Applied Mechanics and Materials Vols.

174-177 (2012) pp 455-459
Online available since 2012/May/14 at www.scientific.net
© (2012) Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland
doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.174-177.455

Seismic Performance of High Titanium Heavy Slag High Strength
Concrete Columns
Xiaowei Li 1,a , Xuewei Li 1, b and Xin Yuan 2, c
1

School of Civil Engineering, Panzhihua University, Panzhihua 617000, China

2

College of Civil Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 210096, China
a

lilixxxwww@126.com, blixuewei6688@163.com, cyuanxin9988@163.com

Keywords: Civil Engineering, Seismic, Column, High Titanium Slag, Concrete, Slag.

Abstract. For expedite the development of high titanium heavy slag concrete, eight high titanium
heavy slag high strength reinforced concrete (HTHS-HSRC) scale model column are studied. The
eight HTHS-HSRC model columns are tested under reversed horizontal force. Primary experimental
parameters include axial load ratio varying from 0.3 to 0.5, volumetric ratios of transverse
reinforcement ranging from 1.38% to 1.56%, strength of high titanium heavy slag high strength
concrete varying from 55.9 to 61.6 N/mm2 and configurations of transverse reinforcement. It is found
from the test result that HTHS-HSRC model columns provides comparable seismic performance to
those usually used reinforced concrete column in terms of member ductility, hysteretic and energy
dissipation capacity. Primary Factors of Displacement Ductility of Model Columns are also
discussed.
Introduction
Steel slag with TiO2 more than 15% is named high titanium slag. High titanium slag generated from
Panzhihua Iron & steel co. Ltd is usually named high titanium heavy slag. High titanium heavy slag is
different from ordinary steel slag. Ordinary steel slag disaggregates easier in air and has potential
hydraulicity, while high titanium heavy slag is inorganic stone-like material. For having non potential
dyraulicity, it is not suitable for production of cement admixture and the mineral admixture of
concrete. But high titanium heavy slag is very stable in chemical properties, as like stone and sand,
can be used as coarse and fine aggregates in concrete. Though rationally using high titanium heavy
slag and developing energy-saving and environmentally friendly high titanium heavy slag concrete
material, not only can high titanium heavy slag resources be used effectively, but also the sustainable
development of industrial solid residue can be promoted.
High titanium heavy slag have many excellent performance, such as, firmness, stability of mineral
composition and structure, higher water absorption, having non-Alkali reactivity of aggregates etc.
But, the porosity of high titanium heavy slag is about 40% (shown in Fig. 1), this made it different
from ordinary gravel. Different from ordinary concrete, the coarse and fine aggregates of high
titanium heavy slag concrete is coarse and fine high titanium heavy slag, but not gravel and sand,
respectively.
Several authors [1-4] reported the results of seismic performance of columns about ordinary
concrete. The previous studies about high titanium slag were mainly focused on proportions and static
load-carrying capacity of high titanium slag reinforced concrete beam. This paper discusses the test
results of HTHS-HSRC columns under reversed bending along the column height.
Experimental Program
Specimen Design. Eight model columns have been designed for combined axial load and cyclic
flexural and shear tests. As shown in Fig.1, the columns had overall height of 1,600 mm with a cross
section of 250× 250 mm, and a clear height of 650 mm from the lateral support point to the edge of
load stub (which was constructed into 200×200×600 mm located at the mid-height part of column
and were heavily reinforced to assure a rigid behavior during test). The section dimension can be
considered as a 1/4~1/3 scale of a prototype column in a moment resisting frame structure. Table 1
shows the experimental parameters and tests matrix for the eight columns.
All rights reserved. No part of contents of this paper may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the written permission of TTP,
www.ttp.net. (ID: 130.203.136.75, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, USA-03/02/15,16:03:41)

