Utilization of Mining Wastes for

Construction Engineering

Presented by
K. S. Nanjunda Rao
Principal Research Scientist

Department of Civil Engineering

(Associate Faculty at CST & CiSTUP)
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, INDIA
Main Building of IISc, Bangalore, INDIA
Schematic representation of waste generation in mines
5
Overview of the presentation
• Construction industry and sustainability
• Characterisation of properties of iron ore tailings (IOT)
• Characteristics of masonry mortars using IOT as fine aggregate
• Characterisation of burnt clay brick masonry using mortars
with Iron Ore Tailings
• Characteristics of concrete using IOT as fine aggregate
• Demonstration of a structure using iron ore tailings as fine
aggregate in masonry units, mortar and concrete
• Concluding remarks

6
Introduction..
• Construction industry is one of the fastest growing industries in India
– Increasing population --> Need for infrastructure
• About 22% of GHGs emissions by construction industry
• Concrete and mortar are of considerable volume in any structure
• Properties of mortar and concrete in its fresh & hardened states
depends on its composition & their constituent material properties
• Constituent materials: binder + aggregates (fine/coarse)+water
• Sand / fine aggregates – one of the constituent material
• Sand constitutes about 30-40% of concrete volume and about 85% of
mortar volume
• Acute shortage => Exploration of alternatives to river sand

7
Non-organic solid wastes

• Annual production: ~300 x 106 t (India)

• Accumulated solid wastes

(approx. estimates)

Fly ash & Bottom ash: 2000 x 106 t

Coal mine wastes: 3000 x 106 t

Mine tailings & others: ???

8
 Wastes generation in India
Type of solid waste … X 106
t/year
Fly ash 112
Coal mine wastes 60
Lime stone waste 18
Construction waste 15
Blast furnace slag 11
Iron ore tailings 11
Copper mine tailings 4
Marble dust 6
Red mud, lime sludge, phospho-gypsum, zinc tailings, kiln
dust, gold mine tailings etc 20
+ Organic wastes, MSW, etc ……………………….

Inorganic industrial/mine wastes (total) ~290 X 106

t/year
9
Source: Gupta (1998), Ramachandra & Saira (2004), Asokan Pappu et al (2007)
 Motive..
• Huge demand on supply side of construction materials
• Sand is hauled over long distances and hence expensive
• Exploitation of natural resources – Un sustainability
• Sand - Indiscriminate mining of river bed – 350x106 m3/year
• Mining has been controlled and even banned in many locations -
adverse effect on environment

At the same time…..

• Large amount of waste generation – industrial & mining

Waste to Wealth ??
Substitutes the materials in demand - Safe disposal of waste – reduce
impact on environment 10
Objective..

To evaluate the possibility of utilizing iron

ore tailings as fine aggregate in masonry mortars
and structural concrete

11
About IOT
• About 11 million tonnes IOT
generation / Year in India
• Kuduremukh iron ore tailings
has been chosen for this
investigation
• Presently mining is stopped –
Global biodiversity hot spot
• About 200 million tonnes of
tailings stored in a dam
• Threat of dam breach

12
 13
IOT stored in Lakya dam, Kuduremukh, Karnataka
Program of research
Literature review

Experimental Program Particle size distribution

Specific gravity
Characterization of Bulk density
material properties pH & TDS
Loss on ignition
Experiments on Chemical analysis

Mortars, Bricks & Masonry Concrete

* Properties of mortars in Fresh state * Mix design
* Properties of mortars in hardened * Properties of concrete in fresh state
state * Properties of concrete in hardened
* Strength & elastic properties of brick state
* Masonry behavior in compression * Durability
* Masonry behavior in flexure * Shrinkage

Construction of a demonstration building 14

Literature summary
• Storage and safe handling is challenging – Environmental concerns
• Characteristics of IOT varies from source to source
• Majority of the studies are on further benefication
– Possible…but not feasible!
• Very little volume of IOT is utilised for value added products
• Majority of the utilisation attempts demand further processing
– Energy consumption
• In general - Attempts on direct utilisation of IOT are scanty
• In particular - No attempts are made on direct utilisation of KIOT

15
Characterisation of properties of IOT
• Sampling
– Surface sampling
– Core sampling

• Physical characteristics
– Particle size distribution
– Fineness modulus, Specific gravity, bulk density, voids content, shape

• Chemical characteristics
– EDX and XRD, SEM, chemical analysis, LOI, lime reactivity

16
Plan view of Lakya dam with sampling locations
17
18
Specifications for particle size of sand
Bureau of Indian Standards

Percentage passing (by mass)

Particle IS 383
size
IS 2116
(mm) Zone I Zone II Zone III Zone IV

10 - 100 100 100 100

4.75 100 90 - 100 90 - 100 90 - 100 95 - 100
2.36 90 - 100 60 - 95 75 - 100 85 - 100 95 - 100
1.18 70 - 100 30 - 70 55 - 90 75 - 100 90 - 100
0.60 40 - 100 15 - 34 35 - 59 60 - 79 80 - 100
0.30 5 - 70 5 - 20 8 - 30 12 - 40 15 - 50
0.15 0 - 15 0 - 10 0 - 10 0 - 10 0 - 15

19
 British Standards Institution
Percentage passing (by mass)
BS 1199 BS 1200 BS 882
Particle
Additional limits for grading
size
Overall
(mm) Type A Type B Type S Type G
limits C M F

10.00 - - - - 100 - - -
6.30 100 100 100 100 -- - - -
5.00 95 - 100 95 - 100 98 - 100 98 - 100 89 - 100 - - -
2.36 60 - 100 80 - 100 90 - 100 90 - 100 60 - 100 60 - 100 65 - 100 80 - 100
1.18 30 - 100 70 - 100 70 - 100 70 - 100 30 - 100 30 - 90 45 - 100 70 - 100
0.60 15 - 80 55 - 100 40 - 100 40 - 100 15 - 100 15 - 54 25 - 80 55 - 100
0.30 5 - 50 5 - 75 5 - 70 20 - 90 5 - 70 5 - 40 5 - 48 5 - 70
0.15 0 - 15 0 - 20 0 - 15 0 - 25 0 - 15 c
- - -
0.075 5 5 0 - 5a 0 - 8b - - - -
a
0 – 10% for crushed stone sand c
Increased to 20% for crushed rock fines, except when they
b
0 – 12% for crushed stone sand are used for heavy duty floors
American Society for Testing Materials
Percentage passing (by mass)
Particle ASTM C 144 - 04
size ASTM
(mm) Natural Sand Manufactured Sand C33/C33M - 11

9.50 - - 100
4.75 100 100 95 - 100
2.36 95 - 100 95 - 100 80 - 100
1.18 70 - 100 70 - 100 50 - 85
0.60 40 - 75 40 - 75 25 - 60
0.30 10 - 35 20 - 40 5 - 30 20
0.15 2 - 15 10 - 25 0 - 10
 100

90

80

70

60 Location L1
Location L2
% Finer

Location L3
50 Location L4
Location L5
40 Location L6
Sand
30

20

10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Grain size in mm

Grain size distribution of tailings from locations L1 – L6 and river sand

Sand, silt and clay size fraction are about 69%, 28.5% and 2.5% respectively 21
 Test results – Surface samples

Clay size Bulk Voids in

Sand size fraction Silt size fraction
fraction Specific density in Fineness loose
4.75 - 0.075 mm 0.075-0.002 mm
Location < 0.002 mm gravity loose state modulus state
(%) (%)
(%) (kN/m3) (%)
L1 60.20 36.20 3.60 2.96 13.33 0.13 55.06
L2 48.20 47.70 4.10 2.77 12.80 0.08 53.57
L3 76.20 21.80 2.00 3.35 12.80 0.30 61.79
L4 79.40 23.60 2.20 3.32 13.20 0.19 60.07
L5 75.00 20.70 1.30 2.77 13.00 0.43 53.10
L6 76.80 21.70 1.50 2.77 12.80 0.06 53.57

22
 Grain size distribution curves for core samples
100 1 - 1.5 m 100
90 2.5 - 3 m 90 1 - 1.5 m
80 80 2.5 - 3 m
4 - 4.5 m
70 70 4 - 4.5 m
60 5.5 - 6 m
% Finer

% Finer
60 5.5 - 6 m
50 RSC 50 RSC
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Particle size (mm) Partical size (mm)

BH1 BH2

100
90 1 - 1.5 m
80 2.5 - 3 m
70 4 - 4.5 m
% Finer

60 5.5 -6 m
50 RSC
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Partical size (mm)

