The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 21 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles
Open accessAbstract
Future generations of NASA and U.S. Air Force vehicles will require lighter mass while being subjected to higher loads and more extreme service conditions over longer time periods than the present generation. Current approaches for certification, fleet management and sustainment are largely based on statistical distributions of material properties, heuristic design philosophies, physical testing and assumed similitude between testing and operational conditions and will likely be unable to address these extreme requirements. To address the shortcomings of conventional approaches, a fundamental paradigm shift is needed. This paradigm shift, the Digital Twin, integrates ultra-high fidelity simulation with the vehicle s on-board integrated vehicle health management system, maintenance history and all available historical and fleet data to mirror the life of its flying twin and enable unprecedented levels of safety and reliability.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper proposes the Digital Twin paradigm—an integrated multiphysics, multiscale, probabilistic simulation of an as-built vehicle using best physical models, sensor updates, fleet history, and IVHM data—to mirror the life of its flying twin and improve certification, fleet management, and sustainment. It argues conventional factor-of-safety, similitude, and inspection approaches are inadequate for future NASA and U.S. Air Force vehicles with lighter mass, higher loads, and longer extreme service.
Key findings
- Conventional certification and sustainment rely on factors-of-safety, similitude, worst-case scenarios, and fleet leaders; factors can be as large as 2.0 depending on material and configuration, a service life factor of 4.0 is applied to well-characterized spaceflight structures, and known flaws must show a safety factor of 1.5 against fracture.
- The Digital Twin integrates ultra-high fidelity physical models, on-board IVHM sensor data, maintenance history, and historical/fleet data via data mining and text mining; it continuously forecasts vehicle health, remaining useful life, and probability of mission success, and can recommend mission profile changes or activate self-healing mechanisms.
- Near-term opportunities include the AFRL Digital Twin: Spiral 1 using the F-15 as a testbed, and a NASA approach focused on a small highly critical non-redundant component such as a MEMS.
- Expected advantages include decreased system weight by reducing reliance on statistical distributions, heuristic design philosophies, physical testing, and assumed similitude, plus increased reliability through continuous monitoring and mitigation of degradation and anomalous events.
Methods
- Conceptual/vision paper, not an experimental study; it presents the Digital Twin paradigm and requirements, with examples drawn from NASA standards and handbooks including NASA-STD-5001A, NASA-STD-5019, and NASA-HDBK-5010.
- No sample, dataset, or statistical analysis is reported; the paper discusses conventional approaches, Digital Twin attributes, near-term opportunities, advantages, and influence on national goals.
- Illustrative figures and tables are used to motivate the paradigm, such as an STS payload launch/landing spectrum and upper-bound fatigue crack growth rate curves estimated as three standard deviations above mean values.
Limitations
- The paper states the Digital Twin is an ambitious concept “unlikely to attain maturity for many decades,” so a series of intermediate steps is required.
- The paper states future vehicles may encounter conditions that cannot be foreseen, and long-duration space missions may make conventional inspection and maintenance impossible.
- Evident from the text: no quantitative validation, implementation results, or performance metrics for a Digital Twin are reported; the work is a concept and roadmap paper.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
26 Own interpretation · 19 Sources not found · 5 No basis given
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When similitude is violated, probabilistic methods break down as readily as those based on factors-of-safety.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Current approaches for certification, fleet management and sustainment are largely based on statistical distributions of material properties, heuristic design philosophies, physical testing and assumed similitude between testing and operational conditions and will likely be unable to address these extreme requirements.”
