Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104785

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Automation in Construction
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/autcon

Review

Digital twinning of civil infrastructures: Current state of model

architectures, interoperability solutions, and future prospects
Hossein Naderi, Alireza Shojaei *
Myers-Lawson School of Construction, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The potential of using Digital Twins within the context of civil infrastructures has prompted a focus on infra­
Digital twins structure digital twins (IDTs). Despite some attempts to provide an overview of IDT knowledge domains, no
Civil infrastructures specific study has focused on the inner structure and components of IDTs. This paper attempts to address this gap
Interoperability
by taking a deeper look into IDTs architecture through a combination of qualitative and quantitative analyses of
Content analysis
85 studies between 2012 and 2022. The content analysis combined with network analysis theories enabled us to
Network theory
Metaverse examine different IDT architectures, twinning technologies, and interoperability solutions. The findings were
Evolution map synthesized to demonstrate the evolution map of IDT structure in four maturity levels. This paper can facilitate
the adoption of IDTs in the AEC industry by illustrating a detailed picture of IDT structure to practitioners and
researchers as well as insight into how recent technologies can enhance IDTs models in the future.

1. Introduction In recent years, significant attention has been drawn to discussions

Digital Twins (DTs) have gained significant popularity since first
appearing in Michael W. Grieves’s Product Lifecycle Management (PLM)
model in 2002 [1], and the term is now considered an aspect of Industry
4.0 [2,3]. DTs are often described as real-time versions of physical assets
[4]. Technology advances, such as the Internet of Things (IoTs), have
expanded the applications of DT to a wide variety of industries [5],
including aerospace [6] and manufacturing [7–9]. Likewise, the Archi­
tecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry experienced its
first generations of DTs following the integration of technologies, such
as real-time sensing data with building information modeling (BIM)
[10,11].
Civil infrastructures of every society serve as its foundation [12], and
the current aging of those infrastructures has resulted in reduced ser­
vices and financial and social challenges [13]. In this situation, DTs with
various technological structures can slow the deterioration process
while improving the performance of built assets in many ways. For
example, when combined with computational and artificial intelligence
(AI) technologies, DTs can offer diagnostic analytics throughout the
lifecycle of infrastructure [14]. However, the complexity [15], large
scale, and long duration of infrastructure projects compared to other
projects [16] can make digital twinning of infrastructures more
challenging.
regarding DTs in the AEC industry. The number of DT-related studies in
the civil engineering domain is a good indication of this trend. Fig. 1
demonstrates this remarkable increase, with the number of studies
nearly tripling in the last three years. Whereas DTs are still in their in­
fancy and many researchers refer to DTs interchangeably with BIM [4].
Others consider DT as a simple 3D representation of their assets,
enabling them to may utilize it to improve operation and maintenance
tasks [4]. This confusing environment and the inherent complexity of
infrastructures highlight the need to look at the inner structure of IDTs in
order to gain a better understanding of their adoption potential.
Few studies focused on infrastructure digital twins (IDTs)
[14,17,18], which are primarily concerned with the development stra­
tegies, applications, and challenges of IDTs through interview-based
approaches. Although the applicability of IDT is associated with its
components and technologies, no prior studies have evaluated twinning
technologies, interoperability solutions, and potentials of different DT
architectures in the context of civil infrastructures. The present study is
an attempt to address this gap by proposing the following research
questions (RQs):
RQ1: What are the main twinning technologies for creating IDTs?
RQ2: What are the potentials of different IDT architectures?
RQ3: How did interoperability solutions enable the integration of
twinning technologies for creating IDTs?

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: hnaderi@vt.edu (H. Naderi), shojaei@vt.edu (A. Shojaei).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2023.104785
Received 10 May 2022; Received in revised form 28 January 2023; Accepted 3 February 2023
Available online 12 February 2023
0926-5805/© 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
H. Naderi and A. Shojaei
70
60 66
50 44
40
30
24
20
10
3
1 concept, and a bi-directional flow is an essential element of DTs [14].
0 DTs are becoming an imperative part of responses to open issues in
2014 2018 2019 2020 2021
Fig. 1. Frequency of DT-related publications per year in the AEC field (Source:
Searching “Digital Twin” in Web of Science and limiting “Categories” to “En­
gineering Civil” on 27th Dec 2021).
RQ4: What is the current state of IDT development, and how will it
evolve in the future?
In order to address these questions, this study systematically
reviewed 85 relevant articles between 2012 and 2022 using a combi­
nation of quantitative (network analysis) and qualitative (content
analysis) approaches.
The study is divided into 6 sections. Section 2 provides an overview
of the DT concept and related studies concentrating on technology and
interoperability elements. Section 2 is followed by outlining the sys­
tematic review methodology in Section 3. Section 4 analyzes twinning
technologies, DT architectures, and interoperability solutions based on
their applications and potential advantages to answer RQ1-RQ3
respectively. To address RQ4, we synthesize findings in previous sec­
tions to provide a picture of the current state of IDT development and
future prospects in Section 5. Finally, this review paper is concluded in
Section 6.
2. Background
In this section, first, we provide a set of definitions out and within the
AEC industry. Then, the DT concept is distinguished from other closely
related and confusing technologies, such as BIM, Cyber-Physical System
(CPS), and Simulation models. Finally, these definitions and concepts
are synthesized to generate an inclusive definition of IDT.
2.1. Digital twin definitions
One of the most widely cited definitions of DTs is NASA’s, which
states: “integrated multi-physics, multi-scale, probabilistic simulation of
a vehicle or system that uses the best available physical models, sensor
updates, fleet history, etc., to mirror the life of its corresponding flying
twin” [6]. Another definition is the Grieves’s [1] one, which extends the
scope of DTs into manufacturing and microscopic processes, which de­
fines DT as a “set of virtual information constructs that fully describes a
potential or actual physical manufacturing product from the micro
atomic level to the macro geometrical level”. Furthermore, Madni [19]
took the term into Operation and Maintenance (O&M) phase when
defined DTs as “a virtual instance of a physical system (twin) that is
continually updated with the physical system’s performance, mainte­
nance, and health status data throughout the physical system’s
lifecycle”.
When it comes to the AEC industry, a consensus definition for DTs,
which is still in its infancy, is not yet established [14]. However, there
are some definitions with different scopes. Some provided generic def­
initions for DTs in the built environment. For example, The Centre for
Digital Built Britain [20] explained IDTs as “a realistic digital repre­
sentation of assets, processes or systems in the built or natural
2
Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104785
environment”. Others have defined DTs considering technologies and
information flows, such as Al-Sehrawy and Kumar [21], who described
DTs as “the concept of connecting a physical system to its virtual rep­
resentation via bidirectional communication (with or without a human
in the loop)…allowing for the exploitation of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
and Big Data Analytics… to unlock value”. In this definition, AI and Big
Data are considered as two main enabling technologies of DTs within the
AEC industry. Davila Delgado and Oyedele [22] stated that major DTs in
the AEC industry are BIM extensions enabling real-time data capture and
feedback. Further, experts in the IDTs concept confirmed that technol­
ogies such as BIM and 3D-CAD models are relevant to the digital twin
infrastructures. For example, a DT was proposed to solve inconsistent
service of satellite-terrestrial networks [23]. In another effort, a DT-
based system was developed to improve centralized control in the
infrastructure of vehicular networks [24]. Despite these efforts, the DT
concept still suffers from a lack of common understanding among
various parties. To address this issue, some studies provide a systematic
review and bibliometric analysis to create a comprehensive picture of
DTs in infrastructure [17,25]. However, more studies are still needed to
explore the inner structure of IDTs. This study is an effort to address this
gap.
2.2. Concept clarification
2.2.1. DT vs. simulation models
While DTs as a digital replica of the real world might seem compa­
rable to simulation models at first glance, DTs are different because they
are updated based on real-time data from the actual physical twin.
However, simulation models are dependent on what-if scenarios and
what could occur based on such circumstances, not real-life occurrences
[7].
2.2.2. DT vs. BIM
Although using DTs instead of BIM is common in DT-related studies
in the AEC industry [4], there are significant differences. As mentioned
in the above paragraph, there is a bi-directional data flow between
physical and cyber-space in DTs, unlike BIM [5,26]. Furthermore, ac­
cording to Sacks’s study [4], BIM systems evolved as a result of the need
for a tool to monitor design components before construction. Even as-
built BIM models cannot compete with DTs, which are constantly
updated representations of physical twins. This is because as-built
models are typically generated reactively after the construction phase,
rather than permanently like DTs. [4].
2.2.3. DT vs. cyber-physical system (CPS)
The most challenging comparison is between DTs and CPS since
there is no consensus on the differences between the two terms [22].
However, there are three types of comparison between DTs and CPS in
the literature. In the first group, DTs are alternative applications of CPS
for space and manufacturing industries [27]. Another group of com­
parisons considers DTs as a prerequisite for CPS, where CPS is a high-
level term, and DT is a subsidiary for specific use cases [3,28].
Although the third group of comparisons admits similarities between DT
and CPS in their focus on physical counterparts and the transfer of data
among virtual and physical twins promptly, it states that DTs require a
virtual model and a twin relationship with its physical entity, unlike CPS
[5].
2.2.4. Digital model, shadow, or twin
Kritzinger [29] classified DTs into three classes based on the impact
of virtual twins on physical twins and the data flow between them:
Digital Model, Digital Shadow, and Digital Twin. When data flows in
both directions between virtual and physical twins, it is a Digital Twin; a
uni-directional data flow and the absence of data flow represent Digital
H. Naderi and A. Shojaei
Shadows and Digital Models, respectively.
2.3. IDT definition
Based on definitions and clarifications in sections 2.2 and 2.3, a new
definition can be synthesized for IDT. Infrastructure Digital Twin (IDT)
is defined as a virtual replica of a physical asset with bi-directional data
flow (between virtual and physical worlds) that, solely or in integration
with other IDTs as a part of system-of-systems, give a deeper under­
standing of how infrastructures truly work, enabling better performance
of infrastructures.
3. Research method
3.1. Database and search query
An important factor influencing the outcome of systematic reviews is
the selection of search systems, which enable an objective and repeat­
able review [30]. This is especially important when the systematic re­
view is about a new topic, such as DTs. Combining several databases,
such as Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and Google Scholar enables us to
find more IDT-related studies. Google Scholar, however, is not an
appropriate search engine for systematic reviews, according to Gusen­
bauer and Haddaway [31]. Therefore, we used the combination of WoS
and Scopus to identify studies related to IDTs.
Query-based search is one of the most fundamental methods for
identifying relevant studies in a field of research [32]. However, forming
an appropriate search query for the inclusion of DT studies in in­
frastructures is challenging, as the term “Digital Twins” is often used in
an ambiguous manner [4]. This issue is addressed by building a
comprehensive search query.
Fig. 2 depicts the process of creating search queries for identifying
Fig. 2. Process of building the search query for identifying studies related to Infrastructure Digital Twins (IDTs).
3
Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104785
relevant IDTs. The search query is mainly constructed from two blocks,
namely “Digital Twins” and “Infrastructure”. The infrastructure block
contains different equivalents of the infrastructure word, such as
“Highway” and “Bridge, which are linked together using the OR com­
mands. To cover DT-related words (right block) in the search query, we
considered two sub-families connected by OR command: (1) Digital
Twins and its other related forms as “Digital Twins Word Family”; (2) a
combination between “BIM Word Family” and “Sensor Word Family”
coupled with the AND command. The sub-family of BIM/Sensors was
included as part of our search query as it represents a DT model in many
studies without directly mentioning the term. Finally, the search query is
built by integrating two primary blocks using AND command.
3.2. Study identification (stage 1)
After identifying potential databases and formulating search queries,
we can identify relevant studies. Fig. 3 illustrates four stages of this
review, the first of which is detailed here. The search query was applied
in the “Title” and “Abstract” fields of identified search engines with the
OR command. This approach enables us to cover any studies in the WoS
and Scopus databases that include query keywords in their abstract or
title. The number of identified study records in WoS and Scopus data­
bases on December 27, 2021, was 729 and 2078, respectively.
Several refinements were made to search outputs to align identified
studies to the scope of the review. The language requirement for records
in both databases is English. As depicted in Fig. 1, the emergence of DTs
is still in its infancy, so a broad date range is not necessary to identify
relevant IDTs. Accordingly, we narrowed the identified search results to
the last decade, with dates ranging from 2012 to 2022. Journal articles
are the most influential records for systematic reviews [33], which also
improve review studies’ quality. Additionally, it is widely recognized
that, in computer science, research findings are often published in
H. Naderi and A. Shojaei
Fig. 3. Stages of the systematic review of infrastructure digital twins (IDTs)
conference papers [34] and that many of DT’s enabling technologies
originate from this field. As a result, we limited document types of
identified studies in WoS to the journal and conference proceedings
articles. However, we limited the Scopus database to journal document
types since (1) Scopus database covers less number of proceeding papers
than WoS while there is a considerable amount of content overlap be­
tween these two databases [35]; (2) even though having more pro­
ceeding papers increases the scope breath, it does not increase the scope
depth since most conference papers provide only a conceptual frame­
work without substantial contribution to the body of knowledge. These
limits reduced the number of records in WoS and Scopus databases to
655 and 606, respectively.
3.3. Screening (stages 2 and 3)
IDTs’ eligibility was determined by a set of criteria to make sure the
identified studies are within our review scope. According to these
criteria: (1) identified studies must be within the AEC industry context;
(2) the developed DT must be relevant to at least one particular physical
infrastructure, such as bridges, water and wastewater systems, roads,
and railways. This constraint is because many DT models developed for
buildings are not applicable in the complex environment of civil in­
frastructures; (3) the identified studies must include a digital twin or
4
Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104785
shadow according to concept clarification in section 2.2.4. This
constraint is mainly because, despite the use of the Digital Twins term in
titles or abstracts of many studies, the term is merely a synonym for a 3D
model without any data flow.
Fig. 3 shows stage two, in which the titles and abstracts of studies
identified during previous stages are screened according to pre­
determined criteria. Following this process, 532 and 496 studies are
excluded from identified studies in WoS and Scopus databases, respec­
tively. The remaining studies from both databases are merged by
removing 47 duplicated records. In many circumstances, the eligibility
of studies cannot be addressed with a title and abstract check, and the
entire text must be reviewed. As illustrated in stage three of Fig. 3, we
performed this process on all 187 remaining research. Eventually, 85
studies remained in the scope of the study, serving as the foundation for
our further analyses.
3.4. Data analysis methods (stage 4)
According to stage four in Fig. 3, a mix of qualitative and quantita­
tive methods was applied in this study to address RQs. In terms of the
qualitative part, content analysis was used to address RQs, a technique
that can be described as making replicable and valid inferences based on
texts [36]. According to Tao, et al. [37], DT models are composed of five
H. Naderi and A. Shojaei Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104785

