硅酸盐通报 ›› 2026, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (9): 3055-3069.DOI: 10.16552/j.cnki.issn1001-1625.2026.0315
收稿日期:2026-04-02
修订日期:2026-05-13
出版日期:2026-09-15
发布日期:2026-10-09
通信作者:
袁 杰,博士,副教授。E-mail:hityuanj@163.com作者简介:黄 馨(1999—),女,博士研究生。主要从事超高性能混凝土的研究。E-mail:416796869@qq.com
基金资助:
HUANG Xin1(
), CHEN Xin2, SHENG Jialin1, WANG Junbo1, YUAN Jie1(
)
Received:2026-04-02
Revised:2026-05-13
Published:2026-09-15
Online:2026-10-09
摘要:
为突破传统超高性能混凝土(UHPC)配合比设计中试错法效率低、成本高与目标单一的局限,研究提出一种集成预测模型与多目标优化的UHPC配合比协同设计框架。融合动态加权集成模型与改进型非支配排序遗传算法Ⅱ(NSGA-Ⅱ),贯穿UHPC力学性能预测、特征解释与配合比反推全过程。模型中UHPC抗折强度与抗压强度测试集R2分别达到0.927与0.958。基于特征重要性分析识别关键特征,钢纤维掺量、养护龄期、硅灰用量对UHPC力学性能影响最显著。优化环节以UHPC抗折强度、抗压强度、单方成本与CO2排放量为四维并行目标,基于改进型NSGA-Ⅱ结合拉丁超立方采样、动态参数调节与并行算子搜索,生成收敛性与多样性兼具的帕累托解集。经试验验证,在成本及碳排放降幅不超过25%的优化区间内,模型对UHPC抗折强度与抗压强度的预测误差均控制在±9%,且力学性能满足规范要求。该模型为UHPC的高性能、低碳与经济性设计提供了高效、可靠的科学工具与理论支持。
中图分类号:
黄馨, 陈歆, 盛家林, 王军博, 袁杰. 经济低碳型UHPC配合比的可解释人工智能驱动设计[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(9): 3055-3069.
HUANG Xin, CHEN Xin, SHENG Jialin, WANG Junbo, YUAN Jie. Interpretable AI-Driven Design of Economically Low-Carbon Ultra-High Performance Concrete Mix Proportion[J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(9): 3055-3069.
| Variable | Abbreviation | Range | Mean | Standard deviation | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Input | X1 | Cement content/(kg·m-3) | Cement | 270~1 277 | 694.21 | 171.85 |
| X2 | Cement grade | Grade | 42.5/52.5 | |||
| X3 | Fly ash content/(kg·m-3) | FA | 0~375 | 29.45 | 61.67 | |
| X4 | Ground granulated blast-furnace slag content/(kg·m-3) | GGBS | 0~368 | 29.89 | 62.56 | |
| X5 | Silica fume content/(kg·m-3) | SF | 0~292 | 105.19 | 94.40 | |
| X6 | Nano-SiO2 content/(kg·m-3) | NS | 0~75 | 6.15 | 16.98 | |
| X7 | Limestone powder content/(kg·m-3) | LS | 0~1 052 | 62.77 | 142.40 | |
| X8 | River sand content/(kg·m-3) | S | 407~1 503 | 989.37 | 321.15 | |
| X9 | Coarse aggregate content/(kg·m-3) | A | 0~1 298.61 | 159.59 | 399.74 | |
| X10 | Quartz powder content/(kg·m-3) | QP | 0~430 | 32.68 | 78.78 | |
| X11 | Water content/(kg·m-3) | W | 90~286 | 176.36 | 23.52 | |
| X12 | Superplasticizer content/(kg·m-3) | SP | 5.1~52 | 20.13 | 13.11 | |
| X13 | Steel fiber content/(kg·m-3) | Vf | 0~235.5 | 78.45 | 81.18 | |
| X14 | Length-to-diameter ratio | L/D | 0~81.25 | 35.08 | 32.31 | |
| X15 | Curing age/d | Age | 1~360 | 36.35 | 96.52 | |
| X16 | Cube size/mm | Size | 40/70.7/100/150 | |||
| X17 | Cementitious content/(kg·m-3) | C | 500~1 568 | 797.18 | 228.07 | |
| Output | Y1 | Flexural strength/MPa | FS | 10~42 | 18.62 | 7.35 |
| Y2 | Compressive strength/MPa | CS | 80~220 | 132.43 | 36.91 | |
表1 UHPC数据集统计特征
Table 1 Statistical characteristics for UHPC
| Variable | Abbreviation | Range | Mean | Standard deviation | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Input | X1 | Cement content/(kg·m-3) | Cement | 270~1 277 | 694.21 | 171.85 |
| X2 | Cement grade | Grade | 42.5/52.5 | |||
| X3 | Fly ash content/(kg·m-3) | FA | 0~375 | 29.45 | 61.67 | |
| X4 | Ground granulated blast-furnace slag content/(kg·m-3) | GGBS | 0~368 | 29.89 | 62.56 | |
| X5 | Silica fume content/(kg·m-3) | SF | 0~292 | 105.19 | 94.40 | |
| X6 | Nano-SiO2 content/(kg·m-3) | NS | 0~75 | 6.15 | 16.98 | |
| X7 | Limestone powder content/(kg·m-3) | LS | 0~1 052 | 62.77 | 142.40 | |
| X8 | River sand content/(kg·m-3) | S | 407~1 503 | 989.37 | 321.15 | |
| X9 | Coarse aggregate content/(kg·m-3) | A | 0~1 298.61 | 159.59 | 399.74 | |
| X10 | Quartz powder content/(kg·m-3) | QP | 0~430 | 32.68 | 78.78 | |
| X11 | Water content/(kg·m-3) | W | 90~286 | 176.36 | 23.52 | |
| X12 | Superplasticizer content/(kg·m-3) | SP | 5.1~52 | 20.13 | 13.11 | |
| X13 | Steel fiber content/(kg·m-3) | Vf | 0~235.5 | 78.45 | 81.18 | |
| X14 | Length-to-diameter ratio | L/D | 0~81.25 | 35.08 | 32.31 | |
| X15 | Curing age/d | Age | 1~360 | 36.35 | 96.52 | |
| X16 | Cube size/mm | Size | 40/70.7/100/150 | |||
| X17 | Cementitious content/(kg·m-3) | C | 500~1 568 | 797.18 | 228.07 | |
| Output | Y1 | Flexural strength/MPa | FS | 10~42 | 18.62 | 7.35 |
| Y2 | Compressive strength/MPa | CS | 80~220 | 132.43 | 36.91 | |
| Model | Original | RF | Original | XGB | Original | CB | Original | LGB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 | 0.806 | 0.869 | 0.863 | 0.891 | 0.884 | 0.917 | 0.826 | 0.883 |
| MAE | 4.27 | 3.42 | 3.72 | 3.28 | 2.51 | 2.04 | 4.05 | 3.57 |
| RMSE | 5.29 | 4.15 | 4.26 | 3.96 | 3.46 | 2.97 | 4.35 | 2.89 |
表2 超参数优化后UHPC抗折强度预测性能指标
Table 2 Performance metrics of hyperparameter-optimized models for UHPC flexural strength prediction
| Model | Original | RF | Original | XGB | Original | CB | Original | LGB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 | 0.806 | 0.869 | 0.863 | 0.891 | 0.884 | 0.917 | 0.826 | 0.883 |
| MAE | 4.27 | 3.42 | 3.72 | 3.28 | 2.51 | 2.04 | 4.05 | 3.57 |
| RMSE | 5.29 | 4.15 | 4.26 | 3.96 | 3.46 | 2.97 | 4.35 | 2.89 |
| Parameter | Cost/(yuan·kg-1) | CO2 embodied/(kg CO2·kg-1) | Density/(kg·m-3) | Range |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cement | 0.70 | 0.82 | 3 150 | 400~1 200 |
| Fly ash | 0.28 | 0.01 | 2 700 | 0~300 |
| Ground granulated blast-furnace slag | 0.40 | 0.09 | 2 900 | |
| Silica fume | 0.80 | 0.02 | 2 200 | |
| Quartz powder | 0.60 | 0.05 | 2 625 | |
| Water | 0.001 | 0.001 | 1 000 | 100~300 |
| Superplasticizer | 6.84 | 0.60 | 1 050 | 0~80 |
| Steel fiber content | 6.50 | 2.65 | 7 800 | 78~300 |
| River sand | 0.01 | 0.02 | 2 640 | 800~1 200 |
| Cementitious | 600~1 400 | |||
| Flexural strength/MPa | 10~30 | |||
| Compressive strength/MPa | 120~180 | |||
表3 原材料的成本及碳排放统计
Table 3 Cost and carbon emissions of raw materials
| Parameter | Cost/(yuan·kg-1) | CO2 embodied/(kg CO2·kg-1) | Density/(kg·m-3) | Range |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cement | 0.70 | 0.82 | 3 150 | 400~1 200 |
| Fly ash | 0.28 | 0.01 | 2 700 | 0~300 |
| Ground granulated blast-furnace slag | 0.40 | 0.09 | 2 900 | |
| Silica fume | 0.80 | 0.02 | 2 200 | |
| Quartz powder | 0.60 | 0.05 | 2 625 | |
| Water | 0.001 | 0.001 | 1 000 | 100~300 |
| Superplasticizer | 6.84 | 0.60 | 1 050 | 0~80 |
| Steel fiber content | 6.50 | 2.65 | 7 800 | 78~300 |
| River sand | 0.01 | 0.02 | 2 640 | 800~1 200 |
| Cementitious | 600~1 400 | |||
| Flexural strength/MPa | 10~30 | |||
| Compressive strength/MPa | 120~180 | |||
| Parameter | Population size | Sampling method | Crossover rate | Crossover operator | Mutation rate | Mutation operator | Number of generation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Value | 500 | Random | 0.85 | Binary crossover | 0.15 | Polynomial | 300 |
表4 多目标优化算法的参数取值
Table 4 Parameter values for multi-objective optimization algorithms
| Parameter | Population size | Sampling method | Crossover rate | Crossover operator | Mutation rate | Mutation operator | Number of generation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Value | 500 | Random | 0.85 | Binary crossover | 0.15 | Polynomial | 300 |
| Performance metrics | NSGA-Ⅱ | SPEA2 | AGEMOEA | SMSEMOA | Improved NSGA-Ⅱ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HV | 26.31±2.15 | 22.17±1.37 | 27.53±1.77 | 24.15±2.02 | 31.15±0.86 |
| SPA | 0.93±0.19 | 1.49±0.23 | 1.71±0.34 | 1.75±0.56 | 0.88±0.14 |
| T_iter | 10.20±1.71 | 13.01±1.46 | 15.01±2.11 | 16.52±3.02 | 2.67±0.32 |
| RAM_peak | 52.77±2.77 | 212.24±9.21 | 72.55±6.11 | 75.13±4.51 | 75.13±4.87 |
表5 五种多目标优化算法的性能比较
Table 5 Performance comparison between five multi-objective optimization algorithms
| Performance metrics | NSGA-Ⅱ | SPEA2 | AGEMOEA | SMSEMOA | Improved NSGA-Ⅱ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HV | 26.31±2.15 | 22.17±1.37 | 27.53±1.77 | 24.15±2.02 | 31.15±0.86 |
| SPA | 0.93±0.19 | 1.49±0.23 | 1.71±0.34 | 1.75±0.56 | 0.88±0.14 |
| T_iter | 10.20±1.71 | 13.01±1.46 | 15.01±2.11 | 16.52±3.02 | 2.67±0.32 |
| RAM_peak | 52.77±2.77 | 212.24±9.21 | 72.55±6.11 | 75.13±4.51 | 75.13±4.87 |
| Parameter | TestA | TestB | TestC | TestD | TestE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mix proportion/(kg·m-3) | Cement | 833 | 792 | 693 | 584 | 405 |
| Fly ash | 226 | 170 | 239 | 169 | 327 | |
| Ground granulated blast-furnace slag | 73 | 129 | 74 | 48 | 56 | |
| Silica fume | 154 | 163 | 158 | 120 | 103 | |
| River sand | 876 | 905 | 924 | 970 | 1 034 | |
| Water | 166 | 176 | 185 | 190 | 206 | |
| Superplasticizer | 39 | 35 | 30 | 16 | 19 | |
| Steel fiber | 180 | 167 | 155 | 141 | 103 | |
| Cost/(yuan·m-3) | 2 244 | 2 120 | 1 932 | 1 612 | 1 295 | |
| CO2 emission/(kg·m-3) | 1 210 | 1 145 | 1 026 | 913 | 646 | |
表6 四目标优化后UHPC的配合比参数
Table 6 Mix proportion parameter of UHPC after four-objective optimization