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
“Existing methodologies for vehicle certification, fleet management and sustainment are largely based on similitude and a heuristic understanding of the effects of operational and anomalous conditions on the structural health, safety and performance of a vehicle.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such codes are of limited”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Current approaches for certification, fleet management and sustainment are largely based on statistical distributions of material properties, heuristic design philosophies, physical testing and assumed similitude between testing and operational conditions and will likely be unable to address these extreme requirements.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even current probabilistic or reliability methodologies are inadequate because they are based on assumed similitude between the circumstances in which the underlying statistics were obtained and the environment in which the vehicle operates.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“As discussed in the standard, the accepted practice for”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Conventional Approaches
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites NASA-STD-5001A
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, they may not be sufficient to address the future extreme requirements of some future NASA and U.S. Air Force vehicles.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Table 1: Sample of Publicly Available Standards and Handbooks
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 15
- Probably not a substantial claim. 39
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, compounding of factors-of-safety is pervasive and may lead to unnecessarily heavy structures and reduced performance without necessarily improving the actual safety of the vehicle or the probability of mission success.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Introduction
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Inspection schedules are typically determined from experience with similar vehicles that have performed similar missions.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Often, inspection is performed based on experience with the fleet leader, the vehicle in the fleet that experienced the most flights or the worst degradation.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the ability to fully understand degradation and anomalous events and foresee previously unknown unknowns may represent the difference between mission success and mission failure.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If, for example, unacceptable degradation of a component was found during an inspection of the fleet leader, it may be decided that all vehicles of that class be inspected immediately regardless of the specific history of each vehicle.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“An extreme case of codified conservatism is discussed in NASA-HDBK-5010 10 , where separate conservatisms for crack size, applied loads, material properties, and analysis are discussed for”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Table 1: Sample of Publicly Available Standards and Handbooks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites NASA-HDBK-5010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It will also decrease system weight by reducing reliance on statistical distributions of material properties, heuristic design philosophies, physical testing and assumed similitude between testing and operational conditions.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Advantages Over Conventional Approaches
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“According to NASA-STD-5001A 1 , a service life factor of 4.0 is applied to”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Table 1: Sample of Publicly Available Standards and Handbooks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites NASA-STD-5001A
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Known cracks in fracture critical hardware require special treatment wherein upper bounds for crack size estimate accounting for”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Table 1: Sample of Publicly Available Standards and Handbooks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites NASA-HDBK-5010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Finally, analyses of known flaws must show that the component has a service life factor of four and a safety factor of 1.5 against fracture.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Table 1: Sample of Publicly Available Standards and Handbooks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites NASA-HDBK-5010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Among these steps is the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Digital Twin: Spiral 1 17 , a plan to integrate existing state-of-the-art technologies, benchmark current capabilities and identify gaps using components from an existing U.S. Air Force vehicle, specifically, the F-15, as a testbed.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Identification of Near-Term Opportunities
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [17]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Complex missions, particularly those where external support is difficult or impossible, will necessitate complete real-time management of complex materials, structures and systems that will ultimately lead to”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Concept
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The consequences of failure during a long-duration space mission, where the vehicle is far from home, will almost certainly be catastrophic.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By combining all of this information, the Digital Twin continuously forecasts the health of the vehicle or system, the remaining useful life and the probability of mission success.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Concept
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unlike those individual visions, the vision for the Digital Twin integrates the broad range of technologies with a singular focus.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Identification of Near-Term Opportunities
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In all of these cases,”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Conventional Approaches
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites NASA-STD-5001A
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If various best-physics (i.e., the most accurate, physically realistic and robust) models can be integrated with one another and with on-board sensor suites, they will form a basis for certification of vehicles by simulation and for real-time, continuous, health management of those vehicles during their missions.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Concept
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, demands on structural materials will be greatly increased and structural margins will necessarily be decreased.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Concept
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Future generations of NASA and U.S. Air Force vehicles will require lighter mass while being subjected to higher loads and more extreme service conditions over longer time periods than the present generation.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a virtual instantiation of a flying vehicle, the Digital Twin is expected to be able to experience every event that its flying twin experiences.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Advantages Over Conventional Approaches
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Because the vehicles needed for future extreme missions are unlikely to be developed using existing material forms, the design and development of new enabling (e.g., multifunctional, nanostructured, ultra-durable) materials is required and is well aligned with the NRC's ICME roadmap.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Influence on National Goals
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [20]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The application of continuum fracture mechanics analyses, including NASGRO fatigue crack growth analysis (see JSC 22267B 6 ), is the foundation of much of the codified fracture control methodology.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Table 1: Sample of Publicly Available Standards and Handbooks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites JSC 22267B
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The ability to assess the evolution of defects is a critical element within the Digital Twin's on-board IVHM system and is well aligned with the NRC's advocacy for developments in Materials State Awareness.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Influence on National Goals