6 Longitudinal steel 4 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 16 16 12 12 12 12 12 12 Longitudinal steel ratio [%] Longitudinal steel yield strength [N/mm2] Transverse steel configuration 2.26 2.01 2.26 2. .6 61.26 2.26 2.56 1. to prevent side sway of the both ends of model column. All reinforcing bars used in the columns conformed to the Chinese standard of metallic materials tensile testing at ambient temperature (GB/T 228-2002). Model column was vertically mounted on steel foundation which was post-tensioned on concrete foundation resting on the reaction floor.9 55. And proportions of C61.6 kg silica fume.5 Materials. 3. The concrete strength values shown in Table 1 were obtained with 150×150 mm cube at the test age.56 1.9 61. 120 kg fly ash. and 918 kg sand of high titanium heavy slag used as fine aggregates. and 945 kg sand of high titanium heavy slag used as fine aggregates. The top end of the model column was loaded by a hydraulic jack resting on a load cell and controlled to provide a constant axial force. 942 kg gravel of high titanium heavy slag with grain size 20 mm used as coarse aggregates. The actuator had a capacity of 500kN and was capable of moving the column 150 mm in both positive and negative directions. 345 kg cement.42 1.456 Advanced Building Materials and Sustainable Architecture Fig.3 0. The model column was subjected to reversed cyclic loading by an actuator that was horizontally mounted to a reaction wall. 2 Model column details Table 1 HTHS-HSRC columns test parameters f c' Test unit [MPa] C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 55. Test Setup.6 for 1 m3 HTHS-HSC were 200 kg water.38 1.9 55.42 1. 1 High titanium heavy slag Fig.38 1.5 0.9 for 1 m3 high titanium heavy slag high strength reinforced concrete (HTHS-HSC) were 200 kg water.42 Transverse steel yield strength [N/mm2] Test axial load ratio 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 0. A schematic drawing of the test setup is shown in Fig. The tests were conducted in engineering structure testing center of Panzhihua University.3 0.5 0. Proportions of C55.01 2.9 55.5 0.42 1. 95 kg fly ash. respectively. 305 kg cement. model column were supported by heavy steel beam and steel foundation in the horizontal direction. which was 42 days after casting. 8.9 55. and its tensile strength is showed in Table1. At both the top and bottom.26 2. 10.3 0.26 354 354 386 386 386 386 386 386 Category A Category A Category B Category B Category C Category C Category C Category C Transverse steel velumetric ratio [%] 1.9 55. 965 kg gravel of high titanium heavy slag with grain size 20 mm used as used as coarse aggregates.3 0.5 kg silica fume.

A calibrated load cell was used to monitor and record the applied axial load and lateral forces. and enlarged with gradually increasing displacement. Test Results General Observations.1 mm and from 6. In all specimens the displacement at cracking is about 2-3 mm. The value of key points of the lateral force – lateral displacement envelop of model column is written in Table 2. The key points of test series are determined by Park method. Column exhibited excellent hysteretic behavior and developed an ultimate displacement ductility factor varied from 1. 9. When loading displacement is equal to 0.3. due to the bucking of compression longitudinal bars within the columns’ plastic hinges. The inclined relative angles in both plastic hinge of model column were measured by a pair of 150 mm stoke linear potentiometers. 3 Test setup Fig. one loading cycle is applied for each peak displacement. increasing loads produced more cracks in the plastic hinge region and the crack region increased gradually. The shape of the hysteretic loops indicates an excellent energy absorption capacity. 6.5 mm. Lateral Force – Lateral Displacement Envelops. transverse bars and model column. respectively.4 mm. crushing zone appeared. whereas the yield displacement and the peak displacement varied from 4. Effects of Axial Load to the Load and Displacement. It can be concluded that. Seven potentiometers were mounted on each side of the column parallel to the loading direction to measure vertical. Loading reversals in push and pull directions were symmetric. A 300 mm main transducers was displaced on the mid-point of loading stub in horizontal direction. As shown in Table 2 and Fig. horizontal. With the spalling of concrete cover at ultimate displacement. From Table 2 and Fig. Lateral Force – Lateral Displacement Hysteretic Responses. When the peak displacement was reached. As shown in Fig. 7. Electric resistance gauges were mounted on the surfaces of the longitudinal reinforcing bars. Subsequent loading was attempting three cycles for displacement equal to 3. After the longitudinal bars yielded in tension. 174-177 457 Loading Program. and 2 mm. respectively. The standard loading procedure used for all tests is shown in Fig.4. the flexural cracks becomes inclined and extended into the web zone of the columns due to the influence of shear. 5 Failure patterns Instrumentation. 5. and flexural deformation modes. Afterward. 6. The failure mode is flexure for all specimens. which contributed to the development of ductility.8 to 13. No pinching can be seen from the hysteretic loops. diagonal shear cracks occurred. 4 Loading program Fig. 7. for the model columns with the same reinforcement configurations and material . 1 mm. The lateral force – lateral displacement envelops is shown in Fig. Fig. The specimens were tested under displacement control.8 to 3. the load-carrying capacity of model columns degraded rapidly.Applied Mechanics and Materials Vols. 12 and so on.6 to 6. Plastic hinges closed to the loading stub were fully formed. Flexural cracks perpendicular to the column axis developed first in plastic hinge regions close to the loading stub.

1 153 1/46 2. but different axial force levels.8 -8. 7.5 -10.3 -198 -15.9 -5.0 -203 (a) Hysteretic loops for C4 (b) Hysteretic loops for C5 ● Effect of Axial Load Ratio.9 -158 8. When axial load ratio exceeds a critical value about 0.3 178 1/65 2.2 165 1/50 2.1 194 18. for the model columns with the same reinforcement configurations and material strengths.2 6.6 180 1/71 2.6 220 9.9 165 1/34 3. But with the increase of axial load ratio.7 6.6 187 1/70 1.6 -8.6.7 -7. peak and ultimate displacement.2 -6.3 -226 -8. the effects of stirrup ratio to displacement ductility can be ignored. while can improve the displacement ductility of column. It can be concluded that.1 -5.6 159 -152 195 -198 157 -157 180 -180 167 -169 174 -200 161 -171 190 -235 Fig. Primary Factors of Influencing Displacement Ductility of Model Columns.4 -177 -15. .8 -7. reinforcement configurations and axial load ratio.7 188 15. an increase in stirrup ratio has little influence the load-carrying capacity.1 5.4 156 1/46 2.0 -5.8 212 10.1 -6. an increase in axial force typically results in a higher lateral crack.4 -195 8. but different axial force levels.0 184 13.458 Advanced Building Materials and Sustainable Architecture strengths.0 -6.7 -4. For the model columns with the same material strengths.1 -186 -15. an increase in stirrup ratio results in increase of displacement ductility factor.1 -5. the effects of stirrup ratio to displacement ductility factor reduce.8 -151 7.9 -192 7.3 5.2 -162 7. From Table 2 and Fig.6 4. The ductility factor is defined as the displacement at a point corresponding to 85% of the maximum horizontal load on the descending branch divided by the yield displacement. but a lower lateral crack.9 194 15. Table 2 Experimental results of all model columns Yield condition Test Loading Yield Yield unit direction displacement Force [mm] [kN] C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 push pull push pull push pull push pull push pull push pull push pull push pull 5. peak and ultimate load. 6 Hysteretic loops Peak condition Ultimate condition Displacement Peak Ultimate relative story Peak Ultimate ductility displacedisplaceUltimate Force Force factor ment ment displacement [kN] [kN] βd [mm] [mm] angle 8.3 -4.3 160 1/42 2.8 -239 -8.0 -168 7.3 209 14. From Table 2 and Fig. yield.9 -5. For model columns with proper reinforcement configuration.8 -173 11.3 180 13. ● Effect of Stirrup Ratio.3 -13.9 -203 -7. an increase in axial load ratio typically implies reduction of displacement ductility factor. yield. 7.4 4.3 -229 -11.1 5.4 -190 -19. but different stirrup ratio.

4. (in Chinese) [3] Z. 174-177 459 ● Effect of Concrete Strength. Zhang: Journal of Chongqing Jianzhu University. It can be concluded that. 5 (1995) No.L. X. Y. yield. Acknowledgements This research investigation is funded by the project of Education Teaching Research & Reform from Panzhihua University under grant of JJ1115.F. An increase in stirrup ratio results in increase of displacement ductility factor. Due to limits of the minimum cover thickness by codes.Applied Mechanics and Materials Vols. X. Li. Guan. 37 (2004) No.5. for the model columns with the same reinforcement configurations and axial load ratio. Wang: Journal of Dalian University. The concrete cover under high compressive stress is not confined by steel bars.X. the smaller the displacement ductility of column. Wang. hysteretic and energy dissipation capacity. p. the ratio of the core to gross area is relative larger. Vol. (in Chinese) [4] P. These financial supports are gratefully acknowledged. Chen.5% of the gross cross section area.X. The thicker the concrete cover. An increase in axial load ratio typically implies reduction of displacement ductility factor. ● Effect of Concrete Cover. G. Guo.22. Vol.32. (in Chinese) . an increase in axial force typically results in a higher lateral crack.5. and the project of Application Technology Research & Development from Panzhihua city under grant of 2011TX-14. Thus. p. No pinching can be seen from the hysteresis loops. the load-carrying capacity and subsequence deformation of column descends rapidly. Y.X. Q. 7. 7 Lateral force – lateral displacement envelops Conclusions It is found from the test result that HTHS-HSRC model columns provides comparable seismic performance to those usually used reinforced concrete column in terms of member ductility. Lu: China Civil Engineering Journal. This is the main reason for the smaller displacement ductility factors of all model columns. peak and ultimate displacement. this is interest to the displacement ductility of column. yield. but different concrete strength. An increase of concrete strength results in reduction of displacement ductility factor. and spalls more easily. (in Chinese) [2] L. Vol. References [1] Q. Zhi. Zhao. peak and ultimate load. 24 (2002) No. the area of core concrete bounded by transverse bars loops is only 60. Fig. After spalling of concrete cover outside transverse reinforcement occurs.M. an increase of concrete strength results in reduction of displacement ductility factor. From Table 2 and Fig. The shape of the hysteresis loops of model columns indicates an excellent energy absorption capacity. Vol.F. Lin: Journal of Building Structures. In the practical engineering.R. p.Y. the smaller the displacement ductility of column.373. p. 16 (1995) No. the thicker the concrete cover. L. but a lower lateral crack. For model columns.38.3.Q.

174-177 Seismic Performance of High Titanium Heavy Slag High Strength Concrete Columns 10.455 .net/AMM.Advanced Building Materials and Sustainable Architecture 10.4028/www.174-177.4028/www.scientific.scientific.net/AMM.