Feasibility Study On Iron Ore Mine Tailings

Feasibility Study On Iron Ore Mine Tailings
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

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 the
secondary 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
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

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, granigneiss, 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.
Page 5
3.0 Literature review

3.1 Literature Review on Tailings:
Govt. of Karnataka (2013) [3] has set up the R&D Centre at National Institute
of 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.
Page 6

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.
Page 7

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 (<0.5 %), high bending strength (38 MPa) and dense
microstructure. It was concluded that partial addition of iron ore tailing, fly ash and
blast furnace slag in suitable combination in ceramic tiles will improve its scratch
hardness (>6 on Mohrs scale) and flexural strength (>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
Page 8

mining sites. He showed phytoremediation is cost-effective and feasible because
plants are able to slowly absorb toxins into their tissues and thereby help clean toxins
from waste sites.
Jaladi, S. K. (2001) [8], in his Studies mentioned that
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

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 BeidelliteNontronite series, with a good amount of naturally occurring iron oxides and hydroxides
is eminently suited for high grade surkhis.
Page 10
4.0 Methodology:
METHODOLOGY
METHDOLOGY
Tailing Sample collection
Red Earth Sample collection
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.
Soil is well prepared for testing Index and Engineering Properties.
Determination of Index Properties such as Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and

Shrinkage Limit, Specific gravity, Sieve Analysis and in-situ Density.
Determination of Engineering Properties such as unconfined compressive

strength, Shear strength and Iron content determination.
Analysis of test result with both Engineering and Index Properties.
Results concluded that tailings are high density, Less cohesive, negligible
pozzolonic action.
Red soil samples are collected from Nursery near Nagarbhavi, Bangalore.
Soil is well prepared for testing Index and Engineering Properties.
Determination of Index Properties such as Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and

Shrinkage Limit, Specific gravity, Sieve Analysis and in-situ Density.
Determination of Engineering Properties such as Shear strength and Iron content

determination.
Analysis of test result with both Engineering and Index Properties.
Page 12
5.0 Tests 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 Tt c = 24c
b) Relative density of water at Tt c = 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)
Water used: Distilled water

1)
Density bottle No.
1.1
1.2
1.3
2)
Mass of density bottle

(W1) g
74.500
73.500
71.500
3)

+ dry soil (W2) g
183.500 195.000 198.000
4)

+ soil + water (W3) g
279.000 281.000 281.500
5)
6)
7)

+ water (W4) g
Specific gravity at
Tt c
Specific gravity of soil
at 27c = (6) Ct
200.500 202.000 195.500

2.574
2.859
3.124
3.577
2.861
3.126
Average specific gravity = 3.188
Page 13

1)
Density bottle No.
2.1
2.2
2.3
2)

(W1) g
72.000
75.000
73.500
3)

+ dry soil (W2) g
161.500 175.500 166.000
4)

261.500 270.500 258.500
5)
6)
7)

+ water (W4) g
Specific gravity at
Tt c
at 27c = (6) Ct
200.500 202.000 195.500

3.140
3.141
3.136
3.143
3.143
3.138

1)
Density bottle No.
3.1
3.2
3.3
2)

(W1) g
72.000
75.000
73.500
3)

+ dry soil (W2) g
190.500 199.500 164.500
4)

278.500 285.000 257.000
5)
6)
7)

+ water (W4) g
Specific gravity at
Tt c
at 27c = (6) Ct
200.500 202.000 195.500

2.926
3.000
3.084
2.928
3.002
3.087
Page 14


1)
Density bottle No.
4.1
4.2
4.3
2)

(W1) g
72.500
75.000
73.500
3)

+ dry soil (W2) g
186.500 182.500 172.000
4)

279.000 276.000 263.500
5)
6)
7)

+ water (W4) g
Specific gravity at
Tt c
at 27c = (6) Ct
200.500 202.000 195.500

3.211
3.209
3.229
3.214
3.212
3.232
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
Page 15

