfaces, an operating system-independent deployment even
for mobile devices is enabled. In general, the communication requirements
for monitoring and manual control of machine tools are very high with a
required latency around 45 ms and reliability of 10−5 lost packets (see
Table 1). There exists no validation
not necessarily imply an endorsement of the named companies nor that the products are
necessarily the best for the purpose.
15
Cloud layer
Spectral analysis Information

Machine learning
CAM
Y-Acceleration
0.12
0.06
0.1
0 0.5 1 1.5
0.18
Time in min
0.1
0.04
0.16
10
0.14
0.08
0.02
Manufacturing System Interaction layer

Accelerometer
FPGA Commands Commands Monitoring

MQTT
Manual Control
Simulation
I/O values I/O values Diagnosis
Digital Twin
Milling tool CNC
I/Os
Real-time layer Edge Device
Edge internal
communication 5G mobile
CNC
communication
Figure 2: Implemented 5G-enabled, edge-based DT of a CNC machine tool.
16
of 5G performance in the field for an existing application in manufacturing
yet.
Therefore, the following sections close this gap by evaluating the capa-
bilities of the 5G communication standard for the implemented, edge-
based DT of the machine tool in an existing manufacturing system.
4. Design of Experiments
4.1. Overview of the experimental setup
In this work the 5G performance of a private SA network at RPTU in
Kaiserslautern as well as the resulting accuracy of the DT in comparison to a
real manufacturing process is evaluated. To measure 5G performance charac-
teristics, experiments with different 5G network configurations are conducted
and analyzed. The experiments are performed in the field in a
manufacturing system with different edge devices as computing units and thus
physical loca- tions of the edge layer with the functions of the DT. In the
experiments, data from LinuxCNC is transmitted via 5G to the DT, enabling
the measurement of latency, jitter, deviation in packet run times, as well as
upload (UL) and download (DL) rates (see Section 4.2). In addition, the
deviation between digital and real process (see Section 4.3) is determined.
For evaluating the characteristics of different 5G network
configurations, it is necessary to have complete access to the management
functions of the 5G core and radio access network (RAN). This is needed to
minimize any possible interferences from neighboring radio heads, optimize
the ratio between UL and DL, vary the transmission power in the network,
and adapt the utilized bandwidth. The bandwidth variation levels
considered include the maximum currently usable bandwidth of a 5G
network in frequency range 1 (100 MHz) and a generic bandwidth
applicable to most available 5G private networks (40 MHz). The
transmission power varies between the highest (23 dBm) and lowest (17
dBm) values possible for the available indoor radio heads. The UL/DL ratio
variation levels have been selected based on typical usage for our specific
setup (3:7 and 1:4 UL/DL ratio). Moreover, the experiments are conducted
without further traffic on the 5G network (low network load) and while
simultaneously deploying traffic-intense scenarios (high network load) on
different user equipment on the shop floor. The high load scenario is
equivalent to 10 deployments of the DT of the machine tool
simultaneously. The factor variables and the response variables can be
seen in Table 2.
17
Manufacturing Layer Edge Layer
Setup 2
Remote Radio Head
Edge
serverDigital Twin
5G Core
Wireshark MQTT Broker

Wireless MQTT connection
Wired MQTT connection
Machine toolCNC EdgeDigital Twin device

Manufacturing
Setup 1 System
Figure 3: Experimental setup.
The experiments have been conducted multiple times, one time with
the DT migrated to an edge server that is connected with a cable to the 5G
core (setup 2) and one time with the DT running on an edge device on the
shop floor (setup 1) connected via 5G (see Figure 3). The setting for the
quality of service of the MQTT broker is set to 0, resulting in the lowest
packet delay with potentially higher packet re-transmission [74]. The size of
the packets is 1466 bytes. The packets are captured on all systems involved
(LinuxCNC, edge devices) using Wireshark. For setup 1, a personal
computer in the manufacturing system running Ubuntu is used as an edge
device on the edge layer. In setup 2 a high computational edge server is
used. The communication from the manufacturing layer to the edge layer is
based on 5G (release 15) with 5G-capable user equipment. In this
experimental design, the cloud layer should not be taken into account due
to the spatial distance to the manufacturing layer and thus resulting in worse
performance regarding latency and jitter.
4.2. 5G Performance
To determine the KPIs of the communication - in this case the end-to-
end (E2E) latency and jitter of packet run times between CNC and DT -
18
Table 2: Factor variables and response variables for the experiments in the 5G network.
Factor variable Variation levels Unit
Bandwidth 40, 100 MHz
Transmission power 17, 23 dBm
Network load high, low
UL/DL-ratio 1:4, 3:7
Response variable
Latency - ms
Jitter - ms
System accuracy - see Section 4.3
CENSORED for blind review
MQTT
MQTT
Real process Digital process
Figure 4: Setup for the determination of the network KPIs during a manufacturing process.
a standardized manufacturing process of a workpiece is performed, which