| Parameter | TestA | TestB | TestC | TestD | TestE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mix proportion/(kg·m-3) | Cement | 833 | 792 | 693 | 584 | 405 |
| Fly ash | 226 | 170 | 239 | 169 | 327 | |
| Ground granulated blast-furnace slag | 73 | 129 | 74 | 48 | 56 | |
| Silica fume | 154 | 163 | 158 | 120 | 103 | |
| River sand | 876 | 905 | 924 | 970 | 1 034 | |
| Water | 166 | 176 | 185 | 190 | 206 | |
| Superplasticizer | 39 | 35 | 30 | 16 | 19 | |
| Steel fiber | 180 | 167 | 155 | 141 | 103 | |
| Cost/(yuan·m-3) | 2 244 | 2 120 | 1 932 | 1 612 | 1 295 | |
| CO2 emission/(kg·m-3) | 1 210 | 1 145 | 1 026 | 913 | 646 | |
| [1] |
LIU R R, DING R, SUN Y T, et al. Experimental and theoretical study on seismic behavior of a new UHPFRC sandwich wall and wall-wall joint[J]. Engineering Structures, 2024, 303: 117440.
DOI URL |
| [2] |
ZHANG Z W, ASHOUR A, GE W J, et al. Experimental investigation on flexural performance of steel-UHPC composite beams with steel shear keys[J]. Engineering Structures, 2024, 313: 118275.
DOI URL |
| [3] |
LIU J, WEI J, LI J, et al. A comprehensive review of ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) behaviour under blast loads[J]. Cement and Concrete Composites, 2024, 148: 105449.
DOI URL |
| [4] | FAN D Q, LU J X, LIU K N, et al. Multi-scale design of ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) composites with centroplasm theory[J]. Composites Part B: Engineering, 2024, 281: 111562. |
| [5] |
FAN D Q, ZHU J Y, FAN M X, et al. Intelligent design and manufacturing of ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC)-a review[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2023, 385: 131495.
DOI URL |
| [6] |
WANG Y C, ZHUGE Y, YAO Y. Design and performance analysis of ultra-high performance concrete using fully recycled molybdenum tailings waste[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2025, 473: 140981.
DOI URL |
| [7] |
WONG H H C, KWAN A K H. Packing density of cementitious materials: part 1-measurement using a wet packing method[J]. Materials and Structures, 2008, 41(4): 689-701.
DOI URL |
| [8] | WU Z M, SHI C J, KHAYAT K H. Investigation of mechanical properties and shrinkage of ultra-high performance concrete: influence of steel fiber content and shape[J]. Composites Part B: Engineering, 2019, 174: 107021. |
| [9] |
ERIKSSON L, JOHANSSON E, WIKSTRÖM C. Mixture design-design generation, PLS analysis, and model usage[J]. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 1998, 43(1-2): 1-24.
DOI URL |
| [10] |
HOU D S, ZHANG X H, ZHANG K, et al. Optimizing lightweight UHPC through the synergy of lightweight aggregate, filler, and polymer fiber via response surface methodology[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2025, 463: 140104.
DOI URL |
| [11] |
SHI C J, WANG D H, WU L M, et al. The hydration and microstructure of ultra high-strength concrete with cement-silica fume-slag binder[J]. Cement and Concrete Composites, 2015, 61: 44-52.
