Journal of Cultural Heritage 26 (2017) 172–182

Available online at

ScienceDirect
www.sciencedirect.com

Review

3D printing: State of the art and future perspectives

Caterina Balletti ∗ , Martina Ballarin , Francesco Guerra
Dipartimento di Architettura Costruzione Conservazione, Università Iuav di Venezia, s. croce 191, 30135 Venezia, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the last years, the development of 3D technologies applied to the field of Cultural Heritage (CH) has
Received 31 August 2016 led to results of the utmost importance from the point of view of preservation, valorisation, communi-
Accepted 17 February 2017 cation and fruition of our assets. In particular, we experienced many interdisciplinary projects in which,
Available online 9 March 2017
thanks to the cooperation of different fields of research, incredible results have been obtained, through
the technological collaboration of computer graphics and documentation, of industrial engineering and
Keywords: preservation and access of CH. This paper aims at drawing attention to the actual technologies in use
3D printing
for solid printing (digital fabrication) used for the realization of material copies, therefore tangible, of
Cultural heritage
Preservation
three-dimensional digital virtual models. Even though ulterior developments to these technologies are
Explorations possibilities to be expected, the process of 3D printing has gradually gained levels of accuracy, which can
Accessibility nowadays be deemed as satisfying. This is even more true in the industrial field (from the manufacturing
Museums industry to the design industry), but also in other fields, such as the medical one, for example, for the
realization of artificial limbs, and the CH field, which can benefit from new instruments for the restora-
tion and preservation of cultural assets in museums. The metric characteristics of precision and accuracy
of the model printed with 3D technology are the fundaments for everything concerning Geomatics, and
have to be related with the same characteristics of the digital model obtained through the survey anal-
ysis. In other terms, the precision of the printed product must be evaluated in relation to the precision
of the instruments used in the analysis. Thus, in the CH field there is the possibility of new systems of
access, cataloguing and study, where the models, both virtual and tangible, represent the fundament of
visualization and analysis of the form (also from the metric point of view) of each artefact of artistic and
historical interest.
© 2017 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

1. Research aim must undergo might cause a difference between the geometry of
the printed object and that of the original object.
In this paper, we present the state of art and the potential and
large spectrum of applications of fabrication technologies in the
2. Introduction
CH. Through a brief history and characterization of the most com-
mon 3D printer technologies, we try to present a review of the
Digital technologies are able to offer an essential contribution
applications of 3D printing on CH, considering our experiences or
to the documentation, analysis and subsequent use of the cultural
those of other researcher. In the final part of this paper, a particular
assets, as they can be used in different forms and for different
aspect of solid printing is analysed: the level of accuracy reachable
aims: study and research, diagnosis, repair, preservation, protec-
in the creation of material models. This level of precision must be
tion, communication-divulgation, fruition and formation of the
related to that of the instruments of analysis through which the
cultural heritage.
artefacts are converted into digital format. We must not forget that
In the last years the use of electronic and Information Technolo-
the process that leads to the realisation of a material copy must go
gies (IT) has increased exponentially, creating new sceneries and
through a numeric model and that in this process there is a progres-
possibilities in the field of the CH. This evolution of instruments
sive loss of definition, both from the qualitative and quantitative
and methods is in partnership with a diffusion of instrumental
points of view. The simplification operations that the digital data
techniques for surveys; in particular, the 3D scan, which allows
observation of complex geometries impossible to analyse through
traditional methods.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 04 12 57 15 09. Solid printing has gained a special role in this technological
E-mail address: balletti@iuav.it (C. Balletti). development. The rapid creation of prototypes is a technique that

