|WikiProject Civil engineering||(Rated Start-class)|
- If the page linked to in the ref is primarily informational about the general product, even as part of a website whose main purpose is to sell a particular product, it's ok. If the page is primarily about the specific brand, or exists more to sell than inform, the link should go. Argyriou (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think slag should be listed here. It's described by the theoreticians as a "latent hydraulic material" rather than a pozzolan: the action of lime on it is more in the nature of a catalyst than a reactant. The same goes for Hi-Calcium Class C Ash. . . .LinguisticDemographer 20:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Pozzolanic reaction | main article |
Please, only edit the central page dealing with Pozzolanic reaction which has been transcluded in this page. See Wikipedia:Transclusion to learn how it works. Thank you. Shinkolobwe (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
GGBFS is NOT a pozzolan
I agree with comments above that GGFS is NOT a pozzolan. ASTM C441 / C441M is QUITE clear: "Standard Test Method for Effectiveness of Pozzolans or Ground Blast-Furnace Slag in Preventing Excessive Expansion of Concrete Due to the Alkali-Silica Reaction" [EMPHASIS ADDED]
It is a hydraulic binder.
Use section has problems
The first 2 paragraph are sufficiently flawed, imho, as to need a complete rewrite. Currently they are:"The benefits of pozzolan use in cement and concrete are threefold. First is the economic gain obtained by replacing a substantial part of the Portland cement by cheaper, pollution free, natural pozzolans or industrial by-products. Second is the lowering of the blended cement environmental cost associated with the greenhouse gases emitted during Portland cement production. A third advantage is the increased durability of the end product.
Blending of pozzolans with Portland cement is of limited interference in the conventional production process and offers the opportunity to convert waste (e.g. fly ash) into durable construction materials."
Paragraph 1 I see little difference between point 1 and 2. Both claim the same environmental benefit. This is absurd double counting. It doesn't generate CO2 and also replaces Portland cement which does is NOT two separate benefits. The POV of this needs more consistency. It is debatable whether "industrial by-products" are pozzolans, but I'll ignore that here. What is NOT debatable is the fact that such materials are NOT "pollution free". In fact, the term "pollution free" should NEVER be used for a commercial product, since its transportation alone contributes pollutants to the environment. So, even if only "all-natural" pozzolans are used, they need to be mined, transported, processed, transported again, and finally incorporated into the Portland Cement, ALL of which will create pollution. I, personally, find the use of the word "natural" here misguided and misleading. If there is a valid authoritative reference which shows that the processing of pozzolan from the mine to their incorporation into cement is less polluting than the equivalent for Portland Cement, it should be cited specifically and the article should reflect that, rather than its current PR speak about natural, pollution free, green-house gas emissions, etc. Paragraph 2 Blending is of limited interference??? I have no idea what that means. It offers the opportunity?? Since when are pozzolans a "waste"? It reads as if it was cut directly from some PR brochure by a marketer of the material. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)