Designation: C 1012 – 02

Standard Test Method for

Length Change of Hydraulic-Cement Mortars Exposed to a
Sulfate Solution1
This standard is issued under the fixed designation C 1012; 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 (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.

1. Scope Cement Mortars (Using Portions of Prisms Broken in

1.1 This test method covers the determination of length Flexure)3
change of mortar bars immersed in a sulfate solution. Mortar C 452 Test Method for Potential Expansion of Portland-
bars made using mortar described in Test Method C 109/ Cement Mortars Exposed to Sulfate3
C 109M are cured until they attain a compressive strength of C 490 Practice for Use of Apparatus for the Determination
20.0 6 1.0 MPa (3000 6 150 psi), as measured using cubes of Length Change of Hardened Cement Paste, Mortar, and
made of the same mortar, before the bars are immersed. Concrete3
1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the C 595 Specification for Blended Hydraulic Cements3
standard. The values shown in parentheses are for information C 597 Test Method for Pulse Velocity Through Concrete4
purposes only. C 618 Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the Natural Pozzolan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the Concrete4
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro- C 684 Test Method for Making, Accelerated Curing, and
priate safety and health practices and determine the applica- Testing of Concrete Compression Test Specimens4
bility of regulatory limitations prior to use. C 778 Specification for Standard Sand3
C 917 Test Method for Evaluation of Cement Strength
NOTE 1—Warning: Fresh hydraulic cementitious mixtures are caustic Uniformity From a Single Source3
and may cause chemical burns to skin and tissue upon prolonged
exposure.2
C 989 Specification for Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace
Slag for Use in Concrete and Mortars4
2. Referenced Documents D 1193 Specification for Reagent Water5
2.1 ASTM Standards: E 18 Test Methods for Rockwell Hardness and Rockwell
C 109/C 109M Test Method for Compressive Strength of Superficial Hardness of Metallic Materials6
Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using 50-mm (2-in.) Cube 3. Significance and Use
Specimens)3
C 150 Specification for Portland Cement4 3.1 This test method provides a means of assessing the
C 157 Test Method for Length Change of Hardened sulfate resistance of mortars made using portland cement,
Hydraulic-Cement Mortar and Concrete4 blends of portland cement with pozzolans or slags, and blended
C 215 Test Method for Fundamental Transverse, Longitu- hydraulic cements. Method C 452 is suitable for evaluating
dinal, and Torsional Frequencies of Concrete Specimens4 portland cements but not blended cements or blends of portland
C 305 Practice for Mechanical Mixing of Hydraulic Cement cement with pozzolans or slags.
Pastes and Mortars of Plastic Consistency3 3.2 The standard exposure solution used in this test method,
C 348 Test Method for Flexural Strength of Hydraulic unless otherwise directed, contains 352 moles of Na2SO4 per
Cement Mortars3 m3(50 g/L). Other sulfate concentrations or other sulfates such
C 349 Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic as MgSO4 may be used to simulate the environmental exposure
of interest. Further discussion of these and other technical
issues is given in the Appendix.
1
This test method is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee C01 on Cement 4. Apparatus
and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee C01.29 on Sulfate Resistance.
Current edition approved Aug. 10, 2002. Published September 2002. Originally 4.1 Mixer, conforming to the requirements of Practice
published as C 1012 – 1984. Last previous edition C 1012 – 95a.
2
C 305.
See Manual of Cement Testing, Section on Safety, Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Vol 04.01.
3 5
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 04.01. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 11.01.
4 6
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 04.02. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 03.01.

Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.