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2017.02.010
1296-2074/© 2017 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
 C. Balletti et al. / Journal of Cultural Heritage 26 (2017) 172–182
allows the production of material copies of objects with complex
geometries directly from the mathematical model in relatively
short periods of time and often without being expensive. In recent
years, this technique has experienced a very strong development
thanks to the large diffusion on the market of desktop 3D printers,
printers which are quite cheap and whose dimensions are reason-
able. They use a FDM technology (Fuse Deposition Modelling), an
additive kind of technology, as will be described later, which creates
material models through the superimposition of material layers.
This innovative system has allowed a rapid growth of this tech-
nology for ‘commercial’ uses, allowing less expert users to enter the
world of 3D printing, creating a community of makers, comparable
to the one which formed after the introduction of Arduino [1] to
the general market.
The material objects are realised quickly and with quite low
budgets, starting from numeric models, often with complex geome-
tries, converted in G-code, which is the programming language of
the machines working with numeric control (CNC). We are also
experiencing a reduction in size and cost of these printers (Desktop
3D printer), a process which contributed to the growth of this tech-
nology and favoured its commercialisation. The opening of FabLab
in Italy (laboratories including machines for digital creation, able to
transform ideas in prototypes and products and open to the general
public) proves the development of this technology: in a study pub-
lished at the beginning of 2015, Make in Italy reports in detail on the
birth of FabLab and of makerspaces in our country and its growth
in the last two years. There are more than 70 active labs spread
throughout Italy, a community of more than 1000 FabLabs dis-
tributed throughout 78 countries according to the Fab Foundation,
an organization that emerged from MIT’s Center for Bits & Atoms
Fab Lab Program (http://www.fabfoundation.org). Thousands of
people, along with associations, industries, museums, universities
and institutions of all kind, are investing time, resources and ener-
gies in order to open laboratories including machines for digital
fabrication to the public.
3D printers have demonstrated effectiveness in many other
fields of application, in particular that of the Cultural Heritage.
Thanks to the recent innovations in the IT technology and mul-
timedia it is now possible to develop new forms of analysis and
fruition of the Cultural Heritage, which are used along with more
traditional methods.
Models, first digital, then material, have introduced new pos-
sibilities of access, cataloguing and study of the cultural assets as
they form the basis for both the visualization and the metric anal-
ysis of any artefact both from the artistic and historical point of
view. As far as museums are concerned, for example, there is the
possibility of creating identical replicas, both digital and material, of
spaces and three-dimensional objects. Exhibitions and collections
can take advantage from digital fabrication as the access to their
information becomes customised according to the user, the con-
tent and the complexity of the given message. All this brought 3D
printing to repute as one of the most important possible outputs,
at the same level of more traditional digital or paper.
3. The subtraction and addition process
In order to realise an object we might use two techniques radi-
cally different from each other: the subtractive, referring today to
Computer Numerically Controlled (CNC) machining, and the addi-
tive, concerning the Additive Manufacturing (AM) processes [2].
AM, popularly called 3D printing, technologies today are used by
makers all over the world, but its inception can be traced back in the
1980s, at which time it was called Rapid Prototyping (RP) [3]. RP was
conceived as a fast and more cost-effective method for prototypes
realization for product development within the industry [4].
173
Before describing AM main technologies, we want to fix some
important dates to tell shortly how 3D printing was born:
• in 1984 – Chuck Hull invented and patented a sterolithography
aparatus (SLA) machine. Hull went on to co-found 3D Systems,
the first organization nowadays operating in 3D printing. The STL
format file was born;
• in 1986 – Carl Deckard, Joe Beaman and Paul Forderhase (with
other researchers) developed the ideas of Chuck Hull and filed a
patent in the US for the selective Laser Sintering (SLS);
• in 1988 Crump patented the Fused deposition modelling – which
is printing with fuse material. This technique does not involve the
use of laser or dust and uses fused plastic to spread in strata to
create the object. Crump also founded Stratasys, another leading
business in the field;
• 1993 – was patented the Electron beam melting (EBM);
• 2005 – Mcor Technologies Ltd – an Irish company – starts the
Paper 3D laminated printing: a machine, which superimposes
sheets of paper and prints on them. The result is an additive
method, which includes the use of colours;
• in 2005, thanks to the technology of the Self replicating rapid
Prototyper a 3D printer which prints itself is first realised (open-
source RepRap and FAB@Home projects). The RepRap Project [5]
is an abbreviation Replicating Rapid Prototyper, and it aims to
develop a 3D printer, which prints on its own the majority of its
own components. All the products created with this project are
published with open source licences;
• in 2008, Bre Pettis, Adam Mayer, and Zach “Hoeken” Smith found
MakerBot Industries.
Digital fabrication technology is characterized by the basic phys-
ical process employed for the tangible object to be obtained.
The subtraction process consists in removing the unnecessary
material from a block to obtain the final object. The lathe is a tool
that allows to remove the exceeding material from a block placed
on a rotating platform, thanks to a series of tips of different shapes.
It has been used for centuries: the first hydraulic lathe is more than
500 years old, but the Ancient Greeks and Egyptians used it as well,
creating the first tools which allowed them to rotate a plate using
a pivot with their feet.
Modern lathes are more complicated and versatile; they use
engines instead of human strength and can have quite a high level
of automatism. However, they are based on the same principle with
which our ancestors created the first vases regularly shaped.
Milling machines are more modern machines, which allow the
realization of complex products.
They work very similarly to drills, but instead of creating a hole,
thus using the tip of the tool, they cut laterally. The simplest milling
machines work on three axes, while the most complex ones work
on five or even six axes, supporting rotation around multiple axes,
so that they can reach almost any part of the product.
Milling machines can work with a vast range of resistant mate-
