Cited by 0Geotechnical Engineering and Soil StabilizationGeotechnical and construction materials studiesRecycling and utilization of industrial and municipal waste in materials production

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 access
Wu, Yuxuan, Chen, Zixiong, Ji, Yongcheng, Wang, Xu, Wang, Jun·2026·Materials Reports: Solidwaste and Ecomaterials

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.26599/mrse.2026.9520034

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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
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
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