Archive
Digital Twins
I first heard the term “Digital Twin” at a John Holland (JH) Engineers’ Forum. It was pitched as a new and exciting concept which would innovate the way JH would manage construction projects in future. After some research into the topic, I found that the Centre for Digital Built Britain is implementing a National Digital Twin programme which may be of interest to those heading for professional review soon.
What is a Digital Twin?
Digital twins are virtual models of a physical asset but, unlike BIM, they are digitally connected to their physical counterpart. Digital twins have been used for years in manufacturing and aviation but are beginning to emerge in the built environment. “Twins” are a concept, rather than a single piece of software. The Twin is created by continuously learning from multiple sources including analytics, machine-learning algorithms and artificial intelligence. Real-world data is captured via sensors, drones and other wireless technology operating within the physical asset which feeds back to the Twin.
Types of Digital Twins
Similar to the levels of BIM, there are levels of Digital Twin maturity which can be implemented as follows:
Level 1: Descriptive Twin. The descriptive twin is a visual replica with live, editable design and construction data, including 3D models and BIM.
Level 2: Informative Twin. The informative twin uses increased integration with sensors and operations data for insights at any given time.
Level 3: Predictive Twin. The predictive twin captures real-time data, contextual data, and analytics to identify potential issues.
Level 4: Comprehensive Twin. The comprehensive twin leverages advanced modelling and simulation for potential future scenarios as well as prescriptive analytics and recommendations.
Level 5: Autonomous Twin. The autonomous twin has the ability to learn and make decisions through artificial intelligence, while using advanced algorithms for simulation and 3D visualization.
Video 1: What is a Digital Twin? (from Redshift by Autodesk)
What is the National Digital Twin (NDT) programme?
The NDT programme is run by the Centre for Digital Built Britain (CDBB), a partnership between the University of Cambridge and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The programme aims to:
1. Enable a National Digital Twin: an ecosystem of connected digital twins to foster better outcomes from our built environment.
2. Deliver an Information Management Framework: to ensure secure resilient data sharing and effective information management.
3. Align a Digital Framework Task Group: to provide coordination and alignment among key players.
Video 2: What is the National Digital Twin (NDT)? (from CDBB)
The NDT Gemini Principles
The CDBB has developed the “Gemini Principles” as the conscience of the NDT. The Gemini Principles consist of 9 guiding values to ensure the Digital Twins have purpose, maintain trust and function effectively. Find out more about the 9 values here: https://youtu.be/GoIv5ritEiM
Why use a Digital Twin?
- Improves efficiency and quality. Digital Twins allow the user to gain valuable insights about the performance, operation or profitability of a project, whether completed or in progress which can improve efficiency and quality.
- Aids decision making. A Digital Twin can provide real-time information about what is happening now which improves the speed of issue detection and resolution ultimatelyaiding decision making.
- Reduces risk. Conducting virtual inspections, using wireless technology, allows for identification of maintenance requirements or fault detection without requiring a human to physically inspect the asset. This is particularly useful for railways and large bridges and a technology driven inspection can return information not visible to the human eye. Virtual inspections reduce the requirement and risk for workers on a job site and can be much quicker; allowing for more frequent inspections which again reduces risk.
- Increases profitability. If the Digital Twin is fully engaged with for all of its benefits, a project can experience improved efficiency, quality and reduced risk which all provide the opportunity for increased project profitability.
- Enhances coordination. Digital twins enhance coordination as the real-time data capture can be combined with the proposal of a future installation or change concept and easily demonstrated visually to stakeholders, such as within a 3D model simulation. This provides an accurate prediction of how the asset will react to change and provides reassurance of the predicted outcome, enhancing coordination between the current physical asset and implementation of alterations.
- Provides reassurance of asset integrity. Digital twins provide a consistent and easy way to conduct real-time monitoring of a built asset which provides early warning of asset fatigue and potential failure.
Challenges of creating a digital twin
- Additional technology. The technological requirements to establish a digital twin are additional to those implemented for BIM. Companies will have to invest in Digital Twin technologies, train staff and maintain currency to effectively implement the concept.
- Return on investment not guaranteed. Unless an effective Digital Twin is implemented and then used to enhance the project, the return on investment will not be achieved. The upfront cost of technologies may require multiple project Digital Twins to be implemented before a profit is realised.
- Demand. JH are committed to making this investment and realising the benefits of Digital Twins as soon as possible, but other companies may not have this mindset. Unless a Client requires a Digital Twin for use in the operational life-cycle and beyond, some construction companies may not see the need or cost benefit of implement this concept.
- Coordination between creator and user. The creator of the Digital Twin during the design and construction phase may not be the same individual who uses the Twin for analysis of the asset in future. This disconnect could lead to a lack of investment in or understanding of the Twin and a poor replication of the physical world.
Innovative Digital Twin Data Capture in Practice
Video 3: ‘Spot’ the Robot Dog captures data for a Digital Twin (from DeZeen for Foster & Partners)
Additional Information
If you’d like to read further into this topic, I found these pages of interest:
National Digital Twin Programme | Centre for Digital Built Britain (cam.ac.uk)
Digital Twins in Construction, Engineering, & Architecture | Autodesk
What Is a Digital Twin? – Digital Builder (autodesk.com)
Digital Twinfrastructure | Institution of Civil Engineers (ice.org.uk)
Defining the digital twin: 7 essential steps | Institution of Civil Engineers (ice.org.uk)
“The Enemy That Kills You, Doesn’t Look Like You”
Read time: 5 minutes.
This morning was the ICE Strategy Session: Covid-19, Artificial Intelligence, and the future of the Civil Engineer. During the session, chaired by Rachel Skinner, Prof. Richard Susskind spoke about how AI and ‘the future’ might affect industries. His thoughts then provoked discussion amongst a board of construction industry experts.
Richard’s presentation focused on several key themes which I’ll summarise below:
The Mind Set
Richard explained that if, as an industry, we don’t want to be left behind, we need to change the way we approach problem solving. We shouldn’t be thinking about how we can do what we currently do faster, better or cheaper but change what we do all together to achieve the end goal.
An example Richard gave was the decline of the rail industry in the US. He suggested that their decline can be attributed to the rail industry’s inability to comprehend that they weren’t in the ‘rail business’, they were in the ‘transportation business’, and the customer didn’t care how they got there. Another example was given where the MD of Black & Decker explained to new employees that they weren’t in the ‘selling drills’ business, but in the hole making business, and if they find a better way to help customers make holes in walls that doesn’t involve a drill, then they need to adapt, quickly. The focus should be outcome above all else.
The Disrupter
The discussion then moved on to, “well ok, so who is it going to be that shakes things up”. After the CEO’s of several international construction firms (Balfour, WSP and others) discussed how we might adapt as civil engineers, Richard suggested that “the enemy that kills you, doesn’t look like you”. He went on to explain that whilst we might be able to disrupt and innovate internally, this is typically a very hard thing to do and usually it’s external people/companies who really disrupt industries.
So who might these disrupters be? Richard suggested that with the development of AI, data is king, and so it might be data analysts and scientists, not civil engineers, who create this disruption and lead innovation in construction. Mark Naysmith, CEO of WSP, supported this theory when he explained that as a consultancy, they’re employing more and more graduates with computer science degrees and even creative degrees such as art and music. Mark didn’t say if this meant he was consequently employing less engineers, I expect not, but perhaps this is us conceding as an industry that we, with all of our structural theory, might not be all of the solution to the problem. Those that don’t embrace this might be left behind.
Something that wasn’t mentioned in the strategy session, but I think reflects the sentiment, is what Dominic Cummings was trying to do in No. 10. We are familiar with the news that rather than employing civil servants and staff with politics degrees, he was employing data analysts and computer scientists to help run the government. Now, the success of his strategy would be a contentious debate, but to me the parallels are stark as we see an industry (politics) realising that the disrupter (the innovator) might not look like a politician.
My Opinion
It’s my opinion that the civil engineer, and what we design and build, will remain the solution to the outcomes required by society for at least the next 100 years. Whether that being transport infrastructure to enable trade and movement, energy infrastructure to power our homes or the high rise buildings to home us where space is a commodity. However, the longer we wait as an industry to ‘self-disrupt’ and innovate, the less control we’ll have over an industry that we regards as ‘ours’. This has already been witnessed with the modernisation of project management. The Bragg and many other reports of the 80s/90s that reviewed the technical and commercial practices of the civil engineer, saw the engineer’s remit transfer to project managers, quantity surveyors and schedulers. It’s my opinion that the longer we wait to self-disrupt, the higher the chances of what remit remains (such as risk management, construction sequencing, design and quality assurance) could become the remit of yet another specialist, perhaps data analysts and computer scientists.
Further Reading:
The session was recorded and should be available on the ICE’s website in a couple of days.
The board members were:
Prof. Richard Susskind OBE: A British author, speaker, and independent adviser to international professional firms and national governments, specifically on the use of AI.
Mark Neysmith: CEO of WSP UK and a member of the Global Leadership Team.
Simon Adam: Head of commercial for Crossrail 2.
Stephen Tarr: Managing Director of Balfour Beatty.
Suzannah Nichol: CEO of Build UK.
Chris Young: CEO of Tony Gee.
Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog 