BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY ›› 2026, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (9): 3174-3186.DOI: 10.16552/j.cnki.issn1001-1625.2026.0324
• Solid Waste and Eco-Materials • Previous Articles Next Articles
KONG Linghai1,2(
), LIANG Genfu1,2, HUANG Ye2, HE Xunlin2, ZHANG Benben3, LUO Zhengdong4(
)
Received:2026-04-08
Revised:2026-04-28
Online:2026-09-15
Published:2026-10-09
Contact:
LUO Zhengdong
CLC Number:
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Fig.3 Compressive strength changes of ordinary Portland cement concrete and multi-source solid waste-based geopolymer concrete under 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] | WANG Fuhuan, LI Yanjie, LYU Haoping, YANG Lingqiang. Mechanical Properties of Glass Powder-Modified Polypropylene Fiber-Reinforced Cementitious Composites [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(7): 2397-2407. |
| [2] | 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. |
| [3] | REN Jun, TUO Mintai, MAO Jianghong, CHEN Changyu, ZENG Gensheng, LIU Xiangyun, LI Zhong. Experimental Study on Mechanical Performance of PVA-ECC Strengthening and Toughening Units Prepared by Freezing [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(5): 1513-1526. |
| [4] | 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. |
| [5] | LI Xiangguo, SHI Xiangqin, AN Wandong, GONG Zhixiong, ZHANG Chengshan, LYU Yang. Influence of Iron Phase Modulation on Properties of High-Belite Ferroaluminate Cement [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2025, 44(9): 3127-3136. |
| [6] | ZHENG Liyang, HUI Yingxin, GUO Jukun, YAN Sheng, DONG Xuguang. Mechanical Deformation Characteristics and Comprehensive Water Content of Fly Ash Subgrade [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2025, 44(4): 1486-1494. |
| [7] | SIMA Xiaoqing, XIE Xiangbing, LI Guanghui, LIU Chenchen, ZHANG Yilin, SI Bin, JI Yang, SHAO Jinggan. Activity Evaluation of Multi-Source Solid Waste Preparation Admixtures and Microscopic Properties of Cement Hydration Products [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2025, 44(3): 1069-1079. |
| [8] | TAN Jie, HU Wei, LIU Yang. Study on Improvement of Concrete Resistance to Ammonium Sulfate Corrosion in Coastal Environment [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2025, 44(2): 474-489. |
| [9] | LI Xiangguo, GONG Zhixiong, MA Weinan, LI Shuguo, ZHANG Chengshan, DAN Jianming, LYU Yang. Preparation and Properties of Multi-Source Solid Waste-Based High Belite Ferroaluminate Cement [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2025, 44(2): 579-589. |
| [10] | YANG Puxin, FAN Minghui, LI Wei, REN Wenyuan, ZHANG Aijun. Feasibility Study and Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis of Molybdenum Tailings Sand Self-Compacting Concrete [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2025, 44(2): 540-549. |
| [11] | XIAO Yue, LI Chao, CHEN Zongwu, WANG Feng. Preparation of Shape-Imitated Lightweight Aggregate and Its Application in Thermal Resistance Asphalt Mixture [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2025, 44(11): 4147-4161. |
| [12] | LU Junhui, LYU Hai, LI Junyuan, YANG Haifeng, CAO Huayi. Interfacial Bond-Slip Performance of Square Aluminum Alloy Tube-Seawater Sea-Sand Geopolymer Concrete [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2025, 44(1): 90-100. |
| [13] | ZHANG Zhenyang, ZHANG Lu, YI Haihe, ZHENG Run, MA Keshun, ZHANG Lin, REN Mengqi, WANG Chunguang. Mechanical Properties of Geopolymer Concrete Based on Response Surface Method [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2024, 43(9): 3192-3202. |
| [14] | WANG Xiaoxiao, DONG Peisen, YANG Xinrui, ZHANG Ju, YAN Changwang, DONG Yufei. Mechanical Properties of Steel Fiber Geopolymer Concrete under Low Temperature [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2024, 43(9): 3203-3213. |
| [15] | LI Xuefeng. Sulfate Resistance Performance of Cement-Based Materials Containing Limestone Powder at Low Temperature [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2024, 43(7): 2372-2382. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||