Ammar, Ashtarout (2023) Digital twins for ancillary transportation asset data management. PhD thesis, University of Kentucky, USA.
Abstract
Transportation Asset Management (TAM) is a data-driven decision-making process to maintain and extend the serviceability of transportation assets throughout their lifecycle. TAM is an extensive data process requiring accurate, high-quality information for better decision-making. A significant challenge that state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) face is allocating limited funds to optimize their assets' performance. The criticality of this challenge increases when state DOTs need to manage a wide variety of assets distributed along with a vast network; thus, they prioritize the management of high-value assets and visible ones such as bridges, and they pay less attention to ancillary assets even though a significant percentage of these assets is critical for highway safety. This research aims to fill the gap in the current body of knowledge by focusing on ancillary transportation assets, a complicated area of the highway system that researchers and practitioners rarely investigate. Conversely, emerging technologies, namely Digital Twins, have the potential to leverage the value of asset data and transform data into valuable insights to inform decision-making. The research arc "What- Where- and How" implementing Digital Twins as an information management system for transportation assets was explored to expand the knowledge on Digital Twins further. This research 1) investigates the awareness of the Digital Twins concept and its implementation in the civil infrastructure industry, 2) documents the current practices of state DOTs toward the digital transition of their transportation asset data, contextualizes the DOTs' maturity in the advancement of digital processes, and determines where they stand in their Digital Twins journey, and 3) investigates how to support state DOTs in achieving their Digital Twins vision for infrastructure assets by identifying the data requirements and the "ideal" environment that fulfills the vision of Digital Twins. Additionally, this research helps set the wheel to put the Digital Twins vision into action by developing the laying foundation for an interactive business canvas model that state DOTs can use as a guidance tool to implement Digital Twins.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Dadi, Gabriel and Chen, Mei |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | digital twins; departments of transportation (dots); data-driven decision making; transportation asset management (TAM); transportation asset data management; ancillary transportation assets.; civil engineering; construction engineering and management; transportation engineering |
| Index terms: | implementation, face, construction engineering, data management, lifecycle, emerging technology, decision-making, documents, data-driven decision-making, practitioner, transportation engineering, asset management, body of knowledge, digital twin, high-value, management system |
| Subjects: | professional development, contractual arrangements, asset management, innovation and technology management, engineering methods, knowledge management, practitioner, civil engineering, digital engineering, economic analysis, project delivery, management, data management, decision analysis, psychology |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Digital Applications, Risk Management, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Organizational Design, Project Management, Procurement, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here