5.1.2 Moisture content Determination
The natural water content also called the natural moisture content is the ratio
of the weight of water to the weight of the solids in a given mass of soil. This ratio
is usually expressed as percentage. The test is conducted as per IS Code (28).
The results obtained as shown in table.
1)
Container No.
2)
Mass of container + wet soil (W2) in g
60.500 64.500 59.000
3)
Mass of container + dry soil (W3) in g
59.595 62.614 57.860
4)
Mass of container (W1) in g
15.000 17.500 15.000
5)
Mass of dry soil (W3 W1) in g
45.595 45.114 42.860
6)
Mass of moisture (W2 W3) in g
0.905
1.886
1.140
1.980
4.180
2.650
7)
Water content
1.1
1.2
1.3
Average moisture content = 2.937%
Page 16

1)
Container No.
2)
47.500 63.000 56.000
3)
46.920 61.813 54.998
4)
12.000 14.500 15.000
5)
34.920 47.313 39.998
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)
47.000 43.500 50.500
3)
45.992 42.504 49.339
4)
12.000 13.500 13.000
5)
33.992 29.004 36.335
6)
1.008
0.996
1.165
2.960
3.430
3.206
7)
Water content
3.1
Page 17

1)
Container No.
2)
65.000 53.500 54.500
3)
64.487 53.000 54.193
4)
18.000 14.500 14.500
5)
46.482 38.500 39.693
6)
0.518
0.500
0.307
1.114
1.299
0.779
7)
Water content
4.1
4.2
4.3
Table 5.11 - Average Moisture Content
Average Moisture Content ( % )

Sample1
2.937
Sample 2
2.225
Sample 3
3.199
Sample 4
1.064
5.1.3 Dry 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).
Page 18

Trial 1: Mass of sample taken for analysis = 500g
Water content = 2.937%
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
Sample 1, Iron ore tailings

97.2 99.5
99.9
82.8
% Passing
D 60
35.5
D 30
D 10
14.4
5.3
0.01
0.1
Sieve Size (in mm)
10
Figure 5.1 Grain Size Distribution for Sample 1 (Iron ore tailings from pit 1)
Page 19

From graph
a) D10 = 110
b) D30 = 260
c) D60 = 420
1) Coefficient of curvature
2) Uniform Coefficient
% of soil passing 75 IS sieve = 5.3

Mass of
I.S sieve
soil
(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

98.7 99.99
100
90.7
% Passing
D 60
54
D 30
23
D 10
7.9
0.01
0.1
Sieve Size (in mm)
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
Page 21

Mass of
I.S sieve
soil
(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

95.6 99.2
100
80.3
% Passing
D 60
37.8
D 30
18.3
D 10
6.9
0.01
0.1
Sieve Size (in mm)1
10
From graph
a) D10 = 110
b) D30 = 250
c) D60 = 410
Page 22


Mass of
Cumulative
I.S sieve
soil
mass 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

97.6 99.3
99.8
85.2
% Passing
D 60
43
D 30
17.1
D 10
6
0.01
0.1
Sieve Size (in mm)
10
From graph
a) D10 = 120
b) D30 = 230
c) D60 = 395
Page 24

5.1.4 Liquid 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
Number
Penetration
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
Weight of dry soil

Moisture content
(%)
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
Moisture Content (%)

30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Scale: X-axis 1unit = 2mm

Y-axis 1unit = 2%
Cone Penetration
WL = 21.6%
10
12
14
16
22.37
21.99
20.94
20.38
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Penetration value (mm)

Figure 5.5 - Liquid Limit for sample 1 (Iron ore tailings from pit 1)
Liquid Limit (WL) = 21.6%

Determination
Number
Penetration
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
Weight of dry soil

Moisture content
(%)
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

Y-axis 1unit = 2%
Sample 2, Iron ore tailings Cone Penetration

30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
21.98
WL = 18.0%
24.75
22.07
15
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30


Determination
Number
Penetration
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
Weight of dry soil

Moisture content
(%)
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

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

Y-axis 1unit = 2%
Cone Penetration
24.73
24.02
24.48
WL = 25.6%
17.49
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30


Determination
Number
Penetration
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
Weight of dry soil

Moisture content
(%)
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

Y-axis 1unit = 2%
Sample 4, Iron ore tailings Cone Penetration

30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
WL = 19.8%
24.3
23.77
23.8
15.12
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30

5.1.5 Plastic 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). From the test it is found that the specimen is non plastic soil.
5.2 Engineering 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
Page 29

Sl.
no
Determination No
Mass of mould with compacted soil (gm)
5299
5428
5512
5508
Mass of compacted soil (gm)
3014
3143
3227
3223
Wet Density (gm/cc)
3.021
3.151
3.235
3.231
Moisture cup No.
C1.1
C1.2
C1.3
C1.4
Mass of cup + wet soil (gm)
36.967
39.854
46.012
44.719
Mass of cup - dry soil (gm)
35.125
37.233
42.582
41.300
Mass of water (gm)
1.842
2.621
3.430
3.419
Mass of Cup (gm)
14.934
12.324
14.441
16.281
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
Dry Density (g/cc)
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
Scale: X-axis 1unit = 0.5%

Y-axis 1unit = 0.01g/cc
Compaction

d max = 2.88g/cc
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

Figure 5.9 - Optimum moisture content for sample 1 (Iron ore tailings from pit 1)
Page 30

Sl.
no
Determination No
5123
5240
5304
5257
5241
2838
2955
3019
2972
2956
Wet Density (gm/cc)
2.845
2.962
3.026
2.980
2.963
Moisture cup No.
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
Mass of water (gm)
2.206
1.806
1.984
4.092
5.205
Mass of Cup (gm)
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
Dry Density (gm/cc)
2.590
2.690
2.700
2.590
2.550
12
2.440
2.410
2.310
2.150
2.110
Dry Density (g/cc)

2.72
2.71
2.7
2.69
2.68
2.67
2.66
2.65
2.64
2.63
2.62
2.61
2.6
2.59
2.58
2.57
2.56
2.55
2.54
2.53
2.52
2.51
2.5
2.69
Compaction

2.7
d max = 2.71g/cc
2.59
2.59
2.55
OMC = 11%
8
8.5
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

Page 31

Sl.
no
Determination No
5090
5170
5212
5197
500
2805
2885
2927
2912
2915
Wet Density (gm/cc)
2.812
2.892
2.934
2.919
2.922
Moisture cup No.
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
Mass of water (gm)
0.810
1.908
1.225
2.660
2.472
Mass of Cup (gm)
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
Dry Density (gm/cc)
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
Dry Density (g/cc)
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
10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16

Page 32

Table 5.23 Sample 4 (Iron ore tailing from pit 4)
Sl.
No
Determination No
Mass of mould with

compacted soil (gm)
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
Mass of compacted soil

(gm)
Wet Density (gm/cc)
Moisture cup No.
Mass of cup + wet soil
(gm)
Mass of cup - dry soil
(gm)
Mass of water (gm)
1.631
1.629
1.328
2.931
2.479
3.216
3.186
4.136
Mass of Cup (gm)
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
Dry Density (gm/cc)
2.630
2.680
2.670
2.700
2.670
2.660
2.610
2.620
12
Dry density at 100%

saturation (gm/cc)
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
Dry Density (g/cc)
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

5.2.2 Direct Shear:
A direct shear test is a laboratory or field test used by geotechnical
engineers to measure the shear strength properties of soil or rock 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 undrained or drained conditions, depending
whether the strain is applied slowly enough for water in the sample to prevent porewater 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)
=158.5
d) Normal Load (N)
= 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
Stress -Strain Curve Scale: X-axis 1unit = 1%
Normal Load = 4.905kN
Y-axis 1unit = 1N/cm2
8
7
Shear Stress (N/cm2)
6
5.564
Shear stress at failure
5.131
qu = 6.8N/cm2
6.07
5.853
6.287
6.504
6.721 6.865 6.865 6.648

6.504
4.625
4
3.83
3
2.674
2
Shear strain at failure (9.2%)

1
0
0
10
11
Shear Strain %
Figure 5.13 - Stress-Strain curve for sample 1 (Iron ore tailings from pit 1)
Page 35
12

a) Dimension of specimen (cm)
= 6 X 6 X 2.5
b) Weight of specimen (gm)
= 149.5
c) Normal Load (N)
= 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

19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
16.621 16.838

15.176
qu = 17.2N/cm2
17.199 17.271 17.344 16.982
15.898
16.766 16.476
14.092
11.129
7.949
Shear strain at failure (8%)
10
11
Shear Strain %
Page 37
12

= 6 X 6 X 2.5
= 154.5
c) Normal Load (N)
= 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

32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
30.351
30.279
29.99
29.918
28.545
28.4
26.738

qu = 30N/cm2
24.426
22.041
18.428
14.453

7.588
10
11
Shear Strain %
Page 39
12
Stress -Strain Curve Scale: X-axis 1unit = 2N/cm2
35
Shear Stress at failure (N/cm2)
30
30
25
20
17.2
15
Angle of Internal friction = 67.067
10
6.8
5
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
Normal Stress (N/cm2)

Figure 5.16 Graph of Normal stress v/s Shear stress at failure
Page 40

Trial 2:
a) Proving Ring No.
= 71018
b) Dimension of specimen (cm)
= 6 X 6 X 2.5
= 180.5
d) Normal Load (N)
= 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
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 %
Page 42

= 6 X 6 X 2.5
= 151
c) Normal Load (N)
= 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

20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
18.283

qu = 18.2N/cm2
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 %
Page 44

= 6 X 6 X 2.5
= 151
c) Normal Load (N)
= 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

32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
29.629
29.556
29.412
29.195
28.906
28.472
28.183
27.461
27.316
26.015
qu = 29.2N/cm2
24.57
22.908
20.957
18.789
15.898
11.924

3.613
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Shear Strain %
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)
Figure 5.20 - Graph of Normal stress v/s Shear stress at failure
Page 47

5.3 Chemical 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
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
6.0 Tests on red soil

6.1 Index properties:
6.1.1 Moisture 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.
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

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 Tt c= 28.5c
b) Relative density of water at Tt c = 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)

1)
Density bottle No.
1.1
1.2
1.3
2)

(W1) g
72.711
75.431
73.614
3)

+ dry soil (W2) g
132.966 140.046 149.019
4)

237.500 242.500 241.000
5)
6)
7)

+ water (W4) g
Specific gravity at
Tt c
at 27c = (6) Ct
201.000 202.000 195.000

2.537
2.679
2.564
2.536
2.678
2.563
Page 50


1)
Density bottle No.
2.1
2.2
2.3
2)

(W1) g
72.711
75.431
73.614
3)

+ dry soil (W2) g
134.193 149.561 144.394
4)

237.000 247.000 239.000
5)
6)
7)

+ water (W4) g
Specific gravity at
Tt c
at 27c = (6) Ct
201.000 202.000 195.000

2.413
2.545
2.643
2.412
2.544
2.642
Table 6.5 - Average specific gravity
Average specific gravity (using distilled water)

Sample 1
2.592
Sample 2
2.533
Page 51

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)
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
Sample 1, Red soil

96.2
99.1
88.5
% Passing
79.3
D 60
48.3
D 30
15.1
D 10
7.4
0.01
0.1
Sieve Size (in mm)
10
Figure 6.1 - Grain Size Distribution for Sample 1 (Red soil)
From graph
a) D10 = 120
b) D30 = 205
c) D60 = 295
Page 52

Table 6.7 - Sieve analysis for sample 2 (Red soil)
Mass of
Cumulative
I.S sieve
soil
mass 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
Sample 2, Red soil

97.9
97.9
91.3
% Passing
82.2
D 60
52.5
D 30
17.7
D 10
9.2
0.01
0.1
Sieve Size (in mm)1
10
Figure 6.2 - Grain Size Distribution for Sample 2 (Red soil)
From graph
a) D10 = 90
b) D30 = 200
c) D60 = 350
6.1.4 Liquid 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
Page 54

Table 6.8 Sample 1 (Red soil)

Sl.
No.
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
Mass of container & wet

29.989
soil(gm) w2
Mass of container &
26.621
dry soil(gm) w3
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)
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
Sample 1, Red soil
Liquid Limit
Scale: Y-axis 1unit = 1%
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)
Liquid limit (WL) = 34%
Page 55


Sl.
No.
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)
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
Sample 2, Red soil
Liquid Limit
Scale: Y-axis 1unit = 1%
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)
Liquid limit (WL) = 31.8%

Page 56

6.1.5 Plastic 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).
Sl.
No.
Determination No.
1)
Container No.
P1.1
P1.2
P1.3
2)
Mass of container &

wet soil(gm)
18.905
17.039
17.467
3)
Mass of container &

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
P2.1
P2.2
17.715
18.758
21.359
17.267
18.217
20.393
Average Plastic Limit = 16.534%

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)
Mass of Dry soil
2.773
2.560
5.278
7)
Plastic limit %
16.156
21.133
18.302
Average Plastic Limit = 18.530%

Page 57
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
= 25
g) Specific Gravity
= 2.592
Dry density at 100% saturation (gm/cc) =
Page 58

Sl.
No
Determination No
5162
5163
10
12
14
Mass Of mould with compacted soil (gm)
% water added
Mass Of compacted soil (gm)
2877
2878
2809
2772
Wet Density (gm/cc)
2.884
2.885
2.816
2.779
Moisture cup No.
C1.1
C1.2
C1.3
C1.4
Mass of Cup (gm)
13.674
15.085
16.208
14.931
26.847
36.025
41.267
37.801
Mass Of cup - dry soil (gm)
25.373
33.299
37.917
34.535
11.699
18.214
21.709
19.604
10
Mass of water (gm)
1.474
2.726
3.350
3.266
11
12.599
14.967
15.431
16.660
12
Dry Density (gm/cc)
2.561
2.509
2.440
2.382
13
1.954
1.868
1.851
1.810
Dry Density (g/cc)
Sample , Red soil

2.6
2.59
2.58
2.57
2.56
2.55
2.54
2.53
2.52
2.51
2.5
2.49
2.48
2.47
2.46
2.45
2.44
2.43
2.42
2.41
2.4
2.39
2.38
2.37
2.36
2.35
Compaction
5094
4
5057

2.509
d max = 2.51g/cc
2.461
2.44
OMC = 15%
2.382
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

Figure 6.5 - Optimum moisture content for sample 1 (Red soil)
Page 59

Sl.
No
Determination No
4881
5003
5173
5155
5120
10
12
14
16
Mass Of mould with compacted soil (gm)
% water added
Mass Of compacted soil (gm)
2596
2718
2768
2888
2870
2835
Wet Density (gm/cc)
2.603
2.725
2.775
2.895
2.877
2.842
Moisture cup No.
C2.1
C2.2
C2.3
C2.4
C2.5
C2.6
Mass of Cup (gm)
13.960
12.320
11.327
15.299
14.137
15.015
24.822
26.673
27.922
32.084
33.034
35.539
Mass Of cup - dry soil (gm)
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
Mass of water (gm)
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
Dry Density (gm/cc)
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
Dry Density (g/cc)

Compaction

2.62
2.61
2.6
2.59
2.58
2.57
2.56
2.55
2.54
2.53
2.52
2.51
2.5
2.49
2.48
2.47
2.46
2.45
2.44
2.43
2.42
2.41
2.4
5053
d max = 2.60g/cc
OMC = 11.4%
6.5
7.5
8.5
9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16

Figure 6.6 - Optimum moisture content for sample 2 (Red soil)
Page 60

6.2.2 Direct shear test:
The test is conducted as per IS code (32).The results are shown below
a) Proving Ring No.
= 71018
b) Dimension of specimen (cm)
= 6 X 6 X 2.5
= 197
d) Normal Load (N)
= 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

28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
26.305
25.51

qu = 26.1N/cm2
24.787
23.631
23.269
21.752
20.379
15.176
9.394

2.891
0
Red soil
10
Shear Strain %
Figure 6.7 - Stress-Strain curve for sample 1 (Red soil)
Page 62

a) Dimension of specimen (cm) = 6 x 6 x 2.5
= 184.5
c) Normal Load (N)
= 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)
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

39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
36.711
35.771
35.482
33.676
33.242
31.074
30.713

qu = 36.5N/cm2
25.871
20.957
14.742
9.611

2.168
0.072
0
Red soil
10
11
12
Shear Strain %
Page 64

a) Dimension of specimen (cm) = 6 X 6 X 2.5
= 180
c) Normal Load (N)
= 14.715
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

45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
42.492
40.541

qu = 42.5N/cm2
41.552
40.035
38.011
37.144
32.664
27.461
21.174
Shear strain at failure (6%)

12.574
0
Red soil
10
Shear Strain %
Page 66
Red soil
45
42.5
40
36.5
35
30
26.1
25

20
15
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
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
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
9
9
Page 68
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
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
Burnt Iron ore tailing

mortar mix
Compressive
Mix
strength (MPa)
7 days
28
days
curing
curing
1:2:6
0.1734
0.2168
1:2:9
0.1794
Page 69
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
Avg. compressive
strength (Mpa)
strength for both 1:2:6 and 1:2:9 mixes.

4
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
Avg. compressive strength (Mpa)
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.
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

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 Process in Manufacture of Cold Setting Building Brick from Mining and
Industrial Wastes, The Indian Mining and Engineering Journal, 49(8), 127- 130, 2010.
15. Gan, D., Chen, C., Zhang, J. , 2011, Test Research on Preparation of New Wall
Material with Iron Tailings in Tangshan Area, Advanced Material Research, 295-297,
535-538.
16. Yongliang, C., Yamin, Z., Tiejun, C., Yunliang, Z., Senxu, B , 2011, Preparation of
Ecofriendly Contruction Bricks from Hematite Talings, 25(4), 2107-2111.
17. Jian, S., Yuan, L., Yang, L., Tan, H., Xiang-guo, L., Bao-guo, M. , 2011, Study on
Sintered Wall Materials Made Use of Iron Tailings and Waste Rock, Advanced
Material Research, 243-249, 7036-7040.
18. Niu, X., Chen, J (2011)., Effect of Additives on the Properties of Concrete Products
Made from Iron Ore Tailings, in Proceedings of International Symposium on Water
Resource and Environmental Protection (ISWREP), 3, pp. 1670-1673.
19. Yongliang, C., Yimin, Z., Tiezun, C., Tao, l., Yunliang, Z., Xiangke, J, 2011,
Utilization of Hematite Tailings in Non-fired Bricks Production, Bioinformatics and
Biomedical Engineering (ICBBE), 1-4.
20. Keqing Wang, L., Chen, H., Sanxia, 2011, Development and Application of
Intelligent Decision Support System for Comprehensive Utilization of Tailings and
Waste Rocks, in International Conference on E-Business and E-Government (ICEE),
PP. 1-4.
21. Robert, J. C., Richard, H. M. , 2011, Utilization of Mining and Mineral Processing
Wastes in the United States, Earth and Environmental Science, 1(1), 8-19.
22. M R Yogananda (1983) A Thesis on Surkhi and Rice husk ash pozzolona dept of
Civil Engineering, IISc, Bangalore, 11-14.
23. N R Srinivasan, (1956), Surkhi as a pozzolona, CRRI- Central Road Research
Institute, New Delhi, 55-60.
24. Karnataka Engineering Research Station (KERS), National Conference on Emerging
Trends of Energy Conservations in Buildings, a CBRI, 6-10.
Page 73

25. R K Ghosh, N R Srinivasan, M L Bhatia and S G Banerjee, (1964), Road Research
Sprecial ReportPozzolonic Clays of India, Their industrial Exploitation and use in
Engineering works, A Study on Reactive Surkhi Mortars. 235-238.
26. Ram Lal, R K Ghosh and N R Srinivasan, (1964),
Road Research Sprecial
ReportPozzolonic Clays of India, Their industrial Exploitation and use in

Engineering works, Construction of an Experimental Pozzolona concrete Road
Stretch on the National Highway-2, 226-230.
27. Ralph E Grim, (1962), Applied Clay Mineralogy, Mcgraw-hill inc., New York
Toronto London, 348-351.
28. IS: 2720 (Part 2) 1973, (Reaffirmed 2002), Edition 3.1 (1982-08). Indian Standard
methods of test for soils part 2, determination of water content (second revision).
29. IS 2720 ( Part 3/Sec I ) 1980 Indian standard methods of test for soils part 3,
determination of specific gravity, Section 1 Fine Grained Soils.
30. IS: 2720 (Part 4) - 1985(Reaffirmed 1995), Indian standard methods of test for soils
part 4, grain size analysis (Second Revision).
31. IS: 2720 (Part 5) - 1985(Reaffirmed 1995), Indian standard methods of test for soils
part 5, determination of liquid limit and plastic limit (Second Revision).
32. IS : 2720 (Part 7) 1980 (Reaffirmed 2002), Edition 3.2 (1984-07) Indian Standard
methods of test for soils part 7, determination of water content-dry density relation
using light compaction (Second Revision).
33. IS : 2720 ( Part 13 ) - 1986 ( Reaffirmed 1997 ) Indian Standard methods of test for
soils part 13, direct shear test (Second Revision)
Page 74

Feasibility Study On Iron Ore Mine Tailings

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Feasibility Study On Iron Ore Mine Tailings

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Feasibility Study On Iron Ore Mine Tailings