components: physical twin, virtual twin, connections, data, and services. synchronized to guarantee a smooth data distribution between tech­
In this regard, we reviewed the entire texts of 85 core studies and labeled nology groups and physical entities.
them to answer RQs. Twining technologies in each study are extracted to
answer RQ1. To answer RQ2, a piece of multi-layer information was 4.2. Infrastructure types and IDTs services
extracted. First, infrastructure physical twins, whose characteristics and
features are reflected in DTs, are identified. Next, applications and ser­ Considering that DTs mirror their physical counterparts, the char­
vices that DTs provide in infrastructures are extracted and categorized. acteristics of physical twins have an inevitable impact on the structure of
Then, all core studies were labeled by the stage of lifecycle on which DTs DTs. As a result, we labeled 85 identified IDTs according to their asso­
are focused. These layers of information, then, were synthesized in ciated physical twins through a content analysis of the whole text of
section 4.6 to answer RQ2. Next, interoperability solutions that are identified studies (see Table 1). Furthermore, the existing services pro­
proposed in core studies were extracted to answer RQ3. Finally, a vided by IDTs in identified studies are presented in Table 1. Physical
quantitative approach was utilized in this study to extract system ar­ twins with similar backgrounds are also merged into one of eight
chitectures in DT models and hidden relationships among different infrastructure domains. The contribution of each infrastructure domain
technologies for constructing IDTs to answer RQ4. To this end, Network is calculated by dividing its actual frequency by the number of whole
analysis theories were carried out to extract insights by measuring
various metrics of networks. Network metrics, namely the degree cen­ Table 1
trality, density, and betweenness centrality, are extracted using Gephi Physical entities and applications of digital twins within the context of civil
[38] software as an open-source graph and analysis tool to uncover infrastructures.
network patterns. It is necessary to define network metrics before uti­ Infrastructure Physical Twins Existing IDT services
lizing them in Section 4. Degree Centrality, as one of the network metrics Domains
used in this study, is defined as the total number of edges connected to a
IDT development Conceptual Resource flow simulation, construction
node [39], when this metric is higher, the node is more central in the (24%) Models safety, design change prediction,
network. Network Density is also defined as the ratio of actual links supplier selection, clash detection,
among nodes to all possible links, with a value between 0 and 1 [40]. progress monitoring, disaster
management, quality control, delay risk
Betweenness Centrality is defined for each node in a network and
management, lean management
measures the possibility that an arbitrary shortest path in the network Public Buildings University Anomaly detection, educational
will pass the node [41]. (14%) Campus management, comfort improvement,
energy management
4. Findings Offshore objective maintenance inspection,
Lighthouse predictive maintenance, structural
health monitoring
4.1. Infrastructure digital twins (IDTs) reference model Hospital Energy management, facility
management, anomaly detection
Extracted technologies from the inner structure of IDTs in core Industrial predictive maintenance, automatic
Building anomaly detection
studies were categorized into four main groups of technologies: (1) data
Prefabricated Progress tracking, cost control
acquisition technologies; (2) information models technologies; (3) data Assets
processing technologies; and (4) interoperability technologies. Each of Railway Station Passenger load on trains, real-time
these categories is discussed in more detail in the following sections. carbon emission
Fig. 4 shows a simplified reference model of IDTs based on these four Museum Secure monitoring and protection of
exhibitions
technology groups extracted from core studies. This reference model
MEP Service life prediction of MEP
depicts how the integration of these technology groups creates a DT for Bridges (16%) Bridge Bridge service life prediction, anomaly
civil infrastructures. Data acquisition technologies serve as a bridge detection, seismic collapse assessment,
between the physical and virtual worlds to communicate data in a bi- structural health analysis
Power and Oil and Gas Risk management, objective
directional manner. Information model technologies abstract informa­
Energy (6%) maintenance inspection
tion of physical entities and data processing technologies extract hidden Photovoltaic Feasibility study of PV location
knowledge behind heterogeneous multi-source data and enable Power Station
insightful decisions [42]. These three groups of technologies, finally, are Power Objective maintenance inspection,
Distribution predictive maintenance
Wind Turbine Energy production monitoring,
Airport and Ports Airport Gates control, refurbishment
(7%) performance improvement, airport
management
Port Track dispatching optimization, port
resilience improvement, port
management
Railways (5%) Railway On-site logistic improvement, control of
urban rail transit property, monitoring
railway turnout condition
Roads (16%) Road Highway alignment optimization,
refurbishment improvement, objective
maintenance inspection
Tunnel Automatic anomaly detection, fault
cause analysis of fans, Prediction of
pavement performance
Water Systems Inland Waterway Water canal safety monitoring
(12%) Sewer Network Monitor and report sewer asset
performance
Water Planning of requirements in water
Distributions infrastructures, Flood detection, Water
saving, Water demand, and quality
monitoring
Fig. 4. Reference model of infrastructure digital twins.

