A recent study, conducted by researchers Amber Collings and Katherine Brown at Teeside University in the U.K., analyzed the suitability of specific 3D scanning and modeling techniques in a key aspect of forensic investigation: physical fit analysis (PFA). PFA determines if two pieces of evidence physically fit together, their shared origin, the links between crime scenes and suspects, as well as allowing for object reconstruction for interpretation or presentation, to experts or jurors.
Forensic investigation can be challenging, especially when the evidence is damaged, fragmented, fragile, embedded or hazardous. In PFA, where human bone fragments are manually handled, difficulties arise in matching, reconstructing, interpreting, and presenting the evidence or results of the PFA. The bone fragments may be too small or complex or biologically hazardous. 3D imaging, modeling and printing has already been used broadly to improve or assist in forensics, particularly for complex anthropological evidence. Whether through physical reconstruction or virtual 360 models (built using 3D surface or volume-imaging technique), the use of non-contact 3D technologies has allowed forensics to address issues in visualization, virtual and physical bone reconstruction, matching wounds to weapons, dismemberment and more.
In this study, with burned skull bone fragments as evidence, researchers studied and compared the effectiveness of two imaging techniques to study and 3D print models for use in PFA. Micro computed tomography (µCT) scanning—a more accurate, volume-scanning technique—was compared with structured light scanning, a surface-scanning technique, in terms of effectiveness and efficiency of the virtual model, while fused deposition modeling (FDM) was compared with selective laser sintering (SLS) for the physical 3D model.
While both imaging techniques provided sufficient detail to allow for matching, alignment, and reconstruction, there were differences in efficiency, ease-of-implementation, accuracy and capability. Structure light scanning is cheaper, easier to implement and use, though its lower resolution and limitation in capturing only surface detail meant it was better suited to visualization than fit assessment. It also requires adjustments and sprays to capture the finer details of black or shiny fragments, limiting its ability to be safely handled or used for reconstruction.
µCT provides a far more complete, detailed 3D image, yet requires more expertise and specialized resources. Since it captures volumetric information it also requires much larger amounts of data. µCT provided better results if a thorough, non-destructive PFA needed to be conducted. Particularly when the evidence involved small, burned bone fragments, in reconstruction of actual or scaled virtual or physical models. Yet structured light scanning proved to be a more feasible alternative for purely visualization purposes.
In terms of 3D printing the models, FDM was a much cheaper alternative to SLS, with the Prusa i3 model (>$1300) priced a hundred times less than laser sintering machines ($5000-175,000). The latter results in far more accurate models and does not require supports but may be prohibitively expensive and requires specialized expertise to operate.
In this study, however, the researchers showed that using FDM was sufficient—by working around issues arising from support structures, hanging features using positioning/orientation, they were able to create accurate, effective 3D models for PFA, thus concluding that, “Fused filament deposition (FFD) 3D printing proved to be an accurate and useful method for creating physical replicas of the bone fragments to perform physical fit analysis (PFA) and bone fragment reconstruction.”
“We therefore recommend μCT imaging paired with FFD 3D printing as an excellent option for non-destructive physical fit confirmation when working with small fragments and burned bone.”
This reaffirms what several studies and recent applications have pushed forward: the combined use of 3D imaging, virtualization and printing can transform or improve forensic investigation, reconstruction, as well as juror understanding in court trials. Some of these applications include developing forensic devices, low-cost postmortem kits, resolving tough to crack cold cases, developing models for forensic training and testing, and more. It is without doubt that implementing 3D technologies significantly improve the speed, efficiency, safety, and capabilities in forensic investigation, thus enabling more accurate, well understood, criminal trial outcomes.
You May Also Like
Roboze’s Exclusive Subscription Plan to Print Parts Near Point of Production
COVID-19 unveiled production gaps in the current global supply chain as parts are produced in central location and shipped all over the world: that’s why the Roboze vision is to...
3D Printing News Briefs: December 20, 2020: iFactory3D, Farsoon, DMC & Produmax, EOS
In 3D Printing News Briefs this weekend, we’re talking about a successful 3D printer Kickstarter campaign, a high-temperature material, a partnership, and a new podcast. The Factory One 3D printer...
GoEngineer Now Largest U.S. Distributor of VELO3D’s Metal 3D Printing Solutions
After a few years of working in secret, privately funded metal 3D printing startup VELO3D came on to the scene with a bang with the introduction of its innovative, patented...
Farsoon Launches Flame-Retardant Material and Post-Processing Solutions at Formnext
Farsoon Europe and Tiger Coatings have successfully developed a specialized thermoset material, with flame-retardant properties, for polymer laser sintering using Farsoon’s HT252P industrial 3D printing system. The material, TIGITAL 3D-Set...
View our broad assortment of in house and third party products.