Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 50 references

2D numerical simulation of lunar response to gravitational waves using finite element method

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that a two-dimensional finite-element simulation of the Moon reproduces semi-analytical gravitational-wave response functions, making numerical lunar GW seismology with realistic structure a feasible next step.

desk verdict First SEM simulation of lunar GW response, but validation rests on an underived frequency shift. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17898 v2 pith:SXDUQWEV submitted 2024-12-23 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMgr-qcphysics.geo-ph

Lei Zhang , Han Yan , Xian Chen , Jinhai Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMgr-qcphysics.geo-ph
keywords gravitationalwaveslunarseismologyspectralelementmethodfiniteresponsefunctionsnormalmodeswavedetectorforcedensity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Previous calculations of the Moon's response to gravitational waves used analytical normal-mode solutions that assume an ideal spherical Moon, so they cannot capture rough topography or lateral changes in the lunar crust and interior. This paper reports the first two-dimensional high-order finite-element (spectral element) simulation of the whole Moon driven by a gravitational wave, with the wave force applied where elastic rigidity changes sharply across layer boundaries. Comparing the simulated radial and horizontal response functions with semi-analytical normal-mode results over 1–20 mHz, the authors find general agreement in the positions and order of magnitude of the first resonant peaks once the numerical curves are shifted horizontally by about 0.06 dex to account for the difference between a 2D cylindrical model and a 3D spherical one. They conclude that the finite-element method is feasible for lunar gravitational-wave response calculations and that it lays the groundwork for future three-dimensional simulations with realistic lunar structure. The comparison also shows that the 2D model tracks radial response better than horizontal response, especially in the spectral troughs.

What carries the argument

The simulation is carried out with a two-dimensional spectral element method, a high-order finite-element technique, on a global lunar model built from 140,576 fourth-order elements with a mesh that grows coarser with seismic wave speed; the grid resolves frequencies up to about 0.2 Hz. The gravitational wave enters through the force density $\vec{f}=\nabla\mu\cdot h$, where $\mu$ is the shear modulus and $h$ is the GW strain tensor, so the force acts almost entirely at interfaces where rigidity changes; in practice this is implemented as 4,320 point forces spaced 1° in azimuth. A Gaussian-wavelet source time function with a flat spectrum up to 20 mHz excites many frequencies in one 100,000-second run, and the response functions are obtained by Fourier transforming the surface displacement at each azimuth and fitting the angular dependence with the equatorial-plane form of the $\ell=2$ response.

What would settle it

Run a full three-dimensional spectral-element simulation of the same homogeneous or layered lunar model, feed it the same gravitational-wave force density and source time function, and compare its first radial resonant peak with the spherical normal-mode prediction (about 0.971 mHz for a homogeneous Moon) and with the shifted 2D peak; if the shifted 2D result and the 3D result do not coincide, the 2D-to-3D mapping and the paper's feasibility claim are refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that in an idealized symmetric Moon model, the response functions obtained from the two-dimensional spectral-element simulation agree generally well with previous semi-analytical normal-mode solutions. The radial response function $T_r(f)$ and the horizontal response function $T_h(f)$ both reproduce the order of magnitude and the locations of the first few resonant peaks in the 1–20 mHz band after a horizontal translation of about 0.06 dex, which compensates for the difference between the cylindrical Moon represented by the 2D grid and the spherical Moon assumed by the analytical solution. The simulated angular dependence also matches the pattern expected when the $\ell=2$ spherical response is restricted to the equatorial plane. These points of agreement are what the authors read as evidence that their finite-element implementation is a feasible way to compute lunar gravitational-wave response and can serve as the foundation for 3D simulations.

Load-bearing premise

The validation rests on treating a two-dimensional cylindrical Moon as a proxy for the three-dimensional spherical Moon and on applying a constant 0.06-dex frequency shift after the simulation; if that geometric mapping does not hold, the agreement seen in the comparison does not establish feasibility.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sensitivity estimates for proposed lunar gravitational-wave detectors can be cross-checked against finite-element response curves rather than relying only on normal-mode models.
  • The same solver can be pointed at a Moon model containing craters, fractured regolith, and laterally heterogeneous layers, since FEM does not require spherical symmetry.
  • Quantitative predictions from the 2D model should be treated as more trustworthy for radial motion than for horizontal motion, especially at frequencies between the resonant peaks.
  • With more memory and longer runs, the current grid supports pushing the simulation band upward from 20 mHz toward 200 mHz, where the lunar GW detection band remains largely unexplored.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the 0.06-dex frequency shift reflects a systematic 2D-to-3D mapping rather than free calibration, then cheap 2D runs could be used to survey resonant bands across candidate lunar interior models before expensive 3D runs are undertaken.
  • A decisive test the paper leaves open is a full 3D spectral-element simulation of the same symmetric lunar model; direct comparison of its peaks with the shifted 2D curve would either validate the shift as physical or expose it as an artifact of the cylindrical approximation.
  • The cylindrical eigenfrequency calculation in the appendix suggests the offset depends on mode order and on the chosen azimuthal index, so a constant 0.06-dex shift may be a poor approximation for strongly heterogeneous or aspherical lunar models.
  • Because the force density lives at sharp shear-modulus interfaces, the simulation's sensitivity to grid refinement at those boundaries is testable by rerunning with finer crustal meshes and checking whether the peak positions and the horizontal-response mismatch move.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a two-dimensional spectral-element simulation of the lunar seismic response to gravitational waves, extending SPECFEM2D with a Dyson-type force density. The authors build a global 2D cylindrical Moon model with 140,576 fourth-order elements, drive it with a broad-band Gaussian source-time function, and extract radial and horizontal response functions Tr(f) and Th(f) in the 1–20 mHz band. They compare these with semi-analytical normal-mode response functions computed from the same lunar model, finding qualitative agreement only after shifting the FEM spectra horizontally by about 0.06 dex. They also analyze angular-resolution convergence and give a semi-analytical comparison of spherical and cylindrical eigenfrequencies in Appendix A. The paper concludes that FEM is feasible for lunar gravitational-wave response calculations and lays groundwork for 3D simulations.

Significance. If the validation is accepted, this is a useful proof-of-concept: it is the first global FEM/SEM calculation of the lunar GW response, it uses a long 100,000 s simulation, the model and code are publicly available on GitHub, and the angular-resolution test in Fig. 7 is a genuine convergence check. The paper is also honest about the limitations of the 2D plane-strain model. However, the central validation is weaker than the conclusion claims: the only quantitative comparison with the semi-analytical solution is made after applying a constant, unexplained horizontal frequency shift, while Appendix A itself shows that the cylindrical/spherical frequency offset is mode-dependent. Because the feasibility claim rests on that comparison, the current manuscript does not yet firmly establish that the FEM implementation reproduces the correct frequency content and amplitudes of the lunar response.

