Next Article in Journal
Effect of Si Gradient Pattern on the Microstructure and Properties of Laminated Electrical Steel Composites Prepared by Hot-Press Sintering
Previous Article in Journal
Crystallization Kinetics of Lithium Carbonate in a Continuous Stirred-Tank Crystallizer
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Crystals
Volume 14
Issue 12
10.3390/cryst14121022
crystals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Boosting the Mechanical and Thermal Properties of CUG-1A Lunar Regolith Simulant by Spark Plasma Sintering

by
Yiwei Liu
1,2,
Xian Zhang
1,*,
Xiong Chen
2,*,
Chao Wang
1,
Yaolun Yu
1,
Yi Jia
1 and
Wei Yao
1
1
Qian Xuesen Laboratory of Space Technology, China Academy of Space Technology, Beijing 100094, China
2
School of Mechanical Engineering, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing 210094, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Crystals 2024, 14(12), 1022; https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst14121022
Submission received: 26 October 2024 / Revised: 15 November 2024 / Accepted: 21 November 2024 / Published: 26 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Inorganic Crystalline Materials)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The mechanical and thermal properties of the fabricated structures composed of lunar regolith are of great interest due to the urgent demand for in situ construction and manufacturing on the Moon for sustainable human habitation. This work demonstrates the great enhancement of the mechanical and thermal properties of CUG-1A lunar regolith simulant samples using spark plasma sintering (SPS). The morphology, chemical composition, structure, mechanical and thermal properties of the molten and SPSed samples were investigated. The sintering temperature significantly influenced the microstructure and macroscopic properties of these samples. The highest density (~99.7%), highest thermal conductivity (2.65 W·m−1·K−1 at 1073 K), and the best mechanical properties (compressive strength: 370.2 MPa, flexural strength: 81.4 MPa) were observed for the SPSed sample sintered at 1273 K. The enhanced thermal and mechanical properties of these lunar regolith simulant samples are attributed to the compact structure and the tight bonding between particles via homogenous glass.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

As the nearest celestial body to the Earth, the Moon is a perfect platform for scientific investigation, testing technologies for future use in deep space, and even establishing colonies [1,2,3,4,5]. Given the high cost of Earth-to-Moon launch, the transportation of large amounts of materials from Earth for the construction of on-site infrastructure, such as the landing platform, shelters, and the lunar base, is unfeasible [6,7]. In situ resource utilization (ISRU), which can make the exploration of the Moon much more sustainable by dramatically reducing the cost, has become a focal point of research targeted at developing technologies in support of long-term on-site exploration [7,8,9]. The lunar regolith, covering the entire surface of the Moon and mainly comprising aluminosilicate-based mineral and glass, is the main resource available as a straightforward raw material for construction [7,10]. In addition, the lunar regolith also has the potential to be used as the raw material for the manufacturing of functional components, such as thermal energy storage blocks, which may extricate missions from being dependent on chemical batteries [8,9].
Due to the extreme environment on the Moon, the components obtained from in situ construction require a high density, excellent mechanical properties, resistance to irradiation, and high thermal stability [9]. For thermal energy storage blocks, high thermal conductivity and specific heat capacity are required for high-efficiency energy storage and release [11,12]. Therefore, the development of specific manufacturing techniques is required for the on-site utilization of the lunar regolith. Regolith-based concrete has been proposed for lunar base construction [13]. However, the need for large amounts of water impedes its practical application. The usefulness of extrusion-based automatic 3D printing also depends on the requisite binders, such as sulfur [14,15], polymers [16,17,18], and phosphoric acid [19], which not only reduce the stability of the infrastructure due to the sublimation of binders at high vacuum but also increase the transport cost. The direct sintering of the lunar regolith without any additional materials is a more efficient process, especially for sintering under vacuum [8,20]. To date, many sintering techniques using different sources, including conventional resistive heating [21,22,23,24], microwave [5,25,26,27], concentrated solar light [28,29,30,31], lasers [32,33,34,35,36,37], and spark plasma [38,39,40,41], have been propose. Among these techniques, spark plasma sintering (SPS) possesses intrinsic advantages for in situ manufacturing on the Moon, including its high-vacuum atmosphere, low sintering temperature, high efficiency (short processing duration), and enhanced powder densification behavior. However, the use of SPS techniques for sintering lunar regolith simulant is far from optimal. Previous works have mainly focused on the microstructure and phase evolution of SPSed lunar regolith simulants (FJS-1, JSC-1, and volcanic rocks), but few physical properties have been studied [38,39,40,41]. In addition, to the best of our knowledge, the thermal properties of SPSed lunar regolith simulants have not been reported yet. In addition, their mechanical properties, especially their compressive and flexural strength, are far below the common value of basaltic rocks (compressive strength: 266 ± 98 MPa) [42,43]. Very recently, the construction materials obtained by the spark plasma sintering of volcanic rocks have shown exceptional physicomechanical properties, further demonstrated the great potential of SPS technology in ISRU [41].
Herein, we demonstrate the utilization of SPS for the sintering of the lunar regolith simulant CUG-1A at different temperatures. The mechanical and thermal properties of the sintered samples are dramatically enhanced compared to the molten sample. The variation in morphology, composition and structure with sintering temperature are also studied. This work further proves the great potential of using SPS as an ISRU technique on the Moon not only for the construction of load-carrying structures in buildings, but also for the manufacturing of thermal energy storage blocks.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Melting of CUG-1A Lunar Regolith Simulant in Vacuum

