硅酸盐通报 ›› 2026, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (7): 2448-2465.DOI: 10.16552/j.cnki.issn1001-1625.2026.0067
王言珩(
), 张家伟, 任凯, 严国超(
), 孔少奇, 李岗, 李博宇, 吴旷旷
收稿日期:2026-01-19
修订日期:2026-02-28
出版日期:2026-07-15
发布日期:2026-08-13
通信作者:
严国超,博士,教授。E-mail:yanguochao@tyut.edu.cn作者简介:王言珩(2001—),男,硕士研究生。主要从事固废处置利用方面的研究。E-mail:badmath@163.com
基金资助:
WANG Yanheng(
), ZHANG Jiawei, REN Kai, YAN Guochao(
), KONG Shaoqi, LI Gang, LI Boyu, WU Kuangkuang
Received:2026-01-19
Revised:2026-02-28
Published:2026-07-15
Online:2026-08-13
摘要:
针对现有研究对多源固废基胶凝充填体的组分协同与配比优化认识不足,以及复杂体系中各组分的水化机理、强度发展及微观结构演化尚不清晰的问题,本研究以煤矸石为骨料,粉煤灰和钢渣为主要胶凝组分,电石渣与脱硫石膏为复合激发剂并辅以少量水泥(掺量与煤矸石质量相等),制备了一种用于矿井充填的多源固废基胶凝充填体。通过正交试验与微观测试手段,研究了该材料的力学性能与胶结作用机理。结果表明,多源固废基胶凝充填体的抗压强度随养护龄期显著提高,3、7、28 d平均抗压强度分别为2.058、3.604、7.211 MPa,最优配比(煤矸石骨料、水泥、粉煤灰、钢渣、电石渣、脱硫石膏和水的质量比为1∶1∶1.9∶0.9∶0.3∶0.15∶1.615)时28 d抗压强度达12.96 MPa。影响因素分析表明,早期强度主要受水胶比控制,中期强度受水胶比与电石渣掺量共同影响,后期强度的关键影响因素为粉煤灰掺量。微观分析揭示,水化过程早期以钙矾石(AFt)为主,中期水化硅酸钙(C-S-H)与水化硅铝酸钙(C-A-S-H)凝胶大量生成,后期水化硅(铝)酸钙(C-(A)-S-H)凝胶成为主要胶结相,结构致密化是强度发展的微观基础。本研究为多源固废资源化利用与绿色矿山充填胶凝材料开发提供了实验依据与技术参考。
中图分类号:
王言珩, 张家伟, 任凯, 严国超, 孔少奇, 李岗, 李博宇, 吴旷旷. 多源固废基胶凝充填体的配比优化与微观机理研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(7): 2448-2465.
WANG Yanheng, ZHANG Jiawei, REN Kai, YAN Guochao, KONG Shaoqi, LI Gang, LI Boyu, WU Kuangkuang. Optimization of Mix Proportion and Micro-Mechanism Study of Multi-Source Solid Waste-Based Cementitious Backfill[J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(7): 2448-2465.
| Sieve aperture size/mm | Pass rate/% | Partial sieve residue/% | Cumulative sieve residue/% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5.00 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| 4.75 | 94.16 | 5.84 | 5.84 |
| 2.50 | 56.03 | 38.13 | 43.97 |
| 1.25 | 13.50 | 42.53 | 86.50 |
| 0.45 | 1.71 | 11.79 | 98.29 |
| 0 | 0 | 1.71 | 100 |
表1 煤矸石级配筛分试验结果
Table 1 Test results of coal gangue gradation screening
| Sieve aperture size/mm | Pass rate/% | Partial sieve residue/% | Cumulative sieve residue/% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5.00 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| 4.75 | 94.16 | 5.84 | 5.84 |
| 2.50 | 56.03 | 38.13 | 43.97 |
| 1.25 | 13.50 | 42.53 | 86.50 |
| 0.45 | 1.71 | 11.79 | 98.29 |
| 0 | 0 | 1.71 | 100 |
| Material | Mass fraction of main component/% | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CaO | SiO2 | Al2O3 | MgO | Fe2O3 | SO3 | K2O | Other | |
| Coal gangue | 2.69 | 61.26 | 22.09 | 1.55 | 6.02 | 0.23 | 3.42 | 2.74 |
| Fly ash | 5.95 | 52.56 | 25.27 | 0.51 | 8.24 | 0.71 | 3.21 | 3.55 |
| Steel slag | 39.38 | 18.87 | 9.86 | 8.74 | 13.14 | 2.43 | 0.48 | 7.10 |
| Carbide slag | 90.76 | 4.48 | 1.99 | 0.22 | 0.58 | 1.19 | 0.13 | 0.67 |
| Desulfurization gypsum | 51.48 | 1.35 | 0.36 | 0.25 | 0.47 | 45.81 | 0.18 | 0.11 |
| Portland cement | 57.00 | 23.11 | 9.36 | 1.25 | 3.29 | 3.68 | 0.75 | 1.57 |
表2 原材料的主要化学组成
Table 2 Primary chemical composition of raw materials
| Material | Mass fraction of main component/% | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CaO | SiO2 | Al2O3 | MgO | Fe2O3 | SO3 | K2O | Other | |
| Coal gangue | 2.69 | 61.26 | 22.09 | 1.55 | 6.02 | 0.23 | 3.42 | 2.74 |
| Fly ash | 5.95 | 52.56 | 25.27 | 0.51 | 8.24 | 0.71 | 3.21 | 3.55 |
