热活化赤泥多固废基胶凝材料的性能优化及水化特性

doi:10.11896/cldb.25030240

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (15)

Download:

Full Text ( PDF ) (57245KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Bayer-process red mud (BRM), a representative bulk industrial solid waste, poses substantial environmental and health risks due to its ha-zardous constituents including heavy metals, strong alkalinity, and fluorides. The inherent stability of its silicate-aluminate crystalline structure further restricts the reactivity of silicon/aluminum components, severely limiting its valorization in sustainable construction materials. To address these challenges, this work implemented thermal activation to enhance BRM reactivity and synthesized modified red mud-based cementitious composites (MRCM) through synergistic utilization of BRM, carbide slag, and desulfurized gypsum. Experimental results demonstrated that the optimal formulation (74% 800 ℃-activated BRM, 16% carbide slag, and 10% desulfurized gypsum) achieves compressive strengths of 8.3 MPa (3 d), 11.9 MPa (7 d), and 16.5 MPa (28 d). Notably, specimens incorporating raw BRM failed to solidify under this system, while the ternary cementitious system (activated BRM-carbide slag-desulfurized gypsum) exhibited a 48.6% enhancement in 28-day compressive strength compared to its binary counterpart (activated BRM-carbide slag). Advanced microstructural characterization (XRD, FTIR, TG, SEM) confirmed the coexistence of C(N)-A-S-H, C-S-H gels, and ettringite as dominant hydration products. The strategic addition of desulfurized gypsum optimized hydration kinetics by accelerating ettringite nucleation and Ca(OH)₂ consumption, thereby refining pore structures and densifying the matrix. This work establishes an innovative pathway for scalable BRM utilization in eco-friendly construction materials through a dual thermal activation-chemical excitation strategy.

Key words： Bayer-process red mud red mud-based cementitious material mechanical property hydration characteristic

Published: 25 April 2026 Online: 2026-05-06

CLC number:

TQ172.9

	Service
	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	WANG Siying
	LIU Wenhuan
	HAO Yi
	CHANG Ning
	JIAO Xiaoyu
	LI Hui

Cite this article:

WANG Siying,LIU Wenhuan,HAO Yi, et al. Performance Optimization and Hydration Characteristics of Multi-solid Waste-based Cementitious Materials Incorporating Thermally Activated Red Mud[J]. Materials Reports, 2026, 40(8): 25030240-11.

URL:

https://www.mater-rep.com/EN/10.11896/cldb.25030240 OR https://www.mater-rep.com/EN/Y2026/V40/I8/25030240

1 Khairul M A, Zanganeh J, Moghtaderi B. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2019, 141, 483.
2 Pan X, Wu H, Lv Z, et al. Science of the Total Environment, 2023, 904, 166686.
3 Liu S, Li Z, Li Y, et al. Construction and Building Materials, 2018, 166, 554.
4 Silveira N C, Martins M L, Bezerra A C, et al. Sustainability, 2021, 13(22), 12741.
5 Jaishankar M, Tseten T, Anbalagan N, et al. Interdisciplinary Toxicology, 2014, 7(2), 60.
6 Pontikes Y, Angelopoulos G N. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2013, 73, 53.
7 Shao W, Jamal R, Xu F, et al. Materials, 2012, 5(10), 1811.
8 Klauber C, Gräfe M, Power G. Hydrometallurgy, 2011, 108(1-2), 11.
9 Yang J, Xiao B. Construction and Building Materials, 2008, 22(12), 2299.
10 Hou D, Wu D, Wang X, et al. Cement and Concrete Composites, 2021, 115, 103862.
11 Singh M, Upadhayay S, Prasad P. Waste Management, 1996, 16(8), 665.
12 Hai R, Zheng J, Li J, et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 2024, 20, e02853.
13 Ye N, Yang J, Ke X, et al. Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 2014, 97(5), 1652.
14 Hu Y, Liang S, Yang J, et al. Construction and Building Materials, 2019, 200, 398.
15 Singh S, Aswath M U, Ranganath R V. Construction and Building Materials, 2018, 177, 91.
16 Li Y, Min X, Ke Y, et al. Waste Management, 2019, 83, 202.
17 Hu W, Nie Q, Huang B, et al. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018, 186, 799.
18 Pridobivanje U, Blata E. Materiali in Tehnologije, 2013, 47(1), 99.
19 Zhang G, He J, Gambrell R P. Transportation Research Record, 2010, 2167(1), 1.
20 Xu S, Yuan P, Liu J, et al. Construction and Building Materials, 2021, 308, 125110.
21 Chi M. Construction and Building Materials, 2015, 99, 128.
22 Gong X, Zhang T, Zhang J, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2022, 159, 112133.
23 Huang F G, Jia S Y, Liu Y, et al. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2015, 286, 291.
24 Wang X, Ni W, Li J, et al. Cement and Concrete Research, 2019, 125, 105893.
25 Chang N, Li H, Liu W, et al. Construction and Building Materials, 2024, 412, 134807.
26 Li X, Guo R X, Lu Z. Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering, DOI: 10. 11835/j. issn. 2096-6717. 2024. 108 (in Chinese).
李响, 郭荣鑫, 刘卓. 土木与环境工程学报(中英文), DOI: 10. 11835/j. issn. 2096-6717. 2024. 108.
27 Liu Y, Ni W, Huang X Y, et al. Materials Reports, 2016, 30(14), 120 (in Chinese).
刘英, 倪文, 黄晓燕, 等. 材料导报, 2016, 30(14), 120.
28 Ma Z, Liao H, Cheng F. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2021, 105, 103229.
29 Gatta G D, Mcintyre G J, Swanson J G, et al. American Mineralogist, 2012, 97(7), 1060.
30 Liu W, Du R, Zhao Z, et al. Construction and Building Materials, 2023, 367, 130310.
31 Zhao Z, Liu W, Jiang Y, et al. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2022, 359, 132134.
32 Zhang N, Li H, Liu X. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2016, 314, 172.
33 Li Y, Liu X, Sun H, et al. Science China Technological Sciences, 2011, 54(1), 105.
34 Xu D, Ni W, Wang Q, et al. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021, 307, 127262.
35 Wang Q, Sun S, Yao G, et al. Construction and Building Materials, 2022, 340, 127735.