rials, from wood to metals.
Lathes and milling machines are born as tools controlled man-
ually, but in the meantime some numerically controlled machines
were created, called CNC (Computer Numerical Control), and con-
trolled by a computer which handles the passage from a 3D model
realised through a CAD application (Computer-Aided Design) to the
production of the object. The linking chain is a new kind of software
called CAM (Computer-Aided Manufacturing), which transforms
the digital model of the object in a series of commands to impart
to the machine. The file format is a standard one called G-code,
which includes information like N40; G82; X1500, automatically
generated by specialised software.
3D printers are also CNC machines; the only difference is that
instead of removing material they add it, which makes them an
174 C. Balletti et al. / Journal of Cultural Heritage 26 (2017) 172–182
Fig. 1. FDM approach applied to the façade of S. Giorgio’s church in Venice. Supports for protruding parts are designed in the slicer software and will be removed then from
the final printed model.
additive technology, allowing three-dimensional objects to be cre-
ated by adding material to material layer by layer (AM).
The flux followed in the additive process is analogue to the sub-
tractive one: it begins with a numeric model in 3D and then a
G-code is generated.
After the model is ‘sliced’ in many thin layers with a specialised
software called slicer, the G-code commands allow the machine to
build the object superimposing the single strata, reaching levels of
complexity which are impossible to replicate with other technolo-
gies: for example, with a milling machine it is impossible to realise
an empty sphere.
There are various techniques used in 3D printing; here we
describe some of them briefly.
The most widely used technique among printers, especially for
domestic ones is the Fused Filament Fabrication type (FFF), which
was born from another previous technique Fused Deposition Mod-
eling (FDM) developed by Scott Crump at the end of the 1980s and
commercialised in the 1990s by Stratasys [6].
Both techniques are based on the stratification of liquid plastic
materials. Casting is based on additive principle, so that each strata
once deposited is covered by the following one, forming superim-
positions which can create roughness, depending on the material,
on the casting dimension, on the nozzle and on the casting preci-
sion. The functioning is quite easy: a nozzle is heated in order to
melt the material (filament) and can be moved on three axes, hori-
zontally (axes X and Y) and vertically (axis Z), from an numerically
controlled engine, commanded by a CAM software. The plastic fil-
ament (solid) is unrolled from the reel in which it has been put, in
order to pass through a heated area with a high temperature. From
here, thanks to the push of a pinion linked to the stepper engine,
the liquid plastic is expelled from the nozzle, where the flux can be
started and stopped.
The framework which supports the structure of the plate (where
the material to form the 3D object is collected) and of the engines
must be controlled on a control sheet with a driver for the so called
stepper motors. These engines are used to obtain increased velocity
and precision and because they guarantee an elevated torque motor
and a very satisfying twisting movement.
There are different parameters that cooperate in creating the
quality of the finished product. First of all is the kind of material
used: PolyLactic Acid (PLA, which is a vegetable, biodegradable
plastic), or ABS (Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, a petrol derived
from plastic, useful to realise mechanic objects thanks to its high
resistance), and the section of the filament, obtaining resolutions
ranging from 100 to 300 micron.
It is also possible to use printers with more than one nozzle,
which allow the use of different materials and colours.
The FDM technique also requires the creation of a support struc-
ture (Fig. 1) during the creation of the object, especially for the
empty spaces or projections. These are supports projected directly
from the software of the printer. At the end of the production, it
will be necessary to remove all the additional supports generated
and not included in the original drawing. The printers with one
nozzle create supports with the same material of the final object,
which implies that the supports must be removed once the print
is complete, meaning that this removal might not be precise and
sometimes it might damage the quality of the final product.
The printers with two nozzles on the other hand might create
the additional supports with filaments made of different material
from the principal object, which means they are not fused and thus
more easily removable, even manually.
Some materials used to create the supports can also be made
out of soluble materials, which would dissolve in water or other
liquid substances. In this case, the removal of the support would be
‘chemical’.
The result of a FDM print is not comparable to the quality level
obtained with other industrial techniques involving laser, but the
value for money is surely closer to the expectation of the public.
Another industrial technique is Selective Laser Sintering (SLS): it
is a technique which uses a laser as a sintering source of plastic
material (polycarbonate, nylon, ABS), ceramic dust or a metallic one
covered with thermoplastic resins which mingle with each other if
heated (laser beam). The laser is conducted in the points of space
defined by a 3D model in order to create a solid structure through
sintering.
Different from the process of fusion, the thermic process of sin-
tering is intended for the use of dusts. The final product (Fig. 2) is
completely smooth without the conventional roughness (though
minimal) of the FDM technique.
The main advantages of these techniques are:
• the possibility to use different materials;
• support structures are not necessary to create pieces with under-
cuts as the very dusts are deposited in strata and are not sintered
to work as a support.
The un-sintered dusts are to be removed at the end of the pro-
duction process, though they are partly reusable.
Sterolythography (SLA) is a printing technique that uses a tank
filled with a particular liquid resin able to polymerize if exposed to
light. A laser is projected through a system of mirrors in order to
complete a scan of the surface. A piston lowers the tank with the
liquid resin for the following scans. The scanning process repeats
itself until the three-dimensional object is completed (Fig. 3). At
the end, the object is taken from the liquid resin and exposed to
ultraviolet light to complete the polymerization process. As for the
FDM technique, a limited set of materials can be used and it requires
the removal of supports from the finished product.
Laminated Object Manufacturing (LOM): this technology uses a
millworking system to obtain thin layers of material, later selected
 C. Balletti et al. / Journal of Cultural Heritage 26 (2017) 172–182 175