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [21]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The latter approach requires a factor-of-safety for yield that is higher than the factor-of-safety used for prototype testing.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Conventional Approaches
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites NASA-STD-5001A
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Digital Twin can also predict system response to safety critical events and uncover previously unknown issues before they become critical by comparing predicted and actual responses.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Concept
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because of its ability to mirror the life of a specific vehicle in an as-built state, the Digital Twin will necessarily revolutionize certification, fleet management and sustainment.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Advantages Over Conventional Approaches
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Fracture critical hardware requires the additional imposition of damage tolerance requirements (see, for example, NASA-STD-5019 2 ).”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Table 1: Sample of Publicly Available Standards and Handbooks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites NASA-STD-5019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, such an ambitious concept is unlikely to attain maturity for many decades, so a series of intermediate steps is required.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Identification of Near-Term Opportunities
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The Digital Twin concept is unlikely to attain maturity for many decades.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the extensive legacy of historical flight information incorporated in the various standards and handbooks that were based on decades of aircraft and spacecraft design experience, will likely be insufficient to either certify future extreme vehicles or to guarantee mission success.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Concept
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Future generations of vehicles will rely on increasingly complex, heterogeneous and multifunctional material forms with increasingly complex failure modes.
In the paper
“These factors vary widely depending on circumstance and can be as large as 2.0 depending on the material and local structural configuration.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Table 1: Sample of Publicly Available Standards and Handbooks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites NASA-STD-5001A
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Additionally, worst-case limit loads for the mission must be used to compute the far field stress state at the location of the detected crack.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Table 1: Sample of Publicly Available Standards and Handbooks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites NASA-HDBK-5010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, an understanding of the exact state of the structure of the vehicle or its systems, including the existence of defects at the microstructural and, possibly, the atomistic scale, is required as a baseline for ultra-high fidelity simulations.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Influence on National Goals
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, it will enable mission managers to make knowledgeable decisions regarding the consequences of possible in-flight changes to a vehicle's mission.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Advantages Over Conventional Approaches
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Once the vehicle is launched, the Digital Twin will increase the reliability of the flying vehicle because of its ability to continuously monitor and mitigate degradation and anomalous events.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Advantages Over Conventional Approaches
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Because of the apparent scatter in material response under cyclic and creep loading, the corresponding factors are even larger.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Table 1: Sample of Publicly Available Standards and Handbooks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites NASA-STD-5001A
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many of the technologies critical for the Digital Twin are currently being developed under related visions for multi-scale and multi-physics modeling, structural health management, highperformance computing and others.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Identification of Near-Term Opportunities
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the systems on board the Digital Twin are capable of mitigating damage or degradation by activating self-healing mechanisms or by recommending changes in mission profile to decrease loadings thereby increasing both the life span and the probability of mission success.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Concept
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, they tend to be reactive rather than proactive and are often based on heuristic experience, worst-case scenarios and fleet leaders rather than on the specific material, structural configuration and usage of an individual vehicle.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Table 1: Sample of Publicly Available Standards and Handbooks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The handbook requires analysts to use material properties corresponding to the lower bound of fracture toughness and the upper bound of fatigue crack growth rate (da/dN vs. ΔK) as shown in Figure 2.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Table 1: Sample of Publicly Available Standards and Handbooks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites NASA-HDBK-5010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Upper bounds of fatigue crack growth rate curves are either visually estimated or statistically estimated as being three standard deviations above the mean values.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Table 1: Sample of Publicly Available Standards and Handbooks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites NASA-HDBK-5010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By replacing conventional engineering practices with an understanding of the degradation of an individual vehicle or vehicle system, the paradigm of the Digital Twin will impact the way that physical items ranging from micro-devices to civil infrastructure are developed, certified and maintained.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Influence on National Goals
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“In addition to its prominence in the recently-published roadmaps of NASA's Office of Chief Technologist (OCT) [15][16] and plans of the Air Force Research Laboratory [17][18] , the Digital Twin paradigm can provide focus to the recent advocacy of the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Research Council (NRC) in the areas of Simulation Based Engineering Science (SBES) 19 , Integrated”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Influence on National Goals
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [19]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [20]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [21]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By exercising such ultra-high fidelity approaches on flight hardware, the shortcomings of the existing state-of-the-art in multiscale modeling, in-situ experimentation and material state awareness will be highlighted.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Identification of Near-Term Opportunities
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Here, the crack size assumed for analysis (2c A ) is a combination of the NDE-detected crack dimensions (2c D ) and an adjustment based on the NDE detection capability (2c N ).”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Table 1: Sample of Publicly Available Standards and Handbooks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites NASA-HDBK-5010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Potential spin-offs from the development of the Digital Twin span the breadth of the Nation's industrial and manufacturing sectors, infrastructure and development of nanotechnology.”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Influence on National Goals
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper relies on this without support.
