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 2,301–2,400 of 2,402
Digital Twins: A Computational Realization of the Scientific Method in Dynamical Systems
Emmert‐Streib, F. (2026) · Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction · doi:10.3390/make8060159 · Cited by 1
Ziya, M., & Přibyl, O. (2026) · Smart City Symposium Prague (SCSP) · doi:10.1109/scsp69985.2026.11548654
Software and Hardware Tools for Modeling Digital Twins
Timashov, O., Sosnenko, K., & Samoliuk, T. (2026) · Cybernetics and Computer Technologies · doi:10.34229/2707-451x.26.2.12
Key technologies of digital twins
Sado, K. A. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-43896-7.00039-x
Rahbar, E., Chenarlogh, A. G., MohammadSalehi, R., & Zanjirchi, S. M. (2026) · Environment Systems & Decisions · doi:10.1007/s10669-026-10097-8 · Cited by 1
Shen, Y., & Chen, F. (2026) · International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3805622.3810843
The economics of smart manufacturing: productivity, costs, and competitive advantage
Hashem, T. N. (2025) · Journal of Production Operations Management and Economics · doi:10.55529/jpome.51.155.164
Closed-Loop Prompt Generation for Digital Twin Training via Deep Reinforcement Learning
Lyu, H., Wang, Z., Wang, H., Zhou, Y., & Sun, M. (2026) · International Seminar on Artificial Intelligence, Networking and Information Technology (AINIT) · doi:10.1109/ainit70033.2026.11557674
A review of digital twin methods and applications for bearings under marine operating constraints
Shi, J., Guo, Z., Gu, J., Zhang, Z., Mi, Z., & Du, F. (2026) · Ships and Offshore Structures · doi:10.1080/17445302.2026.2684687
Zeng, G., Pang, D., Wang, T., et al. (2026) · Engineering Research · doi:10.1007/s10010-026-00952-0
Control System for Testing Solar Array Simulators in Ground-Based Spacecraft Facilities
Yarkova, A. V., & Chernenkaya, L. V. (2026) · International Conference on Industrial Engineering, Applications and Manufacturing (ICIEAM) · doi:10.1109/icieam69213.2026.11549860
Design Aspects for Efficiency Improvement of Switched Reluctance Motor
Šarac, V., Minovski, D., Aneva, S., Janiga, P., Smitkova, M. F., & Atanasova, A. (2026) · Power Electronics and Drives · doi:10.2478/pead-2026-0021 · Cited by 1
El internet de las cosas y su impacto en la educación
Gallardo, A. R., Morales, J. R. H., Carrillo, S. S., et al. (2020) · Universidad de Colima eBooks · doi:10.53897/li.2020.0018.ucol
Цифровой двойник в киберфизических системах
Трифонов, И. В. (2026) · Открытые системы СУБД · doi:10.51793/os.2026.78.66.004
Cryotwin: Physically Consistent Performance Modeling for Cryobot Dynamics
Bhattacharya, D., & Kowalski, J. (2026) · Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems · doi:10.1007/s10846-026-02427-4 · Cited by 1
Industrial Digital Twins : Data Quality, Reliability Challenges, and Future Directions
Bouraima, M. O. (2022) · International Journal of Scientific Research in Science Engineering and Technology · doi:10.32628/ijsrset2021452
Rai, P. (2026) · International Journal of Scientific Research and Modern Technology. · doi:10.38124/ijsrmt.v5i6.1525
Digital Twin Aggregates for adaptive MLOps retraining policies in healthcare
Domini, D., Micelli, L., Burattini, S., & Montagna, S. (2026) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2026.108674
Ostermann, M., Platzbecker, A. S., Welzel, C., Gilbert, S., & Freyer, O. (2026) · npj Health Systems · doi:10.1038/s44401-026-00109-9
Figueroa, B. S., & Álvares, A. J. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-22823-9_20
Adopting Behaviour for Using a Digital Twin in Education Among Higher Educated
Jumah, A. M., & Omar, I. (2026) · Studies in systems, decision and control · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-21225-2_57
Simulation Research on High-Risk Equipment Operation Skill Learning Based on Hardware-in-the-Loop
Sun, K., He, L., Zhang, M., & Yao, Y. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-31424-6_23
Threat-Oriented Digital Twinning for Security Evaluation of Autonomous Platforms
Neubert, T. J., Kandel, L. N., & Peköz, B. (2026) · International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks workshops · doi:10.1109/dsn-w70714.2026.00030
Hafeshjani, J. S., Nezhad, M. S. F., Fakhrzad, M. B., et al. (2026) · International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.ijnaoe.2026.100784