The commercial CUG-1A lunar regolith simulant was used as the raw material in this work [44,45]. The partial size ranges from 20 to 125 μm, with a median size of ~75 μm. The average particle density is 2.94 g/cm3. The chemical composition, as summarized in Table 1, is similar to the sample returned by the Chang’E-5 mission [45]. Our previous work indicated that the glass content in CUG-1A is relatively low compared to the lunar sample returned by the Chang’E-5 mission [46]. Therefore, the glass would re-crystallize into the minerals during SPS processes, and the presence of glass in the real lunar soil would have little impact on the final composition and microstructure of the SPSed samples. Hence, the CUG-1A simulant can replicate the mechanical and chemical properties of actual lunar soil well.
The CUG-1A powder (50 g) was loaded into an alumina crucible (50 mL) and heated to 1200 °C in a tube furnace with a heating rate of 10 °C/min. The melting process was performed in vacuum (~10−4 mbar) and kept at 1200 °C for 2 h to obtain a homogenous melt. Afterwards, the furnace was turned off, and the melt was cooled down to room temperature. The obtained sample was labeled as Melt-1200.

2.2. Spark Plasma Sintering (SPS) of CUG-1A Lunar Regolith Simulant

The powder of the CUG-1A lunar regolith simulant was loaded into a graphite die (Φ20 mm) in a SPS system equipped with circulating water cooling. The sintering processes were performed under vacuum (~10−4 mbar). The applied pressure increased to 60 MPa within 1 min and was maintained during the entire sintering process. The sintering temperatures was chosen as 800 °C, 900 °C and 1000 °C, respectively, with a heating rate of 250 °C/min. After sintering for 10 min, the pressure was released immediately, and the graphite die was cooled rapidly to room temperature. The obtained samples are labeled as SPS-800, SPS-900, and SPS-1000, respectively.

2.3. Characterization

The melt of the CUG-1A lunar regolith simulant and the SPS samples were cut to specific shapes by an abrasive wire sawing machine before use. X-ray diffraction (XRD) of the powder, melt and the SPSed samples was performed using a Bruker D2 Phaser diffractometer that was equipped with a monochromatized source of Cu Kα radiation (λ = 0.15406 nm) at 4 kW (40 kV, 100 mA). The patterns were collected over a 2θ range of 10–80°, with a scan rate of 1.2° min−1. A Phenom Pro scanning electron microscopy (SEM) system that was equipped with a Princeton Gamma Tech (PGT) energy-dispersive X-ray analyzer was used to acquire SEM images and semiquantitative energy-dispersive images using an accelerating voltage of 15 keV over an accumulation time of 60 s.

2.4. Mechanical Property Measurements

The mechanical properties were investigated using a computer-controlled testing machine (DN-WD5000N, DANA Ltd. Huzhou, China). Six cuboid samples with a size of 5 mm × 5 mm × 10 mm were used to test their compressive strength after polishing. The flexural strength of the six polished bars (25 mm × 5 mm × 5 mm) were investigated by the typical three-point banding tests. The hardness of six polished bars (5 mm × 2 mm × 4 mm) was measured using a Mohs hardness tester.

2.5. Thermal Property Measurements

The thermal diffusivity (λ) of the molten and SPSed samples was determined using the laser flash method in a flowing Ar atmosphere (Netzsch LFA 467 HT, Netzsch Analyzing & Testing, Shanghai, China). The samples were cut into rectangular slices with a size of 10 mm × 10 mm × 1.5 mm before the measurements. The thermal conductivity (κ) was calculated using the equation κ = ρλCp, where ρ is the density and Cp is the specific heat capacity. The densities of these samples were measured by Archimedes density measurement via immersion in water. The Cp was determined by a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC, PE). The coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) was measured in the temperature range of 50–1000 °C by using a Netzsch DIL 402 apparatus. Bars with a size of about 5 mm × 5 mm × 15 mm were used.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Morphology and Composition

