Finite element analysis and simulation of structures design with locally produced concrete on the Earth, Mars, and the Moon

Abstract

Humanity’s growing interest in space colonization has intensified the search for sustainable construction methods on extraterrestrial surfaces. This research addresses the logistical and economic challenges of transporting construction materials from Earth to the Moon and Mars. The hypothesis proposes that concrete-like materials manufactured from locally available resources can offer viable structural solutions in planetary environments. Finite element simulations were conducted using ABAQUS to evaluate buildings constructed with reactive powder concrete (Earth), lunarcrete (Moon), and sulfur concrete (Mars) under seismic, thermal, wind, radiation, and meteorite impact conditions. Simulation results showed that each material remained within safe structural limits for its respective environment, though significant thermal and radiation vulnerabilities were observed. These findings suggest the technical feasibility of utilizing in situ materials for extraterrestrial construction, while emphasizing the need for further development in insulation and radiation shielding technologies.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

earth / moon / mars / concrete / finite element analysis / in situ resource utilization / planetary habitat design / structural simulation / space construction materials / thermal and radiation analysis

1 Introduction

The idea of human beings entering space and other planets has been important since the beginning of time. Following the development of space exploration and journeys into space, the idea of establishing a station on the moon emerged. This station aims to advance space exploration and learn more about other planets [1]. The focus has now shifted toward establishing permanent human settlements, first on the Moon, then on Mars, driven by scientific, economic, and survival imperatives [2].

This shift is partially motivated by long-term risks to life on Earth, including climate change, overpopulation, pandemics, and resource depletion. Establishing self-sustaining colonies on other planets is increasingly seen as a strategy to ensure the continuity of human civilization. However, this requires addressing the fundamental challenge of constructing safe and resilient infrastructure in hostile planetary environments. The Moon and Mars present unique construction challenges due to their vastly different environmental conditions compared to the Earth. These include low gravity, extreme temperature fluctuations, limited atmospheric pressure, high radiation exposure, and seismic activity [3,4]. The cost and complexity of transporting building materials from Earth make in situ resource utilization (ISRU), the use of local regolith and other materials, a crucial strategy for sustainable construction [5,6].

Although prior studies have investigated the mechanical properties of materials such as sulfur concrete and lunarcrete, there remains a lack of comprehensive simulations evaluating full structural performance under extraterrestrial conditions. To address this gap, the present study uses finite element analysis (FEA) to simulate the behavior of a standardized building structure constructed with locally sourced materials: reactive powder concrete on Earth, lunarcrete on the Moon, and sulfur concrete on Mars. The goal is to assess structural responses to seismic, thermal, radiation, wind, and meteorite impact loads within the context of planetary environments.

2 Literature review

Space exploration refers to the systematic exploration of space using manned and unmanned spacecraft. This pursuit gained momentum in the 20th century with technological advances in rocketry and satellite systems [7]. Space exploration was considered to have begun with Sputnik I in 1957. Although space studies began earlier, the first satellite was sent to provide information on space [8]. In 1961, Yuri Alexseyevich Gagarin, a Soviet cosmonaut, became the first human being in space by completing the Earth’s orbit in his spacecraft Vostok I [9]. NASA, the space agency of the United States of America, launched the Apollo program to send humans to the Moon and back. Although the first Apollo attempt was a major failure, the Apollo 8 and 9 missions were successfully completed. Following these missions, Apollo 11 successfully landed on the Moon on July 20, 1969. Neil Armstrong, the Apollo 11 spacecraft commander, became the first man to set foot on the Moon [10,11]. The goal of these studies was to explore the properties of the Moon and determine the feasibility of lunar outposts. Following the success of Apollo flights, the next step is to develop and locate a permanent and functional base on the Moon [12]. After the landing of Apollo 17, the last lunar mission, manned missions to the Moon were temporarily terminated due to the political climate brought about by the Cold War and the shift in priorities with the oil crisis [9,13]. Recent initiatives by space agencies and private companies, such as NASA’s Artemis program and SpaceX, have revived interest in Moon and Mars colonization [14,15].

However, both the Moon and Mars present harsh environmental conditions that prohibit direct human habitation (Table 1). These include low gravity (1.62 m/s² on the Moon, 3.71 m/s² on Mars), high radiation (up to 380 mSv/y), and extreme temperature variations (as low as −171 °C) [16]. On the other hand, Mars has an atmosphere composed of nitrogen and carbon dioxide. Strong winds are rare on Mars because of its thin atmosphere, yet in some locations, they can reach speeds up to 100 km/h [17]. Additionally, low gravity and the apparent absence of tectonic plates in space produce shallow earthquakes on the Moon and Mars. One study estimated that, in the lunar environment, a shallow earthquake more significant than 4.5 may occur only once in 400 y. Daily temperature cycles have broad thermal cycles, ranging from −171 to 111 °C on the Moon and −143 to 35 °C on Mars. Most earthquakes on the Moon and Mars are attributed to cracking caused by contraction caused by thermal cycles, explosions in underground magmas, or meteorite impacts that can reach speeds of 20–70 km/s [18,19].

The Moon and Mars are home to radiation sources, such as solar wind, galactic cosmic rays, and solar cosmic rays (which are more intense). Protons, electrons, and heavy nuclei constitute space radiation. In lunar and Martian settings, radiation particles continually interact and can penetrate depths of several meters. Radiation levels on the Moon and Mars can reach dangerous levels of 380 and 100 mSv, respectively [12].

