Effects of straw ash–calcium carbide slag curing agent and recycled aggregate on the mechanical properties of sludge soil and their grey correlation analysis
Open accessAbstract
High-water-content sludge soil (SS) requires stabilization before reuse as a pavement fill. This study evaluates a multi-waste system comprising a straw ash–calcium carbide slag binder (SCS; straw ash:calcium carbide slag = 6:4 by mass) fixed at 10% of dry SS and recycled brick–concrete aggregate (RBCM). Heavy compaction, California bearing ratio (CBR), and laboratory unconfined compressive strength (UCS) index tests were used to assess test-specific RBCM contents of 0–70%, brick-to-concrete ratios of 2:1, 1:1, and 1:2, and curing ages of 7–90 d. Grey relational analysis and a GM(1,1) model were applied to the UCS dataset. Maximum dry density, CBR, and the UCS index first increased and then decreased with RBCM content, whereas optimum moisture content decreased. The best overall laboratory response occurred at 30% RBCM and a 1:2 brick-to-concrete ratio. Grey relational analysis ranked RBCM content as the factor most strongly associated with the UCS index, followed by curing age and brick-to-concrete ratio, and the GM(1,1) model reproduced the measured trend. Because the 50 mm UCS specimens were undersized relative to the 30–40 mm aggregate, those strength values are comparative indices rather than representative field-design parameters. Hydration, interfacial bonding, skeleton, filling, and arching interpretations are proposed as hypotheses; direct phase and microstructural verification is still required.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
- Authors
- Wu, Y., Chen, Z., Ji, Y., Wang, X., & Wang, J.
- Affiliations
- Northeast Forestry University (CN)
- University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
- Venue
- Materials Reports: Solidwaste and Ecomaterials
- Publisher
- Tsinghua University Press
- Published
- 2026-10-13
- Pages
- 9520034
- ISSN
- 3078-4093 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W7204527780
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Materials Reports Solidwaste and Ecomaterials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Natural Science Foundation of Heilongjiang Province (YQ2025E005)
- Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Geotechnical and construction materials studies
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Recycling and utilization of industrial and municipal waste in materials production
- Keywords
- straw ash, carbide slag, recycled aggregate, unconfined compressive strength, California bearing ratio, curing time, grey relational analysis, GM(1,1) model, optimum moisture content, dry density, interfacial bonding, microstructure
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review