| Literature DB >> 35591448 |
Xuanshuo Zhang1, Hongbo Li1,2,3, Sheng Li1, Yongfa Ding1, Hubiao Zhang1, Yufei Tong1, Shudong Hua4.
Abstract
In this study, the silica fume replacement rate, fly ash replacement rate, and curing temperature were regarded as the independent variables, and the compressive and flexural strengths were regarded as the response values. The response surface method was used to construct the response surface polynomial regression model and obtain the optimal preparation parameters of a steel slag cement-based gel slurry (SCGS). The univariate and multivariate effects on the SCGS's strength were investigated via analysis of variance and a three-dimensional surface model, and the hydration products and strength development law were characterized via scanning electron microscopy and X-ray diffraction. The actual compressive strengths at 3 and 28 d of age were 31.78 and 53.94 MPa, respectively, which were close to the predicted values (32.59 and 55.81 MPa, respectively), demonstrating that the optimized strengths were accurate and reliable. Further, the hydration reaction rate of SiO2 in the silica fume and the physical filling effect of the inert components of fly ash and steel slag under the optimal parameters were the key factors for the early strength of the material. Moreover, continuous C3S hydration in steel slag and the continuous excitation of the volcanic ash properties of fly ash were important factors for the later strength.Entities:
Keywords: interaction; interface bonding strength; optimal preparation parameters; response surface method; steel slag cement-based material
Year: 2022 PMID: 35591448 PMCID: PMC9105800 DOI: 10.3390/ma15093114
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
Main chemical compositions of the raw materials (%).
| Raw Materials | Mass Fraction (%) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SiO2 | Al2O3 | Fe2O3 | CaO | MgO | K2O | Na2O | TiO2 | SO3 | P2O5 | |
| Cement | 16.41 | 4.14 | 4.09 | 65.32 | 1.48 | 0.13 | 0.28 | — | 2.20 | 0.18 |
| Silica fume | 95.96 | 0.29 | 0.02 | 0.12 | 0.31 | 0.03 | — | 0.06 | — | — |
| Fly ash | 45.34 | 31.93 | 7.56 | 4.88 | 1.21 | 2.39 | 0.81 | 1.68 | 0.69 | — |
| Steel slag | 15.26 | 3.12 | 20.98 | 43.69 | 4.36 | 0.02 | 0.13 | 1.85 | 0.39 | 1.61 |
Figure 1Steel slag physical properties analysis: (a) XRD and (b) SEM.
Factor codes and levels.
| Influencing Factor | Code | Level | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SF substitution rate (%) |
| 2 | 4 | 6 |
| FA substitution rate (%) |
| 5 | 10 | 15 |
| Curing temperature (℃) |
| 20 | 50 | 80 |
Box–Behnken experimental design and response values.
| Number | Factor | Response | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compressive Strength (MPa) | Flexural Strength (MPa) | ||||||
| 3 d | 28 d | 3 d | 28 d | ||||
| T1 | 4 | 10 | 50 | 29.81 | 51.67 | 7.11 | 8.95 |
| T2 | 4 | 5 | 80 | 27.59 | 45.76 | 5.91 | 7.68 |
| T3 | 6 | 10 | 20 | 29.97 | 45.31 | 6.74 | 8.58 |
| T4 | 4 | 10 | 50 | 30.21 | 51.61 | 7.53 | 9.21 |
| T5 | 4 | 15 | 20 | 28.23 | 47.37 | 6.89 | 6.93 |
| T6 | 4 | 15 | 80 | 28.39 | 52.59 | 6.73 | 9.71 |
| T7 | 6 | 15 | 50 | 30.01 | 55.64 | 8.41 | 9.88 |
| T8 | 6 | 10 | 80 | 29.52 | 50.68 | 7.89 | 9.83 |
| T9 | 4 | 10 | 50 | 29.53 | 52.14 | 7.25 | 9.39 |
| T10 | 6 | 5 | 50 | 32.54 | 49.97 | 6.79 | 7.83 |
| T11 | 4 | 5 | 20 | 31.89 | 44.95 | 6.55 | 7.42 |
| T12 | 2 | 10 | 20 | 32.01 | 42.95 | 7.41 | 7.23 |
| T13 | 4 | 10 | 50 | 29.93 | 51.62 | 7.93 | 8.47 |
| T14 | 2 | 15 | 50 | 29.97 | 47.95 | 6.72 | 8.64 |
| T15 | 2 | 10 | 80 | 25.69 | 46.39 | 5.74 | 7.92 |
| T16 | 2 | 5 | 50 | 29.37 | 45.58 | 6.73 | 8.16 |
| T17 | 4 | 10 | 50 | 30.23 | 50.92 | 7.53 | 9.22 |
Analysis of variance of response surface regression model.
