Submitted:
10 June 2026
Posted:
11 June 2026
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Oil and Gas Pipelines: Frameworks and System-Level Twins
2.1. Overview and Scope
2.2. Component and System Integration
2.3. Regulatory and Safety Considerations
3. Hydraulic Pipeline Systems
3.1. Water Distribution and Hydraulic Infrastructure
3.2. CFD-Based Digital Twins for Transient Flow
3.3. Smart Water Networks
4. Leak Detection in Gas and Water Pipelines
4.1. Significance and Detection Paradigms
4.2. Reduced-Order Models and DTROT
4.3. Multiphase Flow and Visual Twins
4.4. Data-Driven and Hybrid Approaches
4.5. Industry Deployment: Visual Twins and MLOps
5. Subsea Pipeline Monitoring and Structural Integrity
5.1. The Subsea Challenge
5.2. Sensor Architectures and Inspection Technologies
5.3. Corrosion Monitoring via ILI-MFL
5.4. Underwater Digital Twin Landscape
6. Condition Monitoring and Predictive Maintenance
6.1. The Case for Predictive Pipeline Management
6.2. Ensemble Kalman Filter Data Assimilation
6.3. Corrosion Digital Twins and Unsupervised Learning
6.4. Integration with Industrial IoT and Cloud Platforms
7. Cross-Cutting Themes, Challenges, and Future Directions
7.1. Common Methodological Themes
7.2. Proposed Reference Architecture for Pipeline Digital Twins
7.3. Mathematical Formulation of Digital Twin Synchronization
7.4. Comparative Analysis of Pipeline Digital Twin Studies
7.5. Uncertainty Quantification and Reliability in Pipeline Digital Twins
7.6. Systemic Research Gaps Across Pipeline Digital Twins
7.7. Persistent Challenges
- Real-time computational constraints: High-fidelity multiphysics simulations remain computationally expensive, limiting real-time deployment. Although reduced-order models (ROMs) alleviate this issue, maintaining accuracy under dynamic operating conditions remains challenging.
- Hybrid model integration: While hybrid physics–data approaches dominate the literature, robust coupling strategies between first-principles models and machine learning components remain challenging, particularly in ensuring stability, interpretability, and generalization.
- Model validation and verification (V&V): There is no universally accepted methodology for validating digital twins in pipeline systems. Validation is often case-specific and lacks standardized performance metrics.
- Cybersecurity risks: Integration of digital twins with Industrial IoT (IIoT) and cloud platforms introduces vulnerabilities to cyberattacks, data manipulation, and system disruption, yet this aspect remains insufficiently addressed in the literature.
- Human–machine interaction: Many DT systems lack effective visualization and decision-support interfaces, limiting their usability by operators and engineers.
7.8. Future Research Directions
- Multi-Physics and Multi-Scale Digital Twins: Future digital twins should integrate fluid dynamics, structural mechanics, corrosion chemistry, and thermal effects within unified frameworks. Multi-scale modeling approaches that bridge component-level and network-level behavior are particularly important.
- Probabilistic and Bayesian Digital Twins: The incorporation of probabilistic methods, including Bayesian inference and stochastic modeling, is essential for uncertainty-aware predictions. This will enable risk-informed decision-making and enhance regulatory acceptance.
- Standardization and Interoperability: The development of standardized data models, communication protocols (e.g., OPC UA), and digital twin ontologies is critical for enabling interoperability across platforms and stakeholders.
- Edge–Cloud Hybrid Architectures: Future systems should adopt hybrid computing architectures that leverage edge computing for real-time processing and cloud computing for large-scale simulation and analytics.
- Explainable and Trustworthy AI: Explainable AI (XAI) techniques should be integrated to ensure transparency and interpretability of machine learning components, particularly in safety-critical applications.
- Autonomous and Prescriptive Digital Twins: The evolution from predictive to prescriptive and ultimately autonomous digital twins represents a key frontier, where systems can not only predict failures but also recommend or execute optimal interventions.
- Economic and Lifecycle Assessment: Comprehensive cost-benefit analyses and lifecycle performance evaluations are needed to quantify the economic value of digital twin deployment and support investment decisions.