is monitored in a wireless fashion by the DT (see Figure 4).
During the manufacturing process, every individual packet that is sent
from CNC to DT is captured. Around 15,000 packets are transmitted from
the CNC unit to the DT during the monitoring process. First, a time syn-
chronization of the different systems involved is required. This is needed to
determine the correct run times of the individual packets. The time
synchronization can be realized with the network time protocol (NTP)
server of the RPTU. It is worth noting that the accuracy of a time
synchronization via NTP is about 1 ms [75], which is sufficient for this
experimental setup, as the results will be an order of magnitude larger.
Second, the measurements of both systems start at a deterministic
point at the beginning of the manufacturing process and end with the
completed
19
manufacturing process. With each 5G network configuration the experiments
are performed three times.
Third, the individual raw sequence number (part of the TCP protocol) of
every transmitted packet is retrieved as well as the payload of the message
and the respective time stamp of the packet.
Fourth, key performance characteristics for each packet and the whole
sample (E2E latency, jitter) are determined. The E2E latency is defined
as the difference ∆T between the time of arrival of the packet at the DT
and the time of sending at the CNC unit. The latency of packet i is
defined as
∆Ti = Ti,DT − Ti,CNC. Moreover, the mean latency ∆T¯ of all transmitted
packets of the full sample is calculated. In this paper ”latency” is used for
E2E latency.
The jitter is defined as the variation of the signal arrival time and is de-
termined based on the latency of individual packets. The jitter J of two
consecutive packets can be described as the difference of the respective la-
tency of the packets: Ji = ∆Ti − ∆Ti+1. In addition to the individual jitter,
the mean value of the jitter of all packets J¯ is determined.
Another performance indicator is the rate of re-transmitted packets.
MQTT utilizes a TCP/IP layer, which leads to the reliability features that
are inherent in TCP/IP, including automatic packet re-transmission. The
packet re-transmission rate (RTR) is defined as the ratio between the
difference of the number of received packets of the DT and the number of
matched packet tuples between CNC and DT:
nlost
RT R = 100
∗recv,DT
n
with nlost = nrecv,DT nmatched.
−
Moreover, the UL and DL rates are measured with a 5G network internal
iPerf speedtest running on the edge server connected to the 5G core. The
speed tests are conducted after each manufacturing process.
4.3. Accuracy of DT
Next to the KPIs of the 5G network performance, the accuracy of the
DT is determined by monitoring a milling process. The monitoring process
runs on the edge server (see Setup 2 in Figure 3). As described in Section
3.3, the DT receives packets of the CNC unit with information about the
current position and interpolates these points linearly in X and Y. The Z
direction can be neglected for this setup. The deviation of the real process
20
and the digital process due to 5G communication will be determined. The
experiments have been conducted with different 5G settings and with a wired
benchmark setup. To evaluate the accuracy of the monitoring process,
three key figures are determined:
1. Deviation in length ∆S between real and digital, linearly interpolated
machine movement
2. Shift of the center of gravity ∆C of the individual points transmitted
3. Variance of the length σ2 of the individual interpolated distances be-
l
tween two points
The monitored manufacturing process consists of the movement of two
perfect circles once in a clockwise direction and once in a counterclockwise
direction with a feed rate of 1,600 mm/min. Perfect circles are chosen to
eliminate the influence of delayed packet transmission when linear motion is
linearly interpolated. Any deviation due to re-transmitted or delayed packets
would not affect the overall accuracy for linear motion. The real as well as
interpolated tool path are shown as an example in Figure 5.
To determine ∆S, the real distance of the tool path ltarget and the dig-
itally, interpolated tool path linterpol are compared. As shown in Figure 5,
the euclidean distance between the transmitted position from the CNC unit
is linearly interpolated (li) and the total distance is determined. Since the
duration of the process (movement of the machine tool) is predetermined
in terms of time, fewer points are transmitted in total if there exists a
delay in data transmission. Accordingly, it can be assumed that the
deviation in length between real and interpolated process - which has no
linear movements
- will vary depending on the latency of the communication.
The shift of the center of gravity ∆C shows the distribution of the trans-
mitted points during the manufacturing process, which also depends on the
network performance. For the determination of ∆C, it is assumed that each
transmitted point has an infinitesimal small mass m. The resulting center of
mass ⃗cm is defined as:
1 Σ i
⃗cm = M m · ⃗ci
i
with M = Σi mi , mi is the individual mass of each point, and ⃗ci is

the location of the individual points. Since the process starts in the
geometric center of the two perfect circles, the result is ∆C = ⃗0 − ⃗cm .
21
Movement direction Movement direction
x ∆C
Figure 5: Setup for the determination of the accuracy of the DT.
22
The shift of the center of gravity can be interpreted as a dimension of
the non-time deterministic characteristic of the different run times of
different packets and thus of the jitter of the communication. The more ∆C
deviates from the center of gravity, the more unequal the distribution of
transmitted information and thus the higher the jitter and the variance of
the distances of the interpolated points.
In addition, since the shift in the center of gravity could be compensated
if the unequal distribution of transmitted points is symmetrical, the third
key figure that is considered is this variance σ2 . If ∆C is not shifted but
2 l
σl is high, then it can be assumed that the deviations have compensated
themselves.
To sum up, the three KPIs deviation in length ∆S, shift of the center of
gravity ∆C, and variance of the different lengths σ2 enable the evaluation
l
of the influence of the 5G mobile communication (latency and jitter) on the
accuracy of the DT.
5. Results and Discussion

5.1. Resulting network KPI
The experiments have been conducted three times for each configuration
leading to 48 runs of the experiment for each setup. For comparison, the
experiments have also been conducted with a wired setup as well as with
WiFi 6E (on 5 GHz) as the newest available WiFi standard [76].
As can be seen in Figure 6, the latency of different configurations of the
5G network varies. It should be noted that the configuration of (40 MHz,
1:4 UL/DL ratio, 17 dBm, no load) performed suboptimal for the first setup
with a measured latency of 180 ms. Moreover, as indicated in Figure 6, the
standard deviation is very high. This performance is not sufficient for the
developed use case of monitoring and control of a machine tool. This
outlier is not considered in the following evaluation. However, the
inconsistency of different 5G configurations has to be considered in real-
world applications.
For setup 1 with the DT on the shop floor, the range of the latencies of
different configurations varies from 16.11 ms (100 MHz, 3:7 UL/DL-ratio, 23
dBm, no load) to 42.17 ms (40 MHz, 3:7 UL/DL-ratio, 23 dBm, load) with
one outlier in the measurement with the highest latency. In sum, the
average latency is 22 ms, adjusted for the outlier, with a standard
deviation below 1 ms for 9 configurations and above 1 ms for 6
configurations. The jitter of setup 1 is for all configurations below 4 ms,
with very low standard deviation
23
Resulting E2E-latency for different 5G configurations
60 Setup 1 Setup 2
Standard deviation
50
40
Latency in
30
20
10
Network Configurations
Figure 6: Latency of the system with different network configurations.
Resulting jitter for different 5G configurations