5
H. Naderi and A. Shojaei
IDTs, and the percentage of this contribution is shown in parentheses
after each infrastructure domain.
Approximately 24% of core studies are related to building concep­
tual frameworks for DTs, indicating that DTs in the civil infrastructure
field are yet to be practically implemented. This is in line with findings
in the manufacturing [42] and civil engineering fields [5]. As a result of
examining the existing services of IDT frameworks, highlighted in
Table 1, we find that most frameworks are focused on the construction
stage of the lifecycle, which indicates that IDT applications in the con­
struction phase are an emerging topic, as has been confirmed by other
studies [4,43]. Among other infrastructure themes, IDTs for bridges and
roads have attracted more attention than others; however, their services
have remained limited to condition assessment services, mainly in the
O&M stage of the infrastructure life cycle. Another interesting obser­
vation is that IDTs are used in a wide variety of ways in public buildings,
including sustainability-based services, promising the use of these ser­
vices in other types of physical twins in the future.
4.3. Information models technologies
As presented in Fig. 4, IDTs are theoretically composed of three main
technologies. We analyzed the information model technologies in this
section, and data acquisition technologies and data processing tech­
nologies, respectively, in sections 4.4 and 4.5 to answer RQ1.
The absence of an appropriate information model to epitomize
extracted data from built infrastructure will reduce the efficacy and
opportunities that can be derived from data. Table 2 presents informa­
tion model technologies that were extracted from identified studies. The
contribution of each information model technology is calculated by
dividing the number of occurrences by the number of whole identified
IDTs. This contribution is shown in percentage in Table 2.
BIM models serve as the main information model in more than half of
IDT models (53%). This finding shows that the development of DT
models within civil infrastructures relied on BIM models, while Sacks
et al. [4] argued that BIM models were initially created for the design
stage. As such, this excessive dependency can contradict the dynamic
nature of DT models and cause further interoperability issues. GIS and
Simulation model technologies are the next significant contributors to
the development of IDTs. Both technologies have some capabilities that
cannot be found in BIM models and are essential for applications in
infrastructures. For example, GIS models are more appropriate for in­
frastructures distributed horizontally since it provides geospatial anal­
ysis capability to IDTs [44]; and simulation models offer the opportunity
for what-if scenario analysis in DT models. Additionally, there are
emerging technologies, including Robot Simulators, that have remained
unexplored in this area and require more attention.
Fig. 5 shows how identified technologies are used across infrastruc­
ture domains and lifecycles. Words are placed on the diagram to indicate
what kind of infrastructures and at what stage of DT lifecycle informa­
tion model technologies are used. Additionally, word sizes correspond to
technologies’ occurrence rates. The larger density of information model
technologies is placed at the lower part of the map, indicating that most
Table 2
Information model technologies and their occurrences in core studies.
Information Model Technologies Occurrence
BIM (53%) Building Information Model 44
GIS (19%) Geographic Information System 16
SM (13%) Simulation Model 11
FE (5%) Finite Element Model 4
CAD (2%) Computer-aided design 2
VR/AR (2%) Virtual Reality/ Augmented Reality 2 As shown in Fig. 6, IoTs are widely utilized for creating DTs in the
SCADA (2%) Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition 2 O&M phase of infrastructures. The widespread popularity of IoT tech­
AWS (1%) Amazon Web Service 1 nology in all kinds of built infrastructure indicates its adaptable and
AMI (1%) Asset Management Information 1 uncomplicated nature (similar to BIM in the preceding section) for a
RS (1%) Robot Simulator (Gazebo) 1
6
Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104785
IDTs are focused on their applications in the O&M stage. However, the
potentials of DTs in the design stage are less investigated despite rec­
ommendations by experienced specialists [18].
In the O&M stage, BIM technologies are deployed more for DTs in
public buildings, where they have the most capabilities. For example, Lu
et al. [45] used BIM models to develop DTs to improve university
campus operational tasks. The potential of BIM technologies has also
drawn attention to creating DTs in other prominent infrastructure
themes, such as bridges and roads. For instance, Su et al. [46] proposed a
maintenance system for prestressed bridges based on a BIM model and
an inspection model generated via Lidar and UAV images. Another
observation is the broad distribution of BIM on the map (Fig. 5),
demonstrating the versatile nature and broad capabilities of BIM for
developing DTs in different infrastructures and lifecycle stages.
To provide more specialized O&M services by DTs for in­
frastructures, such as structural health analysis, water distribution
management, and vulnerability assessments, we need to leverage more
capabilities not available in BIM models. For example, an integration of
BIM, GIS, and simulation models was applied to enhance road vulner­
ability assessments in the case of urban floodings [47]. Furthermore, the
considerable potential of numerical analyses in Finite Element models
makes them an ideal information model for DTs concerning structural
health analysis, like studies focused on the prediction of bridge service
life [48–50]. Utilizing Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
(SCADA) in the water management field is another example of more
specialized potentials of information models [51,52].
Despite the considerable attention to IDT applications in the O&M
phase, the low density of technologies in the upper and middle fields of
the map demonstrates that the applications of IDTs in the design and
construction phase are yet to be fully explored. A few cases in these
fields are worth mentioning. For example, in the case of IDT services in
the planning and design phase, the integration of BIM and GIS was
applied by Marzouk et al. [53] to estimate the essential utility require­
ment of a city. Similar information model technologies were utilized to
facilitate the process of highway alignment planning [54], explore the
feasibility of selecting a PV power station close to the highway, and
predict the solar power output [55]. In addition to the aforementioned
technologies, some emerging information model technologies also offer
new opportunities for IDTs, which should be explored further. For
example, using the BIM model and Gazebo (robotic simulator), Liang
et al. [56] generate DT models that can pave the way for utilizing robots
during the construction of civil infrastructure projects.
4.4. Data acquisition technologies
With a single static information model, the DT will be nothing more
than an outdated 3D model of built infrastructure. As such, communi­
cating data with information models through data flow channels is
another critical component of DTs. Table 3 presents data acquisition
technologies extracted from core studies and their contributions to
developing IDTs. The first valuable observation is that the total number
of data acquisition technologies in IDTs is less than information model
technologies, indicating that a significant part of IDTs is deprived of
proper data communication modules.
When it comes to data transfer within IDTs, IoT contributes more
than other technologies. This is consistent with studies that attribute the
popularity of DTs to the advancements in IoTs [5]. Next are technologies
for capturing point cloud data, i.e., LiDAR and UAV, which have a
considerable contribution to creating DTs. Fig. 6 depicts the distribution
of these technologies across various infrastructure domains and lifecycle
stages.
wide range of IDT applications, from its potential for creating an IDT to
H. Naderi and A. Shojaei Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104785

Fig. 5. Map of information model technologies across infrastructure domains and lifecycle.

to bridges. The capability of this technology for accurate anomaly

Table 3
detection and structural analysis is employed by authors in IDTs for the
Data acquisition technologies and their occurrences in core studies.
O&M phase [46,48,59–61]. Furthermore, the limited number of data
Data Acquisition Technologies Occurrence acquisition technologies in airports, ports, energy, and railway infra­
IoT (42%) Internet of Things sensors 24 structure domains, which is also true for information model technolo­
LiDAR (23%) Point Cloud Data 13 gies, indicates research gaps that require further research.
UAV (9%) Unmanned aerial vehicle 5
When it comes to developing IDTs for the designing and construction
RFID (5%) Radio Frequency Identification 3
QR (3%) Quick Response Code 2
phases, efforts for integrating data acquisition technologies into IDTs
Acc. (3%) Accelerometer 2 become even more limited than information model technologies (see
BLE (2%) Bluetooth Low Energy 1 Fig. 5). As an example of these efforts, Lin et al. [62] proposed a DT
FBG (2%) Fiber Bragg granting sensor 1 model for seismic collapse assessment and fragility analysis before
FO (2%) Fiber-Optic sensor 1
constructing bridges, improving the bridge design performance. In
FMCW (2%) Frequency-Modulated Continuous-Wave Radar 1
GPS (2%) Global Positioning System 1 another case for a construction IDT, Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) sensors
iBWIM (2%) Bridge-Weigh-In-Motion sensor 1 are applied for safety management in construction sites [63], and IoTs
Social Media (2%) Social Media 1 are used for risk management of process plants [57].
Media(2%) Videos, Images… 1

4.5. Data processing technologies

managing risks of oil and gas pipeline in the middle of desert [57] to the
preventive maintenance of a lighthouse in the middle of the ocean [58]. The efficient processing of collected data from physical entities is
However, point cloud data has attracted more attention when it comes another critical pillar of establishing DTs [42]. A high amount of data
necessarily does not guarantee the efficiency of DTs. Otherwise, it can

Fig. 6. Map of data acquisition technologies across infrastructure domains and lifecycle.

7
H. Naderi and A. Shojaei
cause a waste of resources. In this situation, data processing techniques
can organize and extract hidden meaning behind collected data leading
DTs to provide more effective decisions [64]. Similar to previous sec­
tions, data processing technologies are extracted from identified studies
and are presented in Table 4. According to this table, the total number of
data processing technologies is significantly less than data acquisition
technologies. This finding suggests that a considerable number of IDTs
do not benefit from processing data modules. Compared to other tech­
nologies, these techniques are almost uninvestigated within the context
of civil infrastructures.
As presented in Fig. 7, machine learning (ML) techniques are used
more widely across all types of infrastructure domains for services, such
as the prediction of tunnel pavement performance [65], predictive
maintenance of MEP components [66], and road infrastructure moni­
toring and maintenance [67]. Further, significant efforts are devoted to
the use of ML algorithms for creating digital twin models from raw data
[61,68,69]. This is aligned with our interpretations (see section 4.2) that
most efforts in IDT knowledge are related to the development of IDTs.
Compared to ML technologies concerned with IDT applications in the
O&M phase, computer vision (CV) technologies are mainly exploited for
construction IDTs. For example, Hamledari et al. [70] benefited from
computer vision capabilities to improve the process of quality control
during the construction phase. Another point to be noted is that, despite
recommendations for applying edge computing technologies as a solu­
tion to the issue of data latency in DTs [71], scant attention has been
drawn to this technology. However, Kong et al. [72] proposed a DT
framework that utilized embedded sensors and edge computing con­
cepts for asset management of wind turbines.
4.6. Digital twin architectures
By combining information models, data acquisition technologies,
and data processing technology (discussed in previous sections), IDTs
can be developed for a wide range of applications. To understand the
existing architectures of IDT and answer RQ2, we examined the in­
terrelationships between IDT elements, the compositions of which pro­
vide different capabilities. Then, the most prevalent IDT architectures
are identified and their strengths and challenges in implementing them
are discussed.
We extracted the frequency of relationships among twinning tech­
nologies from IDTs in identified studies using a content analysis
approach. For example, when a DT model was constructed from the
integration of BIM, IoT, and ML, all possible relationships among these
technologies were counted. Fig. 8 presents an upper triangular matrix
resulting from this content analysis, where the frequency of a relation­
ship is numbered in blue cells Fig. 8 also serves as a foundation for
creating the network of IDT architecture through Gephi software [38].
Furthermore, the considerable amount of zero cells compared to other
numbered cells indicates that the great potential of relationships among
twinning technologies has remained unexplored.
To generate the network of relationships among twinning technol­
ogies, 27 identified technologies were imported in Gephi software as
nodes, and then the Fruchterman-Reingold layout [73] was applied to
create the undirected network of IDT architecture in Fig. 9. The size of
nodes is proportionate to the number of edges or links in a given node.
Links between nodes represent the co-occurrence of two technologies in
a given IDT, and their thicknesses indicate the frequency of co-
Table 4
Data processing technologies and their occurrences in core studies.
Data Processing Technologies Occurrence
ML (58%) Machine Learning 10
CV (23%) Computer Vision 4 into a kernel technology or host component. As examples of this pro­
OR (12%) Optimization Algorithms 2 cedure, some IDTs developed plugins using Revit API [66] or Bexel
Edge Computing (6%) 1
8
Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104785
occurrence. According to the group to which technologies belong,
they are clustered in three colors blue, orange, and gray for information
model, data acquisition, and data processing technologies, respectively.
The network density was obtained at 0.148 using statistics tools in
the software, indicating that only 15% of all possible links between
technologies are covered in the current state of IDT development. This
finding suggests that a considerable number of twinning technologies
have not been integrated yet, and subsequent IDT architecture and its
associated potentials have remained unexplored. Therefore, this
research gap invites researchers and practitioners to discover new IDT
architectures and further examine their applications.
According to Fig. 9, the integration of BIM and IoT is present in most
existing IDTs. This finding is well-aligned with our previous in­
terpretations in the preceding sections (sections 5.3 and 5.4). Another
interesting point is the strong link between BIM and GIS, indicating that,
in many IDTs, the integration of BIM and GIS provides a more robust
information model that covers a wider range of data in infrastructures.
Further, the strong link between IoT and ML suggests that many IDTs
benefit from the computational capabilities of ML to support decision-
making in the O&M phase.
The betweenness centrality parameter is another network metric that
can help us gain more insights from the network. Table 5 presents
twinning technologies ranking based on betweenness centrality in the
IDT architecture network. According to this table, although LiDAR and
FE nodes do not have considerable communications with other nodes
(small node size), they have a high betweenness value. The reason
behind this high value is that some sensors (small nodes on the left side
of the figure) are only connected to FE, and FE itself is only connected to
LiDAR technology. When we put this alongside our findings of these two
technologies in Figs. 5 and 6, where these two technologies are more
prominent for the O&M phase in bridge infrastructures, we can conclude
that these are the only nodes that provide reliable services both in
bridges and other infrastructures. Therefore, researchers and practi­
tioners can further explore this capability and incorporate these two
technologies with other technologies.
As mentioned at the beginning of this section, we also examined
some of the most prominent IDT architectures. Table 6 shows IDT ar­
chitectures in three categories: two-, three-, and four-component ar­
chitectures. Using this table, we outlined the applications and challenges
of implementing the various IDT architectures and the associated
infrastructure domains and case studies with each architecture. It is
noteworthy to mention that as the number of components increases,
IDTs provide broader services; however, they become more complex and
less convenient.
4.7. Interoperability solutions
The interoperability term is defined as several components’ ability to
exchange and use the exchanged information [87]. However, useful
interoperability is not only the exchange of data but also the exchange of
meaning [88]. Along with the importance of IDT architectures, effective
data communication between twinning technologies can distinguish a
real IDT model from monolithic 3D models. Civil infrastructure projects
include a wide range of data sources which means that the digital
twinning of civil infrastructure is dependent on obtaining a high degree
of interoperability between these various data sources [89]. This section
explores prevalent interoperability solutions of IDTs and briefly dis­
cusses the advantages and disadvantages of proposed methods to answer
RQ3.
Existing interoperability tools and methods are extracted from core
studies by using a content analysis approach. Then, this information is
organized into related categories and sub-categories in Table 7. In edge-
based solutions, twinning data is directed from various DT components
Manager [74] and applied ifcSensor class [81] as the main approaches to
H. Naderi and A. Shojaei Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104785

Fig. 7. Map of data processing technologies across infrastructure domains and lifecycle

Fig. 8. Relationship matrix among twinning technologies.

incorporating IoT data into their BIM models. Applying Sensor Model
Language (SensorML) [90] based on XML schema is another tool that
Edmondson [85] exploited for mapping sensor measurement data onto
the ifcPerformanceHistory class of the BIM model. This interoperability
procedure provides IDTs with a simple structure, making them suitable
for limited applications, such as structural health monitoring. However,
ifcSensor does not include some essential properties necessary for the
O&M phase, such as downtime information [66]. Furthermore, the
limited capacity of editing tools in Sensor Model Language (SensorML)
[91] reduces this group of interoperability solutions’ applications in
complex situations.
In IDTs dependent on geospatial information, incorporating BIM
information in GIS models provides a wide range of applications. In the
case of vulnerability assessment of floods, Yang et al. [47] applied a GIS
model as the kernel technology to integrate all associated information
from diverse sources. The ifcOpenShell was used to retrieve architec­
tural information from the GIS model. In a similar solution but in the
case of water distribution planning, Zhao et al. [100] incorporate BIM
information of pipelines into a GIS model.
Another group of interoperability solutions utilizes a middleware
tool for integrating all twinning data. The integration of twinning data
and semantic technologies enables DT models to store, share, and use
heterogeneous data in more complex situations [92]. Many existing IDTs
utilize this approach to make their models interoperable. In the case of
creating a data model of a tunnel infrastructure, Vilgertshofer [75]
translates IFC’s EXPRESS schema and CityGML’s XML schema to the
Web Ontology Language (OWL) based on a proposal explained by
Pauwels and Terkaj [93]. When it comes to creating more complex IDTs

9
H. Naderi and A. Shojaei
Fig. 9. Relationship among twinning technologies for creating infrastructure digital twins (IDT architecture network).
Table 5
Rankings of twinning technologies based on betweenness centrality value.
Ranks Twinning Technologies Betweenness Centrality Value
1 BIM 0.450154
2 LiDAR 0.330564
3 FE 0.286154
4 IoT 0.253333
with a wide range of IoT devices, semantic technologies attracted sig­
nificant attention. For instance, Gilbert et al. [83] imported IoT data in
JSON format into Neo4j, and a message broker (Kafka) was used to send
JSON messages to other IDT entities. In a more complex case, a semantic
interoperability solution was proposed to integrate building and urban
semantics [79], where SAREF, CityGML, IFC, and a few other data
models are translated into the OWL and integrated for a DT model.
Meanwhile, duplication of data in semantic web technologies is one of
the main issues of this solution. However, some solutions are proposed
for this issue. For example, Zhao, Liu, and Mbachu [54] applied a Graph
Matching for Ontologies (GMO) method to map the similarity between
BIM and GIS ontologies.
In addition to semantic web technologies, different data models are
used as middleware tools in existing infrastructure DTs. In the case of
campus building management [45], Amazon Web Service DynamoDB
was applied to integrate Building Management System (BMS) and IoT
data. Although the server-based solutions enable broader services in
IDTs, they are also prone to be designed with complex structures that are
too complicated to serve as a dynamic synchronizer tool for the un­
avoidable changes in the long life of infrastructures.
5. Discussion
Findings in the previous sections show three states of IDT
10
Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104785
development in the body of AEC knowledge. Some studies only proposed
an information model technology as IDT, which has almost no interac­
tion with the physical world (section 4.3). The majority of studies
considered the integration of information model technologies and data
acquisition technologies along with interoperability solutions (section
4.4), which has a more complex interaction with the physical world
rather than the previous stage. The rest of the studies utilized four main
technologies, introduced in the reference model, for creating the IDT
(section 4.5). These states enabled us to illustrate the current state of
IDTs in Fig. 10 (level 0 to level 1). Then, this trend of correlation be­
tween physical and virtual models are continued in Fig. 10 to predict the
future of IDTs (level 2 and 3). The dark cubes represent infrastructures,
and the blue ones demonstrate a virtual replica of infrastructures. The
evolution trend of IDTs is illustrated using a blue line that directly re­
lates to the interaction complexity of virtual twins with physical twins.
Furthermore, the characteristics of each maturity level are presented in
three categories at the bottom of the figure. In order to answer RQ4 in
this section, we first synthesize the findings from previous sections to
discuss the current state of IDT development (levels 0 to 1). Then, based
on this analysis, we predict the future of IDTs evolution, where IDTs
meet the Metaverse (level 3).
5.1. From BIM to IDTs (Level 0 to 1)
In some studies, BIM technology was considered a starting point for
exploring the DT concept [11,43]. Putting this together with findings of
the dominance of BIM technologies in different perspectives (as a core
technology in sections 4.2 and 4.6), we can conclude that BIM has laid
the foundation for the development of DTs in infrastructures. BIM is a
static model far removed from the actual behavior of physical twins, as
shown in Fig. 10 at Level 0; however, it does provide a way to fuse
infrastructure data from different sources. Therefore, these technologies
were primarily used in the design phase, and interoperability solutions
H. Naderi and A. Shojaei Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104785

