Mechanical Properties of Silty Clay Stabilized with GGBS-Carbide Slag-Desulfurization Gypsum Based on Response Surface Methodology

doi:10.16552/j.cnki.issn1001-1625.2025.0889

Abstract

Abstract:

Silt clay is widely distributed in China， yet its high water content and low bearing capacity make it unsuitable for direct use in engineering. To enhance its properties， this study employed ground granulated blast furnace slag （GGBS）， carbide slag， and desulfurization gypsum as stabilizers. Using the Box-Behnken design （BBD） within the response surface methodology， the influence of the dosages of these three stabilizers on the mechanical properties of silt clay was investigated， and the optimal mix proportion was determined. The effectiveness of this optimal proportion was verified by comparing the strength and mass loss rate of clay stabilized with xanthan gum under dry-wet cycles. Furthermore， scanning electron microscopy （SEM） was utilized to elucidate the curing mechanism. The results indicate that under 7 d curing， the unconfined compressive strength （UCS） of the silt clay initially increases and then decreases with increasing dosages of GGBS and carbide slag. Under 28 d curing， with the increase in the admixture amounts of carbide slag and desulfurization gypsum， the UCS of silt clay first increases and then decreases. The optimal dosages are determined as 18.43% （mass fraction） for GGBS， 9.13% for carbide slag， and 4.06% for desulfurization gypsum. Under this optimal proportion， the strength and durability are superior to those of clay stabilized with xanthan gum. The incorporation of the stabilizer leads to the formation of gel products such as calcium silicate hydrate （C-S-H）， calcium aluminosilicate hydrate （C-A-S-H）， and ettringite. The sample particles are cemented and encapsulated， which drives the optimization of pore structure and the enhancement of compactness， thereby promoting the improvement of soil strength and durability at the macro level.

Key words: ground granulated blast furnace slag, desulfurization gypsum, carbide slag, response surface methodology, silty clay

CLC Number:

TU528

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.