major comments (3)
  1. [§V, Fig. 8; Appendix A, Table I] The central validation claim depends on the comparison in Fig. 8, but the FEM curves are shown only after being 'horizontally translated by about 0.06 dex'. This shift is not derived from Appendix A. For the homogeneous models in Table I, the spherical/cylindrical frequency ratios are mode-dependent: log10(0.971/0.666) = 0.164 for the first mode, log10(1.868/1.970) = -0.023 for the second, and 0.059 for the fourth. A single constant shift therefore cannot compensate for the geometrical difference in a principled way, and the agreement in Fig. 8 could absorb a systematic error in the FEM frequency scale. To support the feasibility claim, the authors should either benchmark the 2D FEM against an independent 2D cylindrical analytical solution, or derive the frequency mapping between their heterogeneous 2D model and the 3D spherical model rather than fitting it post hoc.
  2. [§IV, Figs. 5–6; §V, Fig. 8] The angular fits in Fig. 5 test only that the response has the expected quadrupolar angular pattern, not that the eigenfrequencies or absolute amplitudes are correct. The comparison of Tr(f) and Th(f) in Fig. 8 is presented on logarithmic axes after a horizontal translation, with no quantitative error metric. The authors acknowledge visible deviations at high-frequency peaks and spectral troughs, but the conclusion 'agree generally well' is not backed by a criterion such as per-mode relative frequency error or a normalization-free amplitude comparison. A quantitative measure of agreement is needed because the paper explicitly states that the FEM results are the basis for concluding that the simulation is feasible for GW response calculations.
  3. [§III, Fig. 1c; §V second paragraph] The Dyson force is implemented as 4320 discrete point forces at 1° azimuthal spacing, but the paper does not describe how the forces are registered to the finite-element mesh at the sharp interfaces where the shear modulus changes. The authors themselves note that 'the way of constructing the grids and adding the force at these places could affect the numerical results' and defer this to future work. Since the Dyson force is concentrated at interfaces, the radial placement of the force relative to element boundaries could affect the excitation amplitudes of the modes. A radial-resolution or interface-registration test would strengthen the validity of the extracted Tr and Th amplitudes.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues: 'aross' should be 'across', 'course grid' should be 'coarse grid', 'per unite strain' should be 'per unit strain', and 'Beside' at the start of the paragraph before Fig. 8 should be 'Besides'.
  2. [Eq. (1)] The polarization tensor epsilon_ij is written as [[1,1,0],[1,-1,0],[0,0,0]], which contains an off-diagonal 1; for a linear plus polarization one would expect diag(1,-1,0). Please correct the matrix or clarify the intended convention.
  3. [Appendix A] The text says 'we calculate both m = 2 and m = 2.5'. For a cylindrical coordinate solution to be single-valued in the azimuthal angle, m should be an integer; m = 2.5 arises only from the Bessel-order relation with spherical Bessel functions and should be described as a formal correspondence rather than as a physical angular quantum number.
  4. [References] Several reference entries have inconsistent formatting, such as stray spaces in 'arXiv e-prints ,' and incomplete journal information for Ref. [30] and Ref. [41]. The reference list should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the FEM response is an independently computed numerical solution compared against external semi-analytical benchmarks; the post-hoc 0.06 dex shift is a disclosed limitation, not a construction-level reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The FEM simulation directly solves the elastic wave equation with a Dyson-type force density (Eq. 7), and the semi-analytical response functions (Eq. 5) are computed with the standard MINEOS normal-mode package using the same lunar model. The angular decomposition used to extract Tr(f) and Th(f) from the simulated displacements follows the algebraic specialization of Eq. (4) to θ = π/2 (Eq. 6); this is a deterministic projection, not an imposition of the target result. The comparison in Fig. 8 is made after a disclosed horizontal translation of 'about 0.06 dex to compensate for the difference between 2D (numerical) and 3D (analytical) models.' That shift is not derived from the eigenfrequency comparison in Appendix A, where the spherical/cylindrical offsets are mode-dependent (e.g., 0.971 vs 0.666 mHz for the fundamental), so the agreement is weaker than if the shift were derived. However, this is a validation weakness and a correctness risk, not a circularity: the shift is not used to generate the FEM response values, and the paper explicitly labels its 2D/3D explanation as qualitative and 'not exact.' The self-citation to the authors' previous work [17] determines the force-density choice and the baseline lunar model, but the Dyson-type force originates from Dyson [40], and the comparison is performed against external semi-analytical and MINEOS results. No load-bearing claim reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Dyson-type force density, the assumed lunar structure model, and the 2D cylindrical geometric approximation. The only fitted quantity introduced in this paper is the 0.06 dex frequency offset. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • 2D-to-3D frequency offset = 0.06 dex (approx. 15%)
    Applied to horizontally translate FEM response curves in Fig 8 to align with semi-analytical curves; chosen post hoc, not derived from the eigenfrequency analysis in Appendix A.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Dyson-type force density f = grad(mu) dot h is the correct form of the gravitational-wave force on an elastic body.
    Invoked in Sec III (Eq 7) and used to define the external force in the FEM model; taken from Ref [40] and prior work [17], not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption The lunar structural model of Ref [17] (spherically symmetric, radially heterogeneous) is adequate for a validation study.
    Used to build the FEM grid (Sec III) and the semi-analytical comparison; the material parameters are not independently measured in this paper.
  • domain assumption A 2D plane-strain model represents a cylindrical Moon of infinite length, and its response can be compared with 3D spherical results after a frequency correction.
    This is the key geometric simplification (Sec III and Appendix A). Appendix A quantifies eigenfrequency differences for homogeneous models but does not derive the 0.06 dex offset applied in Fig 8.
  • domain assumption The quality factors of lunar normal modes satisfy Qn >> 1, justifying the Lorentzian approximation in Eq (3).
    Used in Sec II to write the frequency-domain response as a sum over damped oscillators; standard for lunar modes at these frequencies.
  • domain assumption The spectral element mesh (140,576 fourth-order elements, ~3.7 km surface spacing) resolves frequencies up to 0.2 Hz without significant numerical dispersion.
    Stated in Sec III; only azimuthal resolution convergence is tested (Sec V), not element order or grid spacing.
  • standard math Free-surface boundary condition sigma_ij n_j = 0 at the lunar surface.
    Used in Appendix A to compute eigenfrequencies and in the SEM simulation; standard linear elasticity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 2D numerical simulation of lunar response to gravitational waves using finite element method." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SXDUQWEV