The Moon and Mars are covered mainly by layers of soil called regolith. Although regolith is used synonymously with the word soil, it refers to the fragmented and unconsolidated terrain that forms the surface of the Moon and Mars, which has a very diverse character. It contains rock debris of all types, including volcanic ash [20]. The initial plans were to bring the materials needed to build a permanent lunar base infrastructure from Earth. Due to the prohibitive cost of transporting materials, up to 130000 $/kg to the Moon, construction must rely on ISRU, particularly the regolith-rich surfaces of both the Moon and Mars [21]. Several scholars have analyzed samples retrieved from both the Moon and Mars. The findings of these investigations indicate that the gathered regolith samples exhibit elevated concentrations of SiO₂, ranging from 46.61% to 47.1%, as well as Al₂O₃ concentrations ranging from 9.3% to 21.4%. Additionally, the composition includes a CaO content ranging from 7.78% to 11.64%. The Mars rover Curiosity probe’s sample analysis revealed SiO2 concentrations ranging from 43.4% to 55% and Al₂O₃ contents ranging from 7.2% to 12.4%. The abundance of calcium oxide (CaO) on the Martian surface is lower than that on the lunar surface. Therefore, mineral analyses of Martian and lunar soil samples reveal high levels of silica and alumina, key components in concrete production [22,23].

Concrete, known for its strength and adaptability, is considered a leading candidate for extraterrestrial construction. Various ISRU-compatible concrete types have been investigated: sulfur concrete, polymer concrete, geopolymer composites, and lunarcrete, each with distinct advantages and limitations [24]. Recent studies emphasize sulfur concrete for Martian use due to its abundance, waterless mixing process, and good performance at low temperatures. Rahim et al. [25] demonstrated compressive strengths over 50 MPa using Martian sulfur, while Troemner et al. [26] developed Marscrete, a material compatible with robotic three-dimensional (3D) printing. Recently, Netti [27] examined the scalability and automation of ISRU building processes for dwellings on the Moon and Mars, offering insights on robotic manufacturing and durability. Algharibeh presented 3D-printed lunar regolith composites augmented with graphene, exhibiting better structural integrity and radiation shielding capabilities for interplanetary applications [28]. Patel et al. [29] applied terrestrial geo-material science to lunar ISRU construction, showing the feasibility of sulfur concrete and regolith feedstocks for lunar bases. Coghlan and Humi [30] further highlighted the limitations of robotic 3D printing and automation in the lunar industry. Arthur et al. [31] revealed sulfur-regolith hybrid concretes as prime options for AIAA’s lunar colony designs.

Using Martian soil can be convenient because transporting construction materials from Earth creates significant logistical costs. Mars’ soil is considered sulfur-rich, and a new construction material consisting of sulfur was produced. One of the most important advantages of this type of concrete is that it is made without water. In addition, the abundance of raw materials, higher strength compared to cement-based concrete, resistance to acid and salt environments, and sustainability at low temperatures make the use of this concrete attractive. In a study conducted on optimum sulfur mixture ratios, flexural, compression, and splitting tests were performed to determine the strength development and fracture toughness, and the results are shown in Table 2. In their study, Toutanji and Grugel [32] prepared two media between room temperature and −27 °C and between room temperature and −191 °C two different concrete samples of 50.8 mm in size were prepared: 35% purified sulfur-65% JSC-1 aggregate by mass and 20% silica, 25% purified sulfur, and 55% JSC-1 aggregate by mass. Temperature cycles were applied to the test specimens, which were then subjected to compression testing. According to the test results, the compressive strength of the specimens between room temperature and −191 °C (high cycling) was measured to be 20% of the reference specimens. Continuing the study, the sulfur mixtures were reinforced with short and long glass fibers to strengthen them. Glass-fiber-reinforced beams were subjected to a 4-point bending test. According to the results of this test, a 40% increase in flexural strength was observed in the glass-fiber-reinforced beams. In another study, Omar and Issa [33] in their study produced concrete with molten sulfur content ranging from 25% to 70% by weight. According to the results, the tensile strength was measured to be 15% of the compressive strength. In the later stage of the study, he reinforced his sulfur concrete with 2% concrete fiber. A 5% decrease in tensile strength was recorded [33]. Another study stated that sulfur concrete has a good strength of 62.05 MPa and can be easily used in corrosive environments [34]. In addition, a recent study demonstrated that sulfur concrete not only provides high mechanical performance but also offers significant environmental advantages due to its recyclability. Both freshly cast and recast sulfur concrete have been reported to exhibit superior durability compared to conventional Portland cement concretes, largely owing to their very low water absorption and excellent resistance to chemical attack [35].

Because the absence of water on the Moon and Mars poses a significant challenge for construction, many studies have focused on developing non-hydraulic (waterless) concrete alternatives. One such material is polymer concrete, initially developed in the late 1950s [36]. A lunar concrete formulation consisting of 90% lunar regolith simulant and 10% polymer was designed, with specimens cast into 50 mm cube molds and subjected to simulated lunar conditions, including vacuum (< 0.1 torr) and a thermal cycle ranging from 20 to 123 °C. The resulting compressive strength ranged between 12.6 and 12.9 MPa [22]. In another study, the addition of carbon and glass fibers was investigated to enhance the mechanical performance of polymer concrete. The findings showed a 13%–29% improvement in fracture toughness for fiber-reinforced samples compared to unreinforced ones [37]. However, despite these advances, polymer concretes have limitations, including poor thermal resistance, the risk of bond separation between the polymer matrix and aggregates, and the high cost of polymer resins, factors that restrict their practical application for extraterrestrial use [38,39].

Geopolymers, another promising class of waterless binders, are synthesized using aluminosilicate-rich materials activated with alkalis, silicates, or phosphoric acid under elevated temperatures. These materials are known for their low water demand, excellent resistance to high-temperature cycles, vacuum stability (which helps reduce radiation effects), and strong mechanical properties. Geopolymers can also be formulated from moon-like regolith [20]. Montes et al. developed a geopolymer known as Lunamer, composed of 98% lunar regolith (JSC-1), demonstrating high strength and significant radiation shielding potential [40]. Further research on geopolymerization using lunar and Martian simulants, JSC LUNAR-1A and JSC MARS-1A, showed that the lunar version polymerized more easily, while Martian simulants required finer particle sizes. Flexural and compressive strength tests confirmed that lunar-based geopolymers outperformed conventional concrete in mechanical properties [41]. Recent doctoral work also highlighted regolith-based geopolymers as durable candidates for extraterrestrial construction due to their superior thermal and chemical resistance [28]. Karl et al. [42] examined space resource processing and additive manufacturing with regolith, highlighting lunarcrete and sulfur composites as viable binders for ISRU.

With advancements in 3D printing technology, fully automated, layer-by-layer fabrication methods have been proposed for planetary construction. In one study, self-compacting concrete used in 3D printing achieved compressive strength of 120 MPa and flexural strength of 14.3 MPa [43]. Cesaretti et al. developed a regolith-based printable material simulating JSC-1A, tested both in atmospheric and vacuum conditions. They proposed an injection method to mitigate binder evaporation or freezing. The resulting samples exhibited a compressive strength of 20.35 MPa and a modulus of elasticity of 2.35 GPa [44]. Additionally, Xia and Sanjayan [45] developed a geopolymer-based self-compacting concrete specifically tailored for 3D printing, demonstrating its viability for automated extraterrestrial construction applications.

While the mechanical viability of lunarcrete, sulfur concrete, and geopolymer alternatives is well established at the material level, the absence of system-level analysis under realistic planetary conditions leaves a gap in confirming their structural safety. This study addresses that gap through finite element simulations of buildings constructed with reactive powder concrete (Earth), lunarcrete (Moon), and sulfur concrete (Mars), evaluating their performance under seismic, thermal, wind, radiation, and meteorite-induced stresses. Although the simulations confirm that reactive powder concrete, lunarcrete, and sulfur concrete maintain stresses below their compressive strength limits, this does not fully ensure their suitability for extraterrestrial habitats. The structural integrity under transient loads must be evaluated alongside significant weaknesses. Lunarcrete, although possessing enough mechanical strength, is susceptible to radiation transmission owing to its very low density. Sulfur concrete, although beneficial in arid conditions, is prone to brittleness and possible microcracking due to temperature cycling. Furthermore, both materials have yet to be evaluated under prolonged exposure to cosmic rays, creep, and cumulative meteorite strikes. Consequently, the results are to be regarded as first signs of feasibility rather than definitive evidence of readiness. Further experimental validation, integration of shielding, and durability modeling are necessary before these concretes can be deemed suitable for long-term planetary infrastructure.

3 Materials and methods

3.1 Material selection

This study presents a comparative analysis of structural performance for a standardized two-story building designed using different planetary concretes under the environmental conditions of Earth, the Moon, and Mars. The workflow consists of three phases: 1) material selection and characterization, 2) structural model definition, and 3) simulation of environmental loads. Finite element simulations were carried out using ABAQUS CAE, while thermal and radiation modeling employed Energy2D software. Data was transferred between the analysis software in the following manner. Mechanical studies conducted in ABAQUS yielded displacement fields, stress distributions, and support responses, which were exported as CSV files. These outputs established boundary conditions and flux inputs for Energy2D thermal models. The geometry of the structure was reduced to two-dimensional cross-sections, and uniform material parameters (thermal conductivity, density, specific heat) were utilized for both platforms. A unidirectional link was implemented: ABAQUS data guided Energy2D simulations, but temperature and radiation effects were not repeatedly included. This illustrates the extended durations of thermal cycles in comparison to seismic or impact occurrences; however, comprehensive thermo-mechanical feedback continues to be a constraint.

Reactive Powder Concrete (RPC200) was chosen due to its superior mechanical performance (compressive strength of 230 MPa). The mixture contains 2% steel fibers (length: 13 mm; diameter: 0.15 mm), improving ductility and crack resistance [46]. RPC200s dense microstructure, formed through optimal particle packing and pozzolanic reactions, also enhances its resistance to radiation-induced degradation and thermal cycling. Table 3 summarizes its mechanical properties.

For the Moon, a type of lunarcrete was used, prepared from a simulated lunar soil, calcium aluminate cement, and distilled water. This mixture represents the use of in situ resources and is compatible with the Moon’s vacuum conditions [47]. Lunarcrete also ensures long-term durability under vacuum exposure and extreme thermal cycles, where traditional concrete might crack due to hydration instability. It has a compressive strength of 75.7 MPa and tensile strength of 8.3 MPa. The density is 2600 kg/m³, modulus of elasticity 21.4 GPa, thermal expansion coefficient 5.4 × 10⁻⁶ °C ⁻¹, and Poisson’s ratio 0.39, as shown in Table 3.

Mars concrete was modeled using a 50:50 mixture of Martian soil simulant and molten sulfur. Sulfur concrete is ideal for Mars due to its waterless composition and thermal stability. The properties of the sulfur concrete used are given in Table 3 [48]. This material is advantageous due to its ease of remelting and reusability, particularly in low-temperature Martian environments where water-based concrete curing is impractical. The density, the coefficient of thermal expansion, and the Poisson’s ratio were considered as 3100 kg/m³, 5.3 × 10⁻⁶, and 0.35, respectively based on the literature research [49,50].

3.2 Applied analyses

A two-story structural model was created and analyzed under the environmental conditions of each planet. The building has a width of 6 m, length of 8 m, and a total height of 9 m, with the 1st floor being 5 m and the 2nd floor 4 m. Columns and beams were modeled with square cross-sections measuring 40 cm × 40 cm. Floor slabs were modeled as rigid diaphragms to allow horizontal force redistribution. The structural model used in simulations is illustrated in Fig. 1. The simulation scenarios accounted for critical extraterrestrial constraints such as reduced gravity, lack of atmospheric shielding, and long-term exposure to extreme temperature gradients and cosmic radiation. Each model was subjected to a tailored set of environmental loads relevant to its planetary context. This included seismic, wind, thermal, radiation, and meteorite impact loads, as appropriate. The summary of these load applications across planets is given in Table 4.

For seismic simulation, acceleration data in the Z-direction (vertical) was applied over a 3.51-s interval using time-history analysis. Gravitational accelerations for Earth (9.807 m/s²), Moon (1.62 m/s²), and Mars (3.71 m/s²) were used in the models [51,52]. The simulation outputs included stress distributions (S₁₁ to S₃₃), relative story drifts, and support reactions (RF₁ to RF₃). Full gravitational loads were considered for each environment to realistically model structural deformation under native gravity.

Wind loads were applied to the models representing Earth and Mars, based on TS 498 standard [53]. The Moon was excluded due to the absence of an atmosphere [54]. For Earth, a wind speed of 36 m/s was used, resulting in wind pressures of +64 kg/m² and suction forces of −32 kg/m² applied in both X and Z directions. Mars wind loads were scaled to 1/10 of Earth’s impact due to its much lower atmospheric density. The directional wind load application is shown in Fig. 2.

Meteorite impact analysis was conducted for the Moon and Mars using ABAQUS. For the Moon, a meteorite impact speed of 40 km/s was used, while for Mars, an impact speed of 1 km/s was assumed [55]. A spherical meteorite with a radius of 10 cm was modeled to strike vertical columns. The impact model and setup are illustrated in Fig. 3. Structural fatigue and local stress concentrations were also evaluated to estimate survivability under micrometeoroid bombardment.

The Moon and Mars have very high radiation levels due to their thin atmospheres. Radiation simulations were conducted using Energy2D. Radiation levels for the Moon (380 mSv) and Mars (100 mSv) far exceed Earth’s background level of 2.4 mSv, necessitating modeling of radiation transitions in the structure [56–58]. A solar source temperature of 80 °C was used, and simulations assumed uniform thermal conductivity (1.8 W/m·°C), specific heat capacity (1172 J/kg·°C), absorptivity (1.0), and emissivity (0.8) for all concretes. Atmospheric and structural parameters for each planet, including densities and gravity, are listed in Table 5.

Thermal simulations were also performed using Energy2D under extreme diurnal cycles. External temperatures for Earth ranged from −89.2 to 56.9 °C, for the Moon from −171 to 111 °C, and for Mars from −143 to 35 °C [59,60]. The indoor temperature was fixed at 23 °C. A heat bridge analysis approach was used to model the transfer of heat through building envelopes under these varying external temperatures. These simulations accounted for thermal fatigue, heat storage effects, and insulation requirements in extraterrestrial shelters. Additionally, curing methods for planetary concretes were chosen according to environmental constraints. Lunarcrete curing was assumed to be achieved using sealed chamber moisture retention, while sulfur concrete solidifies through controlled cooling. No conventional hydration was assumed due to the absence of free water on both planets.

By combining these environmental simulations, the study provides a detailed performance evaluation of potential extraterrestrial structures constructed using in situ materials and subject to realistic planetary load conditions.

4 Results and discussion

4.1 Analysis in the earth environment

The existing structure was subjected to different accelerations in the range of 0–3.51 s under the earthquake forces accelerating in the Z direction and the stresses in the structure were measured (Fig. 4). S11 shows X direction, S22 shows Y direction, S33 shows Z direction, S12 shows X–Y component, S13 shows X–Z component and S23 shows Y–Z component. Stresses in the X and Y directions occurred on the 1st floor beams, while the stress in the Z direction occurred in the 2nd floor columns. These directional stresses indicate that different parts of the structure experience axial and shear stresses in varying degrees depending on their orientation and floor level. These results also demonstrate that the structure under Earth’s environmental loading performs within safe stress margins, which validates the mechanical adequacy of RPC200 under dynamic conditions.

The maximum stresses in the structure are shown in Table 6. As seen in Table 6, the maximum stress is 7.990 MPa. This stress value is on the safe side compared to the reactive powder concrete with the value of 230 MPa. This validates the structural safety of the modeled building under seismic loading for Earth-like conditions.

The displacement of the nodal points in the Z direction under the earthquake effect is presented in Fig. 5. At the 1st floor, the maximum relative story drift ratio was approximately 0.05 at 1.236 s, while at the 2nd floor it was approximately 0.10 at 3.471 s. These displacement ratios comply with standard building code limits for lateral interstory drift.

The maximum support responses of the structure in 3 directions are shown in Table 7. RF₁ indicates X direction, RF₂ indicates Y direction and RF₃ indicates Z direction. The maximum support response was found to be 3.585 × 10⁵ N in the Y direction. The floor area against the force coming from the vertical is 40 cm × 40 cm. If approximate calculation is made, the stress value is calculated as 2.240 MPa. This indicates that the support systems effectively distribute base reactions within material strength limits.

The structure was wind loaded in the X and Z directions with a pressure of 64 kg/m² and a suction of −32 kg/m², respectively. The loading was applied to the structure as a distributed load. As shown in Fig. 6, the maximum stress in the X direction was 1.228 × 10⁻¹ MPa and the maximum stress in the Y direction was 1.004 × 10⁻¹ MPa, which are very low stresses. These stress levels are well within allowable limits, indicating adequate wind resistance.

The thermal behavior of reactive powdered concrete used as a building material during temperature changes on Earth was analyzed with the Energy 2D program. The material thermal bridge method was used in the analysis. The analysis results of the heat transfer rates for the Earth between indoor 23 °C and outdoor temperatures of −89.2 and 56.9 °C are given in Table 8. During the analysis, measurements were obtained at the end of the 60 s period. These simulations ensure that temperature-induced stresses and heat conduction rates remain manageable.

Radiation transmittances modeled on the basis of atmospheric conditions and structure properties under 80 °C heat source on Earth were examined. At the end of the 60 s period, the radiation transmittance was found to be 3.25 W/m² (Fig. 7). Considering the naturally occurring radiation level of 2.4 mSv in the world, this result does not pose a significant radiation problem [60,61]. This indicates that standard concrete structures provide effective radiation attenuation under terrestrial conditions.

4.2 Analysis of the moon

The moon was subjected to Earth’s earthquake periods and acceleration. As seen from Fig. 8, the maximum stress in the X direction occurred at the 1st floor beams, in the Y direction at the 1st floor beam endings and in Z direction at the 2nd floor column endings. The lunar structure shows safe stress behavior relative to the reduced gravitational and environmental loading, affirming its mechanical reliability. All maximum stresses, including the main direction and the component directions, are as presented in Table 9.

As can be seen from Fig. 9, the maximum relative story displacement ratio measured at the 1st floor in the Z direction is approximately 0.03 and the 2nd floor displacement ratio is approximately 0.10. It appears to have lower displacement ratios than the displacement ratios occurring in the Earth model. This is consistent with lunar gravity, which reduces inertial forces and structural displacements.

The bearing responses in the Z direction on the Moon are shown in Table 10. The maximum stress in the bearings on the Moon is 1.741 × 10⁵ N in the Y direction. Considering that the column dimensions are 40 cm × 40 cm, the stress is 1.088 MPa. It is 48% of the maximum support response on Earth. Since the lunar concrete has a compressive strength of 75.7 MPa, the lunar concrete is at a level to meet the support reactions. This shows that structural design on the Moon using lunarcrete remains within safe capacity utilization.

In the space environment, meteorite impacts are common, especially for the moon. The speed of the meteor anchoring on the Moon was taken as 40 km/s. When the column model was hit by a meteorite with a speed of 40 km/s, it was seen that the column was deformed as shown in Fig. 10. The structural deformation provides insights into required shielding and local reinforcement strategies.

The analysis results of the heat transfer rates for the Moon between indoor 23 °C and outdoor temperatures of −171 and 111 °C are given in Table 11. Accordingly, heat conduction values are at acceptable levels.

At the end of 60 s period, the radiation transmittance was found to be 5.23 W/m² for the Moon structure (Fig. 11). This value seems too risky for a very high radiation level of 380 mSv on the Moon. Given the Moon’s high radiation level (380 mSv), this result suggests a need for enhanced shielding.

4.3 Analysis in the mars

The Mars structure was subjected to the same seismic loading protocol. The stresses in the structure under the identical earthquake loading on Mars are as shown in Fig. 12. Maximum stresses in X direction occurred in the same structural elements as the maximum stresses on Earth and Mars. Maximum stresses occurred in all 1st floor beams in X direction; 1st floor beam ending zones in Y direction and 2nd floor column ending zones in Z direction. The maximum stresses in all directions are shown in detail in Table 12. The maximum stress magnitude was found to be 2.432 MPa in the Y direction. Given that the compressive strength of sulfur concrete is 63 MPa, this indicates that the material performed safely within design limits.

Under earthquake loads, the relative story displacement ratios of the nodal points in the Mars structure were found to be approximately 0.06 for the 1st floor and 0.08 for the 2nd floor (Fig. 13). Compared to Earth and the Moon, the relative displacements appear to be greater on Mars due to lower gravity and material stiffness.

The maximum stress in the bearings due to earthquake loads on Mars was 9.864 × 10⁴ N. Converted to base stress, this value remains within the allowable compressive strength of Martian sulfur concrete.

Under the wind loading analysis on Mars, 0.01 compressive and −0.005 suction loading was applied in the X and Z directions. The maximum stress due to wind loads in the X direction was found to be 2.029 × 10⁻⁵ MPa and the maximum stress in the Z direction was found to be 1.663 × 10⁻⁵ MPa. As can be seen in Fig. 14, wind induced stresses are negligible due to low atmospheric density on Mars.

Meteor impacts were also modeled for Mars. In line with the research from the literature, the meteor velocity was taken as 1 km/s, and the analysis was based on this velocity. As seen in Fig. 15, localized stresses such as 1.247 × 10³ MPa were observed, highlighting vulnerability in impact zones, although the global structure remained intact.

The heat conduction rates of sulfur concrete, which will be used as a building material on Mars, have been determined with an indoor environment of 23 °C and a Martian environment between −143 and 35 °C. Related results are presented in Table 13. Compared to Earth and Moon structures, sulfur concrete showed lower heat transfer rates, offering better insulation.

The radiation transmittance of 4.57 W/m² under a radiation level of 100 mSv places Martian structures between Earth and Moon performance. Although risk remains, the Martian environment is less hostile than the Moon in radiation terms. Yet, the lack of a global collapse does not suggest that the system would remain operational in actuality. Even tiny punctures or spalling resulting from significant localized pressures would undermine environmental sealing and occupant safety, ultimately representing a catastrophic failure for a habitat. The existing modeling resolution fails to account for fracture propagation, penetration depth, or spallation behavior, all of which are essential for accurately assessing impact hazards. Consequently, the current analysis probably underrepresents vulnerability. Subsequent research should integrate advanced ballistic modeling and evaluate protective measures, like regolith shielding, layered composites, or sacrificial outer walls, to effectively limit meteorite threats.

4.4 Comparative discussion of results

Stress analysis (Fig. 16) indicated that Earth-based RPC200 concrete exhibited the highest resistance, with a maximum observed stress of 7.99 MPa, safely within the 230 MPa compressive strength range. On the Moon, lunarcrete reached 4.13 MPa, while Martian sulfur concrete recorded a lower peak of 2.43 MPa. These findings align with a relevant study in which regolith-based and high-performance cementitious composites were analyzed for planetary structures, noting a higher load-bearing capacity for lunar geopolymers than for sulfur-based Martian mixes [62].

Relative story drift results further reinforce this trend. Earth simulations showed the highest drift (~0.10 at 3.471 s), equivalent to the Moon (~0.10 at 1.941 s) but slightly above Mars (~0.08). This is corroborated by Sun et al., who reported that Martian structures experience lower displacements under the same excitation due to better stiffness-to-weight ratios and weaker gravitational acceleration [63].

Radiation transmittance simulations results in Fig. 16 revealed that lunar concrete performed the worst, with a transmittance of 5.23 W/m² under 380 mSv, posing significant shielding concerns. This confirms the elevated risk highlighted in Steiner and Malla (2021), where lunar habitat structures required multi-layered shielding to mitigate intense space radiation [64]. Earth concrete maintained a lower transmittance (3.25 W/m²), while Mars performed moderately at 4.57 W/m², consistent with Veer and Mohite who showed Martian concretes embedded with sulfur or aerogel performed moderately well in shielding Ultraviolet (UV) and cosmic rays [65].