| Steel slag | 39.38 | 18.87 | 9.86 | 8.74 | 13.14 | 2.43 | 0.48 | 7.10 |
| Carbide slag | 90.76 | 4.48 | 1.99 | 0.22 | 0.58 | 1.19 | 0.13 | 0.67 |
| Desulfurization gypsum | 51.48 | 1.35 | 0.36 | 0.25 | 0.47 | 45.81 | 0.18 | 0.11 |
| Portland cement | 57.00 | 23.11 | 9.36 | 1.25 | 3.29 | 3.68 | 0.75 | 1.57 |
| Level | Factor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | D | E | |
| 1 | 0.36 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.15 | 0.15 |
| 2 | 0.38 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 0.30 | 0.40 |
| 3 | 0.40 | 1.6 | 0.9 | 0.45 | 0.65 |
| 4 | 0.42 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 0.60 | 0.90 |
表3 L16(45)正交试验因素和水平
Table 3 Factors and levels of L16(45) orthogonal experiment
| Level | Factor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | D | E | |
| 1 | 0.36 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.15 | 0.15 |
| 2 | 0.38 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 0.30 | 0.40 |
| 3 | 0.40 | 1.6 | 0.9 | 0.45 | 0.65 |
| 4 | 0.42 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 0.60 | 0.90 |
| Test group | Factor | Uniaxial compressive strength/MPa | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | D | E | 3 d | 7 d | 28 d | |
| 1 | 0.36 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 1.35 | 2.24 | 5.61 |
| 2 | 0.36 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 0.30 | 0.40 | 1.58 | 3.05 | 7.30 |
| 3 | 0.36 | 1.6 | 0.9 | 0.45 | 0.65 | 1.55 | 2.92 | 7.24 |
| 4 | 0.36 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 0.60 | 0.90 | 1.85 | 3.26 | 7.10 |
| 5 | 0.38 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.45 | 0.90 | 1.73 | 3.12 | 5.54 |
| 6 | 0.38 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 0.60 | 0.65 | 1.81 | 3.83 | 7.26 |
| 7 | 0.38 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 0.15 | 0.40 | 1.90 | 3.29 | 8.22 |
| 8 | 0.38 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 0.30 | 0.15 | 2.21 | 6.42 | 12.96 |
| 9 | 0.40 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.60 | 0.40 | 2.85 | 3.53 | 7.08 |
| 10 | 0.40 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 0.45 | 0.15 | 2.54 | 3.27 | 7.91 |
| 11 | 0.40 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 0.30 | 0.90 | 2.06 | 4.35 | 6.74 |
| 12 | 0.40 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 0.15 | 0.65 | 1.87 | 3.61 | 7.64 |
| 13 | 0.42 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 0.30 | 0.65 | 1.98 | 3.27 | 5.15 |
| 14 | 0.42 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 0.15 | 0.90 | 2.06 | 3.41 | 6.54 |
| 15 | 0.42 | 1.6 | 0.6 | 0.60 | 0.15 | 3.03 | 4.75 | 6.70 |
| 16 | 0.42 | 1.9 | 0.3 | 0.45 | 0.40 | 2.56 | 3.35 | 6.39 |
| Average | 2.058 | 3.604 | 7.211 | |||||
表4 正交试验单轴抗压强度试验结果
Table 4 Orthogonal experiment uniaxial compressive strength test results
| Test group | Factor | Uniaxial compressive strength/MPa | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | D | E | 3 d | 7 d | 28 d | |
| 1 | 0.36 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 1.35 | 2.24 | 5.61 |
| 2 | 0.36 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 0.30 | 0.40 | 1.58 | 3.05 | 7.30 |
| 3 | 0.36 | 1.6 | 0.9 | 0.45 | 0.65 | 1.55 | 2.92 | 7.24 |