Fig. 2. The hypothetical reconstruction of Guggenheim Museum in Venice (Ca’ Venier dei Leoni). The tactile model was printed with a SLS technology with a high level of
decorative details.

and united. The material is formed by special sheets of paper, cut
according to the need and glued one on top of the other on the
previous sheet. Dimensions are quite extended, according to the
product volume. The support is formed by exceeding paper and
requires an ulterior passage in order to remove the unnecessary
material with tools for woodcarving.
In Scopigno et al. [7] authors summarize, as can be seen in Fig. 1,
the fabrication technologies that we described and they present a
brief qualitative evaluation, with which we agree just considering
our personal direct experience. They compare the different tech-
niques in terms of material costs, use, resolution and geometrical
accuracy especially considering the CH application (Fig. 4).
From personal experience and from those described in essays,
it is clear that for the Cultural Heritage, these technologies have
reached a good level of quality, but one has to choose the technology
which is more apt for the needed type of application, as also
explained in the examples that follow.
4. Applications in the contest of CH
3D printing is leading a revolution across many sectors and
a wide range of applications, including those that until a few
years ago would not have even been considered appropriate for
this technology: industrial production, design, health. In the med-
ical field some important results have been achieved: engineers
and physicians are able to develop 3D-printable prosthetics that
are fully customized to the wearer; e.g. the German para-cycling
champion Denise Schindler worked with Autodesk to become the
first to compete with a fully 3D-printed prosthetic leg at the Rio

