Quantum computing in civil engineering: Potentials

and Limitations
Joern Ploennigs1 , Markus Berger1 , Martin Mevissen2 , and Kay Smarsly3
1 University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany, {Joern.Ploennigs, Markus.Berger}@uni-rostock.de
2 IBM Research Europe, Dublin, Ireland, [email protected]
3 Hamburg University of Technology, Hamburg, Germany, [email protected]
arXiv:2402.14556v2 [cs.ET] 28 Mar 2024

Abstract
Quantum computing is a new computational paradigm with the potential to solve certain computationally challenging problems
much faster than traditional approaches. Civil engineering encompasses many computationally challenging problems, which leads to
the question of how well quantum computing is suitable for solving civil engineering problems and how much impact and implications
to the field of civil engineering can be expected when deploying quantum computing for solving these problems. To address these
questions, we will, in this paper, first introduce the fundamentals of quantum computing. Thereupon, we will analyze the problem
classes to elucidate where quantum computing holds the potential to outperform traditional computers and, focusing on the limitations,
where quantum computing is not considered the most suitable solution. Finally, we will review common complex computation use
cases in civil engineering and evaluate the potential and the limitations of being improved by quantum computing.

1 Introduction

Civil engineering is a complex area with many challenging problems in design, construction, and operation, which
leads to the adaptation of many digital technologies from computer aided design, to construction robotics and machine
learning, aiming to solve the underlying complex computational problems. The digitization of the industry is pushing the
boundaries of what can be planned, analyzed, and optimized on current conventional computers, entailing a continuous
need for new approaches.
Quantum computing (QC) is one of these new approaches. It may allow us to push some of the boundaries, as QC
promises to compute numerous complex problems significantly faster than conventional computers. QC is explored in
different industries [8, 25], but has not yet gotten much attention in civil engineering. The absence in civil engineering
raises questions about the suitability of QC for addressing the computational challenges in civil engineering and the
extent of its anticipated impact on the field. In this paper, we will review promising QC methods that may be be applied
to current problems in civil engineering.
Therefore, we will first introduce the fundamental principles of quantum computing. We will delve into an analysis of
scenarios where QC may demonstrate an advantage over traditional computers and identify areas where its application
may be far in the future. With this context in mind, we will assess prevalent complex computational problems within
civil engineering, determining problem classes that qualify for enhancement through QC.

2 Introduction to quantum computing

2.1 Fundamentals

Traditional computers are based on processing and storing binary data in the form of bits that are either 0 or 1. A modern
CPU is specialized on processing the binary data, usually in blocks of 64 bits, by applying logical operators (AND,
OR, XOR, NOT), numerical operators (addition, substraction, multiplication and division), or specialized operators
(encoding, encryption, etc.). Well established means have been proposed to represent any kind of data in binary code,
such as numbers, texts, to images, and videos. The main assumptions behind binary encoding and processing are that (i)
data is encodeable in binary 0 or 1 representation and (ii) all operators are strictly deterministic.

1
 Traditional Computer

Transform binary Transform qubit

Measure qubits
Set qubits on Apply series of
many times to get
quantum chip quantum operations
distribution

Quantum Computer

Figure 1: Process for combining traditional computers with quantum computers.

H S S H

Figure 2: A quantum circuit with a series of Hadamard gates (H) and Phase gate (S) to move a qubit from a pure |0⟩ to
a pure |1⟩ state shown as vector on a Bloch sphere

Quantum computing, by contrast, does not follow either of these assumptions, but uses a model of computation centered
on quantum bits or qubits [69]. First, a qubit can be in a complex linear combination of both basis states |0⟩ and |1⟩,
thanks to the principles of quantum superposition, which allows a single qubit to represent multiple states in a Hilbert
space.

Secondly, quantum computers use the quantum mechanical effect of entanglement, where the state of one qubit becomes
linked or correlated with the state of another qubit, even when separated by large distances. With those entangled qubits
it is possible to create quantum gates that implement specific quantum operations as exemplified in the next section.

Third, due to the superposition principle (famously known as the Schrödinger’s cat paradox), a qubit will collapse from
its superposition state once measured and is identifiable only as one of the binary ground states. So, instead of being
able to read the complex state between |0⟩ and |1⟩ directly, it is only possible to randomly sample binary states as either
0 or 1. Therefore, the qubit setup, computation and measurement operation needs to be repeated many times to retrieve
a probably distribution representing the quantum state.

Fig. 1 summarizes the process of loading data from a traditional computer into a quantum computer, applying quantum
algorithms, and subsequently iterating through result retrieval. A number of architectures are currently being explored to
realize universal gate-based quantum computers at scale. These include superconducting quantum computing, trapped
ion systems, linear optical quantum computing and others. For example, IBM has published a development roadmap for
its superconducting quantum computing systems for the next 10 years [30].