Future generations of NASA and U.S. Air Force vehicles will require lighter mass while being subjected to higher loads and more extreme service conditions over longer time periods than the present generation.
“Future generations of NASA and U.S. Air Force vehicles will require lighter mass while being subjected to higher loads and more extreme service conditions over longer time periods than the present generation.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Future vehicles will have little direct precedent to follow, and in some cases (e.g., long duration space missions) the vehicle may be impossible to inspect and maintain in the conventional sense.
“Unlike the methods used to insure safety and reliability of existing vehicles that have a clear and wellunderstood legacy, many future vehicles will have little direct precedent to follow, and in some cases (e.g., long duration space missions) the vehicle may be impossible to inspect and maintain in the conventional sense.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Future generations of vehicles will rely on increasingly complex, heterogeneous and multifunctional material forms with increasingly complex failure modes.
“Future generations of vehicles will rely on increasingly complex, heterogeneous and multifunctional material forms with increasingly complex failure modes.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The extensive physical testing that provided the confidence needed to assure the success of previous missions has become increasingly expensive to perform.
“Additionally, the extensive physical testing that provided the confidence needed to assure the success of previous missions has become increasingly expensive to perform.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The consequences of failure during a long-duration space mission, where the vehicle is far from home, will almost certainly be catastrophic.
“Moreover, the consequences of failure during a long-duration space mission, where the vehicle is far from home, will almost certainly be catastrophic.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Digital Twin concept is unlikely to attain maturity for many decades.
“However, such an ambitious concept is unlikely to attain maturity for many decades, so a series of intermediate steps is required.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Consequently, DT consists of three parts, which include the physical product, virtual product, and the communication platform between them (Glaessgen & Stargel 2012).”
From A review of digital twin applications in construction (2022) · cites this paper as Glaessgen & Stargel 2012
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This makes these methods more reactive than proactive [31].”
From Digital Twins in the IIoT: Current Practices and Future Directions Toward Industry 5.0 (2025) · cites this paper as [31]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > Table 1: Sample of Publicly Available Standards and Handbooks
“An extreme case of codified conservatism is discussed in NASA-HDBK-5010 10”
§ The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles > References
“10. Anon., "Fracture Control Implementation Handbook for Payloads, Experiments, and Similar Hardware," NASA-STD-5010, May 2005.”
