Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1.0 Introduction
India has large reserves of metal-bearing ore and occupies the sixth position in the
world for iron-ore reserves. Therefore, India is an important iron-ore producer and
exporter. However, approximately 1015% of the iron ore mined in India is unutilized,
even now, and is discarded as tailings. The tailing wastes that are called ultra fines or
slimes, mainly those ore solids having a diameter of less than 150 m, are not regarded to
be useful and hence are discarded. In India, approximately 1012 million tons of such
mined ore is lost as tailings. The safe disposal or utilization of such vast mineral wealth in
the form of ultra fines or slimes has remained as a major unsolved and challenging task
for the Indian iron-ore industry. Inevitably, the proportion of iron-ore wastes generated
will steadily increase, because the demand for iron ores will increase. Such a view is
confirmed by the number of steel plants that have been planned for future construction in
the state of Orissa and other parts of India. The total production of iron ore in India is
expected to exceed 400 million tons within the next decade. Therefore, dealing with the
environmental consequences of such enormous quantities of tailings will be a Herculean
task. It is therefore imperative that state-of-the-art iron-ore mining and processing
technologies be adopted to address and implement effective utilization of tailings.
Cementing materials have been used since thousands of years. Egyptians
employed calcined impure gypsum to grout the space between the huge blocks of stones
of the pyramids [1]. Greeks and Romans used calcined limestone as the building material.
In India powdered burnt clay and flat lime were mixed and wetground in the edgerunner
to get a plastic sticky mass to be used as mortar. Greek and Romans discovered that
certain volcanic deposits if finely ground and mixed with lime and sand yielded a mortar
as superior strength which was also resistant to actions of water.
In the eighteen century the most important advance in the field of cements leading
to the invention of modern Portland cement was made. John Semeaton carried out
investigations and discovered that mortars containing considerable clayey matter give the
best results. The investigations of L J Vicat on hydraulic lime led him to prepare an
artificial hydraulic lime by calcining an intimate mixture of limestone and clay, ground
together in a wet mill. In 1756 Joseph Parker burnt the nodules of argillaceous limestone
at a higher temperature than that used for burning lime. This was the beginning of cement
industry which later assumed great importance. The quality of cement varied considerably
Civil Department, R V College of Engineering
Page 1
Waste Bricks
2.
Waste Tiles
3.
Burnt clay
4.
Flyash
5.
Page 2
2.0 History
2.1 Kudremukh Iron Tailings:
Kudremukh- meaning Horses Face in Kannada derives its name from the
shape of the highest peak obtaining in the Aroli- Gangamula range of the Western Ghats.
The deposits, principally Low grade Magnetite were discovered in 1913 by Late
Dr.P.Sampath Iyengar, a geologist of Mysore State. However the scientific Investigations
were carried out from 1965 to 1975 by NMDC & proved a mineable reserve of 430
Million Tons.
The Countrys prestigious 100% export oriented unit and Mini Rathna Company,
KIOCL Ltd was incorporated on 2nd April 1976. Headquartered at Bangalore with the
Company's mining and beneficiation facilities located at Kudremukh and was Asias
largest iron oxide pelletisation complex and Pig Iron unit at the well connected coastal
city of Mangalore in Karnataka. The 3.5 million-tonne capacity Pellet Plant complex
commissioned in1987, comprises of the Filter Plant, Wet grinding mills, mechanized
ship loading unit, 28-mw captive power plant, Roll Press, Pelletisation discs, Furnace
etc.,
The idea of beneficiating the ore deposits was first proposed when several Japanese
companies came together with the NMDC, a Government of India undertaking, evincing
an interest in such a project. Pilot studies suggested that the surface ore with 38% iron
could be enriched to a concentrate of 67% iron with available new technologies. The
concentrate could be transported to Mangalore, on the coast of the Arabian Sea, 110 kms
to the west of Kudremukh. But global steel industry went into decline in the late sixties
and the Japanese withdrew. Interest was revived in early 1970 when Iran drew up its
plans for an ambitious domestic steel industry and was looking for a reliable supplier of
iron ore. Kudremukh seemed ideal, abundant just across the sea and an agreement was
reached.
The 7.5 million tonnes annual capacity project at Kudremukh along with the 67 km
slurry pipeline and filtration units at Mangalore was to be completed in August 1980.
Soon after processing the ore, waste material called tailings were dumped in Lakya Dam
through pumping. Till now 184.15 Million metric tonnes were dumped over area of 21.5
sq.Km.
Page 3
Mining activities at the worksite at Kudremukh, 110 Kms from Mangalore came to
halt from the end of 2005 with the Supreme Court confirming the status of Kudremukh
National Park area over the present mines at Kudremukh. The Company's Mangalore
units of Pellet Plant and Blast Furnace Units are running with the outsourced hematite
iron ore to convert into iron oxide pellets.
2.2 Red Soil:
Red soils denote the second largest soil group of the country covering an area of
about 6.1 lakh sq. km (18.6% of the Country's area) over the Peninsula from Tamil Nadu
in the south to Bundelkhand in the north and Rajmahal hills in the east to Kachchh in the
west. They surround the black soils on their south, east and north.
These soils are found in large tracts of western Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, southern
Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and Chotanagpur plateau of
Jharkhand. Scattered patches are also seen in Birbhum (West Bengal), Mirzapur, Jhansi,
Banda, Hamirpur (Uttar Pradesh), Udaipur, Chittaurgarh, Dungarpur, Banswara and
Bhilwara districts (Rajasthan).
These soils, also known as the omnibus group, have been developed over
Archaean granite, gneiss and other crystalline rocks, the sedimentaries of the Cuddapah
and Vindhayan basins and mixed Dharwarian group of rocks. Their colour is mainly due
to ferric oxides occurring as thin coatings on the soil particles while the iron oxide occurs
as haematite or as hydrous ferric oxide, the colour is red and when it occurs in the hydrate
form as limonite the soil gets a yellow colour. Ordinarily the surface soils are red while
the horizon below gets yellowish colour.
The texture of red soils varies from sand to clay, the majority being loams. Their
other characteristics include porous and friable structure, absence of lime, kankar and free
carbonates, and small quantity of soluble salts. Their chemical composition include nonsoluble material 90.47%, iron 3.61 %, aluminium 2.92%, organic matter 1.01%, magnesium 0.70%, lime 0.56%, carbon-di-oxide 0.30%, potash 0.24%, soda 0.12%, phophorus
0.09% and nitrogen 0.08%. However significant regional differences are observed in the
chemical composition.
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
pre-cast concrete
technology is becoming more and more popular in the practical field. The strength
and weight are the preliminary objectives to be considered for a good pre-cast
concrete construction.
In India approximately 10 15 % of the iron ore mined is unutilized, even
now, and is discarded as waste/tailings due to lack of cost effective technology in
extracting low grade ores. Because of this huge piles of mine wastes are found in and
around mine areas. However, some of these waste materials possess potential
characteristics, which can be tapped for various uses [2].
Innovative and sustainable processes such as mineral polymerization and mineral
cementation have been developed in the past for manufacture of cold setting building
bricks to utilize the mining and mineral wastes [14]. It was found that by adopting
mineral polymerization process and curing in atmosphere temperature ranging 20 35C
and hot air temperature below 100C, considerable binding strength is developed. The
results of the investigation also indicated that the bricks produced by polymerization
reaction using 95 % fly ash, 50 % beneficiated iron ore tailings and red mud attain 80150 kg/cm2 crushing strength under atmospheric curing condition.
3.2 Literature Review on Surkhi-Pozzolana:
Surkhi mortor has been used in India for buildings since ancient times. In case of
Mettur dam, in Tamilnadu portland cement was used in the constriction with a 20%
replacement by sukhi.[22]. Most of the research work in India has been on Brick and
Burnt clay pozzolanas. Studies have been done on effect of mortor proportions, effect of
grinding, duration of burning etc.
Karnataka Engineering Research Station [24] conducted compressive strength
tests on sandless lime surkhi mortors with different proportions of lime and surkhi.
Maximum strength is 123 kg/cm.sq was obtained at 28 days.
Page 9
Page 10
4.0 Methodology:
METHODOLOGY
METHDOLOGY
Preparation of sample
Preparation of sample
Physical properties
Physical properties
Engineering properties
Engineering properties
Analysis of results
Analysis of results
Cube casting
Cube casting
Comparison of results
Page 11
Methodology:
Iron ore tailing sample collection at Lakya Dam (Kudremukh) using plastic bags
such that site moisture is well maintained until tested for moisture content.
Results concluded that tailings are high density, Less cohesive, negligible
pozzolonic action.
Red soil samples are collected from Nursery near Nagarbhavi, Bangalore.
Page 12
e) Specific gravity,
1.1
1.2
1.3
2)
74.500
73.500
71.500
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
2.859
3.124
3.577
2.861
3.126
Page 13
2.1
2.2
2.3
2)
72.000
75.000
73.500
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
3.141
3.136
3.143
3.143
3.138
3.1
3.2
3.3
2)
72.000
75.000
73.500
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
3.000
3.084
2.928
3.002
3.087
Page 14
4.1
4.2
4.3
2)
72.500
75.000
73.500
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
3.209
3.229
3.214
3.212
3.232
3.188
Sample 2
3.141
Sample 3
3.006
Sample 4
3.219
Tap water
Sample 1
3.188
2.944
Sample 2
3.141
2.935
Sample 3
3.006
2.980
Sample 4
3.219
3.553
Page 15
1)
Container No.
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
0.905
1.886
1.140
1.980
4.180
2.650
7)
Water content
1.1
1.2
1.3
Page 16
1)
Container No.
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
0.580
1.187
1.002
1.660
2.510
2.506
3.2
3.3
7)
Water content
2.1
2.2
2.3
1)
Container No.
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
1.008
0.996
1.165
2.960
3.430
3.206
7)
Water content
3.1
Page 17
1)
Container No.
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
0.518
0.500
0.307
1.114
1.299
0.779
7)
Water content
4.1
4.2
4.3
2.937
Sample 2
2.225
Sample 3
3.199
Sample 4
1.064
Page 18
Mass of
I.S sieve
soil
Designation Retained
(g)
4.75
2.36
1.7
0.6
0.3
0.15
0.075
pan
Cumulative
mass
retained (g)
0.570
2.002
11.640
71.550
236.500
105.500
45.500
26.738
0.57
2.572
14.212
85.762
322.262
427.762
473.262
500.000
Percentage
of soil
retained
on each
sieve(g)
0.114
0.400
2.328
14.310
47.300
21.100
9.100
5.347
% finer
99.90
99.50
97.20
82.80
35.50
14.40
5.30
0.000
Sieve Analysis
99.9
82.8
% Passing
D 60
35.5
D 30
D 10
14.4
5.3
0.01
0.1
10
Figure 5.1 Grain Size Distribution for Sample 1 (Iron ore tailings from pit 1)
Page 19
2) Uniform Coefficient
Mass of
I.S sieve
soil
Designation Retained
(g)
4.75
2.36
1.7
0.6
0.3
0.15
0.075
pan
0.000
0.617
5.930
40.040
183.500
155.000
75.500
39.413
Cumulative
mass
retained (g)
0.000
0.617
6.547
46.587
230.087
385.087
460.58
500.000
Percentage
of soil
retained
on each
sieve(g)
0.000
0.123
1.309
9.317
46.017
77.017
92.116
100.000
% finer
100
99.990
98.700
90.700
54.000
23.000
7.900
0.000
Page 20
Sieve Analysis
100
90.7
% Passing
D 60
54
D 30
23
D 10
7.9
0.01
0.1
10
Figure 5.2 - Grain Size Distribution for Sample 2 (Iron ore tailings from pit 2)
From graph
a) D10 = 90
b) D30 = 185
c) D60 = 330
1) Coefficient of curvature
2) Uniform Coefficient
Page 21
Mass of
I.S sieve
soil
Designation Retained
(g)
4.750
2.360
1.700
0.600
0.300
0.150
0.075
pan
Cumulative
mass
retained (g)
0.000
3.890
17.905
76.500
212.500
97.500
57.000
34.705
0.000
3.890
21.795
98.295
310.795
408.295
465.295
500.000
Percentage
of soil
retained
on each
sieve(g)
0.000
0.778
4.360
19.660
62.160
81.660
93.060
100.000
Sieve Analysis
% finer
100.000
99.200
95.600
80.300
37.800
18.300
6.900
0.000
100
80.3
% Passing
D 60
37.8
D 30
18.3
D 10
6.9
0.01
0.1
10
Figure 5.3 - Grain Size Distribution for Sample 3 (Iron ore tailings from pit 3)
From graph
a) D10 = 110
b) D30 = 250
c) D60 = 410
Page 22
2) Uniform Coefficient
Mass of
Cumulative
I.S sieve
soil
mass retained
Designation Retained
(g)
(g)
4.750
2.360
1.700
0.600
0.300
0.150
0.075
pan
1.000
2.300
8.530
62.100
210.900
129.500
55.500
30.140
1.000
3.300
11.830
73.930
284.830
414.330
469.830
500.000
Percentage
of soil
retained
on each
sieve(g)
0.200
0.660
2.366
14.786
56.966
82.866
93.966
100.000
% finer
99.800
99.300
97.600
85.200
43.000
17.100
6.000
0.000
Page 23
Sieve Analysis
99.8
85.2
% Passing
D 60
43
D 30
17.1
D 10
6
0.01
0.1
10
Figure 5.4 - Grain Size Distribution for Sample 4 (Iron ore tailings from pit 4)
From graph
a) D10 = 120
b) D30 = 230
c) D60 = 395
1) Coefficient of curvature
2) Uniform Coefficient
Page 24
13
14
25
20
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
13.676
16.434
17.981
15.757
36.831
38.962
66.996
61.180
32.911
35.060
58.037
53.145
Weight of water
3.920
3.907
8.959
8.035
19.235
18.626
40.056
37.388
20.380
20.940
22.370
21.990
Container number
Weight of
container
Weight of
container + wet
soil
Weight of
container + dry
soil
Page 25
Cone Penetration
WL = 21.6%
10
12
14
16
22.37
21.99
20.94
20.38
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
16
22
24
27
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
15.219
18.143
14.098
15.041
38.039
32.014
31.490
38.471
35.061
29.514
28.346
33.822
Weight of water
2.978
2.500
3.144
4.649
19.847
11.371
14.248
18.781
15.000
21.980
22.070
24.750
Container number
Weight of
container
Weight of
container + wet
soil
Weight of
container + dry
soil
Page 26
21.98
WL = 18.0%
24.75
22.07
15
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
12
27
14
19
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
12.398
15.229
12.168
12.327
42.561
56.735
47.995
60.925
38.069
48.505
40.977
51.366
Weight of water
4.492
8.230
6.978
9.559
25.671
38.276
28.809
39.039
17.490
24.730
24.020
24.480
Container number
Weight of
container
Weight of
container + wet
soil
Weight of
container + dry
soil
Page 27
Cone Penetration
24.73
24.02
24.48
WL = 25.6%
17.49
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
15
28
25
20
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
13.403
12.378
15.210
15.695
31.817
44.575
57.940
62.796
29.398
38.380
49.602
53.750
Weight of water
2.419
6.190
8.358
9.046
15.995
26.002
34.392
38.055
15.120
23.800
24.300
23.770
Container number
Weight of
container
Weight of
container + wet
soil
Weight of
container + dry
