In the engineering of underground construction, the discontinuous structures in rock mass have important influences on the mechanical behaviors of the subsurface of rock mass. The acquisition of mechanical parameters is the basis of rock mass engineering design, construction, safety, and stability evaluation. However, the mechanical parameters and failure characteristics of the same rock mass under different mechanical conditions cannot be obtained due to the limitations of specimen preparation techniques. In recent years, with the continuous development of 3D printing (3DP) technology, it has been successfully applied to the repetitive preparation of rock mass samples. The combinations of 3DP and other techniques, such as 3D scanning and CT scanning, provided a new approach to study the mechanical behavior of complex structural rock masses. In this study, through a comprehensive review of the technical progress, equipment situation, application fields, and challenges of the use of 3DP technology, the following conclusions were obtained: (1) 3DP technology has advantages over traditional rock mass specimen preparation techniques, and the verification of test results using 3D printed samples shows that the 3DP has broad application prospects in geotechnical engineering. (2) The combination of 3DP and other advanced techniques can be used to achieve the accurate reconstruction of complex structural rock masses and to obtain the mechanical and failure characteristics of the same rock mass structure under different mechanical boundary conditions. (3) The development of 3DP materials with high strength, high brittleness, and low ductility has become the major bottleneck in the application of 3DP in geotechnical engineering. (4) 3D printers need to meet the high precision and large size requirements while also having high strength and long-term printing ability. The development of 3D printers that can print different types of materials is also an important aspect of the application of 3DP in geotechnical engineering.
1. Introduction
Rock mass is characterized by discontinuity, inhomogeneity, and anisotropy. It is composed of various weak structural joints within certain engineering scales [1–4]. The internal structures of rock mass are generally complex and contain defects such as pores, joints, and fissures that directly affect the strength, deformation, and seepage characteristics of the rock mass, which are closely related to the stability of rock engineering [5–8]. Therefore, the mechanical behavior and failure characteristics of complex structural rock masses have become the key factors of rock mass engineering design, construction, safety, and stability evaluation [9–11].
Currently, the acquisition of mechanical parameters of rock mass is carried out using three main methods: in situ field tests [12–14], laboratory tests [15, 16], and numerical simulation [17, 18]. Specifically, in situ testing is the most effective method of obtaining the mechanical parameters of rock mass on an engineering scale. However, the large size of rock mass specimens used in in situ testing causes many problems, such as a long test period, high costs, and influences on construction, leading to less data being obtained through in situ testing. Laboratory tests have been the most important means of obtaining the mechanical parameters of rocks because they can visualize the mechanical characteristics, such as the strength, deformation, and failure characteristics, of rock mass specimens under different mechanical boundary conditions. However, due to the limitations of the testing equipment in terms of the size of rock samples and the difficulty in preparing samples of complex structures, it is hard to obtain the mechanical parameters via laboratory tests. Moreover, since the experimental testing of rocks is generally destructive, it is impossible to accurately obtain the change rule of mechanical properties of the same rock mass. Numerical simulation has the advantages of low cost and repeatability, so it has become an effective supplement to in situ tests and laboratory tests on rock masses. However, the complex structures of rock mass are often simplified in the simulation process due to the limitations of calculation conditions, making the numerical model differ from the real structures of rock mass. In addition, the selection of material parameters and determination of constitutive relation in the simulation process would affect the calculation results [19–21].
As was discussed above, when laboratory tests are used to study the mechanical and failure properties of rock mass, the specimens need to be representative of their structural characteristics. Due to the complexity of natural rock mass structures, it is difficult to obtain rock mass specimens with identical structures and properties. So, it is impossible to obtain the mechanical properties of the same rock mass structure under different mechanical boundary conditions. Such problems can be solved by using similar material model tests. However, it is difficult to make specimens with natural joint surfaces, special internal structures, and chamber excavation models, although these structural characteristics have important influences on the strength, deformation, and failure characteristics of rock masses [22–25]. Therefore, the repetitive preparation of complex structural specimens is the key to carrying out laboratory tests.
As an additive manufacturing technology, the 3DP differs from traditional manufacturing techniques such as cutting and grinding because it uses a layer-by-layer accumulation method to achieve the precise reconfiguration of complex structures. In recent years, the 3DP has been widely used in many fields such as biomedicine, aerospace, automobile manufacturing, and electronic components [26–29]. With the development of 3DP technology, some studies have begun to explore the applications of 3DP in the field of rock mechanics. For example, the combination of technologies of 3DP, stress freezing technique, CT scanning, and X-ray scanning has enabled the quantitative characterization and visualization of complex structures inside deep rock masses [30–34]. Based on this technology, transparent natural sand conglomerate specimens have been produced to investigate the effects of complex structures on the stress field and plastic zone [35, 36]. Furthermore, some materials such as polylactic acid (PLA), gypsum, and photosensitive resin have also been used in the preparation of rock-like specimens. The feasibility of 3DP in rock mechanics tests was initially verified by comparing the mechanical and failure properties of rock specimens [37, 38]. After that, several regular rock masses were assessed using 3DP, and the influences of the structural characteristics on the overall mechanical properties were studied [39–41]. Recently, the 3DP technique has been applied to the structural reconstruction of irregular columnar jointed rock masses, and the feasibility and superiority of this method in the reconstruction of complex structural rock masses have been demonstrated by comparing the results of mechanical and laboratory tests [42–44].
Thus, it is clear that the 3DP has advantages over other techniques used in rock mechanics testing, such as the accurate and rapid specimen preparation of complex structural rock masses [45]. However, compared with the mechanical and failure characteristics of high strength and high brittleness in rock mechanics tests, the specimens prepared using 3DP usually have low strength and high plasticity, which limit the applications of 3DP in rock engineering. Therefore, on the basis of 3DP technology in complex structural rock mass reconstruction and mechanical testing, the applications and progress of the use of 3DP technology in the rock mass are reviewed from the aspects of materials, equipment, and test methods. In addition, the deficiencies of current 3DP technology in rock mass engineering are discussed to provide guidance for its engineering application.
2. The Technologies, Materials, and Equipment of 3DP
2.1. The Technologies of 3DP
The difference between 3DP technologies and traditional methods lies in the printing materials and accumulation methods. Table 1 describes the common 3DP technologies and their corresponding materials, which are mainly divided into three categories: (1) Extrusion 3DP technology includes fused deposition manufacturing (FDM), fused filament fabrication (FFF), directed ink writing (DIW), and continuous fibre fabrication (CFF) [46–49]. The principle of this method is that the material is melted at a high temperature and ejected from the nozzle; then, the material solidifies quickly after being ejected. (2) 3DP using photography includes stereolithography (SLA), digital light processing (DLP), and continuous liquid interface production (CLIP) [50, 51]. The principle of this method is that the liquid photosensitive resin is sprayed from the nozzle, and the liquid in the target area is irradiated with ultraviolet light, so that the liquid can be rapidly solidified. (3) The 3DP via layer powder bonding includes powder-based 3DP, electron beam melting (EBM), selective laser melting (SLM), selective heat sintering (SHS), selective laser sintering (SLS), and direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) [52–57]. The principle of SLS consists in spreading the first layer of powder, and then, the infrared laser is used to sinter the powder into the desired solid object. The powder bed is preheated a few degrees below the melting temperature of the polymer, and the laser locally provides only the thermal energy necessary to melt the polymer. In addition, the commonly used 3DP techniques also include laminated object manufacturing (LOM) [58], directed energy deposition (DED) [58, 59], and electron beam freeform fabrication (EBF³) [58].
Technical types
Technical names
Materials
Printer manufacturer
Sources
Melt extrusion
Fused deposition manufacturing (FDM)
Thermoplast, eutectic alloy, rubber
Stratasys
3D Systems
[46]
Fused filament fabrication (FFF)
Thermoplast, eutectic alloy, rubber, etc.
[47]
Directed ink writing (DIW)
Ceramics, alloy, metal ceramic, etc.
[48]
Continuous fibre fabrication (CFF)
Nylon, straps, glassfibre, etc.
[49]
Photopolymerization
Stereolithography (SLA)
Photosensitive resin
3D Systems
[51]
Digital light processing (DLP)
Photosensitive resin
Continuous liquid interface production (CLIP)
Photosensitive resin
Layer powder bonding
Powder-based 3DP
Almost any alloy, powdered polymer, gypsum
Z Corporation
3D Systems
Stratasys
[52]
Electron beam melting (EBM)
Almost any alloy (including titanium alloys)
[53]
Selective laser melting (SLM)
Titanium alloy, cobalt chromium alloy, stainless steel, aluminum
[54]
Selective heat sintering (SHS)
Thermoplastic powder
[55]
Selective laser sintering (SLS)
Hot plastic, metal powder, ceramic powder
[56]
Direct metal laser sintering (DMLS)
Almost any alloy
[57]
Lamination
Laminated object manufacturing (LOM)
Paper, sheet metal, plastic film
Helisys
[58]
Powder feeding
Directed energy deposition (DED)
Almost any alloy
Fraunhofer
[59]
Metal wire
Electron beam freeform fabrication (EBF³)
Almost any alloy
LARC
[58]