- Regulatory frameworks governing pipeline safety, including API RP 1160, ASME B31.8S, PHMSA regulations, and CSA Z662, require operators to implement integrity management programs (IMPs) based on risk assessment, inspection, and continuous monitoring. Emerging standards such as ASME V&V 40, NIST VVUQ frameworks, and ISO 23247 provide foundational guidance for validation, verification, and uncertainty quantification of digital twins. However, no unified regulatory standard currently defines requirements for digital twin fidelity, real-time synchronization, or acceptable uncertainty thresholds in safety-critical decision-making. Consequently, the integration of digital twins into regulatory-compliant IMPs remains an evolving area of industry and academic collaboration.
8. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Grieves, M.; Vickers, J. Digital twin: Mitigating unpredictable, undesirable emergent behavior in complex systems. In Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Complex Systems: New Findings and Approaches; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 85–113. [Google Scholar]
- Kritzinger, W.; Karner, M.; Traar, G.; Henjes, J.; Sihn, W. Digital twin in manufacturing: A categorical literature review and classification. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2018, 51, 1016–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tao, F.; Zhang, M.; Nee, A.Y.C. Five-dimension digital twin modeling and its key technologies. In Digital Twin Driven Smart Manufacturing; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 63–81. [Google Scholar]
- Fuller, A.; Fan, Z.; Day, C.; Barlow, C. Digital twin: Enabling technologies, challenges and open research. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 108952–108971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conejos Fuertes, P.; Martínez Alzamora, F.; Hervás Carot, M.; Alonso Campos, J.C. Building and exploiting a digital twin for the management of drinking water distribution networks. Urban Water J. 2020, 17, 704–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, T.; Feng, K.; Ling, J.; Liao, M.; Yang, C.; Neubeck, R.; Liu, Z. Pipeline condition monitoring towards digital twin system: A case study. J. Manuf. Syst. 2024, 73, 256–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamidishad, N.; Barbosa, R.S.; Allahyarzadeh-Bidgoli, A.; Yanagihara, J.I. Digital twin frameworks for oil and gas processing plants: A comprehensive literature review. Processes 2025, 13, 3488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.; Cheng, W.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, B.; Zheng, M.; Zheng, J.; Li, Y. Key technologies and applications of digital twin hydraulic engineering. Digit. Twin 2025, 2, 2486862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paternina-Verona, D.A.; Coronado-Hernández, O.E.; Fuertes-Miquel, V.S.; Saba, M.; Ramos, H.M. Digital twin based on CFD modelling for analysis of two-phase flows during pipeline filling–emptying procedures. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 2643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pandey, P.; Mücke, N.T.; Jain, S.; Ramachandran, P.; Bohté, S.M.; Oosterlee, C.W. Machine learning-based digital twin for water distribution network anomaly detection and localization. Eng. Proc. 2024, 69, 201. [Google Scholar]
- Syed, T.A.; Muhammad, M.A.; AlShahrani, A.A.; Hammad, M.; Naqash, M.T. Smart water management with digital twins and multimodal transformers: A predictive approach to usage and leakage detection. Water 2024, 16, 3410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Homaei, M.; Di Bartolo, A.J.; Ávila, M.; Mogollón-Gutiérrez, O.; Caro, A. Digital transformation in the water distribution system based on the digital twins concept. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2412.06694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahanger, T.A.; Abdibayev, Z.; Sagnayeva, S.; Zhumadillayeva, A.; Dyussekeyev, K. Smart wastewater management in hydro-technical systems using digital twin technology. Sci. Rep. 2026, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Ammari, W.A.; Sleiti, A.K.; Hamilton, M.; Ferroudji, H.; Gomari, S.R.; Hassan, I.; Rahman, M.A. Development of digital/visual twin for real-time leak detection in gas pipelines under multiphase flow conditions. Greenh. Gases Sci. Technol. 2025, 15, 513–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Ammari, W.A.; Sleiti, A.K.; Rahman, M.A.; Rezaei-Gomari, S.; Hassan, I.; Hassan, R. Digital twin for leak detection and fault diagnostics in gas pipelines: A systematic review, model development, and case study. Alex. Eng. J. 2025, 123, 91–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, X.; Wang, J. A digital twin-driven natural gas pipeline leakage detection method. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 2026, 105793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, J.; Ma, L.; Liang, S.; Zhang, H.; Zuo, Z.; Dai, J. Data-driven digital twin method for leak detection in natural gas pipelines. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2023, 110, 108833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, D.; Shi, S.; Lu, J.; Hu, Z.; Chen, J. Research on gas pipeline leakage model identification driven by digital twin. Syst. Sci. Control Eng. 2023, 11, 2180687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamilton, M.; Ferroudji, H.; Colbourne, M.; Sheppard, S.; Barooah, A.; Sleiti, A.K.; Rahman, M.A. Digital twin for pipeline leak monitoring. In Proceedings of the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference (ADIPEC), Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 3–6 November 2025. Paper D031S102R004. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, B.Q.; Videiro, P.M.; Guedes Soares, C. Opportunities and challenges to develop digital twins for subsea pipelines. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wegner, D.C.; Moses, I.; Ezenwa, I.O. Digital twin framework for subsea pipeline monitoring and integrity management. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 2025, 187, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Syuryana, E.P.; Kariem, M.A.; Puja, I.W.; Maulana, M.I.; Uriyana; Agus, R. Digital twin for subsea pipeline corrosion monitoring location based on ILI-MFL pipeline operator forum and potentiodynamic test. In AIP Conference Proceedings; AIP Publishing: Melville, NY, USA, 2024; Volume 3076, p. 150002. [Google Scholar]
- Kaarlela, T.; Padrao, P.; Boswell, K.M.; Xanthidis, M.; Duran, A.; Bobadilla, L. Underwater digital twin applications: A systematic literature review. Digit. Twin 2025, 2605418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ismail, L.; Abdelmoti, A.; Basu, A.; Berini, A.D.E.; Naouss, M. A systematic review of digital twin-driven predictive maintenance in industrial engineering: Taxonomy, architectural elements, and future research directions. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2509.24443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhowmik, S. Digital twin for offshore pipeline corrosion monitoring: A deep learning approach. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference (OTC), Houston, TX, USA, 16–19 August 2021. Paper D041S049R003. [Google Scholar]
- Duan, J.; Wang, X.; Yan, H.; Wang, S.; Huang, Y.; Tao, C. A digital twin framework for damage detection and localization of self-sensed cured-in-place underground pipelines. Eng. Struct. 2026, 354, 122401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramos, H.M.; Kuriqi, A.; Besharat, M.; Creaco, E.; Tasca, E.; Coronado-Hernández, O.E.; Iglesias-Rey, P. Smart water grids and digital twin for the management of system efficiency in water distribution networks. Water 2023, 15, 1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]


| Method Type | Example Techniques | Accuracy | Real-Time Capability | Data Requirement | Advantages | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physics-Based | CFD, FEM, RTTM | High | Low | Medium | Interpretable, reliable | Computationally expensive |
| Data-Driven | ANN, SVM, DL | Medium–High | High | High | Fast, adaptive | Require large datasets |
| Hybrid | Physics + ML | Very High | Medium–High | High | Best performance | Complex integration |
| Reduced-Order Models | ROM, DTROT | Medium–High | Very High | Medium | Efficient | Reduced fidelity |
| Probabilistic DT | Bayesian, EnKF | High | Medium | High | Handles uncertainty | Complex |
| Visual Twins | 3D/VR models | Medium | High | Medium | Operator-friendly | Not analytical alone |
| Category | Standard | Scope | Key Requirements | Relevance to Digital Twins |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core Pipeline | API RP 1160 | Liquid pipelines | Risk assessment, integrity verification, documentation | Enables DT integration into IMPs and continuous monitoring |
| Core Pipeline | ASME B31.8S | Gas pipelines | HCAs, threat mitigation, inspection | Provides structured framework for DT-based risk modeling |
| Regulation | PHMSA (49 CFR 192/195) | U.S. pipelines | Mandatory IMPs, risk-based decisions | Drives adoption of DT for compliance and monitoring |
| Core Pipeline | CSA Z662 | Canada pipelines | Design, operation, integrity | Supports DT in lifecycle monitoring and risk assessment |