DOI URL |
| [12] |
MOHAMMED A J, HASSAN M S, AL-QURAISHI H. Modelling the synergistic effect of waste glass and inert slag aggregate on ultrahigh-performance concrete tensile strength[J]. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 2024, 9(6): 192.
DOI |
| [13] | ABELLAN-GARCIA J. Artificial neural network model for strength prediction of ultra-high-performance concrete[J]. ACI Materials Journal, 2021, 118(4): 3-14. |
| [14] |
FAN D Q, YU R, FU S Y, et al. Precise design and characteristics prediction of ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) based on artificial intelligence techniques[J]. Cement and Concrete Composites, 2021, 122: 104171.
DOI URL |
| [15] |
FAN D Q, YU R, SHUI Z H, et al. A novel approach for developing a green ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) with advanced particles packing meso-structure[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2020, 265: 120339.
DOI URL |
| [16] | GHAFARI E, BANDARABADI M, COSTA H, et al. Prediction of fresh and hardened state properties of UHPC: comparative study of statistical mixture design and an artificial neural network model[J]. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 2015, 27(11): 04015017. |
| [17] |
KHAN M I, ABBAS Y M. Intelligent data-driven compressive strength prediction and optimization of reactive powder concrete using multiple ensemble-based machine learning approach[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2023, 404: 133148.
DOI URL |
| [18] |
ZHANG Y T, YI M H, MEI W Y, et al. A multi-objective ensemble learning framework for designing low-carbon ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC)[J]. Applied Soft Computing, 2025, 169: 112644.
DOI URL |
| [19] | MAHJOUBI S, BARHEMAT R, MENG W N, et al. AI-guided auto-discovery of low-carbon cost-effective ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC)[J]. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2023, 189: 106741. |
| [20] |
SHAFIGHFARD T, KAZEMI F, ASGARKHANI N, et al. Machine-learning methods for estimating compressive strength of high-performance alkali-activated concrete[J]. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 2024, 136: 109053.
DOI URL |
| [21] |
MO Z Y, WANG R, GAO X J. Hydration and mechanical properties of UHPC matrix containing limestone and different levels of metakaolin[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2020, 256: 119454.
DOI URL |
| [22] |
WANG M, DU M F, JIA Y, et al. Carbon emission optimization of ultra-high-performance concrete using machine learning methods[J]. Materials, 2024, 17(7): 1670.
DOI URL |
| [23] |
MAHJOUBI S, MENG W N, BAO Y. Auto-tune learning framework for prediction of flowability, mechanical properties, and porosity of ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC)[J]. Applied Soft Computing, 2022, 115: 108182.
DOI URL |
| [24] |
LI T L, JIANG P X, QIAN Y F, et al. Evaluation of machine learning and traditional methods for estimating compressive strength of UHPC[J]. Buildings, 2024, 14(9): 2693.
DOI URL |
| [25] | KASHEM A, KARIM R, MALO S C, et al. Hybrid data-driven approaches to predicting the compressive strength of ultra-high-performance concrete using SHAP and PDP analyses[J]. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 2024, 20: e02991. |
| [26] |
ASHKEZARI G D, FOTOUHI F, RAZMARA M. Experimental relationships between steel fiber volume fraction and mechanical properties of ultra-high performance fiber-reinforced concrete[J]. Journal of Building Engineering, 2020, 32: 101613.
DOI URL |
| [27] |
KATLAV M, ERGEN F. Improved forecasting of the compressive strength of ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) via the CatBoost model optimized with different algorithms[J]. Structural Concrete, 2025, 26(1): 212-235.
DOI URL |
| [28] |
CHU S H, KWAN A K H. Mixture design of self-levelling ultra-high performance FRC[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2019, 228: 116761.
DOI URL |
| [29] |
DU J, MAHJOUBI S, BAO Y, et al. Modeling mixing kinetics for large-scale production of ultra-high-performance concrete: effects of temperature, volume, and mixing method[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2023, 397: 132439.