8 Setup 1 Setup 2
Standard deviation
7
5
Jitter in
Network Configurations
Figure 7: Jitter of the system with different network configurations.
24
below 0.1 ms for most configurations. The highest jitter is measured with
3.49 ms (100 MHz, 3:7 UL/DL-ratio, 17 dBm, no load) and the lowest with
2.92 ms (40 MHz, 3:7 UL/DL-ratio, 23 dBm, load).
The latencies for setup 2 with the DT connected to the 5G core via
wire are constant and vary from 10.11 ms (100 MHz, 3:7 UL/DL-ratio, 23
dBm, load) to 15.77 ms (100 MHz, 1:4 UL/DL-ratio, 17 dBm, no load).
The average latency is 13.68 ms, which is around 9 ms below the average of
setup 1. The standard deviation is below 1 ms for all configurations, except
for one (100 MHz, 3:7 UL/DL-ratio, 23 dBm, no). The jitter of the 5G
communication for setup 2, is comparable to setup 1. The best
performance is for (40 MHz, 1:4 UL/DL-ratio, 23 dBm, no load) and (40
MHz, 1:4 UL/DL-
ration, 23 dBm, load) with 3.59 ms. The setting (100 MHz, 3:7 UL-DL-ratio,
23 dBm, load) performs worst with 4.37 ms, which is the configuration with
the best performance regarding latency. The overall mean of the jitter for all
configurations is around 0.8 ms higher in setup 2 compared to setup 1.
In comparison to the experiments with WiFi, a better performance -
especially with network load - can be seen for the 5G setup. For WiFi, the
mean latency with network load was around 27.78 ms with a jitter of 4.24
ms. However, the standard deviation between different trials with the
same setting is worse (σ =4.29 ms), leading to worse reproducibility and
thus reliability of the system. Without network load, WiFi shows a
latency of
20.37 ms with σ=0.94 ms. Therefore, for WiFi the network load shows much
higher influence on the performance than for 5G. For comparison, a wired
setup achieves latencies around 1 ms with a jitter around 0.05 ms.
In summary, it can be seen that for different configurations, setup 2 per-
forms better than setup 1. This is expected, since there is only one air
interface between transmitter and receiver in setup 2. In addition, the per-
formance of setup 2 is more constant with lower standard deviation between
different measurements for the same configuration and thus less outliers.
In general, the different configurations do not show high influence on
the latency and jitter. This is especially important for the high network load,
which will will be present in a manufacturing system. The difference in the
mean latency between configurations with and without network load is
0.02 ms (0.17 %) for setup 2. The low sensitivity of performance with
respect to network load is a special feature for mobile communication
networks and thus 5G. This is further confirmed by the experiments with
the WiFi setup. As a conclusion, 5G shows better communication
characteristics for manufacturing systems than WiFi.
25
Upload and download rates
800 Download rate

Upload rate
700
600
500
Data rates in
400
300
200
100
Network configurations
Figure 8: UL and DL rates for different network configurations of setup 2.
The RTR has been neglectable for most experiments. For 29 test runs
RTR is below 1.00 %. The highest RTR can be determined for (100 MHz,
3:7 UL/DL ratio, 23 dBm, no load) with 7.09 %. No RTR can be seen for 7
other test runs with different configurations.
The upload and download speeds (see in Figure 8) depend on the con-
figured bandwidth, the network load, and the UL/DL ratio. The maximum
speeds are 202 Mbit/s upload (100, 3:7, 17, no) and 830 Mbit/s download
rate with (100, 1:4, 23, no). The worst performance are 47 Mbit/s upload
rate (40, 1:4, 17, load) and 134 Mbit/s download rate (40, 3:7, 17, load). For
100 MHz bandwidth, the average upload rate is 2,3 times higher and the
average download rate is 2,6 times higher compared to the 40 MHz
bandwidth. In addition, the network load influences the data rates about -8
% for upload and -50 % for download rate in average. UL/DL ratio
influences the ratio of data rates as expected. The transmission power has
no significant influence on the data rates.
These observations are consistent with the expectation that the largest
possible bandwidth is beneficial for the data rate. Due to the good signal
26
coverage, the transmission power has no significant influence on performance.
Furthermore, a sufficiently high data rate is evident despite high network
load (10 DTs deployed). Therefore, the good load-balancing characteristics
of mobile communication networks are an advantage compared to WiFi.
This enables the needed high scalability and flexibility for large CPPS.
With those performance characteristics, a variety of the use cases defined
in the 5G standard [77] as well as the potential use cases of wireless digital
twins in CPPS [4] can be implemented. However, especially for real-time,
time-deterministic, and safety-critical (e.g. closed-loop motion control of
machine tools and robots) applications, better communication performance
is needed. Therefore, features of upcoming 5G realeases (16+) need to be
implemented by hardware developers. This allows the deployment of real-
time edge layers for wireless application with hard real-time constraints
(e.g. closed-loop motion control, safety mechanisms for high speed processes,
etc.).
These experiments will be the basis for the evaluation of the performance
of future (mobile) industrial communication.
One question is, how do these network KPIs influence the digital moni-
toring process of the DT? Therefore, in the following section, the results of
the process deviation - as described in Section 4.3 - are outlined.
5.2. Influence of 5G communication on the DT

As shown in Table 3, the process deviation has been measured for one
of the best (100 MHz, 3:7 UL/DL-ratio, 23dBm) and one of the the worst
settings (40 MHz, 3:7 UL/DL-ratio, 23dBm) with and without network load.
It can be said, that the deviation in length ∆S is negligible and can be
neglected. It is mainly a result of how the CNC unit executes the trajectory
planning depending on the cycle time. The transmitted points deviate in a
range around 1.5 µs from the perfect cycles leading to an overall deviation
in length of the perimeter of 0.02 - 0.07 % for the different configurations.
However, the deviation of the center of gravity ∆C varies between 2.101
mm for (40 MHz, 3:7 UL/DL-ratio, 23dBm, load) and 0.5914 mm for (40
MHz, 3:7 UL/DL-ratio, 23dBm, no). This deviation induced by high jitter
is also confirmed by the variance of the interpolated distances σli .
Therefore, it can be concluded that this system is less sensitive with
respect to the latency of the communication than with respect to the jitter.
However, the overall accuracy of the monitoring process can be seen as being
good, even if it is not as good compared to the wired setting (∆C = 0.044
mm and σli = 0.0059 mm).
27
Table 3: Process deviation of the monitored process.
Setup ∆S [%] ∆C [mm] σli [mm]
100, 3:7, 23, load 0.0013 1.933 0.1801
100, 3:7, 23, no 0.0024 0.7106 0.0190
40, 3:7, 23, load 0.0006 2.101 0.2065
40, 3:7, 23, no 0.0027 0.5914 0.0168
WiFi compared to 5G, shows worse network performance

characteristics, which results in worse monitoring accuracy. The length
deviation ∆S can be neglected. However, due to the inconsistency of the
performance, the shift of the center and the variance of length is higher
(∆C = 7.137 mm and σli
= 0.904 mm) and thus the WiFi performs worse for the real-world scenario
compared to all 5G configurations. This is mainly due to the fact that one
out of three runs performed very poorly.
6. Summary and Outlook

In this paper, a framework for DTs with different functions migrated in
a wireless fashion to an edge layer has been developed. In particular, the
focus has been on the required communication characteristics for 5G
mobile communication, which has been implemented, and validated. A 5G-
based DT of a machine tool for monitoring and manual control has been
evaluated and compared for different 5G configurations in a full factorial
experimental design. This is the first work that evaluates 5G performance
on a real-world 5G-enabled machine tool in the field.
The experiments validate that current 5G SA networks are sufficiently
powerful for monitoring and manual control of machine tools and thus com-
parable industrial applications. For this reason, the introduced interaction
layer can be implemented for DTs in CPPS using 5G-based communication.
Especially under high network load, the 5G standard offers sufficient perfor-
mance to achieve reliable operation of the DT. As our experiments validated,
this is a major advantage of 5G compared to WiFi. In addition, 5G offers
further technology-related advantages such as seamless handover between dif-
ferent radio heads, dedicated frequencies, or network slicing in combination
with VNF and SDN. Moreover, the deviation of the digital monitoring due
to 5G is sufficient accurate for macro scale observation. The experiments
show that low jitter and thus time determinism is more important for this
28
application as long as a sufficiently low latency is achieved.
In conclusion, the experiments validated that 5G can be an enabler for
edge-based DTs in manufacturing, which meets the requirements of the DT
to monitor and manually control a machine tool [4]. This enables the
needed flexibility and scalability, fast response time, reliability and thus full
functionality for different DTs. Our results show that 5G is currently the
most versatile wireless communication technology for CPPS that can be the
basis of the communication for a variety of industrial communication
applications in manufacturing, leading to a higher degree of wireless
communication in future CPPS.
For deploying a real-time layer for closed-loop control, ongoing develop-
ments in 5G hardware and software that are compliant with upcoming 5G
releases are needed. Another challenge is the inconsistency of the operation
of the 5G network. Currently, experts in operating a private 5G network are
needed to address problems in operations and configurations that can lead
to bad performance. Moreover, a private 5G SA network requires high initial
investments (high five to six figure in EUR) and expertise for setups and
operations.
The investigated experimental setup will provide a basis for future re-
search regarding the influence of industrial communication on DTs in real-
world manufacturing scenarios. Currently, the 5G SA network will be up-
dated for release 16 hardware that will enable uRLLC and time-
deterministic communication. In the future, a real-time edge layer will be
deployed to migrate the full CNC including closed-loop control to the edge
layer. The influence on real part quality for a migrated closed-loop control
based on the DT will be investigated. In addition, extensive studies with
further different 5G configurations and further communication technologies
will be conducted.
7. Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
(DFG, German Research Foundation) for its financial support in the context
of the IRTG 2057 (funding code: 252408385) and the Federal Ministry of
Digital and Transport (BMDV) for its financial support in the context of the
5x5G strategy (funding code: VB5GFKAISE).
29
References
[1] G. Nain, K. Pattanaik, G. Sharma, Towards edge computing in intelli-
gent manufacturing: Past, present and future, Journal of
Manufacturing Systems 62 (2022) 588–611.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.01.010.
[2] L. Monostori, B. Kádár, T. Bauernhansl, S. Kondoh, S. Kumara,

G. Reinhart, O. Sauer, G. Schuh, W. Sihn, K. Ueda, Cyber-physical
systems in manufacturing, CIRP Annals 65 (2016) 621–641. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2016.06.005.
[3] M. Glatt, C. Sinnwell, L. Yi, S. Donohoe, B. Ravani, J. C. Aurich,
Modeling and implementation of a digital twin of material flows based
on physics simulation, Journal of Manufacturing Systems 58 (2021)
231–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2020.04.015.
[4] S. Zeb, A. Mahmood, S. A. Hassan, M. J. Piran, M. Gidlund,

M. Guizani, Industrial digital twins at the nexus of NextG wireless
networks and computational intelligence: A survey, Journal of Net-
work and Computer Applications 200 (2022) 103–309. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jnca.2021.103309.
[5] J. Cheng, W. Chen, F. Tao, C.-L. Lin, Industrial IoT in 5G environ-
ment towards smart manufacturing, Journal of Industrial Information
Integration 10 (2018) 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2018.04.001.
[6] P. G. Lopez, A. Montresor, D. Epema, A. Datta, T. Higashino,

A. Iamnitchi, M. Barcellos, P. Felber, E. Riviere, Edge-centric Com-
puting, ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 45
(2015) 37–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/2831347.2831354.
[7] J. Autiosalo, J. Vepsalainen, R. Viitala, K. Tammi, A Feature-Based

Framework for Structuring Industrial Digital Twins, IEEE Access 8
(2020) 1193–1208. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2019.2950507.
[8] J. T. J. Penttinen, 5G explained: Security and deployment of advanced

mobile communications, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2019. https://doi.org/
10.1002/9781119275695.
[9] European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI): 5G. https:

//www.etsi.org/technologies/5g. 2022 (accessed 24.08.2023).
30
[10] J. Liu, N. Yang, T. So, 5G system architecture, in: 5G NR and En-
hancements, Elsevier, 2022, pp. 53–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-
323-91060-6.00003-9.
[11] I. Alawe, A. Ksentini, Y. Hadjadj-Aoul, P. Bertin, Improving Traf-
fic Forecasting for 5G Core Network Scalability: A Machine Learning
Approach, IEEE Network 32 (2018) 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1109/
MNET.2018.1800104.
[12] P. Rost, A. Banchs, I. Berberana, M. Breitbach, M. Doll, H. Droste,
C. Mannweiler, M. A. Puente, K. Samdanis, B. Sayadi, Mobile
network architecture evolution toward 5G, IEEE Communications
Magazine 54 (2016) 84–91.
https://doi.org/10.1109/mcom.2016.7470940.
[13] J. Ordonez-Lucena, P. Ameigeiras, D. Lopez, J. J. Ramos-Munoz,
J. Lorca, J. Folgueira, Network Slicing for 5G with SDN/NFV: Con-
cepts, Architectures, and Challenges, IEEE Communications Magazine
55 (2017) 80–87. https://doi.org/10.1109/mcom.2017.1600935.
[14] X. Foukas, G. Patounas, A. Elmokashfi, M. K. Marina, Network
Slicing in 5G: Survey and Challenges, IEEE Communications
Magazine 55 (2017) 94–100.
https://doi.org/10.1109/mcom.2017.1600951.
[15] M. Wen, Q. Li, K. J. Kim, D. Lopez-Perez, O. Dobre, H. V. Poor,
P. Popovski, T. Tsiftsis, Private 5G Networks: Concepts, Architectures,
and Research Landscape, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal
Processing 16 (2022) 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1109/jstsp.2021.3137669.
[16] Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, Guidelines for 5G
Campus Networks – Orientation for Small and Medium-Sized Busi-
nesses. https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/EN/Publikationen/Digitale-
Welt/guidelines-for-5g-campus-networks-orientation-for-small-and-
medium-sized-businesses.pdf. 2020 (accessed 24.08.2023).
[17] D. Mourtzis, J. Angelopoulos, N. Panopoulos, Smart Manufacturing and
Tactile Internet Based on 5G in Industry 4.0: Challenges, Applications
and New Trends, Electronics 10 (2021) 3175. https://doi.org/10.3390/
electronics10243175.
[18] A. Kropp, R.-S. Schmoll, G. T. Nguyen, F. H. P. Fitzek, Demonstration
of a 5G Multi-access Edge Cloud Enabled Smart Sorting Machine for
31
Industry 4.0, in: 2019 16th IEEE Annual Consumer Communications
& Networking Conference (CCNC), IEEE, 2019. https://doi.org/
10.1109/ccnc.2019.8651732.
[19] L. Girletti, M. Groshev, C. Guimaraes, C. J. Bernardos, A. de La Oliva,
An Intelligent Edge-based Digital Twin for Robotics, in: 2020 IEEE
Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps), IEEE, 12/7/2020 - 12/11/2020,
pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/GCWkshps50303.2020.9367549.
[20] L. Chettri, R. Bera, A Comprehensive Survey on Internet of Things
(IoT) Toward 5G Wireless Systems, IEEE Internet of Things Journal 7
(2020) 16–32. https://doi.org/10.1109/jiot.2019.2948888.
[21] Y. Shi, Q. Han, W. Shen, H. Zhang, Potential applications of 5G
communication technologies in collaborative intelligent manufacturing,
IET Collaborative Intelligent Manufacturing 1 (2019) 109–116. https:
//doi.org/10.1049/iet-cim.2019.0007.
[22] J. Mertes, D. Lindenschmitt, M. Amirrezai, N. Tashakor, M. Glatt,
C. Schellenberger, S. M. Shah, A. Karnoub, C. Hobelsberger, L. Yi,
S. Götz, J. C. Aurich, H. D. Schotten, Evaluation of 5G-capable
framework for highly mobile, scalable human-machine interfaces in
cyber- physical production systems, Journal of Manufacturing Systems
64 (2022) 578–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.08.009.
[23] J. Ren, Y. He, G. Huang, G. Yu, Y. Cai, Z. Zhang, An Edge-Computing
Based Architecture for Mobile Augmented Reality, IEEE Network 33
(2019) 162–169. https://doi.org/10.1109/mnet.2018.1800132.
[24] M. Groshev, C. Guimaraes, A. de La Oliva, R. Gazda, Dissect-
ing the Impact of Information and Communication Technologies on
Digital Twins as a Service, IEEE Access 9 (2021) 102862–102876.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3098109.
[25] P. Isto, T. Heikkila¨, A. Mämmelä, M. Uitto, T. Seppälä, J. M.
Ahola, 5G Based Machine Remote Operation Development Utilizing
Digital Twin, Open Engineering 10 (2020) 265–272.
https://doi.org/10.1515/ eng-2020-0039.
[26] X. Lin, A. Grovlen, K. Werner, J. Li, R. Baldemair, J.-F. T. Cheng,
S. Parkvall, D. C. Larsson, H. Koorapaty, M. Frenne, S. Falahati, 5G
32
New Radio: Unveiling the Essentials of the Next Generation Wireless
Access Technology, IEEE Communications Standards Magazine 3 (2019)
30–37. https://doi.org/10.1109/mcomstd.001.1800036.
[27] X. Lin, An Overview of 5G Advanced Evolution in 3GPP Release 18,

