硅酸盐通报 ›› 2026, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (9): 3174-3186.DOI: 10.16552/j.cnki.issn1001-1625.2026.0324
孔令海1,2(
), 梁根福1,2, 黄业2, 何训林2, 章本本3, 罗正东4(
)
收稿日期:2026-04-08
修订日期:2026-04-28
出版日期:2026-09-15
发布日期:2026-10-09
通信作者:
罗正东,博士,副教授。E-mail:luozhengdong0425@163.com作者简介:孔令海(1985—),男,高级工程师。主要从事新型低碳建筑材料的研究。E-mail:2449333748@qq.com
基金资助:
KONG Linghai1,2(
), LIANG Genfu1,2, HUANG Ye2, HE Xunlin2, ZHANG Benben3, LUO Zhengdong4(
)
Received:2026-04-08
Revised:2026-04-28
Published:2026-09-15
Online:2026-10-09
摘要:
针对普通硅酸盐水泥混凝土碳排放高、在硫酸盐环境下耐久性不足的问题,本研究以矿渣、粉煤灰和钢渣为复合前驱体,制备多源固废基地聚物混凝土。通过正交试验并结合灰色关联分析进行辅助评价,研究了钢渣掺量、碱激发剂模数、碱激发剂掺量和外加水胶比对地聚物混凝土抗压强度的影响规律,并确定了最优配合比。在此基础上,开展硫酸盐干湿循环试验,结合质量变化、抗压强度耐蚀系数、X射线衍射(XRD)和扫描电子显微镜(SEM)等手段,分析多源固废基地聚物混凝土的抗硫酸盐侵蚀性能与损伤机制。结果表明,各因素对地聚物混凝土抗压强度的影响程度由大到小依次为碱激发剂模数、碱激发剂掺量、外加水胶比、钢渣掺量,最优配合比为钢渣掺量20%(质量分数)、碱激发剂模数1.2、碱激发剂掺量50%(质量分数)、外加水胶比0.40。经150次硫酸盐干湿循环后,多源固废基地聚物混凝土的抗压强度耐蚀系数为80%,高于普通硅酸盐水泥混凝土,质量变化率仅为-0.6%。微观结构分析表明:普通硅酸盐水泥混凝土的劣化主要与石膏和钙矾石等膨胀性产物生成有关,这些产物持续累积导致内部微裂纹萌生、扩展与结构剥落;而多源固废基地聚物混凝土中未观察到明显可识别的石膏和钙矾石特征峰,其损伤主要表现为硫酸钠结晶诱导的局部微裂纹及界面区轻微疏松,未形成以大量膨胀性硫酸盐产物累积为主的快速破坏。研究结果可为多源固废基地聚物混凝土在硫酸盐侵蚀环境下的工程应用提供参考。
中图分类号:
孔令海, 梁根福, 黄业, 何训林, 章本本, 罗正东. 多源固废基地聚物混凝土优化设计及抗硫酸盐侵蚀性能研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(9): 3174-3186.
KONG Linghai, LIANG Genfu, HUANG Ye, HE Xunlin, ZHANG Benben, LUO Zhengdong. Optimization Design and Sulfate Resistance Performance of Multi-Source Solid Waste-Based Geopolymer Concrete[J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(9): 3174-3186.