DOI URL |
| [30] | GUO P W, MAHJOUBI S, LIU K J, et al. Self-updatable AI-assisted design of low-carbon cost-effective ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC)[J]. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 2023, 19: e02625. |
| [31] |
YUAN J, HUANG X, CHEN X, et al. Potentialities of magnesium phosphate cement-based ultra-high-performance concrete in extremely cold weather construction[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2024, 456: 139297.
DOI URL |
| [32] | 孙嘉伦, 张春晓, 毛继泽, 等. 养护制度对超高性能混凝土强度的影响机理[J]. 材料导报, 2024, 38(18): 66-70. |
| SUN J L, ZHANG C X, MAO J Z, et al. Affecting mechanism of curing regimes on the strength of ultra-high performance concrete[J]. Materials Reports, 2024, 38(18): 66-70 (in Chinese). | |
| [33] | HAMADA H, ALATTAR A, TAYEH B, et al. Influence of different curing methods on the compressive strength of ultra-high-performance concrete: a comprehensive review[J]. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 2022, 17: e01390. |
| [34] |
DONG S F, OUYANG X Y, YOO D Y, et al. Influence of early thermal curing regimes on properties of ultra-high performance concrete: a review[J]. Journal of Building Engineering, 2024, 96: 110494.
DOI URL |
| [35] |
LIU B J, XIE Y J, ZHOU S Q, et al. Some factors affecting early compressive strength of steam-curing concrete with ultrafine fly ash[J]. Cement and Concrete Research, 2001, 31(10): 1455-1458.
DOI URL |
| [36] |
YAZICI H, YARDIMCI M Y, YIĞITER H, et al. Mechanical properties of reactive powder concrete containing high volumes of ground granulated blast furnace slag[J]. Cement and Concrete Composites, 2010, 32(8): 639-648.
DOI URL |
| [1] | 李硕, 秦艳慧, 李蒙恩, 马浩原, 尹金帅, 郑璐璐, 邓苏文. 基于机器学习的混凝土抗压强度全龄期预测与解释性研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(9): 3070-3082. |
| [2] | 冯俊杰, 李毅霄, 马艳, 耿圣涵, 申星月, 严少洋, 王新武, 刘琦. 钼尾矿生态型超高性能混凝土性能及综合效益研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(8): 2782-2793. |
| [3] | 田沈华, 李北星, 肖祥, 周骏康. 基于机器学习的混凝土抗压强度预测:模型筛选与性能比较[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(8): 2711-2723. |
| [4] | 向孤聪, 牛艳飞, 林喜华, 袁棕, 郭彦龙, 袁利军. 剥落区和界面剪应力对超高性能混凝土纤维拔出行为的影响[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(7): 2275-2289. |
| [5] | 申彦利, 魏冠超, 王鹏, 王嘉炜, 徐磊, 王辉, 王志岭, 卫爱魁. 再生骨料水泥稳定碎石力学性能分析与最优配合比预测[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(7): 2561-2572. |
| [6] | 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. |
| [7] | 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. |
| [8] | 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. |
| [9] | 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. |
| [10] | 杨恒, 李萌萌, 陈江瑛. 基于SHPB与直剪装置的UHPC力学性能试验研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(6): 1937-1946. |
| [11] | 谭至昕, 章伟, 乔旭升, 樊先平. 基于机器学习方法设计开发无机玻璃材料研究进展[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(3): 743-754. |
| [12] | 闫洪滢, 严静萍, 蒋芳玲, 郑秋菊, 邓路. 定量结构-性质关系分析法在玻璃材料领域的研究进展[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(3): 755-770. |
| [13] | 魏耀澎, 伏建浩, 钱兆青, 何冉, 曹毅, 卢亚东, 马天琛, 康俊峰. 高模量玻璃纤维的研究进展[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(3): 961-973. |
| [14] | 张小龙, 孙为国, 王伟, 王朝晖, 晏茂豪, 刘红强, 杨军宏. 基于响应面法的全固废胶凝材料配合比优化设计及性能研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(2): 549-561. |
| [15] | 刘梅芳, 刘建正, 胡力群, 高胜发, 刘家宏, 李国超. 矿渣-粉煤灰地聚物注浆材料配合比优化研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(2): 695-711. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||