IEEE Communications Standards Magazine 6 (2022) 77–83. https://
doi.org/10.1109/MCOMSTD.0001.2200001.
[28] 3GPP, Study on Scenarios and Requirements for Next Gen-

eration Access Technologies (Release 16) in TR 38.913 V.
16.0.0. https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/
SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=2996. 2020 (accessed
01.08.2023).
[29] A. Ghosh, A. Maeder, M. Baker, D. Chandramouli, 5G Evolution: A

View on 5G Cellular Technology Beyond 3GPP Release 15, IEEE Access
7 (2019) 127639–127651. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2019.2939938.
[30] 5G Americas, Becoming 5G-Advanced: the 3GPP 2025 Roadmap. https:

//www.5gamericas.org/becoming-5g-advanced-the-3gpp-roadmap/.
2022 (accessed 01.08.2023).
[31] J. T. J. Penttinen, 5G second phase explained: The 3GPP release 16

enhancements, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2021. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/
servlet/opac?bknumber=9508776.
[32] S. Senk, S. A. W. Itting, J. Gabriel, C. Lehmann, T. Hoeschele, F. H. P.

Fitzek, M. Reisslein, 5G NSA and SA Campus Network Testbeds for
Evaluating Industrial Automation, in: European Wireless 2021, VDE
Verlag GmbH, Berlin and Offenbach, 2021.
[33] S. B. Mallikarjun, C. Schellenberger, C. Hobelsberger, H. D. Schotten,

Performance Analysis of a Private 5G SA Campus Network, in: V. D.
ITG (Ed.), ITG-Fb. 304: Mobilkommunikation – Technologien und
An- wendungen, ITG-Fachberichte, VDE Verlag, Berlin, 2022.
[34] J. Rischke, P. Sossalla, S. Itting, F. H. P. Fitzek, M. Reisslein, 5G

Campus Networks: A First Measurement Study, IEEE Access 9
(2021) 121786–121803.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3108423.
33
[35] M. Grieves, J. Vickers, Digital Twin: Mitigating Unpredictable, Unde-
sirable Emergent Behavior in Complex Systems, in: Transdisciplinary
Perspectives on Complex Systems, Springer International Publishing,
2016, pp. 85–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38756-7\ 4.
[36] M. Shafto, M. Conroy, R. Doyle, E. Glaessgen, C. Kemp, J. LeMoigne,

L. Wang, Draft Modeling, Simulation, Information Technology &
Processing Roadmap. https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/501321main\ TA11-
MSITP-DRAFT-Nov2010-A1.pdf. 2010 (accessed 16.11.2022).
[37] M. Liu, S. Fang, H. Dong, C. Xu, Review of digital twin about concepts,
technologies, and industrial applications, Journal of Manufacturing Sys-
tems 58 (2021) 346–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2020.06.017.
[38] W. Kritzinger, M. Karner, G. Traar, J. Henjes, W. Sihn, Digital

Twin in manufacturing: A categorical literature review and classi-
fication, IFAC-PapersOnLine 51 (2018) 1016–1022. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.474.
[39] Y. Lu, C. Liu, K. I.-K. Wang, H. Huang, X. Xu, Digital Twin-driven

smart manufacturing: Connotation, reference model, applications and
research issues, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 61
(2020) 101837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2019.101837.
[40] Z. Zhu, C. Liu, X. Xu, Visualisation of the Digital Twin data in

manufacturing by using Augmented Reality, Procedia CIRP 81 (2019)
898–903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2019.03.223.
[41] L. Yi, M. Glatt, S. Ehmsen, W. Duan, J. C. Aurich, Process

monitoring of economic and environmental performance of a mate-
rial extrusion printer using an augmented reality-based digital twin,
Additive Manufacturing 48 (2021) 102388. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.addma.2021.102388.
[42] J. Lee, E. Lapira, B. Bagheri, H. Kao, Recent advances and

trends in predictive manufacturing systems in big data environ-
ment, Manufacturing Letters 1 (2013) 38–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.mfglet.2013.09.005.
34
[43] A. A. Malik, A. Bilberg, Digital twins of human robot collaboration
in a production setting, Procedia Manufacturing 17 (2018) 278–285.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.10.047.
[44] A. Atanasyan, J. Rossmann, An Architecture for AR-based Human-

Machine Interaction with Application to an Autonomous Mobile Robot
Platform, in: ISR 2020; 52th International Symposium on Robotics,
2020, pp. 1–6.
[45] J. Liu, H. Zhou, X. Liu, G. Tian, M. Wu, L. Cao, W. Wang, Dynamic

Evaluation Method of Machining Process Planning Based on Digital
Twin, IEEE Access 7 (2019) 19312–19323. https://doi.org/10.1109/
access.2019.2893309.
[46] J. Mertes, M. Glatt, C. Schellenberger, M. Klar, H. D. Schotten, J. C.