Citations
Cites
Reengineering aircraft structural life prediction using a digital twin
Tuegel, E. J., Ingraffea, A. R., Eason, T. G., & Spottswood, S. M. (2011) · International Journal of Aerospace Engineering · doi:10.1155/2011/154798 · Cited by 1,119
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Anon, 2008, NASA-STD-5019
- Anon, 2008, NASA-STD-6016
- Anon, 2001, Version 3, 0, 22267B
- Anon, Fracture Control Implementation Handbook for Payloads, Experiments, and Similar Hardware,"NASA-STD-5010,May2005
- Anon, 2004, Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels
- Kobryn P.A., 2011, USAF Air Force Research Laboratory, 88ABW-, 01428
- Anon, 2006, Simulation-Based Engineering Science: Revolutionizing Engineering Science through Simulation
- Anon, 2008, National Research Council, ISBN, 0, 12000
- Anon, 2008, National Research Council,ISBN, 0, 12166
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 2,201–2,300 of 2,402
Zhang, H., Wang, W., & Wen, Y. (2025) · Systems Engineering · doi:10.1002/sys.70033
Digital Twins and Smart Environments
Hammad, M., Ali, H., Hussain, G., & Wang, X. (2026) · Springer series in advanced manufacturing · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-12622-1_4
Meenakshi, K., Singh, K., & Bhargava, D. (2026) · Information systems engineering and management · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-07305-1_6
Overview of hot-carrier and total ionizing dose degradation mechanisms in MOSFETs
Liu, M., Zhu, M., Ren, Y., et al. (2026) · Radiation Physics and Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.radphyschem.2026.113605
Pankratova, N. D., Pankratov, V., & Голінко, І. М. (2025) · Reports of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine · doi:10.15407/dopovidi2025.06.023 · Cited by 1
Advancing Manufacturing Process Education for Industry 4.0: A Multi‐Case Study
Farooq, M. U., & Jang, Y. J. (2026) · Computer Applications in Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/cae.70136 · Cited by 1
AI Powered Digital Twin for Rail Damage Prediction
Bernal, E., Ding, H., Wang, W., et al. (2025) · doi:10.1061/9780784485941.031
AI-Powered Military Logistics and Strategy
Pandey, A. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-3611-4.ch002 · Cited by 1
Digital Twin-Based Intelligent Control Technology for Automatic Transmission Assembly
Xie, B., Zhu, Y., Wang, Y., et al. (2026) · Lecture notes in mechanical engineering · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-3654-2_12
A digital twin framework for air-breathing precooled engine experimental system
Zou, Z., Liu, C., Wu, X., et al. (2026) · Energy · doi:10.1016/j.energy.2026.139991
Hierarchical Hybrid Automata: A Theoretical Basis for the Digital Twin Approach
Traoré, M. K. (2025) · Winter Simulation Conference · doi:10.1109/wsc68292.2025.11338965
Real-Time Household Energy Analytics Using Digital Twin Technology
Gaikwad, S., Kale, S., Mudugule, T. S., & Khope, S. R. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Data, Decision and Systems (ICDDS) · doi:10.1109/icdds67737.2025.11344698
Data Requirements for Reliability-Oriented Digital Twins of Energy Systems: A Case Study Analysis
Mostafa, O., & Lazarova‐Molnar, S. (2025) · Winter Simulation Conference · doi:10.1109/wsc68292.2025.11338875
Adaptive Digital Twins: Continuous Subspace Learning for Dynamic Domains
Wang, P., Pinon-Fischer, O. J., & Mavris, D. N. (2026) · AIAA SciTech Forum · doi:10.2514/6.2026-1531
Pivtorak, O., Ivan, J., & Baron, P. (2026) · EAI/Springer Innovations in Communication and Computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-01555-6_1
Artificial Intelligence–Driven Predictive Maintenance for Next-Generation Aircraft Systems
Naphee, A. E. (2025) · Academic International Journal of Engineering Science · doi:10.59675/e315
Industrial Modbus-LoRa Data Logger for Digital Twin’s Applications
Bouchra, A., Elmahjoub, A. A., & Dandache, A. (2026) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-14964-0_14
A Unified Ontology Framework for Human-Centered Digital Twins
