Construction and Building Materials 181 (2018) 527–534

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Influence of waste glass powder usage on the properties of

alkali-activated slag mortars based on response surface methodology
Lanfang Zhang a,⇑, Yu Yue b
a
School of Material Science & Engineering, Chongqing Jiaotong University, Chongqing 400074, China
b
Chongqing Iron & Steel Group Construction Engineering Co.LTD, Chongqing 400045, China

h i g h l i g h t s

RSM was used for the optimisation by maximising strengths.

The optimum combination of 8.31% Na2O and 14.57% GP was attained in AASGP mortar.

The suitable amount of GP is effective in improving the properties of AAS mortar.

Waste GP is an ideal admixture in AAS mortar.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this study, the effect of waste glass powder as a potential cementitious material on the strength, drying
Received 11 August 2017 shrinkage and sulfate attack resistance of slag mortar activated by the mixture of water glass and sodium
Received in revised form 22 May 2018 hydroxide was evaluated. Also, Central composite design and response surface method were used for the
Accepted 6 June 2018
optimisation of the alkali content (sodium oxide equivalent) and replacement ratio of waste glass powder
by maximising flexural and compressive strengths. The results of analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated
that the accuracy of the developed strength models based on response surface method was satisfactory.
Keywords:
The optimal alkali content and replacement ratio of waste glass powder were found to be 8.31% and
Alkali activation cement
Response surface methodology
14.57%, respectively. Under this condition, the experimental values of 3-, 7- and 28-day flexural strengths
Optimization and 3-, 7- and 28-day compressive strengths of alkali-activated slag/glass powder mortar were 6.6 MPa,
Slag 7.1 MPa and 8.4 MPa, respectively and 49.2 MPa, 52.9 MPa and 66.4 MPa, respectively, which agreed clo-
Glass powder sely with the predicted values since the percentages of error were negligible in the range of 0–2.38%.
Strength When the alkali content was 8.31%, the addition of 14.57% waste glass powder in alkali-activated slag
Dry shrinkage mortar could improve the 3-, 7- and 28-day flexural and compressive strengths, reduce the dry shrinkage
Sulfate attack by up to 15.8% at 1 day and 20.3% at 120 days, and increase the resistance to sulfate attack.
Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction obvious. For example, it can use more industrial by-products,

Slag is an industrial by-product obtained during the manufac-
turing of pig iron. Slag can be activated with alkaline solutions to
form a new binder. Alkali-activated slag (AAS) binder reportedly
exhibits excellent mechanical properties and durability [1,2], such
as higher strength, higher chemical resistance, higher resistance to
freeze-thaw cycles, and higher resistance to high temperature than
ordinary Portland cement (OPC) [3,4]. The research and develop-
ment of alternative binders are required for sustainable building
materials. The environmental benefits of using AAS binder are
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yyzhanglf@163.com (L. Zhang).
consume less energy and release less carbon dioxide than OPC dur-
ing the production process [5,6]. In addition, Slag can be partially
or totally replaced by other by-products or wastes to prepare
alkali-activated binders, like silica fume [7,8], fly ash [8–10], steel
slag [11], lithium slag [12] and calcined reservoir sludge [13,14].
At present, as raw material for cement production or cement
replacement in concrete, Slag is not available everywhere and its
price is getting higher and higher due to limited supply. However,
in China, 40 million tons of waste glass is generated annually, with
only 13% of it being recycled [15]. Waste glass has been used as a
partial substitute for OPC in mortar or concrete [16,17]. Previous
studies have demonstrated that glass powder has adequate poz-
zolanic properties [17–19], and the properties of concrete can be

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.06.040
0950-0618/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
528 L. Zhang, Y. Yue / Construction and Building Materials 181 (2018) 527–534
effectively improved when glass powder is used as partial replace-
ment of cement [20,21].
Glass powder (GP) is known to be rich in silica and it can be
activated by alkaline media to form sodium silicate gel. Until
now, very limited studies have been conducted on alkali activation
of glass powder or the mixtures of slag and glass powder. Chen
et al. [22] found alkali-activated glass inorganic binders could
obtain high strength which was related to the activator and curing
condition. Redden and Neithalath [23] reported that sodium
hydroxide (NaOH)-activated glass powder binders could obtain
higher compressive strengths than the activated fly ash mixtures
at low heat curing temperatures, but the activated glass powder
binders suffered the higher strength loss under moist curing
conditions. Adding other materials, like slag or metakaolin, could
be better to control the strength loss. Torres et al. [24] showed that
the best 28-day strength was obtained at 27.7 MPa when the mix-
ture of NaOH and sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) with 5% sodium
oxide (Na2O) was used to activate slag/waste glass (slag: waste
glass = 70:30). The mechanical strength decreased with the
increase of the waste glass content. Furthermore, in alkali (NaOH
or NaOH/Na2CO3)-activated slag/waste glass binders, the slag was
the main contributor to strength at early ages and the contribution
of waste glass to the strength development was only after 28 days
[25]. Avila-López et al. [26] studied the binders based on waste
glass and limestone activated by NaOH/Na2CO3 with 9% Na2O.
The results revealed that the highest 28-day strength was 38.8
MPa and the hydration products mainly included C-S-H, a silica
gel type phase, and crystalline phases such as pirssonite and gay-
lussite. In addition, Wang et al. [27] studied the use of waste glass
sand (0%, 10% and 20%) instead of slag to prepare alkali- activated
mortar. NaOH and sodium silicate solution were used as activator.
The results showed that the slump increased with the alkaline
solution (0.5%, 0.75%, 1%), the slump flow increased with the
replacement of glass sand and the compressive strength increased
with the alkaline solution and glass sand replacement.
These studies are mainly focused on NaOH or NaOH/Na2CO3 as
activator to prepare alkali-activated binders based on glass or
slag/glass. However, the type of activator has great influence on
the strength of alkali-activated slag-based binders and the maxi-
mum strength can be achieved by using water glass solution
[3,28]. Considering utilization of waste glass, the objective of this
work was to study the feasibility of incorporating waste glass pow-
der as a potential cementitious material in combination with slag
to develop new binders activated with water glass. Response
Surface Methodology (RSM) was used to determine the optimum
mix-designed parameters (the alkali content and replacement ratio
of glass powder) with maximum flexural and compressive
strengths. Actually, RSM has been successfully applied in many
areas, including physics, chemistry, biology, medical science and
sociology for the probabilistic evaluation of a system and concrete
industry for the optimising parameters [29,30]. Based on the opti-
mum design parameters, the dry shrinkage and resistance to sul-
fate attack of alkali-activated slag/glass powder (AASGP) mortar
were studied.
2. Materials and experimentation
2.1. Materials
Commercially available slag was used. The specific gravity and
Blaine fineness of slag were 2.89 and 450 m2/kg, respectively.
The basicity coefficient Kb = (CaO + MgO)/(SiO2+Al2O3) was 1.06.
Glass powder (GP) with a Blaine fineness of 500 m2/kg was
obtained by the grinding of cullet with various colors, from a glass
recycling facility. Ordinary Portland cement (CEM I 42.5R) with a
Blaine fineness of 368 m2/kg was used as the reference binder.
The chemical composition of these materials is listed in Table 1.
Water glass had a chemical composition of SiO2 = 26% and
Na2O = 8% and the silicate modulus (MS) was 3.2. Sodium hydrox-
ide (NaOH) and water glass were mixed to make MS (SiO2/Na2O)
value of 1.0 on the basis of the previous studies [12,31]. Activator
solution was prepared 1 day before the casting of mortars.
Crushed limestone sand (density = 2.65 g/cm3, fineness modu-
lus = 2.4) was used as fine aggregate in all mortar specimens.
2.2. Mix proportions and processing
2.2.1. Response surface methodology
Response surface methodology (RSM) explores the relationships
between several explanatory variables and one or more response
variables and it comprises a group of statistical and mathematical
techniques for model building and model exploitation [30,32,33].
RSM is useful for modeling and analyzing the problems in which
a response of interest is influenced by several input variables with
the objective of optimizing this response [30,34].
When RSM is used to find the functional relationship between
the response and various factors, the most commonly used design
method is central composite design (CCD). A CCD is made orthog-
onal and rotatable by the choice of a, the axial distance from the
design center. The value of a for rotatability is determined by the
number of points (nf) in the factorial portion of the design; in fact,
a = (nf)1/4. Therefore, the value of a for a design with two factors is
1.414. Furthermore, for providing reasonably stable variance of the
predicted response, the center runs must be included in the CCD.
Generally, three to five center points are recommended. Fig. 1
shows the CCD for k = 2 factors [34].
Additionally, in order to preserve the quality of the model, it is
necessary to standardize the data with the coded variables. The
values of these variables are in the range of 1 to 1. Eq. (1) is
employed to define the relationship between the coded values
(xi) and real values (Zi).
2Zi  ðZH þ ZL Þ
xi ¼ ð1Þ
ZH  ZL
where xi is the value in coded variable, Zi is the real value, ZH is the
real value corresponding to 1 in coded variable, and ZL is the real
value corresponding to 1 in coded variable.
In AAS cement, the alkali content in activator has large influ-
ence on mechanical properties, which finally affects shrinkage
[35–37]. Also, the amount of glass powder has apparent effect on
the strength of AAS mortar. When the amount of glass powder
was more than 20%, the strength of AAS mortar began to decrease
[31]. Accordingly, two factors, namely Na2O equivalent (Na2O %)
(x1) and glass powder content(x2), were considered in alkali-
activated slag /glass powder (AASGP) mortar mix design and three
levels (6%, 8% and 10% for the Na2O equivalent; 10%, 15% and 20%
for the glass powder content) for each factor were chosen in refer-
ence to existing study [15,21,31,38]. The coded variables and
corresponding real values were given in Table 2. As shown in
Eq. (2), a second order polynomial model was used to represent
the response(y) as a function of the independent variables.
y ¼ b0 þ b1 x1 þ b2 x2 þ b3 x1 x2 þ b4 x1 2 þ b5 x2 2 ð2Þ
where y is the predicted response; x1 and x2 are individual effects of
the Na2O equivalent and glass powder content, respectively; x1x2
shows the interaction effect between Na2O equivalent and glass
powder content; x21 and x22 are quadratic effects of Na2O equivalent
and glass powder content, respectively; b0 is the constant; b1 and b2
 L. Zhang, Y. Yue / Construction and Building Materials 181 (2018) 527–534 529

Table 1
Chemical compositions of slag, glass powder and OPC, wt%.

SiO2 CaO Al2O3 Fe2O3 MgO Na2O SO3 LOI

Slag 32.51 43.05 15.21 0.16 7.55 0.3 1.18 0.5
Glass powder 71.65 8.85 2.12 0.25 0.2 12.51 – –
OPC 22.01 63.99 5.17 3.94 1.95 0.25 0.55 2.20

2.3. Test methods

2.3.1. Strength test

The flexural and compressive strength tests of the specimens
were conducted according to China National Standard GB/T
17,671 [39]. For each mixture, 40 mm  40 mm  160 mm pris-
matic specimens were prepared. Three parallel specimens of each
mixture were tested at the ages of 3, 7, and 28 days to determine
the average flexural and compressive strengths.

2.3.2. Drying shrinkage test

The drying shrinkage values were measured in accordance with
ASTM C596 [40]. Prismatic specimens with 25 mm  25 mm 
285 mm dimensions were prepared and then demolded after
24 h. The specimens were placed in laboratory conditions (20 °C
and 55% R.H.). The length change of specimens was recorded
periodically up to 120 days. The test results shown are the average
values of two specimens.

2.3.3. Resistance to sulfate attack

After 28 days of curing, the prismatic specimens (40 mm  40
Fig. 1. Central composite designs for k = 2 factors.
mm  160 mm) were immersed in water (specimens as reference)
and in two solutions-one containing 5 wt% Na2SO4 and the other
5 wt% MgSO4 for up to 90 days. The flexural and compressive
Table 2 strengths of the specimens were measured to find a strength
Central composite design for 2 factors at 5 levels. reduction.
Factors Prior to the strength test, specimens were taken from the solu-
tion and dried. Eq. (3) and Eq. (4) were used to calculate the reduc-
x1 x2
Na2 O (%) Glass powder (%)
tion in flexural strength (k1, %) and the reduction in compressive
strength (k2, %), respectively.
Levels 1.414 5.17 2.93


1 6.0 5.0 k1 ¼ f f 0  f f 1 =f f 0  100% ð3Þ
0 8.0 10.0
1 10.0 15.0
1.414 10.83 17.07 k2 ¼ ½ðf c0  f c1 Þ=f c0   100% ð4Þ
where ff0 and fc0 (in MPa) respectively represent the average flexural
and compressive strengths of three specimens cured in water, and ff1
and fc1 (in MPa) respectively represent the average flexural and com-
are the regression coefficients for the linear effect terms; b3 is the pressive strengths of three specimens cured in the test solutions.
interaction effect term; and b4 and b5 are the quadratic effect terms,
respectively. 3. Results and discussion
In the current study, a commercially available (Design-Expert)
software package was used for the design, mathematical modeling, 3.1. Response surface analysis for strength
statistical analysis and optimization of the process variables. The
analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to analyze the effect 3.1.1. Analysis of response surface models
of each variation and the interactions among variables. The strengths of the thirteen samples are shown in Table 4. The
mathematical models for 3-day flexural strength (f3f), 7-day flexu-
2.2.2. Mix proportions ral strength (f7f), 28-day flexural strength (f28f), 3-day compressive
In order to obtain the desirable workability and ability to make strength (f3c), 7-day compressive strength (f7c) and 28-day com-
the comparison, the binder/aggregate ratio and water/binder ratio pressive strength (f28c) were given in Eqs. (5)–(10) (a is set as
for all the mixes were fixed at 1:3 and 0.4, respectively. The water 0.05). The suitability of these models was determined by the anal-
was the sum of water contained in the water glass solution and ysis of variance (ANOVA) which is shown in Table 5.
added water, and the solid was the sum of slag, glass powder
f 3f ¼ 6:50409 þ 2:91946x1 þ 0:14589x2  0:0025x1 x2
and the solid in the alkaline solution. The percentage amount of
glass powder instead of slag was calculated by mass.  0:17375x1 2  0:0048x2 2 ð5Þ
The experiments were designed according to the CCD method
using Design-Expert software. A total of 13 mortar mixes were cast f 7f ¼ 6:64891 þ 2:92312x1 þ 0:22943x2  0:0075x1 x2
for this investigation. The details of each mix proportion are pre-
 0:17063x1 2  0:00630x2 2 ð6Þ
sented in Table 3.
530 L. Zhang, Y. Yue / Construction and Building Materials 181 (2018) 527–534

Table 3
Mix proportions of AASGP mortar suggested by central composite design.

Mixture code Na2O (%) Glass powder (%) Mixture proportioning (kg/m3)
Water glass NaOH Sand Slag Glass powder Water
1 8 15 180.29 41.97 1757.81 498.05 87.89 115.75
2 8 15 180.29 41.97 1757.81 498.05 87.89 115.75
3 10.83 15 244.07 56.82 1757.81 498.05 87.89 73.78
4 6 10 135.22 31.48 1757.81 527.34 58.59 145.40
5 6 20 135.22 31.48 1757.81 468.75 176.06 145.40
6 10 10 225.36 52.46 1757.81 527.34 58.59 86.09
7 8 22.07 180.29 41.97 1757.81 456.62 129.32 115.75
8 8 15 180.29 41.97 1757.81 498.05 87.89 115.75
9 10 20 225.36 52.46 1757.81 468.75 117.19 86.09
10 8 15 180.29 41.97 1757.81 498.05 87.89 115.75
11 8 15 180.29 41.97 1757.81 498.05 87.89 115.75
12 8 7.93 180.29 41.97 1757.81 539.47 46.46 115.75
13 5.17 15 116.51 27.12 1757.81 498.05 87.89 157.71

Table 4
Strength test results.

Mixture code Flexural strength (MPa) Compressive strength (MPa)

f3f f7f f28f f3c f7c f28c
1 6.5 6.8 8.1 49.5 53.0 66.6
2 6.4 6.9 8.3 49.1 54.5 67.8
3 5.6 5.9 7.2 40.0 45.3 55.2
4 5.6 6.1 7.0 39.1 44.6 51.6
5 5.5 6.0 6.8 38.8 42.9 54.0
6 5.9 6.4 7.5 42.8 47.9 53.2
7 6.2 6.5 7.7 44.1 49.3 61.9
8 6.7 7.0 8.2 48.6 52.4 65.9
9 5.7 6.0 7.4 41.5 46.3 60.9
10 6.5 6.8 8.0 49.2 53.6 65.2
11 6.6 7.2 8.3 48.2 54.2 65.5
12 6.5 6.7 7.8 47.2 51.1 59.4
13 4.8 5.2 6.5 33.8 38.3 49.9

Table 5
ANOVA test results.

Response f3f f7f f28f f3c f7c f28c

Model
Degree of freedom
Regression 5 5 5 5 5 5
Residual error 7 7 7 7 7 7
Standard deviation 0.13 0.16 0.12 0.74 0.84 1.48
R2 value 0.9682 0.9515 0.9754 0.9878 0.9836 0.9678
F value 42.61 27.48 55.46 113.56 83.99 42.03
P- value (Prob > F) <0.0001 0.0002 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
P- value (Prob > F)
x1 0.0034 0.0256 0.0005 0.0002 0.0002 0.0066
x2 0.0955 0.1301 0.2410 0.0238 0.0438 0.0141
x1x2 0.7180 0.3837 0.6938 0.5186 0.9543 0.1174
x21 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
x22 0.0489 0.0368 0.0011 0.0003 0.0008 0.0008
Lack of fit 0.2802 0.5394 0.5974 0.1341 0.5118 0.1314

f 28f ¼ 5:75569 þ 2:87812x1 þ 0:26446x2 þ 0:0025x1 x2
 0:17406x1  0:00985x2
2 2
f 3c ¼ 74:82629 þ 26:0881x1 þ 2:22990x2  0:025x1 x2
 1:54781x1 2  0:07265x2 2
f 7c ¼ 64:8114 þ 25:05497x1 þ 2:01036x2 þ 0:0025x1 x2
 1:50344x1 2  0:07255x2 2
f 28c ¼ 75:65474 þ 27:98721x1 þ 3:11339x2
þ 0:13250x1 x2  1:81094x1 2  0:12775x2 2
Model p-value (Prob > F) and F-value obtained from ANOVA
result have the important influence on the evaluation of the
ð7Þ
selected model. The p-value (Prob > F) <0.05 indicates that the
selected model are statistically significant [41]. The p-values
(Prob > F) from the f3f, f7f, f28f f3c, f7c and f28c models were all less
ð8Þ than 0.05, as shown in Table 5. It indicated that these strength pre-
dicted models were significant. Besides, if a regression model is
statistically significant, the calculated F value must be greater than
the critical value of the F distribution [8]. The critical value can be
ð9Þ
obtained from the F distribution table, where F-tab = F0.05 (5,7) =
3.97. The calculated F values of f3f, f7f, f28f, f3c, f7c and f28c models
were 42.61, 27.48, 55.46, 113.56, 83.99 and 42.03, respectively.
ð10Þ They are all greater than 3.97, and hence the F-values also implied
 L. Zhang, Y. Yue / Construction and Building Materials 181 (2018) 527–534
the models were significant. The determination coefficients (R2)
from f3f, f7f, f28f, f3c, f7c and f28c models were 0.9682, 0.9515,
0.9754, 0.9878, 0.9836 and 0.9678, respectively. It meant that
there were only 3.18%, 4.85%, 2.46%, 1.22%, 1.64% and 3.22% varia-
tions could not be respectively explained by f3f, f7f, f28f, f3c, f7c and
f28c models. The high values of R2 suggested that the quadratic
models fitted very well into the experimental data. The lack-of-
fit p-values calculated from the f3f, f7f, f28f, f3c, f7c and f28c models
were 0.2802, 0.5394, 0.5974, 0.1341, 0.5118 and 0.1314, respec-
tively. The fitness of the models was evaluated through the lack
of fit tests (p > 0.05), which indicated the selected models were
reliable and useful for prediction of the f3f, f7f, f28f, f3c, f7c and f28c
[41,42].
When the p-value is less than 0.05, the model term indicates a
significant effect on the strengths. In the current case, x1, x21 and x22
were significant model terms for the flexural strengths, since the
p-values for the f3f model were 0.0034, <0.0001 and 0.0489, respec-
tively, for f7f model were 0.0256, <0.0001 and 0.0368, respectively,
Fig. 2. 3D response surface plots for the effects of Na2O equivalent and glass powder content on flexural and compressive strengths at the age of 3, 7 and 28 days.
531
and for f28f model were 0.0005, <0.0001 and 0.0011, respectively,
which were all less than 0.05. However, x2 and x1x2 had no signif-
icant effect on the flexural strengths since the p-values were higher
than 0.05. As seen in Table 5, the p-value of x21 was lower than x1
and x22 for flexural strengths. This meant that its influence on the
development of flexural strengths was highest. The order of the
importance of the model terms for flexural strengths is x21, x1 and
x22. Similarly, for f3c, f7c and f28c, x1, x21, x2 and x22 were significant
model terms and x1x2 did not have a significant effect. Moreover,
x21, x1, x22 and x2 were significant in descending order.
3.1.2. Response surface plots
The interaction effect between Na2O equivalent and glass pow-
der content on the flexural and compressive strengths is repre-
sented by 3D response surface plots in Fig. 2. It was observed
that each graph significantly decreased on both sides of the peak,
which indicated that the flexural and compressive strengths of
the AASGP mortars increased first and then decreased with the
532 L. Zhang, Y. Yue / Construction and Building Materials 181 (2018) 527–534
increase of Na2O equivalent and glass powder content. The low or
high alkali content was not good for the strengths of AASGP mortar
and the ideal Na2O equivalent was in the range of 7%9%. When
alkali content is low, the dissolution of aluminosilicate minerals
and the release of Si ions in glass are low, and the amount of slag
to be involved in the cementing reactions is limited. As a result,
it is difficult to form a dense microstructure, resulting in relatively
low strengths. However, excessive alkali content may increase dry
shrinkage, which eventually lead to the decrease in the strengths
[22,37]. The addition of a suitable amount of glass powder to
AAS mortar had a positive effect on the strengths. In this study,
the strengths increased with the increase in glass powder content
up to about 15% but decreased when glass powder content
exceeded this ratio. The fineness of glass powder is greater than
that of slag. When the glass powder content was less than 15%,
the strengths were increased because of its filling effect. However,
when the glass powder content exceeded 15%, the strengths were
decreased owing to the low activation of the glass by the alkaline
solution. Also the contribution of glass powder to strength devel-
opment is manifested only after 28 days [25].
As shown in Fig. 2, the flexural and compressive strengths were
maximized when Na2O equivalent and glass powder content were
controlled in a proper proportion. The contour line of the Na2O
equivalent pattern was thicker and the three-dimensional pattern
was steeper than the glass powder content pattern. This observa-
tion suggested that the Na2O equivalent affected flexural and com-
pressive strengths more significantly than the glass powder
content, which was in accordance with the results from the vari-
ance analysis of the established mathematical models.
3.2. Optimization
Multi-objective optimization problem is also called multicrite-
ria optimization problem, which is composed of a set of objective
and associated constraint functions [43]. A numerical optimisation
technique using desirability functions (dj) for each response has
been used to optimize the responses simultaneously. The range
Fig. 3. Desirability function and contour diagram.
Table 6
Experimental results of strength for AAS mortar, OPC mortar and optimised mixture.
Response OPC mortar
Flexural strength (MPa) f3f 4.5
f7f 5.4
f28f 6.9
Compressive strength (MPa) f3c 36.4
f7c 45.8
f28c 54.7
of values of a desirability function (dj) is 0  dj  1, where 0 repre-
sents an entirely undesirable response value and 1 shows an
entirely desirable or ideal response value. By maximizing the
geometric mean of the individual desirability functions, a multi-
objective optimisation problem can be solved [44].
In this research work, the highest f3f, f7f, f28f, f3c, f7c and f28c were
the desirable mechanical properties for AASGP mortar. So it was
necessary to maximise flexural and compressive strengths simulta-
neously. And these six responses (f3f, f7f, f28f, f3c, f7c and f28c) were
considered to be of equal importance. The solution of this multi-
objective optimization and its contour diagram are presented in
Fig. 3. The figures showed that, the optimal values of Na2O equiv-
alent (x1) and glass powder content (x2) with highest desirability of
0.846 were 8.31% and 14.57%, respectively.
The experimental flexural and compressive strengths of AASGP
mortar with the optimum combination (8.31% Na2O +14.57% glass
powder) and the predicted values obtained from mathematical
equations are shown in the Table 6. The experiment was repeated
three times and the data given here were mean values. As shown in
Table 6, the percentages of error between measured and predicted
values for the f3f, f7f, f28f, f3c, f7c and f28c were 0, 1.41%, 2.38%, 0.20%,
2.08% and 0.75%, respectively. They were all within the acceptable
tolerance value of 10% according to China National Standard GB/
T17671. It proved that the verification experiments fitted well with
the statistical predictions. For comparison, the strengths of AAS
and OPC mortar also are reported in Table 6. AAS mortar had
higher strengths than OPC mortar. The optimised mixture exhib-
ited highest flexural and compressive strengths. Owing to the opti-
mum combination between Na2O equivalent and glass powder, the
f3f, f7f, f28f, f3c, f7c and f28c of AAS mortar were increased by 11.9%,
14.5%, 10.5%, 15.0%, 8.2% and 9.8%, respectively.
3.3. Drying shrinkage
Drying shrinkages of OPC, AAS and AASGP (optimised mixture)
mortars versus time are shown in Fig. 4 up to 120 days. AAS mortar
gave the highest drying shrinkage values with 0.033% at 1-day and
AAS mortar Optimised mixture
Experimental value Predicted value Percentage of error (%)
5.9 6.6 6.6 0
6.2 7.1 7.0 1.41
7.6 8.4 8.2 2.38
42.8 49.2 49.1 0.20
48.9 52.9 54.0 2.08
60.5 66.4 66.9 0.75
 L. Zhang, Y. Yue / Construction and Building Materials 181 (2018) 527–534
Fig. 4. Drying shrinkage of OPC, AAS mortars and optimised mixture.
0.183% at 120-day. The drying shrinkage values of OPC mortar
were 0.012% at 1-day and 0.07% at 120-day. AAS mortar has signif-
icantly higher drying shrinkages than OPC mortar, which is consis-
tent with previous research results [35,45]. The dry shrinkage
values of AASGP mortar were 0.0278% at 1-day and 0.146% at
120-day, which were lower than AAS mortar. In other words, when
the alkali content was 8.31%, the addition of 14.57% glass powder
could reduce the drying shrinkage values of AAS mortar by up to
15.8% at 1 day and 20.3% at 120 days. This may be due to the sta-
bility of the main reaction product, C–S–H and silica gel intimately
mixed [25], and a result of improved strength. However, the drying
shrinkage of AASGP mortar was still higher than OPC mortar.
3.4. Sulfate attack
The data on strength reduction of OPC, AAS and AASGP mortar
(optimised mixture) specimens placed in 5% Na2SO4 and 5% MgSO4
solutions are presented in Fig. 5. When immersed in sulfate solu-
tions, AAS mortar displayed superior performance in compare with
OPC mortar considering the strength variation. Meanwhile, up to
Fig. 5. Strength reduction of OPC, AAS and AASGP samples subjected to sulfate
attack up to 90 days.
Fig. 6. SEM images of AAS mortar and optimised mixture (left side AAS mortar and right side optimised mixture).
533
90 days, the strengths of AAS mortar reduced more than AASGP
mortar in both environments. The flexural strength reduction for
AAS mortar was 2.6% in Na2SO4 solution and 6.1% in MgSO4 solu-
tion, while for AASGP mortar it was 1.9% and 4.5%, respectively.
Likewise, the compressive strength reduction for AAS mortar was
3.4% in Na2SO4 solution and 7.6% in MgSO4 solution, while for
AASGP mortar it was 1.5% and 4.0%, respectively. It stated that
14.57% glass powder incorporated in AAS mortar could enhance
sulfate attack resistance ability, because the glass powder could
separate out some silicon and aluminum, resulting in a more com-
plete and rapid polymerization reaction. The optimised sample has
a well-packed structure with lesser number of microcracks and
pores, as shown in Fig. 6.
As shown in Fig. 5, 5% MgSO4 solution was more aggressive to
mortar samples than 5% Na2SO4 solution. The reason is that the
presence of magnesium leads to decalcification of the C–S–H or
C–A–S–H and then gypsum and/or ettringite can be formed
[23,46,47]. In fact, Na2SO4 is also often used as an activator in
alkali-activated slag systems [48].
4. Conclusions
The following main conclusions were drawn from this work:

The response surface methodology (RSM) showed to be an effi-
cient and useful method to optimize design parameters of
AASGP mortar. The results of ANOVA have verified that the
validity of the selected strength models based on RSM was
satisfactory.

The statistical analysis indicated in AASGP mortar, the Na2O
equivalent affected 3-, 7- and 28-day flexural and compressive
strengths more significantly than the glass powder content
and the interaction between Na2O equivalent and glass powder
content had no significant effect.

When 3-, 7- and 28-day flexural and compressive strengths
were concerned, the optimal values of design variables obtained
were as follows: a Na2O equivalent of 8.31% and a glass powder
content of 14.57%.

The experiments indicated that AAS mortar had higher
strengths than OPC mortar. The AAS mortar mixed with
14.57% glass powder exhibited the highest strengths. The veri-
fication experiments indicated the experimental values
matched well the predicted values from the strength models
since the percentages of error were negligible.

Under the same conditions, AAS mortar had higher drying
shrinkage than OPC mortar. The drying shrinkage of AAS mortar
could be reduced by 15.8% at 1 day and 20.3% at 120 days by
adding of 14.57% glass powder. However, the drying shrinkage
values were still higher than OPC mortars.
534 L. Zhang, Y. Yue / Construction and Building Materials 181 (2018) 527–534

AAS mortar had more excellent resistance to sulfate attack than
OPC mortar. The AASGP mortar with the optimum combination
(8.31% Na2O+ 14.57% glass powder) showed the best resistance
to sulfate attack. For OPC, AAS and AASGP mortar, 5% MgSO4
solution was more aggressive than 5% Na2SO4 solution.

Waste glass powder is a promising admixture for preparing
alkali-activated slag mortar when the mixture of water glass
and sodium hydroxide was used as activator. It is advised that
the optimization between Na2O equivalent and glass powder
content should be considered when waste glass powder is used
in alkali-activated slag mortar.
Conflict of interest
We declare that we do not have any commercial or associative
interest that represents a conflict of interest in connection with the
work submitted.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by National Natural Science
Foundation of China for Youth (Grant NO. 51502029), and Basic
Natural Science and Frontier Technology Research Program of the
Chongqing Municipal Science and Technology Committee
(Grant NO. cstc2017jcyjAX0417).
References
[1] X. Zhu, Z. Zhang, K. Yang, B. Magee, Y. Wang, L. Yu, S. Nanukuttan, Q. Li, S. Mu,
C. Yang, M. Basheer, Characterisation of pore structure development of alkali-
activated slag cement during early hydration using electrical responses, Cem.
Concr. Compos. 89 (2018) 139–149.
[2] J.L. Provis, A. Palomo, C. Shi, Advances in understanding alkali-activated
materials, Cem. Concr. Res. 78 (2015) 110–125.
[3] C. Shi, P.V. Krivenko, D. Roy, Alkali-Activated Cements and Concretes (In
Chinese), Beijing: Chem. Ind. Press, 2008.
[4] F. Pacheco-Torgal, Z. Abdollahnejad, A.F. Camões, M. Jamshidi, Y. Ding,
Durability of alkali-activated binders: a clear advantage over Portland
cement or an unproven issue?, Constr Build. Mater. 30 (2012) 400–405.
[5] L.K. Turner, F.G. Collins, Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emissions: a
comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement concrete, Constr. Build.
Mater. 43 (2013) 125–130.
[6] M. Jiang, X. Chen, F. Rajabipour, C.T. Hendrickson, Comparative life cycle
assessment of conventional, glass powder, and alkali-activated slag concrete
and mortar, J. Infrastruct. Syst. 20 (4) (2014) 04014020.
[7] M. Rostami, K. Behfarnia, The effect of silica fume on durability of alkali
activated slag concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 134 (2017) 262–268.
[8] S. Aydın, A ternary optimisation of mineral additives of alkali activated cement
mortars, Constr. Build. Mater. 43 (2013) 131–138.
[9] L. Gu, P. Visintin, T. Bennett, Evaluation of accelerated degradation test
methods for cementitious composites subject to sulfuric acid attack;
application to conventional and alkali-activated concretes, Cem. Concr.
Compos. 87 (2018) 187–204.
[10] Z. Pan, Z. Tao, Y.F. Cao, R. Wuhrer, T. Murphy, Compressive strength and
microstructure of alkali-activated fly ash/slag binders at high temperature,
Cem. Concr. Compos. 86 (2018) 9–18.
[11] L. Kang, Y.J. Zhang, L. Zhang, K. Zhang, Preparation, characterization and
photocatalytic activity of novel CeO2 loaded porous alkali-activated steel slag-
based binding material, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42 (27) (2017) 17341–17349.
[12] L.F. Zhang, Study on Performance of Alkali-activated Waste Residue (AAW)
Concrete (Doctoral Thesis in Chinese), Chongqing University, 2006.
[13] J.H. Chen, J.S. Huang, Y.W. Chang, A preliminary study of reservoir sludge as a
raw material of inorganic polymers, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (10) (2009) 3264–
3269.
[14] K.H. Yang, C.W. Lo, J.S. Huang, Production and properties of foamed reservoir
sludge inorganic polymers, Cem. Concr. Compos. 38 (2013) 50–56.
[15] G. Ke, J. Bai, A review on the reuse of waste glasses in the cement concrete (In
Chinese), J. Univ. South China 24 (3) (2010) 96–102.
[16] H. Du, K.H. Tan, Concrete with recycled glass as fine aggregates, ACI Mater. J.
111 (1) (2014) 47–58.
[17] A.M. Matos, J. Sousa-Coutinho, Durability of mortar using waste glass powder
as cement replacement, Constr. Build. Mater. 36 (2012) 205–215.
[18] N. Schwarz, N. Neithalath, Influence of a fine glass powder on cement
hydration: comparison to fly ash and modeling the degree of hydration, Cem.
Concr. Res. 38 (4) (2008) 429–436.
[19] A. Omran, A. Tagnit-Hamou, Performance of glass-powder concrete in field
applications, Constr. Build. Mater. 109 (2016) 84–95.
[20] N. Schwarz, H. Cam, N. Neithalath, Influence of a fine glass powder on the
durability characteristics of concrete and its comparison to fly ash, Cem. Concr.
Compos. 30 (6) (2008) 486–496.
[21] C. Shi, Y. Wu, C. Riefler, H. Wang, Characteristics and pozzolanic reactivity of
glass powder, Cem. Concr. Res. 35 (5) (2005) 987–993.
[22] T.A. Chen, J.H. Chen, J.S. Huang, Effects of activator and aging process on the
compressive strengths of alkali-activated glass inorganic binders, Cem. Concr.
Compos. 76 (2017) 1–12.
[23] R. Redden, N. Neithalath, Microstructure, strength, and moisture stability of
alkali activated glass powder-based binders, Cem. Concr. Compos. 45 (2014)
46–56.
[24] J.J. Torres, M. Palacios, M. Hellouin, F. Puertas, Alkaline chemical activation of
urban glass wastes to produce cementitious materials, in: 1st Spanish National
Conference on Advances in Materials Recycling and Eco-Energy Madrid, 12-13
November 2009, pp. 111–114.
[25] R. Martinez-Lopez, J.I. Escalante-Garcia, Alkali activated composite binders of
waste silica soda lime glass and blast furnace slag: Strength as a function of the
composition, Constr. Build. Mater. 119 (2016) 119–129.
[26] U. Avila-López, J.M. Almanza-Robles, J.I. Escalante-García, Investigation of
novel waste glass and limestone binders using statistical methods, Constr.
Build. Mater. 82 (2015) 296–303.
[27] W.C. Wang, B.T. Chen, H.Y. Wang, H.C. Chou, A study of the engineering
properties of alkali-activated waste glass material (AAWGM), Constr. Build.
Mater. 112 (2016) 962–969.
[28] F. Puertas, B. González-Fonteboa, I. González-Taboada, M.M. Alonso, M. Torres-
Carrasco, G. Rojo, F. Martínez-Abella, Alkali- activated slag concrete: Fresh and
hardened behavior, Cem. Concr. Compos. 85 (2018) 22–31.
[29] F. Bayramov, C. Tasßdemir, M.A. Tasßdemir, Optimisation of steel fibre reinforced
concretes by means of statistical response surface method, Cem. Concr.
Compos. 26 (6) (2004) 665–675.
[30] N.U. Kockal, T. Ozturan, Optimization of properties of fly ash aggregates for
high-strength lightweight concrete production, Mater. Des. 32 (6) (2011)
3586–3593.
[31] S. Cao, Preparation and performance study on the alkali activated
multicomponent cementitious material (Master Thesis in Chinese),
Chongqing Jiaotong University, 2017.
[32] M.A. Bezerra, R.E. Santelli, E.P. Oliveira, L.S. Villar, L.A. Escaleira, Response
surface methodology (RSM) as a tool for optimization in analytical chemistry,
Talanta 76 (5) (2008) 965–977.
[33] E.J. Martinez-Conesa, J.A. Egea, V. Miguel, C. Toledo, J.L. Meseguer-Valdenebro,
Optimization of geometric parameters in a welded joint through response
surface methodology, Constr. Build. Mater. 154 (2017) 105–114.
[34] D.C. Montgomery, Design and Analysis of Experiments, eighth ed., John Wiley
and sons, New York, 2008.
[35] H. Ye, C. Cartwright, F. Rajabipour, A. Radlińska, Understanding the drying
shrinkage performance of alkali-activated slag mortars, Cem. Concr. Compos.
76 (2017) 13–24.
[36] A.A.M. Neto, M.A. Cincotto, W. Repette, Drying and autogenous shrinkage of
pastes and mortars with activated slag cement, Cem. Concr. Res. 38 (4) (2008)
565–574.
[37] C.D. Atisß, C. Bilim, Ö. Çelik, O. Karahan, Influence of activator on the strength
and drying shrinkage of alkali-activated slag mortar, Constr. Build. Mater. 23
(1) (2009) 548–555.
[38] B. Ning, J. Xu, S. Chen, Mechanical properties and solidified mechanism of
tailings mortar with waste glass, J. Wuhan Univ. Technol.-Mater. Sci. Ed. 30 (6)
(2015) 1240–1246.
[39] GB/T 17671, Method of testing cements-Determination of strength, China
National Standardization Administration Committee, 1999.
[40] ASTM C 596, Standard Test Method for Drying Shrinkage of Mortar containing
Hydraulic Cement, American Society for Testing and Materials, 2009.
[41] X.H. Xu, M.Z. He, Experimental Design and Application of Design-Expert and
SPSS (In Chinese), Sci. Press, Beijing, 2010.
[42] D. Li, G.R. Feng, Y.X. Guo, T. Qi, Analysis on the strength increase law of filling
material based on response surface method (in Chinese), J. China Coal Soc. 41
(2) (2016) 392–398.
[43] F. Zhu, Z. Wang, M. Lv, Multiobjective optimization of precision forging process
parameters based on response surface method, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2015 (6)
(2015) 1–7.
[44] X. Sun, S. Kim, S.D. Yang, H.S. Kim, J.Y. Yoon, Multi-objective optimization of a
Stairmand cyclone separator using response surface methodology and
computational fluid dynamics, Powder Technol. 320 (2017) 51–65.
[45] C. Cartwright, F. Rajabipour, A. Radlińska, Shrinkage characteristics of alkali
activated slag cements, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 27 (7) (2014) 1–9.
[46] T. Bakharev, Durability of geopolymer materials in sodium and magnesium
sulfate solutions, Cem. Concr. Res. 35 (6) (2005) 1233–1246.
[47] I. Ismail, S.A. Bernal, J.L. Provis, S. Hamdan, J.S.J. van Deventer, Microstructural
changes in alkali activated fly ash/slag geopolymers with sulfate exposure,
Mater. Struct. 46 (3) (2013) 361–373.
[48] A.M. Rashad, Y. Bai, P.A.M. Basheer, N.B. Milestone, N.C. Collier, Hydration and
properties of sodium sulfate activated slag, Cem. Concr. Compos. 37 (2013)
20–29.