Cited by 292Digital Transformation in IndustryFlexible and Reconfigurable Manufacturing SystemsManufacturing Process and Optimization

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Framework for a digital twin in manufacturing: Scope and requirements

Open access
Shao, Guodong, Helu, Moneer·2020·Manufacturing Letters

Abstract

Digital twin has the potential to be an important concept for achieving smart manufacturing. However, there remains a lot of confusion about the concept and how it can be implemented in real manufacturing systems, especially among small-to-medium-sized enterprises. This paper synthesizes the different perspectives that have been reported on the digital twin to identify the key characteristics that must be understood when developing a digital twin for a specific use case. Example applications are provided and the need for a standardized framework, such as the one under development as ISO 23247 (Digital Twin Manufacturing Framework), is motivated. This framework can enable context-dependent implementations and promote composability and reusability of digital twin components.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.mfglet.2020.04.004

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 16 references

4 of the 16 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Negri, 2017, A review of the roles of Digital Twin in CPS-based production systems, Procedia Manuf, 11, 939, 10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.198 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Brooks B, Davidson A, Gregor I. 2014. “The Evolving Relationship between Simulation and Emulation: Faster than Real-Time Controls Testing.” Proceedings of the 2014 Winter Simulation Conference, edited by A. Tolk, et al. 4240 -4249. Piscataway, New Jersey: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–232 of 232

Metadata

Authors
Shao, G., & Helu, M.
Affiliations
National Institute of Standards and Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Shao, Guodong
Venue
Manufacturing Letters
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-04
Volume
24
Pages
105-107
ISSN
2213-8463 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3015896415
Cited by
292
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 6
FWCI
25.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Manufacturing Letters (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Digital Transformation in Industry
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Flexible and Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Manufacturing Process and Optimization
Keywords
digital twin, smart manufacturing, ISO 23247, small and medium-sized enterprises, digital twin implementation, composability

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review