Kottagaha, W. M. K., Karapanagiotis, P., Bokhorst, J. A. C., & Emmanouilidis, C. (2026) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-15579-5_9
Examination of digital twin studies in the environment field with bibliometric analysis method
Hışım, B. K. (2025) · DergiPark (Istanbul University)
Busch, P. A., Tegetmeyer-Kleine, T., Luder, D., et al. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-819987-9.00006-8
Ershenko, D., Sadeghzadeh, S., Fortin, C., & Panayi, A. (2025) · IFIP advances in information and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-93323-3_12
Data-Driven Digital Twin Model Construction and Stress State Monitoring of Grasping Robot
Wei, W., & Gong, W. (2025) · IFIP advances in information and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-93323-3_22
Raj, R., Swain, A., & Pong, P. W. T. (2025) · doi:10.1109/njfet67489.2025.11380473
Digital Twins and Predictive Analytics for Next-Generation Power Transmission Systems
Sayed, K., Elsayed, M. A. E.-H., Kirakosian, D., & Abokhalil, A. G. (2025) · doi:10.1109/njfet67489.2025.11380514
Data Donation for Digital Twins in Healthcare: Potential and Challenges in the European Context
Baltuzzi, M. (2026) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-17216-7_15
Digital Twins in Energy Infrastructure: Frameworks and Deployment Pathways
Parulekar, M. V., Kazi, F., Rane, R., Gupta, R., Gupta, D., & Ikram, M. (2025) · IEEE Smart World Congress (SWC) · doi:10.1109/swc65939.2025.00272
A Vehicle Digital Twin in the Context of a Software Ecosystem
Lopes, J., Reis, A., Barbosa, L., & Barroso, J. (2025) · IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference (VPPC) · doi:10.1109/vppc66000.2025.11392897
Construction and Application Development of Digital Twin for New-type Power System
Pan, H., Su, S., Dong, C., Lv, Y., Dang, C., Liu, B., Du, Y., & Wang, J. (2025) · International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Control Technologies (CEECT) · doi:10.1109/ceect67814.2025.11393273
From PC to AI Through Digital Twins - A glance into the Race for Technological Ideology
Sychev, S., Batako, A. D. L., Antosz, K., Trung, N. T., Xavior, M. A., & Butdee, S. (2026) · EPJ Web of Conferences · doi:10.1051/epjconf/202635404001
Digital Twin for Microgrid Control and Energy Management
Sifat, M. M. H., Haque, M. E., Islam, S. N., Kumar, B. K., & Ronanki, D. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Energy Technologies for Future Grids (ETFG) · doi:10.1109/etfg61999.2025.11400988
Artificial Intelligence and Digital Twins: Revolutionizing Orthopedics Surgery
Oettl, F. C., Samuelsson, K., & Pruneski, J. A. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-7448-0_40-2
Azad, M. M., Raouf, I., Sohail, M., et al. (2026) · Journal of Computational Design and Engineering · doi:10.1093/jcde/qwag023
A Digital Twin-Enhanced Simulation Approach for Smart Warehousing System Design and Evaluation
Yu, Y., Yu, C., Wang, X., Xu, D., Zhao, P., & Qin, L. (2025) · International Conference on Design Science (ICDS) · doi:10.1109/icds67121.2025.11425240
Enhanced Diabetes Management with Digital Twins: A Scoping Review (Preprint)Preprint
Cinar, B., van den Boom, L., & Maleshkova, M. (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.91729
Digital Twin for Autonomous Operation of Earthmoving Equipment
Ma, Z., Zhao, J., Wang, G., Shi, Q., Sun, N., Zhou, Y., Deng, G., Yang, S., & Kamel, A. E. (2026) · Journal of Construction Engineering and Management · doi:10.1061/jcemd4.coeng-16953
A Dual-Layer Trust Model based on Digital Twins for Underwater Acoustic Sensor Networks
Mai, H., Zhu, R., Boukerche, A., et al. (2025) · Globecom · doi:10.1109/globecom59602.2025.11432209
Wondyifraw, D., & van Hillegersberg, J. (2026) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2026.03.052
AI and Digital Twin-Driven Dynamic Optimization for Electromechanical Systems
Zhang, F. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Electrical, Automation and Computer Engineering (ICEACE) · doi:10.1109/iceace67491.2025.11439327
Digital twin technologies in managing the technical condition of aircraft
Izzat, M., Akmal, J., & Dauitbay, S. (2026) · AIP conference proceedings · doi:10.1063/5.0317243
Digital twin utilization in photovoltaic energy systems: Challenges and opportunities
Alao, K. T., Gilani, S. I. U. H., Sopian, K. K., Anshory, I., Jamaaluddin, Alao, T. O., & Sulliev, A. K. (2026) · AIP conference proceedings · doi:10.1063/5.0318798
Digital Twin and IoT Integration for Predictive Maintenance in Civil and Structural Engineering
Leong, W. Y. (2026) · IEEE Eurasia Conference on IOT, Communication and Engineering (ECICE) · doi:10.3390/engproc2026134019 · Cited by 3
Czermański, E., Oniszczuk-Jastrząbek, A. I., Jankiewicz, J., Märtens, T., Krämer, B., & Ehsanfar, E. (2026) · Maritime Economics & Logistics · doi:10.1057/s41278-026-00352-9
Semeraro, C. (2020) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/444f6160z43f3z4541zbc9fz2686f477f659
Using the blockchain technology for trust improvement of processes in Logistics and Transportation
Imeri, A. (2021) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/8d92d799z534bz4778zaa25z6f3726ed798b · Cited by 1
Reality Anchor Methodology : Designing a digital twin supporting situation awareness
Pinto, S. C. D. (2022) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/53247eadz13fez4acaz93ebz4668ddcb31c3 · Cited by 2
The Current Research Status of Digital Twin Technology in Spinal Surgery
者, 尚. (2026) · Advances in Clinical Medicine · doi:10.12677/acm.2026.1641371
Jumeau numérique support aux pratiques coopératives : application au système ferroviaire
Stalder, C. (2023) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/f8256699zc567z4a74zad23z8e7d170370f2
Kherbache, M. (2023) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/7fd72d80z57e6z4994z9272z351dfd48550a
Intelligent defense industry-based predictive maintenance framework: Digital Twin perspective
Aljumah, A. A., & Ahanger, T. A. (2026) · Measurement · doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2026.121436
Wang, C., Fan, I., & King, S. P. (2026) · Frontiers in Aerospace Engineering · doi:10.3389/fpace.2026.1708392
Digital human twins for disabled people: technology for enabling or ableism?
Godwin, E. S., & Smith, M. (2026) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-026-03033-6 · Cited by 2
Shaping digital transition in water engineering
Giustolisi, O. (2026) · Journal of Hydraulic Research · doi:10.1080/00221686.2026.2643704
Rocca, I., D’Acunto, G., Forti, I., et al. (2026) · Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage · doi:10.1016/j.daach.2026.e00537
Tracing the Conceptual and Technical Embeddedness of Urban Digital TwinsPreprint
Hagemans, R., & Hilman, R. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6635094
Stark, J. (2026) · Decision engineering · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-15225-1_11
Technique for Building Digital Twins of Renewable Energy Sources
Цыбиков, А. Р., Massel, L. V., & Массель, А. Г. (2026) · International Russian Smart Industry Conference (SmartIndustryCon) · doi:10.1109/smartindustrycon68821.2026.11493069
Simultaneous Process and Mathematical Model Design for Microbial Cultivations
Moser, A., Appl, C., Schneider, H., & Hass, V. C. (2026) · Cell engineering · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-17514-4_12 · Cited by 1
Avatare als Identitätsträger im Metaversum
Hoffmann, P. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-51037-4_2
Ma, Z., Dong, J., Liu, Z., Tian, T., & Duan, P. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing · doi:10.1109/tdsc.2026.3691392
Hilt, B., Ledy, J., & Laurain, T. (2026) · Journal of Network and Systems Management · doi:10.1007/s10922-026-10070-5
Semantic Factor-Space Architecture for Aerospace and Defense Digital Twin Systems
Gardberg, N. (2026) · Journal of Aerospace Information Systems · doi:10.2514/1.i011841
L'intelligenza artificiale come modello della realtà. Riflessioni intorno ai gemelli digitali
Zamperlin, P. (2026) · RIVISTA GEOGRAFICA ITALIANA · doi:10.3280/rgioa1-2026oa22427
Combining Life Support Systems with Digital Twins: A New Potential?