| 4 | 0.36 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 0.60 | 0.90 | 1.85 | 3.26 | 7.10 |
| 5 | 0.38 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.45 | 0.90 | 1.73 | 3.12 | 5.54 |
| 6 | 0.38 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 0.60 | 0.65 | 1.81 | 3.83 | 7.26 |
| 7 | 0.38 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 0.15 | 0.40 | 1.90 | 3.29 | 8.22 |
| 8 | 0.38 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 0.30 | 0.15 | 2.21 | 6.42 | 12.96 |
| 9 | 0.40 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.60 | 0.40 | 2.85 | 3.53 | 7.08 |
| 10 | 0.40 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 0.45 | 0.15 | 2.54 | 3.27 | 7.91 |
| 11 | 0.40 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 0.30 | 0.90 | 2.06 | 4.35 | 6.74 |
| 12 | 0.40 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 0.15 | 0.65 | 1.87 | 3.61 | 7.64 |
| 13 | 0.42 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 0.30 | 0.65 | 1.98 | 3.27 | 5.15 |
| 14 | 0.42 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 0.15 | 0.90 | 2.06 | 3.41 | 6.54 |
| 15 | 0.42 | 1.6 | 0.6 | 0.60 | 0.15 | 3.03 | 4.75 | 6.70 |
| 16 | 0.42 | 1.9 | 0.3 | 0.45 | 0.40 | 2.56 | 3.35 | 6.39 |
| Average | 2.058 | 3.604 | 7.211 | |||||
| Factor | Level | Uniaxial compressive strength/MPa | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 d | 7 d | 28 d | ||
| A | 1 | 1.582 | 2.869 | 6.811 |
| 2 | 1.913 | 4.165 | 8.497 | |
| 3 | 2.332 | 3.687 | 7.346 | |
| 4 | 2.410 | 3.694 | 6.196 | |
| Rg | 0.828 | 1.296 | 2.301 | |
| B | 1 | 1.978 | 3.041 | 5.847 |
| 2 | 1.999 | 3.386 | 7.254 | |
| 3 | 2.137 | 3.826 | 7.224 | |
| 4 | 2.124 | 4.161 | 8.526 | |
| Rg | 0.159 | 1.120 | 2.679 | |
| C | 1 | 1.948 | 3.440 | 6.500 |
| 2 | 2.053 | 3.632 | 6.796 | |
| 3 | 2.168 | 4.070 | 8.457 | |
| 4 | 2.069 | 3.272 | 7.098 | |
| Rg | 0.220 | 0.798 | 1.957 | |
| D | 1 | 1.797 | 3.135 | 7.004 |
| 2 | 1.958 | 4.272 | 8.040 | |
| 3 | 2.096 | 3.164 | 6.772 | |
| 4 | 2.387 | 3.842 | 7.035 | |
| Rg | 0.591 | 1.137 | 1.268 | |
| E | 1 | 2.283 | 4.171 | 8.295 |
| 2 | 2.223 | 3.301 | 7.250 | |
| 3 | 1.804 | 3.407 | 6.824 | |
| 4 | 1.928 | 3.535 | 6.482 | |
| Rg | 0.479 | 0.871 | 1.812 | |
| Significance | A>D>E>C>B | A>D>B>E>C | B>A>C>E>D | |
表5 各因素的各水平在不同龄期的抗压强度极差分析
Table 5 Analysis of extreme differences in compressive strength at different levels of each factor across various age
| Factor | Level | Uniaxial compressive strength/MPa | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 d | 7 d | 28 d | ||
| A | 1 | 1.582 | 2.869 | 6.811 |
| 2 | 1.913 | 4.165 | 8.497 | |
| 3 | 2.332 | 3.687 | 7.346 | |
| 4 | 2.410 | 3.694 | 6.196 | |
| Rg | 0.828 | 1.296 | 2.301 | |
| B | 1 | 1.978 | 3.041 | 5.847 |
| 2 | 1.999 | 3.386 | 7.254 | |
| 3 | 2.137 | 3.826 | 7.224 | |
| 4 | 2.124 | 4.161 | 8.526 | |
| Rg | 0.159 | 1.120 | 2.679 | |
| C | 1 | 1.948 | 3.440 | 6.500 |
| 2 | 2.053 | 3.632 | 6.796 | |
| 3 | 2.168 | 4.070 | 8.457 | |
| 4 | 2.069 | 3.272 | 7.098 | |
| Rg | 0.220 | 0.798 | 1.957 | |
| D | 1 | 1.797 | 3.135 | 7.004 |
| 2 | 1.958 | 4.272 | 8.040 | |
| 3 | 2.096 | 3.164 | 6.772 | |
| 4 | 2.387 | 3.842 | 7.035 | |
| Rg | 0.591 | 1.137 | 1.268 | |
| E | 1 | 2.283 | 4.171 | 8.295 |
| 2 | 2.223 | 3.301 | 7.250 | |
| 3 | 1.804 | 3.407 | 6.824 | |
| 4 | 1.928 | 3.535 | 6.482 | |
| Rg | 0.479 | 0.871 | 1.812 | |
| Significance | A>D>E>C>B | A>D>B>E>C | B>A>C>E>D | |
| Factor | Uniaxial compressive strength/MPa | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 d | 7 d | 28 d | ||||
| F | P | F | P | F | P | |
| A | 5.666 | 0.003 | 3.250 | 0.034 | 2.437 | 0.083 |
| B | 0.259 | 0.855 | 2.705 | 0.062 | 3.057 | 0.042 |
| C | 0.309 | 0.818 | 1.325 | 0.283 | 1.910 | 0.148 |
| D | 2.387 | 0.087 | 3.423 | 0.029 | 0.811 | 0.497 |
| E | 2.019 | 0.131 | 1.709 | 0.185 | 1.581 | 0.213 |
表6 各因素不同龄期的方差分析
Table 6 Analysis of variance for different ages of various factors
| Factor | Uniaxial compressive strength/MPa | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 d | 7 d | 28 d | ||||
| F | P | F | P | F | P | |
| A | 5.666 | 0.003 | 3.250 | 0.034 | 2.437 | 0.083 |
| B | 0.259 | 0.855 | 2.705 | 0.062 | 3.057 | 0.042 |
| C | 0.309 | 0.818 | 1.325 | 0.283 | 1.910 | 0.148 |
| D | 2.387 | 0.087 | 3.423 | 0.029 | 0.811 | 0.497 |
| E | 2.019 | 0.131 | 1.709 | 0.185 | 1.581 | 0.213 |
图8 针对不同养护龄期下关键影响因素对抗压强度作用的四维可视化表征模型
Fig.8 Four-dimensional visualization model characterizing effects of critical influencing factors on compressive strength across varying curing ages
图10 典型原材料与水化产物特征峰面积在不同龄期的相对变化趋势
Fig.10 Relative change trends in characteristic peak areas of typical raw materials and hydration products at different ages
| [1] | 丁国峰, 吕振福, 刘航涛. 煤炭资源供需分析及开发利用研究进展[J]. 中国矿业, 2025, 34(7): 335-343. |
| DING G F, LV Z F, LIU H T. Research progress on coal resources supply-demand analysis and development-utilization[J]. China Mining Magazine, 2025, 34(7): 335-343 (in Chinese). | |
| [2] | 郭庆文, 李东印, 王伸, 等. 多源固废矿用固碳充填材料性能与碳化机理[J]. 煤田地质与勘探, 2026, 54(1): 130-141. |
| GUO Q W, LI D Y, WANG S, et al. Performance and carbonation mechanisms of multi-source solid waste-based carbon sequestering backfill materials for coal mines[J]. Coal Geology & Exploration, 2026, 54(1): 130-141 (in Chinese). | |
| [3] | 史全林, 龙力华, 杨 前, 等. 煤矸石在绿色矿山建设中的规模化利用技术研究进展[J]. 煤田地质与勘探, 2025, 53(3): 113-125. |
| SHI Q L, LONG L H, YANG Q, et al. Advances in research on technologies for large-scale coal gangue utilization for green mine construction[J]. Coal Geology & Exploration, 2025, 53(3): 113-125 (in Chinese). | |
| [4] |
LI Z J, XING Y, MA M Y, et al. Towards the co-benefits of carbon capture, utilization and sequestration: a life cycle assessment study for steel slag disposal[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2024, 443: 141166.
DOI URL |
| [5] | 杨科, 何淑欣, 何祥, 等. 煤电化基地大宗固废“三化”协同利用基础与技术[J]. 煤炭科学技术, 2024, 52(4): 69-82. |
| YANG K, HE S X, HE X, et al. Foundation and technology of coordinated utilization of bulk solid waste ‘Three modernizations’ in coal power base[J]. Coal Science and Technology, 2024, 52(4): 69-82 (in Chinese). | |
| [6] | 杨科, 魏祯, 赵新元, 等. 黄河流域煤电基地固废井下绿色充填开采理论与技术[J]. 煤炭学报, 2021, 46( ): 925-935. |
| YANG K, WEI Z, ZHAO X Y, et al. Theory and technology of green filling of solid waste in underground mine at coal power base of Yellow River Basin[J]. Journal of China Coal Society, 2021, 46(supplement 2): 925-935 (in Chinese). | |
| [7] |
常西坤, 王明国, 王中青, 等. 西部生态脆弱区村庄下固废绿色充填开采技术应用研究[J]. 煤炭工程, 2022, 54(7): 1-6.