2.2 Introduction to quantum circuits

In this section we want to discuss exemplary the universal quantum gates that form quantum circuits to illustrate the
complexity of quantum computation. To visualize the states of one qubit, we use the Bloch sphere model [80]. On it the
states of |0⟩ or |1⟩ are positioned at opposite poles. Points off the poles represents a superposition of qubit states.

Quantum gates alter the states of the qubits on the surface of this sphere. Notable among these are as one-qubit gates
the Hadamard gate (H), which initiates superposition of the initial states, and the Phase gate (S), which rotates the qubit
state on the sphere through complex space [60]. With these gates we can build a quantum circuit to negate a single qubit
from |0⟩ to |1⟩ as shown in Fig. 2.

Another essential gate is the CNOT (Controlled-NOT-Gate) gate that operates on two entangled qubits. It allows to
manipulate the state of one qubit based on the state of a second qubit. Specifically, the value of the second qubit (target)

2
 H (Control)

CNOT

(Target)

Figure 3: A quantum circuit with two qubits. The Hadamard gate (H) places the control qubit of the CNOT gate into a
superposition state, resulting in the qubits becoming fully entangled.

is either retained (|00⟩ → |00⟩; |01⟩ → |01⟩) or negated (|10⟩ → |11⟩; |11⟩ → |10⟩) depending on whether the first qubit
(control) is |0⟩ or |1⟩, respectively. Fig. 3 shows an example.
The CNOT gate and all one-qubit gates like the Hadamard and Phase gate form the set of universal gates that allow us
to implement all other quantum gates and quantum algorithms. The resulting state of the target qubits at the end of the
operation is measured multiple times, as discussed before.

2.3 Challenges

There is a lot of ongoing fundamental research in quantum computing, and many challenges exist that limit its application
at scale in practice. In this section, we aim to address some of the most prominent challenges, while dispelling common
misconceptions about the current readiness of QC.
Error handling: Compared to classical computers, there are many sources of interference in quantum computing
hardware, also called noise. This noise constrains the number of operational qubits. Current quantum computers are,
therefore, noisy quantum computers [68]. As a result, one of the most prominent challenges in scaling up quantum com-
puters is handling these errors affecting the actual quantum states and qubits. Broadly, we distinguish two approaches
Error mitigation and Error correction [12].
Error mitigation uses the outputs of quantum circuits to reduce the effect of noise in estimating expectation values, and
is an approach to improve the performance of current noisy quantum computer in the short term. Two state-of-the-
art techniques for error mitigation are Probabilistic Error Cancellation [78] and Zero-Noise Extrapolation [39]. Those
approaches estimate the noise and introduce additional computational overhead with limited scalability.
The long-term research targets Fault-Tolerant universal Quantum Computers (FTQC) by using error correction. Error
correction is based on built-in redundancies, that is, on encoding each logical qubit through multiple redundant physical
qubits [67], and running error correction code for detecting and correcting errors. The redundancy, while critical for
error correction, poses a significant challenge to the potential scalability of FTQC, as solving practical problems may
require millions of qubits [14]. Thus, it is expected to take a number of years before realising first FTQC. Therefore, both
approaches feature a trade-off between the additional overheads introduced by running the error mitigation or correction
method on the one hand and the reduction in noise achieved on the other.
Quantum Compilation: Over the past few decades, we have become accustomed to the convenience of enhancing our
computational performance by either upgrading hardware components or adding more machines due to standardized
hardware, like the IBM PC, and operating systems, such as Linux, Windows, or iOS. This familiarity has led to an
expectation that transitioning to quantum computing should be equally straightforward, allowing us to run our existing
applications on quantum computers for vastly improved performance.
As shown in the introduction, quantum computers operate on fundamentally different principles than traditional comput-
ers, in terms of problem representation and solution methods. Consequently, we cannot simply cross-compile existing
code to be run on a quantum computer in the same manner as we would do with a new CPU. Instead, each problem
must be specifically adapted and implemented for quantum computation. Special programming languages for QC, such
as IBM Qiskit, have been developed over the past few years [40]. Nevertheless, the development of efficient quantum
compilers remains a significant challenges, with many approaches under investigation how to optimization exact or ap-
proximate quantum compilation [57, 58]. As a result, quantum computing programming languages, while resembling
modern high-level programming languages, often operate at a very low level, close to the quantum gates themselves, and

3
require a profound understanding of the underlying quantum computing models. Thankfully, experts develop problem
specific frameworks, e. g. for quantum chemistry, machine learning or optimization problems that lower the entry barrier
to utilize quantum computers for those use cases.
The development of GPU computing offers some parallels that can provide valuable insights. While modern PCs are
equipped with GPUs boasting hundreds, if not thousands, of cores—far more than traditional CPUs—GPUs have not
replaced CPUs because many computational problems in computing are not embarrassingly parallelizable and, thus,
well-suited for GPUs. Instead, most problems are highly sequential, allowing the faster CPUs to solve them much
more efficiently. Parallelizable problems also need to be specially implemented for the GPU in dedicated programming
languages or frameworks. For instance, NVIDIA introduced CUDA already in 2007 [50] with support for many pro-
gramming languages. Yet, its applications in civil engineering software remain limited [73]. Instead, it took several
years until the completely different area of neural networks took advantage of it to scale deep learning, which now has
disruptive impact also on civil engineering.
Quantum advantage: Most existing software runs efficiently on traditional computers, both from a computational
and from an energy perspective [44]. For certain specific problem classes quantum computers have the potential to
outperform classical computers in the near term. Here, we are speaking of quantum advantage, when we are able
to demonstrate that the quantum computer can outperform classical computers and find problem instances where this
speedup is useful. Early quantum algorithms, such as Deutsch–Jozsa [22], Shor [72], and Grover [33], were ground-
setting for this research area, but, have limited direct applicability on their own. The current focus is on finding problems
where noisy quantum computers may provide computational advantage over classical computers considering that most
algorithms require error correction, for example the widely re-used Shor algorithm for integer factorization. Indeed,
there have been recent results, demonstrating the utility of quantum computing for simulating the time evolution of 2D
transverse-field Ising models [49]. There is a lot of ongoing research at the moment, in order to find further challenging
problems, where noisy quantum computers—along with techniques like error mitigation—are demonstrated to be a
useful tool.

3 Use cases

3.1 Use cases of quantum computing

In this section, we will explore use cases that are expected to exhibit a quantum advantage in the near future and share
similarities with problems encountered in civil engineering. The use cases encompass: (i) simulating natural physical
processes, (ii) mathematical and machine learning algorithms to process data with complex structure, and (iii) solving
optimization problems as well as search.
Simulating nature represents one significant application area for quantum computers, particularly for systems operating
(at or close to) the quantum level, such as simulating Hamiltonian dynamics or preparation of ground states. There is an
increasing body of work that studies the properties of many body quantum systems with the help of quantum computers,
e. g. [47]. Current exploration in the field includes applications in chemistry, such as the study of molecular struc-
tures [62] or chemical reactions [13]. Quantum computers facilitate the investigation of complex materials, including
superconductors and novel compounds, allowing for more efficient comprehension of the properties and potential appli-
cations compared to classical methods. Leveraging the precision in simulating quantum mechanics, quantum computers
are well-suited for providing more accurate predictions of molecular behavior, which is promising for future develop-
ments in drug discovery, materials design, and catalyst development [17]. A particularly encouraging recent result has
been the demonstration of the utility of quantum computing for simulating the time evolution of 2D transverse-field
Ising models [49].
Certain mathematical and Machine Learning problems and processing data with complex structure are expected to
benefit from approaches based on quantum computing. In particular, demonstrating exponential speed-up is expected for
quantum machine learning methods. While theoretic development of quantum machine learning algorithms goes back
several decades, there has been a growing body of work on quantum machine learning approaches explored on current
noisy quantum computers.
A promising class of quantum machine learning approaches are quantum kernel methods for classification problems,
one of the most fundamental problems in machine learning. In a recent result, it was shown that there are specific
classification tasks where a quantum kernel method with only classical access to data provides an exponential speed-up
over classical machine learning algorithms [55]. It is an ongoing direction of research to develop supervised quantum
machine learning algorithms for broader sets classification tasks.

4
Another notable group of quantum algorithms with potential applications in machine learning includes quantum phase
estimation (QPE) [24] and the underlying quantum Fourier transform (QFT) [34], which is similar to the classical
discrete Fourier transform and performs a Fourier transformation of the amplitudes but in O(n3 ) whereby the best known
1/3
classical algorithm requires 2O(n ) time. The QFT finds widespread usage in various other algorithms, including Shor’s
algorithm for integer factoring [72], the Harrow-Hassidim-Lloyd (HHL) algorithm for solving linear equations [36],
and quantum gradient estimation [45]. One application area of Shor’s algorithm is cryptography, where the algorithm
enables efficient factorization of integers to find the prime factors.
The advancements made in solving specific mathematical matrix problems using QAOA have found applications in en-
hancing traditional machine learning models, including linear regression [20], clustering [31, 42], reinforcement learning
[23, 52], support vector machines [38], and active learning [63]. Additionally, there is ongoing exploration of quantum
algorithms for neural networks [48, 70]. Furthermore, quantum computing has been investigated for its potential to
improve classical machine learning algorithms, particularly in the context of handling tensor and dot products in higher
dimensions, thereby reducing computation time [19, 27]. In all these cases, quantum computing addresses specific
aspects of traditional algorithms.
A sub-category of the aforementioned problems includes classical data analysis and statistics problems, which can
be advanced through machine learning algorithms and, also, by more classically adapted methods, such as quantum
principal component analysis [56] or quantum clustering [3]. Again, quantum advantage has not be shown to be practical
for any of these models, yet, and achieving it on current noisy quantum computers is challenging due to the necessity of
conducting numerous measurement runs and the stochastic nature of the objective function.
Optimization is another class of problems where quantum computing may be demonstrated to be useful, even if no
exponential speed-up over classical computing is expected. However, various problems may also derive benefits from
quantum computing [1]. Several gate-based optimization algorithms have been developed, involving the simulation
of the evolution of a system through a sequence of quantum operators. Two common methods include the variational
quantum eigensolver (VQE) [66] and the quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA). Both methods are
meta-heuristics for solving combinatorial optimization problems that can leverage gate-based quantum computers and
potentially outperform purely classical heuristic algorithms [29]. The approaches mentioned above find application in
logistical problems [5, 79], such as optimizing traffic networks to reduce congestion and enhance efficiency [81] or
formulating and solving routing problems [37]. Similarly, the methods are employed for optimizing energy distribution
networks [4]. A common feature among these applications is the utilization of a graph representation [32], where the
problems are modeled as a Max-Cut problem.
Finding an exact solution to the Max-Cut problem is known to be NP-hard [46]. The objective of the Max-Cut problem
is to divide the set of graph vertices into two subsets in a way that the sum of the weights of the edges connecting one
subset to the other is maximized. Solving Max-Cut with QAOA has seen some focus since it can be formulated as an
unconstrained quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) problem and has wide number of applications. The
approach with QAOA is based on the following mapping:
mapped
arg min ∑ wi, j xi x j , −−−−−→ H = ∑ wi, j σi σ j . (1)
x to QAOA
i, j i, j

where wi, j are the weights for the binary assignment xi and x j . To solve the problem using QAOA, we construct the
cost Hamiltonian H by mapping the binary assignment variables xk onto the eigenvalues of the Pauli Z operator σk .
By employing the mapping, we obtain a representation on the right that closely resembles the original problem. It is
expected, albeit unproven, that a quantum computer can solve this problem more efficiently than a classical one [71].

3.2 Use cases in civil engineering

Based on this discussion of use cases for quantum computers we can derive some insights on which use cases in civil
engineering may be most appropriate to benefit from quantum computers. We derive the mapping shown in Fig. 4 with
good (bold), some (dotted) and limited (none) applicability as explained below.
Simulations are a common approach in civil engineering to evaluate design variants or to understand real-world phe-
nomena. Some of those approaches may benefit from quantum computing.
Urban and traffic planning is using simulations specifically for modeling people and traffic flows and congestion within
transportation networks, encompassing interactions among vehicles, infrastructure, and traffic signals. Traffic simula-
tions rely on computational models that account for a multitude of variables, ranging from vehicle behavior and road
conditions to traffic patterns [77]. These simulation models are less suited for quantum.

5
Figure 4: An overview of engineering disciplines associated with the potential applicability of quantum computing.
Lines highlight good (bold), some (dotted), or limited (none) applicability.

Structural analysis and design is commonly employing either rigid body models or finite element analysis (FEA) to
simulate and analyze the behavior of structures under various conditions, including stress, heat transfer, and fluid flow.
FEA, in particular, demands substantial computational resources as it involves dividing a structure into numerous small
interacting elements to approximate the overall system behavior [82]. Geotechnical engineering problems are another
application area for FEA. Here, engineers simulate soil-structure interactions, slope stability analysis, and foundation
design [18]. Seismic analysis and design combines aspects of both structural and geotechnical engineering and focuses
on designing structures capable of withstanding seismic forces, entailing complex analyses of how structures respond to
earthquakes [43].

Hydraulic engineering often employs computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models to analyze the behavior of rivers,
dams, coastal areas, and other hydraulic structures. The models, similar to FEA, break down problems into small
interacting fluid (or gas) elements, but emphasize the solution of intricate fluid dynamics equations such as turbulence
modeling, sediment transport, and interactions with structures [6].

Environmental Impact Assessment is looking into simulating the environmental impact of constructions often applying
a combination of CFD or FEA methods [35].

The FEA and CFD problems fundamentally involve simulating the underlying physics in the form of higher-order
differential equations, without relying on specific quantum mechanical effects for which quantum computers are well-
suited. Instead, quantum algorithms that enhance the efficiency of solving differential equations, such as those breaking
them down into systems of linear equations solvable with algorithms, as the HHL algorithm [36], are explored [11, 54].

A few applications to civil engineering problems can be found. Ajagekar and You [4] show a heat exchanger network
synthesis problem, where multiple cooling units need to be balanced. Quantum approaches are utilized to simulate the
behaviour and to identify the optimal solution.

Various Mathematical and Machine Learning problems exist in civil engineering, primarily in operation scenarios,
but also in design and construction.

Structural analysis and design is using methods for structural health monitoring to record and analyze sensor data
for assessing structural conditions of infrastructure, including the detection of defects or damage, aiming to support
predictive maintenance and life-cycle management [28, 74]. Predictive maintenance is a related topic that focuses on
analyzing system performance to predict maintenance actions [15], applicable not only to structures but to various types
of assets.