soil
Page 28
WL = 19.8%
24.3
23.77
23.8
15.12
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Page 29
Determination No
5299
5428
5512
5508
3014
3143
3227
3223
3.021
3.151
3.235
3.231
C1.1
C1.2
C1.3
C1.4
36.967
39.854
46.012
44.719
35.125
37.233
42.582
41.300
1.842
2.621
3.430
3.419
14.934
12.324
14.441
16.281
20.191
24.909
28.141
25.019
10
9.120
10.520
12.190
13.670
11
2.780
2.850
2.880
2.840
12
2.440
2.360
2.270
2.090
2.92
2.91
2.9
2.89
2.88
2.87
2.86
2.85
2.84
2.83
2.82
2.81
2.8
2.79
2.78
2.77
2.76
2.75
Compaction
2.88
2.85
2.84
2.78
OMC = 12.1%
8
8.5
9.5
10
10.5
11
11.5
12
12.5
13
13.5
14
14.5
15
Page 30
Determination No
5123
5240
5304
5257
5241
2838
2955
3019
2972
2956
2.845
2.962
3.026
2.980
2.963
C2.1
C2.2
C2.3
C2.4
C2.5
44.383
33.933
32.462
46.291
53.098
42.177
32.127
30.478
42.199
47.893
2.206
1.806
1.984
4.092
5.205
19.158
14.160
13.958
15.223
15.269
23.019
17.967
16.520
26.976
32.624
10
9.580
10.050
12.010
15.180
15.950
11
2.590
2.690
2.700
2.590
2.550
12
2.440
2.410
2.310
2.150
2.110
2.69
Compaction
2.7
d max = 2.71g/cc
2.59
2.59
2.55
OMC = 11%
8
8.5
Page 31
Determination No
5090
5170
5212
5197
500
2805
2885
2927
2912
2915
2.812
2.892
2.934
2.919
2.922
C3.1
C3.2
C3.3
C3.4
C3.5
19.917
35.489
25.332
36.124
30.269
19.107
33.581
24.107
33.462
27.777
0.810
1.908
1.225
2.660
2.472
11.335
18.334
14.974
16.122
11.482
7.772
15.247
9.133
17.340
16.295
10
10.420
12.510
13.410
15.350
15.290
11
2.550
2.570
2.590
2.530
2.530
12
2.290
2.180
2.140
2.050
2.060
Compaction
2.62
2.61
2.6
2.59
2.59
2.58
d max = 2.592g/cc
2.57
2.57
2.56
2.55
2.55
2.54
2.53
2.53
2.53
2.52
OMC = 13.2%
2.51
2.5
8
8.5
9.5
Page 32
Determination No
5100
5191
5222
5295
5308
5325
5341
5328
2815
2906
2937
3010
3023
3040
3056
3043
2.822
2.913
2.944
3.017
3.030
3.047
3.063
3.050
C4.1
C4.2
C4.3
C4.4
C4.5
C4.6
C4.7
C4.8
40.800
32.734
26.185
46.909
35.733
40.480
36.604
53.710
39.169
31.105
24.857
43.978
33.759
37.240
33.918
49.574
2
3
4
5
6
1.631
1.629
1.328
2.931
2.479
3.216
3.186
4.136
16.178
12.286
11.756
18.915
15.308
15.461
15.657
24.330
22.910
18.819
13.101
25.063
18.271
21.803
18.261
25.244
10
7.120
8.660
10.140
11.690
13.540
14.750
17.450
16.380
11
2.630
2.680
2.670
2.700
2.670
2.660
2.610
2.620
12
2.620
2.520
2.430
2.340
2.240
2.180
2.060
2.100
Compaction
2.72
2.71
2.7
2.7
2.69
2.68
d max = 2.70g/cc
2.68
2.67
2.67
2.66
2.66
2.65
2.64
2.63
2.63
2.62
OMC = 11.5%
2.61
2.61
2.6
5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 1010.51111.51212.51313.51414.51515.51616.51717.51818.519
Page 33
= 71018
=158.5
= 4.905
Sl.
No.
Load (KN)
Shear Displacement
(mm)
Dial Gauge
Value
readings
50
0.500
Shear
strain
Strain
(%)
Shear
Stress
N/cm2
0.008
0.833
2.674
1)
Proving ring
readings
37
Load
Values
0.040
2)
53
0.057
100
1.000
0.017
1.667
3.830
3)
64
0.069
150
1.500
0.025
2.500
4.625
4)
71
0.077
200
2.000
0.033
3.333
5.131
5)
77
0.083
250
2.500
0.042
4.167
5.564
6)
81
0.088
300
3.000
0.050
5.000
5.853
7)
84
0.091
350
3.500
0.058
5.833
6.070
8)
87
0.094
400
4.000
0.067
6.667
6.287
9)
90
0.098
450
4.500
0.075
7.500
6.504
10)
93
0.101
500
5.000
0.083
8.333
6.721
11)
95
0.103
550
5.500
0.092
9.167
6.865
12)
95
0.103
600
6.000
0.100
10.000
6.865
13)
92
0.100
650
6.500
0.108
10.833
6.648
14)
90
0.098
700
7.000
0.117
11.667
6.504
Page 34
8
7
6
5.564
Shear stress at failure
5.131
qu = 6.8N/cm2
6.07
5.853
6.287
6.504
4.625
4
3.83
3
2.674
2
10
11
Shear Strain %
Figure 5.13 - Stress-Strain curve for sample 1 (Iron ore tailings from pit 1)
Page 35
12
= 6 X 6 X 2.5
= 149.5
= 9.81
Sl.
No.
Load (KN)
Shear Displacement
(mm)
Dial Gauge
Value
readings
Shear
strain
Strain
(%)
Shear
Stress
N/cm2
Proving ring
readings
Load
Values
1)
110
0.119
50
0.500
0.008
0.833
7.949
2)
154
0.167
100
1.000
0.017
1.667
11.129
3)
195
0.211
150
1.500
0.025
2.500
14.092
4)
210
0.228
200
2.000
0.033
3.333
15.176
5)
220
0.238
250
2.500
0.042
4.167
15.898
6)
230
0.249
300
3.000
0.050
5.000
16.621
7)
233
0.253
350
3.500
0.058
5.833
16.838
238
0.258
400
4.000
0.067
6.667
17.199
9)
239
0.259
450
4.500
0.075
7.500
17.271
10)
240
0.260
500
5.000
0.083
8.333
17.344
11)
235
0.255
550
5.500
0.092
9.167
16.982
12)
232
0.251
600
6.000
0.100
10.000
16.766
13)
228
0.247
650
6.500
0.108
10.833
16.476
8)
Page 36
16.621 16.838
15.898
16.766 16.476
14.092
11.129
7.949
10
11
Shear Strain %
Figure 5.14 - Stress-Strain curve for sample 1 (Iron ore tailings from pit 1)
Page 37
12
= 6 X 6 X 2.5
= 154.5
= 14.715
Load (KN)
Sl.
No. Proving ring Load
readings
Values
1)
105
0.114
Shear Displacement
(mm)
Dial Gauge
Value
readings
50
0.500
Shear
strain
Strain
(%)
Shear
Stress
N/cm2
0.008
0.833
7.588
2)
200
0.217
100
1.000
0.017
1.667
14.453
3)
255
0.276
150
1.500
0.025
2.500
18.428
4)
305
0.331
200
2.000
0.033
3.333
22.041
5)
338
0.366
250
2.500
0.042
4.167
24.426
6)
370
0.401
300
3.000
0.050
5.000
26.738
7)
395
0.428
350
3.500
0.058
5.833
28.545
414
0.449
400
4.000
0.067
6.667
29.918
9)
420
0.455
450
4.500
0.075
7.500
30.351
10)
419
0.454
500
5.000
0.083
8.333
30.279
11)
415
0.450
550
5.500
0.092
9.167
29.990
12)
393
0.426
600
6.000
0.100
10.000
28.400
8)
Page 38
30.351
30.279
29.99
29.918
28.545
28.4
26.738
24.426
22.041
18.428
14.453
10
11
Shear Strain %
Figure 5.15 - Stress-Strain curve for sample 1 (Iron ore tailings from pit 1)
Page 39
12
35
30
30
25
20
17.2
15
10
6.8
5
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
Page 40
= 71018
= 6 X 6 X 2.5
= 180.5
= 4.905
Load (KN)
Sl.
No. Proving ring
readings
1)
65
Load
Values
0.070
Shear Displacement
(mm)
Dial Gauge
Value
readings
50
0.500
Shear
strain
Strain
(%)
Shear
Stress
N/cm2
0.008
0.833
4.697
2)
82
0.089
100
1.000
0.017
1.667
5.926
3)
94
0.102
150
1.500
0.025
2.500
6.793
4)
102
0.111
200
2.000
0.033
3.333
7.371
5)
110
0.119
250
2.500
0.042
4.167
7.949
6)
116
0.126
300
3.000
0.050
5.000
8.383
7)
120
0.130
350
3.500
0.058
5.833
8.672
126
0.137
400
4.000
0.067
6.667
9.105
9)
130
0.141
450
4.500
0.075
7.500
9.394
10)
134
0.145
500
5.000
0.083
8.333
9.684
11)
135
0.146
550
5.500
0.092
9.167
9.756
12)
139
0.151
600
6.000
0.100
10.000
10.045
13)
141
0.153
650
6.500
0.108
10.833
10.189
14)
142
0.154
700
7.000
0.117
11.667
10.262
15)
143
0.155
750
7.500
0.125
12.500
10.334
16)
141
0.153
800
8.000
0.133
13.333
10.189
17)
141
0.153
850
8.500
0.142
14.167
10.189
18)
140
0.152
900
9.000
0.150
15.000
10.117
8)
Page 41
11
10.189
10
9
8
7
6
10.26210.334
10.189
10.189
10.045
9.6849.756
Shear stress at failure
9.394
9.105
qu = 10.3N/cm2
8.672
8.383
7.949
7.371
6.793
10.117
5.926
4.697
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Shear Strain %
Figure 5.17 - Stress-Strain curve for sample 2 (Iron ore tailings from pit 2)
Page 42
= 6 X 6 X 2.5
= 151
= 9.81
Sl.
No.
Load (KN)
Shear Displacement
(mm)
Dial Gauge
Value
readings
Shear
strain
Strain
(%)
Shear
Stress
N/cm2
Proving ring
readings
Load
Values
1)
60
0.065
50
0.500
0.008
0.833
4.336
2)
130
0.141
100
1.000
0.017
1.667
9.394
3)
165
0.179
150
1.500
0.025
2.500
11.924
4)
193
0.209
200
2.000
0.033
3.333
13.947
5)
212
0.230
250
2.500
0.042
4.167
15.320
6)
222
0.241
300
3.000
0.050
5.000
16.043
7)
232
0.251
350
3.500
0.058
5.833
16.766
239
0.259
400
4.000
0.067
6.667
17.271
9)
246
0.267
450
4.500
0.075
7.500
17.777
10)
249
0.270
500
5.000
0.083
8.333
17.994
11)
253
0.274
550
5.500
0.092
9.167
18.283
12)
256
0.277
600
6.000
0.100
10.000
18.500
13)
256
0.277
650
6.500
0.108
10.833
18.500
14)
257
0.279
700
7.000
0.117
11.667
18.572
15)
256
0.277
750
7.500
0.125
12.500
18.500
16)
252
0.273
800
8.000
0.133
13.333
18.211
17)
247
0.268
850
8.500
0.142
14.167
17.850
8)
Page 43
18.283
17.271 17.777
17.994
16.766
16.043
15.32
18.5
18.5
18.5
18.572
18.211
17.85
13.947
11.924
9.394
4.336
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Shear Strain %
Figure 5.18 - Stress-Strain curve for sample 2 (Iron ore tailings from pit 2)
Page 44
= 6 X 6 X 2.5
= 151
= 14.715
Sl.
No
.
Load (KN)
Shear Displacement
(mm)
Shear
strain
Strain
(%)
Shear
Stress
N/cm2
Proving
ring
readings
Load
Values
Dial Gauge
readings
Value
1)
50
0.054
50
0.500
0.008
0.833
3.613
2)
165
0.179
100
1.000
0.017
1.667
11.924
3)
220
0.238
150
1.500
0.025
2.500
15.898
4)
260
0.282
200
2.000
0.033
3.333
18.789
5)
290
0.314
250
2.500
0.042
4.167
20.957
6)
317
0.344
300
3.000
0.050
5.000
22.908
7)
340
0.369
350
3.500
0.058
5.833
24.570
360
0.390
400
4.000
0.067
6.667
26.015
9)
378
0.410
450
4.500
0.075
7.500
27.316
10)
390
0.423
500
5.000
0.083
8.333
28.183
11)
400
0.434
550
5.500
0.092
9.167
28.906
12)
404
0.438
600
6.000
0.100
10.000
29.195
13)
409
0.443
650
6.500
0.108
10.833
29.556
14)
410
0.444
700
7.000
0.117
11.667
29.629
15)
407
0.441
750
7.500
0.125
12.500
29.412
16)
394
0.427
800
8.000
0.133
13.333
28.472
17)
380
0.412
850
8.500
0.142
14.167
27.461
8)
Page 45
29.629
29.556
29.412
29.195
28.906
28.472
28.183
27.461
27.316
Shear stress at failure
26.015
qu = 29.2N/cm2
24.57
22.908
20.957
18.789
15.898
11.924
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Shear Strain %
Figure 5.19 - Stress-Strain curve for sample 2 (Iron ore tailings from pit 2)
Page 46
35
30
29.2
25
20
18.2
15
10.3
10
Cohesion C = 2N/cm2
0
0
10
Normal Stress
12
14
16
18
20
(N/cm2)
Page 47
Constituent
Percentage by weight
(per 100gm)
SiO2
68.61
TiO2
Traces
Al2O3
1.15
Fe2O3
25.88
MgO
0.34
CaO
0.63
Na2O
0.31
K2O
0.05
L.O.I.
2.92
Page 48
1)
Container No.
2)
29.762 33.451
3)
29.624 33.181
4)
5)
11.294 18.848
6)
0.138
0.270
1.222
1.433
2.1
2.2
7)
Water content
1.1
18.330
1.2
14.33
1)
Container No.
2)
29.340 29.608
3)
29.089 29.325
4)
13.882 12.743
5)
14.825 16.182
6)
0.251
0.283
1.693
1.749
7)
Water content
Page 49
e) Specific gravity,
Table 6.3 - Sample 1 (Red Soil)
1.1
1.2
1.3
2)
72.711
75.431
73.614
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
2.679
2.564
2.536
2.678
2.563
Page 50
2.1
2.2
2.3
2)
72.711
75.431
73.614
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
2.545
2.643
2.412
2.544
2.642
2.592
Sample 2
2.533
Page 51
Mass of
I.S sieve
Cumulative
soil
Designation
mass retained
Retained
(mm)
(gm)
(gm)
4.75
2.36
1.7
0.6
0.3
0.15
0.075
pan
4.500
14.500
38.500
46.000
155.000
166.000
38.500
37.000
4.500
19.000
57.500
103.500
258.500
424.500
463.000
500.000
Percentage
of soil
retained
on each
sieve(gm)
0.900
3.800
11.500
20.700
51.700
84.900
92.600
100.000
% finer
99.100
96.200
88.500
79.300
48.300
15.100
7.400
0.000
Sieve Analysis
99.1
88.5
% Passing
79.3
D 60
48.3
D 30
15.1
D 10
7.4
0.01
0.1
10
From graph
a) D10 = 120
b) D30 = 205
c) D60 = 295
Page 52
1) Coefficient of curvature
2) Uniform Coefficient
Mass of
Cumulative
I.S sieve
soil
mass retained
Designation Retained
(g)
(g)
4.75
2.36
1.7
0.6
0.3
0.15
0.075
pan
2.500
8.000
33.000
45.500
148.500
174.000
42.500
46.000
2.500
10.500
43.500
89.000
237.500
411.500
454.000
500.000
Percentage
of soil
retained
on each
sieve(g)
2.500
2.100
8.700
17.800
47.500
82.300
90.800
100.000
% finer
97.900
97.900
91.300
82.200
52.500
17.700
9.200
0.000
Page 53
Sieve Analysis
97.9
91.3
% Passing
82.2
D 60
52.5
D 30
17.7
D 10
9.2
0.01
0.1
10
From graph
a) D10 = 90
b) D30 = 200
c) D60 = 350
1) Coefficient of curvature
2) Uniform Coefficient
Page 54
Determination No.
34
27
L1.3
L1.4
24.689
27.713
26.696
21.555
21.729
24.694
23.002
18.876
1)
No of Blows
90
58
2)
Container No.
L1.1
L1.2
3)
4)
5
15
L1.5
5)
Mass of water
3.363
2.963
3.019
3.694
2.657
6)
Mass of container w1
14.940
12.296
15.415
12.064
11.414
7)
11.681
9.430
9.279
10.998
7.462
8)
Moisture Content
28.790
31.421
32.536
33.588
35.607
Liquid Limit
35
34
33.588
33
32.536
WL = 34%
32
31.421
31
30
29
28.79
28
27
25 Blows
26
25.607
25
1
10
100
1000
No. of Blows
Figure 6.3 - Liquid limit for sample 1 (Red soil)
Page 55
Determination No.
1)
No of Blows
2)
Container No.
Mass of container &
wet soil(gm) w2
Mass of container &
dry soil(gm) w3
3)
4)
37
97
27
42
26
L1.1
L1.2
L1.3
L1.4
34.356
35.787
38.973
44.225
49.573
29.772
31.869
33.501
37.481
41.431
L1.5
5)
Mass of water
4.584
3.918
5.472
6.737
8.142
6)
Mass of container w1
14.928
18.325
16.164
15.447
17.237
7)
14.844
13.544
17.337
22.014
24.194
8)
Moisture Content
30.881
28.928
31.563
30.566
33.653
Liquid Limit
35
34
33.653
WL = 31.8%
33
32
31.563
30.881
30.556
31
30
29.928
29
28
27
26
25 Blows
25
1
10
100
1000
No. of Blows
Figure 6.4 - Liquid limit for sample 2 (Red soil)
Page 56
Sl.
No.
Determination No.
1)
Container No.
P1.1
P1.2
P1.3
2)
18.905
17.039
17.467
3)
18.407
16.347
16.726
4)
Mass of Moisture
0.498
0.692
0.741
5)
Mass of container
15.264
12.174
12.411
6)
3.143
4.173
4.315
7)
Plastic limit %
15.845
16.583
17.173
P2.1
P2.2
17.715
18.758
21.359
17.267
18.217
20.393
Sl.
No.
1)
2)
3)
Determination No.
Container No.
Mass of container &
wet soil(gm)
Mass of container &
dry soil(gm)
P2.3
4)
Mass of Moisture
0.448
0.541
0.966
5)
Mass of container
14.494
15.657
15.115
6)
2.773
2.560
5.278
7)
Plastic limit %
16.156
21.133
18.302
Page 57
= 12.7
= 997.458
= 2285
e) No. of Layers
=3
= 25
g) Specific Gravity
= 2.592
Page 58
Determination No
5162
5163
10
12
14
% water added
2877
2878
2809
2772
2.884
2.885
2.816
2.779
C1.1
C1.2
C1.3
C1.4
13.674
15.085
16.208
14.931
26.847
36.025
41.267
37.801
25.373
33.299
37.917
34.535
11.699
18.214
21.709
19.604
10
1.474
2.726
3.350
3.266
11
12.599
14.967
15.431
16.660
12
2.561
2.509
2.440
2.382
13
1.954
1.868
1.851
1.810
Compaction
5094
4
5057
2.509
d max = 2.51g/cc
2.461
2.44
OMC = 15%
2.382
Page 59
Determination No
4881
5003
5173
5155
5120
10
12
14
16
% water added
2596
2718
2768
2888
2870
2835
2.603
2.725
2.775
2.895
2.877
2.842
C2.1
C2.2
C2.3
C2.4
C2.5
C2.6
13.960
12.320
11.327
15.299
14.137
15.015
24.822
26.673
27.922
32.084
33.034
35.539
24.095
25.516
26.519
30.365
30.766
32.902
10.135
13.136
15.192
15.066
16.329
17.887
10
0.727
1.157
1.403
1.719
2.268
2.637
11
7.137
8.768
9.25
11.410
13.889
14.743
12
2.429
2.505
2.540
2.599
2.526
2.477
13
2.144
2.073
2.053
1.965
1.874
1.844
Compaction
5053
d max = 2.60g/cc
OMC = 11.4%
6.5
7.5
8.5
Page 60
= 71018
= 6 X 6 X 2.5
= 197
= 4.905
Load (KN)
Sl.
No. Proving ring
readings
Load
Values
Shear Displacement
(mm)
Dial Gauge
Value
readings
Shear
strain
Strain
(%)
Shear
Stress
N/cm2
1)
40
0.043
50
0.500
0.008
0.833
2.891
2)
130
0.141
100
1.000
0.017
1.667
9.394
3)
210
0.228
150
1.500
0.025
2.500
15.176
4)
282
0.306
200
2.000
0.033
3.333
20.379
5)
327
0.354
250
2.500
0.042
4.167
23.631
6)
353
0.383
300
3.000
0.050
5.000
25.510
7)
364
0.395
350
3.500
0.058
5.833
26.305
343
0.372
400
4.000
0.067
6.667
24.787
9)
322
0.349
450
4.500
0.075
7.500
23.269
10)
301
0.326
500
5.000
0.083
8.333
21.752
8)
Page 61
26.305
25.51
24.787
23.631
23.269
21.752
20.379
15.176
9.394
Red soil
10
Shear Strain %
Figure 6.7 - Stress-Strain curve for sample 1 (Red soil)
Page 62
= 184.5
= 9.81
Table 6.15 Sample 1 (Red soil)
Sl.
No.
Load (KN)
Shear Displacement
(mm)
Dial Gauge
Value
readings
Shear
strain
Strain
(%)
Shear
Stress
N/cm2
Proving ring
readings
Load
Values
1)
0.001
50
0.500
0.008
0.833
0.072
2)
30
0.033
100
1.000
0.017
1.667
2.168
3)
133
0.144
150
1.500
0.025
2.500
9.611
4)
204
0.221
200
2.000
0.033
3.333
14.742
5)
290
0.314
250
2.500
0.042
4.167
20.957
6)
358
0.388
300
3.000
0.050
5.000
25.871
7)
425
0.461
350
3.500
0.058
5.833
30.713
466
0.505
400
4.000
0.067
6.667
33.676
9)
495
0.537
450
4.500
0.075
7.500
35.771
10)
508
0.551
500
5.000
0.083
8.333
36.711
11)
491
0.532
550
5.500
0.092
9.167
35.482
12)
460
0.499
600
6.000
0.100
10.000
33.242
13)
430
0.466
650
6.500
0.108
10.833
31.074
8)
Page 63
36.711
35.771
35.482
33.676
33.242
31.074
30.713
25.871
20.957
14.742
9.611
Red soil
10
11
12
Shear Strain %
Figure 6.8 - Stress-Strain curve for sample 1 (Red soil)
Page 64
= 180
= 14.715
Table 6.16 Sample 1 (Red soil)
Load (KN)
Sl.
No. Proving ring Load
readings
Values
Shear Displacement
(mm)
Dial Gauge
Value
readings
Shear
strain
Strain
(%)
Shear
Stress
N/cm2
1)
174
0.189
50
0.500
0.008
0.833
12.574
2)
293
0.318
100
1.000
0.017
1.667
21.174
3)
380
0.412
150
1.500
0.025
2.500
27.461
4)
452
0.490
200
2.000
0.033
3.333
32.664
5)
514
0.557
250
2.500
0.042
4.167
37.144
6)
561
0.608
300
3.000
0.050
5.000
40.541
7)
588
0.637
350
3.500
0.058
5.833
42.492
575
0.623
400
4.000
0.067
6.667
41.552
9)
554
0.601
450
4.500
0.075
7.500
40.035
10)
526
0.570
500
5.000
0.083
8.333
38.011
8)
Page 65
42.492
40.541
41.552
40.035
38.011
37.144
32.664
27.461
21.174
Red soil
10
Shear Strain %
Figure 6.9 - Stress-Strain curve for sample 1 (Red soil)
Page 66
Red soil
45
42.5
40
36.5
35
30
26.1
25
Cohesion C = 21N/cm2
10
5
0
0
10
Normal Stress
12
14
16
18
(N/cm2)
Figure 6.10 - Graph of normal stress v/s Shear stress at failure for sample 1(Red soil)
Page 67
20
Burnt Clay
Mortar mix
Iron ore tailing
mortar mix
1
Lime
1
Lime
Burnt Clay
Mortar mix
Burnt Iron ore
tailing mortar mix
1
Lime
1
Lime
Types of mixes
2
Burnt Clay
2
Iron ore
tailing
Types
of mixes
2
Burnt Clay
2
Iron ore
tailing
6
Standard Sand(1:1:1)
6
Standard Sand(1:1:1)
9
Standard Sand(1:1:1)
9
Standard Sand(1:1:1)
Page 68
Mix
1:2:6
1:2:9
Compressive
strength (MPa)
7 days
28
curing
days
curing
1.4308
3.208
2.038
3.252
2.038
3.252
1.171
2.950
1.084
2.818
1.127
2.862
Page 69
Avg. compressive
strength (Mpa)
3.2373
2.877
3
2
1.8356
1.1273
7 days
21 days
0
1
1:2:6
1:2:9
mixes
Figure 9.1 - Comparison of compressive strengths of burnt clay mix cured for 7 days and 28 days
3.2373
3.5
2.877
3
2.5
2
1.8356
1.5
7 days
1.1273
21 days
1
0.5
0
1:2:6
1:2:9
1 1:2:6
1:2:9
mixes
Figure 9.2 Comparison of compressive strengths of burnt clay mixes, (1;2:4) with (1:2:9)
Page 70
10. Conclusion
Lime-Pozzolona cement is considered as the secondary alternative to Portland
cement. Surkhi or Burnt clay pozzolona has been used in India since ancient times to
produce hydraulic cement by mixing it with lime. The term pozzolona has been used
to designate reactive siliceous and aluminous materials, which react with calcium
hydroxide in presence of moisture to form stable cementations compounds.
Following conclusions were made from results obtained by conducting tests.
From tests it is revealed that iron Ore Tailings bought from Kudremukh, do not posses
or have negligible pozzolonic action, though they contain ferruginous material.
However, tests show that red soil as a surkhi produces 21 day compressive strength of
3.2373 MPa for 1:2:6 mix. According to IS 1905, cement mortar should posses the
strength of 3 MPa in 28 days. Our study yielded required strength for 21 days only.
Since, it matches Indian Standards specifications for 21 days only; it is expected to
more strength in 90 days and 180 days.
Red soils denote the second largest soil group of the country covering an area
of about 6.1 lakh sq. Km, this red clay pozzolona can be used as an alternative
material for building construction as replacement to cement.
In our study, stabilisation of red soil was studied by adding, lime to the virgin
red soil in the proportions (lime: virgin soil) 1:10 and 1:12. Soil did not attain much
strength, therefore our study suggests to carryout tests in this aspect by increasing
lime content.
Further studies should be carried out on this burnt clay pozzolona at different
temperatures, different burning duration and also for different proportions like (lime:
pozzolona) 1:1, 1:1.5 and many other combinations to yield better strength.
Page 71
11.0 References
1. Ullas S N and Venkatarama Reddy IISc, 2009, Proceedings of the International
Seminar On Waste To Wealth, November , New Delhi, India. Iron Ore tailings as
substitutenfor sand in masonry mortor, [P.No 151-155]
2. Mangalpady Aruna, 2012 Utilization of Iron Ore Tailings in Manufacturing of
Paving Blocks for Eco-friendly Mining March [P.No. 1-12].
3. Shri N.N. Sampath Kumar, 2013, Article On 'SAVE THE EARTH' - Eco friendly
solutions to iron ore tailings, [P.No. 1-3].
4. Hammond, A. A., 1998, Mining and Quarrying Wastes A Critical Review,
Engineering Geaology, [P.No. 17-31].
5. Monalisa Mohanty, Nabin Kumar Dhal, Parikshitha Patra, Bisweswar Das and Palli
Sita Rama Reddy., 2001, A Novel Approach for Utilization of Iron Ore Wastes,
Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, [P.No. 29-35].
6. Ajaka E. O., vol. 4, No. 9, NOVEMBER 2009, ARPN Journal of Engineering and
Applied Sciences, Recovering Fine Minerals From ITAKPE Iron Ore Process
Tailing, [P.No. 1-6]
7. Venkateshwarlu, J., Strength Characteristics of Concrete Hollow Bricks With
Replacement of Sand by Iron Ore Tailings, MS Thesis, Civil Engineering Department,
Mangalore University, India, 2000.
8. Jaladi, S. K. (2001) Studies on Concrete Hollow Bricks With Iron Ore Tailings as
Fine Aggregate, MS Thesis, Mangalore University at Karnataka.
9. Amit, R., Rao, D. B. N. 2005., Utilization Potentials of Industrial/Mining Rejects and
Tailing as Building Materials, Management of Environmental Quality: An
International Journal, Name of Journal,16, 605-614,
10. Kumar, S., Kumar, R., Amitava, B. 2006., Innovative Methodologies for the
Utilization Waste from Metallurgical and Allied Industries, Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, 48(4), 301-314.
11. Roy, S., Adhikari, G. R., Gupta, R. N., 2007, Use of Gold Mill Tailings in Making
Bricks: A Feasibility Study, Waste Management and Research, 25, 474-482.
12. Chao, L., Hengu, S., Zhongalai, Y., Longtu, L., 2010, Innovative Methodology for
Comprehensive Utilization of Iron Ore Tailings: Part 2 The Residues After Iron
Recovery From Iron Ore Tailings to Prepare Cementitious Material, Journal of
Hazardous Material,174(1-3), 7883.
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74