DOI |
| CHANG X K, WANG M G, WANG Z Q, et al. Application of green filling mining with solid waste under villages in an ecologically fragile area of western China[J]. Coal Engineering, 2022, 54(7): 1-6 (in Chinese). | |
| [8] | 郭文兵, 白二虎, 赵高博. 高强度开采覆岩地表破坏及防控技术现状与进展[J]. 煤炭学报, 2020, 45(2): 509-523. |
| GUO W B, BAI E H, ZHAO G B. Current status and progress on overburden and surface damage and prevention technology of high-intensity mining[J]. Journal of China Coal Society, 2020, 45(2): 509-523 (in Chinese). | |
| [9] | 杜 鹏, 贾斐涵, 卢晓磊, 等. 利用固体废弃物煅烧硫铝酸盐水泥熟料研究进展[J]. 硅酸盐学报, 2022, 50(2): 340-353. |
| DU P, JIA F H, LU X L, et al. Research progress on using solid waste to calcinate sulphoaluminate cement clinker[J]. Journal of the Chinese Ceramic Society, 2022, 50(2): 340-353 (in Chinese). | |
| [10] | 金周政, 张东辉, 彭学平, 等. 典型钙基工业固废矿化过程与建材化利用研究进展[J]. 无机盐工业, 2025, 57(10): 11-23. |
| JIN Z Z, ZHANG D H, PENG X P, et al. Research progress on typical calcium-based industrial solid waste mineralization process and utilization in building materials[J]. Inorganic Chemicals Industry, 2025, 57(10): 11-23 (in Chinese). | |
| [11] | 赵凯月, 王 瑶, 王 宁, 等. 碱渣在水泥基材料中的应用研究进展[J/OL]. 材料导报, 2025: 1-18 (2025-12-08) [2026-01-16]. https://link.cnki.net/urlid/50.1078.TB.20251208.1117.012. |
| ZHAO K Y, WANG Y, WANG N, et al. Research progress on application of alkali residue in cement-based materials[J/OL]. Materials Reports, 2025: 1-18 (2025-12-08) [2026-01-16]. (in Chinese). | |
| [12] |
杨靖娴, 马丽萍, 何宾宾, 等. 磷石膏基固废碱激发胶凝材料研究进展[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2025, 44(11): 3934-3946+3886.
DOI |
|
YANG J X, MA L P, HE B B, et al. Research progress on phosphogypsum-based solid waste alkali-activated cementitious materials[J]. Bulletin of the Chinese Ceramic Society, 2025, 44(11): 3934-3946+3886 (in Chinese).
DOI |
|
| [13] | 陈明志, 顾晓薇, 孙一硕, 等. 煤矸石基全固废胶凝材料制备及性能研究[J]. 金属矿山, 2025(5): 325-329. |
| CHEN M Z, GU X W, SUN Y S, et al. Preparation and performance research of coal gangue-based full-solid-waste cementitious materials[J]. Metal Mine, 2025(5): 325-329 (in Chinese). | |
| [14] | 周林邦, 孙星海, 刘 泽, 等. 大掺量粉煤灰基矿井充填材料的制备、工作性能与微观结构的研究[J]. 煤炭学报, 2023, 48(12): 4536-4548. |
| ZHOU L B, SUN X H, LIU Z, et al. Study on preparation, working performance and microstructure of coal mine filling material with large amount of fly ash[J]. Journal of China Coal Society, 2023, 48(12): 4536-4548 (in Chinese). | |
| [15] | 刘文欢, 李凯泽, 麦曲浪, 等. 钢渣-矿渣基多固废胶凝材料的配伍优化及水化特性[J/OL]. 材料导报, 2025: 1-16 (2025-12-18) [2026-01-16]. https://link.cnki.net/urlid/50.1078.tb.20251217.1331.002. |
| LIU W H, LI K Z, MAI Q L, et al. Optimization design and hydration characteristics of SS-GGBFS based multi-solid waste cementitious material[J/OL]. Materials Reports, 2025: 1-16 (2025-12-18) [2026-01-16]. (in Chinese). | |
| [16] | 李华伟, 王荣, 林进益, 等. 电石渣激发超细化铁尾矿水泥胶砂的力学与耐久性能研究[J]. 矿业研究与开发, 2021, 41(1): 64-68. |
| LI H W, WANG R, LIN J Y, et al. Research on mechanical properties and durability of acetylene slag activated ultra-fine iron tailings cement mortar[J]. Mining Research and Development, 2021, 41(1): 64-68 (in Chinese). | |
| [17] | 王灵玉, 李希雯, 陈威, 等. 基于RSM的煤基充填胶凝材料强度演化规律及配比优化研究[J]. 工程科学学报, 2026, 48(3): 461-476. |
| WANG L Y, LI X W, CHEN W, et al. Strength evolution law and ratio optimization of coal-based filling cementitious materials based on the response surface method[J]. Chinese Journal of Engineering, 2026, 48(3): 461-476 (in Chinese). | |
| [18] | 高颖, 王炜, 李光耀, 等. 多元固废基胶凝材料性能及微观机理研究[J/OL]. 化工新型材料, 2025 (2025-09-19) [2026-01-16]. https://doi.org/10.19817/j.cnki.issn1006-3536.2026.08.040. |
| GAO Y, WANG Y, LI G Y, et al. Research on the performance and microscopic mechanism of multi solid waste based cementitious materials[J/OL]. New Chemical Materials, 2025 (2025-09-19) [2026-01-16]. (in Chinese). | |
| [19] | 吴言坤, 陈健, 郝建帅, 等. 钢渣-矿渣-水泥-脱硫石膏四元胶凝体系的水化硬化机理与性能优化研究[J/OL]. 硅酸盐通报, 2025: 1-12 (2025-12-31) [2026-01-16]. https://doi.org/10.16552/j.cnki.issn1001-1625.2025.1110. |
| WU Y K, CHEN J, HAO J S, et al. Hydration and hardening mechanism of SS-GBFS-Cement-DG quaternary cementitious system[J/OL]. Bulletin of the Chinese Ceramic Society, 2025: 1-12 (2025-12-31) [2026-01-16]. (in Chinese). | |
| [20] | 高英力, 祝张煌, 孟 浩, 等. 电石渣-脱硫石膏-钢渣改性粉煤灰地聚物协同增强机理[J]. 建筑材料学报, 2023, 26(8): 870-878. |
| GAO Y L, ZHU Z H, MENG H, et al. Synergistic enhancement mechanism of calcium carbide residue-desulfurization gypsum-steel slag modified fly ash geopolymer[J]. Journal of Building Materials, 2023, 26(8): 870-878 (in Chinese). | |
| [21] | 于本田, 刘志斌, 冯元, 等. 碱激发凝灰岩石粉-粉煤灰-矿渣复合胶凝体系力学性能[J/OL]. 吉林大学学报(工学版), 2025: 1-14 (2025-06-05) [2026-01-16]. https://doi.org/10.13229/j.cnki.jdxbgxb.20250231. |
| YU B T, LIU Z B, FENG Y, et al. Mechanical properties of alkali-activated tuff powder-fly ash-slag composite cementitious system[J]. Journal of Jilin University(Engineering and Technology Edition), 2025: 1-14 (2025-06-05) [2026-01-16]. (in Chinese). | |
| [22] | 华心祝, 常贯峰, 刘啸, 等. 多源煤基固废充填体强度演化规律及声发射特征[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2022, 41(8): 1536-1551. |
| HUA X Z, CHANG G F, LIU X, et al. Strength evolution law and acoustic-emission characteristics of multi-source coal-based filling body of solid wastes[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2022, 41(8): 1536-1551 (in Chinese). | |
| [23] | 朱庚杰, 朱万成, 齐兆军, 等. 固废基充填胶凝材料配比分步优化及其水化胶结机理[J]. 工程科学学报, 2023, 45(8): 1304-1315. |
| ZHU G J, ZHU W C, QI Z J, et al. Step optimization of a solid waste-based binder for backfill and a study on hydration and cementation mechanism[J]. Chinese Journal of Engineering, 2023, 45(8): 1304-1315 (in Chinese). | |
| [24] | 杨 科, 张继强, 何 祥, 等. 多源煤基固废胶结充填体力学及变形破坏特征试验研究[J]. 煤田地质与勘探, 2024, 52(6): 102-114. |
| YANG K, ZHANG J Q, HE X, et al. Experimental study on the mechanics and deformation failure characteristics of multi-source coal-based solid waste cemented backfill[J]. Coal Geology & Exploration, 2024, 52(6): 102-114 (in Chinese). | |
| [25] | 朱德福, 刘济广, 闫川, 等. 碱与硫酸盐环境下赤泥基充填材料的强度演化及硅铝活化机制[J]. 煤炭学报, 2025, 50(8): 3868-3883. |
| ZHU D F, LIU J G, YAN C, et al. Strength evolution and silico-aluminous activation mechanism of red mud-based backfill materials in alkali-sulfate environments[J]. Journal of China Coal Society, 2025, 50(8): 3868-3883 (in Chinese). | |
| [26] |
WANG L, YANG H Q, ZHOU S H, et al. Hydration, mechanical property and C-S-H structure of early-strength low-heat cement-based materials[J]. Materials Letters, 2018, 217: 151-154.