@misc{pith2026241217898,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 2D numerical simulation of lunar response to gravitational waves using finite element method},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SXDUQWEV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17898}
}
read the original abstract

Previous studies of the response of the Moon to gravitational waves have been carried out using analytical or semi-analytical models assuming ideal lunar structures. Such models are advantageous for their high-speed calculation but fail to account for the extremely heterogeneous subsurface and/or interior structures of the Moon. Numerical calculations are needed, but it is challenging to model the topography and lateral heterogeneity of the Moon. In addition, the computational cost is great especially when performing the GW simulation for a long time. As a first step towards overcoming the above difficulties, we employ a two-dimensional finite element method to numerically simulate the lunar response to gravitational waves. We verify our method by comparing our numerical results with those semi-analytical solutions. Based on such comparison, we also analyze the limitation of the two-dimensional simulation. Our work breaks a new way towards the precise simulation of realistic lunar response to gravitational waves in the future and lays down a solid foundation for three-dimensional numerical simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17898 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The SEM model for our simulation. (a) Layered global model of the entire Moon. The color represents the value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. In our calculation we set h0 = 10−20, which ex￾plains the different amplitudes with respect to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Representative snapshots of the radial displacement of the Moon driven by passing GWs. See the radial displacement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Representative snapshots for the radial velocity. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Angular dependence of the radial response [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The gray lines are response functions calculated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Radial and horizontal response functions (log-scale) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Response function (log-scale) per unite strain from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, et al., Ob- servation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    H. Xu, S. Chen, Y. Guo, et al., Searching for the nano- Hertz stochastic gravitational wave background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I, Re- search in Astronomy and Astrophysics23, 075024 (2023), arXiv:2306.16216 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration, et al., The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array. III. Search for gravitational wave signals, Astron- omy & Astrophysics 678, A50 (2023), arXiv:2306.16214 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Agazie, M

    G. Agazie, M. F. Alam, A. Anumarlapudi, et al., The NANOGrav 15 yr data set: Observations and timing of 68 millisecond pulsars, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 951, L9 (2023), arXiv:2306.16217 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    D. J. Reardon, A. Zic, R. M. Shannon, et al., Search for an isotropic gravitational-wave background with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 951, L6 (2023), arXiv:2306.16215 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Amaro-Seoane, H

    P. Amaro-Seoane, H. Audley, S. Babak, et al. , Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1702.00786 (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro- ph.IM]

    arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    J. Luo, L. Chen, H. Duan, et al., TianQin: a space- borne gravitational wave detector, Classical and Quan- tum Gravity 33, 035010 (2016), arXiv:1512.02076 [astro- ph.IM]

    arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Z. Luo, Y. Wang, Y. Wu, W. Hu, and G. Jin, The Taiji program: A concise overview, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2021, 05A108 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Weber, Detection and Generation of Gravitational Waves, Physical Review 117, 306 (1960)

    J. Weber, Detection and Generation of Gravitational Waves, Physical Review 117, 306 (1960)

    1960

  2. [10]

    Weber, Gravitational Waves, Physics Today 21, 34 (1968)

    J. Weber, Gravitational Waves, Physics Today 21, 34 (1968)

    1968

  3. [11]

    T. S. Mast, J. E. Nelson, and J. A. Saarloos, Search for Gravitational Radiation from Pulsars, Astrophysical Journal 187, L49 (1974)

    1974

  4. [12]

    Harms, F

    J. Harms, F. Ambrosino, L. Angelini, et al. , Lu- nar Gravitational-wave Antenna, Astrophys. J. 910, 1 (2021), arXiv:2010.13726 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Branchesi, M

    M. Branchesi, M. Falanga, J. Harms, et al., Lunar Gravitational-Wave Detection, Space Science Reviews 219, 67 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Ajith, P

    P. Ajith, P. Amaro Seoane, M. Arca Sedda, et al., The Lunar Gravitational-wave Antenna: Mission Studies and Science Case, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2404.09181 (2024), arXiv:2404.09181 [gr-qc]

