Investigation of severe lunar environmental conditions on the physical and mechanical properties of lunar regolith geopolymers
Open accessAbstract
3D-printing of geopolymers produced from lunar regolith is an interesting option for space in situ habitats. In this study, the influence of the severe lunar environmental conditions such as extreme temperature variations and vacuum on the physical and mechanical properties of lunar regolith geopolymers were investigated. Additionally, the effect of different amounts of urea as a geopolymer superplasticizer was evaluated. Utilization of urea was found to reduce the water needed to reach the same workability by up to 32%. Extrudability tests showed that mixtures containing 3 wt.% urea could be continuously extruded, and built up into a five layer structure without any noticeable deformation. Addition of urea decreased the compressive strength after exposure to the temperature variations of one lunar day–and–night cycle during curing. However, urea can prevent concrete degradation after the lunar cycle by increasing the amounts of air voids. X-ray tomography showed that the porosity became higher when urea was added to the samples, and increased markedly when the samples were cured in vacuum.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The compressive strength of geopolymer increases by a factor of 6 or more when exposed to a thermal cycle of −80~114 °C in air and vacuum.
“The compressive strength of geopolymer was found to increase by a factor of 6 or more when exposed to a thermal cycle of −80~114 °C in air and vacuum.”
From A Review on Geopolymer Technology for Lunar Base Construction (2022) · cites this paper as [51]
Section 2.2 says the simulated lunar cycle was limited to −80 °C at its low end and reached 114 °C. Section 3.6 reports increased compressive strength after the cycle at both ambient pressure and in vacuum, relative to samples precured for three hours at 80 °C, but does not substantiate an increase by a factor of six or more. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe compressive strength of geopolymers increases when repeatedly exposed to low-high-temperature cycles similar to those on the lunar surface.
“Pilehvar et al. (2020, 2021) found that when conducting durability tests, the compressive strength of geopolymers increased when repeatedly exposed to a low–high-temperature cycle similar to that experienced on the lunar surface [21,51].”
From A Review on Geopolymer Technology for Lunar Base Construction (2022) · cites this paper as [51]
Section 3.6 reports that compressive strength increased in all tested samples after a simulated lunar day–night temperature cycle. The paper compares strength before and after one cycle; it does not establish that strength increases with repeated cycles. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredCuring in a vacuum increases porosity and reduces strength, although the pressure used in Pilehvar's experiment was many orders of magnitude greater than that experienced on the moon.
“Pilehvar et al. (2021) reported that curing in a vacuum increases porosity and reduces strength, although the pressure (vacuum) used in Pilehvar’s experiment was many orders of magnitude greater than that experienced on the moon [51].”
From A Review on Geopolymer Technology for Lunar Base Construction (2022) · cites this paper as [51]
Section 3.5 reports that vacuum curing markedly increased porosity, and Section 3.6 reports lower compressive strength for vacuum-cured samples. The passages from our copy do not establish that the experimental pressure was many orders of magnitude greater than the pressure on the Moon; searches for vacuum-pressure values and a lunar-pressure comparison did not resolve that part of the claim. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 38 · Cited by 69
- Authors
- Pilehvar, S., Arnhof, M., Erichsen, A., Valentini, L., & Kjøniksen, A.
- Affiliations
- Østfold University of Applied Sciences (NO)
- European Space Agency (FR)
- University of Padua (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Kjøniksen, Anna–Lena
- Venue
- Journal of Materials Research and Technology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-03
- Volume
- 11
- Pages
- 1506-1516
- ISSN
- 2214-0697 (ISSN-L)
- 2238-7854
- OpenAlex
- W3127444735
- Cited by
- 69
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 4.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Materials Research and Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- European Space Agency
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Innovations in Concrete and Construction Materials
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Concrete and Cement Materials Research
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Planetary Science and Exploration
- Keywords
- lunar regolith, geopolymer, vacuum curing, extrudability, compressive strength, porosity, air voids, 3D printing, lunar construction materials
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