| Material | Mass fraction/% | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MgO | Al2O3 | SiO2 | CaO | Fe2O3 | SO3 | K2O | TiO2 | |
| Slag | 5.12 | 16.59 | 33.40 | 36.40 | 1.48 | 1.26 | — | — |
| Fly ash | 1.96 | 33.60 | 53.24 | 2.12 | 2.42 | 0.35 | 1.87 | 1.25 |
| Steel slag | 3.76 | 3.46 | 13.92 | 55.37 | 21.95 | — | — | 1.29 |
表1 试验所用材料的主要化学成分
Table 1 Main chemical composition of materials used in experiment
| Material | Mass fraction/% | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MgO | Al2O3 | SiO2 | CaO | Fe2O3 | SO3 | K2O | TiO2 | |
| Slag | 5.12 | 16.59 | 33.40 | 36.40 | 1.48 | 1.26 | — | — |
| Fly ash | 1.96 | 33.60 | 53.24 | 2.12 | 2.42 | 0.35 | 1.87 | 1.25 |
| Steel slag | 3.76 | 3.46 | 13.92 | 55.37 | 21.95 | — | — | 1.29 |
| Material | Activity index/% | f-CaO mass fraction/% | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7 d | 28 d | ||
| Steel slag | 73.6 | 86.5 | 1.19 |
表2 钢渣活性与体积稳定性指标
Table 2 Indicators of activity and volume stability index of steel slag
| Material | Activity index/% | f-CaO mass fraction/% | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7 d | 28 d | ||
| Steel slag | 73.6 | 86.5 | 1.19 |
| Factor | Steel slag mass fraction/% | Alkali activator modulus | Alkali activator mass fraction% | External water-to-binder ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level 1 | 10 | 1.0 | 35 | 0.30 |
| Level 2 | 15 | 1.2 | 40 | 0.35 |
| Level 3 | 20 | 1.4 | 45 | 0.40 |
| Level 4 | 25 | 1.6 | 50 | 0.45 |
表3 正交试验设计因素及水平
Table 3 Orthogonal experimental design factors and levels
| Factor | Steel slag mass fraction/% | Alkali activator modulus | Alkali activator mass fraction% | External water-to-binder ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level 1 | 10 | 1.0 | 35 | 0.30 |
| Level 2 | 15 | 1.2 | 40 | 0.35 |
| Level 3 | 20 | 1.4 | 45 | 0.40 |
| Level 4 | 25 | 1.6 | 50 | 0.45 |
| Test | Steel slag | Alkali activator | External water- to-binder ratio | Mix proportion/(kg·m-3) | Compressive strength/MPa | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mass fraction/% | Content/ (kg·m-3) | Modulus | Dosage/% | Slag | Fly ash | Coarse aggregate | Fine aggregate | 7 d | 28 d | ||
| 1 | 10 | 48.6 | 1.0 | 35 | 0.30 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 25.27 | 33.69 |
| 2 | 25 | 121.5 | 1.2 | 45 | 0.30 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 41.42 | 48.73 |
| 3 | 25 | 121.5 | 1.4 | 40 | 0.45 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 34.04 | 41.51 |
| 4 | 15 | 72.9 | 1.0 | 40 | 0.40 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 39.88 | 46.92 |
| 5 | 20 | 97.2 | 1.0 | 45 | 0.45 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 44.47 | 50.53 |
| 6 | 15 | 72.9 | 1.4 | 50 | 0.30 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 36.30 | 42.71 |
| 7 | 10 | 48.6 | 1.4 | 45 | 0.40 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 37.98 | 44.68 |
| 8 | 15 | 72.9 | 1.2 | 35 | 0.45 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 35.62 | 44.52 |
| 9 | 20 | 97.2 | 1.2 | 50 | 0.40 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 56.85 | 63.17 |
| 10 | 25 | 121.5 | 1.0 | 50 | 0.35 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 43.98 | 51.74 |
| 11 | 10 | 48.6 | 1.2 | 40 | 0.35 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 37.95 | 45.72 |
| 12 | 15 | 72.9 | 1.6 | 45 | 0.35 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 31.77 | 39.71 |
| 13 | 25 | 121.5 | 1.6 | 35 | 0.40 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 30.25 | 38.78 |
| 14 | 20 | 97.2 | 1.4 | 35 | 0.35 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 35.96 | 43.32 |
| 15 | 10 | 48.6 | 1.6 | 50 | 0.45 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 31.28 | 39.10 |
| 16 | 20 | 97.2 | 1.6 | 40 | 0.30 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 28.16 | 36.10 |
表4 正交试验设计
Table 4 Orthogonal experimental design
| Test | Steel slag | Alkali activator | External water- to-binder ratio | Mix proportion/(kg·m-3) | Compressive strength/MPa | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mass fraction/% | Content/ (kg·m-3) | Modulus | Dosage/% | Slag | Fly ash | Coarse aggregate | Fine aggregate | 7 d | 28 d | ||
| 1 | 10 | 48.6 | 1.0 | 35 | 0.30 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 25.27 | 33.69 |
| 2 | 25 | 121.5 | 1.2 | 45 | 0.30 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 41.42 | 48.73 |
| 3 | 25 | 121.5 | 1.4 | 40 | 0.45 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 34.04 | 41.51 |
| 4 | 15 | 72.9 | 1.0 | 40 | 0.40 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 39.88 | 46.92 |
| 5 | 20 | 97.2 | 1.0 | 45 | 0.45 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 44.47 | 50.53 |
| 6 | 15 | 72.9 | 1.4 | 50 | 0.30 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 36.30 | 42.71 |
| 7 | 10 | 48.6 | 1.4 | 45 | 0.40 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 37.98 | 44.68 |
| 8 | 15 | 72.9 | 1.2 | 35 | 0.45 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 35.62 | 44.52 |
| 9 | 20 | 97.2 | 1.2 | 50 | 0.40 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 56.85 | 63.17 |
| 10 | 25 | 121.5 | 1.0 | 50 | 0.35 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 43.98 | 51.74 |
| 11 | 10 | 48.6 | 1.2 | 40 | 0.35 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 37.95 | 45.72 |
| 12 | 15 | 72.9 | 1.6 | 45 | 0.35 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 31.77 | 39.71 |
| 13 | 25 | 121.5 | 1.6 | 35 | 0.40 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 30.25 | 38.78 |
| 14 | 20 | 97.2 | 1.4 | 35 | 0.35 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 35.96 | 43.32 |
| 15 | 10 | 48.6 | 1.6 | 50 | 0.45 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 31.28 | 39.10 |
| 16 | 20 | 97.2 | 1.6 | 40 | 0.30 | 340 | 146 | 1 186 | 675 | 28.16 | 36.10 |
| Factor | k1 | k2 | k3 | k4 | R |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steel slag dosage | 33.12 | 35.89 | 41.36 | 37.42 | 8.24 |
| Alkali activator modulus | 38.40 | 42.96 | 36.07 | 30.37 | 12.59 |
| Alkali activator dosage | 31.78 | 35.01 | 38.91 | 42.10 | 10.32 |
| External water-to-binder ratio | 32.79 | 37.42 | 41.24 | 36.35 | 8.45 |
表5 7 d抗压强度正交试验极差分析结果
Table 5 Results of range analysis for 7 d compressive strength orthogonal experiment
| Factor | k1 | k2 | k3 | k4 | R |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steel slag dosage | 33.12 | 35.89 | 41.36 | 37.42 | 8.24 |
| Alkali activator modulus | 38.40 | 42.96 | 36.07 | 30.37 | 12.59 |
| Alkali activator dosage | 31.78 | 35.01 | 38.91 | 42.10 | 10.32 |
| External water-to-binder ratio | 32.79 | 37.42 | 41.24 | 36.35 | 8.45 |
| Source | Sum of squares | Degrees of freedom | Mean square | F value | P value | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 561.45 | 12 | 46.79 | 857.63 | <0.000 1 | Significant |
| Steel slag dosage | 102.67 | 3 | 34.22 | 627.54 | <0.000 1 | Significant |
| Alkali activator modulus | 256.41 | 3 | 85.47 | 1 566.89 | <0.000 1 | Significant |
| Alkali activator dosage | 167.32 | 3 | 55.77 | 1 022.76 | <0.000 1 | Significant |
| External water-to-binder ratio | 115.05 | 3 | 38.35 | 703.07 | <0.000 1 | Significant |
表6 7 d抗压强度正交试验方差分析结果
Table 6 Results of variance analysis for 7 d compressive strength orthogonal experiment
| Source | Sum of squares | Degrees of freedom | Mean square | F value | P value | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 561.45 | 12 | 46.79 | 857.63 | <0.000 1 | Significant |
| Steel slag dosage | 102.67 | 3 | 34.22 | 627.54 | <0.000 1 | Significant |
| Alkali activator modulus | 256.41 | 3 | 85.47 | 1 566.89 | <0.000 1 | Significant |
| Alkali activator dosage | 167.32 | 3 | 55.77 | 1 022.76 | <0.000 1 | Significant |
| External water-to-binder ratio | 115.05 | 3 | 38.35 | 703.07 | <0.000 1 | Significant |
| Factor | k1 | k2 | k3 | k4 | R |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steel slag dosage | 40.80 | 43.47 | 48.28 | 45.19 | 7.48 |
| Alkali activator modulus | 45.72 | 50.54 | 43.05 | 38.42 | 12.11 |
| Alkali activator dosage | 40.08 | 42.56 | 45.91 | 49.18 | 9.10 |
| External water-to-binder ratio | 40.31 | 45.12 | 48.39 | 43.91 | 8.08 |
表7 28 d抗压强度正交试验极差分析结果
Table 7 Results of range analysis for 28 d compressive strength orthogonal experiment
| Factor | k1 | k2 | k3 | k4 | R |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steel slag dosage | 40.80 | 43.47 | 48.28 | 45.19 | 7.48 |
| Alkali activator modulus | 45.72 | 50.54 | 43.05 | 38.42 | 12.11 |
| Alkali activator dosage | 40.08 | 42.56 | 45.91 | 49.18 | 9.10 |
| External water-to-binder ratio | 40.31 | 45.12 | 48.39 | 43.91 | 8.08 |
| Source | Sum of squares | Degrees of freedom | Mean square | F value | P value | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 748.14 | 12 | 62.35 | 1 047.42 | <0.000 1 | Significant |
| Steel slag dosage | 118.11 | 3 | 39.37 | 661.40 | <0.000 1 | Significant |
| Alkali activator modulus | 307.66 | 3 | 102.55 | 1 722.94 | <0.000 1 | Significant |
| Alkali activator dosage | 188.77 | 3 | 62.92 | 1 057.12 | <0.000 1 | Significant |
| External water-to-binder ratio | 133.61 | 3 | 44.54 | 748.21 | <0.000 1 | Significant |
表8 28 d抗压强度正交试验方差分析结果
Table 8 Results of variance analysis for 28 d compressive strength orthogonal experiment
| Source | Sum of squares | Degrees of freedom | Mean square | F value | P value | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 748.14 | 12 | 62.35 | 1 047.42 | <0.000 1 | Significant |
| Steel slag dosage | 118.11 | 3 | 39.37 | 661.40 | <0.000 1 | Significant |
| Alkali activator modulus | 307.66 | 3 | 102.55 | 1 722.94 | <0.000 1 | Significant |
| Alkali activator dosage | 188.77 | 3 | 62.92 | 1 057.12 | <0.000 1 | Significant |
| External water-to-binder ratio | 133.61 | 3 | 44.54 | 748.21 | <0.000 1 | Significant |
| Factor | Level value | ξ | ri | Factor | Level value | ξ | ri |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steel slag dosage | 10 | 0.685 3 | 0.712 6 | Alkali activator modulus | 1.0 | 0.792 6 | 0.769 8 |
| 15 | 0.714 2 | 1.2 | 0.826 1 | ||||
| 20 | 0.737 1 | 1.4 | 0.708 4 | ||||
| 25 | 0.713 8 | 1.6 | 0.752 1 | ||||
| Alkali activator dosage | 35 | 0.690 2 | 0.741 2 | External water-to-binder ratio | 0.30 | 0.701 2 | 0.724 5 |
| 40 | 0.736 5 | 0.35 | 0.744 5 | ||||
| 45 | 0.749 8 | 0.40 | 0.750 1 | ||||
| 50 | 0.788 3 | 0.45 | 0.702 2 |
表9 各影响因素不同水平下7 d抗压强度的灰色关联分析结果
Table 9 Grey relational analysis results of 7 d compressive strength under different influence factor levels
| Factor | Level value | ξ | ri | Factor | Level value | ξ | ri |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steel slag dosage | 10 | 0.685 3 | 0.712 6 | Alkali activator modulus | 1.0 | 0.792 6 | 0.769 8 |
| 15 | 0.714 2 | 1.2 | 0.826 1 | ||||
| 20 | 0.737 1 | 1.4 | 0.708 4 | ||||
| 25 | 0.713 8 | 1.6 | 0.752 1 | ||||
| Alkali activator dosage | 35 | 0.690 2 | 0.741 2 | External water-to-binder ratio | 0.30 | 0.701 2 | 0.724 5 |
| 40 | 0.736 5 | 0.35 | 0.744 5 | ||||
| 45 | 0.749 8 | 0.40 | 0.750 1 | ||||
| 50 | 0.788 3 | 0.45 | 0.702 2 |
| Factor | Level value | ξ | ri | Factor | Level value | ξ | ri |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steel slag dosage | 10 | 0.677 2 | 0.705 8 | Alkali activator modulus | 1.0 | 0.790 2 | 0.761 2 |
| 15 | 0.708 1 | 1.2 | 0.818 4 | ||||
| 20 | 0.730 4 | 1.4 | 0.705 6 | ||||
| 25 | 0.707 6 | 1.6 | 0.730 5 | ||||
| Alkali activator dosage | 35 | 0.682 0 | 0.734 5 | External water-to-binder ratio | 0.30 | 0.697 8 | 0.718 9 |
| 40 | 0.731 3 | 0.35 | 0.738 7 | ||||
| 45 | 0.743 7 | 0.40 | 0.744 2 | ||||
| 50 | 0.780 9 | 0.45 | 0.694 9 |
表10 各影响因素不同水平下28 d抗压强度的灰色关联结果
Table 10 Grey relational analysis results of 28 d compressive strength under different influence factor levels
| Factor | Level value | ξ | ri | Factor | Level value | ξ | ri |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steel slag dosage | 10 | 0.677 2 | 0.705 8 | Alkali activator modulus | 1.0 | 0.790 2 | 0.761 2 |
| 15 | 0.708 1 | 1.2 | 0.818 4 | ||||
| 20 | 0.730 4 | 1.4 | 0.705 6 | ||||
| 25 | 0.707 6 | 1.6 | 0.730 5 | ||||
| Alkali activator dosage | 35 | 0.682 0 | 0.734 5 | External water-to-binder ratio | 0.30 | 0.697 8 | 0.718 9 |
| 40 | 0.731 3 | 0.35 | 0.738 7 | ||||
| 45 | 0.743 7 | 0.40 | 0.744 2 | ||||
| 50 | 0.780 9 | 0.45 | 0.694 9 |
Slag content/ (kg·m-3) | Fly ash content/ (kg·m-3) | Steel slag | Alkali activator | External water-to-binder ratio | Coarse aggregate content/ (kg·m-3) | Fine aggregate content/ (kg·m-3) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mass fraction/% | Content/(kg·m-3) | Modulus | Content/% | |||||
| 340 | 146 | 20 | 97.2 | 1.2 | 50 | 0.40 | 1 186 | 675 |
表11 多源固废基地聚物混凝土最优配合比设计
Table 11 Optimized mix design of multi-source solid waste-based geopolymer concrete
Slag content/ (kg·m-3) | Fly ash content/ (kg·m-3) | Steel slag | Alkali activator | External water-to-binder ratio | Coarse aggregate content/ (kg·m-3) | Fine aggregate content/ (kg·m-3) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mass fraction/% | Content/(kg·m-3) | Modulus | Content/% | |||||
| 340 | 146 | 20 | 97.2 | 1.2 | 50 | 0.40 | 1 186 | 675 |
| Material | Cement | Fly ash | Water | Superplasticizer | Coarse aggregate | Fine aggregate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mix proportion/(kg·m-3) | 384 | 96 | 131.52 | 4.0 | 1 101 | 734 |
表12 C60普通硅酸盐水泥混凝土配合比
Table 12 Mix proportion of C60 ordinary Portland cement concrete
| Material | Cement | Fly ash | Water | Superplasticizer | Coarse aggregate | Fine aggregate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mix proportion/(kg·m-3) | 384 | 96 | 131.52 | 4.0 | 1 101 | 734 |
图2 硫酸盐干湿循环下普通硅酸盐水泥混凝土和多源固废基地聚物混凝土质量变化率
Fig.2 Mass change rate of ordinary Portland cement concrete and multi-source solid waste-based geopolymer concrete under sulfate dry-wet cycles
图3 硫酸盐干湿循环下普通硅酸盐水泥混凝土和多源固废基地聚物混凝土抗压强度变化
Fig.3 Compressive strength changes of ordinary Portland cement concrete and multi-source solid waste-based geopolymer concrete under sulfate dry-wet cycles
图4 不同硫酸盐干湿循环次数下普通硅酸盐水泥混凝土和多源固废基地聚物混凝土XRD谱
Fig.4 XRD patterns of ordinary Portland cement concrete and multi-source solid waste-based geopolymer concrete under different sulfate dry-wet cycles
图5 不同硫酸盐干湿循环次数下普通硅酸盐水泥混凝土和多源固废基地聚物混凝土的SEM照片
Fig.5 SEM images of ordinary Portland cement concrete and multi-source solid waste-based geopolymer concrete under different sulfate dry-wet cycles
| [1] | 刘光民, 杨爱农, 高瑞聪, 等. 磷渣在水泥基材料领域的研究现状和进展[J]. 材料导报, 2025, 39(增刊2): 499-503. |
| LIU G M, YANG A N, GAO R C, et al. Research status and progress on phosphorus slag in cement-based materials[J]. Materials Reports, 2025, 39(supplement 2): 499-503 (in Chinese). | |
| [2] |
ZHANG F, WEN B, NIU D T, et al. Lifecycle carbon emissions of reinforced concrete buildings: assessment and mitigation priorities[J]. Journal of Building Engineering, 2025, 114: 114230.
DOI URL |
| [3] |
封彦羽, 温 勇, 张 超. 纳米SiO2对混凝土抗硫酸盐侵蚀性能的影响[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2025, 44(6): 2089-2100.
DOI |
| FENG Y Y, WEN Y, ZHANG C. Effect of nano-SiO2 on resistance of concrete to sulfate attack[J]. Bulletin of the Chinese Ceramic Society, 2025, 44(6): 2089-2100 (in Chinese). | |
| [4] | 周祺鸣, 张云升, 刘 诚, 等. 凝灰岩机制骨料混凝土硫酸盐早期腐蚀研究[J]. 建筑材料学报, 2025, 28(9): 913-920. |
| ZHOU Q M, ZHANG Y S, LIU C, et al. Study on early sulfate corrosion of tuff manufactured aggregate concrete[J]. Journal of Building Materials, 2025, 28(9): 913-920 (in Chinese). | |
| [5] | ZHANG B. Durability of low-carbon geopolymer concrete: a critical review[J]. Sustainable Materials and Technologies, 2024, 40: e00882. |
| [6] | 王栋民, 许 栋, 张祖华, 等. 水泥基胶凝材料演变与展望[J]. 建筑材料学报, 2025, 28(8): 759-766+773. |
| WANG D M, XU D, ZHANG Z H, et al. Evolution and prospects of cement-based cementitious materials[J]. Journal of Building Materials, 2025, 28(8): 759-766+773 (in Chinese). | |
| [7] | 张震洋, 张 璐, 伊海赫, 等. 基于响应面法的地聚物混凝土力学性能试验研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2024, 43(9): 3192-3202. |
| ZHANG Z Y, ZHANG L, YI H H, et al. Mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete based on response surface method[J]. Bulletin of the Chinese Ceramic Society, 2024, 43(9): 3192-3202 (in Chinese). | |
| [8] |
方明伟, 王 丹, 周枫桃, 等. 碱激发剂对粉煤灰地聚物混凝土的性能影响[J]. 功能材料, 2023, 54(11): 11170-11176.
DOI |
|
FANG M W, WANG D, ZHOU F T, et al. Effect of alkali activator on the performance of fly ashgeopolymer concrete[J]. Journal of Functional Materials, 2023, 54(11): 11170-11176 (in Chinese).
DOI |
|
| [9] | 孙 红, 周静海, 张逸超, 等. 粉煤灰-矿渣-电石渣再生混凝土基本力学性能及微观结构研究[J]. 混凝土, 2025(11): 97-102. |
| SUN H, ZHOU J H, ZHANG Y C, et al. Research on the basic mechanical properties and microstructure of fly ash-slag-carbide slag recycled concrete[J]. Concrete, 2025(11): 97-102 (in Chinese). | |
| [10] |
XU W L, NIU X Q, ZHU Y T. Deformation behavior and damage evaluation of fly ash-slag based geopolymer concrete under cyclic tension[J]. Journal of Building Engineering, 2024, 86: 108664.
DOI URL |
| [11] |
陈林露, 陈 昕, 李家旭, 等. 碱激发矿渣-粉煤灰混凝土抗氯离子渗透性能研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2025, 44(10): 3725-3733.
DOI |
| CHEN L L, CHEN X, LI J X, et al. Anti-chloride ion permeability of alkali-activated slag-fly ash concrete[J]. Bulletin of the Chinese Ceramic Society, 2025, 44(10): 3725-3733 (in Chinese). | |
| [12] | 唐志宇, 卢宇明, 李云龙. 广西沿海硫酸盐反复侵蚀地聚物混凝土力学试验与损伤特性研究[J]. 水电能源科学, 2022, 40(2): 153-156. |
| TANG Z Y, LU Y M, LI Y L. Study on mechanical test and damage characteristics of geopolymer concrete corroded repeatedly by sulfate in Guangxi coastal area[J]. Water Resources and Power, 2022, 40(2): 153-156 (in Chinese). | |
| [13] |
MARADANI L S R, PRADHAN B. Effect of chloride and sulphate on ionic concentration of aqueous pore solution and microstructural properties of fly ash-GBFS geopolymer concrete[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2024, 440: 137422.
DOI URL |
| [14] |
GOPALAKRISHNAN R, CHINNARAJU K. Durability of ambient cured alumina silicate concrete based on slag/fly ash blends against sulfate environment[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2019, 204: 70-83.
DOI URL |
| [15] | 张刘阳, 陈 潇, 吕国明, 等. 钢渣特性随粒级分布的规律研究[J]. 材料导报, 2025, 39(3): 129-136. |
| ZHANG L Y, CHEN X, LYU G M, et al. Study on the law of steel slag characteristics with particle size distribution[J]. Materials Reports, 2025, 39(3): 129-136 (in Chinese). | |
| [16] |
YUAN D X, LIANG X Y, GAO Y, et al. High-temperature modification of steel slag using composite modifier containing silicon calcium slag, fly ash, and reservoir sediment[J]. Frontiers in Earth Science, 2023, 11: 1214182.
DOI URL |
| [17] |
CHEN S J, XIE H Q, LIANG Y N, et al. Effect of steel slag content on the properties of alkali-activated ground granulated blast furnace slag-steel slag PHC[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2025, 502: 144511.
DOI URL |
| [18] |
SIVASAKTHI M, JEYALAKSHMI R, RAJAMANE N P. Effect of change in the silica modulus of sodium silicate solution on the microstructure of fly ash geopolymers[J]. Journal of Building Engineering, 2021, 44: 102939.
DOI URL |
| [19] | 乔春蕾, 周 胜, 翁维素, 等. 硫酸盐半浸泡混凝土分区孔结构演化机理[J]. 建筑材料学报, 2025, 28(11): 1146-1154. |
| QIAO C L, ZHOU S, WENG W S, et al. Evolution mechanism of partition pore structure in semi-immersed concrete under sulphate attack[J]. Journal of Building Materials, 2025, 28(11): 1146-1154 (in Chinese). | |
| [20] |
WANG A G, ZHENG Y, ZHANG Z H, et al. The durability of alkali-activated materials in comparison with ordinary Portland cements and concretes: a review[J]. Engineering, 2020, 6(6): 695-706.
