This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles

for the
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

Designation: C1778 − 19a

Standard Guide for

Reducing the Risk of Deleterious Alkali-Aggregate Reaction
in Concrete1
This standard is issued under the fixed designation C1778; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.

1. Scope* 2. Referenced Documents

1.1 This guide provides guidance on how to address the 2.1 ASTM Standards:2
potential for deleterious alkali aggregate reaction (AAR) in C33/C33M Specification for Concrete Aggregates
concrete construction. This guide addresses the process of C114 Test Methods for Chemical Analysis of Hydraulic
identifying both potentially alkali-silica reactive (ASR) and Cement
alkali-carbonate reactive (ACR) aggregates through standard- C125 Terminology Relating to Concrete and Concrete Ag-
ized testing procedures and the selection of mitigation options gregates
to minimize the risk of expansion when ASR aggregates are C150/C150M Specification for Portland Cement
C294 Descriptive Nomenclature for Constituents of Con-
used in concrete construction. Mitigation methods for ASR
crete Aggregates
aggregates are selected using either prescriptive or
C295/C295M Guide for Petrographic Examination of Ag-
performance-based alternatives. Preventive measures for ACR
gregates for Concrete
aggregates are limited to avoidance of use. Because the
C311/C311M Test Methods for Sampling and Testing Fly
potential for deleterious reactions depends not only on the Ash or Natural Pozzolans for Use in Portland-Cement
concrete mixture but also the in-service exposure, guidance is Concrete
provided on the type of structures and exposure environments C586 Test Method for Potential Alkali Reactivity of Carbon-
where AAR may be of concern. ate Rocks as Concrete Aggregates (Rock-Cylinder
1.2 Units—The values stated in either SI units or inch- Method)
pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The C595/C595M Specification for Blended Hydraulic Cements
values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; C618 Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined
therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete
Combining values from the two systems may result in noncon- C823/C823M Practice for Examination and Sampling of
formance with the standard. Hardened Concrete in Constructions
C856 Practice for Petrographic Examination of Hardened
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the Concrete
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the C989/C989M Specification for Slag Cement for Use in
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro- Concrete and Mortars
priate safety, health, and environmental practices and deter- C1105 Test Method for Length Change of Concrete Due to
mine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Alkali-Carbonate Rock Reaction
1.4 This international standard was developed in accor- C1157/C1157M Performance Specification for Hydraulic
dance with internationally recognized principles on standard- Cement
ization established in the Decision on Principles for the C1240 Specification for Silica Fume Used in Cementitious
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recom- Mixtures
mendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical C1260 Test Method for Potential Alkali Reactivity of Ag-
Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee. gregates (Mortar-Bar Method)
C1293 Test Method for Determination of Length Change of
Concrete Due to Alkali-Silica Reaction
1
This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee C09 on Concrete and
Concrete Aggregates and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee C09.50 on
2
Aggregate Reactions in Concrete. For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or
Current edition approved June 15, 2019. Published August 2019. Originally contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM
approved in 2014. Last previous edition approved in 2019 as C1778–19. DOI: Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on
10.1520/C1778-19A. the ASTM website.

