feasibility study on iron ore mine tailings

8/10/2019 Feasibility Study On Iron Ore Mine Tailings

1/74


2/74

Feasibility Study On Iron Ore Mine Tailings

Civil Department, R V College of Engineering Page 2

depending on the constituents of raw materials. Investigations soon began to experiment

with artificial mixtures of limestone and argillaceous rocks. Such a procedure had an

advantage that lime and clay could be mixed in the desired ratio and hence the properties

of the product could be kept under a more uniform and definite control. It was in 1824

that Joseph burnt the mixture of lime and clay at high temperatures and patented as

Portland Cement.

There were few problems and issues in cement production:

1. Shortage of Portland Cement

2. Scale of Production

3. The Utilisation of patterns of Cement

To overcome above mentioned difficulties Alternative Secondary Cements were

introduced, some of the better known alternatives are:

1. Portland-Pozzolona Cement

2.

Portland-Blast furnace slag cements

3. Lime-Pozzolona cements.

Alternatives 1 and 2 are essentially variants of Portland cement and are dependent

on availability of Portland cement. Hence Lime-Pozzolona cement is considered as thesecondary alternative to Portland cement.

Surkhi or Burnt clay pozzolona have been used in India since ancient times to

produce a 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.

The following pozzolonic materials have been generally used:

1. Waste Bricks

2. Waste Tiles

3. Burnt clay

4. Flyash

5.

Rice husk ash


3/74



2.0History

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 Japanesecompanies 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.


4/74



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.

2.2Red 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 thewest. 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 non-

soluble material 90.47%, iron 3.61 %, aluminium 2.92%, organic matter 1.01%, magne-

sium 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.


5/74



In general these soils are deficient in lime, magnesia, phosphates, nitrogen, humus

and potash. Intense leaching is a menace to these soils. On the uplands, they are thin, poor

and gravelly, sandy, or stony and porous, light-coloured soils on which food crops like

bajra can be grown. But on the lower plains and valleys they are rich, deep, dark coloured

fertile loam on which, under irrigation, can be produced excellent crops like cotton,

wheat, pulses, tobacco, jowar, linseed, millets, potatoes and fruits. These are also

characterized by stunted forest growth and are suited to dry farming.

Ray Chaudhary (1941) Land Use Specialist, Planning commission, Govt. of India,

has morphologically grouped red soils into following two categories:

a) Red Loam Soil-these soils have been formed by the decomposition of granite,

gneiss charnocite and diorite rocks. It is cloddy porous and deficient in concretionary

materials. It is poorer in nitrogen, phosphorus and organic materials but rich in potash.

Leaching is dominant.

These soils have thin layers and are less fertile. These soils are mainly found in

Karnataka (Shimoga, Chikamagaluru and Hassan districts), Andhra Pradesh (Telangana),

eastern Tamil Nadu, Orissa, Jharkhand (Chotanagpur), Uttar Pradesh (Bundelkhand),

Madhya Pradesh (Balaghat and Chhindwara), Rajasthan (Banswara, Bhilwara, Bundi,

Chittaurgarh, Kota and Ajmer districts), Meghalaya, Mizoram, Manipur and Nagaland.

b) Sandy Red Soil-these soils have formed by the disintegration of granite, grani-

gneiss, quartzite and sandstone. These are friable soil with high content of secondary

concentrations of sesquioxide clays.

Due to presence of haematite and limonite its colour ranges from red to yellow

These soils have been rightly leached occupying parts of former eastern Madhya Pradesh(except Chhattisgarh region), neighbouring hills of Orissa Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil

Nadu (Eastern Ghats and Sahyadris.


6/74



3.0 Literature review

3.1 Literature Review on Tailings:

Govt. of Karnataka (2013) [3] has set up the R&D Centre at National Instituteof Technology Karnataka to carryout research in the field of conversion of various

solid industrial wastes into value-added products. The centre has made successful

preliminary studies on the substitution of Iron Ore Waste Tailings for clay and other

raw materials used in the manufacture of various building products. Hammond(1998)

[4] in his study critically reviewed the usage of mining waste as building material. He

identified many mining wastes as concrete aggregates and pigments for paints.

Increase in mining may contribute in the future to local environmental damage or

health consequences of nearby residents. Such sites must be restored for sustainable

development, or, at least, secured to prevent off-site contaminant movement.

Mrs Mangalpady Aruna (2012) [2], studied the suitability and reliability of iron

ore tailings in manufacture of paving blocks. The results of the study show that the

compressive strength of tailing based mix was higher with 36.5 MPa for 28 days.

The outcome of study carried out by Gan et al.(2011) [15] shows that the burning

and steam curing free brick product (iron ore tailings, fly ash, sand, CaO, gypsum and

cement) has a comprehensive strength of 28.30 MPa and flexural strength of 5.63

MPa. Yongliang et al. (2011) [16] prepared eco-friendly bricks from hematite tailings.

Besides hematite tailings, the additives of clay and fly ash were also added to the raw

material to improve the brick quality. The results of the study indicated that the

mechanical strength and water absorption of the fired brick specimens are around

20.03 22.92 MPa and 16.54 17.93 %, respectively. The other physical properties

and durability were as per Chinese Fired Common Brick Standard (GB/T5101-2003).

The experiment carried out by Jian et al. (2011) [17] on sintered wall materials

reveals that the iron ore tailings and waste can be used very effectively as construction

material. The study also shown that due to higher iron content in iron ore tailings and

waste rock, the products reduce the sintering temperature and decreased energy

consumption.


7/74



Niu and Chen (2011) [18] used several additives in their study to improve the

properties of concrete product. Further, a study carried out by Yongliang et al.(2011)

[19] on utilization of hematite tailings in production of non-fired bricks resulted that

the nonfired bricks with 78 % hematite tailings can be prepared in the optimal

conditions of forming water content and forming pressure of 15 % and 20 MPa,

respectively. The suitable curing condition is natural curing in room temperature for

28 days. It was also found that the comprehensive strength of products can be up to

15.9 MPa with other physical properties and durability, which is well confirmed to

non-fired gangue brick standard (JC/T422-2007).

Wang et al. (2011) [20] worked on development and application of intelligent

decision support system for comprehensive utilization of tailings and waste rocks. The

idea was implemented and the system was built by combining engineering practice of

comprehensive utilization of tailing and waste rocks with other subjects like artificial

intelligence, neural network, fuzzy mathematics and decision making technology.

Robert and Richard (2011) [21] performed experiments on mineral processing

wastes and made classifications of solid wastes based on physical and chemical

properties of each type of waste material. The need for research for utilization of

waste material is also documented in the investigation. In general, most of the

researchers felt that there is a large scope for R&D in developing alternative building

technologies. In the present study pavement blocks were prepared using iron ore

tailings and experiments were performed to understand the changes in behavior of

concrete with the replacement of sand by iron ore tailings. Tests have been carried out

to assess the physical properties of tailings like strength, bulk density, water

absorption etc.

Chao et al. (2010) [12] in their study on innovative methodology for

comprehensive utilization of iron ore tailings prepared cementitious material by

blending 30 % residues, 34 % blast furnace slag, 30 % clinker and 6 % gypsum. The

results of the study show that the mechanical properties of such bricks were well

comparable with those of 42.5 ordinary portland cement according to Chinese

GB175-2007 standard.


8/74



A recent study by Jinhua et al.(2010) [13] reveals that it is quick and

economical to use GIS in tailing management and can provide a new way for the

decision analysis of utilizing tailing resource reasonably. Manufacture of building

bricks without burning of solid fuel is one of the options for utilization of mining and

industrial wastes, which also reduces CO2 emission. A considerable research has been

carried out to establish alternative methods by non firing processes in making building

materials.

Mr Ullas et al (2009)[1], in his study Kuduremukh iron ore tailings was

chosen for investigation of its stability as fine aggregates in mortors. He successfully

showed optimum replacement of sand with tailings is about 25%.

Ajaka E. O (2009) [6], selected, Nigeria presently produces a tail sometimes

containing up to 22% iron minerals mostly natural fines in the ore and fines produced

inevitably during comminution. He analyzed the existing circuit and undertook

specific recovery tests on the tailing material using simple hindered settling and

floatation process for the recovery of fine iron minerals in the tailings.

Roy et al. (2007) [11] used gold mill tailings for preparation of bricks. They

used ordinary portland cement, black cotton soils and red soils to increase the

plasticity of bricks. The results of the investigation indicated that bricks with 20 % of

cement and 14 days of curing are most suitable. The study also revealed that soil

tailing bricks are very economical.

Amit and Rao (2005) [9] in their paper highlighted the present status of waste

based building materials in India. Kumar et al. (2006) [10] demonstrated the usage of

fly ash, blast furnace slag and iron ore tailings in the preparation of floor and wall

tiles. Further, preparation of synthetic granite from fly ash as a value added products

was also investigated. These developed synthetic granite tiles were reported to have

very low porosity (6 on Mohrs scale) and flexuralstrength (>25 MPa).

Monalisa Mohanty et al (2001) [5], in his study he addressed

phytoremediation and associated processes as they apply to iron-ore wastes and


9/74


10/74



R K Ghosh et al. (1964) [25], his studies reveal that compressive strength of lime

surkhi mortars cannot approach rich compressive strength of cement mortars like 1:3 or

1:4. But lime surkhi mortars are comparable with the cement mortars of mix 1:6 that are

commonly used in masonry works. Results also shows that the flexural and tensile

strength are appreciably higher than that of cement mortar 1:6.

Ram Lal et al. (1964) [26] in his study on pozzolona finds that ,With replacing

20% cement with surkhi in Plain cement concrete reveals that there are not any

appreciable changes in strength parameters in 28 days and there has been savings up to

10% by use of surkhi as partial replacement of cement. In his experiment, 45 tonnes of

cement was saved for everyone and half furlong stretch of pozzolona concrete pavement.

Ralph E Grim (1962), [27], in his research studies mentions that kaolinite would

perhaps be the optimum clay mineral constituent since it would contribute alumina and

silica. He also mentions that desirable to use kaolinite in the manufacture of white

portland cement. He investigated effect of clays of varying clay mineral composition on

the water retention and compressive strength of cement mortars. He also found that there

is a little difference when clays of various mineral compositions are added, except that

those composed of montmorillonite were relatively less desirable. This is because they

require large amount of water to give suitable working consistency which tends to result

in mortar of inferior strength.

N R Srinivasan et al(1956) [23], in his study showed that the optimum

temperature of burning for montmorillonite minerals lies in between 6000-8000C, and

for kaoline minerals it is 8000C and for illite it is around 10000C. He also concluded that

loamy soils which are generally used for bricks cannot yield surkhi of high reactivity .

Studies done by Srinivasan reveal that a morillonite type of clay belongingnto Beidellite-Nontronite series, with a good amount of naturally occurring iron oxides and hydroxides

is eminently suited for high grade surkhis.


11/74



4.0Methodology:

METHDOLOGY

Tailing Sample collection

Preparation of sample

Physical properties

Engineering properties

Analysis of results

Comparison of results

Cube casting

Red Earth Sample collection

Preparation of sample

Physical properties

Engineering properties

Analysis of results

Cube casting

METHODOLOGY


12/74


13/74



5.0Tests on iron ore tailings

5.1 Index properties of tailings:

5.1.1 Specific Gravity

Specific gravity of soil particles is defined as ratio of mass of given volume of soil

particles to mass of equivalent volume of distilled water at stated temperature. It is

also defined as the ratio of density of soil particles to density of distilled water at a

stated temperature. The test is conducted as per IS Code (29).The results obtained as

shown in table.

a) Test Temperature Ttc= 24c

b)

Relative density of water at Ttc = 0.9973

c)

Relative density of water at 27c = 0.9965

d) Correction factor due to temperature

e) Specific gravity,

Table 5.1 - Sample 1 (Iron ore tailings from pit 1)

Average specific gravity = 3.188

Water used: Distilled water

1) Density bottle No. 1.1 1.2 1.3

2)Mass of density bottle

(W1) g74.500 73.500 71.500


+ dry soil (W2) g183.500 195.000 198.000


+ soil + water (W3) g279.000 281.000 281.500


+ water (W4) g200.500 202.000 195.500

6)Specific gravity at

Tt c

2.574 2.859 3.124

7)Specific gravity of soil

at 27c = (6) Ct3.577 2.861 3.126


14/74










(W1) g72.000 75.000 73.500


+ dry soil (W2) g161.500 175.500 166.000


+ soil + water (W3) g261.500 270.500 258.500


+ water (W4) g

200.500 202.000 195.500


Tt c

3.140 3.141 3.136


at 27c = (6) Ct3.143 3.143 3.138




(W1) g72.000 75.000 73.500


+ dry soil (W2) g190.500 199.500 164.500


+ soil + water (W3) g

278.500 285.000 257.000


+ water (W4) g200.500 202.000 195.500


Tt c

2.926 3.000 3.084


at 27c = (6) Ct2.928 3.002 3.087


15/74





Table 5.5 - Average specific gravity

Average specific gravity (using distilled water)

Sample 1 3.188

Sample 2 3.141

Sample 3 3.006

Sample 4 3.219

Table 5.6 - Comparison of specific gravity

Comparison of specific gravity

Distilled Water 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




(W1) g72.500 75.000 73.500


+ dry soil (W2) g186.500 182.500 172.000


+ soil + water (W3) g279.000 276.000 263.500


+ water (W4) g200.500 202.000 195.500

6)

Specific gravity at

Tt c 3.211 3.209 3.229


at 27c = (6) Ct3.214 3.212 3.232


16/74


17/74




1) Container No. 2.1 2.2 2.3

2) Mass of container + wet soil (W2) in g 47.500 63.000 56.000

3) Mass of container + dry soil (W3) in g 46.920 61.813 54.998

4) Mass of container (W1) in g 12.000 14.500 15.000

5) Mass of dry soil (W3W1) in g 34.920 47.313 39.998

6) Mass of moisture (W2W3) in g 0.580 1.187 1.002

7) Water content

1.660 2.510 2.506

Average moisture content = 2.225%


1) Container No. 3.1 3.2 3.3






7) Water content

2.960 3.430 3.206



18/74




1) Container No. 4.1 4.2 4.3






7) Water content

1.114 1.299 0.779


Table 5.11 - Average Moisture Content

Average Moisture Content ( % )

Sample1 2.937

Sample 2 2.225

Sample 3 3.199

Sample 4 1.064

5.1.3Dry Sieve Analysis

The grain size analysis is widely used in classification of soils. The

data obtained from grain size distribution curves is used in the design of filters

for earth dams and to determine suitability of soil for road construction, air

field etc. Information obtained from grain size analysis can be used to predict

soil water movement although permeability tests are more generally used. The

test is conducted as per IS code (30).


19/74



Trial 1: Mass of sample taken for analysis = 500g

Water content = 2.937%


I.S sieve

Designation

Mass of

soil

Retained

(g)

Cumulative

mass

retained (g)

Percentage

of soil

retained

on each

sieve(g)

% finer

4.75 0.570 0.57 0.114 99.90

2.36 2.002 2.572 0.400 99.50

1.7 11.640 14.212 2.328 97.20

0.6 71.550 85.762 14.310 82.80

0.3 236.500 322.262 47.300 35.50

0.15 105.500 427.762 21.100 14.400.075 45.500 473.262 9.100 5.30

pan 26.738 500.000 5.347 0.000

Figure 5.1 Grain Size Distribution for Sample 1 (Iron ore tailings from pit 1)

99.999.597.2

82.8

35.5

14.4

5.3

99.999.597.2

82.8

35.5

14.4

5.3

99.999.597.2

82.8

35.5

14.4

5.3

99.999.597.2

82.8

35.5

14.4

5.3

0.01 0.1 1 10

%Passing

Sieve Size (in mm)

Sieve Analysis Sample 1, Iron ore tailings

D 10

D 30

D 60


20/74



From graph

a) D10= 110

b) D30= 260

c)

D60= 4201) Coefficient of curvature

2) Uniform Coefficient

% of soil passing 75 IS sieve = 5.3




I.S sieve

Designation

Mass of

soil

Retained

(g)

Cumulative

mass

retained (g)

Percentageof soil

retained

on each

sieve(g)

% finer

4.75 0.000 0.000 0.000 100

2.36 0.617 0.617 0.123 99.990

1.7 5.930 6.547 1.309 98.700

0.6 40.040 46.587 9.317 90.700

0.3 183.500 230.087 46.017 54.000

0.15 155.000 385.087 77.017 23.000

0.075 75.500 460.58 92.116 7.900

pan 39.413 500.000 100.000 0.000


21/74



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



10099.9998.7

90.7

54

23

7.9

0.01 0.1 1 10

%Passing

Sieve Size (in mm)


D 10

D 30

D 60


22/74






I.S sieve

Designation

Mass of

soil

Retained

(g)

Cumulative

mass

retained (g)

Percentage

of soil

retained

on each

sieve(g)

% finer

4.750 0.000 0.000 0.000 100.000

2.360 3.890 3.890 0.778 99.200

1.700 17.905 21.795 4.360 95.600

0.600 76.500 98.295 19.660 80.300

0.300 212.500 310.795 62.160 37.800

0.150 97.500 408.295 81.660 18.300

0.075 57.000 465.295 93.060 6.900

pan 34.705 500.000 100.000 0.000


From graph

a) D10= 110

b) D30= 250

c) D60= 410

10099.295.6

80.3

37.8

18.3

6.9

0.01 0.1 1 10

%Passing

Sieve Size (in mm)

Sieve Analysis Sam le 3, Iron ore tailin s

D 30

D 60


23/74









I.S sieve

Designation

Mass of

soil

Retained

(g)

Cumulative

mass retained

(g)

Percentage

of soil

retained

on each

sieve(g)

% finer

4.750 1.000 1.000 0.200 99.800

2.360 2.300 3.300 0.660 99.300

1.700 8.530 11.830 2.366 97.600

0.600 62.100 73.930 14.786 85.200

0.300 210.900 284.830 56.966 43.000

0.150 129.500 414.330 82.866 17.100

0.075 55.500 469.830 93.966 6.000

pan 30.140 500.000 100.000 0.000


24/74




From graph

a) D10= 120

b) D30= 230

c) D60= 395




99.899.397.6

85.2

43

17.1

6

0.01 0.1 1 10

%Passing

Sieve Size (in mm)


D 10

D 30

D 60


25/74



5.1.4Liquid limit:

The liquid limit of the soil corresponds to the water content of a paste

which would give 20mm penetration of the soil. Liquid limit is significant to

know the stress history and general properties of the soil met with

construction. The test is conducted as per IS code (31).

