Extending the digital chain: what material logistics and waste management need from a construction digital twin.

The construction sector is one of the least efficient and most wasteful parts of the economy, and much of that inefficiency sits in transport. Materials arriving and waste leaving are the two most transport-intensive processes in the construction supply chain, and are identified as the key levers for reducing the transport a project generates. Building Information Modeling (BIM) is a static 3D model carrying a project's design and product data; a Digital Twin adds real-time data to monitor and steer processes as work happens.

The EaSiCon project develops a digital twin that gives a real-time virtual representation of construction processes and their connected supply chains, supporting tactical and operational planning. This article presents research into what those two links would need in order to work from the same data as the rest of the chain. It draws on interviews with material logistics firms, waste management firms, and specialists in BIM and digital twin technology.

Start with the insights, not the tool

A digital twin earns its place only when it delivers something a firm can act on, and the two sectors want markedly different things from it. Material logistics looks for planning and forecasting support; waste management looks for detail on what is coming back out of a project. The research identified what each would need to see:

• expected timelines and reliability indicators for chain-level planning
• order specifications and day-to-day route planning for drivers
• simulations for re-planning when a project shifts
• real-time project status and its knock-on effects along the chain
• detailed insight into waste streams by material
• recycling and reuse opportunities identified per material

Defining these requirements before building the tool is what separates a system that gets used from one producing data nobody looks at.

The standards are there; the adoption is not

The usual assumption is that the technical groundwork for this is still missing. The research points elsewhere. Suitable data standards already exist, and the Netherlands leads on the initiatives behind them: ISO 19650 for information management, the open IFC format for exchanging model data, and established methods such as EDI. They have been implemented in parts of the chain, and a significant amount of work remains to extend them across the rest.

That reframes the task. It is not a matter of waiting for better technology, but of getting existing standards applied chain-wide, and that does not rest with government alone. Clients can oblige every party in the chain to use agreed standards before a project begins, rather than discovering halfway through that data arrives in formats that cannot be combined.

The container that cannot be measured

One obstacle is genuinely technical. Sensors that report how full a container is are of limited use in the open containers on construction sites. The contents vary constantly, so how full a container really is depends on the material inside it, and the sensor cannot tell which material it is looking at. Manual checks are still needed.

That limits how useful the technology is here, because a digital twin exists to enable more automation and this leaves the manual step in place. Sensors for these containers would need to recognise their surroundings and adapt to them automatically. That is a clear development priority.

From a supply chain to a supply loop

A consistent request from the waste management side was earlier involvement. Brought in while design decisions are still open, waste firms can advise on which materials can be reused from demolition, which purchased materials contain recycled content, and how to set up separation on site. Both firms interviewed said they always ask to be involved at an early stage, and that this is achieved far more often for setting up waste management on site than for design, and more often on larger projects.

Doing it earlier turns a supply chain into a supply loop, in which materials collected and processed by waste firms return as raw material for new construction products. That shift also creates the conditions for a shared digital system, because it gives every party a reason to be in one.

Conclusion and recommendations

Extending the digital chain to logistics and waste management is less a technology problem than an alignment one. The standards exist, and the insights each party would need from a shared system can be specified today.

Three things would move it forward: define what each party needs from the system before building it; make agreed data standards a condition of the project from the outset rather than a mid-project discovery; and involve waste management early enough to influence design. Each of those is an organisational decision rather than a technical one.

For more information, please contact:

Ragnar Klabbers

Ivo Agricola

Kees Jan Roodbergen

Michael Dienstknecht

Jeroen Laarman