The SEM images and the corresponding elemental mapping of the Melt-1200, SPS-800, SPS-900 and SPS-1000 samples are illustrated in Figure 1. The Melt-1200 sample shows a relatively smooth surface, indicating that the CUG-1A lunar regolith simulant melts homogeneously at 1473 K. Distinct holes with smooth contours were observed, as highlighted by the yellow arrows in Figure 1a, implying the high viscosity of the melt, which is common for a basaltic lava [47,48]. It is reasonable to imply that these holes would be much more evident on the Moon due to the reduced gravity. Therefore, the melting process is not suitable for the on-site manufacturing of dense components. The SPS-800 sample shows a coarse surface with distinct particle boundaries and interstices that are caused by the loose particle stacking. Therefore, the CUG-1A particles do not melt at 1073 K, even at a high external pressure. In addition, the particle boundary and interstices imply the low content of aluminosilicate-based glass, which is supposed to soften below 1027 K [4,7]. It is clear that the SPS-900 sample possesses a much smoother surface than that of SPS-800, comparable to that of the Melt-1200 sample. The similar morphology between the SPS-900 and Melt-1200 samples demonstrates that the CUG-1A particles start to soften between 1073 and 1173 K. The absence of the interstices signified the high density of the compact SPS-900 sample. The morphology of the SPS-1000 sample shows a smooth glassy surface with distinct particles embedded in it. The occurrence of these small crystalline particles might be due to the re-crystallization from the glassy matrix [4,40]. The elemental distribution of the four samples confirmed the presence of the major elements: O, Si, Al, Ca, Mg, Fe, Na, K, and Ti. The concentration of these major elements is depicted in Figure 2. Because of the limitation of EDX, the concentration of O is not reliable due to its small atomic weight. It is clear that the concentration of the major elements shows little variation between different samples. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that these samples possess a similar chemical composition.
In order to determine the structural evolution during the melting and SPS process, the XRD patterns of the four samples were collected, as shown in Figure 3. Rietveld refinements were performed to obtain the phase compositions. Combined with the results of major elements, the crystalline phases of the raw material mainly comprise augite (PDF#41-1483), anorthite (PDF#03-0559), olivine (PDF#79-1194) and ilmenite (PDF#99-0063). According to the Rietveld refinement results in the inset of Figure 3a, the main crystalline phases in the CUG-1A lunar regolith simulant are approximately 47.4% augite, 38.3% anorthite, 9.2% olivine, and 5.1% ilmenite. The absence of broad peaks in the 2θ range of 20°~35° indicates the low content of amorphous phase. Overall, the major phase of the CUG-1A lunar regolith simulant is quite similar to the real one, except for the relative contents [49,50]. After melting at 1473 K and solidification, Melt-1200 shows a completely different pattern from the raw material (Figure 3b). The Rietveld refinement results indicate that the main crystalline phases are approximately 34.8% clinopyroxene (PDF#24-203), 16% krotite (PDF#23-1036), 14.4% forsterite (PDF#34-189), 7.5% aegirine-augite (PDF#082-1227), and 2% albite (PDF#10-393). Consistent with the SEM results, the Melt-1200 sample also contains approximately 25% amorphous phase. The SPS-800 sample features a similar XRD pattern to that of the raw material. The refined main crystalline phases are approximately 45.3% augite (PDF#41-1483), 34.7% anorthite (PDF#03-0559), 10.5% olivine (PDF#79-1194), 6.4% sanidine (PDF#19-1227), and 3.1% ilmenite (PDF#99-0063) for the SPS-800 sample. The SPS-900 and SPS-1000 samples feature similar XRD patterns that are different from the other samples and the raw material (Figure 3d,e). The Rietveld refinement results indicate that the main crystalline phases are 31.3% augite (PDF#41-1483), 21.6% anorthite (PDF#03-0559), 20.2% akermanite (PDF#10-0391), 7.8% microcline (PDF#12-0703) and 6.2 olivine (PDF#79-1194) for the SPS-900, and 28.2% augite, 17.8% anorthite, 16.9% akermanite, 10.3% microcline and 5.4% olivine for the SPS-1000 samples, respectively. Broad peaks, corresponding to the amorphous phases, are observed for both the SPS-900 and SPS-1000 samples. The presence of akermanite and microcline further confirms the occurrence of re-crystallization. Overall, these samples are mainly composed of aluminosilicate-based mineral and glass. In addition, the different processing methods give rise to final products with different compositions.

3.2. Mechanical Properties

The mechanical properties of the Melt-1200, SPS-800, SPS-900, and SPS-1000 samples are summarized in Table 2. The density (ρ) of the four samples was measured by the Archimedes method. The porosity was calculated using the following equation:
p o r o s i t y   % = ρ 0 − ρ o b s ρ 0
where ρ0 and ρobs represent the average particle density and the measured density, respectively. It is clear that the mechanical properties are improved with the decrease in porosity. These samples show the same Mohs hardness, except for the loosely packed SPS-800 sample. The SPS-1000 sample possesses the best mechanical properties, with a compressive strength and flexural strength of 370.2 ± 22.3 MPa and 81.4 ± 17.6 MPa, respectively. The compact structure and the tight bonding between particles via homogenous glass in the SPS-1000 sample are the key factors improving its mechanical properties. The compressive strengths of the lunar regolith simulant blocks obtained by different methods are summarized in Figure 4 [2,3,5,7,21,22,23,24,27,30,31,35,36,37,40,51,52,53]. The values of the compressive and flexural strength are approximately twice, seven times, and ten times that of the SPSed FJS-1 [40], the digital-light-processed CLRS-2 [2], and the microwave-sintered KLS-1 [5] lunar regolith simulants, respectively. In addition, the mechanical properties of these samples are far beyond the requirements of load-carrying structures in buildings (compressive strength: 20~40 MPa, flexural strength: 3~5 MPa) [40]. The excellent mechanical properties observed for the SPS-1000 sample provide a basis for further research on materials for the in situ manufacturing of tools on the Moon.

