## 3 Experimental Test Results  
### Raw Material Properties  
The particle size distributions of OPC and FA are showed in Figure 1, and are compared with the results of GGBFS obtained by [PERSON] [26]. The mean sizes and fineness moduli of OPC, GGBFS, and FA were measured to be 19.46 \(\upmu\)m and 1.18, 22.47 \(\upmu\)m and 1.08, and 21.30 \(\upmu\)m and 1.23, respectively. As shown in Figure 2, to compare the shape of the grain of the OPC, GGBFS, and FA powders, SEM analysis was conducted using a Genesis-2020 (Emcrafts, Gwangju-si, Korea). It was observed that OPC and GGBFS similarly appeared as ellipsoidal polyhedrons when their particles were larger than 10 \(\upmu\)m and as atypical crystals when the particles were smaller than 10 \(\upmu\)m, through SEM imaging. In the case of FA, however, a spherical shape and atypical crystals were observed.  
In addition, for analyzing the grading of the coarse and fine aggregates, sieve analysis was carried out. The analysis results satisfied all the cumulative passing criteria based on ASTM C136 [33] according to the sieve opening size for the fine and coarse aggregates, as shown in Figure 3. The FM of the mixed fine aggregate was found to be 2.84, whereas that of the coarse aggregate was found to be 6.94. In order to know the types of crystalline substances contained in particles by binder types used, X'pert3 Powder PW 3050 equipment (Malvern Panalytical, Seongnam-si, Korea) was used to analyze the XRD patterns and the result is shown in Figure 4. It was found that OPC was primarily composed of 3 CaO-SiO\({}_{2}\) (C\({}_{3}\)S), 2 CaO-SiO\({}_{2}\) (C\({}_{2}\)S), 3 CaO-Al\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) (C\({}_{3}\)A), and 4 CaO-Al\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\):Fe\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) (C\({}_{4}\)  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Assessed Parameter** & **Testing Method** & **Geometry** \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\(\blacksquare\)} & Raw material properties & ASTM C204 and & - \\  & Particle size distribution and grading distribution (\%) & ASTM C136 & - \\  & X-ray fluorescence and X-ray diffraction & ASTM C114 and & - \\  & Scanning electron microscope & ASTM C457 & - \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\(\blacksquare\)} & Engineering properties & \multirow{2}{*}{} \\  & Slump (mm) and air content (\%) & ASTM C143 and ASTM C231 & - \\  & Compressive strength (MPa) & ASTM C873, ASTM C39 & \(\O\) 100 \(\times\) 200 mm \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\(\blacksquare\)} & Durability properties & \multirow{2}{*}{} \\  & Chloride penetration depth and carbonation depth (mm) & KS F 2584 and & \(\O\) 100 \(\times\) 200 mm \\  & Relative dynamic elasticity modulus and weight loss rate (\%) & NT Build 492 & \(\O\) 100 \(\times\) 50 mm \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Testing methods for the assessed parameters.  
GGBFS was formed of akermanite (2 CaO\(\cdot\)MgO\(\cdot\)2 SiO\({}_{2}\)) and gehlenite (2 CaO\(\cdot\)Al\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\)\(\cdot\)SiO\({}_{2}\)) minerals. [PERSON] et al. [43] reported that GGBFS contains a mixture of depolymerized calcium aluminosilicate glass in addition to the two minerals. On the other hand, FA was composed of mullite and quartz minerals.  
Figure 1: The particle size distributions of OPC and FA compared with ground-granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBFS) by [PERSON], adapted from [26].  
Figure 2: Scanning electron microscope images of the binder types: (**a**) OPC and (**b**) FA, compared with (**c**) GGBFS by [PERSON], adapted from [26].