DOI URL |
| [21] |
YE H L, CHEN Z J, HUANG L. Mechanism of sulfate attack on alkali-activated slag: the role of activator composition[J]. Cement and Concrete Research, 2019, 125: 105868.
DOI URL |
| [22] |
SCHERER G W. Stress from crystallization of salt[J]. Cement and Concrete Research, 2004, 34(9): 1613-1624.
DOI URL |
| [23] |
RUIZ-AGUDO E, RODRIGUEZ-NAVARRO C, SEBASTIÁN-PARDO E. Sodium sulfate crystallization in the presence of phosphonates: implications in ornamental stone conservation[J]. Crystal Growth & Design, 2006, 6(7): 1575-1583.
DOI URL |
| [24] |
WU S Y, WU D Y, HUANG Y F. Evaluation of the crystallization pressure of sulfate saline soil solution by direct observation of crystallization behavior[J]. ACS Omega, 2021, 6(27): 17680-17689.
DOI PMID |
| [1] | 周辉勇, 王艳朝, 高华, 郭威, 凡涛涛, 司春棣, 马喜报. 水玻璃参数对碱激发地聚物工作与力学性能的影响[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(9): 3163-3173. |
| [2] | 邹颖杰, 李化建, 黄法礼, 冯俊杰, 石贺男, 董昊良, 易忠来. 盾构隧道抗硫酸盐侵蚀双液注浆材料性能及微结构演变[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(9): 3027-3042. |
| [3] | 陈飞, 赵翃婷, 武小鹏, 栗晓林, 王飞. 石灰-粉煤灰固化盐渍土的力学性能及微观特征研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(9): 3151-3162. |
| [4] | 秦曙妮, 董浩霖, 张帅, 梁皓璋, 刘子玉, 刘鹏, 杨现锋, 罗德平. 炭黑对熔融沉积成型3D打印碳化硅陶瓷显微结构和力学性能的影响[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(9): 3267-3279. |
| [5] | 玄松桐, 孔祥辰, 王凯悦, 田玉明. 锰离子扩散增强镁铝尖晶石陶瓷结构和力学性能研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(9): 3280-3288. |
| [6] | 徐广, 杜向琴, 吴廷杰, 朱元帅, 王春益, 刘兴杰. 混掺陶瓷-纤维-橡胶复合砂浆的宏观性能与微观结构分析[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(8): 2794-2805. |
| [7] | 聂京凯, 侯东, 邹建明, 陈田, 张一铭, 韩钰, 何强. 氮化硅陶瓷增韧技术研究进展[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(8): 2850-2862. |
| [8] | 唐佩, 刘佳心, 曲波, 肜鹏杰, 陈伟. 热活化煤矸石及其在磷石膏矿渣水泥中的应用研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(8): 2829-2838. |
| [9] | 周骏康, 李北星, 田继坤, 田沈华. 矿物掺合料对低热水泥水化动力学的影响[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(8): 2770-2781. |
| [10] | 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. |
| [11] | 吴文滔, 涂广升, 廖家兴, 张超杰, 涂兵田, 王皓. SPS结合热等静压烧结制备Mg0.75Al2.16O4透明陶瓷及其性能研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(8): 2899-2908. |
| [12] | 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. |
| [13] | 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. |
| [14] | 肖伟, 李一航, 王栋琦, 钟祖良, 周仁, 朱开新. 硅灰-粉煤灰复掺对混凝土强度演化与抗渗性能的影响机理[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(7): 2419-2427. |
| [15] | 王富桓, 李艳杰, 吕浩平, 杨令强. 掺玻璃粉的改性聚丙烯纤维增强水泥基材料力学性能研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(7): 2397-2407. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||