3.3. Thermal Properties

The coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the four samples was measured by DIL-402, and the dL/L0 vs. temperature curves are plotted in Figure 5. The dL and L0 represent the length variation during heating and the initial length at room temperature, respectively. It is clear that the Melt-1200 sample shows linear expansion below 920 K with a derived CTE of 10.9 × 10−6 K−1. A further increase in temperature results in deviation from the linear expansion behavior, and two phase transitions were observed according to the two inflection points (Figure 5. The phase transitions at 920 K and 1130 K correspond to the glass transition and re-crystallization, respectively, which are also found for other basalt-based lunar regolith simulants [4,40,54]. In addition, the recrystallization temperature is similar to that of the real lunar regolith particles that were returned by the Chang’e-5 mission [55]. The SPS-800 sample shows linear expansion in almost the entire temperature range of measurement. The absence of the glass transition as well as the inconspicuousness of re-crystallization implies that there is a low content of amorphous phase in the SPS-800 sample, which is consistent with the SEM and XRD results. The derived coefficient of thermal expansion is 11.6 × 10−6 K−1. The SPS-900 and SPS-1000 samples show similar dL/L0 vs. temperature curves (Figure 5). In addition, glass transition and re-crystallization were both observed for the two samples, indicating the presence of amorphous phases. Roughly, the content of the amorphous phase in SPS-1000 is higher than that in SPS-900, due to the much more evident phase transition for SPS-1000. The derived coefficient of thermal expansion is 11.4 × 10−6 K−1 and 12.2 × 10−6 K−1 for SPS-900 and SPS-1000, respectively. Consequently, there is no significant difference between the CTEs below 900 K for the four samples. In addition, the CTEs of these samples are quite similar to that of concrete (8~12 × 10−6 K−1) and steel (~12 × 10−6 K−1), further demonstrating the potential use of lunar regolith as a straightforward raw material for in situ construction.
The temperature-dependent thermal diffusivity (λ) and specific heat capacity (Cp) of the four samples are shown in Figure 6a and Figure 6b, respectively. The values of the thermal diffusivity for the four samples follow the sequence of SPS-1000 > SPS-900 > SPS-800 > Melt-1200 in the whole temperature range of measurement. The highest thermal diffusivities observed for each sample are 0.73, 0.78, 0.85 and 0.90 mm2/s at 323 K, respectively. There is no significant difference between the Cp of the four samples below 500 K. With the increase in temperature, the SPSed samples show a slightly higher Cp than that of the Melt-1200 sample. This is because different processing methods can cause the final product to have different compositions. The specific heat capacities of the four samples are comparable to the other basalt-based lunar regolith simulants, as well as the real lunar soil [8,9,56]. The thermal conductivity (κ) of the four samples (Figure 6c) was calculated using the equation κ = λCpρ, where λ is the thermal diffusion coefficient, C is the specific heat, and ρ is density. The SPS-800 sample shows the lowest value of thermal conductivity due to its low density, which is also observed in the SEM image. Nevertheless, the κ of the SPS-800 sample is approximately three orders of magnitude higher than that of the unprocessed lunar regolith [57,58] and is comparable to that of the vacuum-sintered CLRS-1 at 1050 °C (0.9 W·m−1·K−1 at 300 K) [20] and JSC-2A (0.98 W·m−1·K−1 at 300 K) [8]. Remarkably, significant increases in thermal conductivity were observed for the SPS-900 and SPS-1000 samples when compared to the Melt-1200 sample. These increases are the integrated effects of the increase in thermal diffusivity, specific heat capacity, and density. The highest κ value of 2.65 W·m−1·K−1 was observed for the SPS-1000 sample at 1073 K, which is about 70% higher than that of the Melt-1200 sample (1.6 W·m−1·K−1 at 1073 K). To the best of our knowledge, this is the highest thermal conductivity obtained for basalt-based lunar regolith simulants to date. This high thermal conductivity assures a uniform temperature distribution in the SPS-1000 sample, which improves its fatigue properties. Overall, the high thermal conductivity coupled with the improved specific heat capacity make the SPS-1000 sample a perfect candidate for heat storage and release on the moon.

