State of the Art of Augmented Reality (AR) Capabilities for Civil

Infrastructure Applications

Jiaqi Xu1, Derek Doyle2, Fernando Moreu3*

1
Postdoctoral Associate, Department of Civil, Construction & Environmental Engineering (CCEE), University of
New Mexico (UNM), Albuquerque, NM, USA. Email: xujiaqi@unm.edu
2
Assistant Chief Scientist, Air Force Research Laboratory, Space Vehicles Directorate, Kirtland Air Force Base,
Albuquerque, NM, USA. Email: derek.doyle@us.af.mil
3
Assistant Professor, CCEE; Assistant Professor (courtesy appointment) Electrical and Computer Engineering;
Assistant Professor (courtesy appointment) Mechanical Engineering; Assistant Professor (courtesy
appointment) Computer Science, UNM, Albuquerque, NM, USA. Email: fmoreu@unm.edu
*
Corresponding author.
Abstract
Augmented Reality (AR) is a technology superimposing interactional virtual objects onto a real
environment. Since the beginning of the millennium, AR technologies have shown rapid growth, with
significant research publications in engineering and science. However, the civil infrastructure community
has minimally implemented AR technologies to date. One of the challenges that civil engineers face when
understanding and using AR is the lack of a classification of AR in the context of capabilities for civil
infrastructure applications. Practitioners in civil infrastructure, like most engineering fields, prioritize
understanding the level of maturity of a new technology before considering its adoption and field
implementation. This paper compares the capabilities of sixteen AR Head-Mounted Devices (HMDs)
available in the market since 2017, ranking them in terms of performance for civil infrastructure
implementations. Finally, the authors recommend a development framework for practical AR interfaces
with civil infrastructure and operations.
Keywords: Augmented Reality (AR); Head-Mounted Devices (HMDs); civil infrastructure; human
infrastructure interfaces; capabilities; classification.

1. Introduction
Augmented Reality (AR)/Virtual Reality (VR) devices are attracting both technology giants and startups
dedicated to both hardware and user-friendly software tools. According to the analysis of the International
Data Corporation conducted in November 2019, the global AR/VR market will reach $18.8 billion USD
in 2020 [1]. AR technologies are now moving from research prototypes to applications in practical projects
[2], evolving from futuristic visions to engineering tools. Today, AR aims to transform medicine, defense,
education, and the interaction between humans and engineering in design, manufacturing, and product
management [3].
AR displays the real environment enhanced by interactive virtual (computer graphic) objects. AR has
enabled new opportunities in emergence of large and complex data, contributing with new theories and
applications [3–5]. The concept of AR has been outlined by Caudell and Mizell in 1990 [6]. The concept
of AR is often confused with three other developments in computer graphics visualization: VR,
Augmented Virtuality (AV) and Mixed Reality (MR). VR is an artificial environment which is
experienced through sensory stimuli provided by a computer. VR does not necessarily include interaction
with the real environment. AV merges real-world objects onto a virtual environment. The main difference

1
between AR and AV is the focus of the major displaying environment. AR enables more opportunities of
quantification of the external world, higher user interaction and exploration with their nearby environment,
and wider see-through characteristics [7–15]. In this paper, the authors use AR as an inclusive term that
enables engineers interact with infrastructure in real environments through virtual interfaces.
AR implementations in civil systems promote comprehension of the working context during
experiments, allow engineers to perform field tasks with awareness of both the physical and synthetic
environments, reduce heavy workload of conducting damage detection manually, and provide insight of
the dangers on site [16]. About 50% of today’s AR implementations in civil infrastructure are focused on
construction. In 2010, Dong and Kamat [17,18] developed the SMART-ARMOR system. SMART is an
AR authoring language with a standard AR development environment. ARMOR is a mobile computing
hardware framework. The SMART-ARMOR system has been tested with a multistory steel frame
example, which is a milestone holistic and applicable outdoor construction application of AR technologies.
Golparvar-Fard et al. [19–22] applied the registration method to solve the discrepancy check problem.
Since 2009 they have provided a platform named D4AR that shows discrepancy information during
construction. In 2013 they updated their D4AR to the HD4AR system [23], enabling applications of
camera-equipped mobile devices already available. In 2014, based on the D4AR system, Karsch et al. [24]
combined a set of AR tools to build a valuable platform, ConstructAide, to monitor construction progress
with unordered photo collections and 3D building models.
High-efficiency collaborative visualization and communication among multiple users can be realized
by applying AR technologies. Tele-communication can provide high-performance guidance for workers.
Dong et al. [25] developed an AR software, ARVita, for the collaborative visualization of multiple users
wearing Head-Mounted Devices (HMDs). Using ARVita, all the users can observe and interact with the
dynamic visual simulations of the engineering processes. Hammad et al. [26] developed a prototype
distributed AR visualization collaborative system, DARCC, and tested it in a bridge deck rehabilitation
project to show the effectiveness. Another significant application is to guarantee site safety by visualizing
complex workplace situations with AR devices. For example, Kim et al. [27] developed a vision-based
hazard avoidance system to provide safety information for workers. Fang et al. [28] deployed AR
technologies to prevent workers operating at hazardous heights. The authors are also planning to
contribute to the topic of implementing AR HMDs to improve site safety for engineers and workers in a
future research project.
In summary, research groups have developed and designed AR prototype devices and applications in
civil infrastructure. However, these successful efforts are in general designed for research specific
purposes, and are difficult for civil engineers to implement in their own projects. Different approaches
need to be developed in order to increase the growth of AR hardware and software suites across the civil
engineerin field. For example, the lack of hardware continuity can be a hurdle to AR implementation that
should be considered in assessing utility of tools [29,30]. In this context, Commercial Off-The-Shelf
(COTS) solutions that are robust enough to perform specialized tasks across multiple domains and
environmental situations. Additionally, COTS solutions should have a diverse enough portfolio to enable
adoptions by various industry/projects. This viability is critical to any risk adverse industry’s assessment
of maturity and reliability via support longevity versus the cost of integrating the technology into the
business model and sustaining the learning curve.
In the past, researchers have classified hardware and software capacities of AR devices to increase
their understanding and implementation by the engineering community. Soto [16] classified and compared
AR devices produced before 2017, and summarized their potential for implementation. The detailed
comparison of AR devices provided information for civil engineers to apply them in construction. Soto’s