Figures/Tables 13

References 30

[1]	李胜，张红日，王桂尧，等. 基于响应面法的碱激发地聚物固化淤泥质土试验研究［J］. 硅酸盐通报， 2023， 42（12）： 4438-4448.
	LI S， ZHANG H R， WANG G Y， et al. Experimental study of alkali-activated geopolymer cured silty soil based on response surface method［J］. Bulletin of the Chinese Ceramic Society， 2023， 42（12）： 4438-4448 （in Chinese）.
[2]	冯兴国，刘宁，卢向雨. 复合地聚物固化高含水率泥浆的回填性能及微观机理研究［J］. 硅酸盐通报， 2023， 42（10）： 3643-3651.
	FENG X G， LIU N， LU X Y. Backfilling performance and microscopic mechanism of high moisture content slurry solidified by composite geopolymer［J］. Bulletin of the Chinese Ceramic Society， 2023， 42（10）： 3643-3651 （in Chinese）.
[3]	李源，魏明俐，刘磊，等. 纤维加筋高钙地聚物固化高黏尾砂的强度特性及机制分析［J］. 岩土力学， 2023， 44（1）： 43-53.
	LI Y， WEI M L， LIU L， et al. Strength characteristics and mechanism analysis of fiber reinforced highly cohesive tailings solidified using high-calcium geopolymer［J］. Rock and Soil Mechanics， 2023， 44（1）： 43-53 （in Chinese）.
[4]	易富，姜珊，慕德慧，等. 流态地聚物固化土强度特性及其强度预测［J］. 水文地质工程地质， 2023， 50（1）： 60-68.
	YI F， JIANG S， MU D H， et al. Strength characteristics and strength prediction of fluid geopolymer solidified soil［J］. Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology， 2023， 50（1）： 60-68 （in Chinese）.
[5]	YADU L， TRIPATHI R K. Effects of granulated blast furnace slag in the engineering behaviour of stabilized soft soil［J］. Procedia Engineering， 2013， 51： 125-131. DOI URL
[6]	张大捷，田晓峰，侯浩波，等. 矿渣胶凝材料固化软土的力学性状及机制［J］. 岩土力学， 2007， 28（9）： 1987-1991.
	ZHANG D J， TIAN X F， HOU H B， et al. Mechanical behavior and mechanism of stabilizing soft soil by slag cementitious material［J］. Rock and Soil Mechanics， 2007， 28（9）： 1987-1991 （in Chinese）.
[7]	HORPIBULSUK S， PHETCHUAY C， CHINKULKIJNIWAT A. Soil stabilization by calcium carbide residue and fly ash［J］. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering， 2012， 24（2）： 184-193. DOI URL
[8]	谈云志，喻波，刘云，等. 重塑石灰土的强度恢复方法与机制初探［J］. 岩土力学， 2015， 36（3）： 633-639.
	TAN Y Z， YU B， LIU Y， et al. Strength recovered method and mechanism for remolded lime soil［J］. Rock and Soil Mechanics， 2015， 36（3）： 633-639 （in Chinese）.
[9]	BROOKS R， UDOEYO F F， TAKKALAPELLI K V. Geotechnical properties of problem soils stabilized with fly ash and limestone dust in Philadelphia［J］. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering， 2011， 23（5）： 711-716. DOI URL
[10]	陆建阳. 宁波淤泥质土固化研究及微观定量研究［D］. 杭州：浙江大学， 2016.
	LU J Y. Ningbo mucky soil solidification research and microscopic quantitative research［D］. Hangzhou： Zhejiang University， 2016 （in Chinese）.
[11]	索崇娴，郝雅芬，樊珮阁，等. 添加脱硫石膏和赤泥对复合水泥土性能的影响［J］. 硅酸盐通报， 2020， 39（5）： 1553-1558.
	SUO C X， HAO Y F， FAN P G， et al. Effect of adding FGD and red mud on properties of composite cement-soil［J］. Bulletin of the Chinese Ceramic Society， 2020， 39（5）： 1553-1558 （in Chinese）.
[12]	安强，潘慧敏，赵庆新，等. 碱激发赤泥-粉煤灰-电石渣复合材料性能研究［J］. 建筑材料学报， 2023， 26（1）： 14-20.
	AN Q， PAN H M， ZHAO Q X， et al. Properties of alkali-activated red mud-fly ash-carbide slag composites［J］. Journal of Building Materials， 2023， 26（1）： 14-20 （in Chinese）.
[13]	HE Z M， SHEN A Q， WU H S， et al. Research progress on recycled clay brick waste as an alternative to cement for sustainable construction materials［J］. Construction and Building Materials， 2021， 274： 122113. DOI URL
[14]	TANASH A O， MUTHUSAMY K， YAHAYA FMAT， et al. Potential of recycled powder from clay brick， sanitary ware， and concrete waste as a cement substitute for concrete： an overview［J］. Construction and Building Materials， 2023， 401： 132760. DOI URL
[15]	FENG D L， YU Y， WANG J， et al. Experimental study on shear and disintegration resistance of MICP-treated residual granite soil［J］. Environmental Earth Sciences， 2024， 83（6）： 179. DOI
[16]	LI G， ZHANG Y J， HUA X Q， et al. Mechanical properties of aeolian sand cemented via microbially induced calcite precipitation （MICP）［J］. Scientific Reports， 2024， 14（1）： 22745. DOI
[17]	ZHA F S， YANG Z L， KANG B， et al. Electrical resistivity evaluation of MICP solidified lead contaminated soil［J］. Environmental Earth Sciences， 2024， 83（8）： 261. DOI
[18]	ZHANG Q， YE W M， SU W， et al. Mechanical behavior of EICP-treated calcareous sands under high confining pressures［J］. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering， 2025， 17（3）： 1816-1827. DOI URL
[19]	WU Y L， LIU X L， YANG J J， et al. Influence of the wide range cement content on the properties of cement-treated marine soft soil and bound method of semi-solidified soil［J］. Case Studies in Construction Materials， 2024， 20： e03180.
[20]	WU Y K， SHI K J， YU J L， et al. Research on strength degradation of soil solidified by steel slag powder and cement in seawater erosion［J］. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering， 2020， 32（7）： 04020181.
[21]	中华人民共和国住房和城乡建设部. 土工试验方法标准：GB/T 50123—2019［S］. 北京：中国计划出版社， 2019.
	Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China. Standard for geotechnical test methods：GB/T 50123—2019［S］. Beijing： China Plan Publishing House， 2019 （in Chinese）.
[22]	LIAN B Q， WANG X G， ZHAN H B， et al. Creep mechanical and microstructural insights into the failure mechanism of loess landslides induced by dry-wet cycles in the Heifangtai platform， China［J］. Engineering Geology， 2022， 300： 106589. DOI URL
[23]	WANG J H， DENG Y F， MOU C， et al. Durability and degradation mechanisms of dredged clays stabilized with ternary geopolymer under cyclic drying-wetting environments［J］. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment， 2025， 84（5）： 250. DOI
[24]	WANG L J， ZANG Y H， ZHANG Z L， et al. Investigation on strength properties， mechanism， and durability of dredged sludge solidified with ground granulated blast furnace slag， calcium carbide slag， and phosphogypsum［J］. Journal of Building Engineering， 2025， 102： 111986. DOI URL
[25]	WANG L J， ZANG Y H， JIANG H G， et al. Mechanical behavior of crushed and compacted solidified dredged sludge solidified by industrial by-products［J］. Construction and Building Materials， 2025， 466： 140243. DOI URL
[26]	MA W E， TONG L Y， SUN D F， et al. Strength and microscopic properties of S95 ground granulated blast furnace slag-calcium carbide slag-phosphogypsum carbonation and standard-cured waste soil［J］. Construction and Building Materials， 2025， 465： 140167. DOI URL
[27]	丁建文，刘铁平，曹玉鹏，等. 高含水率疏浚淤泥固化土的抗压试验与强度预测［J］. 岩土工程学报， 2013， 35（增刊2）： 55-60.
	DING J W， LIU T P， CAO Y P， et al. Compressive test and strength prediction of dredged silt solidified soil with high water content［J］. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering， 2013， 35（supplement 2）： 55-60 （in Chinese）.
[28]	CHANG I， IM J， PRASIDHI A K， et al. Effects of xanthan gum biopolymer on soil strengthening［J］. Construction and Building Materials， 2015， 74： 65-72. DOI URL
[29]	HAMZA M， NIE Z H， AZIZ M， et al. Geotechnical properties of problematic expansive subgrade stabilized with xanthan gum biopolymer［J］. Road Materials and Pavement Design， 2023， 24（7）： 1869-1883. DOI URL
[30]	KUMAR S， YADAV B D， RAJ R. A review on the application of biopolymers （xanthan， agar and guar） for sustainable improvement of soil［J］. Discover Applied Sciences， 2024， 6（8）： 393. DOI