Aurich, Development of a 5G-enabled Digital Twin of a Machine
Tool, Procedia CIRP 107 (2022) 173–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.procir.2022.04.029.
[47] S. Ke, F. Xiang, Z. Zhang, Y. Zuo, A enhanced interaction framework

based on VR, AR and MR in digital twin, Procedia CIRP 83 (2019)
753–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2019.04.103.
[48] S. Liu, S. Lu, J. Li, X. Sun, Y. Lu, J. Bao, Machining process-oriented

monitoring method based on digital twin via augmented reality, The
In- ternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 113
(2021) 3491–3508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021-06838-5.
[49] Y. Yin, P. Zheng, C. Li, L. Wang, A state-of-the-art survey on Aug-

mented Reality-assisted Digital Twin for futuristic human-centric indus-
try transformation, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing
81 (2023) 102515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2022.102515.
[50] M. Dallel, V. Havard, Y. Dupuis, D. Baudry, Digital twin of

an industrial workstation: A novel method of an auto-labeled data
generator using virtual reality for human action recognition in the
context of human–robot collaboration, Engineering Applications
of Artificial Intelligence 118 (2023) 105655. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.engappai.2022.105655.
35
[51] V. Havard, B. Jeanne, M. Lacomblez, D. Baudry, Digital twin and
virtual reality: a co-simulation environment for design and assessment
of industrial workstations, Production & Manufacturing Research 7
(2019) 472–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/21693277.2019.1660283.
[52] P. Stavropoulos, D. Mourtzis, Digital twins in industry 4.0, in: Design

and Operation of Production Networks for Mass Personalization in the
Era of Cloud Technology, Elsevier, 2022, pp. 277–316. https://doi.org/
10.1016/b978-0-12-823657-4.00010-5.
[53] J. Autiosalo, J. Vepsalainen, R. Viitala, K. Tammi, A Feature-Based

Framework for Structuring Industrial Digital Twins, IEEE Access 8
(2020) 1193–1208. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2950507.
[54] F. Tao, J. Cheng, Q. Qi, M. Zhang, H. Zhang, F. Sui, Digital twin-

driven product design, manufacturing and service with big data, The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 94
(2017) 3563–3576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-0233-1.
[55] J. Navarro-Ortiz, P. Romero-Diaz, S. Sendra, P. Ameigeiras, J. J.

Ramos-Munoz, J. M. Lopez-Soler, A Survey on 5G Usage Scenarios and
Traffic Models, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 22 (2020)
905–929. https://doi.org/10.1109/comst.2020.2971781.
[56] Z. Lv, D. Chen, H. Feng, R. Lou, H. Wang, Beyond 5G for digital

twins of UAVs, Computer Networks 197 (2021) 108366.
https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.comnet.2021.108366.
[57] C. Hu, W. Fan, E. Zeng, Z. Hang, F. Wang, L. Qi, M. Z. A. Bhuiyan,

Digital Twin-Assisted Real-Time Traffic Data Prediction Method for
5G-Enabled Internet of Vehicles, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Infor-
matics 18 (2022) 2811–2819. https://doi.org/10.1109/tii.2021.3083596.
[58] K. Kubiak, G. Dec, D. Stadnicka, Possible Applications of Edge Com-

puting in the Manufacturing Industry—Systematic Literature Review,
Sensors 22 (2022) 2445. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22072445.
[59] F. Tao, Q. Qi, A. Liu, A. Kusiak, Data-driven smart manufacturing,

Journal of Manufacturing Systems 48 (2018) 157–169. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.01.006.
36
[60] Q. Zhang, L. Cheng, R. Boutaba, Cloud computing: state-of-the-art
and research challenges, Journal of Internet Services and Applications
1 (2010) 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13174-010-0007-6.
[61] B. Chen, J. Wan, A. Celesti, D. Li, H. Abbas, Q. Zhang, Edge Com-
puting in IoT-Based Manufacturing, IEEE Communications Magazine
56 (2018) 103–109. https://doi.org/10.1109/mcom.2018.1701231.
[62] W. Shi, J. Cao, Q. Zhang, Y. Li, L. Xu, Edge Computing: Vision
and Challenges, IEEE Internet of Things Journal 3 (2016) 637–646.
https://doi.org/10.1109/jiot.2016.2579198.
[63] X. Wang, Y. Han, V. C. M. Leung, D. Niyato, X. Yan, X. Chen, Con-
vergence of Edge Computing and Deep Learning: A Comprehensive
Survey, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 22 (2020) 869–
904. https://doi.org/10.1109/comst.2020.2970550.
[64] J. Zhang, C. Deng, P. Zheng, X. Xu, Z. Ma, Development of an edge
computing-based cyber-physical machine tool, Robotics and
Computer- Integrated Manufacturing 67 (2021) 102042.
https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.rcim.2020.102042.
[65] Q. Qi, F. Tao, A Smart Manufacturing Service System Based on Edge
Computing, Fog Computing, and Cloud Computing, IEEE Access 7
(2019) 86769–86777. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2019.2923610.
[66] F. Tao, M. Zhang, A. Nee, Digital Twin and Cloud, Fog, Edge Com-
puting, in: Digital Twin Driven Smart Manufacturing, Elsevier, 2019,
pp. 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-817630-6.00008-4.
[67] P. Lou, S. Liu, J. Hu, R. Li, Z. Xiao, J. Yan, Intelligent Machine Tool
Based on Edge-Cloud Collaboration, IEEE Access 8 (2020) 139953–
139965. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.3012829.
[68] H. Yu, D. Yu, C. Wang, Y. Hu, Y. Li, Edge intelligence-driven digi-
tal twin of CNC system: Architecture and deployment, Robotics and
Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 79 (2023) 102418.
https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rcim.2022.102418.
[69] Y. Siriwardhana, P. Porambage, M. Liyanage, M. Ylianttila, A Sur-
vey on Mobile Augmented Reality With 5G Mobile Edge Computing:
37
Architectures, Applications, and Technical Aspects, IEEE
Communica- tions Surveys & Tutorials 23 (2021) 1160–1192.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ comst.2021.3061981.
[70] J. Um, V. Gezer, A. Wagner, M. Ruskowski, Edge Computing in Smart