Environmental Impact Assessment is another field using prediction models to analyze performance measures in general
for a system like their energy consumption [2]. Performance-based design can conceptually use the models to evaluate
different design options under various conditions or environmental impacts. If the prediction models are trained from
simulation models, we speak of surrogate models [75].

6
Hydraulic and Energy Engineering is commonly targeting demand prediction of consumers in energy or water grids, or
the traffic flow of people and cars in Urban and Traffic Planning. The objectives are similar to the simulation scenarios
discussed earlier, but rely on data-driven models instead of simulation models [53].

The specific machine learning models employed depend on the use case and data type. Typically, the data is recorded
through sensors and stored in the form of time series. Regression models, such as linear regression or support vector
machines, are often sufficient for prediction [65]. Quantum computing variants exist for these models, as discussed
earlier [20, 38], but their necessity is debatable, as time series problems can be decomposed and trained individually
[64]. For problems with a graph structure, such as energy, water or traffic networks, graph neural networks may be
more appropriate [7], although more performant quantum variants are currently lacking. In cases involving image or
video data sets, deep learning models are commonly used, as the models tend to benefit more from GPU processing than
quantum computation do [16, 21].

Optimization in civil engineering involves finding the best arrangement, combination, or configuration of elements
within a discrete set of choices, considering various constraints and objectives.

Construction Management deals with efficiently assigning resources (e. g. labor, equipment, materials) in allocation
and scheduling problems and schedule construction activities[41]. These problems can often be modelled as a QUBO
[51].

Urban and traffic planning addresses the design of optimal traffic networks [76], which is an extension of the logistic
routing problem discussed earlier [5, 79]. However, there has not been a discussion yet on the evaluation of the impact
of the algorithms on network design. Conceptually related is the site location selection problem, which refers to deter-
mining the most suitable locations for infrastructure facilities, such as schools, hospitals, waste management sites, or
transportation hubs. The determinations take into account factors, such as accessibility, environmental impact, popula-
tion distribution, and cost [61]. The problems can often be modeled as coverage problems [26], and thus we may be
able to map the problems onto a QUBO problem, which, in turn, might be solved by QAOA. However, in practice, the
number of constraints and weights is often higher, as demonstrated by Farahani et al. [26].

Hydraulic engineering and distribution networks planning problems are prevalent in civil engineering, spanning various
forms from power to fresh and waste water networks. Early work explores the use of quantum computers for optimizing
energy distribution networks [4]. Similar approaches may apply to other network types by mapping the problems to
graph Max-Cut problems.

Environmental Impact Assessment is usually more looking in using optimization for improving energy efficiency. Here
the optimization approaches are either control problems or scheduling problems.

Structural analysis and design is optimizing the arrangement and sizing of structural components (beams, columns)
that ensure structural integrity while minimizing material usage[9, 59]. Optimization often requires solving complex
mathematical problems, such as nonlinear programming or genetic algorithms. Considering the problem as a rigid body
problem with a graph representation may allow to map it to QADA. For example, Wang et al. [79] discuss an application
for a topology optimization problem called the Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm (MBB) problem [10] to find the stiffest
design of a desired volume fraction. Traditionally, such design problems were solved by engineers through experience
or trial and error.

4 Summary and Conclusions

In this paper, we have discussed the current state of quantum computing and potential applications in civil engineering.
We first provided an overview of the fundamental concepts of quantum computing, highlighting its distinctions from
traditional binary computing. Subsequently, we have addressed the current challenges associated with scaling quantum
computing, with a specific focus on algorithms and problem classes that can be studied with current, noisy quantum
computers. We then have reviewed the areas where quantum computing has the potential to outperform traditional com-
puting, namely in simulating quantum mechanics, quantum machine learning approaches, and classes of optimization
problems. For each area, we have also introduced the relevant use cases in civil engineering and have discussed the
potential of applying QC within them. The preliminary conclusions are summarized as follows:

Simulation: Among the most computationally demanding tasks are FEA and CFD problems, where quantum com-
puting holds the potential to enhance performance in solving differential equations. Here, the discretization into
linear equation systems is an important step.

7
Machine Learning: Quantum computing shows the largest promise in the speed-up that may be achieved through
quantum kernel methods for a variety of classification tasks. In addition, advancements in machine learning
involve algorithmic steps that may have the potential to perform better on a quantum computer. To benefit from
these future possibilities, it is recommended to keep investigating the applicability of these classification models
in civil engineering.

Optimization: Quantum computing has already been explored for a number of optimization problems arising across
different application domains. There is a lot of ongoing research in the speed up that may be achieved for particular
algorithms. In civil engineering this means to identify relevant problem-mappings to solutions like Max-Cut or
QUBO.

Quantum computing has the potential to catalyze a revolutionary paradigm shift similar to the transformative impact
observed with GPU computing, currently reshaping the landscape of science through the empowerment of deep learning.
The innovations in quantum computing will not arise primarily from accelerating existing code; instead, innovations are
expected to derive from the ability to address an entirely new set of challenges using specialized software applicable
across a broad spectrum of domains.