| Offshore | DNV-ST-F101 | Offshore pipelines | Structural reliability, safety factors | Enables DT for structural integrity and verification |
| Validation | ASME V&V 10/40 | Simulation models | Model validation, credibility | Ensures DT outputs are reliable for decision-making |
| Validation | NIST VVUQ | Digital systems | Verification, validation, uncertainty | Supports trust and uncertainty-aware DT predictions |
| DT Framework | ISO 23247 | Digital twin systems | Architecture, integration | Provides structural basis for DT implementation |
| Asset Management | ISO 55000 | Asset lifecycle | Risk-based management | Aligns DT with lifecycle (digital thread) concepts |
| Standards Body | ISO/TC 67 | Oil & gas | Global standardization | Supports harmonization of DT deployment |
| Inspection | API 580/581 | Risk-based inspection | Probabilistic risk models | Enables DT-driven inspection prioritization |
| Inspection | ILI (NACE/API/ASME) | Pipeline inspection | Corrosion, defect detection | Provides data inputs for DT calibration |
| Design Codes | ASME B31.4/B31.8 | Pipeline systems | Design, operation, maintenance | Provides baseline models for DT physics |
| Study | Pipeline Domain | DT Approach | Data Source | Real-Time | Primary Application | Key Strength | Main Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ahanger et al. [13] | Water network | Hybrid (Hydraulic + ANFIS + Blockchain) | IoT sensing + municipal wastewater dataset | Partial | Monitoring & forecasting (overload, contamination) | High accuracy (r2 = 0.89), secure data traceability | Requires validation across broader systems |
| Al-Ammari et al. [14] | Gas pipeline | Hybrid (ML + visual twin + simulation) | Experimental (flow loop) + synthetic (OLGA) | Yes | Leak detection & localization (single & multiple leaks) | High accuracy (up to ~99%), robust under multiphase flow, integrated visualization platform | Limited real-field deployment; reliance on controlled experiments and synthetic data; computational complexity |
| Al-Ammari et al. [15] | Gas pipeline | Hybrid DT (data-driven + simulation-based) | Simulated (OLGA) + limited field/experimental validation | Partial | Leak detection, localization & diagnostics | High accuracy (<3.21% error), zero false alarms, leak size & location estimation | Limited real-field validation; dependence on simulated data; scalability not demonstrated |
| Bhowmik [25] | Subsea pipeline | Hybrid (Corrosion physics + CNN) | Sensor + inspection + environmental data | Yes | Corrosion prediction & RUL | Accurate hotspot detection, scalable | Requires long-term validation |
| Cai & Wang [16] | Gas pipeline | Reduced-order (DTROT) | Pressure sensors + flow/acoustic data | Yes | Leak detection | >90% accuracy, real-time capability | Reduced fidelity in complex conditions |
| Chen et al. [20] | Subsea pipeline | Hybrid (Multi-physics + ML) | LiDAR + ILI + IoT sensors | Yes | Integrity & fatigue prediction | Automated DT lifecycle integration | Data standardization & security challenges |
| Duan et al. [26] | Underground pipeline | Hybrid (FEA + CNN + DFOS) | DFOS + simulation data | Yes | Structural health monitoring | High-resolution strain monitoring | Needs full-scale validation |
| Hamilton et al. [19] | Subsea pipeline | Visual digital twin + ML + DT MLOps (digital thread integration) | Experimental multi-modal data (pressure, acoustic, video) + processed data streams | Near real-time | Leak detection, localization, plume prediction, and operator training | Integrated visual twin with DT MLOps enabling explainable ML, experimental validation, and enhanced operator decision support | Limited to lab-scale validation; lacks real-world deployment and large-scale field validation |
| Homaei et al. [12] | Water network | Data-driven (LSTM, XGBoost) | IoT + historical + weather data | Yes | Demand forecasting & optimization | Operational efficiency, reduced delays | Requires high-quality data |
| Ismail et al. [24] | Multi-domain | Hybrid (AI-enabled DT framework + architectural taxonomy) | Systematic review (multi-database literature) | Conceptual (real-time requirement emphasized) | Predictive maintenance & anomaly detection | Comprehensive taxonomy | Low industrial adoption (Lack of standardized frameworks; limited real-world validation) |
| Kaarlela et al. [23] | Subsea infrastructure | Hybrid (Simulation + sensor fusion) | Sparse underwater sensing | Yes | SHM & RUL | Comprehensive classification | Data sparsity, communication limits |
| Liang et al. [17] | Gas pipeline | Data-driven (AE-CNN) | Operational data | Yes | Leak detection | High accuracy (~97%) | Limited abnormal data |