*A Summary of Changes section appears at the end of this standard

Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Oct 28 01:18:02 EDT 2019
1
Downloaded/printed by
University of Michigan (University of Michigan) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 C1778 − 19a
C1567 Test Method for Determining the Potential Alkali- KGA = 350~ 75⁄100!~ 0.89⁄100! 5 2.3 kg/m 3
Silica Reactivity of Combinations of Cementitious Mate- @ LBA = 590 ~ 75⁄100!~ 0.89⁄100! 5 3.9 lb/yd3 #
rials and Aggregate (Accelerated Mortar-Bar Method) In a concrete containing 355 kg/m3 [600 lb/yd3] of Type
2.2 ACI Standard:3 IS(25) blended cement, with a base portland cement equiva-
lent alkali content of 0.73 %, the alkali loading of the con-
ACI 318 Building Code Requirements for Structural Con- crete is calculated as follows:
crete and Commentary
KGA = 355~ 75⁄100!~ 0.73⁄100! 5 1.9 kg⁄m 3
2.3 AASHTO Standard:
@ LBA 5 600 ~ 75⁄100! ~ 0.73⁄100! 5 3.3 lb⁄yd3 #
AASHTO R 80 Standard Practice for Determining the Re-
activity of Concrete Aggregates and Selecting Appropriate 3.2.3 deleteriously reactive, adj—used to describe aggre-
Measures for Preventing Deleterious Expansion in New gates that undergo chemical reactions that subsequently result
Concrete Construction4 in premature deterioration of concrete.
2.4 CSA Standards:5 3.2.3.1 Discussion—The term used in this standard guide
A23.2-26A Determination of Potential Alkali-Carbonate Re- describes aggregates that undergo chemical reactions with
activity of Quarried Carbonate Rocks by Chemical Com- hydroxide (OH-) in the pore solution.
position 3.2.4 non-reactive, adj—used to describe materials that do
A23.2-27A Standard Practice to Identify Degree of Alkali- not undergo chemical reactions that subsequently result in
Aggregate Reactivity of Aggregates and to Identify Mea- premature deterioration of concrete.
sures to Avoid Deleterious Expansion in Concrete 3.2.4.1 Discussion—Some aggregates with minor amounts
A23.2-28A Standard Practice for Laboratory Testing to of reactive constituents may exhibit the symptoms of alkali-
Demonstrate the Effectiveness of Supplementary Cement- aggregate reaction (AAR) without producing any damage to
ing Materials and Lithium-Based Admixtures to Prevent the concrete; these are termed as non-reactive aggregates.
Alkali-Silica Reaction in Concrete
4. Summary of Guide
3. Terminology
4.1 Alkali-aggregate reactions (AAR) occur between the
3.1 Definitions: alkali hydroxides in the pore solution of concrete and certain
3.1.1 For definitions of terms used in this Guide, refer to components found in some aggregates. Two types of AAR are
Terminology C125 and Descriptive Nomenclature C294. recognized depending on the nature of the reactive component:
3.2 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard: alkali-silica reaction (ASR) nvolves various types of reactive
3.2.1 alkali content, Na2Oeq, n—value in percent deter- siliceous (SiO2 containing) minerals and alkali-carbonate re-
mined by reporting sodium and potassium oxides, determined action (ACR) involves certain types of rocks that contain
using procedures for total alkalies in Test Methods C114, of dolomite [CaMg(CO3)2]. Both types of reaction can result in
portland cement or supplementary cementitious material, using expansion and cracking of concrete elements when exposed to
the following formula: moisture, leading to a reduction in the service life of concrete
structures.
Na2 Oeq=%Na 2 O+0.658 3 %K 2 O
3.2.2 alkali loading, n—amount of alkalies contributed by 4.2 This guide describes approaches for identifying poten-
the portland cement in a concrete mixture, expressed in kg/m3 tially deleteriously reactive aggregates and selecting appropri-
or lb/yd3 and calculated by multiplying the portland cement ate preventive measures to minimize the risk of expansion
content of the concrete in kg/m3 or lb/yd3 by the alkali content when such aggregates are used in concrete in exposure
of the portland cement, or the portland cement portion of a environments where AAR may be of concern. Preventive
blended cement, divided by 100. measures include avoiding use of the reactive aggregate,
limiting the alkali loading of the concrete, using supplementary
3.2.2.1 Discussion—Alkali loading is abbreviated as KGA cementitious materials, using lithium-based admixtures, or a
[LBA]. In concrete that includes supplementary cementitious combination of these strategies.
materials; only the alkali content of the portland cement
fraction of the cementitious materials is included in the 5. Significance and Use
calculation of alkali loading. For example, in a concrete 5.1 This guide provides recommendations for identifying
containing 350 kg/m3 [590 lb/yd3] of cementitious materials the potential for deleterious AAR and selecting appropriate
consisting of 75 % portland cement, 20 % slag, and 5 % silica preventive measures, based on a prescriptive-based or perfor-
fume, and where the alkali content of the portland cement is mance approach, to minimize the risk of deleterious reaction.
0.89 % Na2Oeq, the alkali loading of the concrete is calculated In regions where occurrences of AAR are rare or the aggregate
as follows: sources in use have a satisfactory field performance record
verified by following the guidance in this standard, it is
3
Available from American Concrete Institute (ACI), P.O. Box 9094, Farmington reasonable to continue to rely on the previous field history
Hills, MI 48333-9094, http://www.concrete.org. without subjecting the aggregates to laboratory tests for AAR.
4
Available from American Association of State Highway and Transportation In regions where AAR problems have occurred or the reactivity
Officials (AASHTO), 444 N. Capitol St., NW, Suite 249, Washington, DC 20001,
of aggregates is known to vary from source to source, it may be
http://www.transportation.org.
5
Available from Canadian Standards Association (CSA), 5060 Spectrum Way, necessary to follow a testing program to determine potential
Suite 100, Mississauga, ON, L4W 5N4, Canada, http://www.csa.ca. reactivity and evaluate preventive measures. In this guide, the

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Oct 28 01:18:02 EDT 2019
2
Downloaded/printed by
University of Michigan (University of Michigan) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 C1778 − 19a
level of prevention required is a function of the reactivity of the lines from beginning to end of the flow chart. There are several
aggregate, the nature of the exposure conditions (especially test methods available for evaluating potential AAR. Petro-
availability of moisture), the criticality of the structure, and the graphic examination, determination of chemical constituents,
availability of alkali in the concrete. and mortar bar and concrete prism expansion tests are recom-
5.2 Risk Evaluation—To use this guide effectively, it is mended in this guide. If there are no changes in the geologic
necessary to define the level of risk that is acceptable, as this uniformity of the deposit or mineralogical composition, then
will determine the type and complexity of testing (Note 1). The the aggregate could be subsequently monitored using a revised
risk of deleterious expansion occurring as a result of a failure approach based on interpretation of the initial test results (see
to detect deleteriously reactive aggregates can be reduced by 7.7). A revised approach would allow for the omission of tests
routine testing using petrography, or laboratory expansion based on suitable existing data, or for omission of less reliable
tests, or both. tests if more reliable tests are being performed.