Fig. 3. SLA printing techniques: the reproduction of the bust of Francesco II Gonzaga, in the City Museum of Mantova, is taken from the liquid resin once completed and
exposed to ultraviolet light to complete the polymerization process.
176 C. Balletti et al. / Journal of Cultural Heritage 26 (2017) 172–182
Fig. 4. The comparison done by Scopigno et al. (2015) of the different techniques in terms of material costs, use, resolution and geometrical accuracy especially considering
the CH application.
2016 Paralympic Games [8]. Or today complex surgical proce-
dures can be pre-planned using 3D printed organs [9–12].
Special attention should be given to the realization reducing
times and costs of CH all types of reproductions: archaeological
finds, sculptures, architectural elements, paintings and artworks in
general.
Replicas can be used in many ways:
• for study and research;
• to set up alternative museum exhibitions, such as tactile museum
tours for the blind and visually impaired;
• for restoration, re-creating missing portions of an object;
• to organize workshops with schools;
• for museum merchandising (e.g. producing, with cheap repro-
duction technologies, accurate small-scale replicas of the
artworks conserved in a museum or in a CH institution).
The realization of replicas usually is through the use of rub-
ber moulds over the original artworks, which were then used for
the subsequent production of gypsum or resin copies. This pro-
cess requires a direct contact with the object, sometimes risking
compromising its preservation.
Now, thanks to the 3D surveying methods, from laser scanning
to photogrammetry [13–23], digital models are realized with a high
accuracy, and 3D printing gives the possibility to obtain true copies
of the original, ensuring safety of the artwork.
A special consideration should be addressed on the materials
to be utilized in the final use of replicas, as in the particular case
of archaeological finds: these objects are characterized by a com-
plex geometry and a high level of details, that must be preserved
in order to be explored. In this case, the FDM printing is not suit-
able because the final result can be damaged by the inability to
adequately remove the supports necessary to print the most pro-
truding parts of the model, affecting the “tactile” quality of the
replica. These difficulties are compounded by the desire to create
copies that are true to the original not only in form but also in mate-
rials, to create a tactile experience as complete as possible. For this
it is preferred the use of SLS technique with marble powders, which
make the physical model more mimetic to the original.
Moreover, the visual accuracy of the reproduction can have a
key role in many CH applications. Today few 3D printing devices
are able to produce coloured replicas; therefore, their colouring has
to be made manually to obtain good quality results [24]. Therefore,
any improvement in the colour reproduction features of available
technology could be really beneficial for CH applications.
Digital fabrication of tangible 3D replicas can replace any CH
artwork which has to be removed from its original position, e.g.
in a museum if the original object has to be restored or lent to a
temporary exhibition; or the replacement can be permanent, for
example to protect the originals from further degradation caused
[25]. Since preservation involves keeping statues or architectural
elements in their existing state and preventing them from decay-
ing further and reducing the damage caused by the flow of water,
chemical agents and different types of pests and micro-organisms,
digital fabrication demonstrates that it has many potentiality at this
level of intervention.
Preservation suggests moving these works from their original
position to more protect environments, such as exhibition rooms
or museum warehouses. But, just to revive the original concept or
legibility of the historical site, 3d printed copies are made. In [26]
authors describe the potentialities and criticalities of prototyping
systems in a replica of the statue of a Prophet, originally located
beside one of the entry to the Florence Cathedral.
For this purpose, different technologies and materials were
tested. Two solid model of the whole statue, at 1:1 scale, were
made: a first one in polystyrene and a second one in marble, evalu-
ating their accuracy, in terms of in geometric details, and resistance.
3D printing technologies can contribute also to CH restoration
methodologies reproducing the missing components of a statue or
other artwork such as for the Ebe statue of Canova [27], where pro-
totyping allows to study possible static strains and stress applied
on supporting critical points, or the restoration of the Madonna of
Pietranico, a terracotta statue fragmented in several pieces due to
the earthquake in Abruzzo [28]. A reconstructive hypothesis of the
statue was built by working on the digital models of the scanned
parts; then the reassembly of the pieces was helped by the use of 3D
printed innovative supporting structures. The structural properties
(e.g. minimal visual impact, resistance to vibrations and transporta-
tion hazards) were considered while designing a proper holding
structure.
Within the scope of regenerating geometries, that cannot be eas-
ily generated via traditional techniques, the Sala di Cristoforo Sorte,
a room of the Palazzo Ducale of Mantua, is a good example: the
room had a very damaged double crown moulding of the sixteenth
century, decorated with Ionic and lesbian kyma, with numerous
and large gaps. The reconstruction [29] has focused on the integra-
tion of those missing elements alongside the traditional restoration
methods with reverse engineering and rapid prototyping technolo-
gies. Two different approaches were tested using a FFF printer with
PLA filament: the first, printing the missing parts and apply them
within the gaps; the second, creating and printing casts of the
 C. Balletti et al. / Journal of Cultural Heritage 26 (2017) 172–182 177

