## 3 Results and Analysis
### Surface Resistivity  
(1) Fly ash: Figure 4 shows that at the age of 28 days, the resistivity of FA10 and FA30 are 11.3 and 34.3 k\(\Omega\)-cm respectively, which of FA30 at the ages of 56 days and 91 days are as high as 50.8 k\(\Omega\)-cm and 57 k\(\Omega\)-cm, meaning the resistivity increases with the fly ash replacement.  
Figure 3: The compressive strength of MLAC.  
(2) Slag: The C-S-H gel generated by pozzolanic reaction increases the resistivity of concrete by blocking interconnected pores. Figure 5 shows that the resistivity of 10% and 30% slag additions at the age of seven days are close to the control group. The resistivity increases with curing time; it increases to 13.8 k\(\Omega\)-cm on Day 28, higher than the control group.  
(3) Desulfurization slag: Figure 6 shows that the resistivity of DLS10 and DLS30 additions are only 6.6 and 5.6 k\(\Omega\)-cm before 28 days, that on Day 91 are only 11.5 and 10.3 k\(\Omega\)-cm, and the resistivity  
Figure 4: Relationship between resistivity and age of MLAC with fly ash.  
Figure 5: Relationship between resistivity and age of MLAC with slag.  
at various ages are lower than a control group. It may be because there is no C-S-H gel after the desulfurization slag is hydrated; the interconnected pores cannot be filled or blocked, leading to the lowest resistivity among various mix proportions.  
(4) Glass powder: Figure 7 shows that the resistivity of GLP10 and GLP30 additions are lower than the control group before the age of 28 days, but that is 13.5 and 19.3 k\(\Omega\)-cm on Day 28, higher than the control group. The resistivity is 60 k\(\Omega\)-cm at the age of 120 days; it may be because the glass powder has higher SiO\({}_{2}\) content.  
(5) Figure 8 shows that the resistivity of the mix proportion with 10% mineral admixtures on Day 120 is 90-183% of the control group; the resistivity of 30% mineral admixtures is 72-455% of the control group, the increasing amplitude is higher than the mix proportion with 10% mineral admixtures, the resistivity of 30% fly ash and 30% glass powder is higher than the control group; it may be because of the chemical properties of mineral admixtures. The corrosion degree of resistivity 10-20 k\(\Omega\)-cm is  
Figure 6: Relationship between resistivity and age of MLAC with desulfurization slag.  
Figure 7: Relationship between resistivity and age of MLAC with glass powder.  
medium to low, that above 20 k\(\Omega\)-cm represents a low probability of corrosion [68; 69], meaning the resistivity of FA10, FA30, BFS30, GLP10, and GLP30 are above standard. Figure 9 shows the regression analysis relation of resistivity and compressive strength, the R\({}^{2}\) values of the control group and fly ash addition are 0.7512 and 0.7583, and the R\({}^{2}\) values of slag and desulfurization slag additions are 0.5562 and 0.5429, respectively. The linear regression analysis result of glass powder addition is poor, its chemical properties influence the resistivity significantly.  
The water absorptions of FA10 and FA30 are 5.61% and 7.85%, and the thermal conductivity is reduced by 14.7% and 25.7% respectively. The water absorptions of BFS10 and BFS30 are 4.62% and 5.61%; the thermal conductivity is reduced by 4% and 14.2% respectively. The water absorptions of DLS10 and DLS30 are 6.13% and 8.93%, and the thermal conductivity is reduced by 1.9% and 17.2% respectively. The water absorptions of GLP10 and GLP30 are 6.07% and 7.22%, and the thermal conductivity is reduced by 22.2% and 21.6% respectively.  
Figure 8: The relationship between the resistivity and age of MLAC (a) 10% (b) 30% in lightweight aggregate.  
Figure 9: Regression curve of resistivity and compressive strength of MLAC.