Material	Mass fraction/%
Material	CaO	SiO₂	Al₂O₃	SO₃	MgO	Fe₂O₃	Na₂O	Other
Silty clay	0.89	59.82	11.68	—	2.38	8.45	2.53	15.14
GGBS	30.06	36.50	20.60	—	5.92	1.23	1.05	4.64
Desulfurization gypsum	44.08	18.55	0.69	35.64	—	0.69	0.35	—

Material	Mass fraction/%
Material	CaO	SiO₂	Al₂O₃	SO₃	MgO	Fe₂O₃	Na₂O	Other
Silty clay	0.89	59.82	11.68	—	2.38	8.45	2.53	15.14
GGBS	30.06	36.50	20.60	—	5.92	1.23	1.05	4.64
Desulfurization gypsum	44.08	18.55	0.69	35.64	—	0.69	0.35	—

Influence factor	Code	Code level
Influence factor	Code	-1	0	1
GGBS content/%	X₁	10	15	20
Carbide slag content/%	X₂	6	8	10
Desulfurization gypsum content/%	X₃	3	5	7

Influence factor	Code	Code level
Influence factor	Code	-1	0	1
GGBS content/%	X₁	10	15	20
Carbide slag content/%	X₂	6	8	10
Desulfurization gypsum content/%	X₃	3	5	7

Serial number	Factor			Unconfined compressive strength/kPa
Serial number	X₁	X₂	X₃	7 d	28 d
1	10	6	5	401	685
2	10	8	3	462	584
3	10	8	7	488	711
4	10	10	5	531	732
5	15	6	3	411	688
6	15	6	7	488	711
7	15	8	5	585	841
8	15	8	5	579	821
9	15	8	5	601	811
10	15	8	5	555	802
11	15	8	5	574	821
12	15	10	3	461	685
13	15	10	7	601	875
14	20	6	5	585	743
15	20	8	3	501	644
16	20	8	7	614	815
17	20	10	5	543	802