Thermal behavior comparisons (Fig. 16) revealed relatively low heat transfer rates for all materials, suggesting effective insulation properties. Mars concrete exhibited the lowest conduction (0.16 W/m²), followed closely by the Moon (0.14 W/m²). These findings support Campbell who demonstrated that sulfur-based Martian simulants show superior insulation due to lower thermal conductivity and heat retention capacity [54]. Earth-based RPC200 showed the highest rate (0.30 W/m²), likely due to its higher density and thermal conductivity.

Together, these results support the hypothesis that while Earth materials perform best in mechanical load bearing, Martian concrete presents a balanced profile across all metrics, especially in thermal and radiation domains. The modeling framework captured planetary interaction variables; such as gravity, temperature extremes, and vacuum effects and results are consistent with independent empirical studies. Therefore, confidence in the simulation model’s accuracy is reinforced, and the outcomes hold practical implications for early-stage structural design of extraterrestrial habitats.

4.5 Study limitations

This study has several limitations that require acknowledgment. The two-story rectangular model serves as a simple baseline structure designed for computing efficiency and material comparison; it does not represent the geometries of full-scale extraterrestrial habitats, including domes, semi-buried shelters, or regolith-shielded enclosures. Secondly, the parameters for seismic and meteorite impacts were derived from simplified models and average values from literature, failing to encompass the diversity and complexity inherent in actual alien geological or ballistic occurrences. Third, the atypical curing processes of lunarcrete (sealed-chamber hydration) and sulfur concrete (controlled cooling) were not simulated, perhaps neglecting the stresses generated during material solidification. The heat and radiation assessments utilized a one-way coupling method, wherein mechanical stress influenced Energy2D models, but feedback effects were not incorporated. Ultimately, long-term deterioration mechanisms, such as repeated heat cycling, creep, microcracking, and cosmic ray exposure, were not considered, although being essential concerns for permanent interplanetary homes. These constraints underscore opportunities for future study to improve the realism and usefulness of alien building simulations.

Another limitation of this study relates to the management of curing procedures. Lunarcrete necessitates hydration in an enclosed room under vacuum conditions, whereas sulfur concrete forms via controlled cooling without the need of water. These nontraditional curing techniques may induce internal tensions, shrinkage, or microstructural alterations that impact long-term mechanical characteristics. Due to the scarcity of experimental curing data and the absence of validated constitutive models for these processes, they were not explicitly included in the finite element or thermal simulations reported below. Future study must incorporate curing-induced effects via laboratory testing and integrated thermo-mechanical modeling to more accurately represent the performance of alien concretes.

5 Conclusions

This study presents a comprehensive simulation-based investigation of structural performance using different planetary concretes under the environmental conditions of Earth, the Moon, and Mars. The novelty of the research lies in its multi-parameter comparison using FEA (ABAQUS CAE) and thermal-radiation modeling (Energy2D), focusing on stress distribution, displacement behavior, radiation shielding, and thermal conduction of structures made from reactive powder concrete, lunarcrete, and Martian sulfur-based concrete.

The materials and methods employed were carefully selected to represent plausible extraterrestrial construction scenarios. Reactive powder concrete, lunarcrete, and sulfur-based Martian concrete were modeled based on experimentally validated mechanical and thermal properties from prior literature. Environmental loads such as seismic activity, wind, radiation, and thermal variations were simulated in accordance with each planetary setting, allowing for a holistic comparison of structural resilience and environmental compatibility.

The results reveal that Earth-based concrete provides superior mechanical performance, especially in load-bearing capacity and displacement control. Lunarcrete demonstrated moderately strong mechanical resistance but exhibited poor performance in radiation shielding. Martian sulfur-based concrete offered the most balanced profile, performing acceptably across all categories, particularly excelling in thermal insulation and moderate radiation resistance.

These results demonstrate that extraterrestrial concretes may endure short-term structural loads below acceptable stress limits, although they also expose significant weaknesses. Elevated radiation permeability, severe temperature cycling, and localized strains from meteorite impacts may result in catastrophic failures, independent of global collapse. The models provide a temporal snapshot and fail to account for long-term deterioration due to creep, microcracking, or cosmic ray exposure. Moreover, atypical curing methods for lunarcrete and sulfur concrete were not simulated, resulting in ambiguities regarding their actual mechanical properties. Consequently, future research should include high-fidelity ballistic modeling, long-term durability assessments, radiation shielding methodologies, and empirical validation of healing effects. Only via these endeavors will alien concretes evolve from potential contenders to dependable materials for enduring planetary homes.

For future work, it is recommended to incorporate time-dependent behavior such as creep and fatigue, and to validate the simulation models through laboratory-scale experimental testing under simulated extraterrestrial environments. Furthermore, investigating the integration of reinforcement techniques and in situ additive manufacturing methods could further enhance the constructability and sustainability of planetary habitats.

In summary, this research contributes a validated modeling framework and comparative data set for extraterrestrial construction materials and offers a scientific basis for selecting suitable building materials for future Moon and Mars missions.