Table 6
Applications and challenges of implementing the most prevalent IDT architectures.
DT architecture Examples Existing Infrastructure Applications Challenges
theme

BIM + IoT [58,74] Offshore Lighthouse, - A model for measuring the long-term dura­ - Slow process of data analysis due to oversaturated BIM
Roads bility of built infrastructures. models.
- A simple DT model for improving asset - Interoperability problems
management and structural health - Lack of flexibility in DT models (monolithic structure)
monitoring. - Limited capability to perform what-if scenarios
analysis.
- Lack of data processing techniques for expanding DT
applications
BIM + GIS [53,55,75–77] Tunnel, Water Systems, - Modeling infrastructure projects more - Outdated DT model due to lack of data acquisition
PV Power Station accurately in BIM models module
- Improving construction supply chain - Lack of data processing techniques for expanding DT
management applications
- Facilitate planning and design process using - Interoperability problems
what-if scenario analysis
Point Cloud + [61,68,69] Industrial Buildings, - Generate automatic as-built models from point - Limited capability to perform what-if scenarios
ML/CV Bridges cloud data analysis.
- Improve the process of asset management - Slow process of updating existing assets due to the need
to prepare a complete point cloud data for every
updating
SM + IoT [78,79] Water Systems, Ports - Enables simulation-based performance - Limited capability to analyze geometric and physical
predictions. dimensional models due to the simple information
- Determine the optimal truck dispatching models
policies in ports - Lack of data processing techniques for expanding DT
- Facilitate planning and design process using applications
what-if scenario analysis
- A real-time control model improving the
detection of hazards
BIM + IoT + ML [45,65,66,80,81] Road, Tunnels, MEP, - Improve sustainability by comfort assessment - The complex process of creating DT models
University Campus - Improve predictive maintenance by condition - Interoperability issues
assessment and predicting future performance - Data security issues
- Make a comparison between the current - Lack of flexibility in DT models (monolithic structure)
behavior of structures and predicted normal - High data latency in the long term
behavior
BIM + GIS + IoT [82–85] Water, Bridges, Sewer - Creating a near real-time model for moni­ - Limited capability to perform what-if scenarios analysis
Network toring sewer performance - Interoperability issues
- Integrates isolated water systems and demand- - Data security issues
side interventions - High data latency in the long term
- Understanding of current demand for utility
resources
BIM + IoT + ML [86] Hospitals - Create the DT for infrastructures with - The complex process of creating DT models
+ VR/AR complicated facilities like hospitals - Interoperability issues
- Improve clash detection through VR/AR - Data security issues
- Building energy management - High data latency in the long term
- Improve predictive maintenance by predicting
future performance

Table 7
DT interoperability solutions within the context of civil infrastructures.
Category Sub-category Interoperability Tools Method Examples

Edge-Based Solutions IoT to BIM IfcSensor Incorporate IoT data into IFC using ifcSensor [81,94]
API Incorporate IoT data into IFC using Revit Plug-in or Bexel Manager [66,74]
SensorML Incorporate IoT data into IFC using SensorML [85]
BIM to GIS IfcOpenShell to Incorporate IFC information into CityGML [47,77]
CityGML
IFC to shapefile Translate IFC information into shapefile [84]
Server-Based Semantic OWL IFC and CityGML information mapped onto the semantic web [75,82,95]
Solutions Web
Others AWS DynamoDB MySQL-based BMS data is integrated with IoT data using the IoT manager platform in AWS [45,58,96]
DynamoDB
Kafka Twining data is written in Kafka, then processed using Flink [86]
HDF 5 IFC and IoT data are stored in Exdir (HDF5) [97]

(IFC 2 × 3) were limited to exchanging design information between two
different software packages. Level 0 of DT development refers to this
particular period of AEC digitalization.
In the first level of IDT maturity, new technologies such as real-time
sensor technology have made asset interactions possible while trans­
mitting massive amounts of data into models that can be used to support
decision-making. In the current state of IDT development, most efforts in
this maturity level are devoted to providing an IDT framework for a
particular service, mostly during the O&M phase of bridges and roads. In
addition to BIM, as the core technology in most IDTs, some technologies
such as GIS and Simulation models are embedded to bring broader ca­
pabilities to IDTs. In major IDTs, these technologies are only integrated
with data acquisition tools, such as IoT and Point Cloud Data. In the
remaining, data processing tools are used to give feedback to

