BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY ›› 2026, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (2): 549-561.DOI: 10.16552/j.cnki.issn1001-1625.2025.0849
• Solid Waste and Eco-Materials • Previous Articles Next Articles
ZHANG Xiaolong1(
), SUN Weiguo1, WANG Wei1, WANG Zhaohui2, YAN Maohao3, LIU Hongqiang1, YANG Junhong1
Received:2025-08-21
Revised:2025-11-26
Online:2026-02-20
Published:2026-03-09
CLC Number:
ZHANG Xiaolong, SUN Weiguo, WANG Wei, WANG Zhaohui, YAN Maohao, LIU Hongqiang, YANG Junhong. Mix Proportion Optimization Design and Performance Study of All-Solid Waste Cementitious Materials Based on Response Surface Methodology[J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(2): 549-561.
| Material | Mass fraction/% | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CaO | SiO2 | Fe2O3 | Al2O3 | SO3 | MgO | K2O | Na2O | |
| GGBFS | 47.67 | 30.29 | 0.72 | 11.89 | 2.09 | 5.17 | 0.34 | 0.35 |
| SS | 49.32 | 45.42 | 0.44 | 0.52 | 2.27 | 0.54 | 0.12 | 0.15 |
| FGD | 44.25 | 1.43 | 14.35 | 9.00 | 20.96 | 6.40 | 0.21 | 0.46 |
Table 1 Main chemical composition of solid waste cementitious materials
| Material | Mass fraction/% | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CaO | SiO2 | Fe2O3 | Al2O3 | SO3 | MgO | K2O | Na2O | |
| GGBFS | 47.67 | 30.29 | 0.72 | 11.89 | 2.09 | 5.17 | 0.34 | 0.35 |
| SS | 49.32 | 45.42 | 0.44 | 0.52 | 2.27 | 0.54 | 0.12 | 0.15 |
| FGD | 44.25 | 1.43 | 14.35 | 9.00 | 20.96 | 6.40 | 0.21 | 0.46 |
| Sample No. | Mass fraction/% | Fluidity/mm | Initial setting time/min | Final setting time/min | 28 d compressive strength/MPa | 28 d flexural strength/MPa | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GGBFS | SS | FGD | ||||||
| X1 | 70.33 | 29.67 | 0 | 168 | 264 | 638 | 44.2 | 8.1 |
| X2 | 56.26 | 33.74 | 10.00 | 187 | 190 | 520 | 40.0 | 7.5 |
| X3 | 70.33 | 25.08 | 4.60 | 170 | 235 | 605 | 44.7 | 8.4 |
| X4 | 66.10 | 23.90 | 10.00 | 178 | 210 | 560 | 42.9 | 7.9 |
| X5 | 60.85 | 29.15 | 10.00 | 181 | 199 | 553 | 42.6 | 8.0 |
| X6 | 59.63 | 40.00 | 0.37 | 196 | 222 | 508 | 40.3 | 7.3 |
| X7 | 63.66 | 31.48 | 4.86 | 173 | 247 | 578 | 43.8 | 8.0 |
| X8 | 50.75 | 40.00 | 9.25 | 205 | 170 | 490 | 36.8 | 6.6 |
| X9 | 63.66 | 31.48 | 4.86 | 171 | 242 | 572 | 44.6 | 8.3 |
| X10 | 63.66 | 31.48 | 4.86 | 175 | 250 | 580 | 43.3 | 8.1 |
| X11 | 59.63 | 40.00 | 0.37 | 193 | 218 | 502 | 38.5 | 7.3 |
| X12 | 55.76 | 38.78 | 5.45 | 200 | 215 | 540 | 40.8 | 7.7 |
| X13 | 75.13 | 20.00 | 4.87 | 166 | 277 | 652 | 45.3 | 8.6 |
| X14 | 75.95 | 24.05 | 0 | 171 | 292 | 683 | 42.1 | 7.9 |
| X15 | 75.13 | 20.00 | 4.87 | 164 | 273 | 648 | 44.9 | 8.5 |
| X16 | 75.95 | 24.05 | 0 | 169 | 288 | 677 | 43.4 | 8.1 |
Table 2 Mix proportion design scheme and performance test results
| Sample No. | Mass fraction/% | Fluidity/mm | Initial setting time/min | Final setting time/min | 28 d compressive strength/MPa | 28 d flexural strength/MPa | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GGBFS | SS | FGD | ||||||
| X1 | 70.33 | 29.67 | 0 | 168 | 264 | 638 | 44.2 | 8.1 |
| X2 | 56.26 | 33.74 | 10.00 | 187 | 190 | 520 | 40.0 | 7.5 |
| X3 | 70.33 | 25.08 | 4.60 | 170 | 235 | 605 | 44.7 | 8.4 |
| X4 | 66.10 | 23.90 | 10.00 | 178 | 210 | 560 | 42.9 | 7.9 |
| X5 | 60.85 | 29.15 | 10.00 | 181 | 199 | 553 | 42.6 | 8.0 |
| X6 | 59.63 | 40.00 | 0.37 | 196 | 222 | 508 | 40.3 | 7.3 |
| X7 | 63.66 | 31.48 | 4.86 | 173 | 247 | 578 | 43.8 | 8.0 |
| X8 | 50.75 | 40.00 | 9.25 | 205 | 170 | 490 | 36.8 | 6.6 |
| X9 | 63.66 | 31.48 | 4.86 | 171 | 242 | 572 | 44.6 | 8.3 |
| X10 | 63.66 | 31.48 | 4.86 | 175 | 250 | 580 | 43.3 | 8.1 |
| X11 | 59.63 | 40.00 | 0.37 | 193 | 218 | 502 | 38.5 | 7.3 |
| X12 | 55.76 | 38.78 | 5.45 | 200 | 215 | 540 | 40.8 | 7.7 |
| X13 | 75.13 | 20.00 | 4.87 | 166 | 277 | 652 | 45.3 | 8.6 |
| X14 | 75.95 | 24.05 | 0 | 171 | 292 | 683 | 42.1 | 7.9 |
| X15 | 75.13 | 20.00 | 4.87 | 164 | 273 | 648 | 44.9 | 8.5 |
| X16 | 75.95 | 24.05 | 0 | 169 | 288 | 677 | 43.4 | 8.1 |
| Source | Sum of square | df | Mean square | F-value | P-value | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 85.47 | 5 | 17.09 | 28.46 | <0.000 1 | Significance |
| Linear mixture | 59.62 | 2 | 29.81 | 49.64 | <0.000 1 | — |
| AB | 11.93 | 1 | 11.93 | 19.86 | 0.001 2 | — |
| AC | 13.94 | 1 | 13.94 | 23.22 | 0.000 7 | — |
| BC | 10.30 | 1 | 10.30 | 17.15 | 0.002 0 | — |
| Residual | 6.01 | 10 | 0.600 6 | — | — | — |
| Lack of fit | 2.60 | 5 | 0.520 1 | 0.763 8 | 0.612 7 | Not significance |
| Pure error | 3.40 | 5 | 0.681 0 | — | — | — |
Table 3 Variance analysis of regression model for 28 d compressive strength
| Source | Sum of square | df | Mean square | F-value | P-value | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 85.47 | 5 | 17.09 | 28.46 | <0.000 1 | Significance |
| Linear mixture | 59.62 | 2 | 29.81 | 49.64 | <0.000 1 | — |
| AB | 11.93 | 1 | 11.93 | 19.86 | 0.001 2 | — |
| AC | 13.94 | 1 | 13.94 | 23.22 | 0.000 7 | — |
| BC | 10.30 | 1 | 10.30 | 17.15 | 0.002 0 | — |
| Residual | 6.01 | 10 | 0.600 6 | — | — | — |
| Lack of fit | 2.60 | 5 | 0.520 1 | 0.763 8 | 0.612 7 | Not significance |
| Pure error | 3.40 | 5 | 0.681 0 | — | — | — |
| Evaluation index | Complex correlation coefficient (R2) | Correction correlation coefficient(Adjusted R2) | Predictive correlation coefficient(Predicted R2) | Coefficient of variation(C.V.)/% | Signal noise ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Correlation coefficient | 0.934 3 | 0.901 5 | 0.827 8 | 1.83 | 17.549 4 |
Table 4 Correlation assessment of regression model
| Evaluation index | Complex correlation coefficient (R2) | Correction correlation coefficient(Adjusted R2) | Predictive correlation coefficient(Predicted R2) | Coefficient of variation(C.V.)/% | Signal noise ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Correlation coefficient | 0.934 3 | 0.901 5 | 0.827 8 | 1.83 | 17.549 4 |
| Source | Sum of square | df | Mean square | F-value | P-value | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 3.76 | 5 | 0.752 9 | 25.95 | <0.000 1 | Significance |
| Linear mixture | 2.79 | 2 | 1.40 | 48.10 | <0.000 1 | — |
| AB | 0.297 7 | 1 | 0.297 7 | 10.26 | 0.009 4 | — |
| AC | 0.635 4 | 1 | 0.635 4 | 21.91 | 0.000 9 | — |
| BC | 0.411 7 | 1 | 0.411 7 | 14.19 | 0.003 7 | — |
| Residual | 0.290 1 | 10 | 0.029 0 | — | — | — |
| Lack of fit | 0.217 2 | 5 | 0.043 4 | 2.98 | 0.128 1 | Not significance |
| Pure error | 0.072 9 | 5 | 0.014 6 | — | — | — |
Table 5 Variance analysis of regression model for 28 d flexural strength
| Source | Sum of square | df | Mean square | F-value | P-value | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 3.76 | 5 | 0.752 9 | 25.95 | <0.000 1 | Significance |
| Linear mixture | 2.79 | 2 | 1.40 | 48.10 | <0.000 1 | — |
| AB | 0.297 7 | 1 | 0.297 7 | 10.26 | 0.009 4 | — |
| AC | 0.635 4 | 1 | 0.635 4 | 21.91 | 0.000 9 | — |
| BC | 0.411 7 | 1 | 0.411 7 | 14.19 | 0.003 7 | — |
| Residual | 0.290 1 | 10 | 0.029 0 | — | — | — |
| Lack of fit | 0.217 2 | 5 | 0.043 4 | 2.98 | 0.128 1 | Not significance |
| Pure error | 0.072 9 | 5 | 0.014 6 | — | — | — |
| Evaluation index | Complex correlation coefficient (R2) | Correction correlation coefficient(Adjusted R2) | Predictive correlation coefficient(Predicted R2) | Coefficient of variation(C.V.)/% | Signal noise ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Correlation coefficient | 0.928 5 | 0.892 7 | 0.752 0 | 2.16 | 16.527 8 |
Table 6 Correlation assessment of regression model
| Evaluation index | Complex correlation coefficient (R2) | Correction correlation coefficient(Adjusted R2) | Predictive correlation coefficient(Predicted R2) | Coefficient of variation(C.V.)/% | Signal noise ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Correlation coefficient | 0.928 5 | 0.892 7 | 0.752 0 | 2.16 | 16.527 8 |
| Project | Factor | Response indicator | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indicator | Mass fraction/% | Fluidity/mm | Initial settingtime/min | Final settingtime/min | 28 d compressivestrength/MPa | 28 d flexuralstrength/MPa | ||
| GGBFS | SS | FGD | ||||||
| Lower limit | 50 | 20 | 0 | 164 | 170 | 490 | 36.8 | 6.6 |
| Upper limit | 80 | 40 | 10 | 205 | 292 | 683 | 45.3 | 8.6 |
| Objective | — | — | — | ≥180 | ≥240 | ≤600 | ≥42.5 | ≥7.0 |
Table 7 Range of influencing factors and predicted value
| Project | Factor | Response indicator | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indicator | Mass fraction/% | Fluidity/mm | Initial settingtime/min | Final settingtime/min | 28 d compressivestrength/MPa | 28 d flexuralstrength/MPa | ||
| GGBFS | SS | FGD | ||||||
| Lower limit | 50 | 20 | 0 | 164 | 170 | 490 | 36.8 | 6.6 |
| Upper limit | 80 | 40 | 10 | 205 | 292 | 683 | 45.3 | 8.6 |
| Objective | — | — | — | ≥180 | ≥240 | ≤600 | ≥42.5 | ≥7.0 |
| Mass fraction/% | Measured value | Predicted value | Relative error/% | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GGBFS | SS | FGD | ||||
| 63.6 | 34.9 | 1.5 | Fluidity/mm | 185 | 180 | 2.78 |
| Initial setting time/min | 240 | 243 | 1.23 | |||
| Final setting time/min | 572 | 566 | 1.06 | |||
| 28 d compressive strength/MPa | 44.3 | 42.5 | 3.75 | |||
| 28 d flexural strength/MPa | 7.96 | 7.87 | 1.14 | |||
Table 8 Comparison of measured value and predicted value for each response indicator at optimal mix proportion
| Mass fraction/% | Measured value | Predicted value | Relative error/% | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GGBFS | SS | FGD | ||||
| 63.6 | 34.9 | 1.5 | Fluidity/mm | 185 | 180 | 2.78 |
| Initial setting time/min | 240 | 243 | 1.23 | |||
| Final setting time/min | 572 | 566 | 1.06 | |||
| 28 d compressive strength/MPa | 44.3 | 42.5 | 3.75 | |||
| 28 d flexural strength/MPa | 7.96 | 7.87 | 1.14 | |||
| Material | Content/kg | Carbon emission factor/(kg CO2-eq·kg-1) | Carbon emission/kg CO2-eq | Unit price/(yuan·t-1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GGBFS | 636 | 0.004 7[ | 2.99 | 380[ |
| SS | 349 | 0.34[ | 118.66 | 120 |
| FGD | 15 | — | — | — |
| OPC | 1 000 | 0.87[ | 870 | 600[ |
Table 9 Carbon emission and economic cost analysis of all-solid waste cementitious materials
| Material | Content/kg | Carbon emission factor/(kg CO2-eq·kg-1) | Carbon emission/kg CO2-eq | Unit price/(yuan·t-1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GGBFS | 636 | 0.004 7[ | 2.99 | 380[ |
| SS | 349 | 0.34[ | 118.66 | 120 |
| FGD | 15 | — | — | — |
| OPC | 1 000 | 0.87[ | 870 | 600[ |
| [1] |
MOUMIN G, RYSSEL M, ZHAO L, et al. CO2 emission reduction in the cement industry by using a solar calciner[J]. Renewable Energy, 2020, 145: 1578-1596.
DOI URL |
| [2] |
MOHAMMED S. Processing, effect and reactivity assessment of artificial pozzolans obtained from clays and clay wastes: a review[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2017, 140: 10-19.
DOI URL |
| [3] | 陈聪聪, 赵怡晴, 姜琳婧. 尾矿库溃坝研究现状综述[J]. 矿业研究与开发, 2019, 39(6): 103-108. |
| CHEN C C, ZHAO Y Q, JIANG L J. Review on the current research of dam break of tailings pond[J]. Mining Research and Development, 2019, 39(6): 103-108 (in Chinese). | |
| [4] | 豆长明, 尹浩, 方云祥, 等. 某工业固体废物倾倒沟渠污染调查研究[J]. 环境科学与技术, 2016, 39(增刊2): 504-506. |
| DOU C M, YIN H, FANG Y X, et al. Investigation and study on the pollution of an industrial solid waste dumping ditch[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2016, 39(supplement 2): 504-506 (in Chinese). | |
| [5] |
WANG X B, LI X Y, YAN X, et al. Environmental risks for application of iron and steel slags in soils in China: a review[J]. Pedosphere, 2021, 31(1): 28-42.
DOI URL |
| [6] | 南雪丽, 杨旭, 张宇, 等. 钢渣-矿渣基胶凝材料的协同水化机理[J]. 建筑材料学报, 2024, 27(4): 366-374. |
| NAN X L, YANG X, ZHANG Y, et al. Synergistic hydration mechanism of steel slag-slag based cementitious material[J]. Journal of Building Materials, 2024, 27(4): 366-374 (in Chinese). | |
| [7] | 李雪和, 杨耀辉, 韦金城, 等. 矿渣-钢渣-脱硫石膏-水泥稳定粉土的强度及固化机理[J]. 中南大学学报(自然科学版), 2023, 54(6): 2382-2390. |
| LI X H, YANG Y H, WEI J C, et al. Strength and solidified mechanism of slag-steel slag-desulfurization gypsum-cement stabilized silt[J]. Journal of Central South University (Science and Technology), 2023, 54(6): 2382-2390 (in Chinese). | |
| [8] | 邹敏, 沈玉, 刘娟红. 钢渣粉在水泥基材料中应用研究综述[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2021, 40(9): 2964-2977. |
| ZOU M, SHEN Y, LIU J H. Review on application of steel slag powder in cement-based materials[J]. Bulletin of the Chinese Ceramic Society, 2021, 40(9): 2964-2977 (in Chinese). | |
| [9] | 赵计辉, 阎培渝. 钢渣的体积安定性问题及稳定化处理的国内研究进展[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2017, 36(2): 477-484. |
| ZHAO J H, YAN P Y. Volume stability and stabilization treatment of steel slag in China[J]. Bulletin of the Chinese Ceramic Society, 2017, 36(2): 477-484 (in Chinese). | |
| [10] |
ZHUANG S Y, WANG Q. Inhibition mechanisms of steel slag on the early-age hydration of cement[J]. Cement and Concrete Research, 2021, 140: 106283.
DOI URL |
| [11] | 侯永利, 杨涛. 脱硫石膏强度及耐水性改善方法研究综述[J]. 建筑科学与工程学报, 2024, 41(4): 95-106. |
| HOU Y L, YANG T. Review on improvement methods of desulfurization gypsum strength and water resistance[J]. Journal of Architecture and Civil Engineering, 2024, 41(4): 95-106 (in Chinese). | |
| [12] | 张少杰, 李辉, 陈畅. 化学外加剂对轻质脱硫石膏砌块性能的影响[J]. 西安建筑科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 53(4): 602-610. |
| ZHANG S J, LI H, CHEN C. Effect of chemical admixtures on properties of light desulfurized gypsum blocks[J]. Journal of Xi’an University of Architecture & Technology (Natural Science Edition), 2021, 53(4): 602-610 (in Chinese). | |
| [13] | 孙睿, 王栋民, 房中华, 等. 钢渣: 脱硫灰基全固废胶凝材料及其砂浆界面过渡区的研究[J]. 金属矿山, 2022(1): 41-52. |
| SUN R, WANG D M, FANG Z H, et al. Study on the steel slag-desulfurized ash based solid waste cementitious materials and its mortars interface transition zone[J]. Metal Mine, 2022(1): 41-52 (in Chinese). | |
| [14] | 刘树龙, 李公成, 刘国磊, 等. 基于响应面法的矿渣基全固废胶凝材料配比优化[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2021, 40(1): 187-193. |
| LIU S L, LI G C, LIU G L, et al. Ratio optimization of slag-based solid waste cementitious material based on response surface method[J]. Bulletin of the Chinese Ceramic Society, 2021, 40(1): 187-193 (in Chinese). | |
| [15] | 崔建勤, 周应庆, 周耀祖, 等. 资源化利用煤基固废制备高活性低碳生态胶凝材料的基本性能研究[J]. 水泥, 2023(12): 1-4. |
| CUI J Q, ZHOU Y Q, ZHOU Y Z, et al. Study on basic properties of high activity and low carbon ecological cementing materials from coal-based solid waste[J]. Cement, 2023(12): 1-4 (in Chinese). | |
| [16] |
LIU Z Y, NI W, LI Y, et al. The mechanism of hydration reaction of granulated blast furnace slag-steel slag-refining slag-desulfurization gypsum-based clinker-free cementitious materials[J]. Journal of Building Engineering, 2021, 44: 103289.
DOI URL |
| [17] | 栗东平, 平浩岩, 张凯帆, 等. 钢渣-矿渣-脱硫石膏复合胶凝材料的制备及水化机理[J]. 科学技术与工程, 2023, 23(6): 2558-2566. |
| LI D P, PING H Y, ZHANG K F, et al. Preparation and hydration mechanism of composite cementitious materials containing steel slag, slag and desulfurization gypsum[J]. Science Technology and Engineering, 2023, 23(6): 2558-2566 (in Chinese). | |
| [18] |
QIAO B, ULLAH K, WU Z X, et al. Mechanism and property optimization of stainless steel slag for preparation of cementitious materials[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2024, 411: 134645.
DOI URL |
| [19] | 廖宜顺, 汪凯, 李豪. 大掺量磷石膏矿渣水泥的水化历程与长期强度研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2023, 42(12): 4408-4415. |
| LIAO Y S, WANG K, LI H. Hydration process and long-term strength of gypsum slag cement with high content of phosphogypsum[J]. Bulletin of the Chinese Ceramic Society, 2023, 42(12): 4408-4415 (in Chinese). | |
| [20] | 余耀威. 矿渣粉掺量对水泥混凝土性能影响的试验研究[J]. 四川水泥, 2024(6): 21-23+26. |
| Yu Y W. Experimental study on the effect of blast furnace slag powder content on the properties of cement concrete[J]. Sichuan Cement, 2024(6): 21-23+26 (in Chinese). | |
| [21] | 王嘉豪. 钢渣-矿渣基多元固废胶凝材料及混凝土的性能研究[D]. 郑州: 河南工业大学, 2025. |
| WANG J H. Study on the properties of multicomponent solid waste cementitious materials and concrete based on steel slag and mineral slag[D]. Zhengzhou: Henan University of Technology, 2025 (in Chinese). | |
| [22] |
王冬魁, 陈学武, 席爽, 等. 钢渣、粉煤灰协同增效下水泥稳定再生碎石基层性能研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2025, 44(5): 1957-1966.
DOI |
|
WANG D K, CHEN X W, XI S, et al. Performance study of cement stabilized recycled aggregate base under synergistic effect of steel slag and fly ash[J]. Bulletin of the Chinese Ceramic Society, 2025, 44(5): 1957-1966 (in Chinese).
DOI |
|
| [23] | 田威, 万嘉豪, 程续, 等. 钢渣-粒化高炉矿渣基胶凝材料协同固碳性能与微观结构[J]. 建筑材料学报, 2025, 28(5): 434-441. |
| TIAN W, WAN J H, CHENG X, et al. Synergistic carbon sequestration properties and microstructure of steel slag-granulated blast furnace slag based cementitious materials[J]. Journal of Building Materials, 2025, 28(5): 434-441 (in Chinese). | |
| [24] | 任 斌, 王 伟, 冯希浩, 等. CO2矿化养护钢渣-粉煤灰复合胶凝材料力学性能及微观结构演变研究[J/OL]. 环境工程学报, 2025: 1-16 (2025-11-21) [2025-11-26]. http://link.cnki.net/urlia/11.5591.x.20251121.0855.002. |
| REN B, WANG W, FENG X H, et al. Study on mechanical properties and microstructure evolution of CO2 mineralization-conditioned steel slag-fly ash composite-based cementitious materials[J/OL]. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 2025: 1-16 (2025-11-21) [2025-11-26]. https://link.cnki.net/urlid/11.5591.x.20251121.0855.002 (in Chinese). | |
| [25] |
苏骏, 司渊, 蔡新华, 等. 钢渣粉对PE-ECC基本力学性能的影响[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2025, 44(4): 1367-1376+1385.
DOI |
|
SU J, SI Y, CAI X H, et al. Influence of steel slag powder on basic mechanical properties of PE-ECC[J]. Bulletin of the Chinese Ceramic Society, 2025, 44(4): 1367-1376+1385 (in Chinese).
DOI |
|
| [26] | 倪振坤, 薛力梨, 丁艳玲, 等. 脱硫石膏对碱激发胶凝材料性能及微观结构的影响[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2024, 43(8): 2933-2940+2951. |
| NI Z K, XUE L L, DING Y L, et al. Effect of desulfurization gypsum on properties and microstructure of alkali-activated cementitious materials[J]. Bulletin of the Chinese Ceramic Society, 2024, 43(8): 2933-2940+2951 (in Chinese). | |
| [27] | 柳京育. 脱硫石膏基自流平砂浆的制备与性能研究[D]. 邯郸: 河北工程大学, 2021. |
| LIU J Y. Study on preparation and properties of desulfurization gypsum-based self-leveling mortar[D]. Handan: Hebei University of Engineering, 2021 (in Chinese). | |
| [28] | 刘树龙, 孙业庚, 李公成, 等. 某金矿全尾砂充填体早期强度性能分析[J]. 矿业研究与开发, 2020, 40(3): 125-129. |
| LIU S L, SUN Y G, LI G C, et al. Analysis on the early strength of backfill with unclassified tailings in a gold mine[J]. Mining Research and Development, 2020, 40(3): 125-129 (in Chinese). | |
| [29] | 张兰芳, 翟建锦. 基于响应面法的碱激发水泥砂浆配合比优化[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2019, 38(11): 3619-3624. |
| ZHANG L F, ZHAI J J. Mixture ratio optimization of alkali-activated cement mortar based on response surface method[J]. Bulletin of the Chinese Ceramic Society, 2019, 38(11): 3619-3624 (in Chinese). | |
| [30] | 温震江, 杨晓炳, 李立涛, 等. 基于RSM-BBD的全尾砂浆絮凝沉降参数选择及优化[J]. 中国有色金属学报, 2020, 30(6): 1437-1445. |
| WEN Z J, YANG X B, LI L T, et al. Selection and optimization of flocculation sedimentation parameters of unclassified tailings slurry based on RSM-BBD[J]. The Chinese Journal of Nonferrous Metals, 2020, 30(6): 1437-1445 (in Chinese). | |
| [31] | 胡静, 张品乐, 吴磊, 等. 基于响应面法的ECC基体力学性能研究与配合比优化[J]. 材料导报, 2022, 36(增刊2): 173-177. |
| HU J, ZHANG P L, WU L, et al. Study on mechanical properties of cementitious matrix based on response surface method and optimization of the fitting ratio[J]. Materials Reports, 2022, 36(supplement 2): 173-177 (in Chinese). | |
| [32] | 翟宸, 张庆年, 黄剑锋, 等. 基于响应面法的石灰石煅烧黏土复合胶凝材料体系优化设计和试验研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2024, 43(10): 3677-3685. |
| ZHAI C, ZHANG Q N, HUANG J F, et al. Optimal design and experimental study on limestone calcined clay composite cementitious material system based on response surface method[J]. Bulletin of the Chinese Ceramic Society, 2024, 43(10): 3677-3685 (in Chinese). | |
| [33] | 尹升华, 郝硕, 邹龙, 等. 基于RSM的胶结充填体强度回归及料浆寻优研究[J]. 中南大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 51(6): 1595-1605. |
| YIN S H, HAO S, ZOU L, et al. Research on strength regression and slurry optimization of cemented backfill based on response surface method[J]. Journal of Central South University (Science and Technology), 2020, 51(6): 1595-1605 (in Chinese). | |
| [34] |
YAN W L, WU G, DONG Z Q. Optimization of the mix proportion for desert sand concrete based on a statistical model[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2019, 226: 469-482.
DOI URL |
| [35] | 李典, 冯国瑞, 郭育霞, 等. 基于响应面法的充填体强度增长规律分析[J]. 煤炭学报, 2016, 41(2): 392-398. |
| LI D, FENG G R, GUO Y X, et al. Analysis on the strength increase law of filling material based on response surface method[J]. Journal of China Coal Society, 2016, 41(2): 392-398 (in Chinese). | |
| [36] | 邢奕, 王志强, 洪晨, 等. 基于RSM模型对污泥联合调理的参数优化[J]. 中国环境科学, 2014, 34(11): 2866-2873. |
| XING Y, WANG Z Q, HONG C, et al. Parameter optimization of sludge co-conditioning based on RSM model[J]. China Environmental Science, 2014, 34(11): 2866-2873 (in Chinese). | |
| [37] | 李云云, 梁文特, 倪文, 等. 钢渣尾泥-矿渣-脱硫石膏三元体系水化硬化特性[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2022, 41(2): 536-544. |
| LI Y Y, LIANG W T, NI W, et al. Characteristics of hydration and hardening of steel slag mud-blast furnace slag-desulphurization gypsum system[J]. Bulletin of the Chinese Ceramic Society, 2022, 41(2): 536-544 (in Chinese). | |
| [38] |
马召林, 明阳, 李文俊, 等. 多元固废协同制备超细高活性矿物掺合料及性能研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2025, 44(5): 1824-1833.
DOI |
|
MA Z L, MING Y, LI W J, et al. Preparation and performance of ultrafine and high active mineral admixture by multiple solid wastes synergy[J]. Bulletin of the Chinese Ceramic Society, 2025, 44(5): 1824-1833 (in Chinese).
DOI |
|
| [39] | 罗旷. 二氧化碳矿化养护固废加气混凝土性能优化研究[D]. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2023. |
| LUO K. Study on optimization of the performance of carbon dioxide mineralized curing solid waste aerated concrete[D]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University, 2023 (in Chinese). | |
| [40] |
FAN C L, WEI R F, CHENG T, et al. The positive contributions of steel slag in reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the steel industry: waste heat recovery, carbon sequestration, and resource utilization[J]. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2024, 498: 155379.
DOI URL |
| [41] | CIROTH A, BURHAN S. Life cycle inventory data and databases[M]// Life Cycle Inventory Analysis. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021: 123-147. |
| [1] | WANG Yijiang, LI Zijun, HE Zhihai, LU Jun. Effect of Microwave Curing on Strength and Microstructure of Incense Stick Ash-Cement Composite Cementitious Materials [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(2): 540-548. |
| [2] | WANG Dongdong, ZHANG Shuaiwei, SONG Xinjiang, XU Haibo, YIN Xiang, QIAO Leixin. Mechanical Properties of Silty Clay Stabilized with GGBS-Carbide Slag-Desulfurization Gypsum Based on Response Surface Methodology [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(2): 582-591. |
| [3] | ZHOU Yelai, MA Huibo, ZHANG Shidong, ZHAO Xianglin, ZHU Chun, KONG Haitao, LI Baorang. Effect of Fluorine-Containing Composite Activator on Hydration Products and Properties of Steel Slag-Based Thermal Storage Cement [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(1): 177-190. |
| [4] | LIU Shiqi, ZHOU Zichen, HUANG Xiulin, ZENG Ming, ZHANG Bing, ZHANG Jianfeng, SHEN Chunhua. Influence of Burnt Coal Cinder on Mechanics and Hydration Process of Cement [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(1): 165-176. |
| [5] | YUE Pengfei, GUO Sibiao, DING Xiujuan, WANG Yusong, WANG Dazhou, HU Yue, ZHANG Rongrong, ZHANG Gang, DING Jinmeng. Strength and Microscopic Mechanism of Fly Ash-Slag-Red Mud-Based Cementitious Materials Solidified Soil [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(1): 336-345. |
| [6] | LIU Jiayu, GAO Yu, LIU Ze, WEN Shuaiyun, WANG Dongmin, WEI Peng, ZHANG Chunhui, ZHU Zhengjiang, LI Qingya. Properties and Microstructure of Cement Solidified Incineration Fly Ash-Cement Composites Cementitious Material [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2025, 44(9): 3272-3279. |
| [7] | KONG Weipeng, PANG Laixue, GUO Wei, TIAN Xiaofeng. Piezoresistive Performance of Alkali-Activated Superfine Powder-Fly Ash Cementitious Materials [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2025, 44(9): 3288-3294. |
| [8] | YE Jisheng, MA Ying, LI Yuwei, TAI An, WANG Jiahao. Effect of Early CO2 Curing on Properties of Steel Slag Solid Waste Cementitious Material [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2025, 44(9): 3326-3336. |
| [9] | ZHU Jianping, CAO Jianan, WANG Zuolin, LI Genshen, LIU Songhui, ZHENG Bo, FENG Chunhua. Preparation of Carbonation-Bonded Clinker from Low-Calcium High-Magnesium Limestone and Its Carbonation-Hardening Mechanism [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2025, 44(8): 2762-2770. |
| [10] | LI Kangli, LU Xiaolei, ZHU Jiang, JIANG Congcong, ZHANG Lina, CHENG Xin. Leaching and Solidification/Stabilization of Heavy Metal Ions in Industrial Solid Wastes [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2025, 44(8): 2856-2872. |
| [11] | YAN Wanying, WANG Dongxing, NIE Liwen. Preparation of High Belite Sulphoaluminate Cement Clinker from Industrial Solid Waste and Microscopic Mechanism of Mineral Formation [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2025, 44(8): 2955-2964. |
| [12] | LI Zhiquan, ZHANG Guangtian, ZHANG Yanjia, JIA Biao, LIU Dongji, ZHANG Biao. Effect of Alkali Residue Content on Properties of Solid Waste-Based Cementitious Materials [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2025, 44(7): 2597-2607. |
| [13] | YAO Juntian, YANG Jianyu, YANG Weijun, JIN Zhenzhou, HE Zhihui, HE Jiangang. Synergistic Solidification of Red Sandstone Soil by Industrial Solid Waste [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2025, 44(7): 2730-2740. |
| [14] | FU Zhenbo, YANG Xihao, ZHAO Yimeng, LIU Yunpeng, LI Shiji, LI Binghan, ZHAO Shuli, WANG Lei. Effect of Fly Ash Content on Drying Shrinkage and Compressive Strength of Alkali-Activated Materials [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2025, 44(5): 1717-1725. |
| [15] | JIANG Tao, DENG Yi, LI Hongfeng, JIN Hongbo, LUO Cheng, WU Hao. Rheological, Mechanical Properties and Hydration Characteristics of Alkali-Activated Lithium Slag Composite Cementitious Materials [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2025, 44(5): 1767-1778. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||