    2024

  7. [15]

    J. Li, F. Liu, Y. Pan, Z. Wang, M. Cao, M. Wang, F. Zhang, J. Zhang, and Z. Zhu, Detecting gravitational wave with an interferometric seismometer array on lunar nearside, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astron- omy 66, 109513 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Majstorovi´ c, S

    J. Majstorovi´ c, S. Rosat, and Y. Rogister, Earth’s spheroidal motion induced by a gravitational wave in flat spacetime, Phys. Rev. D 100, 044048 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    H. Yan, X. Chen, J. Zhang, F. Zhang, M. Wang, and L. Shao, Toward a consistent calculation of the lunar re- sponse to gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D 109, 064092 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Belgacem, M

    E. Belgacem, M. Maggiore, and T. Moreau, Coupling elastic media to gravitational waves: an effective field theory approach, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparti- cle Physics 2024 (7), 028, arXiv:2403.16550 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Majstorovi´ c, L

    J. Majstorovi´ c, L. Vidal, and P. Lognonn´ e, Modeling lunar response to gravitational waves using normal- mode approach and tidal forcing, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2411.09559 (2024), arXiv:2411.09559 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Bi and J

    X. Bi and J. Harms, Response of the Moon to grav- itational waves, Phys. Rev. D 110, 064025 (2024), arXiv:2403.05118 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Kachelrieß and M

    M. Kachelrieß and M. P. Nødtvedt, Lunar response to gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D 110, 064034 (2024), arXiv:2312.11665 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Lognonn´ e, J

    P. Lognonn´ e, J. Gagnepain-Beyneix, and H. Chenet, A new seismic model of the Moon: implications for struc- ture, thermal evolution and formation of the Moon, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 211, 27 (2003). 11

    2003

  15. [24]

    R. C. Weber, P.-Y. Lin, E. J. Garnero, Q. Williams, and P. Lognonn´ e, Seismic detection of the lunar core, Science 331, 309 (2011)

    2011

  16. [25]

    C. Nunn, R. F. Garcia, Y. Nakamura, A. G. Marusiak, T. Kawamura, D. Sun, L. Margerin, R. Weber, M. Dril- leau, M. A. Wieczorek, et al., Lunar seismology: A data and instrumentation review, Space Science Reviews 216, 89 (2020)

    2020

  17. [26]

    Zhang, B

    J. Zhang, B. Zhou, Y. Lin, M. H. Zhu, and Z. Ouyang, Lunar regolith and substructure at Chang’E-4 landing site in South Pole–Aitken basin, Nature Astronomy , 1 (2020)

    2020

  18. [27]

    Zhang, L

    X. Zhang, L. Zhang, J. Zhang, and R. N. Mitchell, Strong heterogeneity in shallow lunar subsurface detected by Apollo seismic data, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets 127, e2022JE007222 (2022)

    2022

  19. [28]

    B. Wang, Q. W. Zhang, Y. Chen, W. Zhao, Y. Liu, G. Tang, H. Ma, B. Su, H. Hui, J. W. Delano, et al., Returned samples indicate volcanism on the Moon 120 million years ago, Science 385, 1077 (2024)

    2024

  20. [29]

    Q. W. Zhang, M. Yang, Q. Li, Y. Liu, Z. Yue, Q. Zhou, L. Chen, H. Ma, S. Yang, X. Tang, et al., Lunar farside volcanism 2.8 billion years ago from Chang’e-6 basalts, Nature , 1 (2024)

    2024

  21. [30]

    Mo¨ es, J

    N. Mo¨ es, J. D. And, and T. Belytschko, A finite ele- ment method for crack growth without remeshing, Inter- national Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering (1999)

    1999

  22. [31]

    Zhang, J

    L. Zhang, J. Zhang, R. N. Mitchell, P. Cao, and J. Liu, A thermal origin for super-high-frequency marsquakes, Icarus 390, 115327 (2023)

    2023

  23. [32]

    Yagawa and R

    G. Yagawa and R. Shioya, Parallel finite elements on a massively parallel computer with domain decomposition, Computing Systems in Engineering 4, 495 (1993)

    1993

  24. [33]