23
BH3
 Test results – Core samples

Sand size Clay size

Silt size fraction
fraction fraction Fineness
Depth 0.075-0.002 mm
4.75 - 0.075 mm < 0.002 mm modulus
(m) (%)
(%) (%)
Core samples from borehole BH1
1 - 1.5 82.80 15.74 1.46 1.44
2.5 - 3 81.80 16.81 1.39 1.61
4 - 4.5 87.80 11.10 1.10 1.84
5.5 - 6 88.00 10.79 1.21 1.86
Core samples from borehole BH2
1 - 1.5 41.80 51.58 6.62 0.12
2.5 - 3 48.80 46.65 4.55 0.14
4 - 4.5 39.60 54.28 6.12 0.10
5.5 - 6 49.80 45.22 4.98 0.16
Core samples from borehole BH3
1 - 1.5 65.20 31.41 3.39 0.26
2.5 - 3 48.40 47.30 4.29 0.15
4 - 4.5 59.00 37.53 3.47 0.24
5.5 - 6 59.20 36.96 3.84 0.27

24
 Test results – Reconstituted sand
100

IS 2116 Coarsest
80
IS 2116 Finest
IS 383 Coarsest
IS 383 Finest
60
% Finer

RSC1
RSC2
40

20

0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Particle size (mm)

Fine Sand Fineness Specific Bulk density in Voids in % Finer than

aggregate replace modulus gravity compacted compacted
type d (%) state state 0.15 mm 0.075 mm
(kN/m3) (%)

River sand 0 2.71 2.57 15.91 38.16 0.4 0.0

RSC1 25 2.02 2.64 18.49 29.82 19.0 9.2
RSC2 50 1.63 2.70 19.03 29.37 32.8 15.6
IOT (L5) 100 0.43 2.77 17.07 38.26 68.8 22.0
IS 2116 limit 15.0 10.0 25
 Typical SEM images of IOT samples

L1 L2

L4 L5

26
Chemical analysis results

IOT sample location

Radicals
L2 L5
SiO2 60.89 % 65.89 %
Fe2O3 27.37 % 26.83 %
Al2O3 1.88 % 1.08 %
CaO 1.71 % 1.59 %
MgO 1.79 % 1.42 %
Na2O 0.16 % 0.10 %
K2 O 0.16 % 0.07 %
TiO2 0.22 % 0.19 %
MnO 0.18 % 0.13 %
SO3 0.60 % Traces
TDS 227.92 ppm 133.77 ppm
LOI 3.12 % 1.31 %
pH 8.12 8.16
Lime
NIL
reactivity

27
In general…
• Particle size distribution is an important parameter
• Fine aggregate should be hard, free from organic impurities and deleterious
materials
Concluding remarks on characterisation of IOT
• Surface IOT samples are very fine grained & does not completely
conform to code specifications
• IOT sampled at BH1 is coarse grained compared to others
• Natural sand conforms to Zone II
• Bulk density of IOT is lower though specific gravity is higher than
sand
• Shape of IOT samples are partly angular and spherical in nature
• Reconstitution reduces the voids content & improves overall
gradation of sand
• Reconstituted sand nearly conforms to desirable limits
• Silica and iron are major constituent elements (about 63% & 27%)
• IOT samples are slightly alkaline (pH > 8), have organic matters of
about 2% and had no pozzolanic property
28
Characteristics of masonry mortars
using IOT as fine aggregate

29
Introduction & literature Summary
• Mortar is primarily used for binding masonry units (also for plastering and
pointing)
• Masonry performance depends on properties of mortar
• Properties of fine aggregate largely influence the mortar characteristics
• Many wastes have been studied as alternative to river sand
– Fly ash, C&D waste, stone dust etc.
• Presence of fines (cement, lime, clay or any mineral admixtures)
considerably influences mortar properties
• Attempts on mine wastes as alternative to sand in masonry mortar is scanty
and NO attempts were found on IOT replacement
• Workability, mechanical strength, water retentivity, water absorption,
density, elastic modulus, drying shrinkage were found to be the important
mortar parameters of concern

30
Experimental program for mortar
• M2(1:6), M1(1:1:6) and H2(1:1/4:4) grades were chosen
• Four percentages of IOT - 0%, 25%, 50%, 100% were tried to replace
sand
• Two types of sand were used in control mortar mix
• Workability for mortar – Six surface IOT used
• Compressive strength – L2 & L5 used
• All other tests – L5 used

Mortar grades with Mortar grades

Test programs medium coarse sand with fine sand
M2 M1 H2 M2 M1
Workability √ √ √ √ √
Water retentivity √ √ √
Compressive strength √ √ √ √ √
Elastic property √ √ √
Drying shrinkage √ √ √ √ √
31
Long term strength √ √
Workability of mortars
• Workability - easiness in handling & placing
• The common way of achieving required level of workability is by
adjusting water content => affects strength & durability
• Cone penetration test, dropping ball test, flow table test etc.
• FLOW TEST WAS CARRIED OUT
(3 mortars X 4 tailings dosage X ~5 W.C X 6 Ls) = 720

32
Flow test apparatus with typical mortar flow pattern
 Mortar mix proportion by volume
Mortar Mix Mix proportion (by volume) Sand W/B ratio required
grade designation replaced to achieve 85% flow
(as per (%)
Cement Lime Tailings Sand L2 IOT L5 IOT
IS 2250)

M2 A 1 0 0 6 0 1.75 1.75

M2 B 1 0 1.5 4.5 25 1.46 1.52

M2
M2 C 1 0 3 3 50 1.83 1.57

M2 D 1 0 6 0 100 2.90 2.10

M1 A 1 1 0 6 0 1.08 1.08

M1 B 1 1 1.5 4.5 25 1.06 1.06

M1
M1 C 1 1 3 3 50 1.32 1.01

M1 D 1 1 6 0 100 1.96 1.40

H2 A 1 0.25 0 4 0 0.99 0.99

H2 B 1 0.25 1 3 25 0.97 0.90

H2
H2 C 1 0.25 2 2 50 1.11 0.9533
 Flow test results for M2 grade
160 mortars0% L2 IOT
25% L2 IOT
160 1.15 W/B ratio
140 140 L2 1.30 W/B ratio

120 L2 50% L2 IOT

120 1.45 W/B ratio
100% L2 IOT

Flow (%)
1.60 W/B ratio
Flow (%)

100 100
1.75 W/B ratio
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 0 20 40 60 80 100

W/B ratio Sand replaced with tailing (%)

160 1.15 W/B ratio

160 140 L5 1.30 W/B ratio

1.45 W/B ratio
140 0% L5 IOT 120
1.60 W/B ratio
120 25% L5 IOT 100

Flow (%)
1.75 W/B ratio
100
Flow (%)

50% L5 IOT 80
80 100% L5 IOT
60
60
40
40 L5 20
20
0
0 0 20 40 60 80 100
0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5
Sand replaced with tailing (%)
W/B ratio

Flow versus W/B ratio Flow versus IOT replacement

34
 Flow test results for M1 grade mortars
0% L2 IOT 140
160
140 L2 25% L2 IOT 120
L2
0.8 W/B ratio
50% L2 IOT 0.9 W/B ratio
120 100
100% L2 IOT 1.0 W/B ratio

Flow (%)
Flow (%)

100 80
1.1 W/B ratio
80 60
60
40
40
20
20
0 0
0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 0 20 40 60 80 100

W/B ratio Sand replaced with tailing (%)

0.9 W/B ratio

160
160 1.0 W/B ratio
140 140
120 L5 120
1.1 W/B ratio
1.2 W/B ratio
Flow (%)

Flow (%)
100 100
80 0% L5 IOT 80
60 25% L5 IOT 60 L5
40 50% L5 IOT 40
20
20 100% L5 IOT
0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75

W/B ratio Sand replaced with tailing (%)

Flow versus W/B ratio Flow versus IOT replacement

35
 Flow test results for H2 grade mortars
120 0.73 W/B ratio
140
100 L2 0.83 W/B ratio
120 L2 0.93 W/B ratio
100 80

Flow (%)
1.03 W/B ratio
Flow (%)

80 60

60 0% L2 IOT 40
40 25% L2 IOT
20
50% L2 IOT
20
100% L2 IOT 0
0 0 20 40 60 80 100
0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25
Sand replaced with tailing (%)
W/B ratio

160 140 0.73 W/C ratio

140 0.83 W/C ratio
L5 120
0.93 W/C ratio
120 100
1.03 W/C ratio

Flow (%)
Flow (%)