2
results showed that AR HMDs can improve users’ visualization for construction steps more effectively
than hand held devices and other interfaces. Finally, Soto’s study recommended conducting further studies
to continue increasing the implementation of AR HMDs in civil infrastructure projects. Today, the
comparison from Soto in 2017 needs to be expanded and increased since the majority of today’s AR
devices have been produced during the last three years and are not included in Soto’s study. Additionally,
AR devices today have more powerful sensors, more display pixels and faster processing units than
previous versions. For example, DAQRI, ODG R-9 and Glassup F4 visor were considered advanced in
2017 by Soto, but today these devices are no longer available.
This paper classifies AR technology capabilities in the context of field implementation for civil
infrastructure projects. First, the authors outline the milestones of AR technology from 1968 to date and
compare them with the number of publications on that period of time. Then, the authors classify the
categories of AR devices that are of higher interest to civil infrastructure applications. This classification
enables civil infrastructure professionals to understand the state of the art of today’s AR hardware and
software. This study compares the technical advantages, disadvantages and limitations of sixteen AR
HMDs. The authors consider civil infrastructure areas of interest and rank the sixteen AR HMDs in terms
of their general properties, sensors, computational capabilities, and display capabilities. The result of this
study is a new classification of AR devices available since 2017 in the context of field implementation.
2. Chronology of AR milestones
In the last fifty years, AR research and technology adoption have grown in parallel with the advancements
of computer science and interfaces between humans, computers and physical systems. Figure 1 shows the
number of publications since the first AR application in 1968 to date, and the most significant AR
milestones in the same period of time.
The selection of significant AR milestones is outlined chronologically to better show the historical
context of the current state of AR technologies. In 1968, Ivan Sutherland developed a VR HMD with the
name ‘Sword of Damocles’ to show images comprising virtual environment of simple wireframe rooms
with head-tracking feature [31]. In 1974, Myron Krueger [32] created a milestone ‘Videoplace’ laboratory
based on his previous developments of ‘Glowflow’, ‘Metaplay’ and ‘Psychic space’. In the Videoplace
laboratory, AR displays were designed to surround the users and respond to the movements and actions
of the users. These remarkable AR platforms were developed before the term ‘Augmented Reality’ was
formally coined. In 1990, the term ‘Augmented Reality’ was introduced formally for the first time by
Caudell and Mizell [6]. In 1992, Louis Rosenberg [33] developed ‘Virtual Fixture’ in the USAF
Armstrong Labs, which was the first functional AR platform enabling people to control robot arms by
moving physical arms. In 2000, Kato [34] created an open-source software library ‘ARToolKit’, which
has been applied in web browsers in 2009, enabling researchers to share and develop AR tools in the same
platform. On April 15, 2013, Google started to sell a Google Glass prototype in the United States, before
it became available to the general public on May 15, 2014 [35]. In 2017, Google stopped producing the
Google Glass prototype for the public and turned to the enterprise edition [36]. Also, Microsoft announced
their AR prototype in March 2016 named Microsoft HoloLens. Microsoft announced the global expansion
and commercialization of Microsoft HoloLens in October 2016 [37]. In addition, in 2019, Facebook
acquired and reorganized Oculus, becoming Facebook Technologies [38] and is currently considering
purchasing ODG [39]. Since then, Facebook has increased their AR technical team [38]. Apple is expected
to announce and launch Apple Glasses in 2023 [40]. Currently, Mojo Vision is developing the next
generation AR lens by inputting an AR screen in the medical-grade contact lens instead of glasses [41].
However, the publication time for the AR lens has not been announced yet.

3
 3000 AR
Civil Infrastructure Term 'Augmented Reality'
2500 Electrical Engineering
Publication Amount

'Virtual Fixture' - First functional AR platform

2000
'ARToolKit' - First open-source software library
'Sword of Damocles' - First VR HMD
1500
'Videoplace' - First AR laboratory Google Glass
1000 HoloLens

500

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1995 2005 2010 2015 2020
Figure 1. Number of AR implementation papers included in Web of Science.
Figure 1 shows the growth of AR publications since the late 1960s to date. The number of AR
publications started to grow in the late 90s. Since then AR publications increased slowly, transforming in
2010 to an exponential growth. In 2018, there were 2825 research papers published regarding the topic of
AR on the Web of Science. Publications in the field of electrical engineering have followed this trend (red
line in Figure 1), whereas publications in civil infrastructure (green line in Figure 1) have remained low.
In 2018, 67 articles were published discussing AR applications in civil infrastructure (only 2.4% of the
total number of AR implementations). In the same year, 546 publications (19.3% of the total) were focused
on AR applications in electrical engineering, almost eight times higher. Civil infrastructure has fallen
behind in both theory and application of AR technologies. It would be valuable to increase interactions
between humans and infrastructure [4]. Practitioners in civil infrastructure are averse to innovations unless
the capabilities and success to date is documented and shared by the community. The next section of this
paper summarizes basic AR advances for potential adopters in the civil infrastructure field who may not
familiar with computer science in their regular practice.
3. Categories of AR devices
This paper classifies the AR devices that are commercially available since 2017 until February 2020 for
civil infrastructure implementations. Fully immersive VR headgear or video viewers are not included,
because the emphasis of this study is the ability of engineers to interact with real environments in the field.
There are three categories of AR devices based on different display methods, i.e., HMDs, handheld display,
and spatial display (Figure 2). In this section, the authors analyze the specific contributions and capabilities
of the three types of AR display methods in terms of their advantages and limitations in the context of
civil infrastructure implementation.
HMDs consist of smart glasses displaying virtual images superimposed in front of the user’s eyes.
Based on the number of displaying projectors, HMDs can be categorized into either Monocular-see-
through or Binocular-see-through. Binocular-see-through is more popular than Monocular-see-through by
better fitting people’s observational intuition. Some HMDs are designed as a notification system, being
controlled by a tablet or controller. For example, Toshiba dynaEdge AR100 Smart Glasses is controlled
by Toshiba dynaEdge DE-100-12U Mobile Mini PC, and Glassup F4 visor is controlled by an external
controller. Although these devices have a controller PC/tablet, they should still be classified as HMDs.
HMDs give solutions to initial technical difficulties such as crosstalk of the backside imager [42], scene
recognition and natural features tracking [43–45], and close-up view coherent augmentation [46].
Limitations on HMDs include concerns about safety as the user can be isolated from tripping hazards or
other obstacles in the field [47,48].

4
 Figure 2. Categories of AR devices in terms of display.
Handheld displays are related to AR applications developed for handheld devices. These displays
show virtual images on handheld computing devices, e.g., smart phones, tablets, Personal Digital
Assistants (PDAs), etc. The handheld display is typically represented by an application with an AR
function, e.g., Morpholio AR Sketchwalk [49], GAMMA AR [50], ViewAR [51], etc. The comparison of
updated AR applications can be found in the SocialCompare website [52]. The advantages of the handheld
displays are the increased awareness of the real environment and confinement of virtual elements in
platform that isn’t intended to be in your field of view (FoV) at all times, while the limitations are that
users’ hands are not available for other activities in the field, compromising their safety [47,48].
As an alternative to HMDs and handheld devices, spatial display devices show virtual images directly
in the environment. The advantages of spatial display are that the safety of users is not undermined by the
AR display and multiple observers can utilize a single set of hardware, as opposed to everyone using one
dedicated device per person, either in their hands or on their heads. Lightform Company, founded in 2014,
develops high-resolution AR projections that track objects and respond to human inputs in real-time [53].
Their first and second generation products, LF1 and LF2 were presented in February and November of
2019, respectively. However, the lack of portability of spatial devices limits their applications in the field
of assessment and inspection of large infrastructure sites. In addition, the complexity of augmented
elements is typically more confined to 2D overlays that require existing structure present.

5
 In conclusion, HMDs are the most commonly implemented display method for professional
applications. Most AR devices in the market today are HMDs, but the unclassified complex information
has limited the mass adoption by civil engineers. In the following section, the authors analyze and compare
sixteen AR HMDs in the last three years in the context of potential for civil infrastructure field
implementation.
4. Comparison of AR HMDs
The foundation of AR implementation is the theoretical development of AR technologies. Most devices
today are in the experiment and prototype phase, and have not been implemented in real site constructions.
Before 2017, the main difficulties of adopting AR technologies in civil infrastructure have been the high
expense and the immaturity of devices [54]. With the rapid development of AR devices in recent years,
commercially available AR HMDs with reasonable weight and price have been developed for civil
infrastructure. Although a perfect final theoretical solution to the AR implementation is still in the distant
future, AR HMDs are using alternatives to meet the engineering demands. As compared in Tables 1-4, a
suitable AR HMD should be selected by first considering performance requirements for different
engineering scenarios, then choosing along the price/weight line in Figure 5. For example, the RealWear
HMT-1Z1 should be selected for high-risk (e.g., potentially explosive sites) and high-value construction
for its product durability and high price; the Google Glass Enterprise Edition 2 is more suitable for daily
use because of its light weight and ergonomic design.
4.1. General properties
Table 1 summarizes the general capabilities of AR HMDs, sorted by released date from #1 (most recent,
February 2020) to #16 (January 2017). AR HMDs #1 and #16 are Vuzix M400 Version 1.1.4 and DAQRI
Smart Glasses, respectively. AR HMDs #14-16 are no longer available for purchase: Glassup F4 visor,
ODG R-9 and DAQRI, respectively. Out of the total sixteen AR HMDs, eleven are developed by United
States companies (69%), and three are produced by two Japanese companies (19%): Toshiba and Epson.
According to Golparvar-Fard et al. [55], product durability is among the first considerations when
selecting AR devices for engineering applications. Table 1 shows four indexes for product durability (5th-
8th columns): water resistance, working temperature range, working humidity range, and drop safe
distance. According to these four columns of Table 1, the Vuzix M400 Version 1.1.4 and RealWear HMT-
1/1Z1 are the two AR HMDs with highest product durability.
The 9th and 10th columns of Table 1 list weight and price for each AR HMD, respectively. Figure 3
shows the weight distribution of AR HMDs from 2017 until today, with a median weight value of 218g
per device. The median value is used to avoid the influence of devices with excessive weight such as
HMT-1Z1, DAQRI and Microsoft HoloLens 2. According to Figure 3, the distribution of weight of AR
HMDs does not follow a chronological trend. Weight limits should be considered when selecting AR
HMDs in the field. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z89.1-1969 regulates the maximum
weight limit for safety hard hats used in civil infrastructure industry [56]. According to ANSI, Class A
and C hard hats have a maximum recommended weight of 425g, and Class D hard hats has a maximum
recommended weight of 850g. AR HMDs should follow the ANSI regulation regarding maximum weight
limit in the civil infrastructure industry. The majority of the AR HMDs shown in Figure 3 weight less than
the limit of Class A/C hard hats. The weight of HMT-1Z1 and Microsoft HoloLens 2 are beyond the limit
of Class A/C hard hats, but still under the limit of Class D hard hats. It can be concluded that the majority
of AR HMDs are in general available for implementation in the field of civil infrastructure, although
according to experts other specific field requirements besides weight such as safety and comfort still need
to be considered [56].

6
 Figure 3. Chronological trend of AR HMDs weight (01/2017-02/2020).
Figure 4 shows the price distribution of the AR HMDs. According to this analysis, the median price
value per device is $1975. As in the case of weight, the change of AR HMDs cost between 2017 and 2020
does not follow an evident chronological trend.

Figure 4. Chronological trend of AR HMDs price (01/2017-02/2020).

Figure 5 shows the price distribution of the AR HMDs versus weight. With the exception of three
devices (Toshiba AR100, DAQRI and HMT-1Z1), the other thirteen AR HMDs follow a linear correlation
between price and weight with a regression index r=0.91. This linear correlation is of interest to potential
adopters of AR HMDs to understand available product capabilities and limitations in weight and cost.
HMT-1Z1 and DAQRI are the two most expensive AR HMDs: HMT-1Z1, priced at $6000, is developed
by RealWear, a startup company founded in 2015, and it is the only AR HMD especially developed for
an outdoor environment. DAQRI is one of the earliest AR HMD trials and is no longer available for
purchase. According to past research, heavier AR HMDs are generally attributed to larger processing units
and sophisticated add-on hardware, which enable more advanced user experiences and better
performances [57]. In addition, this mass can play into durability and thermal management of the hardware
to survive more extreme environments. After AR HMDs are established as products of widespread interest
to engineers, they are expected to decrease price and weight while increasing their performance. Civil
engineers and other infrastructure industries can actively participate in the direction of development of
AR HMDs and technologies.

7
 Figure 5. AR HMDs linear correlation between weight and price (01/2017-02/2020).
4.2. Sensors
Table 2 summarizes the sensors built in AR HMDs, sorted by the number of pixels on its camera sensor.
The 3rd column in Table 2 summarizes the pixels of cameras of the sixteen devices. AR HMDs with more
pixels can capture more accurate images. HMT-1/1Z1 from RealWear has the most advanced cameras of
16Mp, with good accuracy for infrastructure inspections and data acquisition.
Tracking characteristics include head tracking and eye tracking, as shown in the 4th and 5th column of
Table 2, respectively. Head-tracking is a necessity for AR HMDs to properly align the rendering of virtual
objects onto real environments [58]. Therefore, all the AR HMDs available for purchase today include the
function the head-tracking. Eye tracking enables AR HMDs to capture the eye position and improve the
occlusion accuracy of virtual objects [59]. The ThirdEye Gen X2, Vuzix M400 Version 1.1.4, Google
Glass Enterprise Edition 2, Microsoft HoloLens 2, and Magic Leap 1 include the eye tracking function.
HMDs’ ability to precisely depict the real environment depends on the mapping capacity enabled by depth
sensors. In the devices with eye tracking function, only ThirdEye Gen X2, Microsoft HoloLens 2, and
Magic Leap 1 are developed with depth sensors. Gyroscope, accelerometer, magnetometer and locating
sensors enable the HMDs to be implemented in outdoor environments. Microsoft HoloLens 2 is a
functional device for indoor environments due to the lack of locating sensors.
4.3. Computational capacities
One of the major challenges of AR implementation is the synchronization problem, i.e., time delay
problem. The images in the real environment are captured by the users’ eyes immediately, but the images
in the virtual environment have to be processed before displayed in front of eyes. The time delay caused
by the processing of the virtual objects can lead to a displacement between the real and virtual environment
[60]. For the optical see-through HMDs, the synchronization cannot be thoroughly eliminated, but can be
minimized by accelerating the virtual objects processing and improving computational capacities.
Table 3 summarizes the computational and connectivity capacities of AR HMDs, sorted by the
Random Access Memory (RAM) and hardware storage, listed in the 4th and 5th columns, respectively. For
professional work, 16GB RAM is ideal, and 4GB is an entry-level memory to produce applicable software.
The processing unit determines the computational capacity of a device, as listed in the 3rd column of Table
3. The two devices developed by Kopin, Golden-i Infinity Smart Screen and Solos Smart Glasses, and the
AR projector, Lightform LF2, use the processor and internal storage of the host device (computer or smart

8
phone). Except for the Kopin and Lightform products, over half of the AR HMDs are developed with a
Qualcomm Snapdragon processor. Intel cores are the second-most popular processors.
The 6th-8th column of Table 3 list the connectivity capacities of the AR HMDs. Universal data transfer
modes include WiFi, Bluetooth and USB. Nearly all the devices are designed to have all the three universal
data transfer ports. Battery life is another important index for AR HMDs, measured by the interval between
two full charges. Nevertheless, besides the battery life, continuous work time also depends on the use
intensity and therefore can’t be simply measured. Comparatively, Microsoft HoloLens 2 has the maximum
battery capacity, but Everysight Raptor and Kopin Solos Smart Glasses have longer active use time
because of their relatively power saving design.
4.4. Displays
Table 4 summarizes the display capacities of the AR HMDs, sorted by the FoV which is listed in the 3rd
column. FoV is an index describing the open see-through angle of an optical device. A larger FoV provides
engineers a broader observable environment. In Table 4, FoV is represented by the diagonal see-through
angle. The 5th column of Table 4 lists the resolution of AR HMDs, defined as the number of distinct pixels
that can be displayed in each dimension. The 6th column of Table 4 compares the refreshing rate, defined
as the number of display images a device can update per second. A trade-off exists between the resolution
and the refresh rate [61]. A higher resolution enhances display quality, while a higher refresh rate improves
video fluency [62]. Both Google Glass Enterprise Edition 2 and Kopin Solos compromise resolution to
ensure a refresh rate of 120 Hz, while the Everysight Raptor and the Magic Leap 1 have a decreased
refresh rate to fulfil the 1080p resolution.
4.5. Summary
This section provides a systematic classification of available AR HMDs regarding to parameters of interest
to civil engineers. Table 1 compares the weight, price and product durability of sixteen AR HMDs. The
lightest three AR HMDs are Kopin Golden-i, Toshiba AR100 and Kopin Solos. The least expensive three
AR HMDs are Kopin Solos, Everysight Raptor and Kopin Golden-i. HMT-1Z1 has the greatest product
durability. Table 2 compares the sensors of the AR HMDs. According to this table, HMT-1/1Z1 have the
largest camera resolution. Table 3 compares the computational capabilities of the AR HMDs. Magic Leap
1, ODG R-9 and Vuzix M400 Version 1.1.4 have the largest RAM and storage. Table 4 compares the
display capabilities of the AR HMDs. Google Glass Enterprise Edition 2, Everysight Raptor and Microsoft
HoloLens 2 have the largest FoV. Everysight Raptor, Magic Leap 1 and ODF R-9 have the largest
resolution. Google Glass Enterprise Edition 2, Microsoft HoloLens 2 and Kopin Solos have the largest
refresh rate. The classification and ranking of the capabilities in these four tables are focused on
implementations for civil infrastructure applications, but are not exhaustive and other areas can be added
in the future. This classification is however a first step to enable the civil infrastructure community to
choose AR devices highly ranked in the areas of interest for their specific implementations. This
classification is also a comparative list of options where they can better understand the tradeoff of their
selection. The four tables enable civil infrastructure potential adopters a simple to read list of technical
capabilities related to civil infrastructure applications.