References

[1] Kidwell P . Journey to the moon: The history of the Apollo guidance computer. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, 1999, 21(1): 78–79

[2] Scott A N , Oze C . Constructing Mars: Concrete and energy production from serpentinization products. Earth and Space Science, 2018, 5: 364–370

[3] Corenblit D , Darrozes J , Julien F , Otto T , Roussel E , Steiger J , Viles H . The search for a signature of LIFE on Mars: A biogeomorphological approach. Astrobiology, 2019, 19(10): 1279–1291

[4] McKay C P . An origin of life on Mars. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, 2010, 2(4): a003509

[5] Ali A , Shahid M S , Jabeen I , El-Ghali M A K . Life on Mars (Lomars): History, advances, current research, and perspectives. Earth Sciences Research Journal, 2022, 26(3): 221–230

[6] Clark B C , Kolb V M , Steele A , House C H , Lanza N L , Gasda P J , Vanbommel S J , Newsom H E , Martínez-Frías J . Origin of life on Mars: Suitability and opportunities. Life, 2021, 11(6): 539

[7] Johnson S WLeonard R S. Evolution of concepts for lunar bases. In: Mendell W W, ed. Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Century. Houston, TX: Lunar and Planetary Institute, 1985

[8] Wissehr C , Concannon J , Barrow L H . Looking back at the Sputnik era and its impact on science education. School Science and Mathematics, 2011, 111(7): 368–375

[9] Stoev AMaglova P. Yuri Gagarin public astronomical observatory––The first in Bulgaria: 60 years later. Heritage and Modern Times, 2021, 4

[10] Nunn C , Garcia R F , Nakamura Y , Marusiak A G , Kawamura T , Sun D , Margerin L , Weber R , Drilleau M , Wieczorek M A . et al. Lunar seismology: A data and instrumentation review. Space Science Reviews, 2020, 216(5): 1–39

[11] Gaier J R. The Effects of Lunar Dust on EVA Systems During the Apollo Missions. Nasa/Tm-2005-213610/Rev1. 2005

[12] Naser M Z . Extraterrestrial construction materials. Progress in Materials Science, 2019, 105: 100577

[13] Katzer J , Suchocki C , Błaszczak-Bąk W , Zarzycki P K , Damięcka-Suchocka M . Reliability and effectiveness of laser scanners in future construction efforts on the Moon and Mars. Automation in Construction, 2021, 132: 104013

[14] Funase R , Ikari S , Miyoshi K , Kawabata Y , Nakajima S , Nomura S , Funabiki N , Ishikawa A , Kakihara K , Matsushita S . et al. Mission to Earth–Moon Lagrange point by a 6U CubeSat: EQUULEUS. IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, 2020, 35(3): 30–44

[15] NASA . NASA’s Lunar Exploration Program Overview. NASA NP-2020-05-2853-HQ. 2020

[16] Ulubeyli S . Lunar shelter construction issues: The state-of-the-art towards 3D printing technologies. Acta Astronautica, 2022, 195: 318–343

[17] Karslioğlu AOnur Mİ. Production of construction materials with local (in situ) resources in space. European Journal of Science and Technology, 2020, (S):216–223 (in Turkish)

[18] Cai M , Koopialipoor M , Armaghani D J , Pham B T . Evaluating slope deformation of earth dams due to earthquake shaking using MARS and GMDH techniques. Applied Sciences, 2020, 10(4): 1486

[19] Oberst JNakamura Y. A seismic risk for the lunar base. In: The Second Conference on Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Century, Vol 1. Houston, TX: NASA Johnson Space Center, 1992

[20] Zhang T , Chao C , Yao Z , Xu K , Zhang W , Ding X , Liu S , Zhao Z , An Y , Wang B . et al. The technology of lunar regolith environment construction on Earth. Acta Astronautica, 2021, 178: 216–232

[21] Farries K W , Visintin P , Smith S T , van Eyk P . Sintered or melted regolith for lunar construction: State-of-the-art review and future research directions. Construction and Building Materials, 2021, 296: 123627

[22] Lee T S , Lee J , Ann K Y . Manufacture of polymeric concrete on the Moon. Acta Astronautica, 2015, 114: 60–64

[23] Barkatt A , Okutsu M . Obtaining elemental sulfur for Martian sulfur concrete. Journal of Chemical Research, 2022, 46(2): 1–17

[24] Lin T D . Concrete for lunar base construction. Concrete International, 1987, 9(7): 48–53

[25] Rahim AGulzar AKhan ARehman Z. Mars in situ resource utilization and sulfur concrete. In: Earth and Space 2021: Space Exploration, Utilization, Engineering, and Construction in Extreme Environments––Selected Papers from the 17th Biennial International Conference on Engineering, Science, Construction, and Operations in Challenging Environments. New York, NY: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2021

[26] Troemner MRamyar EMarrero RMendu KCusatis G. Marscrete: A Martian concrete for additive construction applications utilizing in situ resources. In: Earth and Space 2021: Space Exploration, Utilization, Engineering, and Construction in Extreme Environments––Selected Papers from the 17th Biennial International Conference on Engineering, Science, Construction, and Operations in Challenging Environments. New York, NY: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2021

[27] Netti V. Planetary construction with ISRU on Moon and Mars: Scalability and automation of the construction processes. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Bari: Politecnico di Bari, 2025

[28] Algharibeh O M. 3D-printed clay composites for lunar habitats: Graphene and simulant integration. Thesis for the Master’s Degree. Oxford, MS: University of Mississippi, 2024

[29] Patel HSuerman PShumaker NDeitrick SBullard J WEwing R C. Applying terrestrial geo-material science methodology to lunar ISRU construction. In: Earth and Space 2021: Space exploration, utilization, engineering, and construction in extreme environments: Proceedings of the 17th Biennial International Conference on Engineering, Science, Construction, and Operations in Challenging Environments. New York, NY: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2021

[30] Coghlan FHumi M. Humanity and Space 2023––The Moon and robotics: Trials and tribulations of establishing a permanent, automated industry and sustainable transportation systems on the Moon. E-project-090623-223711, 2023

[31] Arthur OAselford BBecker MCrandall PJayaprakash MLark LOrtiz NPieczynski MBrendan V. Project Selene: AIAA Lunar Base Camp. AIAA Space Mission System 2019-2020. 2020

[32] Toutanji HGrugel R. Performance of “waterless concrete”. In: Concrete Solutions 2009, 3rd International Conference on Concrete Repair. Venice: Institute of Concrete Technology, 2009

[33] Omar H AIssa M. Production of lunar concrete using molten sulfur. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Engineering, Construction and Operations in Space. New York, NY: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1994

[34] Grugel R N . Integrity of sulfur concrete subjected to simulated lunar temperature cycles. Advances in Space Research, 2012, 50(9): 1294–1299

[35] Gulzar M A , Rahim A , Ali B , Khan A H . An investigation on recycling potential of sulfur concrete. Journal of Building Engineering, 2021, 38: 102175

[36] Nodehi M . Epoxy, polyester and vinyl ester based polymer concrete: A review. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 2022, 7(1): 1–24

[37] Reis J M L , Ferreira A J M . Assessment of fracture properties of epoxy polymer concrete reinforced with short carbon and glass fibers. Construction & Building Materials, 2004, 18(7): 523–528

[38] Sokołowska J J , Woyciechowski P , Kalinowski M . Rheological properties of lunar mortars. Applied Sciences, 2021, 11(15): 6961

[39] Hu Z , Shi T , Cen M , Wang J , Zhao X , Zeng C , Zhou Y , Fan Y , Liu Y , Zhao Z . Research progress on lunar and Martian concrete. Construction & Building Materials, 2022, 343: 128117

[40] Montes C , Broussard K , Gongre M , Simicevic N , Mejia J , Tham J , Allouche E , Davis G . Evaluation of lunar regolith geopolymer binder as a radioactive shielding material for space exploration applications. Advances in Space Research, 2015, 56(6): 1212–1221

[41] Alexiadis A , Alberini F , Meyer M E . Geopolymers from lunar and Martian soil simulants. Advances in Space Research, 2017, 59(1): 490–495

[42] Karl D , Cannon K M , Gurlo A . Review of space resources processing for Mars missions: Martian simulants, regolith bonding concepts and additive manufacturing. Open Ceramics, 2022, 9: 100216

[43] Gosselin C , Duballet R , Roux P , Gaudillière N , Dirrenberger J , Morel P . Large-scale 3D printing of ultra-high performance concrete-a new processing route for architects and builders. Materials & Design, 2016, 100: 102–109

[44] 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 Astronautica, 2014, 93: 430–450

[45] Xia M , Sanjayan J . Method of formulating geopolymer for 3D printing for construction applications. Materials & Design, 2016, 110: 382–390

[46] Richard P , Cheyrezy M . Composition of reactive powder concretes. Cement and Concrete Research, 1995, 25(7): 1501–1511

[47] Khoshnevis BCarlson AThangavelu M. ISRU-Based Robotic Construction Technologies for Lunar and Martian Infrastructures. HQ-E-DAA-TN41353, 2017

[48] Wan L , Wendner R , Cusatis G . A novel material for in situ construction on Mars: Experiments and numerical simulations. Construction & Building Materials, 2016, 120: 222–231

[49] Shahsavari M H , Karbala M M , Iranfar S , Vandeginste V . Martian and lunar sulfur concrete mechanical and chemical properties considering regolith ingredients and sublimation. Construction & Building Materials, 2022, 350: 128917

[50] Troemner M , Cusatis G . Martian material sourcing challenges propel earth construction opportunities. Matter, 2019, 1(3): 547–549

[51] Bills B G , Rubincam D P . Constraints on density models from radial moments: Applications to Earth, Moon, and Mars. Journal of Geophysical Research, 1995, 100(E12): 26305–26315

[52] Williams J G , Sinclair W S , Yoder C F . Tidal acceleration of the Moon. Geophysical Research Letters, 1978, 5(11): 943–946

[53] TS 498-2021. Design Loads for Buildings—Calculation Values of Loads to Be Considered in Structural Elements. Istanbul: Turkish Standards Institution, 2021 (in Turkish)

[54] Campbell A. Thermal testing and simulation of Lunar and Martian ISRU-based materials. Minnesota State University, 2022

[55] O’Keefe J D , Ahrens T J . Cometary and meteorite swarm impact on planetary surfaces. Journal of Geophysical Research, 1982, 87(B8): 6668–6680

[56] Boscolo D , Durante M . Dose limits and countermeasures for mitigating radiation risk in Moon and Mars exploration. Physics, 2022, 4(1): 172–184

[57] Restier-Verlet JEl-Nachef LFerlazzo M LAl-Choboq JGranzotto ABouchet AForay N. Radiation on Earth or in space: What does it change? International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2021, 22(7): 3739

[58] Cucinotta F A , Hu S , Schwadron N A , Kozarev K , Townsend L W , Kim M H Y . Space radiation risk limits and Earth-Moon-Mars environmental models. Space Weather, 2010, 8(12): 1–12

[59] Williams J P , Paige D A , Greenhagen B T , Sefton-Nash E . The global surface temperatures of the moon as measured by the diviner lunar radiometer experiment. Icarus, 2017, 283: 300–325

[60] Sultana R E , Barucci A , Leyrat C , Yumoto K , Wargnier A , David G , Feller C . Modelling Martian moons’ surface temperature: Surface temperature variations and surface thermal emission removal from future MMX/MIRS data. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 2025, 701: A46

[61] Wald L. Basics in Solar Radiation at Earth Surface. hal-02164311, 2018

[62] Correa Caracas A C. Earth, Moon, and Mars: The influence of the environment on structural design and choice of construction materials. Thesis for the Master’s Degree: Politecnico di Torino, 2023

[63] Sun H , Duan M , Wu Y , Zeng Y , Zhao H , Wu S , Lin B , Yang R , Tan G . Designing sustainable built environments for Mars habitation: Integrating innovations in architecture, systems, and human well-being. Nexus, 2024, 1(3): 100030

[64] Collins S PStorrow ALiu DJenkins C AMiller K FKampe CButler J. A study of layered structural configurations as thermal and impact shielding of lunar habitats. In: Earth and Space 2021: Space Exploration, Utilization, Engineering, and Construction in Extreme Environments––Selected Papers from the 17th Biennial International Conference on Engineering, Science, Construction, and Operations in Challenging Environments. New York, NY: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2021

[65] Veer K , Mohite A . A thermal insulation and UV-resistant system based on aerogel for settlements on the Moon and Mars. International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology, 2023, 11(7): 2024–2030

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Higher Education Press