11
H. Naderi and A. Shojaei
Fig. 10. Infrastructure Digital Twins (IDTs) evolution model based on four maturity levels.
infrastructures and bring virtual twins closer to the physical twins. Most
IDTs are created by extending the current silo-based schema of IFC4 and
CityGML 2.0 to integrate these technologies.
Despite the inevitable values of existing IDTs, they are in their early
stages and far from complete adoption in the industry. Other studies
[14,18] have identified DT data security as one of the challenges hin­
dering the adoption of infrastructures. The lack of a common standard
for creating DTs is another major challenge discussed in prior studies
[18,42]. Most efforts for creating digital twin standards are proprietary,
and a truly open standard is yet to be developed [98]. Data latency is
also mentioned as a major problem for IDT development [99].
Furthermore, scant attention has been paid to the user interface of
infrastructure DTs. On the one hand, considering major applications in
the O&M phase (section 4.2) and on the other hand, the complexity of
advanced IDT architecture and interoperability solutions (sections 4.6
and 4.7) highlights the need for a specific frontend solution for a user-
friendly experience between stakeholders and IDTs during long-life of
infrastructures. We can also consider IDTs as another sociotechnical
system (similar to BIM [100,101]). As such, further research is needed to
investigate IDT adoption in a broader sense in terms of organizational
12
Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104785
and social factors, people, business models, and more.
5.2. Future studies: from IDTs to metaverse (Level 1 to Level 3)
Although the current state of IDT development faces different open
issues, increasing advancements in twinning technologies and interop­
erability promise more advanced interaction with physical twins and a
more accurate IDT (Level 2), such as Azure Digital Twins [102], and
Omniverse [103]. Advanced twinning technologies require more
advanced interoperability tools for creating reliable IDTs. Different
standards are currently under development that will provide solutions
for this challenge in the near future, such as the IFC5 standard [104],
and CityGML 3.0 [105].
Existing advancements in Level 2 offer sufficient visibility for pro­
posing the prospect of IDTs (Level 3 in Fig. 10), where IDTs go beyond
the siloed representation of infrastructures and create a closed-loop
system of systems in the Metaverse world. At this level, a web of IDTs
creates a system with a holistic view throughout infrastructure life­
cycles. It continuously communicates the knowledge to other similar
systems (other infrastructures), upper-level systems (e.g., smart cities),
H. Naderi and A. Shojaei
or sub-systems (e.g., excavator machines on a construction site). The
ever-growing computational abilities of Mixed Reality (MR) devices
along with the Metaverse concept, enable end-users to communicate
with IDTs without interacting with physical twins. In this situation, IDTs
can consider an independent infrastructure that can communicate their
knowledge to their physical counterparts.
6. Conclusions
The considerable attention to the DT concept and applications for
leveraging infrastructure performance highlighted the need to explore
the inner structure of IDTs in order to facilitate IDT adoption in the AEC
industry. The present study is the first of its kind that applied a mixture
of qualitative and quantitative approaches for investigating twinning
technologies, their compositions in IDTs, and interoperability solutions.
This study answers to RQs in the following ways:
- RQ1: twinning technologies were identified and categorized into
three group technologies, namely information model technologies
(detailed in section 4.3), data acquisition technologies (detailed in
section 4.4), and data processing technologies (detailed in section
4.5). Each group of twinning technology provides the frequency of
twinning technology occurrence in IDTs in separate tables (Tables 2-
4). Moreover, the distribution of twinning technologies across
infrastructure domains and the lifecycle is illustrated in Fig. 5-7.
BIM, IoT, and ML are identified as the most common twinning
technologies for developing IDTs while more detailed information
can be found in corresponding sections.
- RQ2: different IDT architectures were identified based on network
theories in section 4.6. Applications and challenges of implementing
the most prevalent IDT architectures were also discussed in Table 6.
For example, the integration of BIM, IoT, and ML is introduced as an
IDT architecture that can be applied in public buildings to improve
sustainability while this architecture suffers from interoperability
issues.
- RQ3: interoperability solutions, applied in existing IDTs, and their
associated tools, were identified and classified into two main cate­
gories of edge-based solutions and server-based solutions in Table 7,
under section 4.7. For example, the OWL tool is introduced as an
interoperability tool in server-based solutions.
- RQ4: the frequency of twining technologies and their latest inte­
gration status enables us to find three states of IDT development in
the body of AEC knowledge. These states are illustrated as an evo­
lution map in levels zero and one in Fig. 10. As a result, it is noted
that IDT development is now more focused on IDT framework for a
particular service, mostly during the O&M phase of bridges and
roads. Twinning technologies and interoperability solutions applied
to each corresponding level are also illustrated in the lower part of
Fig. 10. The underlying trend, then, is used to predict the future of
IDTs.
Findings revealed that the versatility of BIM and IoTs technologies
makes them appropriate for developing IDTs with broad applications in
various infrastructures. However, more complex architectures are
required for more advanced applications. At the current state of IDT
development, technologies like GIS, Point Cloud Data, Finite Element
Models, and Machine Learning techniques are utilized by researchers to
reach more complex IDT architecture. In terms of interoperability so­
lutions, the study showed that edge-based solutions are better suited for
simple IDT architectures while server-based interoperability solutions
can be applied to more complex IDT architectures despite adaptability
issues.
Finally, the study concluded that existing IDTs, as BIM-centric
models, desperately require standardized and common interoperability
solutions in order to be more widely used. In this situation, introduced
technology and standard advancements, attempting to address open
13
Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104785
issues, visualized the future path of IDTs, where IDTs meet Metaverse.
This study provides researchers and practitioners with a microscopic
perspective on IDT structure, leading them to adopt DTs more effectively
in infrastructures. Researchers and practitioners can use various com­
parisons provided in this study between twinning technologies, inter­
operability solutions, and their infrastructure applications to develop
more effective and advanced IDTs in the future. For example, the inte­
gration of BIM, IoT, ML, and AR/VR twining technologies as one of the
IDT architectures, discussed in section 4.6, with the OWL interopera­
bility tool, discussed in section 4.7, can be applied to build DT for more
dynamic and complicated infrastructures, such as hospitals. However,
this would be a complex architecture that needs additional attention by
practitioners to the architecture usability and system maintenance. In
addition, the proposed evolution map and future prospects give
decision-makers a comprehensive view of future IDT structures,
enabling them to make more informed decisions.
Despite this study’s contribution, all research studies have limita­
tions, and the present attempt is no exception to this rule. This study was
limited to the technical components of IDTs; however, as a socio­
technical system, IDTs should be investigated from an organizational
and social perspective to provide a more comprehensive picture of state-
of-the-art IDT development. In addition, the screening process of iden­
tifying core studies may be considered subjective in nature, although the
process was performed three separate times to minimize the error.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
References
[1] M. Grieves, J. Vickers, Digital twin: mitigating unpredictable, undesirable
emergent behavior in complex systems, Transdiscipl. Perspect. Complex Syst.
New Find. Approaches (Jan. 2017) 85–113, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
38756-7_4.
[2] R. Rosen, G. Von Wichert, G. Lo, K.D. Bettenhausen, About the importance of
autonomy and digital twins for the future of manufacturing, IFAC-PapersOnLine
48 (3) (Jan. 2015) 567–572, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IFACOL.2015.06.141.
[3] T.H.J. Uhlemann, C. Lehmann, R. Steinhilper, The digital twin: realizing the
cyber-physical production system for industry 4.0, Procedia CIRP 61 (Jan. 2017)
335–340, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROCIR.2016.11.152.
[4] R. Sacks, I. Brilakis, E. Pikas, H.S. Xie, M. Girolami, Construction with digital twin
information systems, Data-Centric Engineering 1 (6) (2020), https://doi.org/
10.1017/dce.2020.16.
[5] F. Jiang, L. Ma, T. Broyd, K. Chen, Digital twin and its implementations in the
civil engineering sector, Automation in Construction 130 (February) (2021),
103838, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103838.
[6] E.H. Glaessgen, D.S. Stargel, D.S. Stargel, The digital twin paradigm for future
NASA and U.S, Air Force Vehicles (2012), https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2012-1818.
[7] B. Schleich, N. Anwer, L. Mathieu, S. Wartzack, Shaping the digital twin for
design and production engineering, CIRP Annals 66 (1) (Jan. 2017) 141–144,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CIRP.2017.04.040.
[8] Q. Qi, F. Tao, Digital twin and big data towards smart manufacturing and
industry 4.0: 360 degree comparison, IEEE Access 6 (Jan. 2018) 3585–3593,
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2793265.
[9] F. Tao, F. Sui, A. Liu, Q. Qi, M. Zhang, B. Song, Z. Guo, S.C.-Y. Lu, A.Y.C. Nee,
Digital twin-driven product design framework, International Journal of
Production Research 57 (12) (Jun. 2018) 3935–3953, https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207543.2018.1443229.
[10] S. Tang, D.R. Shelden, C.M. Eastman, P. Pishdad-Bozorgi, X. Gao, A review of
building information modeling (BIM) and the internet of things (IoT) devices
integration: present status and future trends, Automation in Construction 101
(May 2019) 127–139, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.01.020.
[11] M. Deng, C.C. Menassa, V.R. Kamat, From BIM to digital twins: a systematic
review of the evolution of intelligent building representations in the AEC-FM
industry, The Journal of Information Technology in Construction 26 (5) (Feb.
2021) 58–83, https://doi.org/10.36680/j.itcon.2021.005.
[12] S. Thacker, D. Adshead, M. Fay, S. Hallegatte, M. Harvey, H. Meller, N. O’Regan,
J. Rozenberg, G. Watkins, J.W. Hall, Infrastructure for sustainable development,
H. Naderi and A. Shojaei
Nature Sustainability 2 (4) (Apr. 2019) 324–331, https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41893-019-0256-8.
[13] K. Van Breugel, Societal burden and engineering challenges of ageing
infrastructure, Procedia Engineering 171 (Jan. 2017) 53–63, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.PROENG.2017.01.309.
[14] D.G. Broo, J. Schooling, Digital twins in infrastructure: definitions, current