References
[1] A. Abbas, A. Ambainis, B. Augustino, A. Bärtschi, H. Buhrman, and et al. Quantum Optimization: Potential, Challenges, and
the Path Forward. arXiv e-prints, art. arXiv:2312.02279, Dec. 2023.
[2] A. Ahmed, N. E. Korres, J. Ploennigs, H. Elhadi, and K. Menzel. Mining building performance data for energy-efficient
operation. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 25(2):341–354, 2011.
[3] E. Aı̈meur, G. Brassard, and S. Gambs. Quantum clustering algorithms. In ICML, pages 1–8, 2007.
[4] A. Ajagekar and F. You. Quantum computing for energy systems optimization: Challenges and opportunities. Energy, 179:
76–89, 2019.
[5] A. Ajagekar, T. Humble, and F. You. Quantum computing based hybrid solution strategies for large-scale discrete-continuous
optimization problems. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 132:106630, 2020.
[6] D. Anderson, J. C. Tannehill, R. H. Pletcher, R. Munipalli, and V. Shankar. Computational fluid mechanics and heat transfer.
2020.
[7] A. Ba, F. O’Donncha, J. Ploennigs, and M. Azmat. Efficient extraction of insights at the edges of distributed systems. In IEEE
BigData, 2023.
[8] A. Bayerstadler, G. Becquin, J. Binder, T. Botter, H. Ehm, T. Ehmer, M. Erdmann, N. Gaus, P. Harbach, M. Hess, et al. Industry
quantum computing applications. EPJ Quantum Technology, 8(1):25, 2021.
[9] A. D. Belegundu and T. R. Chandrupatla. Optimization concepts and applications in engineering. 2019.
[10] M. P. Bendsoe and O. Sigmund. Topology optimization: theory, methods, and applications. 2003.
[11] D. W. Berry. High-order quantum algorithm for solving linear differential equations. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and
Theoretical, 47(10):105301, 2014.
[12] Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Huggins, Y. Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O’Brien. Quantum error mitigation.
Reviews of Modern Physics, 95(4):045005, 2023.
[13] Y. Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. Johnson, M. Kieferová, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Peropadre, N. P.
Sawaya, et al. Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing. Chemical reviews, 119(19), 2019.
[14] A. Chatterjee, P. Stevenson, S. De Franceschi, A. Morello, N. P. de Leon, and F. Kuemmeth. Semiconductor qubits in practice.
Nature Reviews Physics, 3(3):157–177, 2021.
[15] J. C. Cheng, W. Chen, K. Chen, and Q. Wang. Data-driven predictive maintenance planning framework for MEP components
based on BIM and IoT using machine learning algorithms. Automation in Construction, 112, 2020.
[16] E. F. Combarro, S. González-Castillo, and A. Di Meglio. A Practical Guide to Quantum Machine Learning and Quantum
Optimization: Hands-on Approach to Modern Quantum Algorithms. 2023.
[17] A. J. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pearson, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller. Practical quantum advantage in quantum
simulation. Nature, 607(7920):667–676, 2022.
[18] B. M. Das. Principles of geotechnical engineering. 2021.
[19] V. R. Dasari, M. S. Im, and L. Beshaj. Solving machine learning optimization problems using quantum computers. In Disruptive
Technologies in Information Sciences IV, volume 11419, pages 60–69, 2020.
[20] P. Date and T. Potok. Adiabatic quantum linear regression. Scientific reports, 11(1):21905, 2021.
[21] P. Date, C. Schuman, R. Patton, and T. Potok. A classical-quantum hybrid approach for unsupervised probabilistic machine
learning. In Future of Inf. and Com. Conf. (FICC), pages 98–117, 2020.
[22] D. Deutsch. Quantum theory, the church–turing principle and the universal quantum computer. Proc. of the Royal Society of
London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 400(1818):97–117, 1985.
[23] D. Dong, C. Chen, H. Li, and T.-J. Tarn. Quantum reinforcement learning. IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part
B (Cybernetics), 38(5):1207–1220, 2008.
[24] U. Dorner, R. Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, B. J. Smith, J. S. Lundeen, W. Wasilewski, K. Banaszek, and I. A. Walmsley. Optimal
quantum phase estimation. Physical review letters, 102(4):040403, 2009.