DOI URL |
| [27] | 孙 勇, 蒋 平, 马征宇, 等. 低碳经济视角下水泥-粉煤灰-碳化钢渣胶凝体系在尾砂充填中的性能研究[J/OL]. 矿业研究与开发, 2025: 1-12 (2025-10-20) [2026-01-16]. https://doi.org/10.13827/j.cnki.kyyk.20251017.001. |
| SUN Y, JIANG P, MA Z Y, et al. Performance of cement-fly ash-carbonated steel slag cementitious system in tailings filling from the perspective of low carbon and economy[J/OL]. Mining Research and Development, 2025: 1-12 (2025-10-20) [2026-01-16]. (in Chinese). | |
| [28] | 赵风文, 胡建华, 曾平平, 等. 基于正交试验的碱基-磷石膏胶结充填体配比优化[J]. 中国有色金属学报, 2021, 31(4): 1096-1105. |
| ZHAO F W, HU J H, ZENG P P, et al. Optimization research of base-phosphogypsum cemented backfill ratio based on orthogonal test[J]. The Chinese Journal of Nonferrous Metals, 2021, 31(4): 1096-1105 (in Chinese). | |
| [29] | 高 云, 杜春苗, 李 栋, 等. 水胶比对高强混凝土力学性能影响的实验研究[J]. 西安建筑科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 52(5): 653-659. |
| GAO Y, DU C M, LI D, et al. Experimental study on the influence of water-binder ratio on mechanical properties of high strength concrete[J]. Journal of Xi’an University of Architecture & Technology (Natural Science Edition), 2020, 52(5): 653-659 (in Chinese). | |
| [30] | 代金芯, 石宵爽, 王清远, 等. 多因素对再生复合掺料基地聚物混凝土抗压强度的影响[J]. 材料导报, 2021, 35(9): 9077-9082. |
| DAI J X, SHI X S, WANG Q Y, et al. Effect of multi-factor on the compressive strength of construction and demolition waste based geopolymer concrete[J]. Materials Review, 2021, 35(9): 9077-9082 (in Chinese). | |
| [31] |
窦占双, 李晓民, 秦宏涛, 等. 化学激发大掺量粉煤灰复合胶凝材料力学性能与水化机理研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2025, 44(1): 243-252.
DOI |
|
DOU Z S, LI X M, QIN H T, et al. Mechanical properties and hydration mechanism of chemically activated high content fly ash composite cementitious materials[J]. Bulletin of the Chinese Ceramic Society, 2025, 44(1): 243-252 (in Chinese).
DOI |
|
| [32] | 董红娟, 王 博, 张金山, 等. 粉煤灰基复合胶凝喷浆材料的强度及水化机理[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2020, 39(10): 3293-3297. |
| DONG H J, WANG B, ZHANG J S, et al. Strength and hydration mechanism of fly ash-based composite cementitious shotcrete material[J]. Bulletin of the Chinese Ceramic Society, 2020, 39(10): 3293-3297 (in Chinese). | |
| [33] | 周华强. 电石渣激发粉煤灰-煤矸石地聚物试验研究[D]. 徐州: 中国矿业大学, 2024: 34-36. |
| ZHOU H Q. Experiment study on calcium carbide slag activate fly ash-gangue geopolymer[D]. xuzhou: China University of Mining and Technology, 2024:34-36 (in Chinese). | |
| [34] | 戚庭野, 成思远, 冯国瑞, 等. 碱激发钢渣-粉煤灰固废充填材料的制备及强度形成机理[J]. 煤炭科学技术, 2025, 53(6): 236-249. |
| QI T Y, CHENG S Y, FENG G R, et al. Preparation of alkali-activated steel slag-fly ash based full solid waste filling material and strength formation mechanism research[J]. Coal Science and Technology, 2025, 53(6): 236-249 (in Chinese). | |
| [35] | 赵昀奇. 电石渣基激发剂对碱矿渣胶凝材料水化及流变性能影响研究[D]. 沈阳: 东北大学, 2023: 31-32. |
| ZHAO J Q. Research on the impact of calcium carbide slag-based activator on the hydration and rheological properties of alkali-activated slag cement[D]. Shenyang: Northeastern University, 2023: 31-32 (in Chinese). | |
| [36] | 聂庆科, 李华伟, 杨海朋, 等. 矿渣、电石渣协同制备赤泥-II级粉煤灰地聚物力学与微观特性[J]. 硅酸盐学报, 2026, 54(5): 1524-1535. |
| NIE Q K, LI H W, YANG H P, et al. Mechanical and microstructural characteristics of red mud-class II fly ash based geopolymer Synergistically prepared with ground granulated blast furnace slag and calcium carbide slag[J]. Journal of the Chinese Ceramic Society, 2026, 54(5): 1524-1535 (in Chinese). | |
| [37] |
MIRAKI H, SHARIATMADARI N, GHADIR P, et al. Clayey soil stabilization using alkali-activated volcanic ash and slag[J]. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 2022, 14(2): 576-591.
