ArticleScientific reports2017
The mechanical and photoelastic properties of 3D printable stress-visualized materials.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- A mathematical theory of elasticity for photoelastic experimental hybrid method.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Elastomeric seal stress analysis using photoelastic experimental hybrid method.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Future-Oriented Experimental Characterization of 3D Printed and Conventional Elastomers Based on Their Swelling Behavior.Polymers · 2021Article
- 3D-Printed Objects for Multipurpose Applications.Journal of materials engineering and performance · 2021Review
- Visualization method for stress-field evolution during rapid crack propagation using 3D printing and photoelastic testing techniques.Scientific reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology integrating frozen stress techniques has created a novel way to directly represent and characterize 3D interior discontinuities and the full-field stress induced by mining- or construction-related disturbances of deeply buried rock masses. However, concerns have been raised about the similitude between the mechanical behaviours of the printed model and its prototype rock mass. Ensuring the mechanical properties of the printable materials are as close as possible to those of real rock mass is of critical significance. In this work, a transparent, light, photosensitive polymer material was investigated for applications in frozen stress tests. The chemical composition of the material was determined by integrating the results of infrared spectroscopy (IR spectroscopy), X-ray diffraction (XRD), pyrolysis, gas chromatography and mass spectrometry (PY-GC/MS). Measures to improve the mechanical properties of the printable material, including printing orientation, post-processing, and temperature control, were evaluated by comparing the treated material with its prototype rock. The optical stress sensitivity of the material, including stress-visualized properties and stress-frozen performance, was also tested. This study offers an understanding of how printable materials should be modified to better simulate real rock masses, in terms of not only their geological geometry but also their mechanical performance.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.