mould by using 3D scanning, used for reproducing the decoration
avoiding any contact with the original.
In [30] authors describe the Opus Digitale project: an inter-
esting application of high resolution laser scanning survey, with
photogrammetry data integration, in order to create, noninvasively
and without any contact with tesserae, a digital 3D model of a
portion of a Byzantine mosaic later reproduced by rapid proto-
typing technology. Digital technologies are combined with skilful
craftsmanship, creating a production of plaster polychrome replicas
of historic mosaics, faithful to the original. The goal of the project
is the preservation and future dissemination of our cultural her-
itage: new technologies will perpetuate as long as possible both
the matter and the essence of artworks.
Today physical model, which was traditionally used to antici-
pate and see what had not yet been realized, becomes a true copy
that will replace the original, becoming a monument itself. 3D
printed replicas can replace a lost heritage to prevent its memory,
as it was planned for the city of Palmira, in Syria, where monuments
were recently destroyed. A very ambitious project plans to recre-
ate the ruins of the archaeological site by replacing them with their
physical copies made through robotics and 3D printing. Projects
like this make it obvious that there is the need to assess how much
the printed model corresponds to the original.
As an example, in the Project Mosul [31] 3D models of arte-
facts, destroyed by Islamic State (Isis), are reconstructed with a
pioneering crowdsourcing system. The items are 3D prints of virtual
models of four ancient pieces created by a group of archaeologists
by applying digital technology to simple tourist photos. Scale repro-
ductions were displayed at a private event at the Museum of Arts
and Design in Manhattan. The Million Image Database Project at the
Oxford Institute [32] for Digital Archaeology distributed cameras
to volunteers across the Middle East to collect 3D photos of sites.
As well as creating 3D models, they recreated full-scale artefacts,
sites, and architectural features using cement-based 3D printing
techniques [33]. This started with a recreation of the arch from
Palmyra’s Temple of Bel, placed in London in April 2016.
A peculiar application is the tactile exploration supporting blind
and visually impaired people (haptic exploration): the transmission
of knowledge for them occurs prevalently through touch and the
use of alphabetical forms, such as the Braille alphabet.
Just because some researches demonstrated that physical mod-
els have been shown to enhance learning experience among
student populations as they include their sense of touch [34], 3D
printed copies can be a support to allow everybody to know and
explore CH with fingers, from sculptures to paintings, to bring even
two-dimensional art closer to being accessible.
This can be done just producing a tangible replica or inte-
grating the surface of the printed object with other sensors to
obtain a multisensory experience (Fig. 5), for example with con-
textual audio information, relevant to the part of the object that is
being touched in a specific moment. Tooteko [35] is a smart wear-
able device that combines touch and hearing to help the visually
impaired to visualize objects that they could not experience other-
wise. It enables blind people to perceive the world through touch
and hearing. Tactile models of artworks, obtained by laserscan-
ning or photogrammetry, are transformed into speaking models by
the use of NFC tags, thus allowing an interactive and independent
exploration.
Haptic experience heavily depend on the question of scale, but
digital fabrication brings objects to a human scale, so tactile models
fit in our hand and details are adapted to the size of our fingers [36].
The project Tactile Painting [37] present a computer-assisted
workflow for the creation of tactile representations of paintings,
suitable to be used as a learning tool in the context of guided tours
in museums or galleries. Starting from high-resolution images of
original paintings, data suitable for rapid prototyping machines are
generated to produce the physical touch tools. CNC-milled textured
reliefs render fine details, like brush strokes and texture suitable
for the sense of touch, so the haptic output is quite faithful to the
original paintings.
Finally, 3D printing technologies can contribute also to contem-
porary art: for example, Marc Quinn, in collaboration with Factum
Arte, realized some of his sculptures [38] on the base of real shells
forms. An STL file of the found form is obtained from scanning the
shell in three dimensions. Then, it is enlarged using a 3D printer
and cast in aluminium, concrete, stainless steel or bronze [39].

