RE: Portlands vs. Blended Hydraulics[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: "'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: Portlands vs. Blended Hydraulics
- From: Robert Rollo <rrollo(--nospam--at)TEAM-PSC.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 16:27:00 -0500
thanks harold for the thoughts on blendeds
how about another one . . .
is there chemical difference between portland plus lime and masonry cements ?
or are masonry cements simply premixed with the lime ?
seems like i had heard once (with no confirmation) that portland plus lime is better
than allowing masonry cements, primarily due to the leaching of salts responsible for efflorescence.
we typically spec ASTM C270 proportion spec for S with portland and lime for this reason.
have i lost my mind on the efflorescence and should i be performance spec'ing and forget the efflorescence issue ?
thanks in advance.
From: Harold Sprague [SMTP:harold.sprague(--nospam--at)neenan.com]
Sent: Friday, June 04, 1999 4:11 PM
Subject: RE: Portlands vs. Blended Hydraulics
The classic blended hydraulic cements start with portland clinkers and have
blast furnace slag interground. They are specified within ASTM C595. There
is also a performance specification in ASTM C1157. There is also an ASHTO
spec M240. The traditional uses have been in large mat foundations and
- Prev by Subject: RE: Portlands vs. Blended Hydraulics
- Next by Subject: RE: Portlands vs. Blended Hydraulics
- Previous by thread: RE: Portlands vs. Blended Hydraulics
- Next by thread: RE: Portlands vs. Blended Hydraulics