practices, challenges and strategies, International Journal of Construction
Management (2021), https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2021.1966980.
[15] G.E. Gibson, E. Bingham, C.R. Stogner, Front end planning for infrastructure
projects, in: Construction Research Congress 2010: Innovation for Reshaping
Construction Practice – Proceedings of the 2020 Construction Research Congress,
2010, pp. 1125–1135, https://doi.org/10.1061/41109(373)113.
[16] G. Andreas, J. Allen, L. Farley, J.K. Kao, I. Mladenova, Towards the development
of a rating system for sustainable infrastructure: a checklist or a decision-making
tool? Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation 2010 (2) (Nov. 2011)
379–391, https://doi.org/10.2175/193864710798284643.
[17] M. Callcut, J. Agliozzo, L. Varga, L. McMillan, Digital twins in civil infrastructure
systems, Sustainability 13 (20) (Oct. 2021) 11549, https://doi.org/10.3390/
su132011549.
[18] M. Shahzad, M. Tariq Shafiq, D. Douglas, M. Kassem, Digital twins in built
environments: an investigation of the characteristics, applications, and
challenges, Buildings 12 (2) (Jan. 2022) 120, https://doi.org/10.3390/
BUILDINGS12020120.
[19] A.M. Madni, C.C. Madni, S.D. Lucero, Leveraging digital twin technology in
model-based systems engineering, Systems 7 (1) (Jan. 2019) 7, https://doi.org/
10.3390/SYSTEMS7010007.
[20] A. Bolton, L. Butler, I. Dabson, M. Enzer, T. Fenemore, F. Harradence, E. Keaney,
A. Kemp, A. Luck, N. Pawsey, S. Saville, J. Schooling, M. Sharp, T. Smith,
J. Tennison, J. Whyte, A. Wilson, C. Makri, Gemini principles, CDBB (2018),
https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.32260.
[21] R. Al-Sehrawy, B. Kumar, Digital twins in architecture, engineering, construction
and operations. A brief review and analysis, Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering 98
(Aug. 2020) 924–939, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51295-8_64.
[22] J.M. Davila Delgado, L. Oyedele, Digital twins for the built environment: learning
from conceptual and process models in manufacturing, Advanced Engineering
Informatics 49 (Aug. 2021), 101332, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
AEI.2021.101332.
[23] L. Zhao, C. Wang, K. Zhao, D. Tarchi, S. Wan, N. Kumar, INTERLINK: a digital
twin-assisted storage strategy for satellite-terrestrial networks, IEEE Transactions
on Aerospace and Electronic Systems 58 (5) (Oct. 2022) 3746–3759, https://doi.
org/10.1109/TAES.2022.3169130.
[24] L. Zhao, Z. Bi, A. Hawbani, K. Yu, Y. Zhang, M. Guizani, ELITE: an intelligent
digital twin-based hierarchical routing scheme for Softwarized vehicular
networks, IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing (2022), https://doi.org/
10.1109/TMC.2022.3179254.
[25] H. Naderi, A. Shojaei, Civil infrastructure digital twins: multi-level knowledge
map, research gaps, and future directions, IEEE Access (2022), https://doi.org/
10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3223557.
[26] S. Evans, C. Savian, A. Burns, C. Cooper, Digital Twins for the Built Environment.
https://www.snclavalin.com/~/media/Files/S/SNC-Lavalin/documents/beyon
d-engineering/digital-twins-for-the-built-environment-iet-atkins.pdf, 2020.
(Accessed 27 December 2021).
[27] C. Koulamas, A. Kalogeras, Cyber-physical systems and digital twins in the
industrial internet of things, Computer (Long. Beach. Calif) 51 (11) (Nov. 2018)
95–98, https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2018.2876181.
[28] C. Kan, C.J. Anumba, Digital twins as the next phase of cyber-physical systems in
construction, in: ASCE International Conference on Computing in Civil
Engineering 2019, 2019, pp. 256–264, https://doi.org/10.1061/
9780784482438.033.
[29] W. Kritzinger, M. Karner, G. Traar, J. Henjes, W. Sihn, Digital twin in
manufacturing: a categorical literature review and classification, IFAC-
PapersOnLine 51 (11) (Jan. 2018) 1016–1022, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
IFACOL.2018.08.474.
[30] S. Kugley, A. Wade, J. Thomas, Q. Mahood, A. Jorgensen, K. Hammerstrom,
N. Sathe, Searching for studies: a guide to information retrieval for Campbell
systematic reviews, Campbell Systematic Reviews 13 (1) (Jan. 2017) 1–73,
https://doi.org/10.4073/CMG.2016.1.
[31] M. Gusenbauer, N.R. Haddaway, Which Academic Search Systems Are Suitable
for Systematic Reviews or Meta-analyses? Evaluating Retrieval Qualities of
Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 Other Resources vol. 11(2), Mar. 2022,
pp. 181–217, https://doi.org/10.1002/JRSM.1378.
[32] C. Chen, M. Song, Visualizing a field of research: a methodology of systematic
scientometric reviews, PLoS One 14 (10) (Oct. 2019), e0223994, https://doi.org/
10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0223994.
[33] R. Santos, A.A. Costa, A. Grilo, Bibliometric analysis and review of building
information modelling literature published between 2005 and 2015, Automation
in Construction 80 (Aug. 2017) 118–136, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
AUTCON.2017.03.005.
[34] M.Y. Vardi, Conferences vs. journals in computing research, Communications of
the ACM 52 (5) (May 2009) 5, https://doi.org/10.1145/1506409.1506410.
[35] S. Tabacaru, Web of science versus scopus, Journal Coverage Overlap Analysis
(Apr. 2019), https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.181.
[36] K. Krippendorff, Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, SAGE
Publications, 2018.
14
Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104785
[37] F. Tao, H. Zhang, A. Liu, A.Y.C. Nee, Digital twin in industry: state-of-the-art,
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 15 (4) (Apr. 2019) 2405–2415,
https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2018.2873186.
[38] M. Bastian, S. Heymann, M. Jacomy, Gephi: an open source software for exploring
and manipulating networks, Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on
Web and Social Media 3 (1) (Mar. 2009) 361–362. Accessed: Jan. 21, 2022.
[Online]. Available: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/13937.
[39] J. Golbeck, Analyzing the Social Web, Elsevier Inc., 2013, https://doi.org/
10.1016/C2012-0-00171-8.
[40] G. Xu, Y. Zhang, L. Li, Web Mining and Social Networking: Techniques and
Applications, Springer, New York, 2010.
[41] L.C. Freeman, Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification, Social
Networks 1 (3) (Jan. 1978) 215–239, https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)
90021-7.
[42] 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 (July) (2020) 101837,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2019.101837.
[43] C. Boje, A. Guerriero, S. Kubicki, Y. Rezgui, Towards a semantic construction
digital twin: directions for future research, Automation in Construction 114
(March) (2020), 103179, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103179.
[44] Z. Ma, Y. Ren, Integrated application of BIM and GIS: an overview, Procedia
Engineering 196 (Jan. 2017) 1072–1079, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
PROENG.2017.08.064.
[45] Q. Lu, A.K. Parlikad, P. Woodall, G.D. Ranasinghe, X. Xie, Z. Liang,
E. Konstantinou, J. Heaton, J. Schooling, Developing a digital twin at building
and city levels: case study of West Cambridge campus, Journal of Management in
Engineering 36 (3) (2020) 05020004, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)me.1943-
5479.0000763.
[46] C.S. Shim, N.S. Dang, S. Lon, C.H. Jeon, Development of a bridge maintenance
system for prestressed concrete bridges using 3D digital twin model, Structure
and Infrastructure Engineering 15 (10) (Oct. 2019) 1319–1332, https://doi.org/
10.1080/15732479.2019.1620789.
[47] Y. Yang, S. Thomas Ng, J. Dao, S. Zhou, F.J. Xu, X. Xu, Z. Zhou, BIM-GIS-DCEs
enabled vulnerability assessment of interdependent infrastructures – a case of
stormwater drainage-building-road transport Nexus in urban flooding,
Automation in Construction 125 (2021) 103626, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2021.103626.
[48] J. Shu, K. Zandi, T. Topac, R. Chen, C. Fan, Automated generation of FE model for
digital twin of concrete structures from segmented 3D point cloud, in: Structural
Health Monitoring 2019: Enabling Intelligent Life-Cycle Health Management for
Industry Internet of Things (IIOT) - Proceedings of the 12th International
Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring vol. 1, 2019, pp. 428–434, https://
doi.org/10.12783/shm2019/32144.
[49] J. Cervenka, Digital twin approach for durability and reliability assessment of
bridges, in: Proceedings of the fib Symposium 2020: Concrete Structures for
Resilient Society, 2020, pp. 1840–1848 [Online]. Available: https://api.elsevier.
com/content/abstract/scopus_id/85102411016.
[50] E. Febrianto, L. Butler, M. Girolami, F. Cirak, A Self-Sensing Digital Twin of a
Railway Bridge Using the Statistical Finite Element Method, Accessed: Nov. 10,
2021. [Online]. Available: https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pu
b.1136692314?search_mode=content&search_text=%22construction%22AND%
22infrastructure%22AND%22digitaltwin%22&search_type=kws&search_fiel
d=text_search, Mar. 2021.
[51] P. Conejos Fuertes, F. Martinez Alzamora, M. Hervas Carot, J.C. Alonso Campos,
Building and exploiting a digital twin for the management of drinking water
distribution networks, Urban Water Journal 17 (8) (Sep. 2020) 704–713, https://
doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2020.1771382.
[52] A.N. Pedersen, M. Borup, A. Brink-Kjær, L.E. Christiansen, P.S. Mikkelsen, Living
and prototyping digital twins for urban water systems: towards multi-purpose
value creation using models and sensors, Water (Switzerland) 13 (5) (Feb. 2021)
592, https://doi.org/10.3390/w13050592.
[53] M. Marzouk, Planning utility infrastructure requirements for smart cities using
the integration between BIM and GIS, Sustainable Cities and Society 57 (2020),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102120.
[54] L. Zhao, Z. Liu, J. Mbachu, Highway alignment optimization: an integrated BIM
and GIS approach, ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 8 (4) (2019),
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi8040172.
[55] J. Heo, H. Moon, S. Chang, S. Han, D.-E. Lee, Case study of solar photovoltaic
power-plant site selection for infrastructure planning using a BIM-GIS-based
approach, Applied Sciences 11 (18) (Sep. 2021) 8785, https://doi.org/10.3390/
app11188785.
[56] C.J. Liang, W. McGee, C.C. Menassa, V.R. Kamat, Bi-directional communication
bridge for state synchronization between digital twin simulations and physical
construction robots, in: Proceedings of the 37th International Symposium on
Automation and Robotics in Construction, ISARC 2020: From Demonstration to
Practical Use - To New Stage of Construction Robot, 2020, pp. 1480–1487,
https://doi.org/10.22260/ISARC2020/0205.
[57] M. Bevilacqua, E. Bottani, F.E. Ciarapica, F. Costntino, L. Di Donato, A. Ferraro,
G. Mazzuto, A. Monteriu, G. Nardini, M. Ortenzi, M. Paroncini, M. Pirozzi,
M. Prist, E. Quatrini, M. Tronci, G. Vignali, Digital twin reference model
development to prevent operators ’ risk in process plants, Sustain 12 (3) (Feb.
2020) 1–17, https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12031088.
[58] M. O’Shea, J. Murphy, M. O’Shea, J. Murphy, Design of a BIM integrated
structural health monitoring system for a historic offshore lighthouse, Buildings
10 (7) (Jul. 2020) 131, https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10070131.
H. Naderi and A. Shojaei
[59] R. Lu, I. Brilakis, Digital twinning of existing reinforced concrete bridges from