Production, in: Advances in Service and Industrial Robotics, Springer
International Publishing, 2019, pp. 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-030-19648-6\ 17.
[71] M. Wollschlaeger, T. Sauter, J. Jasperneite, The Future of Industrial

Communication: Automation Networks in the Era of the Internet of
Things and Industry 4.0, IEEE Industrial Electronics Magazine 11
(2017) 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIE.2017.2649104.
[72] M. K. Atiq, R. Muzaffar, O. Seijo, I. Val, H.-P. Bernhard, When IEEE

802.11 and 5G Meet Time-Sensitive Networking, IEEE Open Journal
of the Industrial Electronics Society 3 (2022) 14–36. https://doi.org/
10.1109/OJIES.2021.3135524.
[73] J. Mertes, M. Glatt, L. Yi, M. Klar, B. Ravani, J. C. Aurich, Modeling

and Implementation of a 5G-Enabled Digital Twin of a Machine Tool
Based on Physics Simulation, in: Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on
Physical Modeling for Virtual Manufacturing Systems and Processes,
Springer International Publishing, 2023, pp. 90–110. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-031-35779-4\ 6.
[74] S. Lee, H. Kim, D.-k. Hong, H. Ju, Correlation analysis of MQTT loss
and delay according to QoS level, in: The International Conference
on Information Networking 2013 (ICOIN 2013), IEEE, Piscataway,
NJ, 2013, pp. 714–717. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICOIN.2013.6496715.
[75] J. Cardoso, P. Derler, J. C. Eidson, E. A. Lee, Network latency and

packet delay variation in cyber-physical systems, in: J. Cole (Ed.), 2011
IEEE Network Science Workshop (NSW 2011), IEEE, Piscataway, NJ,
2011, pp. 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1109/NSW.2011.6004658.
[76] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE Standard

for Information Technology - 802.11ax-2021. https://doi.org/10.1109/
IEEESTD.2021.9442429. 2021 (accessed 24.08.2023).
38
[77] 3GPP, Study on communication for automation in ver-
tical domains (release 16) in TR 22.804 V. 16.3.0.
https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/
SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3187. 2020 (accessed
13.05.2023).
39

MLM Ma

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MLM Ma

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Graphical Abstract

Is the Future of Manufacturing Wireless? Experimental Investi-

• A framework for 5G-enabled digital twins in cyber-physical production

• The framework focuses on different communication requirements and

• An experimental evaluation of 5G performance in a real-world manu-

• A comparison between the performance of 5G mobile communication

• The experimental results show that 5G is suitable for a digital twin of

Preprint submitted to Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 2023-09-26

• Enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB) with bandwidths more than 100

In the context of manufacturing (e.g., for machine tool control),

2.3. Cloud and edge computing for manufacturing

Monitoring 45 >99.9 10−3 varies

real-time capable edge computing systems.

2.4. Research objectives

• The first objective of this paper is to perform a comprehensive assess-

• The second objective is to develop and implement a framework for

3. Framework for 5G-enabled Digital Twins based on edge com-

• Flexibility and scalability: It should be possible to implement mul-

• Edge computing capabilities: The architecture should meet the

• Real-time capability and reliability: The architecture should en-

To achieve those objectives, a wireless interconnection between different

3.2. System Structure

Big data analysis

Real-time layer Interaction layer

Field and control level

Edge internal communication 5G mobile communication

Smart Devices Computing units HMD

Figure 1: Architecture for 5G-enabled, edge-based DT in manufacturing.

Spectral analysis Information

Manufacturing System Interaction layer

FPGA Commands Commands Monitoring

Real-time layer Edge Device

Figure 2: Implemented 5G-enabled, edge-based DT of a CNC machine tool.

Wireshark MQTT Broker

Machine toolCNC EdgeDigital Twin device

Figure 3: Experimental setup.

CENSORED for blind review

Real process Digital process

a standardized manufacturing process of a workpiece is performed, which

with M = Σi mi , mi is the individual mass of each point, and ⃗ci is

Figure 5: Setup for the determination of the accuracy of the DT.

5. Results and Discussion

Figure 6: Latency of the system with different network configurations.

Resulting jitter for different 5G configurations

Figure 7: Jitter of the system with different network configurations.

800 Download rate

Figure 8: UL and DL rates for different network configurations of setup 2.

5.2. Influence of 5G communication on the DT

WiFi compared to 5G, shows worse network performance

6. Summary and Outlook

[2] L. Monostori, B. K´ad´ar, T. Bauernhansl, S. Kondoh, S. Kumara,

[4] S. Zeb, A. Mahmood, S. A. Hassan, M. J. Piran, M. Gidlund,

[6] P. G. Lopez, A. Montresor, D. Epema, A. Datta, T. Higashino,

[7] J. Autiosalo, J. Vepsalainen, R. Viitala, K. Tammi, A Feature-Based

[8] J. T. J. Penttinen, 5G explained: Security and deployment of advanced

[9] European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI): 5G. https:

[27] X. Lin, An Overview of 5G Advanced Evolution in 3GPP Release 18,

[28] 3GPP, Study on Scenarios and Requirements for Next Gen-

[29] A. Ghosh, A. Maeder, M. Baker, D. Chandramouli, 5G Evolution: A

[30] 5G Americas, Becoming 5G-Advanced: the 3GPP 2025 Roadmap. https:

[31] J. T. J. Penttinen, 5G second phase explained: The 3GPP release 16

[32] S. Senk, S. A. W. Itting, J. Gabriel, C. Lehmann, T. Hoeschele, F. H. P.