1
 C 1012 – 02
4.2 Cube Molds, conforming to the requirements of Test 6. Preparing Mortars
Method C 109. 6.1 Make mortars as described in Test Method C 109/
4.3 Bar Molds, conforming to the requirements of Specifi- C 109M, that is, 1 part cement to 2.75 parts of sand by mass.
cation C 490. Use a water-cement ratio by mass of 0.485 for all non-air-
4.4 Comparator, conforming to the requirements of Speci- entraining portland cements and 0.460 for all air-entraining
fication C 490. portland cements. Use a water-cement ratio by mass of 0.485
4.5 Containers—The containers in which the bars are im- for non-air-entraining portland-pozzolan (IP) and portland-
mersed may be plastic, glass, ceramic, or metal. Include a blast furnace slag (IS) cements. For blends of portland cement
means for supporting the bars so that no end or side of a bar with a pozzolan or slag, use a water-cement ratio that develops
rests against the container. Include a lid that can be sealed on a flow within 65 of that of the portland-cement mortar at a
so that the sulfate solution cannot evaporate. water-cement ratio of 0.485.
4.6 Curing Tank, conforming to the requirements of Test
Method C 684. 7. Specimen Molds
5. Reagents and Materials 7.1 Prepare the specimen molds in accordance with the
5.1 Purity of Reagents—USP or technical grade chemicals requirements of Specification C 490 except, the interior sur-
may be used, provided it is established that any reagent used is faces of the mold shall be covered with a release agent. A
of sufficiently high purity to permit its use without lessening release agent will be acceptable if it serves as a parting agent
the accuracy of the determination. When tests are made that are without affecting the setting of the cement and without leaving
expected to produce results that are close to an acceptance- any residue that will inhibit the penetration of water into the
rejection value, it is recommended that reagent grade chemi- specimen.
cals be used. Such chemicals shall conform to the specifica- NOTE 2—TFE-fluorocarbon tape complies with the requirements for a
tions of the Committee on Analytical Reagents for the mold release agent.
American Chemical Society where such specifications are
available.7 8. Procedure
5.2 Purity of Water—Unless otherwise indicated, references 8.1 Molding and Initial Curing of Specimens—Mold the test
to water shall be understood to mean reagent water conforming bars in accordance with Test Method C 157. Mold the cubes in
to Type IV of Specification D 1193. accordance with Test Method C 109. A set of specimens to test
5.3 Sodium Sulfate (Na2SO4)—Check the water content by one cement consists of 6 bars and up to 21 cubes (Note 3).
loss on ignition each time the solution is prepared. Any Immediately after molding, cover the molds with a rigid steel,
anhydrous or hydrated sodium sulfate may be used if the water glass, or plastic plate, seal the plate to the mold so as to be
content of the salt is checked by loss on ignition and proper watertight, and place the mold in the curing tank in water at
corrections made to account for the specified sulfate concen- 356 3°C (95 6 5°F) for 231⁄2 h 6 30 min, as in Test Method
tration. C 684, Procedure A (Warm-Water Method). Place the sealed
5.4 Sulfate Solution—Each litre of solution shall contain molds in the curing tank with the bottom of the bars as cast
50.0 g of Na2SO4 dissolved in 900 mL of water, and shall be down, that is, in the same relative position in which the bars
diluted with additional distilled or deionized water to obtain were cast. At 231⁄2 h 6 30 min, remove molds from tank and
1.0 L of solution. Mix the solution on the day before use, cover, demold the specimens.
and store at 23.0 6 2.0°C (73.5 6 3.5°F). Determine the pH of NOTE 3—The set of cubes consists of 21 cubes to be tested as described
the solution before use; reject the solution if the pH range is herein when significant information on the strength development rate is
outside 6.0 to 8.0. Maintain the volume proportion of sulfate not available. When information is available (as for example, from the use
solution to mortar bars in a storage container at 4.0 6 0.5 of the procedures of Test Method C 917) that would justify making fewer
volumes of solution to 1 volume of mortar bars. For mortar cubes, only those needed to confirm the time the mortar achieves 20.06
bars 1 by 1 by 111⁄4 in. (volume of 184 mL or 11.25 in.3), this 1.0 MPa (3000 6 150 psi) are needed.
is 645 to 830 mL of solution per mortar bar in the storage 8.2 Subsequent Curing and Preparation for Test—After
container. For mortar bars 25 by 25 by 285 mm (volume 178 demolding, store all bars and cubes, except the two to be
mL), this is 625 to 800 mL of solution per mortar bar in the broken, in a curing tank of saturated limewater at 23.0 6 2.0°C
storage container. (73.5 6 3.5°F). Break two cubes in compression in accordance
5.5 Materials: with Test Method C 109 after demolding when the specimens
5.5.1 Graded Standard Sand, as specified in Specification have cooled to ambient temperature under moist cloths. If the
C 778. mean strength of the two cubes is 20 MPa (2850 psi) or more,
5.5.2 Stainless Steel Gage Studs, as specified in Specifica- observe and record comparator readings in accordance with
tion C 490. Specification C 490 and as prescribed in the section on
Measurements of Length Change and place all the bars in the
7
Reagent Chemicals, American Chemical Society Specifications, American sulfate solution. If 20 MPa (2850 psi) is not achieved, store the
Chemical Society, Washington, DC. For Suggestions on the testing of reagents not demolded cubes and mortar bars in the curing tank and test
listed by the American Chemical Society, see Annual Standards for Laboratory
additional cubes. Predict from the first two cubes when a
Chemicals, BDH Ltd., Poole, Dorset, U.K., and the United States Pharmacopeia
and National Formulary, U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention, Inc. (USPC), Rockville, compressive strength of at least 20 MPa (2850 psi) will be
MD. reached. Verify the prediction, and at that time observe and

