Demonstrates precise measurement and quality assessment in cultural heritage, indicating robust documentation methods.
Accurate geometric documentation of cultural heritage artifacts demands metrologically robust frameworks capable of quantifying measurement uncertainty across heterogeneous acquisition systems. This study proposes an integrated Digital Twin methodology for archaeological documentation, grounded in the Guide to the expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) and compliant with ISO 25178–600:2019 and EN 15757:2010 standards. The measurement framework integrates three complementary acquisition technologies: Structured Light 3D Scanners (SLS), Close-range Photogrammetry (SfM), and Smartphone-based LiDAR systems processed using SLAM algorithms (they process real-time depth measurements from smartphone LiDAR sensors), achieving sub-millimeter inter-system agreement ( σ = 0.57 - 0.80 m m ) validated through Cloud-to-Cloud comparison. The Combined expanded uncertainty 3 = ±2.62 (k = 2, 95% CI), is acceptable for heritage documentation. Metrological contributions include: (i) Uncertainty quantification for axial symmetry detection via Monte Carlo simulation ( n = 10 , 000 ), yielding positional uncertainties of ± 3.2 m m ; (ii) Geometric quality assessment protocols achieving reconstruction precision ( ± 2 - 4 m m ) below manufacturing tolerances of medieval ceramics ( ± 6 - 8 m m ); and (iii) Environmental monitoring with calibrated sensors meeting EN 15757 requirements ( T : ± 0 . 2 ° C , R H : ± 2 % ) . Structural validation via finite element analysis confirmed mechanical stability with a high safety margin, while spectroscopic measurements exhibited reproducibility suitable for reliable material classification. Overall, the proposed Digital Twin framework enables the transformation of archaeological artifacts into traceable cyber-physical representations with quantified confidence intervals, advancing the role of measurement science in cultural heritage documentation and conservation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moyano et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: