BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY ›› 2026, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (9): 3055-3069.DOI: 10.16552/j.cnki.issn1001-1625.2026.0315
• Cement and Concrete • Previous Articles Next Articles
HUANG Xin1(
), CHEN Xin2, SHENG Jialin1, WANG Junbo1, YUAN Jie1(
)
Received:2026-04-02
Revised:2026-05-13
Online:2026-09-15
Published:2026-10-09
Contact:
YUAN Jie
CLC Number:
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 | |
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 |
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 | |||
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 |
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 |
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 | |
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] | LI Shuo, QIN Yanhui, LI Meng’en, MA Haoyuan, YIN Jinshuai, ZHENG Lulu, DENG Suwen. Full-Age Prediction and Interpretability Study of Concrete Compressive Strength Based on Machine Learning [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(9): 3070-3082. |
| [2] | FENG Junjie, LI Yixiao, MA Yan, GENG Shenghan, SHEN Xingyue, YAN Shaoyang, WANG Xinwu, LIU Qi. Performance and Comprehensive Benefit of Eco-Friendly Ultra-High Performance Concrete with Molybdenum Tailings [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(8): 2782-2793. |
| [3] | TIAN Shenhua, LI Beixing, XIAO Xiang, ZHOU Junkang. Machine Learning-Based Compressive Strength Prediction of Concrete: Model Screening and Performance Comparison [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(8): 2711-2723. |
| [4] | XIANG Gucong, NIU Yanfei, LIN Xihua, YUAN Zong, GUO Yanlong, YUAN Lijun. Effects of Spalling Area and Interfacial Shear Stress on Fiber Pullout Behavior in Ultra-High Performance Concrete [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(7): 2275-2289. |
| [5] | SHEN Yanli, WEI Guanchao, WANG Peng, WANG Jiawei, XU Lei, WANG Hui, WANG Zhiling, WEI Aikui. Mechanical Properties Analysis and Optimal Mix Proportion Prediction of Cement-Stabilized Crushed Stone with Recycled Aggregate [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(7): 2561-2572. |
| [6] | ZHAO Tianpu, ZHAN Xuefang, LIU Xiaojun, HUANG Dan, ZHAO Yibin, WANG Haolei. Preparation and Performance Prediction of Multi-Component Blended Green ECC Based on Orthogonal Experiment [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(6): 1988-2001. |
| [7] | XIAO Qingyi, ZHANG Ziteng, MA Mingxiao, JING Wenlong, LI Ziyi. Mechanical Properties and Microstructure Analysis of Reed Fiber-Reinforced Fluid Fly Ash [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(6): 2181-2190. |
| [8] | HUANG Rui, KANG Peng, LI Qinliang, WANG Tao, ZOU Dong, ZHANG Junyun, ZHANG Le, CHEN Chunlu. Optimization of Stabilization Mix Proportion for Gully-Phase Soft Soil in Sichuan Basin Based on Response Surface Methodology [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(6): 2191-2202. |
| [9] | YANG Heng, LI Mengmeng, CHEN Jiangying. Experimental Study on Mechanical Properties of UHPC Based on SHPB and Direct Shear Apparatus [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(6): 1937-1946. |
| [10] | LI Yue, ZHOU Guanghui, YANG Bin, JIN Kaikai, JIANG Zezhou, QIU Ziheng, SHAO Weiwei. Optimization Design and Performance Study of Shotcrete Mix Proportion for Tunnels in High-Altitude Mountainous Regions [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(6): 1924-1936. |
| [11] | TAN Zhixin, ZHANG Wei, QIAO Xusheng, FAN Xianping. Research Progress on Design and Development of Inorganic Glass Materials Based on Machine Learning Method [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(3): 743-754. |
| [12] | WEI Yaopeng, FU Jianhao, QIAN Zhaoqing, HE Ran, CAO Yi, LU Yadong, MA Tianchen, KANG Junfeng. Research Progress of High-Modulus Glass Fibers [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(3): 961-973. |
| [13] | 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. |
| [14] | WANG Wensheng, LYU Hailong, MA Jiangtao, LIU Qi, NIE Xiaodong. Research Status on Basic Mechanical Properties and Engineering Applications of Coral Concrete [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(1): 1-20. |
| [15] | TANG Xianyuan, REN Bowen, HU Bingqian, LIU Dacheng, FENG Meijie. Preparation and Formation Mechanism of Ultra-Early Strength Environmental-Friendly Steel Slag Micro Powder UHPC [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(1): 191-201. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||