DOI URL |
| [38] | 朱绘美, 武幸子, 刘 毓, 等. 常温下碱-晶种复合激发粉煤灰胶凝材料的性能[J]. 硅酸盐学报, 2025, 53(2): 289-303. |
| ZHU H M, WU X Z, LIU Y, et al. Properties of alkali-seed activated fly ash binder at room temperature[J]. Journal of the Chinese Ceramic Society, 2025, 53(2): 289-303 (in Chinese). | |
| [39] | 覃丽芳, 曲 波, 史才军, 等. 钙硅比对铝硅酸盐凝胶形成与特性的影响[J]. 材料导报, 2020, 34(12): 12057-12063. |
| QIN L F, QU B, SHI C J, et al. Effect of Ca/Si ratio on the formation and characteristics of synthetic aluminosilicate hydrate gels[J]. Materials Review, 2020, 34(12): 12057-12063 (in Chinese). | |
| [40] | 康丽华, 肖凤娟, 张广田, 等. 高掺量铁尾矿基全固废胶凝材料制备及水化机理[J/OL]. 材料导报, 2025: 1-16 (2025-12-31) [2026-01-16]. https://link.cnki.net/urlid/50.1078.TB.20251230.2001.004. |
| KANG L H, XIAO F J, ZHANG G T, et al. Preparation and hydration mechanism of high-volume iron ore tailings-based solid waste cementitious materials[J/OL]. Materials Reports, 2025: 1-16 (2025-12-31) [2026-01-16]. (in Chinese). |
| [1] | 刘鑫, 李明阳, 张细和, 蓝少丁, 高旭. 赤泥与再生微粉协同调控磷石膏-矿渣基全固废胶凝材料的耐久性能与微观结构研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(7): 2478-2490. |
| [2] | 金子豪, 邹自勇, 贺行洋, 苏英, 陈淑琴. 湿磨碳化钢渣对磷建筑石膏性能及微观结构的影响[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(7): 2347-2356. |
| [3] | 张文琮, 保钦凡, 王雨秋, 满保良, 黄果, 郭荣鑫. 硫酸钙晶须对粉煤灰-水泥复合材料水化和微观结构的影响[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(7): 2428-2437. |
| [4] | 欧阳琦, 尹健, 李思娇, 陈怡豪, 覃宇航, 曾一. 复合降碱改性生态多孔混凝土抗硫酸盐侵蚀性能研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(7): 2290-2298. |
| [5] | 王月, 丛培良. 粉煤灰-电石渣-脱硫石膏胶凝材料力学性能与反应特性[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(7): 2438-2447. |
| [6] | 郝贠洪, 佟海岩, 王栋民, 孙浩, 杜根杰. 多因素交互作用下固废基生态矿区充填材料的制备及性能研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(7): 2466-2477. |
| [7] | 胡庆浩, 李绍纯, 陈旭, 张书畅. 低浓度CO2条件40 ℃环境对水泥胶砂早期碳化与水化反应进程影响研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(6): 1892-1902. |
| [8] | 廖云天, 彭文洁, 李博, 陈伟, 郑旭航. 活化工艺对高岭土基低碳水泥性能的影响[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(6): 1979-1987. |
| [9] | 赵天璞, 占雪芳, 刘晓军, 黄聃, 赵怡彬, 王皓磊. 基于正交试验的多元共混绿色ECC制备与性能预测[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(6): 1988-2001. |
| [10] | 肖庆一, 张紫腾, 马明晓, 荆文龙, 李子祎. 芦苇纤维增强流态粉煤灰的力学性能及微观结构分析[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(6): 2181-2190. |
| [11] | 黄锐, 康鹏, 李勤良, 王涛, 邹东, 张俊云, 张乐, 陈春陆. 基于响应面法的四川盆地沟谷相软弱土固化配合比优化研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(6): 2191-2202. |
| [12] | 吴言坤, 陈健, 郝建帅, 房奎圳. 钢渣-矿渣-水泥-脱硫石膏四元胶凝体系的水化硬化机理与性能优化研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(6): 2052-2062. |
| [13] | 李悦, 周光辉, 杨斌, 晋凯凯, 蒋泽洲, 邱梓恒, 邵伟伟. 高海拔山区隧道喷射混凝土配合比优化设计及性能研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(6): 1924-1936. |
| [14] | 马莲霞, 刘超, 陈伟, 朱文轩, 赵维飞, 杨秋菊. 3D打印混凝土力学各向异性及孔隙演化机理[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(6): 1914-1923. |
| [15] | 周正, 周宇通, 赵洲峰, 裘吕超, 张士元, 王莉婷, 彭博, 蹇守卫, 谭洪波. 多元组分对磷酸钾镁水泥高温下性能劣化的影响[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(6): 1864-1875. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||