Elgammal, A., Ali, Y., Heng, J., Dai, K., & Baniotopoulos, C. C. (2026) · Courses and lectures · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-28815-8_4
Yang, W., Valldecabres, J. G., & Escudero, P. A. (2026) · Buildings · doi:10.3390/buildings16142762 · Cited by 1
A Digital Twin Framework for Multi-UAV and U-Space Operations with Real-Time Testing Integration
Garbarino, L., Gaudino, M., Vitale, A., Fasano, G., & Cuciniello, G. (2026) · International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS) · doi:10.1109/icuas69441.2026.11598737
Nuraliyev, S., & Luleci, F. (2026) · Journal of Infrastructure Intelligence and Resilience · doi:10.1016/j.iintel.2026.100229
Askari, F., Wen, S., Tao, J., Surabhi, P. S. M., & Yan, W. (2026) · ACM SIGGRAPH Conference (SIGGRAPH) · doi:10.1145/3799825.3818755
Hnaien, I. B., Gascard, E., Simeu-Abazi, Z., et al. (2026) · International Journal of Data Science and Analytics · doi:10.1007/s41060-026-01200-y
Ramesh, M. P., Dhief, I., Li, Z., et al. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Human-Machine Systems (ICHMS) · doi:10.1109/ichms69701.2026.11602372
Diagnosis of Open-Circuit Faults in Three-Level ANPC Inverters Based on Digital Twin
Li, C. G., Lu, Z., Xue, Y., et al. (2026) · International Power Electronics Conference (IPEC) · doi:10.23919/ipec-nagasaki2026-ec64663.2026.11596713
Zhao, F. (2026) · SAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · doi:10.4271/2026-99-1804
Digital Twin-Based Quality Inspection of Starter Motor Power Transmission Modules
Huang, Q.-Y., Tsai, Z.-H., Lin, W.-C., et al. (2026) · International Power Electronics Conference (IPEC) · doi:10.23919/ipec-nagasaki2026-ec64663.2026.11597356
Kabashkin, I. (2026) · Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction · doi:10.3390/make8070210
Zhao, Z., Mei, J., Li, H., Teng, X., & Du, J. (2026) · Journal of Industrial Information Integration · doi:10.1016/j.jii.2026.101164
Digital transformation of tourist information centres in Slovakia
Pančíková, K., Beták, N., Matušíková, D., et al. (2026) · Menadzment u hotelijerstvu i turizmu · doi:10.5937/menhottur2600009p
Digital twins in geotechnical engineering: bridging data, models, and engineering practice
Tiwari, S., & Das, S. K. (2026) · Innovative Infrastructure Solutions · doi:10.1007/s41062-026-02846-0
Closed-Loop Digital Twin for Energy-Efficient Scheduling in Food Manufacturing Systems
Yusubova, N., Adilkyzy, S., Amirkhanova, G. A., Raeva, A., Amirkhanov, B., & Baizhanova, D. O. (2025) · Asia Conference on Cognitive Engineering and Intelligent Interaction (CEII) · doi:10.1109/ceii67787.2025.00054
Cao, C., Wen, J., Liu, Z., Li, M., Zhao, J., & Zhuang, L. (2026) · Lecture notes in mechanical engineering · doi:10.1007/978-981-92-1319-1_15
Digital twins and AI in civil engineering: a sustainability review from Colombia
Pradilla, M. M. S., Castellanos, N. T., Guevara, E. H., & Torres, K. T. (2026) · Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering Sustainability · doi:10.1680/jensu.25.00218
OSI4IOT: An Advanced Open-Source Platform for Sensor-Driven IoT and Digital Twins Deployment
Capua, D. D., Pacheco-Blazquez, R., Espinosa, J. G., & Sanchez, A. P. (2026) · IoT · doi:10.3390/iot7030061
The (Executable) Digital Twin: Merging the Digital and the Physical Worlds
der Auweraer, H. D. V., & Hartmann, D. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-9108-1_1
Williams, R. D., & Seyab, R. A. (2026) · Lecture notes in mechanical engineering · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-6445-3_28
Smart Manufacturing of Composite Materials
Gogoi, D., Parida, P. K., & Alam, M. I. (2026) · Engineering materials · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-27444-1_5
Digital Twin Engineering with Physics-Informed Neural Networks: State of the Art and Open Challenges
Rajamani, N. R., & Banerjee, S. (2026) · Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering · doi:10.1007/s11831-026-10758-6
Agumba, J. O., & Okumu, F. O. (2026) · Applied Physics A · doi:10.1007/s00339-026-10091-6
A System-of-Systems Digital Twin for Organisational Competency Management
Granatella, G., Cerioli, M., Lagorio, G., & Lupo, A. (2026) · International Conference on System of Systems Engineering · doi:10.1109/sose69681.2026.11622370
Gano, B., Ghimire, D., Diene, S. M., Srivastava, D., Cudjoe, D. K., & Shakoor, N. (2026) · Nitrogen · doi:10.3390/nitrogen7030082 · Cited by 1