Fig. 5. Tooteko multisensory system allows to navigate any 3D surface with finger tips and get in return an audio content that is relevant in relation to which part of the
surface you are touching. Tooteko is made of three elements: a high-tech ring that detects and reads the NFC tags and communicates in wireless mode with the smart
device; a tactile surface tagged with NFC sensors and an app for tablet or smartphone. During the tactile navigation of the surface, when the finger reaches a hotspot, the ring
identifies the NFC tag and activates, through the app, the audio track related to that hotspot. Thus, a relevant audio content relates to each hotspot.
178 C. Balletti et al. / Journal of Cultural Heritage 26 (2017) 172–182
5. Case study: considerations about 3D printing precision
The widespread use of solid printers has highlighted, on the one
hand, the problem of building digital models that need to be printed
and, on the other hand, that of the conformity of the copy to the
original.
To identify the different applications of such reproductions, it is
now necessary to determine and verify metric accuracy of the dig-
ital and physical models: only in this way will the copy effectively
replace the original in various fields, especially in the event that this
must be preserved and its usability is limited to exposure. Physical
models, in fact, are more and more frequently used on the occa-
sions in which physical contact is necessary; for example, museum
exhibits devoted to children or the visually impaired.
This contribution is part of a broader research, with the pur-
pose to optimize the path that goes from the acquisition of a point
cloud of an object (i.e. vase, statue, architecture, urban area) to its
representation in a scaled 3D model. In this process, one must of
course take into consideration, on one hand, the accuracy of the
acquisition tools (multi image photogrammetry, TOF laser scanner,
triangulation laser scanner) and, on the other, that of the final out-
put device: FDM, CNC, SLA, SLS printers, etc. to avoid diseconomies
dictated by the different instrumental precision and resolution.
The main purpose of this first phase of the research is to analyse
the metrical characteristics of the printed model in relation to the
original object. We want to focus, in particular, on the methodology
used: the acquisition in digital format of an artefact has given rise to
two physical models, created by two different devices. Obviously,
the procedure below should be extended using other printers, sup-
porting other materials, technologies. That is why we would like to
share our data (the original scanned model) with those interested
in the testing.
Both models have undergone a scan process and compared with
the original. Since the object of our study was the precision that
can be reached through these solid-printing systems, the test was
designed so as to maintain unchanged conditions for the acquisition
and processing of products as much as possible.
6. Data acquisition and 3D printing
The scanned object is a vase of dimensions such as to be printed
on a 1:1 scale. The artefact was first acquired in digital form by
means of a triangulation laser scanner, the Konica Minolta Range 7
[40], which allows reaching sub millimetrical precisions (up to 40
microns) (Fig. 6a). The tool allows us to scan small objects from a
distance between 450 and 800 mm and can use two different lenses,
tele and wide-angle, which guarantee the acquisition of a portion of
variable reality, based on the optics used and on the distance from
the object, in a range which goes from 79 × 99 to 267 × 334 mm (on
the XY plane).
In the case presented here, a “tele” optics was used, subjected
beforehand to a special calibration process. To ensure the scanning
Fig. 6. The instruments used in this project: a: on the left, the Konika Minolta Range 7; b: in the centre, the CraftBot; c: on the right, the EnvisionTEC.
of the object in its entirety, a rotating stage has been used which,
through the Minolta software Range Viewer, allows obtaining a first
alignment of the different scans using the ICP algorithm (Iterative
Closest Point). During the acquisition phase, the objects were pos-
itioned at a distance between 600 and 700 mm. By imposing the
rotary plate on a 30◦ angular step, we obtained 12 scans for each
object and ensured a sufficient overlap for its orientation.
The processing phase of the digital product has been carried
out using the Geomagic Studio software. In this environment, the
numerical model obtained was subjected to processing that has
optimized the data for printing, maintaining the original geometry
of the object as much as possible. First, each single scan – that the
instrument returns already in the form of mesh – was cleaned and
the marginal portions have been eliminated, in correspondence of
which there is a degradation of precision. Second, the orientation of
the scans has been refined by applying an additional ICP algorithm.
As a result of these operations, it was necessary to close the
surface, by completing via software the model where the data had
not been acquired. The last operation carried out was a decimation
of the final mesh, because the printers’ software products do not
allow you to work on models consisting of a number of triangles
much greater than one million.
The printers used in this test phase were chosen not only
because they use two different printing systems, but also because
they belong to two diametrically opposed worlds. The first is a
CraftBot Plus (CraftUnique) [41], a 3D desktop printer, which is
very affordable and uses a FDM system, an additive manufactur-
ing technology in which the plastic material – in this case a PLA – is
melted using an extruder (Fig. 6b). This extruder is moved on two
axes (X and Y) by stepper motors, which deposit the filament in
different positions. The displacement along the Z-axis is guaran-
teed by a third motor of the same type; it affects the plate on which
the material is deposited and determines the layer’s thickness. The
manufacturer guarantees an accuracy of displacements of a few
microns, while the layer can be of different thicknesses: from a
maximum of 300 to a minimum of 100 microns. The size of the
printing area is quite small: 250 × 200 × 200 mm.
The second printer used is EnvisionTEC Ultra [42], which uses a
SLA technique and, therefore, a system of projections of ultravio-
let light sections on a volume of liquid resin (Fig. 6c). In this case,
the device consists of two distinct elements: an optical-projective
system determines the creation of the pattern on the XY plane,
while a mechanical system moves the plate on which the pat-
tern is formed, ensuring its three-dimensionality. The cost of the
tool is significantly higher than the previous one and the reso-
lution of the final model arrives to a maximum of 25 micron in
Z and 45 micron in XY. The maximum size of the printing area
remains rather limited: 264 × 164 × 203 mm. Another difference
compared to the previous device consists of the fact that, after prin-
ting, the model must be immersed in a bath of alcohol to remove the
residue of non-solidified resin and finally “baked” in an ultraviolet
ray oven.
 C. Balletti et al. / Journal of Cultural Heritage 26 (2017) 172–182
As previously stated, the products have been printed on a 1:1
scale and acquired in digital format. To eliminate the variable
introduced by the various instrumental accuracies, the same tri-
angulation laser – Range 7 – has been used, trying to maintain
unchanged the conditions of acquisition that could somehow affect
the accuracy of the digital model. In fact, the purpose of these texts
was only the comparison between the different printers.
For the same reason, the methodology of processing the
acquired data was also kept unchanged as much as possible, to
ensure comparability of the final results.
7. Analysis of the results
In the first place, it was considered necessary to conduct a com-
parison between two different scans of the same original object. In
this way, we were able to verify the stability of the scanning process
and the subsequent data processing.
The module used for the analysis of the two data sets is con-
tained within the alignment menu of Geomagic, which uses the
same ICP algorithm used for the orientation of the scans, and it
allows you to display a series of basic information for analysis:
the maximum distance between two comparable points in the
two meshes and the average distance and the standard deviation
(s.q.m.).
The two data show an average distance of 0.035 mm between
the surfaces; it is concordant with the instrumental precision, a
result which allowed us to proceed with the subsequent analysis.
The second test was performed on the pattern printed through
CraftBot, maintaining a “high” print resolution, therefore a thick-
ness of the layer of 200 micron. The pattern shows an average
distance of 0.0122 mm from the original, data, which exceeds our
expectations, especially considering that this type of device is
designed to “consumer” applications. However, the use of stepper
motors guarantees high precision in the movements along the three
axes and thus a great precision of the creation of the final pattern.
Major problems, however, were found during the test on the
pattern printed through EnvisionTEC. First, the material of which
it is formed is not acquirable via laser scanner, because the resin
allows the blade of light to enter. Therefore, we had to resort to
Fig. 7. The comparisons made on the three different reproductions of the vase: the CraftBot model, the EnvisinTEC one, and the scaled one.
179
an ultra-fine gypsum spray, specifically created for the scanning
of objects with very small details. Nevertheless, the presence of
gypsum could affect the success of the test, because it was about
adding an additional layer to the printed object, which, being a
spray, may not be distributed evenly.
In light of these considerations, it was necessary to run a first
comparison test between the scanning of the original vase and
a second scan of the same vase covered with a layer of gyp-
sum. The result shows an average distance of 0.064 mm between
the two surfaces, which was considered insignificant. The layer
of gypsum did not form such a thickness as to compromise the
analysis.
However, the tests carried on the EnvisionTEC pattern have led
to unexpected results: the comparison between the two data shows
an average distance of 0.248 mm, therefore higher than the one
found for the CraftBot pattern.
The first analyses indicate that both the physical copies are
smaller than the original, data supported by the confrontation on
the volumes of the three meshes.
In light of this, a scale factor to the EnvisionTEC pattern was
imposed, calculated on the basis of the relationship between its
volume and that of the original, which has led to the acquisition
of an average distance comparable to that of the CraftBot pattern
(Fig. 7).
The scale variation, being greater in the EnvisionTEC pattern,
could be caused by the material used by the printer: the solidifica-
tion process to which it is subjected in the ultraviolet ray oven may
reduce its size.
It is important to emphasize, in fact, that the scale factor iden-
tified is isotropic, and consequently it cannot be caused by a
misalignment between the optical-projective system, which works
on the XY plane, and the mechanical system, which governs the
displacement of the plate along the Z axes.
To check the reliability of these results, the same analyses were
performed on a different object: the bust of Francesco II Gonzaga
[13] (Fig. 8). In this case, the original object did not have the size
needed in order to be printed on a 1:1 scale. However, it was con-
sidered appropriate to take as “original” the digital model already
scaled, and which gave rise to the two physical copies. These copies,
in fact, had been printed in the past years, when the two output
180 C. Balletti et al. / Journal of Cultural Heritage 26 (2017) 172–182

Fig. 8. The bust of Francesco II Gonzaga: the original bust, its digital reproduction and its two copies.