| Source | Sum of Squares | Freedom | Mean Square | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Model | 42.06 | 188.88 | 9 | 9 | 4.67 | 20.99 | 20.88 | 26.26 | 0.0003 | 0.0001 |
|
| 3.13 | 43.58 | 1 | 1 | 3.13 | 43.95 | 13.96 | 46.76 | 0.0073 | 0.0002 |
|
| 2.87 | 37.37 | 1 | 1 | 2.87 | 37.37 | 12.81 | 54.88 | 0.009 | 0.0001 |
|
| 14.88 | 27.53 | 1 | 1 | 14.88 | 27.53 | 66.47 | 34.45 | <0.0001 | 0.0006 |
|
| 2.45 | 2.72 | 1 | 1 | 2.45 | 2.72 | 10.94 | 3.41 | 0.0130 | 0.1074 |
|
| 8.61 | 0.9316 | 1 | 1 | 8.61 | 0.9316 | 38.48 | 1.17 | 0.0004 | 0.3161 |
|
| 4.97 | 4.86 | 1 | 1 | 4.97 | 4.86 | 22.22 | 6.08 | 0.0022 | 0.0430 |
|
| 0.6787 | 10.39 | 1 | 1 | 0.6787 | 10.39 | 3.03 | 13.00 | 0.1252 | 0.0087 |
|
| 0.07 | 0.2345 | 1 | 1 | 0.07 | 0.2345 | 0.313 | 0.2935 | 0.5933 | 0.6048 |
|
| 4.61 | 57.28 | 1 | 1 | 4.61 | 57.28 | 20.58 | 71.69 | 0.0027 | <0.0001 |
| Residual | 1.57 | 5.59 | 7 | 7 | 0.23 | 0.7991 | ||||
| Cor Total | 43.63 | 194.48 | 16 | 16 | ||||||
Figure 2The relationship between the experimental values and predicted values: (a) Y1 and (b) Y2.
Figure 3Influences of the interactions of various factors on the 3 d compressive strength: (a) X1 and X2, (b) X1 and X3, and (c) X2 and X3.
Figure 4Influences of the interactions of various factors on the 28 d compressive strength: (a) X1 and X2, (b) X1 and X3, and (c) X2 and X3.
Measured and predicted values of the SCGS’s strength.
| PO (%) | SS (%) | SF (%) | FA (%) | CT (℃) | PA (%) | Compressive Strength (MPa) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predicted Value | Actual Value | |||||||
| 3 d optimized group | 74 | 15 | 5.8 | 5.2 | 43.3 | 0.14 | 32.59 | 31.78 |
| 28 d optimized group | 65.8 | 15 | 4.2 | 15 | 59.2 | 0.14 | 55.81 | 53.94 |
Figure 5XRD patterns at 3 and 28 d of age according to the (a) optimized group samples and (b) reference group samples.
Figure 6SEM images of the optimized group samples at (a,b) 3 d of age and (c,d) 28 d of age. SF: silica fume, FA: fly ash.
Figure 7SEM images of the reference group samples at (a,b) 3 d of age and (c,d) 28 d of age.