ArticleScientific reports2026
Mechanical performance evaluation of science museum seating systems using FEM.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This paper explores the structural design and material application of seating systems in science museums, focusing on safety and ergonomic comfort. To address the requirements of modern exhibition environments, the study employs finite element analysis (FEA) and body pressure distribution experiments to evaluate the mechanical performance and user comfort of four distinct seat structures and materials: polyurethane, polyester fiber, polypropylene foam, and memory foam. The investigation analyzes their effects on stress distribution, strain, and pressure relief. Results indicate that while structural design is critical for ensuring uniform stress distribution, material properties primarily dictate comfort and pressure alleviation. Specifically, memory foam and polyurethane demonstrate the optimal balance between comfort and load-bearing capacity, whereas polypropylene presents risks of localized stress concentration. Consequently, the study proposes a "structural optimization coupled with material matching" strategy, utilizing rigid materials for load-bearing and flexible materials for comfort interface. These findings provide practical guidance for the engineering design and material selection of public seating in science museums.
Indexed as
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.