100 80
80 0% L5 IOT 60 L5
60 25% L5 IOT 40
40 50% L5 IOT
20
20 100% L5 IOT
0
0 0 20 40 60 80 100
0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 Sand replaced with tailing (%)
W/B ratio

Flow versus W/B ratio Flow versus IOT replacement 36

Water retentivity of mortars
• It is the resistance by fresh mortar
against suction of moisture by brick
• Moisture movement also carries
binder towards brick pores
• Too much of suction results in
improper cement hydration
• No suction results in poor bond at
brick-mortar interface
• All the three mortar grades with 0, 25,
50 and 100% L5 IOT replacement were
examined
• Calculated as ratio of flow after and
before standard suction and
Water retentivity test set-up
expressed in percentage
37
Typical Flow patterns during water retentivity test

M2 A (100% sand) M2 B (25% IOT)

M2 B (50% IOT) M2 B (100% IOT)

38
 Water retentivity test results
55

Water retentivity (%)

45

35
M2 mortar
25 M1 mortar
H2 mortar
15

5
0 25 50 75 100

Sand replaced by IOT (%)

Mortar Mix Sand replaced Water

grade designation by IOT (%) retentivity (%)
M2A 0 27.29
M2B 25 33.11
M2
M2C 50 40.96
M2D 100 43.20
M1A 0 28.42
M1B 25 35.64
M1
M1C 50 44.68
M1D 100 50.48
H2A 0 7.92
H2B 25 27.98
H2
H2C 50 37.58
39
H2D 100 48.37
Compressive strength test

• IS: 2250 – 1981 guidelines was

followed
• Mortar cubes of 50mm size were
made with water-binder ratio
corresponding to 85% flow
• Cubes were tested after 7 days
and 28 days of curing
• Tests were carried on L2 & L5
tailings replacements
• Four specimens were tested in
each mix designation
Compressive strength test set-up
40
Compressive strength test results after 28 days curing

L2 IOT to replace sand L5 IOT to replace sand

Sand
Mix Compressive Water Dry
Mortar replaced Flow Compressive Water Dry
designatio Strength absorption density
grade by IOT (%) Strength absorption density
n (MPa) (%) (g/cc)
(%) (MPa) (%) (g/cc)

M2A 0 85 4.03 (0.50) 15.52 1.75 4.03 (0.50) 15.52 1.75

M2B 25 85 6.96 (0.43) 12.57 1.87 6.17 (0.65) 14.58 1.96
M2
M2C 50 85 4.98 (0.25) 17.00 1.85 5.75 (0.24) 13.34 2.06
M2D 100 85 2.07 (0.14) 24.73 1.62 3.32 (0.15) 20.29 1.83
M1A 0 85 5.59 (0.41) 18.48 1.75 5.59 (0.41) 18.48 1.75
M1B 25 85 8.57 (0.18) 13.66 1.83 7.38 (0.28) 13.55 1.99
M1
M1C 50 85 5.22 (0.18) 16.62 1.78 6.91 (0.17) 15.23 1.91
M1D 100 85 2.99 (0.07) 26.91 1.55 3.96 (0.24) 20.38 1.81
H2A 0 85 9.69 (0.43) 11.11 1.82 9.69 (0.43) 11.11 1.82
H2B 25 85 13.58 (0.42) 11.45 1.90 16.34 (0.46) 11.53 2.04
H2 H2C 50 85 9.54 (0.47) 15.42 1.80 13.38 (0.52) 14.02 1.97
H2D 100 85 4.83 (0.16) 24.14 1.66 7.00 (0.24) 19.93 1.79

41
 Mortar compressive strength versus IOT replacement
14
Compressive strength (MPa)

M2 mortar
12
M1 mortar
10 H2 mortar
8
6
4
2
0
0 25 50 75 100
Sand replaced by IOT (%)

Sand replaced by L2 IOT 18

Compressive strength (MPa)

M2 mortar
16
M1 mortar
14
H2 mortar
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 25 50 75 100
Sand replaced by IOT (%)

42
Sand replaced by L5 IOT
Long term compressive strength of M2 (1:6) grade mortar
Mortar Compressive increase in Dry increase in
Age
designation strength strength density density
(months)
(MPa) (%) (g/cc) (%)
1 3.62 (0.28) -- 1.814 --
3 3.71 (0.06) 2.48 1.819 0.27
6 3.77 (0.38) 4.14 1.827 0.72
M2A
12 3.92 (0.40) 8.28 1.850 1.98
18 3.98 (0.39) 9.94 1.861 2.59
24 4.12 (0.36) 13.81 1.866 2.87
1 6.77 (0.63) -- 1.940 --
3 7.48 (0.13) 10.48 1.948 0.41
6 8.21 (0.59) 21.27 1.976 1.85
M2B
12 8.22 (0.51) 21.41 1.998 2.98
18 8.26 (0.95) 22.00 2.013 3.76
24 8.30 (0.47) 22.60 2.027 4.48
1 7.82 (0.29) -- 1.973 --
3 8.94 (0.41) 14.97 1.999 1.31
6 9.05 (0.30) 15.72 2.017 2.23
M2C
12 9.60 (0.16) 22.76 2.027 2.74
18 9.96 (0.59) 27.36 2.056 4.20
24 9.95 (0.49) 27.23 2.058 4.31
1 3.69 (0.26) -- 1.788 --
3 4.30 (0.33) 16.53 1.800 0.67
6 4.88 (0.37) 32.24 1.841 2.96
M2D
12 4.91 (0.13) 33.06 1.845 3.18
18 4.92 (0.16) 33.34 1.861 4.08
24 5.54 (0.39) 50.13 1.870 4.58 43
(Standard deviation values in parenthesis)
Long term compressive strength of M1 (1:1:6) grade mortar
Mortar Compressive increase in increase in
Age Dry density
designation strength strength density
(months) (g/cc)
(MPa) (%) (%)
1 4.89 (0.11) -- 1.839 --
3 5.72 (0.62) 16.97 1.864 1.36
6 5.79 (0.47) 18.40 1.887 2.61
M1A
12 6.74 (0.38) 37.83 1.905 3.59
18 6.94 (0.19) 41.92 1.919 4.35
24 7.22 (0.88) 47.64 2.048 11.36
1 5.90 (0.12) -- 1.943 --
3 6.57 (0.60) 11.35 1.960 0.87
6 7.10 (0.54) 20.33 1.977 1.75
M1B
12 8.02 (0.54) 35.93 1.983 2.06
18 8.93 (0.28) 51.35 1.991 2.47
24 9.60 (0.26) 62.71 2.048 5.40
1 6.06 (0.16) -- 1.923 --
3 6.30 (0.28) 3.96 1.929 0.31
6 7.18 (0.56) 18.48 1.954 1.61
M1C
12 8.28 (0.39) 36.63 1.973 2.60
18 9.53 (0.24) 57.26 1.985 3.22
24 10.87 (0.60) 79.37 2.031 5.61
1 3.03 (0.14) -- 1.758 --
3 4.49 (0.29) 48.18 1.803 2.56
6 4.95 (0.26) 63.36 1.800 2.39
M1D
12 5.02 (0.32) 65.67 1.815 3.24
18 5.90 (0.29) 94.71 1.817 3.35
24 6.46 (0.59) 113.2 1.865 6.08
44
(Standard deviation values in parenthesis)
 Long term mortar compressive strength test results
12
Compressive strength (MPa)

10

4 0% IOT
25% IOT
2
50% IOT
100% IOT
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24

Age (months)

12
Compressive strength (MPa)
M2 grade mortars
10

6
0% IOT
4
25% IOT
2 50% IOT
100% IOT
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24

Age (months)
45
M1 grade mortars
Stress-strain characteristics of mortars
• Plays an important role in masonry behavior
• Analysis and design of masonry under
various types of loads requires stress-strain
characteristics of mortar, units and masonry
• Three grades of mortars were examined
• 150 mm dia. and 300 mm length cylinders
were cast with W/C ratio corresponding to
85% flow
• 28 days cured specimens were tested using
servo controlled UTM
• Longitudinal strains were captured by
mounting extensometer at mid height of the
specimen
• 3 specimens were tested in each mix
designation

46
Mortar stress-strain characteristics test results

Initial tangent Secant

Mortar Mix Water/binder Peak stress Strain at
modulus modulus
grade designation ratio (MPa) peak stress
(MPa) (MPa)
M2A 1.75 2.05 0.00053 8290 7940
M2B 1.52 4.81 0.00153 8970 8485
M2
M2C 1.57 5.02 0.00300 9320 8620
M2D 2.10 2.34 0.00230 6880 6575
M1A 1.08 4.15 0.00103 13275 13105
M1B 1.06 4.70 0.00204 13715 12200
M1
M1C 1.01 5.29 0.00181 10600 10385
M1D 1.40 3.25 0.00210 5490 5330
H2A 0.98 7.50 0.00113 13860 10570
H2B 0.90 13.90 0.00191 17190 16730
H2
H2C 0.95 11.69 0.00189 16050 15740
H2D 1.27 6.82 0.00190 11225 10850

47
 Stress-strain curves for mortars
6
Compressive stress (MPa)

4 0% IOT

3 25% IOT
50% IOT
2 100% IOT

0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
Strain
6

Compressive stress (MPa)

M2 grade mortars
5

3
0% IOT
2
25% IOT
1 50% IOT
100% IOT
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004

Strain
48
M1 grade mortars
Stress-strain curves and variation in modulus values for mortars
0% IOT
16
Compressive stress (MPa)

25% IOT
14 50% IOT
12 100% IOT

10
8
6
4
2
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005

Strain 18000 M2 mortar

Initial tangent modulus

M1 mortar
H2 grade mortars 16000
H2 mortar
14000
12000
(MPa)

10000
8000
6000
4000
0 25 50 75 100
Sand replaced by IOT (%)

49
Modulus value versus IOT replacement
Drying shrinkage of mortars
• Drying shrinkage is the phenomenon of
reduction in volume of the mortar upon
drying
• Mortar shrinks because of loss of moisture
over a period of time
• Factors like mix proportion, water content,
particle size of mortar ingredients, type of
compaction etc. affects drying shrinkage
• Excessive shrinkage may affect bond
strength
• Mortar specimens are tested for reduction
in length as shrinkage in ‘free’ condition
• Since drying shrinkage is very sensitive to
many parameter, the results obtained is
not quantitative but qualitative
• ASTM C 1148-92a was followed to
determine the drying shrinkage
• Specimens of 25 X 25 X 250 mm were cast
& tested
50
 Drying shrinkage test results
0.12

Drying shrinkage (%)

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04
M2 mortar
0.02 M1 mortar
H2 mortar
0
0 25 50 75 100

Sand replaced by IOT (%)

Drying
Mortar Mix Flow Water/binder
shrinkage
grade designation (%) ratio
(%)
M2A 85 1.75 0.080
M2B 85 1.52 0.028
M2
M2C 85 1.57 0.037
M2D 85 2.10 0.064
M1A 85 1.08 0.040
M1B 85 1.06 0.025
M1
M1C 85 1.01 0.054
M1D 85 1.40 0.082
H2A 85 0.98 0.039
H2B 85 0.90 0.045
H2
H2C 85 0.95 0.046 51
H2D 85 1.27 0.106
Influence of IOT on mortars having fine sand

The literature review & experiment results discussed so far reveals that
• Characteristics of fine aggregate affects mortar properties
• Grain size distribution (GD)is an important property of fine aggregate
• Reconstituting river sand with IOT changes the GD
• There exist an optimum level of fines for better performance of
mortars
• About 25% to 50% river sand (RSC) by IOT resulted in better
performance of mortar
• Will it remain same for a sand which is already fine???
To answer……
– A fine grained sand (RSF) conforming to Zone IV was used in control mixes
– Workability, compressive strength and drying shrinkage were examined for M2
and M1 grade mortars
52
 Grain size distribution curves for fine sand
100
90
80 L5 IOT
70 RSF
% Finer

60
RSC
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Particle size (mm)

100
RSF1
90
RSF2
80 IS 2116 finest
70 IS 2116 coarsest
60
% Finer

IS 383 coarsest
50 IS 383 finest
40
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10

Particle size (mm)

53
 Workability of mortars with fine sand and IOT
160 140 1.10 W/B ratio

140 1.25 W/B ratio

120
M2 120
1.40 W/B ratio
100 1.55 W/B ratio

Flow (%)
100
Flow (%)

80
80
60
60 0% IOT 40
40 25% IOT
20
20 50% IOT
0
0 100% IOT
0 20 40 60 80 100
1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5
Fine sand replaced with tailing (%)
W/B ratio
160 0.8 W/C ratio
140 0.9 W/C ratio
160 1.00 W/C ratio
120
140 1.10 W/C ratio
M1 100

Flow (%)
120
80
Flow (%)

100
80 60
60 0% IOT 40
40 25% IOT
20
50% IOT
20
100% IOT 0
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75
Fine sand replaced with tailing (%)
W/B ratio

Flow versus W/B ratio Flow versus IOT replacement

54
 Strength & shrinkage of mortars with fine sand & IOT
8
Compressive strength (MPa)

7
M2 mortar
6 M1 mortar
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 25 50 75 100

Fine sand replaced by IOT (%)

28 days compressive strength 0.09

Drying shrinkage (%) 0.08

M2 mortar
0.07
M1 mortar

0.06

0.05

0.04
0 25 50 75 100

Fine sand replaced by IOT (%)

55
Drying shrinkage
Concluding remarks on properties of mortars with IOT

• About 75% of RSC type of river sand can be replaced by IOT without
compromising on desirable mortar properties
• About 25% of RSF type fine sand can be replaced in M2 mortar
• A little scope exist for replacement of RSF type sand in M1 mortar
• IOT did not impaired long term strength of mortar, but resulted in
better strength gain compared to control mortars

56
Characterisation of burnt clay brick masonry
using mortars having IOT as fine aggregates

57
Introduction & literature Summary
• Masonry is assemblage of masonry units (bricks, stones etc.) and mortar
• It is one of the oldest skills of mankind
• Masonry can be strong, durable, economical and aesthetic
• Properties of masonry depends on mortar and masonry units properties
• Predominately exposed to compressive stress
– Tension, shear and flexure forces also might act
• Characteristics of masonry are commonly evaluated through compressive strength,
flexure and shear bond strength, stress-strain relationships
• Compatibility of mortar and brick elastic properties is essential for better performance
• Increase in bond strength improves masonry compressive strength
• Bricks properties such as surface pore distribution, moisture content at the time of
lying, rate of moisture absorption and strength of mortars, particle size of mortar
ingredients etc. influence masonry bond strength
• Bond between brick and mortar is mechanical
• NO attempts were found on examining the performance of masonry when IOT is used
as replacement to natural sand for the masonry mortar

58
Properties of burnt clay bricks

Wet compressive strength 10.07

(MPa) (0.98) 16.00
Initial tangent modulus 1990 14.00
(MPa) (235)
12.00
Secant modulus 1690
(MPa) (95) 10.00

%Absorption
Water absorption 15.20 Brick1
8.00 Brick2
(%) (0.62) Brick3
Initial rate of absorption 6.00 Brick4
1.16 Brick5
(IRA) 4.00 Average
(0.03)
Kg/m2/minute
2.00
Time required for 75%
37
saturation 0.00
(13)
(Minutes) 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Average weight of 75% 3.18 Time in min
saturated bricks (kgs) (0.03)
Water absorption versus time

59
 60
Casting, curing, testing & typical failure pattern of masonry prism in compression
Compressive strength and stress-strain relationships
6

Compressivestrength
5.5
5
4.5

(Mpa)
4
3.5 Masonry w ith M2 mortar
Masonry w ith M1 mortar
3
Masonry w ith H2 mortar
2.5
2
0 25 50 75 100

Sand replaced by IOT (%)

Initial Secant
Masonry
Mortar Mix Strain at tangent modulus
Peak stress
grade designation peak stress modulus (MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
M2A 3.33 0.013 485 435
M2B 4.55 0.014 645 600
M2
M2C 5.58 0.011 890 770
M2D 4.30 0.014 765 645
M1A 4.10 0.007 1125 960
M1B 4.83 0.011 1145 935
M1
M1C 4.49 0.010 1160 930
M1D 3.97 0.012 625 540
H2A 5.21 0.008 1280 1095
H2B 5.13 0.009 1045 920
H2
H2C 4.98 0.007 915 775 61
H2D 4.80 0.011 852 730
 Stress-strain behaviour of masonry using M2 grade mortar

6 0% IOT
25% IOT
50% IOT
5
100% IOT
Compressive stress (MPa)

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025

Strain

62
 Stress-strain behaviour of masonry using M1 grade mortar

6
0% IOT
25% IOT
5 50% IOT
100% IOT

4
Stress (MPa)

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025

Strain

63
 Stress-strain behaviour of masonry using H2 grade mortar

6 0% IOT
25% IOT
50% IOT
5 100% IOT
Compressive stress (MPa)

0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.02

Strain

64
 Masonry with M2 mortar
1400
Masonry with M1 mortar
Masonry with H2 mortar
1200
Initial tangent modulus (MPa)

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0 25 50 75 100

Sand replaced by IOT (% )

Initial tangent modulus versus IOT replacement in mortar

65
Flexure bond strength for masonry

66
Flexure bond strength test results
Sand Flexure Variation
Mortar Mix replaced by bond in
grade designation IOT in strength strength
mortar (%) (MPa) (%)
0.058
M2A 0 --
(0.02)
0.091 0.45
M2B 25 +56.9 M2 Grade
0.4

Flexure bond strength

(0.03) M1 Grade
M2 0.131 0.35 H2 Grade
M2C 50 +125.8 0.3
(0.09)

(Mpa)
0.181 0.25
M2D 100 +212.0 0.2
(0.05)
0.169 0.15
M1A 0 -- 0.1
(0.08)
0.05
0.225
M1B 25 +33.1 0
(0.03)
0 25 50 75 100
M1 0.190
M1C 50 +12.4
(0.07) Sand replaced with tailings (%)
0.148
M1D 100 -12.4
(0.06)
0.412
H2A 0 --
(0.02)
0.296
H2B 25 -28.1
(0.15)
H2 0.226
H2C 50 -45.1
(0.05)
0.219
H2D 100 -46.8
(0.108) 67
Concluding remarks on masonry performance
• Masonry with M2 grade mortar
– Compressive strength and modulus values increases as IOT replacement increases,
reaches a peak at 50% IOT replacement
– Though the mortar strength reduces by 21% at 100% IOT, the masonry strength was
higher by 29% compared to control masonry
– Flexure bond strength considerably increases with increase in IOT (212%)
• Masonry with M1 grade mortar
– Compressive strength, bond strength and modulus values reaches a peak strength at
25% IOT replacement
– A marginal reduction in compressive strength of 3% found when 100% sand was
replaced by IOT
• Masonry with H2 grade mortar
– Interestingly, the compressive strength, bond strength as well as the ITM value were
found to be reducing as sand was replaced by IOT
– About 8% reduction in compressive strength was observed at 100% IOT replacement
where as the reduction flexure bond strength was about 47%
• 100% IOT replacement for sand in M2 mortar is feasible, 75% replacement
is feasible for M1 and H2 grade mortars for desirable masonry performance
68
Characteristics of concrete using IOT as
fine aggregate

69
Introduction & literature Summary
• Concrete – a blend of cement, aggregate and water, is one of the versatile
materials of construction
• Excellent in compressive strength, but generally has low tensile strength
• Introduction of reinforcement impart tensile strength
• Strength depends on factors such as W/C ratio, properties of its ingredients, mix
proportion, compaction, curing, environmental condition etc.
• W/C ratio is the most influencing parameter
• Durability is as important as strength
• Workability, mechanical strength, elastic properties, shrinkage & creep, durability
against acids, salts and aggressive environment etc are generally evaluated
• Compressive strength is the general indicator on overall performance
• Wide range of wastes utilisation have been attempted for aggregate replacement
• Incorporation of fines was found to considerably influence concrete properties
• Efforts on utilisation of IOT as fine aggregate in concrete is scanty and in particular,
no attempts were found on direct utilisation of KIOT as fine aggregate in concrete

70
Details of studies on concrete properties
• Two grades of concrete were chosen (M20 & M30)
• River sand (RSC) was used as fine aggregate in control mix and was
replaced by 25%, 50% and 100% L5 IOT
• Mix design for required grade of concrete was done by Indian and
American standard codes
Experimental program
Concrete grades
Test programs
M20 M30
Workability √ √
Compressive strength √ √
Long term compressive strength √ √
Stress-strain relationships √
Modulus of rupture √
Splitting tensile strength √
Bond strength √
Drying shrinkage √
Durability √ 71
Mix design philosophy
• It is the process of arriving at optimum proportions of concrete ingredients
• Workability, compressive strength and economy are acceptance criterions
• ‘Weigh batching’ is preferred than ‘volume batching’ where close control on
quality and economy is required
• Mix design was done for M20 & M30 grade concrete (numbers refer characteristic
compressive strength (f ck)
• Due to variations in material properties and quality control, a target mean strength
(f cm) – higher than characteristic compressive strength was determined as per
f cm = f ck + 1.65 s
- where ‘s ‘ standard deviation (4 & 5 for M20 & M30)
Accordingly, the target mean strength for M20 & M30 grade concrete are 26.6 MPa &
38.25 MPa respectively
• A slump value of 25 mm to 100 mm was set as required workability range
• To meet above requirements, trial mix were done and necessary corrections were
made till the required workability & strength were achieved

72
Workability & compressive strength

Workability – Slump test Compression test set-up

73
 Trial mix proportions as per IS 10262 code & test results
Mix proportion
Water Compressive
Concrete Mix W/C Slump
content strength
grade designation Cement Sand CA ratio (mm)
(kg/m3) (MPa)

M20-IS1 1 1.47 3.08 0.5 186 Collapse --

M20-IS2 1 1.64 3.14 0.5 186 56 51.60
M20-IS3 1 1.79 3.43 0.5 175 26 49.40
M20 M20-IS4 1 1.91 3.67 0.55 180 43 44.75
M20-IS5 1 2.39 3.27 0.55 178 62 41.80
M20-IS6 (W/C
1 = water/cement,
2.4 3.63CA = 0.55
Coarse aggregate)
170 46 41.02

Trial mix proportion as per ACI 211 - 1 manual & test results
Mix proportion
Water Compressive
Concrete Mix W/C Slump
content strength
grade designation Cement Sand CA ratio (mm)
(kg/m3) (MPa)

M20-ACI1 1 2.68 3.46 0.66 195 98 32.80

M20-ACI2 1 2.95 3.65 0.66 185 67 30.69
M20
M20-ACI3 1 3.00 3.90 0.66 185 60 25.97
M20-ACI4 1 3.22 4.05 0.68 177 37 25.60
(W/C = water/cement, CA = Coarse aggregate) 74
Final mix proportions

Sand Mix proportion (by weight)

replaced
Concrete Mix W/C
by IOT
grade designation Cement IOT Sand CA ratio
(%)

M20A 0 1 0 2.95 3.65 0.66

M20B 25 1 0.74 2.21 3.65 --
M20
M20C 50 1 1.475 1.475 3.65 --
M20D 100 1 2.95 0 3.65 --
M30A 0 1 0 2.40 3.63 0.55
M30B 25 1 0.60 1.80 3.63 --
M30
M30C 50 1 1.20 1.20 3.63 --
M30D 100 1 2.40 0 3.63 --

(W/C = water/cement, CA = Coarse aggregate)

75
Workability & compressive strength
Mean compressive strength
Sand (MPa) Characteristic
Slump
Concrete Mix replaced W/C compressive
value
grade designation by IOT ratio strength ‘fck’
(mm) 7 days 28 days
(%) (MPa)

31.00
M20A 0 0.66 67 19.26 24.40
(1.01)
37.76
M20B 25 0.66 79 25.95 31.16
(1.31)
30.42
M20C 50 0.80 70 20.46 23.82
M20 (2.44)
32.14
M20C+P 50 0.66 53 -- 25.54
(1.73)
15.10
M20D+P 100 1.05 32 9.23 8.50
(0.98)
39.88
M30A 0 0.55 46 25.76 31.63
(1.40)
44.90
M30B 25 0.55 58 26.50 36.65
(1.37)
41.93
M30C 50 0.75 62 28.97 33.68
M30 (1.72)
42.80
M30C+P 50 0.55 47 -- 34.55
(0.99)
(W = water, C = Cement, P = Super-plasticizer, standard deviation22.01
value in parenthesis)
M30D+P 100 0.95 41 14.41 13.76 76
(1.59)
 50

45
Mean compressive strength (MPa)

40

35

30

25

20
M20 - Without super-plasticizer
15
M20 - With super-plasticizer
10 M20 - Target mean strength
M30 - Without super-plasticizer
5 M30 - With super-plasticizer
M30 - Target mean strength
0
0 25 50 75 100

Sand replaced by IOT (% )

Compressive strength versus IOT replacement

77
Long term compressive strength
60

Compressive strength (MPa)

60
Compressive strength (MPa)

55
50
50
40
45
30
0% IOT
40
20 0% IOT 25% IOT

10
25% IOT 35 50% IOT + P
50% IOT + P
0 30
0 3 6 9 0 3 6 9
Age (Months)
Age (Months)

M 20 M 30

Mean compressive strength

Sand (MPa)
Concrete Mix W/C
replaced by
grade designation ratio
IOT (%) 28 days 3 months 6 months 9 months

M20A 0 0.66 31.00 34.83 37.28 38.60

M20B 25 0.66 37.76 45.68 48.10 49.86
M20
M20C+P 50 0.66 32.14 33.96 36.05 37.78
M30A 0 0.55 39.88 45.01 47.93 49.16
M30B 25 0.55 44.90 47.18 48.63 49.95
M30
M30C+P 50 0.55 42.80 47.86 49.06 49.86 78
Stress-strain relationships
• Stress-strain relationships are
important parameters in analysis &
design
– Deformation & deflection calculations
• M20 grade concrete was examined for
influence of IOT
• 150 mm x 300 mm cylinders were
tested in servo controlled UTM
• Longitudinal strain was captured by
using extensometer
• Average of 3 tests are reported

79
Stress-strain relation relationships
35
0% IOT
25% IOT
30 50% IOT
50% IOT +P
Compressive stress (MPa)

25

20

15

10

0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003 0.0035 0.004 0.0045

Strain

Sand replaced Peak Initial tangent Secant

Concrete Mix W/C Strain at peak
by IOT stress modulus modulus
grade designation ratio stress
(%) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
M20A 0 0.66 21.83 0.00185 29170 24650
M20B 25 0.66 28.92 0.00188 32710 30640
M20
M20C 50 0.80 18.45 0.00180 25360 24100
M20C+P 50 0.66 21.44 0.00190 28520 26660
80
Tensile strength of concrete

• Tensile strength of concrete is generally

low compared to its compressive strength
• Practically neglected in design
• However, tensile stresses are bound to
develop due to flexure, shrinkage, multi-
axial state of stresses, change in
temperature etc.
• Modulus of rupture (fcr) splitting tensile (IS 516 – 1959)
strength (fct) are commonly determined
• 100 x 100 x 500 mm beams were tested
under 4-point bending for (fcr)
• 150 x 300 mm cylinders were tested for
splitting tensile strength (fct)
• 3 specimens tested for each concrete mix

(IS 5816 – 1999)

81
Tensile strength test results
0% IOT
4 25% IOT
50% IOT
3.5 50% IOT + P

Tensile strength (MPa)

(P = Super-plasticizer)

2.5

1.5

1
Modulus of rupture Splitting tensile strength

Mean
Concrete Mix IOT W/C compressive fcr fct
grade designation (%) ratio strength (MPa) (MPa)
(MPa)
31.00 3.77 2.12
M20A 0 0.66
(1.01) (0.28) (0.12)
37.76 3.61 2.46
M20B 25 0.66
(2.44) (0.37) (0.05)
M20
30.42 3.48 1.88
M20C 50 0.80
(0.54) (0.04) (0.18)
32.14 3.54 2.10
M20C+P 50 0.66
(1.73) (0.10) (0.15)
82
Bond strength for concrete
• Bond strength is an important properties for
RC members
• It refers to the bond between reinforcement &
concrete
• The strain compatibility is ensured through
bond – composite action
• Assumptions in RC flexural members are valid
as long as bond is intact
• Strength of concrete, porosity, surface
characteristics of reinforcement etc. influence
bond strength
• Pull-out test was performed to determine
effect of IOT replacement on bond
development
• Critical bond strength at 0.25 mm slip at
loaded end maximum bond strength at failure
load were determined 83
Bond strength test results
8 0% IOT
25% IOT
7 50% IOT
50% IOT + P
6 (P = Super-plasticizer)
Bond strength (MPa)

0
Critical bond strength Maximum bond strength

Maximum
Critical
Concrete Mix IOT bond
W/C ratio bond strength
grade designation (%) strength
(MPa)
(MPa)
1.26 6.48
M20A 0 0.66
(0.18) (0.57)
1.32 7.04
M20B 25 0.66
(0.23) (0.66)
M20
1.04 4.24
M20C 50 0.80
(0.02) (0.38)
1.19 5.18
M20C+P 50 0.66 84
(0.11) (0.53)
Drying shrinkage & moisture movement
• Drying shrinkage is the volumetric contraction due
to moisture removal
• Induces tension when resisted and cracks may
develop weakening the concrete
• Loss in pre-stress is an important factor for PSC
– Plastic shrinkage – due to evaporation when concrete is wet
– Autogenous shrinkage – hydration of cement
– Drying shrinkage – withdrawal of water from hardened concrete
• Opposite to shrinkage, swelling can also happen due to
moisture movement in to the concrete
• Mix proportion, cement content, W/C ratio, properties
of aggregates, temperature & humidity etc. influences
shrinkage & swelling

85
Drying shrinkage & moisture movement test results
0.06 0% IOT
25% IOT
50% IOT
0.05
50% IOT + P
(P = Super-plasticizer)

0.04
Value (%)
0.03

0.02

0.01

0
Drying shrinkage Moisture movement

Mix Drying Incrementa Moisture Incremental

Concrete IOT W/C l increase increase
designatio shrinkage movement
grade (%) ratio (%) (%)
n (%) (%)
0.041
M20A 0 0.66 -- 0.031 --
(0.002)
0.043
M20B 25 0.66 4.87 0.033 6.45
(0.001)
M20
0.056
M20C 50 0.80 36.58 0.036 16.12
(0.001)
0.050
M20C+P 50 0.66 21.95 0.035 12.90 86
(0.004)
Durability of concrete
• Durability is as important as strength of concrete
• Durability is essential for satisfactory performance during the life span of the
member
• Acids, salts and aggressive chemicals and gases can attack concrete
• Reinforcement may get affected if concrete is not durable
• Concrete suffers when aggressive media is allowed to penetrate
• W/C ratio is considered as most important parameter influencing durability
• Formation of stronger hydration products and porosity of concrete depends on
W/C ratio
• No specific media is defined to evaluate durability
• Change in mass, mechanical strength, surface appearance etc. are the important
durability indicators
• M20 grade concrete having IOT were exposed to one acidic (1% H2SO4)and one
chloride media (saturated NaCl) for about 3 months
• Variation in mass and compressive strength at periodic time intervals were
determined
87
Exposure media for durability
• Acidic media
• In earlier studies, wide range of acidic media such as sulfuric, acetic, hydrochloric,
carbonic acids etc. were used
• Sulfuric acid was found to be commonly used media as it is quite often
encountered in domestic sewage also
• Wide range of concentrations were tried in earlier studies, depending up on
environment to which concrete was expected to be exposed
• 1% to 3% was quite often considered concentration
• 1% H2SO4 was chosen as acidic media
• Chloride media
• Generally, chlorides per-se do not affect concrete properties
• Can severely damage steel present in the form of reinforcement
• Since IOT is rich in Fe content, an attempt was made to see whether IOT based
concrete adversely react with chloride media
• Saturated NaCl solution was chosen as chloride media
• Every week the exposure media were replaced with fresh solution 88
Test results for concrete exposed to acidic media
Average mass (kg) Incremental Incremental
Exposure Change Compressive change
Concrete
duration (%) strength (%)
grade Before After
(days) (%)

0* -- -- -- 26.67 --
1 2.128 2.128 -- 24.40 -8.51
7 2.166 2.166 -- 24.12 -9.56
14 2.172 2.178 +0.36 24.01 -9.97
M20 A
28 2.138 2.128 -0.47 22.28 -16.46
56 2.086 2.060 -1.24 21.53 -19.27
84 2.155 2.054 -4.69 15.43 -42.14
0# -- -- -- 28.07 +5.24
0* -- -- -- 26.10 --
1 2.244 2.244 -- 26.18 +0.30
7 2.221 2.226 +0.22 26.12 +0.07
14 2.234 2.241 +0.31 24.57 -6.39
M20 C
28 2.242 2.259 +0.75 24.71 -5.32
56 2.226 2.243 +0.85 24.88 -4.67
84 2.236 2.260 +1.07 25.01 -4.17
0# -- -- -- 28.91 +10.76
0* -- -- -- 27.29 --
1 2.192 2.193 +0.04 27.85 +2.05
7 2.172 2.177 +0.23 28.18 +3.26
14 2.228 2.237 +0.40 28.26 +3.55
M20 C+P
28 2.242 2.254 +0.53 28.54 +4.58
56 2.188 2.201 +0.59 28.68 +5.03
84 2.229 2.246 +0.76 28.71 +5.20
0# -- -- -- 30.54 +11.90 89
M20 concrete with 0% IOT exposed to 1% H2SO4

(a) Before exposure (b) After 28 days of exposure

(c) After 56 days of exposure (d) After 84 days of exposure 90

M20 concrete with 50% IOT (0.8 W/C) exposed to 1% H2SO4

(a) Before exposure (b) After 28 days of exposure

(c) After 56 days of exposure (d) After 84 days of exposure 91

M20 concrete with 50% IOT (0.66 W/C + P) exposed to 1% H2SO4

(a) Before exposure (b) After 28 days of exposure

(c) After 56 days of exposure (d) After 84 days of exposure 92

Test results for concrete exposed to chloride media
Average mass (kg) Incremental Incremental
Exposure Change Compressive change
Concrete
duration (%) strength (%)
grade Before After
(days) (%)

0* -- -- -- 27.09 --
1 2.193 2.172 -0.95 26.77 -1.18
7 2.176 2.176 -- 27.32 +0.85
14 2.184 2.179 -0.23 27.07 -0.07
M20 A
28 2.188 2.193 +0.23 28.06 +3.58
56 2.180 2.186 +0.27 28.36 +4.68
84 2.136 2.144 +0.37 29.88 +10.30
0# -- -- -- 29.09 +7.38
0* -- -- -- 26.29 --
1 2.165 2.163 -0.09 26.11 -0.68
7 2.272 2.274 +0.09 27.38 +4.14
14 2.218 2.221 +0.13 28.45 +8.21
M20 C
28 2.198 2.204 +0.27 29.06 +10.53
56 2.214 2.223 +0.40 29.85 +13.54
84 2.247 2.256 +0.44 30.12 +14.56
0# -- -- -- 29.90 +13.73
0* -- -- -- 27.78 --
1 2.238 2.238 -- 27.58 -0.72
7 2.224 2.224 -- 28.12 +1.22
14 2.287 2.287 -- 30.15 +8.54
M20 C+P
28 2.238 2.242 +0.17 31.26 +12.52
56 2.290 2.295 +0.21 31.80 +14.47
84 2.209 2.216 +0.31 32.22 +15.98
0# -- -- -- 31.96 +15.04 93
M20 concrete with 0% IOT exposed to saturated NaCl solution

(a) Before exposure (b) After 28 days of exposure

(c) After 56 days of exposure (d) After 84 days of exposure 94

M20 concrete with 50% IOT (0.8 W/C) exposed to saturated NaCl

(a) Before exposure (b) After 28 days of exposure

(c) After 56 days of exposure (d) After 84 days of exposure 95

M20 concrete with 50% IOT (0.66 W/C + P) exposed to NaCl solution

(a) Before exposure (b) After 28 days of exposure

(c) After 56 days of exposure (d) After 84 days of exposure 96

Concluding remarks on properties of concrete with IOT
• Improvement in workability was found for both the concrete grades at 25% IOT
replacement with same W/C ratio (0.66 & 0.55)
• At 50% IOT replacement, it was possible to get required workability at control W/C
ratio by using super-plasticizer
• At 100% IOT replacement, it was not possible to get required workability even by
using super-plasticizer, and hence, W/C was further increased
• Compressive strength increased at 25% replacement for both M20 & M30
• Compressive strength at 50% IOT replacement was close to that of control strength
• Long term strength improved over 9 months for control concrete and concrete
with 50% IOT
• Modulus values were maximum at 25% IOT replacement, where as strain at peak
stress remained within a close range
• Modulus of rupture marginally reduced as IOT content increased where as splitting
tensile strength was maximum at 25% IOT replacement
• Critical and maximum bond strength were maximum at 25% replacement
• Drying shrinkage and moisture movement increases with increase in IOT content
97
Continued…,
• Concrete having 25% & 50% IOT replacement performed much better
against exposure to acidic media when compared to control concrete
• Chloride media had no adverse effect on both control concrete and
concrete with IOT

In general,
– Most of the concrete properties improves at 25% IOT when compared to
control concrete
– The performance of concrete at 50% IOT replacement was comparable with
control concrete
– 100% replacement failed to produce intended properties
– About 50% of Zone II type river sand can be replaced by IOT for comparable
properties of concrete

98
Demonstration of a structure
using IOT as fine aggregate

99
About the building…
• Based on the promising results on utilisation of IOT as replacement to sand,
a demonstration structure is built
• It is a two storey load bearing masonry structure – each floor 16 Sq. M
• Cement-soil mortar of 1:1:6 proportions with 100% IOT to replace sand
• M20 grade concrete with 50% IOT to replace sand
• Soil-cement blocks as masonry units

100
SSB with IOT to replace sand
• An attempt was made to examine the possibility of utilising IOT to
replace sand content in SSB
• SSB are energy efficient alternative to burnt clay bricks
• SSB are manufactured by compacting a wetted mixture of soil, sand
and stabiliser in a machine into a high density-block
• Natural river sand is commonly used to achieve an optimum clay and
sand content in the mix
• Performance of SSB depends on mix proportion, density, amount of
stabiliser, curing type etc.
• A local red soil was examined for clay, silt and sand content in it,
based on which, mix proportion was arrived at
• 7% cement and moulding moisture content higher by 10% of OMC
• Wet compressive strength, water absorption, initial rate of
absorption, linear expansion on saturation were determined
101
 100

80
Soil
Sand (RSC)
L5 IOT
60
% Finer

40

20

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Particle size (mm)

102
Details of mix proportion
2000

0% IOT
25% IOT
1950
Dry density (kN/m³) 50% IOT
100% IOT

1900

1850

1800

1750
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Moisture content (%)

Mix proportion by weight

Cement
OMC CMC
Mix type content
(%) (%)
Soil (%) Sand (%) IOT (%) (%)

A 50 50 0 7 11.05 12.15

B 50 37.5 12.5 7 11.63 12.79

C 50 25 25 7 12.73 14.00

D 50 0 50 7 13.63 15.00 103

Production & testing of SSB

104
Test results for SSB with IOT
Compressive Water Linear Achieved
Mix IRA
strength absorption expansion dry density
type (Kg/m2/minute)
(MPa) (%) (%) (kN/m3)
6.89 12.13 0.590 0.046 1830
A
(0.42) (0.36) (0.09) (0.02) (10)
6.76 12.35 0.655 0.031 1840
B
(0.52) (0.53) (0.18) (0.008) (10)
6.77 13.22 0.568 0.041 1820
C
(0.36) (0.83) (0.12) (0.014) (10)
6.63 15.07 0.582 0.035 1820
D
(0.27) (1.30) (0.14) (0.02) (10)
( Results of 8 bricks in each mix; standard deviation values in parenthesis)

• OMC increases with increase in IOT content to replace natural sand

• A marginal reduction in compressive strength of about 4% observed at 100% IOT
• Water absorption increases with increase in IOT content
• Water absorption and Linear expansion on saturation values are within allowable
limit for 100% IOT replacement
• Sand fraction required to dilute the soil can be completely replaced by IOT
105
 SSB made out of IOT

IOT procured for construction

106
 SSB masonry with
cement-soil mortar

Field measurement
of mortar flow

107
108
109
110
Publications

Published
• Ullas S N and B V Venkatarama Reddy (2009), “Iron Ore Tailings As Substitute For Sand In Masonry
Mortar”, Proc. International Seminar on Waste to Wealth” New Delhi, India, pp. 151 – 155
• B V Venkatarama Reddy, S N Ullas and K S Nanjunda Rao (2009), “Masonry Mortars Using Iron Ore
Tailings as Fine Aggregate”, International Conference on non-conventional materials and Technologies:
Ecological materials and technologies for sustainable buildings”, Cairo, Egypt
• Ullas S N, B V Venkatarama Reddy and K S Nanjunda Rao (2010), “Characteristics of masonry units from
iron ore tailings”, Proc. International Conference on Sustainable Built Environment” Kandy, Sri Lanka,
Vol. 1, pp. 108 – 114

Communicated
• Ullas S N, B V Venkatarama Reddy and K S Nanjunda Rao, “Exploratory Study on Utilisation of Iron Ore
Tailings as Fine Aggregate in Concrete”, Magazine of Concrete Research, ICE Publishing

111
 © Anilsuhas

THANK YOU
112
Details of experimental program
MORTARS CONCRETE
M2 Grade (1:6) M1 Grade (1:1:6) H2 Grade (1 : ¼ : 4) M20 Grade M30 Grade
Tailings % Tailings % Tailings % Tailings % Tailings %
PROPERTIES 0 25 50 100 0 25 50 100 0 25 50 100 0 25 50 100 0 25 50 100

Workability √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Compressive
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
strength
Stress-strain
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
relationships
Masonry
Compressive √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ X X X X X X X X
strength
Flexure bond
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
strength
Flexure bond
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
strength
Drying
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ X X X X X X X X
shrinkage
Water
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
retentivity
Durability √ √ √ √ X X X X
113
Conc. remarks on properties of mortars with IOT
• Workability increases with increase in W/B ratio
• Workability increased for M2 and H2 mortars with 25% IOT replacement for RSC
• M1 grade mortars did not show any improvement in workability
– Attributed to increase in fine particles
• With L2 IOT, it was found possible to replace about 65%, 45% and 50% of RSC in
M2, M1 and H2 grade mortars respectively
• With L5 IOT, about 75% replacement of RSC was possible in all the three grades of
mortars
• When 100% RSC was replaced by L2 and L5 IOT, all the three mortars resulted in
reduction of compressive strength
• Long term strength increases for both control mortar and mortars having IOT
• water retentivity value of all the three grades of mortars increased as L5 IOT
content was increased to replace RSC
– Increased fine particles offer resistance to moisture movement
• The strain at peak stress, ITM and SM values were found to increase when the
amount of RSC replaced by L5 IOT was between 25% and 50%
• Shrinkage of only M2 & M1 mortar reduces at 25% IOT
114
Contd…..,
• When RSF was used in control mix, no improvement in workability was observed
for both M2 and M1 grade mortars
• Compressive strength of M2 mortars increases up to 50% IOT replacement
whereas strength reduces for M1 mortar
• Drying shrinkage of M1 mortar reduces at 25% replacement where as shrinkage in
M2 mortar increases with increase in IOT

115
Literature review:
Construction industry & present Indian scenario…
Venkatarama Reddy & Jagadish (2003)
• Indian construction industry is one of the largest in terms of volume of man power &
materials produced
• Responsible for largest share of CO2 emissions of about 22%
• >2 x 106 residential buildings are built annually
• Masonry walls constitute major energy consuming components
• Natural sand & crushed stone aggregates consume about 1.75MJ/m 3 for every one km of
transportation

Venkatarama Reddy (2004, 2009)

• Indian construction industry is growing at an alarming rate (>8% per annum)
• Emphasise on energy intensity of materials, natural resources and raw materials consumed,
recycling and safe disposal and impact on environment
• About 350 x 106 m3 of fine aggregate is produced annually
• Utilization of industrial and mine wastes for the production of building materials to conserve
raw materials natural resources

116
Utilisation of IOT
• Further beneficiation
• Ceramic & Glass industry
• Cement production
• Fertilizers

M.K. Ghose & P.K. Sen(1999), S.K. Das et al (2000)

• Investigated recovery of usable ore fines from IOTs
• Most of the IOT contain iron concentration of around 45% which can be subjected to further
beneficiation by advanced processes – WHIMS
• Experiments on exploitation of IOT for development of ceramic tiles with IOT content of 30-50%,
• Recovery & reuse is possible but waste generation still remains - hence production of value added
products receives attention

S. Zhang et al (2006)
• About 14 rivers were polluted, the soil was sanded & 235 ha of fertile soil have no harvest nearby 9
mine plants
• Reserving tailings need to construct tailing yards at very high capital investment
• Chemical composition of IOT are close to that of required elements of ceramic, glass & tile industry
• Paving materials and sand substitution are possible as physical properties like hardness & gradation are
more important and chemical composition is not rigorously controlled
• IOT with high iron content can eliminate use of iron powder in cement production but it has to be
restricted to 5% as tailings compositions are not fully consistent
• Tailings often contains Zn, Mn, Cu, Mo, Fe, P & other trace elements which can be used to produce
fertilizers
117
Comprehensive industry document on IOM by CPCB, India (2007)
• About 200 Million t of IOT accumulated in Lakya dam and about 1.5 Mt/y of
washed waste accumulated in other PC dams
• Tailings generated by beneficiation process still contain 22% Fe
• Based on present day techno-economic consideration it may not be worthwhile to
extract the iron from tailings like lean source
• High silica content of IOT is beneficial in producing ceramic floor and wall tiles
• Seepage water from the tailings dam does not indicate presence of any heavy
metals like zinc, cadmium, lead, manganese, iron and copper which can leach &
have significant adverse impact on the ground water quality
Zhong-lai Yi et al (2009)
• Examined use of IOT for preparation of cementitious material
• Minerals like quartz, pyroxene, feldspar are so stable that it dose not have any
cementitious properties
• 30-50% of IOT, lime and gypsum were mixed, wet ground & dried before
subjecting to compound thermal activation at heating range of 200 to 1000° C
• Bending strength and compressive strength test carried on mortar specimens
made using such cement with 30% IOT can meet requirements of 42.5 cement of
China

118
On masonry, mortars and concrete
Sinha (1983)
• Moisture content of brick during laying & sand gradation have marked effect on bond
tension and shear strength of brick work
• In rich mortar (1 : 1/3 : 3), well graded coarse-medium sand produced better results
compared to coarse-medium & medium-fine sands

Scott & Abrams (1985)

• Studied masonry behaviour in compression with strong brick-weak mortar
combination & reported that ultimate failure primarily depends on mortar type but is
not the limiting criteria
• Failure in the weak mortar prisms is more ductile compared to prisms built with rich
mortar

Venumadhava Rao et al (1995)

• Studied the effect of mortars on masonry strength
• Composite mortars with lime and soil show better bond strength than pure cement
mortar
• Emphasizes the need to use composite mortar for better masonry performance
119
Gooch et al (1995)
• High compressive strength is not a matter of concern
• Compatibility between sub-strata, low permeability and low shrinkage of mortar are
crucial

Sarangapani et al (2002)
• Compressive strength of mortar increases with decreasing water-cement ratio of mortar –
important in adjusting workability

Gumaste et al (2007)
• Increase in strength of mortar does not always lead to increase in masonry strength
• Masonry modulus is hardly sensitive to variation in mortar modulus

120
• Concrete – A general review
Neville (1973), Neville & Brooks (1987), Pillai & Menon (1998)
• A product or mass made by mixture of cement, water and aggregate (fine & coarse) and
some times admixtures
• Concrete consists two phase – Hydrated cement paste & aggregate. Hence, properties of
concrete is governed by properties of these two phases & also by the interfaces between
them
• General requirements of concrete are-
• Workability in fresh state
• Compressive strength up on hardening
• Resistance to atmospheric actions
• Durability and impermiability
• Economy
• Major factors affecting properties of concrete are-
• Mix proportion and properties of ingredients
• Water to binder ratio
• Compaction and curing methods
• Atmospheric conditions
• General problems with concrete which demand attention are-
• Poor tensile strength
• Creep and Shrinkage
• Sulphate attack, Acid attack and attack by sea water
• Alkali-aggregate reaction 121
Senthil Kumar & Manu Santhanam (2003)
• Performance of concrete is greatly affected by the type and degree of packing of its
constituents
• Ideal proportions for concrete depend not only on grading curve of aggregate but also on
the packing characteristics of fine components

Job Thomas (2006)

• Examined quarry dust as substitute for the river sand in concrete
• Higher volume of fine particles produced better workability
• Compressive strength and modulus of elasticity of concrete with higher volume of fines is
less compared to concrete with natural river sand
• Bond strength with reinforcement also reduces with quarry fines replacing sand

Harinadha Reddy (2009)

• Shrinkage plays critical role in pre-stressed concrete – the phenomenon is still far from being
fully understood
• Pore structure and relative humidity of the medium are important factors along with
structure of hydrated cement paste & aggregate content also influence shrinkage
• Long term prediction is sensitive to initial data used in models

122
Experimental set-up of mortar cylinder & typical failure pattern in compression 123
Observations:
• Flow is sensitive to water content
• M2 & H2 grade mortars shows improvement in workability with
25% replacement for given water content
- This can be attributed to the reduced harshness of mortar
• M1 grade do not show any improvement in workability as tailings
introduced to replace sand
• Due to increased fine fraction with high lime content

124