9
 Table 1. Chronology and general properties of recent AR HMDs.
Water Working Relative Drop
# Device Release Date Country Weight Price
Proof Temperature Humidity Safe
1 Vuzix M400 Version 1.1.4 [63] Feb-20-2020 U.S. IP67 0-45℃ 0-95% 2m 85g $1,800
2 Google Glass Enterprise Edition 2 [64] May-20-2019 U.S. IPX3 5-45℃ - - 46g $999
3 Microsoft HoloLens 2 [65] Feb-24-2019 U.S. - 10-27℃ 8-90% - 566g $3,500
4 ThirdEye Gen X2 Mixed Reality Smart Glasses [66] Jan-07-2019 U.S. - - - 2m 278g $1,950
5 Magic Leap 1 [67] Aug-08-2018 U.S. - 10-25℃ - - 316g $2,295
6 Kopin Golden-i Infinity Smart Screen [68] May-31-2018 U.S. IP67 - - 2m 46g $899
-20-50℃
7 RealWear HMT-1Z1 [69] May-31-2018 U.S. IP66 Intrinsically - 2m 430g $6000
safe

8 Toshiba dynaEdge AR100 Head Mounted Display [70] May-16-2018 Japan IP53 -20-60℃ 0-95% - 47g $2,900

9 Kopin Solos Smart Glasses [71] Jan-08-2018 U.S. - - - - 65g $499

10 Everysight Raptor [72] Oct-24-2017 Israel IP55 0-40℃ 5-95% - 98g $649
11 Epson Moverio BT-350 Smart Glasses [72] May-31-2017 Japan - 5-35℃ 20-80% - 129g $1,099
12 Epson Moverio Pro BT-2200 Smart Headset [73] May-31-2017 Japan IP54 0-40℃ 20-80% 1.2m 315g $1,999
13 RealWear HMT-1 [74] Mar-10-2017 U.S. IP66 -20-50℃ - 2m 380g $2500
€2000
14 Glassup F4 visor [75] Feb-2017 Italy IP31 5-35℃ - - 251g
($2200)
15 ODG R-9 [76] Jan-2017 U.S. - - - - 184g $1,800
16 DAQRI Smart Glasses [77] Jan-2017 U.S. - - - - 335g $4,995

10
 Table 2. Sensors of recent AR HMDs.

# Device Camera Head Tracking Eye tracking Depth GAM Location

7 RealWear HMT-1Z1 [69] 16Mp √ - - √ GPS/GLONASS/A-GPS
13 RealWear HMT-1 [74] 16Mp √ - - √ GPS/GLONASS/A-GPS
10 Everysight Raptor [72] 13Mp √ - - √ GPS/GLONASS
6 Kopin Golden-i Infinity Smart Screen [68] 13Mp √ - - √ GPS/GLONASS/A-GPS/GALILEO
4 ThirdEye Gen X2 Mixed Reality Smart Glasses [66] 13Mp √ √ √ √ GPS
1 Vuzix M400 Version 1.1.4 [63] 8Mp √ √ - √ GPS/GLONASS
2 Google Glass Enterprise Edition 2 [64] 8Mp √ √ - √ GPS/GLONASS
3 Microsoft HoloLens 2 [65] 8Mp √ √ √ √ -
15 ODG R-9 [76] 8Mp - - - √ GNSS w/ iZAT
16 DAQRI Smart Glasses [77] 8Mp √ - √ √ GPS
8 Toshiba dynaEdge AR100 Head Mounted Display [70] 5Mp √ - √ √ GPS
5 Magic Leap 1 [67] - √ √ √ √ GPS
11 Epson Moverio BT-350 Smart Glasses [72] 5Mp √ - - √ GPS
12 Epson Moverio Pro BT-2200 Smart Headset [73] 5Mp √ - √ √ GPS
14 Glassup F4 visor [75] 5Mp √ - - √ GPS
9 Kopin Solos Smart Glasses [71] - √ - - √ GPS

Note: ‘GAM’ represents gyroscope, accelerometer and magnetometer.

11
 Table 3. Computational capabilities of recent AR HMDs.

# Device Processing unit RAM Storage WiFi Blt USB Battery

5 Magic Leap 1 [67] NVIDIA Parker Denver 2.0 8GB 128GB √ 4.2 Type-C 8.4Wh
15 ODG R-9 [76] Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 6GB 128GB √ 5.0 Type-C 1300mAh
1 Vuzix M400 Version 1.1.4 [63] Qualcomm Snapdragon XR1 6GB 64GB √ 5.0 Type-C 135mAh
3 Microsoft HoloLens 2 [65] Qualcomm Snapdragon 850 4GB 64GB √ 5.0 Type-C 16500mAh
4 ThirdEye Gen X2 Mixed Reality Smart Glasses [66] Qualcomm Snapdragon XR1 4GB 64GB √ √ Type-C 1750mAh
2 Google Glass Enterprise Edition 2 [64] Qualcomm Snapdragon XR1 3GB 32GB √ 5.0 Micro 820mAh
Intel Atom x5, 1.44GHz,
11 Epson Moverio BT-350 Smart Glasses [72] 2GB 32GB √ 4.1 Micro/2.0 2950mAh
Quad Core
10 Everysight Raptor [72] Qualcomm Snapdragon 410E 2GB 32GB √ 4.1 Micro 8h
7 RealWear HMT-1Z1 [69] Qualcomm Snapdragon 625 2GB 16GB √ 4.1 Micro 3400mAh
13 RealWear HMT-1 [74] Qualcomm Snapdragon 625 2GB 16GB √ 4.1 Micro/Type-C 3250mAh
12 Epson Moverio Pro BT-2200 Smart Headset [73] TI OMAP4460 1GB 8GB √ 4.0 Micro/2.0 1240mAh
Intel Core m7 6th Gen 64GB
16 DAQRI Smart Glasses [77] - √ 4.0 Type-C 5800mAh
(Up to 3.10 GHz) SSD
14 Glassup F4 visor [75] ARM Cortex A9 - 16GB √ √ Micro 4000mAh
Toshiba dynaEdge AR100
8 Host device’s CPU & internal storage √ 4.2 3.0 1050mAh
Head Mounted Display[70]
6 Kopin Golden-i Infinity Smart Screen [68] Host device’s CPU & internal storage √ 5 Type-C 3200mAh
9 Kopin Solos Smart Glasses [71] Host device’s CPU & internal storage √ 4.0 Micro 6h

Note: ‘Blt’ represents Bluetooth.

12
 Table 4. Display capabilities of recent AR HMDs.
# Device FoV Optics Resolution Refresh Rate
2 Google Glass Enterprise Edition 2 [64] 80° Binocular 640x360 120Hz
10 Everysight Raptor [72] 75° Binocular 1920x1080 30Hz
3 Microsoft HoloLens 2 [65] 52° Binocular 1268x720 120Hz
5 Magic Leap 1 [67] 50° Binocular 1920x1080 60Hz
15 ODG R-9 [76] 50° Binocular 1920x1080 60Hz
8 Toshiba dynaEdge AR100 Head Mounted Display [70] 47° Binocular 1280x720 60Hz
4 ThirdEye Gen X2 Mixed Reality Smart Glasses [66] 42° Binocular 1280x720 60Hz
16 DAQRI Smart Glasses [77] 30° Binocular 1360x768 90Hz
11 Epson Moverio BT-350 Smart Glasses [72] 23° Binocular 1280x720 30Hz
12 Epson Moverio Pro BT-2200 Smart Headset [73] 23° Binocular (Helmet) 960x540 60Hz
14 Glassup F4 visor [75] 22° Monocular 640x480 15Hz
6 Kopin Golden-i Infinity Smart Screen [68] 21° Monocular 854x480 60Hz
7 RealWear HMT-1Z1 [69] 20° Monocular (Helmet) 854x480 30Hz
13 RealWear HMT-1 [74] 20° Monocular 854x480 30Hz
1 Vuzix M400 Version 1.1.4 [63] 17° Monocular/Binocular 640x360 60Hz
9 Kopin Solos Smart Glasses [71] 10° Binocular 400x240 120Hz

5. Conclusions
The authors classify sixteen AR HMDs available in the market since 2017 in terms of capabilities for civil
infrastructure implementation. This paper compares AR HMDs performance in the areas of weight, price,
product durability, sensors, connectivity, computational capacities and display capacities. Comparatively,
each AR HMD has its own advantages. The weight of most AR HMDs is under the maximum limit of
safety hard hats generally used in civil infrastructure projects. Civil engineers are interested in parameters
such as camera resolution, processing unit and FoV, which are related to quality of information, processing
speed, and working safety scenarios, respectively. According to the classification and ranking of this study,
Google Glass Enterprise Edition 2, Microsoft HoloLens 2 and Everysight Raptor have the highest
combined capabilities to become popular AR HMDs for civil infrastructure. Google Glass Enterprise
Edition 2 has the largest FoV, which is essential in constructions, and Everysight Raptor has the second
largest FoV and second largest camera resolution. Additionally, Microsoft HoloLens 2 has all-sided
sensors (including depth sensor), high-resolution display, third largest FoV and relatively balanced
calculation and storage performances. Microsoft HoloLens 2 is capable of 3D monitoring and has a user-
friendly cross-platform toolkit for AR application (MRTK) that engineers can implement directly.
According to the current state of the art of AR HMDs in civil infrastructure, three major developments
are necessary to widen their implementation in real applications: 1) technical advancements that address
theoretical problems for AR users, e.g., occlusion and synchronization problems; 2) reduction of weight
and price of AR HMDs along with improved performance; and 3) a unified AR platform and a benchmark
model designed specifically for civil infrastructure, so that AR applications and devices available today
can be compared and combined.
Acknowledgements
The financial support of this research is provided in part by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL,
Grant number FA9453-18-2-0022), and the New Mexico Consortium (NMC, Grant number 2RNA6.) The
conclusions of this research represent solely those of the authors.

13
References
[1] Worldwide Spending on Augmented and Virtual Reality Expected to Reach $18.8 Billion in 2020,
According to IDC, (2019). https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS45679219#:~:text=.
[2] A. Mahmood, B. Butler, H. Zen, B. Jennings, Key early verticals, challenges and limitations in
implementation of augmented reality, in: Encycl. Comput. Graph. Games, 2018.
[3] R.T. Azuma, Y. Baillot, R. Behringer, S. Feiner, S. Julier, B. MacIntyre, Recent advances in augmented
reality, IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 21 (2001) 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1109/38.963459.
[4] H.-L. Chi, S.-C. Kang, X. Wang, Research trends and opportunities of augmented reality applications in
architecture, engineering, and construction, Autom. Constr. 33 (2013) 116–122.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926580513000022 (accessed February 17, 2020).
[5] R.T. Azuma, A survey of augmented reality, in: Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ., MIT Press Journals,
1997: pp. 355–385. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355.
[6] J. Carmigniani, B. Furht, M. Anisetti, P. Ceravolo, E. Damiani, M. Ivkovic, Augmented reality technologies,
systems and applications, Multimed. Tools Appl. 51 (2011) 341–377.
[7] B. Thomas, W. Piekarski, B. Gunther, Using augmented reality to visualise architecture designs in an
outdoor environment, Int. J. Des. Comput. Spec. Issue Des. Comput. Net. 1 (1999). http://www.tinmith.net
(accessed February 10, 2020).
[8] X. Wang, Augmented Reality in architecture and design: Potentials and challenges for application, Int. J.
Archit. Comput. 7 (2009) 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1260/147807709788921985.
[9] G.A. Lee, A. Dunser, S. Kim, M. Billinghurst, CityViewAR: A mobile outdoor AR application for city
visualization, in: 012 IEEE Int. Symp. Mix. Augment. Reality-Arts, Media, Humanit., 2012: pp. 57–64.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR-AMH.2012.6483989.
[10] A. Kaddioui, I. Shahrour, A. El Oirrak, Uses of augmented reality for urban utilities management, in: I.
Shahrour, X.-Y. Xie, H. Bian (Eds.), MATEC Web Conf., EDP Sciences, 2019: p. 02009.
https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201929502009.
[11] S. Ortega, J. Wendel, J.M. Santana, S.M. Murshed, I. Boates, A. Trujillo, A. Nichersu, J.P. Suárez, Making
the invisible visible-strategies for visualizing underground infrastructures in immersive environments,
ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Information. 8 (2019) 152–173. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi8030152.
[12] F.F.F. Peres, S. Scheer, É. Funchal de Faria, A taxonomy of tasks in dam cracks surveillance for augmented
reality application, Int. J. Adv. Eng. Res. Sci. 5 (2018) 179–184. https://doi.org/10.22161/ijaers.5.10.24.
[13] T. Yamaguchi, M. Kanda, T. Shibuya, A. Yasojima, Crack inspection support system for concrete structures
using head mounted display in mixed reality space, in: 2019 58th Annu. Conf. Soc. Instrum. Control Eng.
Japan (SICE). IEEE, Hiroshima, Japan, 2019: pp. 791–796. https://doi.org/10.23919/SICE.2019.8859876.
[14] R.L. Machado, C. Vilela, Conceptual framework for integrating BIM and augmented reality in construction
management, J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 26 (2020) 83–94. https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2020.11803.
[15] N.-S. Dang, C.-S. Shim, BIM-based innovative bridge maintenance system using augmented reality
technology, in: CIGOS 2019, Innov. Sustain. Infrastruct., Springer, Singapore, 2020: pp. 1217–1222.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0802-8_195.
[16] C.I. Soto, A pilot test for identifying tasks and degrees of visual fidelity for applications of head mounted
display systems (HMD) for construction, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2017.
https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/78901.
[17] S. Dong, V.R. Kamat, Robust mobile computing framework for visualization of simulated processes in
augmented reality, in: Proc. 2010 Winter Simul. Conf., 2010: pp. 3111–3122.
https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2010.5679004.
[18] V.R. Kamat, J.C. Martinez, M. Fischer, M. Golparvar-Fard, F. Peña-Mora, S. Savarese, Research in
visualization techniques for field construction, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 137 (2011) 853–862.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000262.
[19] M. Golparvar-Fard, F. Pea-Mora, C.A. Arboleda, S. Lee, Visualization of construction progress monitoring
with 4D simulation model overlaid on time-lapsed photographs, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 23 (2009) 391–404.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2009)23:6(391).