4. Conclusions

In summary, compacted CUG-1A lunar regolith simulant samples were prepared by melting and SPS processing, and their chemical composition, microstructure, mechanical and thermal properties were investigated. The melting process completely changed their mineral composition, while the SPS processing partially maintained their components. The samples obtained from SPS processing showed enhanced density, mechanical properties, and thermal conductivity. The final density reached 99.7%. The SPS-1000 sample showed the highest average compressive strength and flexural strength, reaching up to 370.2 MPa and 81.4 MPa, respectively. Furthermore, a great improvement in thermal conductivity was observed from 1.6 W·m−1·K−1 for the melting sample to 2.65 W·m−1·K−1 for the SPS sample at 1273 K. The compact structure and the tight bonding between particles via homogenous glass in the SPS-1000 sample were the key factors able improve its thermal and mechanical properties. The boosted mechanical and thermal properties of the compacted lunar regolith simulant samples provides a basis for future research on in situ construction and manufacturing technologies on the Moon for sustainable human habitation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.Z. and X.C.; methodology, Y.L. and X.Z.; formal analysis, Y.L., X.Z., X.C., C.W., Y.Y., Y.J. and W.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.L. and X.Z.; writing—review and editing, Y.L., X.Z., X.C., C.W., Y.Y., Y.J. and W.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Qian Xuesen Youth Innovation Fund (Y-KC-JT-QXS-012) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. U22B2092).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author due to privacy reasons.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Ruess, F.; Schaenzlin, J.; Benaroya, H. Structural Design of a Lunar Habitat. J. Aerosp. Eng. 2006, 19, 133–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Dou, R.; Tang, W.Z.; Wang, L.; Li, S.; Duan, W.Y.; Liu, M.; Zhang, Y.B.; Wang, G. Sintering of lunar regolith structures fabricated via digital light processing. Ceram. Int. 2019, 45, 17210–17215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Liu, M.; Tang, W.; Duan, W.; Li, S.; Dou, R.; Wang, G.; Liu, B.; Wang, L. Digital light processing of lunar regolith structures with high mechanical properties. Ceram. Int. 2019, 45, 5829–5836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zocca, A.; Fateri, M.; Al-Sabbagh, D.; Günster, J. Investigation of the sintering and melting of JSC-2A lunar regolith simulant. Ceram. Int. 2020, 46, 14097–14104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kim, Y.-J.; Ryu, B.H.; Jin, H.; Lee, J.; Shin, H.-S. Microstructural, mechanical, and thermal properties of microwave-sintered KLS-1 lunar regolith simulant. Ceram. Int. 2021, 47, 26891–26897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Duke, M.B.; Blair, B.R.; Diaz, J. Lunar resource utilization: Implications for commerce and exploration. Adv. Space Res. 2003, 31, 2413–2419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Farries, K.W.; Visintin, P.; Smith, S.T.; Eyk, P.V. Sintered or melted regolith for lunar construction: State-of-the-art review and future research directions. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 296, 123627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fateri, M.; Sottong, R.; Kolbe, M.; Gamer, J.; Sperl, M.; Cowley, A. Thermal properties of processed lunar regolith simulant. Int. J. Appl. Ceram. Technol. 2019, 16, 2419–2428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bonanno, A.; Bernold, L.E. Exploratory Review of Sintered Lunar Soil Based on the Results of the Thermal Analysis of a Lunar Soil Simulant. J. Aerosp. Eng. 2015, 28, 04014114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wilhelm, S.; Curbach, M. Review of possible mineral materials and production techniques for a building material on the moon. Struct. Concr. 2014, 15, 419–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hasnain, S.M. Review on sustainable thermal energy storage technologies, Part I: Heat storage materials and techniques. Energy Convers. Manag. 1998, 39, 1127–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Alva, G.; Liu, L.; Huang, X.; Fang, G. Thermal energy storage materials and systems for solar energy applications. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2017, 68, 693–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lin, T.; Love, H.; Stark, D. Physical properties of concrete made with Apollo 16 lunar soil sample. In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Century; NASA: Houston, TX, USA, 1992; p. 483. [Google Scholar]
  14. Leach, N.; Carlson, A.; Khoshnevis, B.; Thangavelu, M. Robotic Construction by Contour Crafting: The Case of Lunar Construction. Int. J. Archit. Comput. 2012, 10, 423–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yuan, X.; Zhang, J.; Zahiri, B.; Khoshnevis, B. Performance of Sulfur Concrete in Planetary Applications of Contour Crafting, in International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium. In Proceedings of the Addictive Manufacturing Conference, Chicago, IL, USA, 13–14 September 2016; pp. 2282–2294. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gosau, J.-M. Regolith Stabilization and Building Materials for the Lunar Surface. In Earth and Space; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA, 2012; pp. 243–249. [Google Scholar]
