## 3 Results and Analysis
### Compressive Strength  
As shown in Figure 3a, the initial strength of the concrete with FA developed slowly, and higher replacing ratios led to lower strengths. The compressive strengths of FA10 and FA30 at 7d were  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Age (Days)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**MA0**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**FA * (\%)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**BFS * (\%)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**DLS * (\%)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**GLP * (\%)**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & **10** & **30** & **10** & **30** & **10** & **30** & **10** & **30** \\ \hline
7 & 32.5 & 29.0 & 26.3 & 32.5 & 31.1 & 32.6 & 23.4 & 34.5 & 28.5 \\
28 & 37.2 & 31.3 & 30.1 & 36.2 & 32.6 & 38.3 & 26.9 & 39.5 & 31.6 \\
91 & 38.2 & 34.8 & 38.6 & 38.0 & 35.4 & 39.4 & 30.7 & 42.4 & 35.3 \\
120 & 38.3 & 35.0 & 40.2 & 38.3 & 37.4 & 39.9 & 33.0 & 43.4 & 36.5 \\ \hline Slump (mm) & 95 & 100 & 110 & 85 & 75 & 80 & 70 & 85 & 75 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
Unit: MPa; Note: W/b = 0.40; * Mineral Admixtures are FA, BFS, DLS, and GLP.  
\end{table}
Table 4: The compressive strength and slumps of Mineral Lightweight Aggregate Concrete (MLAC).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Unit: kg/m\({}^{3}\)**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Content (\%)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Cement**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Mineral**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Water**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Lightweight Aggregate**} \\ \cline{3-4}  & & & & & **Coarse** & **Fine** \\ \multicolumn{4}{c}{} & & & & **Aggregates** & **Aggregates** \\ \hline
0 & 540 & — & 216 & 586 & 249 \\
10 & 486 & 54 & 216 & 586 & 249 \\
30 & 378 & 162 & 216 & 586 & 249 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Design of mixtures.  
28.96 MPa and 26.26 MPa, reaching 28 d the compressive strengths of 93% and 87%, respectively. At 28d, the compressive strengths were 31.31 MPa and 30.05 MPa, respectively, which were 8.1% and 14.4% higher than those of the control group. At 91 d, the strengths were 11% and 28% higher than those at 28 d, and the FA30 strength was higher than those of FA10 and MA0. At 120d, the strength of FA30 even reached 40.19 MPa. In Figure 3b, the compressive strengths of BFS10 and BFS30 at 7 d and 28 d were similar to that of MA0. The compressive strength of BFS30 was the highest among all the samples with a cement substitution ratio of 30%. The strength of BFS10 was 38 MPa at 91 d, which was comparable to MA0 at the same age. In Figure 3c, the compressive strength of DLS10 at 7d is seen to be similar to that of MA0, but the strength of DLS30 was significantly lower, only 72% of the strength of DLS10. At 28 d, the strength of DLS10 was slightly higher than that of MA0. At 91d, the strength of DLS10 was 39.38 MPa, which was an increase of 2.8% compared with the control group, while the strength of DLS30 was increased to 30.74 MPa, which was an increase of 14.4% compared with the control group. In Figure 3d, the compressive strength of GLP10 at 7 d and 28 d is shown to be higher than those of MA0 and GLP30 at the same age. GLP10 exhibited pozzolan reactivity at an earlier age. At 91 d, the strength reached 42.41 MPa, which was the highest among all the samples, and then slowed down. As GLP30 had a higher replacement ratio, the strength did decrease, in addition to a longer reaction time; part of the glass powder might not have a chance to react with the pozzolan. Its strength reached 36.49 MPa at 120 d, which was 95.32% of the strength of MA0.