The test results as shown in below tables

Trial 1: Natural moisture content: 2.937%

Method adopted: Static Cone penetration method

Table 5.16 - Sample 1 (Iron ore tailing from pit 1)

Determination

Number1 2 3 4

Penetration 13 14 25 20

Container number 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

Weight of

container13.676 16.434 17.981 15.757

Weight of

container + wet

soil

36.831 38.962 66.996 61.180

Weight of

container + dry

soil

32.911 35.060 58.037 53.145

Weight of water 3.920 3.907 8.959 8.035

Weight of dry soil 19.235 18.626 40.056 37.388

Moisture content

(%)20.380 20.940 22.370 21.990


26/74



Figure 5.5 - Liquid Limit for sample 1 (Iron ore tailings from pit 1)

Liquid Limit (WL) = 21.6%




Determination

Number1 2 3 4



Weight of

container15.219 18.143 14.098 15.041

Weight of

container + wet

soil

38.039 32.014 31.490 38.471

Weight of

container + drysoil 35.061 29.514 28.346 33.822

Weight of water 2.978 2.500 3.144 4.649


Moisture content

(%)15.000 21.980 22.070 24.750

20.3820.94 22.3721.99

02468

10121416182022

24262830

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

MoistureContent(%)

Penetration value (mm)

Cone Penetration Scale: X-axis 1unit = 2mmY-axis 1unit = 2%

Sample 1, Iron ore tailings

WL= 21.6%


27/74








Determination

Number1 2 3 4



Weight of

container12.398 15.229 12.168 12.327

Weight of

container + wet

soil

42.561 56.735 47.995 60.925

Weight of

container + drysoil 38.069 48.505 40.977 51.366

Weight of water 4.492 8.230 6.978 9.559


Moisture content

(%)17.490 24.730 24.020 24.480

15

21.98

22.0724.75

02468

10121416182022

24262830

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

MoistureContent(%)



Sam le 2 Iron ore tailin s

WL= 18.0%


28/74








Determination

Number1 2 3 4



Weight of

container13.403 12.378 15.210 15.695

Weight of

container + wet

soil

31.817 44.575 57.940 62.796

Weight of

container + dry

soil

29.398 38.380 49.602 53.750

Weight of water 2.419 6.190 8.358 9.046


Moisture content

(%)15.120 23.800 24.300 23.770

17.49

24.7324.02

24.48

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

MoistureContent(%

)




WL= 25.6%


29/74




5.1.5Plastic limit:

Plastic limit is the water content at which the soil mass can be rolled into a thread

of 3mm diameter and the thread shows signs of cracking. The test is conducted as perIS code (31). From the test it is found that the specimen is non plastic soil.

5.2Engineering Properties:

5.2.1 Standard proctor compaction test:

As the water content is increased, dry density increase up to a certain maximum

value and thereafter decreases. The water content at which dry density attains

maximum value is called optimum moisture content. The test is conducted as per IS

code (32).

The results obtained as shown below

Details of the mould:

Diameter of mould: 10 cm

Height of mould: 12.7 cm

Volume of mould: 997.4557 cm3

Mass of mould: 2285 gm

15.12

23.824.323.77

02468

1012141618202224

262830

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

MoistureContent(%

)




WL= 19.8%


30/74




Sl.

noDetermination No 1 2 3 4

1 Mass of mould with compacted soil (gm) 5299 5428 5512 5508

2 Mass of compacted soil (gm) 3014 3143 3227 3223

3 Wet Density (gm/cc) 3.021 3.151 3.235 3.231

4 Moisture cup No. C1.1 C1.2 C1.3 C1.4

5 Mass of cup + wet soil (gm) 36.967 39.854 46.012 44.719

6 Mass of cup -dry soil (gm) 35.125 37.233 42.582 41.300

7 Mass of water (gm) 1.842 2.621 3.430 3.419

8 Mass of Cup (gm) 14.934 12.324 14.441 16.281

9 Mass of dry soil (gm) 20.191 24.909 28.141 25.019

10 Moisture content (%) 9.120 10.520 12.190 13.670

11 Dry Density (gm/cc) 2.780 2.850 2.880 2.840

12 Dry density at 100% saturation (gm/cc) 2.440 2.360 2.270 2.090

Figure 5.9 - Optimum moisture content for sample 1 (Iron ore tailings from pit 1)

2.78

2.85

2.88

2.84

2.75

2.76

2.77

2.78

2.79

2.8

2.81

2.82

2.83

2.84

2.85

2.86

2.87

2.88

2.89

2.9

2.912.92

8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15

D

ryDensity(g/cc)

Moisture Content (%)

Compaction

OMC = 12.1%

d max = 2.88g/cc

Scale: X-axis 1unit = 0.5%

Y-axis 1unit = 0.01g/ccSample 1, Iron ore tailings


31/74




Sl.

noDetermination No 1 2 3 4 5

1 Mass of mould with compacted soil (gm) 5123 5240 5304 5257 5241

2 Mass of compacted soil (gm) 2838 2955 3019 2972 2956

3 Wet Density (gm/cc) 2.845 2.962 3.026 2.980 2.963

4 Moisture cup No. C2.1 C2.2 C2.3 C2.4 C2.5

5 Mass of cup + wet soil (gm) 44.383 33.933 32.462 46.291 53.098

6 Mass of cup -dry soil (gm) 42.177 32.127 30.478 42.199 47.893

7 Mass of water (gm) 2.206 1.806 1.984 4.092 5.205

8 Mass of Cup (gm) 19.158 14.160 13.958 15.223 15.269

9 Mass of dry soil (gm) 23.019 17.967 16.520 26.976 32.624

10 Moisture content (%) 9.580 10.050 12.010 15.180 15.95011 Dry Density (gm/cc) 2.590 2.690 2.700 2.590 2.550

12 Dry density at 100% saturation (gm/cc) 2.440 2.410 2.310 2.150 2.110


2.59

2.692.7

2.59

2.55

2.52.512.522.532.54

2.552.562.572.582.59

2.62.612.622.632.642.652.662.672.682.69

2.72.712.72

8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18

DryDensity(g/cc)


Compaction

OMC = 11%

d max = 2.71g/cc




32/74




Sl.

noDetermination No 1 2 3 4 5

1 Mass of mould with compacted soil (gm) 5090 5170 5212 5197 500

2 Mass of compacted soil (gm) 2805 2885 2927 2912 2915

3 Wet Density (gm/cc) 2.812 2.892 2.934 2.919 2.922

4 Moisture cup No. C3.1 C3.2 C3.3 C3.4 C3.5

5 Mass of cup + wet soil (gm) 19.917 35.489 25.332 36.124 30.269

6 Mass of cup -dry soil (gm) 19.107 33.581 24.107 33.462 27.777

7 Mass of water (gm) 0.810 1.908 1.225 2.660 2.472

8 Mass of Cup (gm) 11.335 18.334 14.974 16.122 11.482

9 Mass of dry soil (gm) 7.772 15.247 9.133 17.340 16.295

10 Moisture content (%) 10.420 12.510 13.410 15.350 15.290

11 Dry Density (gm/cc) 2.550 2.570 2.590 2.530 2.530

12 Dry density at 100% saturation (gm/cc) 2.290 2.180 2.140 2.050 2.060


2.55

2.57

2.59

2.53

2.53

2.5

2.51

2.52

2.53

2.54

2.55

2.56

2.57

2.58

2.59

2.6

2.61

2.62

8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16

DryDensity(g/cc)


Compaction

OMC = 13.2%

d max = 2.592g/cc


Y-axis 1unit = 0.01g/cc



33/74


34/74



5.2.2Direct Shear:

A direct shear test is a laboratory or field test used bygeotechnical

engineers to measure theshear strengthproperties ofsoil orrock material. Direct

shear tests can be performed under several conditions. The sample is normally

saturated before the test is run, but can be run at the in-situ moisture content. The rate

of strain can be varied to create a test of undrainedor drainedconditions, depending

whether the strain is applied slowly enough for water in the sample to prevent pore-

water pressure buildup. The test is conducted as per IS code (33).

Trial 1:

a) Proving Ring No. = 71018

b) Dimension of specimen (cm) = 6 X 6 X 2.5

c)

Weight of specimen (gm) =158.5d) Normal Load (N) = 4.905


Sl.

No.

Load (KN)Shear Displacement

(mm) Shear

strain

Strain

(%)

Shear

Stress

N/cm2

Proving ring

readings

Load

Values

Dial Gauge

readingsValue

1) 37 0.040 50 0.500 0.008 0.833 2.674

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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geotechnical_engineeringhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geotechnical_engineeringhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_strengthhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soilhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_(geology)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_(geology)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soilhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_strengthhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geotechnical_engineeringhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geotechnical_engineering


35/74



Figure 5.13 - Stress-Strain curve for sample 1 (Iron ore tailings from pit 1)

2.674

3.83

4.625

5.131

5.5645.853

6.076.287

6.504 6.7216.865 6.865

6.6486.504

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

ShearStress(N/cm2)

Shear Strain %

Stress -Strain Curve Scale: X-axis 1unit = 1%Y-axis 1unit = 1N/cm2

Normal Load = 4.905kN


Shear stress at failure

qu= 6.8N/cm2

Shear strain at failure (9.2%)


36/74



a) Dimension of specimen (cm) = 6 X 6 X 2.5

b) Weight of specimen (gm) = 149.5

c)

Normal Load (N) = 9.81

Table 5.25 Sample 1 (Iron ore tailing from pit 1)

Sl.

No.


(mm) Shear

strain

Strain

(%)

Shear

Stress

N/cm2

Proving ring

readings

Load

Values

Dial Gauge

readingsValue

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

8)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


37/74




7.949

11.129

14.092

15.17615.898

16.621 16.83817.199 17.271 17.344 16.982 16.766 16.476

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

ShearStress(N/cm2)

Shear Strain %




qu= 17.2N/cm2

Shear strain at failure (8%)



38/74





c)



Sl.

No.


(mm) Shear

strain

Strain

(%)

Shear

Stress

N/cm2

Proving ring

readings

Load

Values

Dial Gauge

readingsValue

1) 105 0.114 50 0.500 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

8)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


39/74




7.588

14.453

18.428

22.041

24.426

26.73828.545

29.918

30.351 30.279

29.99

28.4

56789

1011121314

1516171819202122232425262728

29303132

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

ShearStress(N/cm2)

Shear Strain %




qu= 30N/cm2




40/74



Figure 5.16 Graph of Normal stress v/s Shear stress at failure

6.8

17.2

30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

ShearStressatfailure(N/cm2)

Normal Stress (N/cm2)

Stress -Strain Curve Scale: X-axis 1unit = 2N/cm2

Y-axis 1unit = 5N/cm2

Angle of Internal friction = 67.067



41/74



Trial 2:


b)

Dimension of specimen (cm) = 6 X 6 X 2.5

c)

Weight of specimen (gm) = 180.5

d) Normal Load (N) = 4.905


Sl.

No.


(mm) Shear

strain

Strain

(%)

Shear

Stress

N/cm2

Proving ring

readings

Load

Values

Dial Gauge

readingsValue

1) 65 0.070 50 0.500 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

8)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


42/74




4.697

5.926

6.793

7.371

7.9498.383

8.6729.105

9.3949.6849.75610.045

10.18910.26210.334

10.189

10.189

10.117

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

ShearStress(N/cm2)

Shear Strain %





qu= 10.3N/cm2



43/74




b) Weight of specimen (gm) = 151

c)



Sl.

No.


(mm) Shear

strain

Strain

(%)

Shear

Stress

N/cm2

Proving ring

readings

Load

Values

Dial Gauge

readingsValue

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

8)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


44/74




4.336

9.394

11.924

13.947

15.3216.043

16.766

17.271

17.777 17.994

18.283

18.5

18.5

18.572

18.518.211

17.85

0

1

2

3

4

5

67

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

ShearStress(N/cm2)

Shear Strain %




qu= 18.2N/cm2




45/74





c)



Sl.

No

.


(mm)Shear

strain

Strain

(%)

Shear

Stress

N/cm2

Proving

ring

readings

Load

Values

Dial Gauge

readingsValue

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 24.5708)

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


46/74




3.613

11.924

15.898

18.789

20.957

22.908

24.57

26.015

27.31628.183

28.90629.19529.55629.62929.412

28.47227.461

0123456789

10111213

1415161718192021222324252627282930

3132

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Shear

Stress(N/cm2)

Shear Strain %




qu= 29.2N/cm2




47/74



Figure 5.20 - Graph of Normal stress v/s Shear stress at failure

10.3

18.2

29.2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Shea

rStressatfailure(N/cm2)



Y-axis 1unit = 5N/cm2



Cohesion C = 2N/cm2


48/74



5.3Chemical Properties:

Chemical Properties of Tailings: - (courtesy N.N. Sampath Kumar)

Omitted tailings generally consist of traces of silica, iron oxide, aluminium

oxide, titanium oxide etc. Constituents of the tailings are mentioned in the table

below.

Table 5.30 - Chemical Composition

ConstituentPercentage 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


49/74



6.0 Tests on red soil

6.1 Index properties:

6.1.1Moisture content test on Iron ore tailings.

The test is conducted as per IS code (28).The results obtained as shown in

table.

Table 6.1 - Sample 1 (Red soil)

1) Container No. 1.1 1.2

2) Mass of container + wet soil (W2) in g 29.762 33.451

3) Mass of container + dry soil (W3) in g 29.624 33.181

4) Mass of container (W1) in g 18.330 14.33

5) Mass of dry soil (W3W1) in g 11.294 18.848

6) Mass of moisture (W2W3) in g 0.138 0.270

7) Water content

1.222 1.433



1) Container No. 2.1 2.2

2) Mass of container + wet soil (W2) in g 29.340 29.608

3) Mass of container + dry soil (W3) in g 29.089 29.325

4) Mass of container (W1) in g 13.882 12.743

5) Mass of dry soil (W3W1) in g 14.825 16.182

6) Mass of moisture (W2W3) in g 0.251 0.283

7) Water content

1.693 1.749



50/74



6.1.2 Specific Gravity test on Red soil:

The test is conducted as per IS code (29).The results obtained as shown in table.

a) Test Temperature Ttc= 28.5c

b) Relative density of water at Ttc = 0.9962

c) Relative density of water at 27c = 0.9965

d) Correction factor due to temperature

e)

Specific gravity,

Table 6.3 - Sample 1 (Red Soil)





(W1) g72.711 75.431 73.614


+ dry soil (W2) g

132.966 140.046 149.019


+ soil + water (W3) g237.500 242.500 241.000


+ water (W4) g201.000 202.000 195.000


Tt c

2.537 2.679 2.564


at 27c = (6) Ct2.536 2.678 2.563


51/74





Table 6.5 - Average specific gravity

Average specific gravity (using distilled water)

Sample 1 2.592

Sample 2 2.533




(W1) g72.711 75.431 73.614


+ dry soil (W2) g134.193 149.561 144.394


+ soil + water (W3) g237.000 247.000 239.000


+ water (W4) g201.000 202.000 195.000

6)

Specific gravity at

Tt c 2.413 2.545 2.643


at 27c = (6) Ct2.412 2.544 2.642


52/74



6.1.3 Dry Sieve Analysis for Red Soil:

The test is conducted as per IS code (30).


Water content =1.328%

Table 6.6 - Sieve analysis for sample 1 (Red soil)

I.S sieve

Designation

(mm)

Mass of

soil

Retained

(gm)

Cumulative

mass retained

(gm)

Percentage

of soil

retained

on each

sieve(gm)

% finer

4.75 4.500 4.500 0.900 99.100

2.36 14.500 19.000 3.800 96.200

1.7 38.500 57.500 11.500 88.500

0.6 46.000 103.500 20.700 79.300

0.3 155.000 258.500 51.700 48.300

0.15 166.000 424.500 84.900 15.100

0.075 38.500 463.000 92.600 7.400

pan 37.000 500.000 100.000 0.000

Figure 6.1 - Grain Size Distribution for Sample 1 (Red soil)

From graph

a) D10= 120

b)

D30= 205

c) D60= 295

99.196.2

88.5

79.3

48.3

15.1

7.4

0.01 0.1 1 10

%Passing

Sieve Size (in mm)

Sieve Analysis Sample 1, Red soil

D 10

D 30

D 60


53/74








Table 6.7 - Sieve analysis for sample 2 (Red soil)

I.S sieve

Designation

Mass of

soil

Retained

(g)

Cumulative

mass retained

(g)

Percentage

of soil

retained

on each

sieve(g)

% finer

4.75 2.500 2.500 2.500 97.900

2.36 8.000 10.500 2.100 97.900

1.7 33.000 43.500 8.700 91.300

0.6 45.500 89.000 17.800 82.200

0.3 148.500 237.500 47.500 52.500

0.15 174.000 411.500 82.300 17.700

0.075 42.500 454.000 90.800 9.200

pan 46.000 500.000 100.000 0.000


54/74


55/74



Table 6.8 Sample 1 (Red soil)

Figure 6.3 - Liquid limit for sample 1 (Red soil)

Liquid limit (WL) = 34%

28.79

31.421

32.536

33.588

25.60725

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

1 10 100 1000

MoistureContent(%)

No. of Blows

Liquid Limit Scale: Y-axis 1unit = 1%Sample 1, Red soil

WL= 34%

25 Blows


Sl.

No.Determination No. 1 2 3 4 5

1) No of Blows 90 58 34 27 15

2) Container No. L1.1 L1.2 L1.3 L1.4 L1.5

3)Mass of container & wet

soil(gm)w229.989 24.689 27.713 26.696 21.555

4)Mass of container &

dry soil(gm)w326.621 21.729 24.694 23.002 18.876

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) Mass of Dry soil 11.681 9.430 9.279 10.998 7.462

8) Moisture Content 28.790 31.421 32.536 33.588 35.607


56/74




Figure 6.4 - Liquid limit for sample 2 (Red soil)

Liquid limit (WL) = 31.8%

30.881

29.928

31.563

30.556

33.653

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

1 10 100 1000

MoistureContent(%)

No. of Blows

Liquid Limit Scale: Y-axis 1unit = 1%Sample 2, Red soil

WL = 31.8%

25 Blows


Sl.

No.Determination No. 1 2 3 4 5

1) No of Blows 37 97 27 42 26

2) Container No. L1.1 L1.2 L1.3 L1.4 L1.5


wet soil(gm)w234.356 35.787 38.973 44.225 49.573


dry soil(gm)w329.772 31.869 33.501 37.481 41.431

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) Mass of Dry soil 14.844 13.544 17.337 22.014 24.194

8) Moisture Content 30.881 28.928 31.563 30.566 33.653


57/74



6.1.5Plastic Limit:

Plastic limit is the water content at which the soil mass can be rolled into a

thread of 3mm diameter and the thread shows signs of cracking. The test is

conducted as per IS code (31).


Average Plastic Limit = 16.534%


Average Plastic Limit = 18.530%

Sl.

No.Determination No. 1 2 3

1) Container No. P1.1 P1.2 P1.3


wet soil(gm)18.905 17.039 17.467


dry soil(gm)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) Mass of Dry soil 3.143 4.173 4.315

7) Plastic limit % 15.845 16.583 17.173

Sl.

No.Determination No. 1 2 3

1) Container No. P2.1 P2.2 P2.3


wet soil(gm)17.715 18.758 21.359

3) Mass of container &dry soil(gm)

17.267 18.217 20.393

4) Mass of Moisture 0.448 0.541 0.966

5) Mass of container 14.494 15.657 15.115

6) Mass of Dry soil 2.773 2.560 5.278

7) Plastic limit % 16.156 21.133 18.302


58/74



6.2 Engineering Properties:

6.2.1 Standard proctor compaction test:

The test is conducted as per IS code (32).

Results are as shown in table:

a) Diameter of mould (cm), D = 10.6

b) Height of mould (cm),h = 12.7

c) Volume of mould (cm3) = 997.458

d) Mass of mould (gm) = 2285

e)No. of Layers = 3

f)

No. of Blows/ Layer = 25g) Specific Gravity = 2.592

Dry density at 100% saturation (gm/cc) =


59/74




Figure 6.5 - Optimum moisture content for sample 1 (Red soil)

2.461

2.509

2.44

2.382

2.352.362.372.382.39

2.42.412.42

2.432.442.452.462.472.482.49

2.52.512.522.532.542.552.562.572.582.59

2.6

10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19

D

ryDensity(g/cc)


Compaction

OMC = 15%

d max = 2.51g/cc


Y-axis 1unit = 0.01g/cc

Sample , Red soil

Sl.

NoDetermination No 1 2 3 4

1 Mass Of mould with compacted soil (gm) 5162 5163 5094 5057

2 % water added 8 10 12 14

3 Mass Of compacted soil (gm) 2877 2878 2809 2772

4 Wet Density (gm/cc) 2.884 2.885 2.816 2.779

5 Moisture cup No. C1.1 C1.2 C1.3 C1.4

6 Mass of Cup (gm) 13.674 15.085 16.208 14.931

7 Mass of cup + wet soil (gm) 26.847 36.025 41.267 37.801

8 Mass Of cup -dry soil (gm) 25.373 33.299 37.917 34.535

9 Mass of dry soil (gm) 11.699 18.214 21.709 19.604

10 Mass of water (gm) 1.474 2.726 3.350 3.266

11 Moisture content (%) 12.599 14.967 15.431 16.660

12 Dry Density (gm/cc) 2.561 2.509 2.440 2.382

13 Dry density at 100% saturation (gm/cc) 1.954 1.868 1.851 1.810


60/74




Figure 6.6 - Optimum moisture content for sample 2 (Red soil)

2.42.412.422.432.442.452.46

2.472.482.49

2.52.512.522.532.542.552.562.572.582.59

2.6

2.612.62

6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16

DryDensity(g/cc)


Compaction

OMC = 11.4%

d max = 2.60g/cc



Sl.

NoDetermination No 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Mass Of mould with compacted soil (gm) 4881 5003 5053 5173 5155 5120

2 % water added 6 8 10 12 14 16

3 Mass Of compacted soil (gm) 2596 2718 2768 2888 2870 2835

4 Wet Density (gm/cc) 2.603 2.725 2.775 2.895 2.877 2.842

5 Moisture cup No. C2.1 C2.2 C2.3 C2.4 C2.5 C2.6

6 Mass of Cup (gm) 13.960 12.320 11.327 15.299 14.137 15.015

7 Mass of cup + wet soil (gm) 24.822 26.673 27.922 32.084 33.034 35.539

8 Mass Of cup -dry soil (gm) 24.095 25.516 26.519 30.365 30.766 32.902

9 Mass of dry soil (gm) 10.135 13.136 15.192 15.066 16.329 17.887

10 Mass of water (gm) 0.727 1.157 1.403 1.719 2.268 2.637

11 Moisture content (%) 7.137 8.768 9.25 11.410 13.889 14.743

12 Dry Density (gm/cc) 2.429 2.505 2.540 2.599 2.526 2.477

13 Dry density at 100% saturation (gm/cc) 2.144 2.073 2.053 1.965 1.874 1.844


61/74



6.2.2Direct shear test:

The test is conducted as per IS code (32).The results are shown below


b)

Dimension of specimen (cm) = 6 X 6 X 2.5

c) Weight of specimen (gm) = 197

d) Normal Load (N) = 4.905


Sl.

No.


(mm) Shear

strain

Strain

(%)

Shear

Stress

N/cm2

Proving ring

readings

Load

Values

Dial Gauge

readingsValue

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

8)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


62/74



Figure 6.7 - Stress-Strain curve for sample 1 (Red soil)

2.891

9.394

15.176

20.379

23.631

25.5126.305

24.78723.269

21.752

0123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ShearStress(N/cm2)

Shear Strain %



Red soil

Shear stress at failurequ= 26.1N/cm

2



63/74



a) Dimension of specimen (cm) = 6 x 6 x 2.5


c)



Sl.

No.


(mm) Shear

strain

Strain

(%)

Shear

Stress

N/cm2

Proving ring

readings

Load

Values

Dial Gauge

readingsValue

1) 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

8)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


64/74




0.072

2.168

9.611

14.742

20.957

25.871

30.713

33.676

35.77136.711

35.482

33.242

31.074

01234567

89

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

ShearStress(N/cm2)

Shear Strain %



Red soil


qu= 36.5N/cm2



65/74





c)



Sl.

No.


(mm) Shear

strain

Strain

(%)

Shear

Stress

N/cm2

Proving ring

readings

Load

Values

Dial Gauge

readingsValue

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

8)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


66/74




12.574

21.174

27.461

32.664

37.144

40.541

42.49241.552

40.035

38.011

101112131415161718

192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ShearStress(N/cm2)

Shear Strain %



Red soil


qu = 42.5N/cm2

Shear strain at failure (6%)


67/74



Figure 6.10 - Graph of normal stress v/s Shear stress at failure for sample 1(Red soil)

26.1

36.5

42.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Shea

rStressatfailure(N/cm2)



Y-axis 1unit = 5N/cm2Red soil


Cohesion C = 21N/cm2


68/74



7.0 Properties of Mixture:

Two combinations of mixes were used in the present study, such as Burnt Clay

Mortar Mix and Burnt Iron Ore Tailings Mix. We all know that when clay is burnt at

higher temperatures for certain duration it turns into pozzolona. Therefore, both the

samples, namely red soil and iron ore Tailings were wet sieved under 75 micron sieve.

Quantity obtained after wet sieving the sample through 75 IS sieve were collected

and dried in sun light till the moisture evaporates and then it is kept for burning in

muffle furnace for four hours after attaining 6000C.

Below table gives the proportion of mix by weight.

Table 7.1 Constituents used for different types of mixes

Types of mixes

Burnt Clay

Mortar mix

1 2 6

Lime Burnt Clay Standard Sand(1:1:1)

Iron ore tailing

mortar mix

1 2 6

Lime Iron ore Standard Sand(1:1:1)

Types of mixes

Burnt Clay

Mortar mix

1 2 9

Lime Burnt Clay Standard Sand(1:1:1)

Burnt Iron oretailing mortar mix

1 2 9Lime Iron ore Standard Sand(1:1:1)


69/74



8.0 Experimental Investigations

Two Mixes with different ratio of constituents were prepared from each type of

mixtures (i.e. burnt clay Mortar mix as lime surkhi and Burnt Iron ore tailing mortar

mix). Six samples were prepared from each mix with proportions of 1:2:6 and 1:2:9

for both Burnt Clay and Iron Ore Tailings and were tested for 7 and 21 days. The

mixture is prepared as per weight batching and it is dried properly under sunlight. The

ingredients were mixed by adding known amount of water and immediately used for

moulding. Three specimens (Blocks 5x5x5cm) from each type of mix proportions,

cured for 7 days and 21 days were tested for compressive strength. The test method

followed was as per IS Specification.

Table 8.1 - Compressive strength of specimens of different mix proportions

Burnt Clay Mortar mix Burnt Iron ore tailing

mortar mix

MixCompressive

strength (MPa) MixCompressive

strength (MPa)

7 dayscuring

28days

curing

7 dayscuring

28days

curing

1:2:6

1.4308 3.208

1:2:6

- -

2.038 3.252 - -

2.038 3.252 - -

1:2:9

1.171 2.950

1:2:9

- 0.1734

1.084 2.818 - 0.2168

1.127 2.862 - 0.1794


70/74



9.0 Results and Overall Discussion

9.1 Compressive strength

The compressive strength of mix was compared according to the leanness of

the mix proportion and also with its respective mix proportions (i.e. with burnt clay

and burnt tailings mixes). But, in our study, blocks casted of burnt iron ore tailings

yielded negligible strength an shown in the table (7.1). Therefore our study narrow

downs to the comparison of burnt clay mix only. As shown in the below chart 8.1,

when we compare 7 days and 21 days strength, there is considerable increase in the

strength for both 1:2:6 and 1:2:9 mixes.

Figure 9.1 - Comparison of compressive strengths of burnt clay mix cured for 7 days and 28 days

Below figure shows the comparison according to the leanness of mixes. We

can observe that there is decrease in 7 days strength of 1:2:9 burnt clay mixes when

compared to 1:2:6 burnt clay mix. This compares 21 days strength also.

Figure 9.2 Comparison of compressive strengths of burnt clay mixes, (1;2:4) with (1:2:9)

1.8356

3.2373

1.1273

2.877

0

1

2

3

4

1

Avg.compressive

strength(Mpa)

mixes

7 days

21 days

1:2:6 1:2:9

1.8356

1.1273

3.2373

2.877

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

1

Avg.compressivestren

gth(Mpa)

mixes

7 days

21 days

1:2:6 1:2:9 1:2:6 1:2:9


71/74



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.


72/74



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.


73/74



13.Jinhua, W., Fuping, L., Jain,, W., Lijie, S., Rong,, J. , 2010, Spatial query and

Analysis of Tailings Management Based on GIS, Information Science and

Engineering (ICISE), in Second International Conference, 4, pp. 4033-4035.

14.Muduli, S. D., Raut, P. K., Pany, S., Mustakim, S. M., Nayak, B. D., Mishra, B. K.,

Innovative Proce

feasibility study on iron ore mine tailings

Documents