[Glen Worrall]

Astrid, this was just released (part of our annual review of projects), which made me think this may provide some insights … not quite RIBA stages, but solutions based around the lifecycle of the Twinhttps://go.bentley.com/hubfs/eBook_Digital_Twins_Rail_Asset_Lifecycle_EN FINAL.pdf?hsLang=en

[Glen Worrall]

Hi Astrid
Currently the use cases need indexing against your requirements.
However, your specific queries …

Can it influence design : This requires two key features latency and quality … ie  if the consumers of the (lets call it RIBA3 Twin) cannot fulfil their information requirement (not open and low quality) then they will not use the Twin.  However, if there is a long enough delay in the feedback to the creators then they will not use that information as the Twin has generally progressed and the feedback is not relevant.  Therefore we are working on making consumption and hence feedback as short as possible.Prototyping with Costing attached is done today, it generally depends upon on how componentised the design can be. https://www.automation.com/en-us/articles/february-2021/shell-deepwater-bentley-itwin-platform-project is an example from Oil and Gashttps://www.mottmacbentley.co.uk/digital/article/68431/leading-the-way-in-component-standardisation (different Bentley) is another
However, the more open your Twin the easier the consumption outside of the design tools (Export to Excel does not count)
 

[Glen Worrall]

Hi Astrid,

We work with many users through the engineering lifecycle stages who evolve their Digital Models in the direction of a Digital Twin.  Certainly around the dynamic environment of  a construction site there are many examples and resources.https://aecmag.com/construction/4d-construction-simulation-driving-everton-stadium-build/
We are currently engaging very actively with ESG capabilities, mainly around embodied carbon
and SiemensStadt provides a very large insight into the capabilities when working across a large built environment and linking to existing infrastructurehttps://aeccafe.com/nbc/articles/1/1959801/
However, when you say resources, the challenges for each of these stages is no different to Digital Twin in operations, just that you need to consider the same principles.
What is the purpose, can you trust the output, and is it effective.  For many users during the early stages of the project, the silos of data mean that Openness and Quality are sacrificed, when there can be great value in considering how the digital model can be consumed by the larger project / asset teams.
If you let us know what resources you are looking for we can start to build out a register for the good examples around.
 

[Glen Worrall]

Hi @DRossiter87, there is also a gov article linking back to the framework (ps your link seems to have gone stale).
The magnitude of datasets seems to make writing the rules as hard as creating the data and the evolving nature of the Employers Information Requirements creates a dynamic validation scenario.
The requirement to validate data is not only at the schema level, but the downstream consumers.  
I highlight some of the challenges with reviewing datahttps://medium.com/@allowing_pullman_wasp_147/validation-of-property-instances-with-itwin-c04982134f52
and assets such as panels for example prevent the rapid deployment of engineering content into operations.
I have various threads running on how to validate, but they all seem to be asset owner / project specific.
The only government standard I seem to have come across is the Singapore Corenet system which is very specific.
Interested in what others are doing to standardise the data validation requirements.

[Glen Worrall]

@Ali, there were a couple of very interesting presentations on supplier Digital Maturity (Periodic Table), which probably could be applied to Digital Twin Maturity, although I think for DTHub, it would be interesting to see a maturity based upon a scaling defined from the Gemini Principles would be interesting.
They also have a working group to review and grade Use Cases which (if there was a Digital Twin maturity scale), would help define if a use case is a Digital Model, Digital Shadow or Digital Twin.

[Glen Worrall]

Very interesting topics, but perhaps may be enhanced with some appendices of Digital Twins that are built to this standard.  For the IMF was any “standard” such as http://www.openoandm.org/isbm/
reviewed ?
If I came to this paper to consider “how” to implement a Digital Twin, I would leave disappointed (and perhaps frustrated) 

[Glen Worrall]

Would be interesting to see inclusion on the cost of the data silos and duplication of data (digital waste)Do we know how much digital waste we create in the UK and how this can be prevented with open data sources. indicates this for the US, but most infrastructure projects start with “their” copy of the asset.

[Glen Worrall]

I observed some small changes and perhaps some reworking of a single section as well as perhaps an omission
 

What

 

By increasing the openness and availability of shared data between … could this be clarified to “By enabling an openness as defined in the Gemini principles for sharing data between …

 

Is the question on climate change the purpose of the connected digital twin, or is that referring to an holistic view ?  Are we saying that national digital twins are critical to alter the course of climate change ?

Suggest stopping after holistic view.

 

What do we mean by a digital twin ?

Would we really have a digital twin of a “person”

 

This results in faster, better and often more cost-effective decisions.

Better is a “subjective word”

This results in more informed decisions, which can result in faster decision maker and often enabling cost effective actions.

 

fundamental principal …

If principal is the noun here then it perhaps should be fundamental principle.

Ie it would read correct as fundamental proposition, but not fundamental first

 

Interventions

The intervention can be a preventative measure to avoid an issue highlighted by the twin, rectifying an issue or a reaction to an external action on the physical twin.

 

Which twin highlights the issue, is this the digital twin.  Perhaps it should be clearer, ie we mention physical twin, but then just use twin.

 

Build Environment Systems

The built environment is made up of economic and social infrastructure. However, built environment systems will never be complete. Buildings and infrastructure are constantly being adapted to cope with changing demographics, demands and a growing population. 

Two main areas, economic and social infrastructure, involve political, institutional and commercial structures where ideas and information can often be siloed, preventing collaboration and cooperation. Reducing barriers, especially cost and time, or sharing information within the built environment presents opportunities to drive innovation, optimise services, tackle climate change and enable sustainable growth.iv

 

I am not sure what this paragraph is trying to say.  Paragraph 1 is OK, but then we try and make what statement are you trying to make.

Sharing information include cost and time within the built environment represents opportunities to drive innovation, optimise services, tackle climate change and enable sustainable growth.  Was the statement lifted from the Arup paper ?  The second paragraph I think is trying to say that the various owners of infrastructure have different drivers, such as economic or social impact, enabling a common platform to drive innovation, optimise services etc requires a change in the collaboration and cooperation …

Overall

There is no discussion on the commercial barrier or stake holders are.

Ie if we want a digital twin of a town, who is responsible for that digital twin, the local council, the builders, the homeowners etc.  There should be a discussion around stakeholders, there is some start of the discussion in economic and social infrastructure, but the complexity should be stated as problematic so it can be addressed in the how, or listed as still a problem if it is.