| Pandey et al. [10] | Water network | Data-driven (ML ensemble) | IoT sensors | Yes | Leak detection & localization | Improved localization accuracy | Requires scalable ML infrastructure |
| Ramos et al. [27] | Water network | Hybrid (Hydraulic + GIS + SCADA) | GIS + SCADA + sensors | Partial | Water loss reduction | Significant loss reduction | Requires integrated data systems |
| Syed et al. [11] | Water network | Data-driven (Transformers) | Real-time sensor data (pressure, flow, thermal) | Yes | Forecasting & anomaly detection | High accuracy (R2 ≈ 0.999) + multimodal data fusion + real-time DT integration | High system complexity; reliance on multimodal sensors and computational cost |
| Syuryana et al. [22] | Subsea pipeline | Hybrid (ILI-MFL + electrochemistry) | Inspection + lab testing | Partial | Corrosion prediction | Accurate degradation estimation | Not fully real-time |
| Wang et al. [18] | Gas pipeline | Data-driven (SVM) | Pressure + simulation data | Yes | Leak detection | Robust real-time performance | Reduced field accuracy |
| Wang et al. [6] | Pipeline (fatigue) | Hybrid (FEM + Bayesian + ML) | IoT + experimental data | Yes | Damage & reliability prediction | Uncertainty-aware modeling | Needs broader validation |
| Wegner et al. [21] | Subsea pipeline | Hybrid (physics-based + probabilistic + data-driven analytics) | Multi-source data (ROV imagery, sensors, NDT inspection, environmental & geohazard data) | Yes | Integrity management, predictive maintenance & risk-based decision support | Integrated multi-layer DT architecture + data fusion + predictive & prescriptive analytics | Conceptual framework; lacks real-world validation and quantitative performance evaluation |
| Conejos Fuertes et al. [5] | Water network | Hybrid (Hydraulic + real-time calibration) | Sensor + consumption data | Yes | Optimization & leak detection | Large-scale deployment | Requires continuous calibration |
| Li et al. [8] | Water system | Hybrid (GIS-BIM + simulation) | Multi-source + real-time data | Yes | Hydrodynamic & risk prediction | High simulation fidelity | High computational demand |
| Paternina-Verona et al. [9] | Hydraulic pipeline | Hybrid (CFD + ML) | Experimental + CFD data | Yes | Transient flow analysis and and pressure surge prediction | High-fidelity CFD-based DT capturing air–water interactions + ML reducing computational cost with high predictive accuracy | High computational cost of CFD; validated at laboratory scale; limited direct real-time deployment without ML acceleration |
| Grieves & Vickers [1] | General DT concept | Hybrid conceptual | Real-time sensor data | Yes | Lifecycle management | Foundational DT concept | Interoperability challenges |
| Kritzinger et al. [2] | Manufacturing systems (Industry 4.0 context) | Conceptual (categorical literature review + DT integration-level classification) | Literature-based (no experimental or real-time data) | Not implemented (defines levels: DM—no flow, DS—one-way, DT—two-way real-time) | DT classification | Clear DM–DS–DT framework | Lack of real implementations, validation, and quantitative evaluation |
| Tao et al. [3] | General DT concept | Conceptual (five-dimensional DT modeling framework) | Multi-source (physical, virtual, service, and knowledge data) | Yes | Digital twin modeling, system representation, and lifecycle integration | Introduces five-dimensional DT model, enabling data fusion and service-oriented DT architecture | Conceptual framework without real-world implementation or quantitative validation |
| Fuller et al. [4] | Multi-domain (manufacturing, healthcare, smart cities) | Conceptual review (definitions, classification, enabling technologies) | Literature review (multi-domain studies) | Conceptual (supports real-time DT, not implemented) | DT definitions, applications, challenges, and enabling technologies | Comprehensive overview | Terminology inconsistency |
| Hamidishad et al. [7] | Oil & Gas | Multi-fidelity framework (high-fidelity simulation + hybrid ML + reduced-order + co-simulation) | Systematic literature review | Conceptual + architectural (real-time monitoring, edge–cloud DT systems) | Energy optimization, Process optimization, energy efficiency, lifecycle management, and predictive analytics in O&G processing system | Provides a modular, multi-fidelity DT architecture integrating high-fidelity simulation, hybrid ML models, and real-time data frameworks for O&G systems | Needs standardization, lack of long-term validation, and cybersecurity challenges in large-scale DT |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).