labelled point clusters, Automation in Construction 105 (2019) 102837, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.102837.
[60] M. Mohammadi, M. Rashidi, V. Mousavi, A. Karami, Y. Yu, B. Samali, Quality
evaluation of digital twins generated based on UAV photogrammetry and TLS:
bridge case study, Remote Sensing 13 (17) (Sep. 2021) 3499, https://doi.org/
10.3390/rs13173499.
[61] G. Zhang, P.A. Vela, I. Brilakis, Automatic generation of as-built geometric civil
infrastructure models from point cloud data, in: Computing in Civil and Building
Engineering (2014), Jun. 2014, pp. 406–413, https://doi.org/10.1061/
9780784413616.051.
[62] K. Lin, Y.L. Xu, X. Lu, Z. Guan, J. Li, Digital twin-based collapse fragility
assessment of a long-span cable-stayed bridge under strong earthquakes,
Automation in Construction 123 (2021) 103547, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2020.103547.
[63] J. Park, K. Kim, Y.K. Cho, Framework of automated construction-safety
monitoring using cloud-enabled BIM and BLE mobile tracking sensors, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management 143 (2) (2017) 05016019, https://
doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001223.
[64] M. Grieves, C.M. Gonzalez, 6 Questions with Michael Grieves on the future of
digital twins, ASME (Jan. 05, 2021). https://www.asme.org/topics-resources/co
ntent/6-question-with-michael-grieves-on-the-future-of-digital-twins (accessed
Jan. 18, 2022).
[65] G. Yu, S. Zhang, M. Hu, Y.K. Wang, Y. Ken Wang, Prediction of highway tunnel
pavement performance based on digital twin and multiple time series stacking,
Advances in Civil Engineering 2020 (Nov. 2020) 1–21, https://doi.org/10.1155/
2020/8824135.
[66] J.C.P. Cheng, W. Chen, K. Chen, Q. Wang, Data-driven predictive maintenance
planning framework for MEP components based on BIM and IoT using machine
learning algorithms, Automation in Construction 112 (Apr. 2020), 103087,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AUTCON.2020.103087.
[67] H. Sofia, E. Anas, O. Faiz, Mobile mapping, machine learning and digital twin for
road infrastructure monitoring and maintenance: case study of Mohammed VI
bridge in Morocco, in: Proceedings - 2020 IEEE International conference of
Moroccan Geomatics, MORGEO 2020, May 2020, https://doi.org/10.1109/
MORGEO49228.2020.9121882.
[68] M. Bassier, B. Van Genechten, M. Vergauwen, Classification of sensor
independent point cloud data of building objects using random forests, The
Journal of Building Engineering 21 (2019) 468–477, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jobe.2018.04.027.
[69] E. Agapaki, I. Brilakis, CLOI: an automated benchmark framework for generating
geometric digital twins of industrial facilities, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management 147 (11) (2021) 04021145, https://doi.org/
10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0002171.
[70] H. Hamledari, S. Davari, E.R. Azar, B. McCabe, F. Flager, M. Fischer, UAV-
enabled Site-to-BIM automation: Aerial robotic- and computer vision-based
development of As-Built/As-Is BIMs and quality control, in: Construction
Research Congress 2018: Construction Information Technology - Selected Papers
from the Construction Research Congress 2018 vol. 2018, April 2018,
pp. 336–346, https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784481264.033.
[71] S.M.E. Sepasgozar, Differentiating digital twin from digital shadow: elucidating a
paradigm shift to expedite a smart, sustainable built environment, Buildings 11
(4) (Apr. 2021) 151, https://doi.org/10.3390/BUILDINGS11040151.
[72] L.C.W. Kong, S. Harper, D. Mitchell, J. Blanche, T. Lim, D. Flynn, Interactive
Digital Twins Framework for Asset Management through Internet, 2020, https://
doi.org/10.1109/GCAIoT51063.2020.9345890.
[73] T.M.J. Fruchterman, E.M. Reingold, Graph drawing by force-directed placement,
Software: Practice and Experience 21 (11) (Nov. 1991) 1129–1164, https://doi.
org/10.1002/SPE.4380211102.
[74] S. Meza, A. Mauko Pranjic, R. Vezocnik, I. Osmokrovic, S. Lenart, S. Meža, Digital
twins and road construction using secondary raw materials, Journal of Advanced
Transportation Jan. 2021 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8833058.
[75] S. Vilgertshofer, Linking BIM and GIS models in infrastructure by example of IFC
and CityGML, in: Congress on Computing in Civil Engineering, Proceedings
133–140, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784480823.017.
[76] Y. Deng, V.J.L. Gan, M. Das, J.C.P. Cheng, C.J. Anumba, Integrating 4D BIM and
GIS for construction supply chain management, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management 145 (4) (2019) 04019016, https://doi.org/
10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001633.
[77] L. Zhao, Z. Liu, J. Mbachu, An integrated BIM-GIS method for planning of water
distribution system, ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 8 (8) (Aug.
2019), https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi8080331.
[78] W. Hofmann, F. Branding, Implementation of an IoT- and cloud-based digital twin
for real-time decision support in port operations, IFAC-PapersOnLine 52 (13)
(Jan. 2019) 2104–2109, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.11.516.
[79] M. Bartos, B. Kerkez, Pipedream: an interactive digital twin model for natural and
urban drainage systems, Environmental Modelling and Software 144 (Oct. 2021),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105120.
[80] A. Zaballos, A. Briones, A. Massa, P. Centelles, V. Caballero, A smart Campus’
digital twin for sustainable comfort monitoring, Sustainability 12 (21) (Nov.
2020) 9196, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219196.
[81] T.H. Kwon, S.H. Park, S.I. Park, S.-H. Lee, Building information modeling-based
bridge health monitoring for anomaly detection under complex loading
15
Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104785
conditions using artificial neural networks, Journal of Civil Structural Health
Monitoring 11 (5) (Aug. 2021) 1301–1319, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-
021-00508-6.
[82] S. Howell, Y. Rezgui, T. Beach, Integrating building and urban semantics to
empower smart water solutions, Automation in Construction 81 (2017) 434–448,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.02.004.
[83] T. Gilbert, S. Barr, P. James, J. Morley, Q. Ji, Software systems approach to multi-
scale GIS-BIM utility infrastructure network integration and resource flow
simulation, ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 7 (8) (Aug. 2018)
310, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi7080310.
[84] J. Zhu, Y. Tan, X. Wang, P. Wu, BIM/GIS integration for web GIS-based bridge
management, Annals of GIS 27 (1) (2021) 99–109, https://doi.org/10.1080/
19475683.2020.1743355.
[85] V. Edmondson, M. Cerny, M. Lim, B. Gledson, S. Lockley, J. Woodward, A smart
sewer asset information model to enable an ‘internet of things’ for operational
wastewater management, Automation in Construction 91 (February) (2018)
193–205, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.03.003.
[86] Y. Peng, M. Zhang, F. Yu, J. Xu, S. Gao, Digital twin hospital buildings: an
exemplary case study through continuous lifecycle integration, Advances in Civil
Engineering Nov. 2020 (2020) 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8846667.
[87] IEEE, IEEE standard glossary of software engineering terminology, Office 121990
(1) (1990) 18, https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.1990.101064.
[88] G.B. Ozturk, Interoperability in building information modeling for AECO/FM
industry, Automation in Construction 113 (January) (2020), 103122, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103122.
[89] G.S. Floros, G. Boyes, D. Owens, C. Ellul, Developing IFC for infrastructure: a case
study of three highway entities, ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote
Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences IV-4-W8 (4/W8) (Sep. 2019) 59–66,
https://doi.org/10.5194/ISPRS-ANNALS-IV-4-W8-59-2019.
[90] OGC, Sensor web enablement: overview and high level architecture, Open
Geospatial Consortium, Section 3.5. (Jun 2013) Accessed: Feb. 01, 2022.
[Online]. Available: http://www.opengis.net/doc/wp/swe-high-level-architec
ture.
[91] T. Paolo, F. Cristiano, O. Alessandro, C. Paola, Semantic profiles for easing
SensorML description: review and proposal, ISPRS International Journal of Geo-
Information 8 (8) (Jul. 2019) 340, https://doi.org/10.3390/IJGI8080340.
[92] M. Niknam, F. Jalaei, S. Karshenas, Integrating BIM and product manufacturer
data using the semantic web technologies, ITcon 24 (22) (Oct. 2019) 424–439.
Accessed: Feb. 05, 2022. [Online]. Available: http://www.itcon.org/pape
r/2019/22.
[93] P. Pauwels, W. Terkaj, EXPRESS to OWL for construction industry: towards a
recommendable and usable ifcOWL ontology, Automation in Construction 63
(Mar. 2016) 100–133, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AUTCON.2015.12.003.
[94] J.M.D. Delgado, L.J. Butler, I. Brilakis, M.Z.E.B. Elshafie, C. Middleton, Structural
performance monitoring using a dynamic data-driven BIM environment, Journal
of Computing in Civil Engineering 32 (3) (2018) 04018009, https://doi.org/
10.1061/(asce)cp.1943-5487.0000749.
[95] G. Yu, Y. Wang, Z. Mao, M. Hu, V. Sugumaran, Y.K. Wang, A digital twin-based
decision analysis framework for operation and maintenance of tunnels, undefined
116, Oct. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TUST.2021.104125.
[96] Q. Lu, X. Xie, A.K. Parlikad, J. Schooling, Digital twin-enabled anomaly detection
for built asset monitoring in operation and maintenance, Automation in
Construction 118 (2020) 103277, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2020.103277.
[97] A. Pacios Álvarez, J. Ordieres-Meré, Á.P. Loreiro, L. de Marcos, Opportunities in
airport pavement management: Integration of BIM, the IoT and DLT, Journal of
Air Transport Management 90 (December) (Jan. 2021) 101941, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jairtraman.2020.101941.
[98] G. Lawton, Digital twin consortium pursues open source collaboration,
VentureBeat 11 (Jun. 2021). https://venturebeat.com/2021/06/11/digital-t
win-consortium-pursues-open-source-collaboration/ (accessed Mar. 27, 2022).
[99] M. Mashaly, Connecting the twins: a review on digital twin technology & its
networking requirements, Procedia Computer Science 184 (Jan. 2021) 299–305,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROCS.2021.03.039.
[100] Y. Liu, S. van Nederveen, M. Hertogh, Understanding effects of BIM on
collaborative design and construction: an empirical study in China, International
Journal of Project Management 35 (4) (May 2017) 686–698, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.IJPROMAN.2016.06.007.
[101] M.S. Rajabi, A.R. Radzi, M. Rezaeiashtiani, A. Famili, M.E. Rashidi, R.A. Rahman,
Key assessment criteria for organizational BIM capabilities: a cross-regional study,
Buildings 12 (7) (Jul. 2022) 1013, https://doi.org/10.3390/
BUILDINGS12071013.
[102] Microsoft, What is Azure Digital Twins? - Azure Digital Twins, Microsoft Docs,
2022. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/digital-twins/overview (accessed
Feb. 08, 2022).
[103] NVIDIA Developer, NVIDIA OmniverseTM platform, NVIDIA (2021), https://deve
loper.nvidia.com/nvidia-omniverse-developer-resource-center (accessed Jul. 02,
2023).
[104] buildingSMART, Technical Roadmap buildingSMART: Getting ready for the
future April, 2020, p. 33.
[105] OGC, OGC City geography markup language (CityGML) 3.0 conceptual model
users guide, Open Geospatial Consortium (2021). https://docs.ogc.org/guides/20
-066.html (accessed Feb. 08, 2022).