  17. Mueller, R.P.; Gelino, N.J.; Smith, J.D.; Buckles, B.C.; Lippitt, T.; Schuler, J.M.; Nick, A.J.; Nugent, M.W.; Townsend, I.I. Zero Launch Mass Three-Dimensional Print Head. In Earth and Space; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA, 2018; pp. 219–232. [Google Scholar]
  18. Li, H.; Zhao, W.; Wu, X.; Tang, H.; Li, Q.; Tan, J.; Wang, G. 3D Printing and Solvent Dissolution Recycling of Polylactide–Lunar Regolith Composites by Material Extrusion Approach. Polymers 2020, 12, 1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Buchner, C.; Pawelke, R.H.; Schlauf, T.; Reissner, A.; Makaya, A. A new planetary structure fabrication process using phosphoric acid. Acta Astronaut. 2018, 143, 272–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Song, L.; Xu, J.; Fan, S.; Tang, H.; Li, X.; Liu, J.; Duan, X. Vacuum sintered lunar regolith simulant: Pore-forming and thermal conductivity. Ceram. Int. 2019, 45, 3627–3633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Indyk, S.J.; Benaroya, H. A structural assessment of unrefined sintered lunar regolith simulant. Acta Astronaut. 2017, 140, 517–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Meurisse, A.; Beltzung, J.C.; Kolbe, M.; Cowley, A.; Sperl, M. Influence of Mineral Composition on Sintering Lunar Regolith. J. Aerosp. Eng. 2017, 30, 04017014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hoshino, T.; Wakabayashi, S.; Yoshihara, S.; Hatanaka, N. Key Technology Development for Future Lunar Utilization—Block Production Using Lunar Regolith. Trans. Jpn. Soc. Aeronaut. Space Sci. 2016, 14, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gualtieri, T.; Bandyopadhyay, A. Compressive deformation of porous lunar regolith. Mater. Lett. 2015, 143, 276–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Taylor, L.A.; Meek, T.T. Microwave Sintering of Lunar Soil: Properties, Theory, and Practice. J. Aerosp. Eng. 2005, 18, 188–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Allan, S.M.; Merritt, B.J.; Griffin, B.F.; Hintze, P.E.; Shulman, H.S. High-Temperature Microwave Dielectric Properties and Processing of JSC-1AC Lunar Simulant. J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013, 26, 874–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Fateri, M.; Cowley, A.; Kolbe, M.; Garcia, O.; Sperl, M.; Cristoforetti, S. Localized Microwave Thermal Posttreatment of Sintered Samples of Lunar Simulant. J. Aerosp. Eng. 2019, 32, 04019051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Nakamura, T.; Smith, B. Solar thermal system for lunar ISRU applications: Development and field operation at Mauna Kea, HI. In Proceedings of the 49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, Orlando, FL, USA, 4–7 January 2011; p. 433. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hintze, P.E.; Quintana, S. Building a Lunar or Martian Launch Pad with In Situ Materials: Recent Laboratory and Field Studies. J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013, 26, 134–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Meurisse, A.; Makaya, A.; Willsch, C.; Sperl, M. Solar 3D printing of lunar regolith. Acta Astronaut. 2018, 152, 800–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Fateri, M.; Meurisse, A.; Sperl, M.; Urbina, D.; Madakashira, H.K.; Govindaraj, S.; Gancet, J.; Imhof, B.; Hoheneder, W.; Waclavicek, R.; et al. Solar Sintering for Lunar Additive Manufacturing. J. Aerosp. Eng. 2019, 32, 04019101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Balla, V.K.; Roberson, L.B.; O’Connor, G.W.; Trigwell, S.; Bose, S.; Bandyopadhyay, A. First demonstration on direct laser fabrication of lunar regolith parts. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2012, 18, 451–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Goulas, A.; Harris, R.A.; Friel, R.J. Additive manufacturing of physical assets by using ceramic multicomponent extra-terrestrial materials. Addit. Manuf. 2016, 10, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Fateri, M.; Gebhardt, A. Process Parameters Development of Selective Laser Melting of Lunar Regolith for On-Site Manufacturing Applications. Int. J. Appl. Ceram. Technol. 2015, 12, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sitta, L.A.; Lavagna, M. 3D printing of Moon highlands regolith simulant. In Proceedings of the 69th International Astronautical Congress (IAC 2018), Bremen, Germany, 1–5 October 2018; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  36. Goulas, A.; Binner, J.G.; Engstrøm, D.S.; Harris, R.A.; Friel, R.J. Mechanical behaviour of additively manufactured lunar regolith simulant components. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part L 2019, 233, 1629–1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Caprio, L.; Demir, A.G.; Previtali, B.; Colosimo, B.M. Determining the feasible conditions for processing lunar regolith simulant via laser powder bed fusion. Addit. Manuf. 