Khusain, B., Telmanov, M., Khussain, A., Zhurinov, M. Z., Brodskiy, A. R., Sass, A. S., & Gulzat, N. (2026) · International Journal of Sustainable Engineering · doi:10.1080/19397038.2026.2713410
A matching method of the piping design information using anchor nodes
Kim, J., Roh, M.-I., Kong, M.-C., et al. (2026) · International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.ijnaoe.2026.100795
Digital Twin Readiness and Green Entrepreneurship: Evidence from the Baltic States
Zhou, W., & Kriviņš, A. (2026) · Central European Economic Journal · doi:10.2478/ceej-2026-0017
Viaron, K., Rauffet, P., Julien, N., & Petr, C. (2026) · International Conference on Control, Decision and Information Technologies (CoDIT) · doi:10.1109/codit70676.2026.11631153
Jalali-Varnamkhasti, M., & Varnamkhasti, M. J. (2026) · Digital Twin · doi:10.1080/27525783.2026.2711474
A multi-layer digital twin framework for enhanced production resilience in railcar manufacturing
Messie, H., Nenzhelele, T. G., & Malada, D. (2026) · The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology · doi:10.1007/s00170-026-18901-0
A framework for selecting large infrastructure projects for digital twin adoption
Schneider, P. A., Stephanie, F. L., & Sharma, R. (2026) · Digital Twin · doi:10.1080/27525783.2026.2694918
DDPM-Based Dynamic Feature Embedding Digital Twin Fault Diagnosis of Rolling Bearing
Deng, J., Wen, G., Lei, Z., Xu, Q., Su, Y., Zhang, Z., & Chen, X. (2026) · Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering · doi:10.1115/1.4072512
Modeling of the Thermal Field of a Semiconductor Converter for Prediction of Pre-Failure States
Alexandrovna, P. E., Khalyutin, S. P., & Valeryevna, R. V. (2026) · IEEE International Conference of Young Professionals in Electron Devices and Materials (EDM) · doi:10.1109/edm69524.2026.11632261
Data, Process, and Data-Driven Representations of Digital Twins in Diabetes: Scoping Review
Cinar, B., van den Boom, L., & Maleshkova, M. (2026) · JMIR Diabetes · doi:10.2196/91729
Digital Twin–Driven Optimization for Energy-Efficient and Sustainable Oil and Gas Production
Shil, S. K., Chowdhury, A., Biswas, J., Islam, M. M., & Prodhan, R. K. (2026) · International Conference on Intelligent and Sustainable AI Systems (ICOSAAS) · doi:10.1109/icosaas68663.2026.11649333 · Cited by 1
Digital Twin Full-Process Visualization and Assurance System for Aerial Bombs
Zhang, X., Yang, Z., Qian, J., et al. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation (ICMA) · doi:10.1109/icma69663.2026.11647371
Ergunova, O., Skvortsova, I., Somov, A. G., Владимирович, Ч. С., Dusenko, S. V., & Mukhanova, G. (2026) · International Conference on Cybersecurity, Digital Forensics, and AI Applications (ICCSDFAI) · doi:10.1109/iccsdfai70505.2026.11647985
Fontana, C., Giordano, R., Baglivo, G., Concilio, G., & Cappetti, N. (2026) · IEEE International Workshop on Metrology for AeroSpace (MetroAeroSpace) · doi:10.1109/metroaerospace69299.2026.11646809
A Cloud-Assisted Framework for Battery Fault Diagnosis and State Estimation via ThingSpeak IoT
Dhineshkumar, K., Mohandass, M. P., Rageshwaran, P., Laveena, M., & Semmalai, S. (2026) · International Conference on Circuit, Power and Computing Technologies · doi:10.1109/iccpct70290.2026.11654814
Internet of things, artificial intelligence of things and digital twins
Mellit, A., Rabhi, A., & Zennaro, M. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-44835-5.00004-7
Oroye, O. A., Adegbite, A. A., Alfred, O. T., & Adebowale, M. J. (2026) · BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBLISHERS eBooks · doi:10.2174/9798898816155126010011
abdulrahman, F. (2026) · The International Journal of Applied Sciences · doi:10.64440/ijas/ijas1007
Design of high-performance digital twins to enhance magnetic resonance imaging patient positioning
Zapf, M., Contartese, N., Weiß, G.-B., & Horn, M. (2026) · Digital Twin · doi:10.1080/27525783.2026.2719041
From island to asset: Archiving the first ex situ nation
Cnaani, O. (2026) · Cambridge Forum on AI Culture and Society · doi:10.1017/cfc.2026.10033
CAMUZ, H. H. (2026) · International Conference on Recent Advances in Air and Space Technologies (RAST) · doi:10.1109/rast69551.2026.11672633
Grey Wolf Optimization Based System Identification of a Supersonic Free Jet Facility
Çetinkaya, Y. E., Tabanlı, H., & Öztürk, M. (2026) · International Conference on Recent Advances in Air and Space Technologies (RAST) · doi:10.1109/rast69551.2026.11672355
Pang, W., Zhou, J., Xu, J., & Zhi, X. (2026) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app16178789
Ren, Y., Huang, W., Ren, L.-M., Luo, K., Chen, J., & Zhang, P. (2026) · Energies · doi:10.3390/en19174160
Estudo sobre as Relações entre o Uso de Simulação Computacional e a Experiência de Clientes
Jacinto, B. O., Pereira, R. D. S., Barreto, M. C., dos Reis, M. C., & Gaeta, R. P. (2026) · Revista de Gestão e Secretariado (Management and Administrative Professional Review) · doi:10.7769/gesec.v17i8.5661
Mehta, N., Rahman, F. M., & Banerjee, S. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7430132
Wang, H., Yang, J., Shi, Y., Huo, H., & Ye, X. (2026) · Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering · doi:10.1007/s40430-026-06713-y
Design of a Five-Dimension Digital-Twin Layout Model for a Modular Battery-Assembly Plant
Dr. Arvind A R, M. N. N., Mr. Chinnadurai, J., & Dr. R. Murugan, M. M. S. (2026) · International Journal of Advanced Research in Science Communication and Technology · doi:10.48175/ijarsct-38256
Development of Digital Twins for Sustainability in an End-of-Life Use Case
Riedelsheimer, T., Mügge, J., Steiner, J., et al. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-9276-0_18
Jayan, K. D., I, E. H., Krishna Prasad, S., et al. (2026) · Discover Nano · doi:10.1186/s11671-026-04932-9
Sandhya, R., & Kolluri, J. (2026) · International Conference Computational Vision and Bio Inspired Computing · doi:10.1109/iccvbic71195.2026.11688787
Okoye, G. C., Edu, J. O., Akinsulire, D., Ogunbona, M. A., Ighodaro, O. T., & Olawade, D. B. (2026) · Obesity Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.obmed.2026.100748
Ioannou, I. I., & Javaid, S. (2026) · Energies · doi:10.3390/en19184444
Digital Twins for Offshore Wind Operation and Maintenance: A Review
Hu, X., Pandit, R., Zhao, Y., Namoano, B., & Hong, J. (2026) · Wind Energy · doi:10.1002/we.70153
Maslanik, J., Yoon, K., & Givhan, F. (2026) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s26185946
Digital Twin in Civil Aviation Aircraft Smart Maintenance Management
Zhan, W., Li, Z., Wu, H., Yue, F., Li, Z., Liu, Z., & Zhang, K. (2026) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app16189275
Lim, J.-K., Song, H.-S., Kim, J.-W., & Choi, Y.-H. (2026) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2026.3735911
Bordeleau, F., Denil, J., & Juergen Dingel, A. (2026) · Software & Systems Modeling · doi:10.1007/s10270-026-01430-5
A Model-Based Approach to Multi-fidelity Behavior Modeling of Satellite Mechanisms
Gőgh, A., & Ružarovský, R. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-38803-2_32
Aksoy, C. O., Aksoy, G. G. U., Yaman, H. E., Ozacar, V., & Savaş, O. (2026) · Mining · doi:10.3390/mining6040085
The evolution of Structural Health Monitoring from qualitative observation to digital twin
Todd, M. D., Hu, Z., Chadha, M., et al. (2026) · Procedia Structural Integrity · doi:10.1016/j.prostr.2026.07.039
Digital Twins as a Necessary Foundation for Deploying Physical AI on the Shop Floor
Walther, F., Spiess, D., & Mikuschek, M. (2026) · Künstliche Intell. · doi:10.1007/s13218-026-00927-x
Agentic AI: A Paradigm Shift in Modern Engineering Systems
Kinikar, A., Pachling, G., Raul, T., et al. (2026) · doi:10.1109/iccubea69821.2026.11701967
Miguel, J. A. S. R. D. S. (2026) · Water · doi:10.3390/w18192443
Effect of angle of attack variation on turboprop engine performance: a digital twin-based approach
Dişlitaş, A. N., Tekin, E. Z., Yıldız, M., et al. (2026) · Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry · doi:10.1007/s10973-026-16301-w
Pramalystianto, A., Nugroho, R. S., Yulianto, & Ma’Ruf, F. N. (2026) · International Conference on ICT for Smart Society (ICISS) · doi:10.1109/iciss71466.2026.11715453
Miró-Bueno, J., & Goñi‐Moreno, Á. (2026) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS) · doi:10.1145/3837062.3839101
1254 Computational modeling and virtual metrology
Bär, M., Heidenreich, S., & Schmelter, S. (2026) · De Gruyter eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783111537047-004
Rezaeian, A. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-11283529/v1
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