2
 C 1012 – 02
record comparator readings and place all the bars in the sulfate specimens for warping by placing them on a plane surface so
solution (Note 4). This measurement is designated as the initial that the ends are curved down and the maximum bowing
length. The storage temperature and test temperature shall be measured. Note cracking (presence, location, type); also note
23.0 6 2.0°C (73.5 6 3.5°F). surface deposits, mottling, exudations (nature, thickness, type).
8.4 Tolerance on Time—All references to elapsed time in
NOTE 4—If the value for strength at 24 h is less than 20.0 MPa (2850
psi) and additional testing on the same day is not possible, or, is unlikely 8.3 are intended to have a tolerance of 62 %.
to yield a value over 20.0 MPa (2850 psi) and the strength is over 21 MPa
(3150 psi) when tested early the next day, it is not necessary to remake the TABLE 1 Maximum Permissible Range of Values
batch. Remaining No. of
Blended Cements Portland Cement
Specimens
8.3 Measurements of Length Change—At 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 13,
and 15 weeks after the bars are placed in the sulfate solution, 3 0.034 0.010
4 0.037 0.011
test them for length change using the length comparator in 5 0.039 0.012
accordance with Specification C 490. Review the data at 15 6 0.041 0.012
weeks. If slight, gradual, and uniform length change is taking
place, make the next measurements at 4, 6, 9, and 12 months.
When the expansion is changing rapidly at any period in the 9. Calculation
test, adjust the interval between readings so that it is short 9.1 Calculate the length change at any age as follows:
enough to permit observing and reporting the behavior of the
L x 2 Li
bars. DL5 Lg 3 100 (1)
8.3.1 Details of Measurement of Bars for Length Change:
8.3.1.1 Clean the hole in the base of the comparator into where:
which the gage stud on the lower end of the bar fits (this hole DL = change in length at x age, %,
tends to collect water and sand and should be cleaned after Lx = comparator reading of specimen at x age—reference
every reading). Read and record the comparator indication of bar comparator reading at x age, and
the length of the reference bar. Take one bar out of immersion, Li = initial comparator reading of specimen-reference bar
blot the pins, put the bar in the comparator, read, and record the comparator reading, at the same time
indication. Return the bar to immersion and clean the hole in Lg = nominal gage length, or 250 mm (10 in.) as appli-
the base of the comparator. Take out the second bar and treat it cable. (See C 490).
in a like manner. Return the second bar to immersion, record 9.2 Calculate length change values for each bar to the
the reading, and clean the hole in the base of the comparator. nearest 0.001 % and report averages to the nearest 0.01 %.
Continue the procedure until all bars have been read, returned
to immersion, and the readings recorded, cleaning the hole in 10. Report
the bottom of the comparator each time. After reading the last 10.1 Report type of cement, and, if blending material is
bar, clean the hole in the comparator base and read and record used, its identification and amount and whether cement and
the reference-bar indication. blending material, if used, meet the applicable specifications.
8.3.1.2 When, based on cube strength of mortar, the bars are Report the initial comparator reading of each bar at the time of
initially ready to be stored in sulfate solution, or after they have immersion in sulfate solution; this is the base value for
been removed from sulfate solution storage for length change calculation of length changes. Report the subsequent length
test, place them in storage in fresh sulfate solution of a known changes in percent of base value to the nearest 0.001 % for
pH of 6-8. At subsequent readings for length change, proceed individual bars and the nearest 0.01 % for averages. Comment
as described above; cleaning the socket in the base of the on the visual condition of bars at end of the test. With each
comparator before reading the reference bar initially and after report of mean length change of bars at a particular age, report
reading each mortar bar. Record reference bar and mortar bar number of bars (n), standard deviation of length change, and
readings. Also, read the reference bar and record the reading coefficient of variation of length change. Data from at least
after the last bar. Blot only around the pins (Note 5). After three bars must be available at any age to constitute a valid test
reading each bar return it to used solution. Prior to replacing at that age. Depending upon how many remaining specimens
the solution, rinse the container once with water, pouring out there are, the maximum permissible range of the values must
water and debris. Replace the frame holding the bars in the not exceed the values of length change in percent in Table 1.
container, fill the container with new solution of known pH of 10.2 Report any variation from the procedure outlined in the
6-8 to immerse bars, and secure on the container lid. text as it relates to solution composition, concentration, or
temperature, mortar proportions, age, or maturity, and the like.
NOTE 5—The purpose of the minimal blotting of the pins and no
blotting of the bars is to avoid drying and shrinkage of the bars. It has been 11. Precision and Bias
observed that if the pins are blotted, and the bar placed in the comparator
and the dial read, and the bar is then wiped gently with a dry cloth, the bar 11.1 The precision of this test method has been evaluated by
will shrink measurably. Therefore, drying should be minimized. cooperative testing and found to vary with the type of cement
8.3.2 Examination of Specimens After Measuring Length
Change—When the bars seem to have behaved in an unusual
way or when the test is part of a research study, test the

3
 C 1012 – 02
studied, hence separate precision statements are given.8 expansions between 0.04 % and 0.07 %. Therefore, results of
11.1.1 Blended Cements—The single-operator standard de- two properly conducted tests on the same cement in two
viation has been found to be 0.010 % for expansions between different laboratories, should not differ from each other by
0.04 % and 0.07 %. Therefore, results of two properly con- more than 0.056 %.
ducted tests by the same operator on the same blended cement 11.1.3 Type V Cement—The single-operator standard devia-
Type IP or IS, should not differ from each other by more than tion has been found to be 0.003 % for expansions between
0.028 %. The multi-laboratory standard deviation has been 0.04 % and 0.07 %. Therefore, results of two properly con-
found to be 0.020 % for expansions between 0.04 %, and ducted tests by the same operator on the same cement, should
0.07 %. Therefore, results of two properly conducted tests on not differ from each other by more than 0.009 %. The multi-
the same blended cement Type IP or IS in two different laboratory standard deviation has been found to be 0.010 % for
laboratories, should not differ from each other by more than expansions between 0.04 % and 0.07 %. Therefore, results of
0.056 %. two properly conducted tests on the same cement in two
11.1.2 Type II Cement—The single-operator standard devia- different laboratories should not differ from each other by more
tion has been found to be 0.005 %, for expansions between than 0.028 %.
0.04 % and 0.07 %. Therefore, results of two properly con- 11.2 Bias—Since there is no accepted reference material
ducted tests by the same operator on the same cement, should suitable for determining the bias for the procedure in this test
not differ from each other by more than 0.014 %. The multi- method, no statement on bias is being made.
laboratory standard deviation has been found to be 0.020 % for
12. Keywords
12.1 acceptability; expansion; fly ash; mortars; pozzolans;
8
A research report is available from ASTM Headquarters. Request RR: precision; search report; slag; sulfate attack; sulfate-resisting
C01 – 1003. cements; tests

APPENDIX

(Nonmandatory Information)

X1. Technical Background

X1.1 Test Method C 1012 was developed to explore the are placed in the sulfate solution after companion mortar cubes
suitability of a test method for sulfate resistance based on have reached a compressive strength of 20.0 6 1.0 MPa (3000
length-change measurements of molded prisms immersed in 6 150 psi). Attempts to use Test Method C 452 for blended
sulfate solution. This approach was taken after it was estab- cements and blends of portland cement and slag (Specification
lished that Test Method C 452, in which the sulfate is added to C 989) or pozzolan (Specification C 618) with portland cement
the mortar as it is mixed, and the prisms stored in fresh water, failed to yield results that correlate with field and laboratory
was not able properly to evaluate sulfate resistance of blended experience where the mortar or concrete developed some
cements and blends of portland cement with pozzolan or slag. maturity prior to being exposed to external sulfate solution (2).
Since some blended cements and some blends of slag and
X1.2 This test method has been subjected to two rounds of pozzolan with portland cement have been successfully used
cooperative testing. The first program involved five cements where sulfate resistance was needed, they are tested under
(Types I, II, and V of Specification C 150, and Types IS and IP circumstances which permit comparisons to be based on results
of Specification C 595). The test solution contained both obtained when all the sulfate exposures are begun at equivalent
sodium sulfate and magnesium sulfate, each in the amount of strength since, in practice, it is likely that the concrete will be
0.176 mol/L. A report of this work is available. A paper giving at about the same strength when sulfate attack begins regard-
results using this test method has been published (1).9 The
less of the type of cementitious medium employed. This test
second program involved eight blends using a Type I and a
method is also applicable for use in evaluating portland
Type II cement with 50 and 70 % slag, 25 % Class F, and 35 %
cements.
Class C fly ash (ASTM C618). Two test solutions were used:
one contained 0.303 mol/L sodium sulfate and 0.049 % mag-
X1.4 The solution of 0.176 mol/L of each of the two
nesium sulfate; the other contained 0.352 mol/L sodium sulfate
sulfates (magnesium and sodium) studied in the first coopera-
only.
tive program, is believed likely to adversely affect blends or
X1.3 This test method involves length change of hydraulic- blended cements containing slag, due to a magnesium ion (3, 4)
cement mortar bars immersed in a sulfate solution. Mortar bars attack, this attack being unrelated to sulfate attack. Therefore,
this solution should not be used to evaluate such systems unless
they are to be exposed in service to attack in which the
9
The boldface numbers in parentheses refer to the list of references at the end of magnesium ion (Mg++) is present in amounts approaching that
this test method. of the test solution (4200 ppm).

4
 C 1012 – 02
X1.5 This test method does not simulate the mechanism of (Test Method C 597), (b) change in resonant frequency (Test
sulfate attack by solutions of sulfate compositions other than Method C 215), (c) change in compressive strength (Test
that used. If evaluation of behavior due to exposure to a given Methods C 109 and C 349), (d) change in flexural strength
sulfate solution is desired, that solution should be used. (Test Method C 348), (e) change in mass, and (f ) change in
hardness (Test Methods E 18).
X1.6 The user may therefore modify this test method to use
any relevant compositions or concentrations of aggressive X1.7 Work reported by Polivka and Brown (9) in 1958 and
solutions, other ages or degrees of maturity as the basis for by Mehta and Polivka in 1975 (10) included tests of concrete
beginning the exposure, mortars of different proportions, or exposed to a mixed sulfate solution containing 5 % each of
different or additional means of assessing the influence of the sodium and magnesium sulfate. Other relevant work is cited in
aggressive solution on the specimens. Much work was done the references (1-19).
using mortar bars of lower strength (higher porosity) in
previous cooperative tests sponsored by Committee C-1 (5-7). X1.8 The second cooperative study used both a mixed
A procedure in which sodium sulfate is kept at constant sodium/magnesium sulfate solution and a sodium sulfate
alkalinity/acidity has been proposed (8). Other methods of solution. Precision of the results and the ranking of the cements
assessing the influence of the aggressive solutions that have did not differ between the solutions. Hence, the simpler test,
been used or proposed include (a) change in pulse velocity using sodium sulfate, was selected as the standard.

REFERENCES

(1) Rosnerl, J. C., Chehovits, J. G., and Wharburton, R. G., “Sulfate Cement Concretes,” American Concrete Inst SP-47, 1975, pp
Resistance of Mortars Using Fly Ash as a Partial Replacement for 367–379.
Portland Cement,” Proceedings, Sixth International Conference on (11) Regourd, M., “The Action of Sea Water on Cements,” Annales de
Utilization of Fly Ash, Reno, March 1982. L’Institut Technique du Batiment et des Travaux Publics, Vol 329,
(2) Mather, Bryant, “Laboratory Tests of Portland Blast-Furnace Slag 1975, pp 86–102.
Cements,” Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Proceedings, (12) Mehta, P. K., and Haynes, H. H., “Durability of Concrete in Sea
Vol 54, 1957, pp 205–232. Water,” Proceedings of the American Society for Civil Engineers, Vol
(3) Biczok, I. Concrete Corrosion, Concrete Protection, Chemical Pub- 101, No. ST 8, 1975, pp 1679–1686.
lishing Company, New York, 1967, p 178. (13) Campus, F., “Essais de resistance des Mortiers et Betons à la Mer
(4) Miller, D. G., and Snyder, C. G., “Report on Comparative Short-Time (1934–1964),” Silicates Industriel, Vol 28, 1963, pp 79–88.
Tests for Sulfate Resistance of 121 Commercial Cements,” Report of (14) Bakker, R., “On the Cause of Increased Resistance of Concrete Made
Committee C-1 on Cement, Appendix III, Proceedings, ASTM, Vol 45, From Blast Furnace Cement to the Alkali Silica Reaction and to
1945, pp 165–194. Sulfate Corrosion,” (English Translation of doctoral thesis at RWTH
1980), Maastricht, 1981, 144 pp.
(5) Wolochow, D., “Determination of the Sulfate Resistance of Portland
(15) Miller, D. G., and Manson, P. W., “Tests of 106 Commercial Cements
Cement,” Report of Committee C-1 on Cement, Appendix, Proceed-
for Sulfate Resistance,” Proceedings, ASTM, Vol 40, 1940, pp
ings, ASTM, Vol 52, 1952, pp. 250–363.
988–1001.
(6) Wolochow, D., “A Lean Mortar Bar Expansion Test for Sulfate
(16) Lea, F. M., The Chemistry of Cement and Concrete, Third Edition,
Resistance of Portland Cements,” Appendix A, Proceedings, ASTM,
Chemical Publishing Co., Inc., New York, NY, 1970, pp 727.
Vol 52, 1952, pp 264–265.
(17) Brown, P. W., “An Evaluation of the Sulfate Resistance of Cements
(7) Mather, Katharine, “Tests and Evaluation of Portland and Blended in a Controlled Environment,” Cement and Concrete Research. Vol
Cements for Resistance to Sulfate Attack,” ASTM STP 663, 1978, pp 11, 1981, pp 719–727.
74–86. (18) Patzias, Terry, “Evaluation of Sulfate Resistance of Hydraulic-
(8) Mehta, P. K., “Evaluation of Sulfate-Resisting Cements by a New Test Cement Mortars by the ASTM C1012 Test Method. Concrete
Method,” Proceedings of the American Concrete Institute, Vol 72, Oct. Durability, Katharine and Bryant Mather International Conference,
1975, pp 573–575. American Concrete Institute SP-100, Vol 2, 1987, pp 2103–2120.
(9) Polivka, M., and Brown, E. H.,“ Influence of Various Factors on (19) Patzias, T., “The Development of ASTM C1012 with Recom-
Sulfate Resistance of Concretes Containing Pozzolan,” Proceedings, mended Acceptance Limits for Sulfate Resistance of Hydraulic
ASTM, Vol 58, 1958, pp 1077–1100. Cement,” Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, CCA GDP, Vol 13, No.
(10) Mehta, P. K., and Polivka, M., “Sulfate Resistance of Expansive 1, Summer 1991, pp. 50–57.

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).