14
[20] M. Golparvar-Fard, F. Peña-Mora, S. Savarese, D4AR–a 4-dimensional augmented reality model for
automating construction progress monitoring data collection, processing and communication, J. Inf. Technol.
Constr. 14 (2009) 129–153. http://www.itcon.org/2009/13.
[21] M. Golparvar-Fard, F. Peña-Mora, S. Savarese, Integrated sequential as-built and as-planned representation
with D4AR tools in support of decision-making tasks in the AEC/FM industry, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 137
(2011) 1099–1116. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000371.
[22] M. Golparvar-Fard, J. Bohn, J. Teizer, S. Savarese, F. Peña-Mora, Evaluation of image-based modeling and
laser scanning accuracy for emerging automated performance monitoring techniques, Autom. Constr. 20
(2011) 1143–1155. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926580511000707.
[23] H. Bae, M. Golparvar-Fard, J. White, High-precision vision-based mobile augmented reality system for
context-aware architectural, engineering, construction and facility management (AEC/FM) applications, Vis.
Eng. 1 (2013) 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/2213-7459-1-3.
[24] K. Karsch, M. Golparvar-Fard, D. Forsyth, ConstructAide: Analyzing and visualizing construction sites
through photographs and building models, ACM Trans. Graph. 33 (2014) 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2661229.2661256.
[25] S. Dong, A.H. Behzadan, F. Chen, V.R. Kamat, Collaborative visualization of engineering processes using
tabletop augmented reality, Adv. Eng. Softw. 55 (2013) 45–55.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2012.09.001.
[26] A. Hammad, H. Wang, S.P. Mudur, Distributed augmented reality for visualizing collaborative construction
tasks, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 23 (2009) 418–427. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2009)23:6(418).
[27] K. Kim, H. Kim, H. Kim, Image-based construction hazard avoidance system using augmented reality in
wearable device, Autom. Constr. 83 (2017) 390–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.06.014.
[28] C.-W. Liu, T.-H. Wu, M.-H. Tsai, S.-C. Kang, Image-based semantic construction reconstruction, Autom.
Constr. 90 (2018) 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.02.016.
[29] O.-Y. Kwon, N. Kim, J. Seo, Implementation of immersive multi-view augmented reality system, Int. J. Eng.
Res. Sci. 2 (2016) 1–6.
[30] M.A. Livingston, J.L. Gabbard, J.E. Swan II, C.M. Sibley, J.H. Barrow, Basic perception in head-worn
augmented reality displays, in: Hum. Factors Augment. Real. Environ., Springer New York, 2013: pp. 35–
65. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4205-9_3.
[31] I.E. Sutherland, A head-mounted three dimensional display, in: Proc. December 9-11, 1968, Fall Jt. Comput.
Conf. Part I., 1968: pp. 757–764.
[32] M.W. Krueger, W. Stephen, VIDEOPLACE: A report from the Artificial Reality Laboratory, 1985.
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/601392/summary (accessed February 28, 2020).
[33] L.B. Rosenberg, The use of Virtual fixtures as perceptual overlays to enhance operator performance in
remote environments, 1992.
[34] H. Kato, ARToolKit: library for Vision-Based augmented reality, IEICE, PRMU. 6 (2002) 79–86.
[35] Google Glass: $1,500 to buy, $80 to make?, (2014). https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-glass-1500-to-
buy-80-to-make/.
[36] Google Glass gets a second chance in factories, where it’s likely to remain, (2017).
https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/18/15988258/google-glass-2-enterprise-edition-factories.
[37] Microsoft announces global expansion for HoloLens, (2016). https://news.microsoft.com/en-
au/2016/10/12/microsoft-announces-global-expansion-for-
hololens/#sm.0000hacx3x7r6denyg81m2pmrthzn.
[38] J. Fruhlinger, Facebook is on a hiring tear for its Augmented Reality (AR) team, (2019).
https://media.thinknum.com/articles/facebook-is-on-a-hiring-tear-for-augmented-reality/.
[39] L. Matney, An AR glasses pioneer collapses, (2019). https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/10/an-ar-glasses-
pioneer-collapses/.
[40] Apple Glasses: Release Date, Price, Specs, Leaks and More, (2020).
https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-glasses.
[41] D. Takahashi, Mojo Vision is putting an augmented reality screen on a contact lens, VB. (2020).
https://venturebeat.com/2020/01/16/mojo-vision-is-putting-an-augmented-reality-screen-on-a-contact-lens/.

15
[42] D. Yitzhak, E. Uzi, The image transceiver device: studies of improved physical design, Sensors. 8 (2008)
4350–4364. https://doi.org/10.3390/s8074350.
[43] L. Li, T. Guan, B. Ren, X. Yao, C. Wang, Registration based on Euclidean reconstruction and natural
features tracking for augmented reality systems, Assem. Autom. 28 (2008) 340–347.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01445150810904495.
[44] T. Guan, L. Li, C. Wang, Registration using multiplanar structures for augmented reality systems, J. Comput.
Inf. Sci. Eng. 8 (2008) 041002. https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/computingengineering/article-
abstract/8/4/041002/399931.
[45] T. Guan, C. Wang, Registration based on scene recognition and natural features tracking techniques for
wide-area augmented reality systems, IEEE Trans. Multimed. 11 (2009) 1393.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TMM.2009.2032684.
[46] N. Cattari, F. Cutolo, R. D’amato, U. Fontana, V. Ferrari, Toed-in vs parallel displays in video see-through
head-mounted displays for close-up view, in: IEEE Access, 2019: pp. 159698–159711.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8888173/.
[47] F. Moreu, C. Lippitt, D. Maharjan, M. Aguero, X. Yuan, Augmented reality enhancing the inspections of
transportation infrastructure: research, education, and industry implementation, 2019.
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7979-7857 (accessed February 11, 2020).
[48] D.D.L. Mascarenas, T.A. Harden, J.E. Morales Garcia, B.L. Boardman, E.M. Sosebee, C. Blackhart, A.
Cattaneo, M.S. Krebs, J.J. Tockstein, A.W. Green, S.R. Dasari, B.M. Bleck, B.J. Katko, F. Moreu, D.
Maharjan, M. Aguero, R. Fernandez, J.B. Trujillo, A.R. Wysong, Augmented Reality for enabling smart
nuclear infrastructure, Front. Built Environ. 5 (2019) LA-UR-18-30914.
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1558212 (accessed April 29, 2020).
[49] Morpholio-Trace, Sketch, Design, Create, (2019). https://www.morpholioapps.com/trace/.
[50] GAMMA, BIM and Augmented Reality powered construction and operation, (2019). https://gamma-ar.com/.
[51] ViewAR, All-in-one: Augmented Reality system, (2019). https://www.viewar.com/.
[52] SocialCompare, Augmented Reality SDK Comparison, (2020).
https://socialcompare.com/en/comparison/augmented-reality-sdks.
[53] Lightform LF2, (2019). https://lightform.com/?gclid=CjwKCAjwsMzzBRACEiwAx4lLGxXkBmI5jEKU-
dDGkkM6dqCZCS7wOxy1lgTnxf2EWv2wY0ZY2-q1hBoCJlYQAvD_BwE.
[54] J. Manuel Davila Delgado, L. Oyedele, T. Beach, P. Demian, Augmented and virtual reality in construction:
drivers and limitations for industry adoption, 2020. https://uwe-
repository.worktribe.com/output/5121656/augmented-and-virtual-reality-in-construction-drivers-and-
limitations-for-industry-adoption.
[55] M. Golparvar-Fard, Y. Ham, Automated diagnostics and visualization of potential energy performance
problems in existing buildings using energy performance augmented reality models, J. Comput. Civ. Eng.
28 (2014) 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000311.
[56] ANSI Z89.1: American national standard safety requirements for industrial head protection, 1969.
[57] K. Aoyama, Novel display using percutaneous electrical stimulation for virtual reality, in: Hum. Interface
Manag. Inf. (International Conf. Human-Computer Interact., 2019: pp. 3–14.
[58] A.O. Ercan, A.T. Erdem, On sensor fusion for head tracking in augmented reality applications, in: Proc. Am.
Control Conf., 2011: pp. 1286–1291. https://doi.org/10.1109/acc.2011.5991077.
[59] P. Moorhead, A. Sag, The importance of eye tracking in Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR),
2018.
[60] K. Kiyokawa, M. Billinghurst, B. Campbell, E. Woods, An occlusion capable optical see-through head
mount display for supporting co-located collaboration, in: Second IEEE ACM Int. Symp. Mix. Augment.
Real., Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 2003: pp. 133–141.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR.2003.1240696.
[61] H.L. Snyder, Display design variables pertinent to low-level flight simulation, in: Vis. Res. Flight Simul.,
1982: pp. 82–97.
https://books.google.com/books?id=v0QrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=A+trade-
off+exists+between+the+resolution+and+the+refresh+rate.&source=bl&ots=PxZrF8eyDl&sig=ACfU3U3

16
 _9CD4ZqOM_vH0YLig0NBpVnFZcA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwji9qm8xf3pAhWSVc0KHaGVAy
wQ6AEwAHoECAcQ (accessed June 12, 2020).
[62] G. Denes, A. Jindal, A. Mikhailiuk, R.K. Mantiuk, A perceptual model of motion quality for rendering with
adaptive refresh-rate and resolution, ACM Trans. Graph. 39 (2020) 133:1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3386569.3392411.
[63] Vuzix M400 Augmented Reality (AR) Smart Glasses, (2020). https://www.vuzix.com/products/m400-
smart-glasses.
[64] Glass enterprise edition 2 tech specs, (2019). https://www.google.com/glass/tech-specs/.
[65] Microsoft HoloLens 2, (2019). https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololens.
[66] ThirdEye Gen X2 Mixed Reality Smart Glasses, (2019). https://thirdeyegen.com/x2-smart-glasses.
[67] Magic Leap 1, (2018). https://www.magicleap.com/en-us/magic-leap-1.
[68] K. Carbotte, Kopin’s Golden-i Infinity Is A Wearable Display For Smartphones, Tablets, (2018).
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/kopin-golden-i-infinity-smart-display,37138.html.
[69] Realwear, HMT-1Z1: The World’s Only Intrinsically Safe Hands-free Remote Collaboration Tool, (2018).
https://www.realwear.com/products/hmt-1z1/.
[70] Toshiba dynaEdge AR100 Head Mounted Display, (2018).
https://us.dynabook.com/smartglasses/products/index.html.
[71] Stay focused & fully present, connected, (2018). https://solos-wearables.com/.
[72] Everysight Raptor, (2017). https://everysight.com/.
[73] Epson, Durable smart headset built for industrial, hands-free applications, (2017). https://epson.com/For-
Work/Wearables/Smart-Glasses/Moverio-Pro-BT-2200-Smart-Headset/p/V11H853020#.
[74] Realwear, HMT-1: The World’s Leading Hands-free Remote Collaboration Tool, (2017).
https://www.realwear.com/products/hmt-1/.
[75] Glassup F4, (2017). https://www.glassup.com/en/f4/.
[76] J. Worrel, ODG unveils R8 and R9 smartglasses at CES, (2017). https://www.fudzilla.com/news/42622-
odg-unveils-r8-and-r9-smartglasses-at-ces.
[77] DAQRI Smart Glasses, (2017). https://daqri.com/products/smart-glasses/.

17