## 3 Results and Discussion
### Range Analysis Results  
The core principle of range analysis lies in quantifying the dominance of individual factors through a range calculation. Specifically, the range is defined as the maximum difference between average values across different factor levels, where a larger value indicates a stronger influence on the performance. Table 8 presents the orthogonal experimental combinations and test results, where K\({}_{1}\), K\({}_{2}\), and K\({}_{3}\) represent the average values of cumulative test results for levels 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and the R-value denotes the range of these level averages. Methodologically, the range of R is calculated as \(\Delta\)R = max(Ki) \(-\) min(Ki). A larger R-value indicates a more significant influence of the factor on the performance.  
Table 9 presents the range analysis results for the fluidity and compressive strength of the SSCFC. The fluidity analysis shows that the R-values indicate the influencing order of each factor on fluidity as B > A > C, while the K-values demonstrate that the SSCFC achieves optimal fluidity when employing a W/C ratio of 0.5 with 10% steel slag replacement and 30% ceramsite replacement. Regarding compressive strength analysis, the results reveal that all three factors exhibit identical effects on the 7-day, 14-day, and 28-day cube compressive strengths, with R-values showing the factor influence order as A > C > B. The K-value analysis further indicates that for Factor A, K\({}_{1}\) > K\({}_{2}\) > K\({}_{3}\); for Factor B, K\({}_{1}\) > K\({}_{3}\) > K\({}_{2}\), and for Factor C, K\({}_{2}\) > K\({}_{3}\) > K\({}_{1}\). Consequently, when compressive strength enhancement is prioritized, the optimal parameter combination is determined to be a W/C ratio of 0.4 (A1), 10% steel slag replacement (B1), and 25% ceramsite replacement (C2).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Number**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**
\begin{tabular}{c} **\end{tabular}**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Standard Deviation**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & **7d Compressive** & **14d Compressive** & **28d Compressive** \\  & & & **Strength (Mpa)** & **Strength (Mpa)** & **Strength (Mpa)** \\ \hline
1 & 3 & 2.646 & 1.044 & 1.510 & 1.609 \\
2 & 3 & 3.606 & 1.054 & 0.917 & 0.721 \\
3 & 3 & 4.359 & 1.664 & 0.557 & 0.436 \\
4 & 3 & 5.292 & 0.529 & 1.058 & 1.054 \\
5 & 3 & 3.464 & 0.656 & 0.721 & 0.721 \\
6 & 3 & 3.464 & 0.624 & 0.656 & 0.458 \\
7 & 3 & 4.359 & 0.458 & 0.400 & 0.458 \\
8 & 3 & 2.646 & 0.458 & 0.436 & 0.346 \\
9 & 3 & 4.583 & 0.529 & 0.721 & 0.300 \\ \hline
10 & 3 & 3.000 & 0.500 & 0.557 & 0.400 \\
11 & 3 & 3.606 & 0.361 & 0.400 & 0.301 \\
12 & 3 & 3.606 & 0.400 & 0.458 & 0.624 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: The sample quantity for each group of tests and the standard deviations of the compressive strength and fluidity.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Number**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**A**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**B**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**C**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Fluidity (mm)**} & **7d Compressive** & **14d Compressive** & **28d Compressive** \\  & & & & **Strength (Mpa)** & **Strength (Mpa)** \\ \hline
1 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 183 & 14.9 & 16.5 & 17.2 \\
2 & 1.000 & 2.000 & 3.000 & 171 & 13.0 & 13.9 & 14.3 \\
3 & 1.000 & 3.000 & 2.000 & 140 & 12.8 & 14.9 & 15.6 \\
4 & 2.000 & 1.000 & 3.000 & 224 & 10.5 & 12.6