2020, 32, 101029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhang, X.; Khedmati, M.; Kim, Y.-R.; Shin, H.-S.; Lee, J.; Kim, Y.-J.; Cui, B. Microstructure evolution during spark plasma sintering of FJS-1 lunar soil simulant. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2020, 103, 899–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Phuah, X.L.; Wang, H.; Zhang, B.; Cho, J.; Zhang, X.; Wang, H. Ceramic Material Processing Towards Future Space Habitat: Electric Current-Assisted Sintering of Lunar Regolith Simulant. Materials 2020, 13, 4128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Zhang, X.; Gholami, S.; Khedmati, M.; Cui, B.; Kim, Y.-R.; Kim, Y.-J.; Shin, H.-S.; Lee, J. Spark plasma sintering of a lunar regolith simulant: Effects of parameters on microstructure evolution, phase transformation, and mechanical properties. Ceram. Int. 2021, 47, 5209–5220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Shichalin, O.; Belov, A.; Buravlev, I.; Kolodeznikov, E.; Fedorets, A.; Lembikov, A.; Zolotnikov, S.; Maiorov, V.; Nozdrachev, E.; Ruslan, A.; et al. Additive manufacturing development of construction materials for a lunar base via spark plasma sintering of volcanic rocks using in-situ resource utilization concept. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 442, 137553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Militky, J.; Kovacic, V. Ultimate Mechanical Properties of Basalt Filaments. Text. Res. J. 1996, 66, 225–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Schultz, R.A. Limits on strength and deformation properties of jointed basaltic rock masses. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 1995, 28, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Xin-xinga, H.; Longa, X.; Juna, H.; Qia, H.; Ruia, G.; Ganga, Y. Lunar soil simulant development and Lunar soil simulant CUG-1A. Geol. Sci. Technol. Inf. 2011, 30, 137–142. [Google Scholar]
  45. Qian, Y.; Xiao, L.; Yin, S.; Zhang, M.; Head, J.W. The regolith properties of the Chang’e-5 landing region and the ground drilling experiments using lunar regolith simulants. Icarus 2019, 337, 113508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Liu, Y.; Zhang, X.; Wang, C.; Gao, T.; Wang, C.; Wang, Q.; Gu, J.; Chen, X.; Yao, W. Melting properties of lunar regolith simulant for in-situ construction. Adv. Space Res. 2024; in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Keszthelyi, L.; Self, S. Some physical requirements for the emplacement of long basaltic lava flows. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 1998, 103, 27447–27464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Harris, A.J.L.; Allen, J.S., III. One-, two- and three-phase viscosity treatments for basaltic lava flows. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 2008, 113, B09212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Zhang, H.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, G.; Dong, K.; Deng, X.; Gao, X.; Yang, Y.; Xiao, Y.; Bai, X.; Liang, K.; et al. Size, morphology, and composition of lunar samples returned by Chang’E-5 mission. Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 2021, 65, 229511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Li, C.; Hu, H.; Yang, M.-F.; Pei, Z.-Y.; Zhou, Q.; Ren, X.; Liu, B.; Liu, D.; Zeng, X.; Zhang, G.; et al. Characteristics of the lunar samples returned by the Chang’E-5 mission. Natl. Sci. Rev. 2022, 9, nwab188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Faierson, E.J.; Logan, K.V.; Stewart, B.K.; Hunt, M.P. Demonstration of concept for fabrication of lunar physical assets utilizing lunar regolith simulant and a geothermite reaction. Acta Astronaut. 2010, 67, 38–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Taylor, S.L.; Jakus, A.E.; Koube, K.D.; Ibeh, A.J.; Geisendorfer, N.R.; Shah, R.N.; Dunand, D.C. Sintering of micro-trusses created by extrusion-3D-printing of lunar regolith inks. Acta Astronaut. 2018, 143, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Cesaretti, G.; Dini, E.; De Kestelier, X.; Colla, V.; Pambaguian, L. Building components for an outpost on the Lunar soil by means of a novel 3D printing technology. Acta Astronaut. 2014, 93, 430–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ray, C.S.; Reis, S.T.; Sen, S.; O’Dell, J.S. JSC-1A lunar soil simulant: Characterization, glass formation, and selected glass properties. J. Non-Cryst. Solids 2010, 356, 2369–2374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zhang, X.; Liu, Y.; Zhao, S.; Song, J.; Yao, W.; Wang, W.; Zou, Z.; Yang, M. Melting and Rapid Solidification of Lunar Regolith Particles Returned by Chang’E-5 Mission. Research 2024, 7, 0486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Schreiner, S.S.; Dominguez, J.A.; Sibille, L.; Hoffman, J.A. Thermophysical property models for lunar regolith. Adv. Space Res. 2016, 57, 1209–1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sakatani, N.; Ogawa, K.; Iijima, Y.-I.; Honda, R.; Tanaka, S. Experimental study for thermal conductivity structure of lunar surface regolith: Effect of compressional stress. Icarus 2012, 221, 1180–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sakatani, N.; Ogawa, K.; Iijima, Y.-I.; Arakawa, M.; Tanaka, S. Compressional stress effect on thermal conductivity of powdered materials: Measurements and their implication to lunar regolith. Icarus 2016, 267, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Crystals 14 01022 g001