NOTE 1—The level of risk of alkali-silica reaction will depend upon the 6.2 If the aggregate is deemed to be non-reactive, it can be
nature of the project (criticality of the structure and anticipated exposure). accepted for use in concrete with no further consideration of
The determination of the level of risk is the responsibility of the individual mitigation provided that the other physical properties of the
in charge of the design, commonly a representative of the owner, and for aggregate render it suitable for use (refer to Specification
structures designed in accordance with ACI 318, the level of acceptable C33/C33M). If the aggregate is a quarried carbonate, tests are
risk would be determined by the licensed design professional.
required to determine whether the potential reaction is of the
5.3 For conventional structures, preventive measures deter- alkali-carbonate or alkali-silica type. Aggregate deemed alkali
mined by either performance testing or the prescriptive ap- carbonate reactive should be avoided. Aggregate deemed alkali
proach described in this guide can be expected to generally silica reactive can be tested for efficacy of preventive mea-
reduce the risk of expansion as a result of ASR to an acceptable sures. Steps for selecting appropriate preventive measures for
level. For certain critical structures, such as those exposed to ASR follow either a performance-based (Section 8) or
continuous moisture (for example, hydraulic dams or power prescriptive-based (Section 9) approach. In the performance-
plants), in which ASR-related expansion cannot be tolerated, based approach, a potential preventive measure is tested to
more conservative mitigation measures may be warranted. determine if the measure provides a reduction in expansion
5.4 There are no proven measures for effectively preventing below the limits outlined in this guide. Both approaches are
damaging expansion with alkali carbonate reactive rocks in intended to minimize the potential for deleterious expansion in
concrete and such materials need to be avoided. field concrete.
5.5 If an aggregate is identified as potentially deleteriously
reactive as a result of ASR, and the structure size, class, and 7. Determining Aggregate Reactivity
exposure condition requires preventive measures, the aggre- 7.1 Use of Field Performance History:
gate may be accepted for use together with appropriate 7.1.1 The long-term field performance history of an aggre-
preventive measures following the prescriptive or performance gate can be established by surveying existing structures that
methods outlined in this guide. were constructed using the same aggregate source. As many
structures as practical should be included in the survey and
6. Procedure
these structures should, if possible, represent different types of
6.1 The flow chart in Fig. 1 shows the general sequence of construction (for example, foundations, walls, bridges,
testing and decisions that should be made when evaluating a pavements, sidewalks, and structural elements). Practice C823/
source of aggregate for potential AAR. Solid lines show the C823M provides useful guidance when surveying structures to
approach recommended for a lower risk of AAR. The amount establish field performance history. The following information
and time of testing can be reduced with acceptance of a higher should be documented for each structure:
level of risk following the flow chart along the dashed lines. 7.1.1.1 Age—Structures should be at least 15 years old as
Prior documented satisfactory field performance of the aggre- visible damage from AAR can take more than ten years to
gate in concrete is generally considered to be sufficient for its develop.
acceptance in new concrete. However, reliance on prior field 7.1.1.2 Alkali loading of the concrete.
performance without following the guidance and recom-
7.1.1.3 Use and content of pozzolans or slag cement or
mended testing in 7.1 may not be sufficient to safeguard against
blended cements during construction.
damage as a result of AAR in new construction. This is due to
the difficulties in assuring that the materials and mixture 7.1.1.4 Exposure Condition—Availability of moisture and
proportions used in existing structures built 10 to 20 years ago use of deicing chemicals.
(the time frame needed to ensure that a deleterious reaction as 7.1.1.5 Symptoms of distress observed.
a result of AAR has not occurred) are similar to those being 7.1.2 Cores should be taken from a representative number of
proposed for use today. In most cases, it will be necessary to these structures and a petrographic examination conducted
perform laboratory tests to determine whether the aggregate is using Practice C856 to establish the following (Note 2):
potentially deleteriously reactive for the specific concrete 7.1.2.1 The aggregate used in the structure surveyed is of
mixture to be used. similar mineralogical composition, as determined by Guide
6.1.1 It is recommended that the potential AAR of a new or C295/C295M, to that of the aggregate to be used.
not previously tested source be established following the solid 7.1.2.2 Any evidence of damage as a result of AAR; and

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Oct 28 01:18:02 EDT 2019
3
Downloaded/printed by
University of Michigan (University of Michigan) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 C1778 − 19a

FIG. 1 Sequence of Laboratory Tests for Evaluating Aggregate Reactivity

7.1.2.3 The presence, quantity, and composition (if known) ment level, or placed in a more aggressive exposure condition
of fly ash, slag cement, or other supplementary cementitious than the structures included in the survey.
materials. 7.1.4 There is a certain level of uncertainty associated with
NOTE 2—Even if signs of deterioration are not observed, cores should accepting aggregates solely on the basis of field performance
be taken to establish uniformity of materials. because of difficulties in establishing unequivocally that the
7.1.3 If the results of the field survey indicate that the materials and proportions used more than 10 to 15 years ago
aggregate is non-reactive, the aggregate may be used in new are sufficiently similar to those to be used in new construction.
construction provided that the new concrete is not produced If field performance indicates that an aggregate source is
with a higher concrete alkali content, a lower SCM replace- potentially deleteriously reactive, laboratory testing can be

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Oct 28 01:18:02 EDT 2019
4
Downloaded/printed by
University of Michigan (University of Michigan) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 C1778 − 19a
conducted to determine the level of aggregate reactivity and been reports of deleterious ACR with aggregates that do not
evaluate preventive measures. The use of long-term perfor- exhibit this “classic” texture (3).6
mance is considered to be a reliable method in determining the 7.3 Determination of Potential Alkali-Carbonate Reactive
suitability of an aggregate; however, it is often very difficult to Rocks by Chemical Composition, CSA A23.2-26A—If the
acquire the necessary information and background for existing aggregate being assessed is a quarried carbonate rock, the
structures. potential for ACR may be assessed on the basis of its chemical
7.2 Petrographic Assessment: composition (1). This test involves the determination of lime
7.2.1 Petrographic examination of aggregates should be (CaO), magnesia (MgO), and alumina (Al2O3) contents of the
conducted in accordance with Guide C295/C295M. Petrogra- rock and determining where the composition of the rock falls
phy can reveal useful information about the composition of an on a plot of CaO/MgO ratio versus the Al2O3 content, as shown
aggregate, including the identification and approximate amount in Fig. 2.
of potentially reactive minerals. Petrography can be used to 7.3.1 If the composition does not fall in the range of
classify an aggregate as potentially reactive, but expansion “aggregates considered to be potentially expansive” in Fig. 2,
testing is required to determine the extent of the reactivity and the aggregate is considered to be not potentially alkali-
appropriate mitigation measures. Aggregates may be accepted carbonate reactive and should be tested using the options for
as non-reactive solely on the basis of petrography, but there is evaluation of potential alkali-silica reactivity outlined in this
a certain level of uncertainty associated with such a decision. guide.
For example, some reactive phases may not be detected by 7.3.2 If the composition falls in the range of “aggregates
optical microscopy. If a petrographer is examining aggregates considered to be potentially expansive” in Fig. 2, the aggregate
from well-known and tested sources, it is reasonable to use is considered to be potentially alkali-carbonate reactive. Such
petrography to classify the aggregate reactivity on a routine aggregates may be tested using either of the following concrete
basis. prism tests: Test Method C1293 or C1105 using a low-alkali
7.2.2 Petrographers should look for alkali-reactive silica content (see 7.5 and 7.6).
components such as opal, chert, chalcedony, cristobalite, 7.4 Accelerated Mortar Bar Test, Test Method C1260—This
tridymite, strained and micro-crystalline quartz, and volcanic test method is suitable for assessing potentially alkali-silica
glass. Petrographers should also ascertain the presence of reactive aggregates (Note 3).
mineralogical and textural features characteristic of alkali-
carbonate reactive aggregates. Deleteriously reactive alkali- NOTE 3—Test Method C1260 (accelerated mortar bar test) is not
carbonate aggregates often exhibit a characteristic microscopic
texture consisting of dolomite rhombs within a fine-grained 6
The boldface numbers in parentheses refer to the list of references at the end of
matrix of calcite, quartz, and clay (2). However, there have this standard.

FIG. 2 Plot of CaO/MgO Ratio Versus the Al2O3 Content of Quarried Carbonite Rocks (1)

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Oct 28 01:18:02 EDT 2019
5
Downloaded/printed by
University of Michigan (University of Michigan) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 C1778 − 19a
suitable for detecting ACR as aggregates that are alkali-carbonate reactive 7.5.1 If concrete prisms in this test expand by less than
may not expand when crushed to the gradations used in Test Method 0.04 % after one year, the aggregate is considered non-reactive
C1260.
and may be used in concrete with no further testing for AAR.
7.4.1 If mortar bars in this test expand by less than 0.10 % If the prisms expand by 0.04 % or greater at one year, the
after 14 days immersion, the aggregate is considered to be aggregate is considered to be reactive and preventive measures,
innocuous in most cases. If the mortar bars expand by 0.10 % as outlined in Section 8 or 9, are required if the aggregate is to
or greater after 14 days immersion it is considered to be be used in concrete construction for structures and exposure
potentially deleteriously reactive (Note 4). If the mortar bars conditions requiring preventive measures.
expand by 0.10 % or greater after 14 days immersion it is 7.5.2 If the aggregate tested is a quarried carbonate rock
recommended to confirm reactivity using Test Method C1293 with a chemical composition that falls within the region in
(concrete prism test) (Note 5). (Fig. 2), labeled as “aggregates considered to be potentially
NOTE 4—Test Method C1260—Coarse aggregate for Test Method reactive,” and exhibited concrete prism expansion of 0.04 % or
C1260 are crushed to sand size (<5 mm [0.2 in.]) and then washed and greater at one year, and was not tested using Test Method
graded to meet the grading requirements of the test method. Sands are C1105 (see 7.6), the concrete prisms should be examined to
washed and graded to meet the same grading requirements. The test is determine whether ACR contributed to the expansion or
intended to evaluate coarse and fine aggregates separately and should not
be used to evaluate job combinations of coarse and fine aggregates. additional testing may be warranted (Note 6). If damaging
NOTE 5—In regions where Test Method C1260 is known to produce ACR is detected, either in isolation or in combination with
false-positive results, that is, expansion is by 0.10 % or greater yet the ASR, the aggregate should not be used in concrete without
aggregate has a record of good field performance, it may be desired to rely selective quarrying or aggregate processing to limit the alkali-
on Test Method C1293. In 8.3 and Fig. 3 this would be Zone 1 where reactive carbonate components to acceptable levels.
relying solely on Test Method C1567 to evaluate preventive measures
would result in overly conservative estimates of the amount of SCM to NOTE 6—The determination of the extent to which the ACR contributed
control ASR. to the expansion of the concrete should be conducted by an expert having
7.5 Concrete Prism Test, Test Method C1293—This con- experience with ACR. Methods may include one or more of the following:
petrographic examination of the concrete (Practice C856), accelerated
crete prism test is suitable for evaluating potentially alkali- microbar testing of the aggregate (5), or rock cylinder expansion tests
silica reactive aggregates and alkali-carbonate reactive aggre- (Test Method C586) conducted on samples of rock from the quarry.
gates. It is considered by many researchers to be the most
reliable laboratory test for predicting field performance of 7.5.3 If an aggregate is reactive according to Test Method
aggregates (4). If the potentially reactive aggregate being C1293, and is to be used in concrete construction, appropriate
tested is a coarse aggregate, use a non-reactive fine aggregate preventive measures need to be taken following the procedures
and vice versa. The coarse-fine aggregate combination should outlined in Sections 8 or 9.
be used to make concrete prisms with a specified high-alkali 7.6 Concrete Prism Test for Alkali-Carbonate Reaction, Test
loading. The test is intended to evaluate coarse and fine Method C1105—For quarried carbonate rocks with composi-
aggregates separately and should not be used to evaluate job tions falling within the region of “aggregates considered to be
combinations of coarse and fine aggregates. potentially reactive” in Fig. 2, this concrete prism test for

FIG. 3 Comparison of Test Method C1260, Accelerated Mortar Bar, and Test Method C1293, Concrete Prism Test, Data for Purpose of
Determining Whether Test Method C1567 is Suitable for Evaluating Preventative Measures with a Specific Aggregate

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Oct 28 01:18:02 EDT 2019
6
Downloaded/printed by
University of Michigan (University of Michigan) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 C1778 − 19a
alkali-carbonate reaction may also be used, but the alkali should not be adopted unless it can be demonstrated that extension of the
loading of the concrete should be kept below 1.8 kg/m3 test period is required to capture aggregates that are believed to be similar
to those that have been identified as being deleteriously reactive either by
[3.0 lb ⁄yd3] to minimize the risk of deleterious expansion as a concrete prism testing or field performance. Applying the extended test
result of ASR. duration to all aggregates may result in an unacceptable number of cases
7.6.1 If the expansion results from Test Method C1105 are in which the accelerated mortar bar test results in false positives. Note that
0.025 % or greater at six months or are 0.030 % or greater at extending the test duration does not capture all of the aggregates that have
twelve months, the aggregate is considered to be alkali- been found to pass Test Method C1260 but fail Test Method C1293.
carbonate reactive and its use in concrete is to be avoided (Note 7.7.3 In Fig. 1, Test Method C1260 is shown with a broken
7). If the expansion results do not exceed these values, the line, as there is the possibility of incorrectly identifying a
aggregate is considered to be not alkali-carbonate reactive but deleteriously reactive aggregate as being non-reactive using
should be tested for alkali-silica reactivity as outlined in this this method. The most reliable approach for determining
guide. aggregate reactivity is to use Test Method C1293 for all cases
(that is, to exclude Test Method C1260 from the evaluation
NOTE 7—It is recommended that the test be conducted for a period of
twelve months, but expansion values at six months can be used if needed. process). However, it is recognized that the long duration of
Test Method C1293 makes it impractical for use in many
7.7 Interpretation of Results from Laboratory Tests and use circumstances and there is a need for a more rapid test.
of Existing Tests—Use Fig. 1 to interpret the results from
existing laboratory and field testing and to make decisions 8. Performance-based Approach for Selecting
regarding the risk of alkali-silica or alkali-carbonate reaction Appropriate Preventive Measures
occurring in concrete.
7.7.1 Fig. 1 shows dotted lines from the boxes marked 8.1 In the performance-based approach, the efficacy of the
“Evaluate Field History and/or Testing History,” “Perform preventive measure in combination with the reactive aggregate
Petrographic Analysis of the Aggregate,” and “Perform Accel- is tested using either Test Method C1293 or C1567 (Note 9).
erated Mortar Bar Test” to the box marked “Non-Reactive This approach is suitable for selecting the appropriate level of
Accept for Use” as there is an element of uncertainty associ- supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs). The effect of
ated with accepting aggregates solely on the basis of these different alkali loadings on the performance of concrete mix-
tests. With some aggregates, it may not be possible to identify tures made with reactive aggregates cannot be determined
reactive constituents by petrographic examination. using Test Methods C1293 and C1567, nor can these tests be
7.7.2 Test Method C1260 is generally recognized as a used to determine a maximum safe alkali loading (see Note
relatively severe test that identifies as potentially deleteriously 10). Mitigation measures using limits on alkali loading should
reactive many aggregate sources that have a history of satis- be determined using Section 9.
factory field performance and that Test Method C1293 identi- NOTE 9—Currently, there is no ASTM standard analogous to Test
fies as non-reactive. For this reason, results from Test Method Method C1567 for testing the efficacy of lithium. Research is underway to
C1260 should not be used to reject an aggregate. If an establish a standardized method as well as precision and bias statements.
aggregate is potentially reactive based on the results of Test However, several agencies [American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Federal Highway Administration
Method C1260 (expansion ≥ 0.10 % after 14 days immersion), (FHWA), and Canadian Standards Association (CSA)] specify testing
its reactivity should be confirmed by testing using Test Method procedures to evaluate the efficacy of lithium nitrate to control alkali-silica
C1293 or the potentially reactive aggregate should be used reaction in concrete specimens. Guidance on these testing procedures can
with appropriate mitigation measures (Section 8 or 9). If the be found in: AASHTO R 80, CSA A23.2-28A, and an FHWA Report (8).
results of Test Methods C1260 and C1293 are in disagreement, 8.2 Performance Testing Using Test Method C1293—The
the results of Test Method C1293 should be considered the ability of SCMs such as fly ash, slag cement, silica fume, and
more reliable. natural pozzolans, to control deleterious expansion with a
Although there were exceptions, in the past, it was often reactive aggregate can be evaluated using Test Method C1293.
assumed that aggregates that passed Test Method C1260 When testing SCMs, the total cementitious materials content is
(expansion < 0.10 % after 14 days immersion) were most likely maintained at 420 kg/m3 [708 lb/yd3], but the portland cement
to pass Test Method C1293 (expansion < 0.04 % at 1 year), and is replaced partially with the desired amount of the SCM (or
such aggregates could be accepted for use in concrete without combination of SCMs) under investigation. The alkali content
the need for confirmatory testing using Test Method C1293. of the portland cement component of the mixture only is raised
However, there have been an increasing number of coarse to 1.25 % Na2Oeq (Note 10). A number of tests should be
aggregates that have been found to pass Test Method C1260 conducted using varying levels of SCM(s) to optimize the
and fail Test Method C1293 and this is somewhat disconcerting proportions that will meet the expansion criteria. The test
for specifications that permit the use of aggregates passing Test duration for evaluating preventive measures is two years. If
Method C1260 with no further testing (that is, no requirements expansions are <0.04 % at two years, the combination of SCM
for Test Method C1293) (Note 8) (6) (7). Consequently, there and reactive aggregate is considered suitable for use in
is a risk associated with accepting an aggregate solely on the concrete construction.
basis of the results from Test Method C1260.
NOTE 10—The expansion of concrete prisms produced with cement
NOTE 8—Several agencies have extended the duration of Test Method (Specification C150/C150M Type I) alkalies raised to 1.25 % Na2Oeq
C1260 and use an expansion limit of 0.10 % or even 0.08 % after 28 days provides a reliable prediction of the field expansion of concrete produced
immersion in 1N NaOH at 80°C [176°F]. This more onerous requirement with portland cement with alkalies up to 1.0 % Na2Oeq. If the cement to

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Oct 28 01:18:02 EDT 2019
7
Downloaded/printed by
University of Michigan (University of Michigan) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 C1778 − 19a
be used in the field has an alkali content above 1.00 % Na2Oeq, this same TABLE 2 Determining the Level of ASR Risk
cement should be used for the concrete prism test and the alkalies should Aggregate-Reactivity Class
be raised by 0.25 % Na2Oeq by the addition of NaOH to the mix water (9). Size and Exposure Conditions
R0 R1 R2 R3
Due to the potential for alkali leaching from the concrete prisms during A
Non-massive concrete in a dry B
Level 1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
storage, there is no simple way to modify Test Method C1293 to provide environment
a reliable evaluation of the beneficial effects of using a concrete with MassiveA elements in a dryB Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
environment
low-alkali loading. All concrete exposed to humid air,
Level 1 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
8.3 Performance Testing Using Test Method C1567—Before buried or immersed
All concrete exposed to alkalies in
Test Method C1567 can be used to determine the performance serviceC
Level 1 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6
of a specific SCM-aggregate combination, it is recommended A
A massive element has a least dimension of greater than 0.9 m [3 ft].
that it first be demonstrated that the reactivity of the aggregate B
A dry environment corresponds to an average ambient relative humidity lower
being evaluated is properly identified. It is recommended that than 60 %, normally only found in the interior of buildings.
C
Examples of structures exposed to alkalies in service include marine structures
the results of Test Methods C1260 and C1293 for the aggregate exposed to seawater and highway structures exposed to deicing salts (for
being used (without preventive measures) be performed. After example, NaCl) or anti-icing salts (for example, potassium acetate, sodium
subjecting the aggregate to both tests, the results are plotted on formate, and so forth).
Fig. 3. Provided data do not fall within Zone 3 indicated in Fig.
3, Test Method C1567 can then be used to determine the
efficacy of SCMs. Neglecting to perform this type of compari-
son may result in either: (1) an overly conservative estimate of This approach is similar to that originally developed in Canada
aggregate reactivity using Test Method C1260 resulting in (CSA A23.2-27A) and being developed in Europe (10). It is
overestimation of required SCM amounts or (2) a less conser- also similar to the current guidance in AASHTO R 80.
vative estimate of aggregate reactivity using Test Method 9.1.1 The prescriptive approach is suitable for selecting the
C1260 resulting in underestimation of required SCM amounts. appropriate level of SCM, the maximum alkali loading, or both
This represents an inherent risk in relying solely on the results of the concrete. It can be used as an option if complete
of Test Method C1260 or Test Method C1567. It is recom- performance test data are not available.
mended that Test Methods C1260 and C1293 be compared 9.1.2 Degree of Alkali-silica Reactivity—The degree of
regularly (every two years would be a conservative recommen- alkali-silica reactivity of an aggregate is determined by testing
dation) unless the results of petrography or other tests indicate the aggregate in accordance with Test Method C1293 and using
a significant change in the composition of the material in the the expansion value at one year. Aggregate-reactivity classes
quarry; in which case, new tests should be initiated (8). are given in Table 1. If data from Test Method C1293 are not
8.3.1 Test Method C1567 was developed specifically for available, data from Test Method C1260 may be used to
“determining the potential alkali-silica reactivity of combina- classify aggregate reactivity as shown in Table 1. If the coarse
tions of cementitious materials and aggregates.” Combinations and fine aggregates are of different reactivity, the level of
of cementitious materials and aggregates will be deemed prevention should be selected on the basis of the more reactive
acceptable for use if the resulting expansion is <0.10 % after aggregate.
14 days immersion in 1M NaOH (Note 11). 9.1.3 Level of ASR Risk—The risk of ASR occurring in a
structure can be determined by considering the aggregate
NOTE 11—This test method is not suitable for evaluating SCMs with reactivity and the exposure conditions using Table 2. The
high levels of alkalies (fly ash with >4.0 % Na2Oeq and slag cement and
silica fume with >1.0 % Na2Oeq). Such materials should be evaluated
guidance provided in Table 2 can be used in the absence of
using the concrete prism test. Also, since mortar bars are immersed in 1.0 other information regarding exposure conditions of a particular
N NaOH solution (equivalent to a portland cement with approximately structure and is meant as an aid to choosing the proper
1.4 % Na2Oeq), Test Method C1567 is not suitable for evaluating ASR prescriptive approach to minimize the potential for deleterious
mitigation by reducing alkali loading. ASR.
9. Prescriptive Approach for Selecting Appropriate 9.1.4 Determining the Level of Prevention—By considering
Preventive Measures the risk of ASR from Table 2 combined with the class of
structure from Table 3, the level of prevention required is
9.1 Using the prescriptive approach, the level of prevention determined from Table 4.
is determined by considering the class (criticality of structure), 9.1.5 Identification of Preventive Measures:
size, and exposure condition of the structure; the degree of 9.1.5.1 Option 1: Limiting the Alkali Loading of the
aggregate reactivity; and the alkali loading of the concrete. The Concrete—The potential for damaging ASR can be minimized
approach follows the prescriptive requirement in Tables 1-8. by limiting the alkali loading of the concrete. Maximum
permissible alkali loadings are given in Table 5. The alkali
loading of concrete is calculated on the basis of the alkali
TABLE 1 Classification of Aggregate Reactivity
content of the portland cement alone.
Aggregate- Description of 1-Year Expansion 14-Day Expansion 9.1.5.2 Option 2: Using SCM—The potential for damaging
Reactivity Aggregate in Test Method in Test Method
Class Reactivity C1293, % C1260, % ASR can be minimized by using a sufficient quantity of a
R0 Non-reactive <0.04 <0.10 suitable SCM such as fly ash, slag cement, silica fume, or
R1 Moderately reactive $0.04, <0.12 $0.10, <0.30 natural pozzolan (Note 12). Table 6 provides minimum re-
R2 Highly reactive $0.12, <0.24 $0.30, <0.45
R3 Very highly reactive $0.24 $0.45 placement levels for fly ash with less than 18 % CaO deter-
mined in accordance with Specification C311/C311M and

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Oct 28 01:18:02 EDT 2019
8
Downloaded/printed by
University of Michigan (University of Michigan) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 C1778 − 19a
TABLE 3 Structures Classified on Basis of the Severity of Consequences Should ASRA Occur
(Modified for Highway Structures from RILEM TC 191-ARP)
Class Consequence of ASR Acceptability of ASR ExamplesB
Class SC1 Safety, economic, or environmental Some deterioration from ASR may be Non-load-bearing elements inside buildings
consequences small or negligible tolerated Concrete elements not exposed to moisture
Temporary structures (service life < 5 years)

Class SC2 Some safety, economic, or environmental Moderate risk of ASR is acceptable Sidewalks, curbs, and gutters
consequences if major deterioration Elements with service life < 40 years

Class SC3 Significant safety, economic, or environmental Minor risk of ASR may be acceptable Pavements
consequences if minor damage Foundations elements
Retaining walls
Culverts
Highway barriers
Rural, low-volume roads
Precast elements in which economic costs of
replacement are severe
Service life normally 40 to 74 years

Class SC4 Serious safety, economic, or environmental ASR cannot be tolerated Major bridges
consequences if minor damage Power plants
Dams
Nuclear facilities
Water treatment facilities
Waste water treatment facilities
Tunnels
Critical elements that are very difficult to
inspect or repair
Service life normally $75 years
A
This table does not consider the consequences of damage as a result of ACR. This protocol does not permit the use of alkali-carbonate aggregates.
B
The types of structures listed under each class are meant to serve as examples. Some owners may decide to use their own classification system. For example, sidewalks,
curbs, and gutters may be placed in the SC3 class in some jurisdictions.

TABLE 4 Determining Level of Prevention

Level of Classification of Structure (Table 3)
ASR Risk
(Table 2) Class SC1 Class SC2 Class SC3 Class SC4
Risk Level 1 V V V V
Risk Level 2 V V W X
Risk Level 3 V W X Y
Risk Level 4 W X Y Z
Risk Level 5 X Y Z ZZ
A
Risk Level 6 Y Z ZZ
A
It may not be permitted to construct a Class SC4 structure (see Table 3) if the risk
of ASR is Level 6. Measures should be taken to reduce the level of risk in these
circumstances (9).

TABLE 5 Maximum Alkali Loadings to Provide Various Levels of

Prevention
Prevention Maximum Alkali Loading of Concrete
Level kg/m3 lb/yd3
V No Limit
W 3.0 5.0
X 2.4 4.0
Y 1.8 3.0
ZA
Table 8
ZZA
A
SCMs may be used in Prevention Levels Z and ZZ.

meeting the requirements of Specification C618, silica fume based approach outlined in 8.2 and 8.3. When two or more
with more than 85 % SiO2 and meeting the requirements of SCMs are used together to control ASR, the minimum replace-
Specification C1240, and slag cement meeting the require- ment levels given in Table 6 for the individual SCMs may be
ments of Specification C989/C989M. Fly ashes with more than reduced provided that the sum of proportions of both SCMs is
18 % CaO can be used to mitigate ASR; however, their greater than or equal to one. For example, when silica fume and
effectiveness should be evaluated following the performance- slag are used together, the silica fume level may be reduced to

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Oct 28 01:18:02 EDT 2019
9
Downloaded/printed by
University of Michigan (University of Michigan) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 C1778 − 19a
TABLE 6 Minimum Levels of SCM to Provide Appropriate Level of Prevention
Alkali Content of SCM Minimum Replacement LevelD (% by mass)
Type of SCMA
(% Na2Oeq) Level W Level X Level Y Level Z Level ZZ
Fly ashB <3.0 15 20 25 35
(CaO # 18 %) 3.0 – 4.0 20 25 30 40
Slag Cement <1.0 25 35 50 65
Table 8
2.0 × KGA 2.5 × KGA 3.0 × KGA 4.0 × KGA
Silica FumeC <1.0 or or or or
(SiO2 > 85 %)
1.2 × LBA 1.5 × LBA 1.8 × LBA 2.5 × LBA
A
The SCM may be added directly to the concrete mixer or it may be a component of a blended cement. Fly ash should meet the requirements of Specification C618, slag
cement should meet the specifications of C989/C989M, and silica fume should meet the requirements of Specification C1240. Blended cements should meet the
requirements of Specification C595/C595M or C1157/C1157M.
B
Fly ashes with greater than 18 % CaO can mitigate ASR. The efficacy of these higher calcium fly ashes should be evaluated using the performance-based testing outlined
in 8.2 and 8.3.
C
The minimum level of silica fume (as a percentage of cementing material) is calculated on the basis of the alkali loading of the concrete expressed in either units of kg/m3
(KGA) or lb/yd3 (LBA). Regardless of the calculated value, the minimum level of silica fume may not be less than 7 % when it is the only method of prevention.
D
Note—the use of high levels of SCM in concrete may increase the risk of problems as a result of deicer salt scaling if the concrete is not properly proportioned, finished,
and cured.

TABLE 7 Adjusting Minimum Level of SCM Based on Alkali contents (0.7 to 1.0 % Na2Oeq). Table 7 provides recommen-
Content of Portland Cement dations for adjusting the level of SCM when the alkali content
Portland Cement Alkali of the portland cement is above or below this range (9). When
Level of SCM
Content (% Na2Oeq)
<0.70 Reduce the minimum amount of SCM given in
SCMs are combined with lower alkali portland cements (<0.7
Table 6 by one prevention levelA % Na2Oeq), the risk is sufficiently low to adopt the value of the
0.70 to 1.00 Use the minimum levels of SCM given in Table 6 minimum replacement level for the next prevention level
>1.00 to 1.25 Increase the minimum amount of SCM given in
Table 6 by one prevention level down. For example, if slag cement is to be used in Prevention
>1.25 No guidance is given Level Y with low-alkali portland cement, the level of slag
A
The replacement levels should not be below those given in Table 6 for prevention cement can be reduced to the level specified for Prevention
level, W, regardless of the alkali content of the portland cement. Level X (35 %). The replacement levels used should not be
below those given in Table 6 for Prevention Level W, regard-
less of the alkali content of the portland cement. Similarly, if
TABLE 8 Using SCM and Limiting Alkali Loading of Concrete to
higher alkali portland cements (>1.0 % Na2Oeq) are used
Provide Highest Levels of Prevention
together with SCMs, the replacement level of SCM should be
SCM as Sole
Prevention
Limiting concrete alkali loading plus SCM increased to that required for the next prevention level up. For
Prevention example, if slag cement is to be used in Prevention Level Y
Maximum alkali
Level
Minimum SCM level loading, kg/m3 Minimum SCM level with high-alkali cement, the level of slag cement should be
[lb/yd3]
Z SCM level shown for 1.8 [3.0] SCM level shown for increased to the level specified for Prevention Level Z (65 %).
Level Z in Table 6 Level Y in Table 6 The prescriptive option in this guide should not be used
ZZ Not permitted 1.8 [3.0] SCM level shown for when the alkali content of the portland cement exceeds 1.25 %
Level Z in Table 6
Na2Oeq.
9.1.5.3 Option 3: Controlling the Alkali Loading of Con-
crete and Using SCMs when Highest Levels of Prevention Are
one third of the minimum silica fume level given in Table 6
Required (Levels Z and ZZ)—If the highest levels of prevention
provided that the slag level is at least two thirds of the
are needed, a combination of Options 1 and 2 may be required.
minimum slag level.
This approach requires that a minimum level of SCM be used
NOTE 12—Many natural pozzolans, such as metakaolin, calcined clays, and that a maximum limit be placed on the concrete alkali
shales, and volcanic ash have been shown to be effective in controlling loading. Options for Prevention Levels Z and ZZ are given in
expansion as a result of ASR. However, no prescriptive measures are
Table 8.
provided for natural pozzolans in Table 6 as this class of materials covers
a wide variety of pozzolan types with a broad range of properties. When 10. Keywords
natural pozzolans are to be used to control ASR, the efficacy of the
particular aggregate-pozzolan combination should be determined by 10.1 AAR; ACR; alkali-aggregate reaction; alkali-carbonate
performance testing. reaction; alkali-silica reaction; ASR; concrete; concrete dura-
The minimum replacement levels in Table 6 are appropriate bility; laboratory testing; pozzolans; reactive aggregates; risk
for use with portland cements of moderate-to-high alkali evaluation; supplementary cementitious materials

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Oct 28 01:18:02 EDT 2019
10
Downloaded/printed by
University of Michigan (University of Michigan) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 C1778 − 19a
REFERENCES

(1) Rogers, C. A., “Evaluation for the Potential for Expansion and (7) Drimalas, T., Ideker, J.H., Arrieta, G., Folliard, K.J., Fournier, B.F.
Cracking of Concrete Caused by the Alkali-carbonate Reaction”, and Thomas, M.D.A., “Evaluating Combination of Aggregates in the
Cement, Concrete and Aggregates, Vol 8, No. 1, 1986, pp. 13–23 Accelerated Mortar Bar Test,” Proceedings of the 12th International
(2) Ozol, M. A., “Alkali-Carbonate Rock Reaction,” Significance of Tests Conference on Alkali-Aggregate Reactivity in Concrete, Drimalas, T.,
and Properties of Concrete, STP 169D, Chap. 35, ASTM Ideker J.H. and Fournier, B., Editors, Austin, Texas, USA, 2012, p. 10.
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2006, pp. 410–424. (8) Thomas, Michael D. A., Fournier, Benoit, and Folliard, Kevin J.,
(3) Milanese, C.A., Marfil, S.A., Batic, O.R., and Maiza, P.J., “The “Report on Determining the Reactivity of Concrete Aggregates and
Alkali-Carbonate Reaction and its Reaction Products and Experience Selecting Appropriate Measures for Preventing Deleterious Expansion
with the Argentinean Dolomite Rocks,” Cement and Concrete in New Concrete Construction,” FHWA Report HIF-09-001, Federal
Research, Vol. 26, No. 10, 1996, pp 1579-1591.
Highway Administration, Washington, DC, April 2008, 21 pp.
(4) Thomas, M.D.A., Fournier, B., Folliard, K.J., Ideker, J.H., Shehata,
(9) Fournier, B., Nkinamubanzi, P. C., and Chevrier, R., "Comparative
M., “Test Methods for Evaluating Preventive Measures for Control-
Field and Laboratory Investigations on the use of Supplementary
ling Expansion due to Alkali-Silica Reaction in Concrete,” Cement
and Concrete Research, Vol 36, No. 10, October 2006, pp. Cementing Materials to Control Alkali-Silica Reaction in Concrete,"
1842–1856. in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Alkali-
(5) Lu, D. Y., Fournier, B., and Grattan-Bellew, P. E., “Evaluation of the Aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Vol 1, T. Mingshu and D. Min, Eds,
Chinese Accelerated Test for Alkali-Carbonate Reaction,” Proceed- International Academic Publishers World Publishing Corp., Beijing,
ings of the 12th International Conference on Alkali-Aggregate Reac- China, 2004, pp. 528-537.
tion in Concrete, Beijing (China), M. S. Tang and M. Deng, Editors, (10) RILEM TC 191-ARP AAR-7.1, “Alkali-reactivity and Prevention—
International Academic Publishers, World Publishing Corp., ISBN Assessment, Specification, and Diagnosis of Alkali-Reactivity,”
7-5062-7033-1, Vol 1, 2004, pp. 386–392. Nixon, P. J. and Sims, I., International Union of Laboratories and
(6) Ideker, J.H., Folliard, K.J., Juenger, M.C.G. and Bentivegna, A.F., Experts in Construction Materials, Systems and Structures (RILEM),
“Do Current Laboratory Test Methods Accurately Predict Alkali- International Specification to Minimize Damage from Alkali Reac-
Silica Reactivity?,” ACI Materials Journal, Vol 109, No. 4, July 2012 tions in Concrete: Part 1 Alkali-Silica Reaction, 2006.
pp. 395–402.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Committee C09 has identified the location of selected changes to this standard since the last issue (C1778–19)
that may impact the use of this standard. (Approved June 15, 2019.)

(1) Revised Section 6. (5) Replaced Fig. 1 with updated version.

(2) Revised 6.1, (6) Additional text was added to 7.7.
(3) Added 6.1.1. (7) Revised 7.7.1 to correspond to titles changed in Fig. 1.
(4) Moved part of 6.1 to 6.2, and inserted additional text.

ASTM International takes no position respecting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any item mentioned
in this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk
of infringement of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility.

This standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed every five years and
if not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standards
and should be addressed to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of the
responsible technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that your comments have not received a fair hearing you should
make your views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, at the address shown below.

This standard is copyrighted by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959,
United States. Individual reprints (single or multiple copies) of this standard may be obtained by contacting ASTM at the above
address or at 610-832-9585 (phone), 610-832-9555 (fax), or service@astm.org (e-mail); or through the ASTM website
(www.astm.org). Permission rights to photocopy the standard may also be secured from the Copyright Clearance Center, 222
Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, Tel: (978) 646-2600; http://www.copyright.com/

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Oct 28 01:18:02 EDT 2019
11
Downloaded/printed by
University of Michigan (University of Michigan) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.