8
[25] D. J. Egger, C. Gambella, J. Marecek, S. McFaddin, M. Mevissen, R. Raymond, A. Simonetto, S. Woerner, and E. Yndurain.
Quantum computing for finance: State-of-the-art and future prospects. IEEE Trans. on Quantum Engineering, 1:1–24, 2020.
[26] R. Z. Farahani, N. Asgari, N. Heidari, M. Hosseininia, and M. Goh. Covering problems in facility location: A review. Computers
& Industrial Engineering, 62(1):368–407, 2012.
[27] D. V. Fastovets, Y. I. Bogdanov, B. I. Bantysh, and V. Lukichev. Machine learning methods in quantum computing theory. Int.
Conf. on Micro- And Nano-Electronics 2018, 2019. doi: 10.1117/12.2522427.
[28] M. Flah, I. Nunez, W. Ben Chaabene, and M. L. Nehdi. Machine learning algorithms in civil structural health monitoring: A
systematic review. Archives of computational methods in engineering, 28, 2021.
[29] F. G. Fuchs, K. O. Lye, H. Møll Nilsen, A. J. Stasik, and G. Sartor. Constraint preserving mixers for the quantum approximate
optimization algorithm. Algorithms, 15(6):202, 2022.
[30] J. Gambetta. The hardware and software for the era of quantum utility is here. IBM Research Blog (Dezember 2020), 2023.
[31] L.-Z. Gao, C.-Y. Lu, G.-D. Guo, X. Zhang, and S. Lin. Quantum k-nearest neighbors classification algorithm based on maha-
lanobis distance. Frontiers in Physics, 10:1047466, 2022.
[32] T. D. Goodrich, B. D. Sullivan, and T. S. Humble. Optimizing adiabatic quantum program compilation using a graph-theoretic
framework. Quantum Information Processing, 17:1–26, 2018.
[33] L. K. Grover. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In An. ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages
212–219, 1996.
[34] L. Hales and S. Hallgren. An improved quantum fourier transform algorithm and applications. In An. Symposium on Foundations
of Computer Science, pages 515–525, 2000.
[35] V. Harish and A. Kumar. A review on modeling and simulation of building energy systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 56:1272–1292, 2016. ISSN 1364-0321.
[36] A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd. Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations. Physical review letters, 103(15):
150502, 2009.
[37] S. Harwood, C. Gambella, D. Trenev, A. Simonetto, D. Bernal, and D. Greenberg. Formulating and solving routing problems
on quantum computers. IEEE Trans. on Quantum Engineering, 2:1–17, 2021.
[38] V. Havlı́ček, A. D. Córcoles, K. Temme, A. W. Harrow, A. Kandala, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta. Supervised learning with
quantum-enhanced feature spaces. Nature, 567(7747):209–212, 2019.
[39] A. He, B. Nachman, W. A. de Jong, and C. W. Bauer. Zero-noise extrapolation for quantum-gate error mitigation with identity
insertions. Physical Review A, 102(1):012426, 2020.
[40] B. Heim, M. Soeken, S. Marshall, C. Granade, M. Roetteler, A. Geller, M. Troyer, and K. Svore. Quantum programming
languages. Nature Reviews Physics, 2(12):709–722, 2020.
[41] J. Hinze. Construction planning and scheduling, volume 228. 2004.
[42] D. Horn and A. Gottlieb. Algorithm for data clustering in pattern recognition problems based on quantum mechanics. Physical
review letters, 88(1):018702, 2001.
[43] J. Humar. Dynamics of structures. 2012.
[44] D. Jaschke and S. Montangero. Is quantum computing green? an estimate for an energy-efficiency quantum advantage. Quantum
Science and Technology, 8(2):025001, 2023.
[45] S. P. Jordan. Fast quantum algorithm for numerical gradient estimation. Physical review letters, 95(5), 2005.
[46] R. M. Karp. Reducibility among combinatorial problems. 2010.
[47] N. Keenan, N. F. Robertson, T. Murphy, S. Zhuk, and J. Goold. Evidence of Kardar-Parisi-Zhang scaling on a digital quantum
simulator. npj Quantum Information, 9(1):72, 2023.
[48] I. Kerenidis, J. Landman, and A. Prakash. Quantum algorithms for deep convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1911.01117, 2019.
[49] Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. Van Den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme, et al.
Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance. Nature, 618(7965):500–505, 2023.
[50] D. Kirk et al. NVIDIA CUDA software and GPU parallel computing architecture. In ISMM, volume 7, 2007.
[51] G. A. Kochenberger and F. Glover. A unified framework for modeling and solving combinatorial optimization problems: A
tutorial. Multiscale optimization methods and applications, pages 101–124, 2006.
[52] L. Lamata. Basic protocols in quantum reinforcement learning with superconducting circuits. Scientific reports, 7(1):1609,
2017.
[53] Y. Lassoued, J. Monteil, Y. Gu, G. Russo, R. Shorten, and M. Mevissen. A hidden markov model for route and destination
prediction. In IEEE Int. Conf. on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), pages 1–6, 2017.
[54] J.-P. Liu, H. Ø. Kolden, H. K. Krovi, N. F. Loureiro, K. Trivisa, and A. M. Childs. Efficient quantum algorithm for dissipative
nonlinear differential equations. Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(35), 2021.
[55] Y. Liu, S. Arunachalam, and K. Temme. A rigorous and robust quantum speed-up in supervised machine learning. Nature
Physics, 17(9):1013–1017, 2021.
[56] S. Lloyd, M. Mohseni, and P. Rebentrost. Quantum principal component analysis. Nature Physics, 10(9):631–633, 2014.
[57] L. Madden and A. Simonetto. Best approximate quantum compiling problems. ACM Trans. on Quantum Computing, 3(2):1–29,
2022.
[58] N. Mariella and S. Zhuk. A doubly stochastic matrices-based approach to optimal qubit routing. Quantum Information Process-
ing, 22(7):264, 2023.
[59] L. Mei and Q. Wang. Structural optimization in civil engineering: a literature review. Buildings, 11(2):66, 2021.
[60] M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang. Quantum computation and quantum information. 2010.
[61] F. O’Donncha, J. Sheehan, F. Lorenzi, and J. Ploennigs. Large language models and knowledge graphs to optimize commercial

9
 real estate portfolio. In INFORMS An. Meeting, 2023.
[62] C. Outeiral, M. Strahm, J. Shi, G. M. Morris, S. C. Benjamin, and C. M. Deane. The prospects of quantum computing in
computational molecular biology. WIREs Computational Molecular Science, 11(1):e1481, 2021.
[63] G. D. Paparo, V. Dunjko, A. Makmal, M. A. Martin-Delgado, and H. J. Briegel. Quantum speedup for active learning agents.
Physical Review X, 4(3):031002, 2014.
[64] D. Patel, S. Lin, D. Shah, S. Jayaraman, J. Ploennigs, A. Bhamidipati, and J. Kalagnanam. AI model factory: scaling AI for
industry 4.0 applications. In AAAI, volume 37, pages 16467–16469, 2023.
[65] N. Pathak, A. Ba, J. Ploennigs, and N. Roy. Forecasting gas usage for big buildings using generalized additive models and deep
learning. In IEEE SMARTCOMP, pages 203–210, 2018.
[66] A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’brien. A variational
eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. Nature communications, 5(1):4213, 2014.
[67] L. Postler, S. Heuβ en, I. Pogorelov, M. Rispler, T. Feldker, M. Meth, C. D. Marciniak, R. Stricker, M. Ringbauer, R. Blatt, et al.
Demonstration of fault-tolerant universal quantum gate operations. Nature, 605(7911), 2022.
[68] J. Preskill. Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond. Quantum, 2:79, 2018.
[69] J. Preskill. Quantum computing 40 years later. In Feynman Lectures on Computation, pages 193–244. 2023.
[70] M. Schuld, I. Sinayskiy, and F. Petruccione. The quest for a quantum neural network. Quantum Information Processing, 13:
2567–2586, 2014.
[71] R. Shaydulin and Y. Alexeev. Evaluating quantum approximate optimization algorithm: A case study. In Int. green and
sustainable computing Conf. (IGSC), pages 1–6, 2019.
[72] P. W. Shor. Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring. In An. Symposium on Foundations of
Computer Science, pages 124–134, 1994.
[73] B. G. Simpson, M. Zhu, A. Seki, and M. Scott. Challenges in gpu-accelerated nonlinear dynamic analysis for structural systems.
Journal of Structural Engineering, 149(3):04022253, 2023.
[74] K. Smarsly, K. Dragos, and J. Wiggenbrock. Machine learning techniques for structural health monitoring. In 8th Eu. Workshop
on Structural Health Monitoring, 2016.
[75] H. Sun, H. V. Burton, and H. Huang. Machine learning applications for building structural design and performance assessment:
State-of-the-art review. Journal of Building Engineering, 33:101816, 2021.
[76] P. Toth and D. Vigo. Vehicle routing: problems, methods, and applications. 2014.
[77] M. Treiber and A. Kesting. Traffic flow dynamics. Traffic Flow Dynamics: Data, Models and Simulation, Springer-Verlag
Berlin Heidelberg, pages 983–1000, 2013.
[78] E. Van Den Berg, Z. K. Minev, A. Kandala, and K. Temme. Probabilistic error cancellation with sparse pauli–lindblad models
on noisy quantum processors. Nature Physics, pages 1–6, 2023.
[79] Y. Wang, J. E. Kim, and K. Suresh. Opportunities and challenges of quantum computing for engineering optimization. Journal
of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, 23(6), 2023.
[80] H. Wiseman and G. Milburn. Interpretation of quantum jump and diffusion processes illustrated on the bloch sphere. Physical
Review A, 47(3):1652, 1993.
[81] S. Yarkoni, F. Neukart, E. M. G. Tagle, N. Magiera, B. Mehta, K. Hire, S. Narkhede, and M. Hofmann. Quantum shuttle:
traffic navigation with quantum computing. In ACM SIGSOFT Int. Workshop on Architectures and Paradigms for Engineering
Quantum Software, pages 22–30, 2020.
[82] O. C. Zienkiewicz, R. L. Taylor, and J. Z. Zhu. The finite element method: its basis and fundamentals. 2005.

10