Fig. 9. The tests performed on the bust: the CraftBot model, the EnvisinTEC one, and the scaled one.

Fig. 10. A detail of the two reproductions of the bust: the copy made with the SLA technique is much more definite than the FDM one.
 C. Balletti et al. / Journal of Cultural Heritage 26 (2017) 172–182
devices had been subjected to other calibration processes. How-
ever, even in this case, the comparison of the FDM model shows
an average distance of 0.171 mm, while for the SLA model it is
greater (0.245 mm). By imposing on the latter the same isotropic
scale factor calculated for the previous object, the average distance
is lowered (0.187 mm). However, in this case the error appears to
have been caused by the mechanical component, because it seems
distributed along the Z axes (Fig. 9).
Further analyses on the calibration of the printer and on the
behaviour of its materials will be carried out, but what we want to
highlight is the excellent quality of the final result. Both printers
allow you to get to an accuracy of a few tenths of a millimeter,
which is more than adequate to the needs of a field like the Cultural
Heritage, where these models are used to ensure greater usability
of artefacts.
Moreover, with regard to an order of magnitude of difference
in the cost of printers, the metric result is comparable. What is not
comparable, however, is the quality of the details that are returned:
the photopolymer resin printer is certainly able to achieve a greater
level of detail than the FDM (Fig. 10). Another issue concerns the
final output cost. Printers like the CraftBot or in general 3D desk-
top printers directly create physical copies in series, while those
in resin, because of the cost of the material, must necessarily pass
through a silicone cast and a series production of gypsum mod-
els. Subsequent testing will have to evaluate a possible decay of
precision as a result of these steps.
8. Conclusions
3D printing technologies open, in the CH sector, new possibili-
ties of use, cataloguing and study, where the models, both virtual
and physical, are the basis both for the display and analysis of the
shape (also from a metrical point of view) of each artefact of artistic
and historical interest.
Digital fabrication cannot be limited to providing a “photo-
realistic” replica of the object: the printed copy must have similarity
of behaviour and performance with the original on which percep-
tual and conceptual activities can be done in a continuous physical
interaction between observer and object.
3D printing presents more flexibility: e.g. the digital representa-
tion can be edited before producing it as a physical object. It can be
scaled or changed in shape or just selected portions of the object can
be printed. Therefore, digital fabrication can considerably enhance
the information provided by a tangible representation of an artefact
opening new possibilities for study and access of CH asset.
Even if the technologies described in the paper can still present
some restrictions, due to materials, or instrumental precision as
demonstrated in the tests, the accuracy of the reproduction is grad-
ually reaching an excellent level of quality. Moreover, the research
on thermo-polymer is in rapid and continuous evolution, so in
a short time the reproductions will always move closer to the
original, not only from a morphological point of view, but also
from the physical one, solving the problem of compatibility of
materials.
Moreover, the latest 3D modelling and printing experiences
have shown the need to introduce a new professionalism in support
of archaeologists, architects, engineers, restorers and conservators
that require the use of digital technologies related to the instru-
mental survey, to 3D modelling and solid printing.
It is a new professionalism, which is evidently transversal to the
consolidated subject areas, which traditionally and separately have
dealt with these issues.
In conclusion, we must rethink and reconfigure these activities
that have as reference the digital universe in which we move every
day.
181
References
[1] Arduino. http://www.arduino.org/.
[2] I. Gibson, D. Rosen, B. Stucker, Additive manufacturing technologies: 3D prin-
ting, rapid prototyping, and direct digital manufacturing, Springer Science &
Business Media, 2009.
[3] W.A. Gaubatz, Rapid prototyping IEEE Aerospace Applications Conference
Proceedings (1996) 303–311.
[4] History of 3D printing. http://www.3Dprintingindustry.com.
[5] The RepRap Project. http://www.reprap.org.
[6] Stratasys. http://www.stratasys.com.
[7] R. Scopigno, P. Cignoni, N. Pietroni, M. Callieri, M. Dellepiane, Digital fabrication
techniques for cultural heritage: a survey, Comput. Graphics Forum (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cgf.12781.
[8] Autodesk and Paralympian Denise Schindler. http://www.inthefold.autodesk.
com/in the fold/2016/04/autodesk-and-paralympian-denise-schindler-
showcase-the-future-of-manufacturing-to-president-obama-an.html.
[9] 3D Printed heart replica helps save the life of a nine-month-old baby.
https://www.3dprint.com/124954/3d-printed-heart-saves-baby.
[10] T.J. Hinton, Q. Jallerat, R.N. Palchesko, J.H. Park, M.S. Grodzicki, H.J. Shue,
A.W. Feinberg, Three-dimensional printing of complex biological structures by
freeform reversible embedding of suspended hydrogels, Sci. Adv. 1 (9) (2015)
e1500758.
[11] S.V. Murphy, A. Atala, 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs, Nat. Biotechnol. 32
(8) (2014) 773–785.
[12] E. Nocerino, F. Remondino, F. Uccheddu, M. Gallo, G. Gerosa, 3D modelling
and rapid prototyping for cardiovascular surgical planning – two case studier,
Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci. XLI-B5 (2016) 887–893,
http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLI-B5-887-2016.
[13] A. Adami, C. Balletti, F. Fassi, L. Fregonese, F. Guerra, L. Taffurelli, P. Vernier,
The bust of Francesco II Gonzaga: from digital documentation to 3D printing,
ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci. II-5/W3 (2015) 9–15,
http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/isprsannals-II-5-W3-9-2015.
[14] C. Balletti, F. Guerra, The survey of cultural heritage: a long story, Rendiconti
Lincei 26 (2015) 115–125, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12210-015-0411-8.
[15] C. Balletti, F. D’Agnano, F. Guerra, P. Vernier, From point cloud to digital fab-
rication: a tangible reconstruction of Ca’ Venier dei Leoni, the Guggenheim
Museum in Venice, ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci. III-5
(2016) 43–49, http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/isprs-annals-III-5-43-2016.
[16] A. Koutsoudis, et al., Multi-image 3D reconstruction data evaluation, J. Cult.
Herit. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2012.12.003.
[17] G. Guidi, F. Remondino, M. Russo, F. Menna, A. Rizzi, S. Ercoli, A multi-resolution
methodology for the 3D modeling of large and complex archaeological areas,
Int. J. Architect. Comput. 7 (1) (2009) 40–55.
[18] G. Pavlidis, A. Koutsoudis, F. Arnaoutoglou, V. Tsioukas, C. Chamzas, Methods
for 3D digitization of cultural heritage, J. Cult. Herit. 8 (2007) 93–98.
[19] F. Remondino, A. Rizzi, Reality-based 3D documentation of natural and cul-
tural heritage sites – techniques, problems and examples, Appl. Geomatics 2
(3) (2010) 85–100.
[20] F. Remondino, Heritage recording and 3D modeling with photogrammetry and
3D scanning, Remote Sensing 3 (2011) 1104–1138.
[21] R. Rivola, C. Castagnetti, E. Bertacchini, F. Casagrande, Digitalizzazione e stampa
3d di un mosaico a tecnica bizantina a scopo documentativo e conservativo,
Archeomatica 7 (1) (2016).
[22] G. Tucci, V. Bonora, Geomatics and management of at-risk cultural her-
itage, Rendiconti Lincei 26 (2015) 105–114, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s12210-015-0427-0.
[23] X. Brunetaud, L. De Luca, S. Janvier-Badosa, K. Beck, M. Al-Mukhtar, Application
of digital techniques in monument preservation, Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 5
(2012) 543–556.
[24] Replica of the Sarcofago degli Sposi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
P2aFs35ZRo8.
[25] Basilica di San Petronio Project. http://www.factum-arte.com/pag/593.
[26] G. Tucci, V. Bonora, From real to“real”. A review of geomatic and rapid pro-
totyping techniques for solid modelling in cultural heritage field, Int. Arch.
Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci. XXXVIII-5/W16 (2011) 575–582,
http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XXXVIII-5-W16-575-2011.
[27] N. Santopuli, F. De Crescenzio, M. Fantini, F. Persiani, L. Seccia, L’Ebe del Canova:
modello digitale e sviluppi applicativi, Archeomatica 1 (2010) 40–43 [ISSN:
2037-2485].
[28] L. Arbace, E. Sonnino, M. Callieri, M. Dellepiane, M. Fabbri, A.I. Idelson, R.
Scopigno, Innovative uses of 3D digital technologies to assist the restoration
of a fragmented terracotta statue, J. Cult. Herit. 4 (2013) 332–345.
[29] G. Bigliardi, P. Dioni, G. Panico, Restauro e innovazione al Palazzo Ducale di
Mantova: la stampa 3D al servizio dei Gonzaga, Archeomatica 7.1 (2015) 34–37.
[30] R. Rivola, C. Castagnetti, E. Bertacchini, F. Casagrande, Digitalizzazione e stampa
3D di un mosaico a tecnica bizantina a scopo documentativo e conservativo,
Archeomatica 6.3 (2016) 40–44.
[31] Rekrei. https://www.projectmosul.org.
[32] The million image database project. http://www.millionimage.org.uk.
[33] A. Perrot, D. Rangeard, A. Pierre, Structural built-up of cement-based materi-
als used for 3D-printing extrusion techniques, Mater Struct. 49 (2016) 1213,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1617/s11527-015-0571-0.
[34] M. Knapp, R. Wolff, H. Lipson, Developing printable content: a repository for
printable teaching models, in: Proceedings of the 19th Annual Solid Freeform
Fabrication Symposium, Austin TX, USA, 2008.
182 C. Balletti et al. / Journal of Cultural Heritage 26 (2017) 172–182
[35] F. D’Agnano, C. Balletti, F. Guerra, P. Vernier, TOOTEKO: a case study of
augmented reality for an accessibile cultural heritage. Digitization, 3D prin-
ting and sensors for audio-tactile experience, Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote
Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci. XL-5/W4 (2015) 207–213, http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/
isprsarchives-XL-5-W4-207-2015.
[36] M. Neumuller, A. Reichinger, F. Rist, C. Kern, 3D printing for cultural heritage:
preservation, accessibility, research and education, Lecture Notes Comput. Sci.
8355 (2014) 119–134, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44630-0 9.
[37] A. Reichinger, S. Maierhofer, W. Purgathofer, High-quality tactile paintings, J.
Comput. Cult. Herit. 4 (2) (2011) [5:1–5:13].
[38] The archaeology of art. http://www.marcquinn.com/artworks/archaeology-of-
art.
[39] Marc Quinn. http://www.factum-arte.com/ind/6/Marc-Quinn.
[40] RANGE7. https://www.konicaminolta.eu/it/strumenti-di-misura/prodotti/
misurazioni-3d/range-7/introduzione.html.
[41] CRAFTBOT: http://www.craftunique.com.
[42] ENVISIONTEC Ultra. http://www.altair-consulting.com/doc pdf/machine ultra.
pdf; http://www.detekt.com.tw/download/envisiontec/4/EnvisionTEC%20is
%20proud%20to%20announce%20the%20release%20of%20the%20new%20
benchmark%20in%203-Dimensional%20Printing%20The%20ULTRA.pdf.