Leese, F., & Olthoff, C. (2026) · EASN International Conference on Innovation in Aviation & Space Towards Sustainability Today & Tomorrow · doi:10.3390/engproc2026133094
Digital Transformation in Solid Waste Management: Smart Systems for a Sustainable Future
Shumo, M., & Osman, T. (2026) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1015755
Digital Twins for Mechanical Vibration
Bey, H., Bousshine, L., & Azelmad, E. (2026) · Lecture notes on data engineering and communications technologies · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-23021-8_24
Digital Twin-Enabled Robust Parallel Control of Construction Engineering Equipment Under Uncertainty
Chen, R., Xu, H., Zhang, L., Rong, J., Wei, C., Chang, H., & Zhang, H. (2026) · Buildings · doi:10.3390/buildings16101982 · Cited by 1
Digital Twins in Product Development
Immanual, R., Sanjana, N., Kirthika, K. M., & Sangeetha, S. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-91500-0_32
Digital Twins Framework for Modeling Human Decision-Making
Munjal, M., Rajput, A., Das, N. N., Pancholi, D., Gupta, N., & Garg, M. (2026) · International Conference on Intelligent Processing, Hardware, Electronics, and Radio Systems (CIPHER) · doi:10.1109/cipher70417.2026.11524009
Dynamic Routing of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Current State and Development Prospects
Pavlysh, V., & Шаховська, Н. (2026) · Vìsnik Nacìonalʹnogo unìversitetu Lʹvìvsʹka polìtehnìka Serìâ Ìnformacìjnì sistemi ta merežì · doi:10.23939/sisn2026.19.027
Digital Twin of Mining Shovel Based on POD-RBF Method
He, X., Lin, S., Yang, L. T., Wang, Y., Tian, X., & Song, X. (2026) · Mechanisms and machine science · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-7342-4_99
Digital Twins: Evolution, Challenges, and Sustainability
Chaudhuri, D., & Chakrabarty, U. K. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-27160-0_22
Wind Turbine Aero-servo-elastic Digital Twin Models Based on Minimal Data
Haus, L. C., & Griffith, D. T. (2026) · Journal of Physics Conference Series · doi:10.1088/1742-6596/3224/6/062008
Зиёмидинов, Б. М., & Абдурахмонова, А. (2026) · InterConf · doi:10.51582/interconf.19-20.02.2026.021
A Challenge-Led Digital Twin Federation Architecture For Urban Passenger Transport Decarbonisation
Li, J., Steele, H., Preece, J. D., et al. (2026) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2026.04.040
Цифровые пространственные двойники
Цветков, В. Я., & Dubchak, I. A. (2026) · Автоматика, связь, информатика. · doi:10.62994/at.2026.6.6.009
Development of an Urban Digital Twin Based on Geospatial Data: A Case Study of Busan, South Korea
Jeong, T., Jeong, D., & Kim, M. (2026) · ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information · doi:10.3390/ijgi15060247
Kim, S.-H., Kim, D. Y., & Lee, S. (2026) · Buildings · doi:10.3390/buildings16112271
Fidelity metric with 3D shape descriptor for digital twin standardization
Khan, M. T. H., Jauhar, T. A., Han, S., & Noh, C. (2026) · The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9785119/v1
Analytical Report on Digital Twin Technology: Status and Future Direction
Gholipour, Y., Mostafaee, A., & Gholipour, Y. (2026) · Journal of Plant Science and Phytopathology · doi:10.29328/journal.jpsp.1001167
Digital Twin-Driven Conceptual and Embodiment Design: Opportunities and Challenges
Asadi, H., Taleb, A. A., Sallaou, M., et al. (2026) · International Conference on Innovative Research in Applied Science, Engineering and Technology (IRASET) · doi:10.1109/iraset68627.2026.11538701
Benduch, D., Besiekierska, A., Ganczar, M., et al. (2026) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su18125961
Metadata
- Authors
- Glaessgen, E., & Stargel, D.
- Affiliations
- Langley Research Center (US)
- United States Air Force Office of Scientific Research (US)
- Venue
- 53rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference 20th AIAA/ASME/AHS Adaptive Structures Conference 14th AIAA
- Published
- 2012-04-23
- OpenAlex
- W2046074714
- Semantic Scholar
- 733d40c04be482d38dbd21f82b81e0fc890b6669
- Cited by
- 2,404
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 214 · 2025: 332 · 2024: 451 · 2023: 381 · 2022: 342 · 2021: 278 · 2020: 211 · 2019: 108 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4
- FWCI
- 11.20
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- NASA STI Repository (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Digital Transformation in Industry
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Engineering and Test Systems
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Reliability and Maintenance Optimization
- Keywords
- digital twin, integrated vehicle health management, aircraft certification, fleet management, program sustainability, material property variation, maintenance history, safety and reliability
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