    Komatitsch, S

    D. Komatitsch, S. Tsuboi, J. Tromp, A. Levander, and G. Nolet, The spectral-element method in seismology, Geophysical Monograph-American Geophysical Union 157, 205 (2005)

    2005

  25. [34]

    Ben-Menahem, Excitation of the earth’s eigenvi- brations by gravitational radiation from astrophysical sources., Nuovo Cimento C Geophysics Space Physics C 6, 49 (1983)

    A. Ben-Menahem, Excitation of the earth’s eigenvi- brations by gravitational radiation from astrophysical sources., Nuovo Cimento C Geophysics Space Physics C 6, 49 (1983)

    1983

  26. [35]

    J. H. Woodhouse, The calculation of eigenfrequencies and eigenfunctions of the free oscillations of the earth and the sun, Seismological Algorithms: Computational Methods and Computer Programs , 321 (1988)

    1988

  27. [36]

    Zhang, J

    L. Zhang, J. Wang, Y. Xu, C. He, and C. Zhang, A proce- dure for 3D seismic simulation from rupture to structures by coupling SEM and FEM, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 110, 1134 (2020)

    2020

  28. [37]

    Komatitsch and J.-P

    D. Komatitsch and J.-P. Vilotte, The spectral element method: an efficient tool to simulate the seismic response of 2D and 3D geological structures, Bulletin of the Seis- mological Society of America 88, 368 (1998)

    1998

  29. [38]

    Komatitsch and J

    D. Komatitsch and J. Tromp, Introduction to the spec- tral element method for three-dimensional seismic wave propagation, Geophysical Journal International 139, 806 (1999)

    1999

  30. [39]

    https://github.com/StrelitziaHY/LunarResponse

  31. [40]

    F. J. Dyson, Seismic Response of the Earth to a Gravi- tational Wave in the 1-Hz Band, Astrophys. J. 156, 529 (1969)

    1969

  32. [41]

    Zhang, J

    L. Zhang, J. Zhang, and R. N. Mitchell, Dichotomy in crustal melting on early mars inferred from antipodal ef- fect, The Innovation 3 (2022)

    2022

  33. [42]

    Smerzini, R

    C. Smerzini, R. Paolucci, and M. Stupazzini, Comparison of 3d, 2d and 1d numerical approaches to predict long period earthquake ground motion in the gubbio plain, central italy, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 9, 2007 (2011)

    2011

  34. [43]

    Zhang and J

    L. Zhang and J. Zhang, Local wavefield refinement us- ing Fourier interpolation and boundary extrapolation for finite-element method based on domain reduction method, Geophysics 87, T251 (2022)

    2022

  35. [44]

    Y. Gao, J. Zhang, and Z. Yao, Removing the stability limit of the explicit finite-difference scheme with eigen- value perturbation, Geophysics 83, A93 (2018)

    2018

  36. [45]

    Y. Gao, J. Zhang, and Z. Yao, Extending the stability limit of explicit scheme with spatial filtering for solving wave equations, Journal of Computational Physics 397, 108853 (2019)

    2019

  37. [46]

    Miao and J

    Z. Miao and J. Zhang, An optimal spatial-filtering method derived from eigenvalue perturbation for ex- tending the Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy stability limit, Geo- physics 88, T227 (2023)

    2023

  38. [47]

    J. A. Lobo, What can we learn about gravitational wave physics with an elastic spherical antenna?, Phys. Rev. D 52, 591 (1995), arXiv:gr-qc/0006102 [gr-qc]

    1995 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Bianchi, E

    M. Bianchi, E. Coccia, C. N. Colacino, V. Fafone, and F. Fucito, Testing theories of gravity with a spheri- cal gravitational wave detector, Classical and Quantum Gravity 13, 2865 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9604026 [gr-qc]

    1996 arXiv

  40. [49]

    R. C. Weber, P. Lin, E. J. Garnero, Q. Williams, and P. Lognonn´ e, Seismic Detection of the Lunar Core, Sci- ence 331, 309 (2011)

    2011

  41. [50]

    R. F. Garcia, J. Gagnepain-Beyneix, S. Chevrot, and P. Lognonn´ e, Very preliminary reference Moon model, Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 188, 96 (2011)

    2011

  42. [51]

    Briaud, C

    A. Briaud, C. Ganino, A. Fienga, A. M´ emin, and N. Rambaux, The lunar solid inner core and the man- tle overturn, Nature 617, 743 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.