Figure 1. SEM image (a), magnified image (b) and elemental mapping (c) of the melting sample. SEM image (d), magnified image (e) and elemental mapping (f) of the SPS-800 sample. SEM image (g), magnified image (h) and elemental mapping (i) of the SPS-900 sample. SEM image (j), magnified image (k) and elemental mapping (l) of the SPS-1000 samples. Elemental mappings were taken at low magnifications. The yellow and red arrows point out the holes and particle boundaries, respectively.
Figure 1. SEM image (a), magnified image (b) and elemental mapping (c) of the melting sample. SEM image (d), magnified image (e) and elemental mapping (f) of the SPS-800 sample. SEM image (g), magnified image (h) and elemental mapping (i) of the SPS-900 sample. SEM image (j), magnified image (k) and elemental mapping (l) of the SPS-1000 samples. Elemental mappings were taken at low magnifications. The yellow and red arrows point out the holes and particle boundaries, respectively.
Crystals 14 01022 g001
Crystals 14 01022 g002
Figure 2. Elemental concentration of the CUG-1A powder, Melt-1200, SPS-800, SPS-900, and SPS-1000 samples obtained from EDX mapping.
Figure 2. Elemental concentration of the CUG-1A powder, Melt-1200, SPS-800, SPS-900, and SPS-1000 samples obtained from EDX mapping.
Crystals 14 01022 g002
Crystals 14 01022 g003
Figure 3. XRD patterns of (a) CUG-1A lunar regolith, (b) Melt-1200, (c) SPS-800, (d) SPS-900, and (e) SPS-1000. The red crosses represent the observed patterns, while the blue, gray, and green lines are the calculated patterns, backgrounds, and the difference between the observed and calculated patterns, respectively.
Figure 3. XRD patterns of (a) CUG-1A lunar regolith, (b) Melt-1200, (c) SPS-800, (d) SPS-900, and (e) SPS-1000. The red crosses represent the observed patterns, while the blue, gray, and green lines are the calculated patterns, backgrounds, and the difference between the observed and calculated patterns, respectively.
Crystals 14 01022 g003
Crystals 14 01022 g004
Figure 4. Comparison of compressive strength of lunar regolith simulant blocks obtained by different methods [2,3,5,7,21,22,23,24,27,30,31,35,36,37,40,51,52,53].
Figure 4. Comparison of compressive strength of lunar regolith simulant blocks obtained by different methods [2,3,5,7,21,22,23,24,27,30,31,35,36,37,40,51,52,53].
Crystals 14 01022 g004
Crystals 14 01022 g005
Figure 5. The dL/L0 vs. temperature plots of Melt-1200, SPS-800, SPS-900 and SPS-1000.
Figure 5. The dL/L0 vs. temperature plots of Melt-1200, SPS-800, SPS-900 and SPS-1000.
Crystals 14 01022 g005
Crystals 14 01022 g006
Figure 6. Temperature-dependent thermal diffusivity (a), specific heat (b) and thermal conductivity (c) of the Melt-1200, SPS-800, SPS-900, and SPS-1000 samples.
Figure 6. Temperature-dependent thermal diffusivity (a), specific heat (b) and thermal conductivity (c) of the Melt-1200, SPS-800, SPS-900, and SPS-1000 samples.
Crystals 14 01022 g006
Table 1. Chemical composition of the CUG-1A lunar regolith simulant.
Table 1. Chemical composition of the CUG-1A lunar regolith simulant.
SiO2Al2O3FeOCaOMgOTiO2K2OP2O5Na2OMnOLOITotal
CUG-1A48.3216.0112.57.396.952.382.120.540.190.150.1999.8
Table 2. Density and the mechanical properties of the four samples.
Table 2. Density and the mechanical properties of the four samples.
SampleAverage Particle Density (g/cm3)Density (g/cm3)Porosity (%)Compressive Strength (MPa)Flexural Strength (MPa)Mohs Hardness
Melt-12002.942.814.5180.5 ± 9.535.3 ± 12.56
SPS-8002.0829.380.2 ± 10.813.5 ± 6.83
SPS-9002.901.4210.5 ± 12.748.1 ± 15.36
SPS-10002.930.3370.2 ± 22.381.4 ± 17.66
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liu, Y.; Zhang, X.; Chen, X.; Wang, C.; Yu, Y.; Jia, Y.; Yao, W. Boosting the Mechanical and Thermal Properties of CUG-1A Lunar Regolith Simulant by Spark Plasma Sintering. Crystals 2024, 14, 1022. https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst14121022

AMA Style

Liu Y, Zhang X, Chen X, Wang C, Yu Y, Jia Y, Yao W. Boosting the Mechanical and Thermal Properties of CUG-1A Lunar Regolith Simulant by Spark Plasma Sintering. Crystals. 2024; 14(12):1022. https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst14121022

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Yiwei, Xian Zhang, Xiong Chen, Chao Wang, Yaolun Yu, Yi Jia, and Wei Yao. 2024. "Boosting the Mechanical and Thermal Properties of CUG-1A Lunar Regolith Simulant by Spark Plasma Sintering" Crystals 14, no. 12: 1022. https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst14121022

APA Style

Liu, Y., Zhang, X., Chen, X., Wang, C., Yu, Y., Jia, Y., & Yao, W. (2024). Boosting the Mechanical and Thermal Properties of CUG-1A Lunar Regolith Simulant by Spark Plasma Sintering. Crystals, 14(12), 1022. https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst14121022

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop