5.1 Advanced ceramics are candidate materials for high-temperature structural applications requiring high strength along with wear and corrosion resistance. In particular, ceramic tubes are being considered and evaluated as hermetically tight fuel containment tubes for nuclear reactors. These ceramic tubes require end-plugs for containment and structural integrity. The end-plugs are commonly bonded with high-temperature adhesives into the tubes. The strength and durability of the test specimen joint are critical engineering factors, and the joint strength has to be determined across the full range of operating temperatures and conditions. The test method has to determine the breaking force, the nominal joint strength, the nominal burst pressure, and the failure mode for a given tube/plug/adhesive configuration.5.2 The EPPO test provides information on the strength and the deformation of test specimen joints under applied shear, tensile, and mixed-mode stresses (with different plug geometries) at various temperatures and after environmental conditioning.5.3 The end-plug test specimen geometry is a direct analog of the functional plug-tube application and is the most direct way of testing the tubular joint for the purposes of development, evaluation, and comparative studies involving adhesives and bonded products, including manufacturing quality control. This test method is a more realistic test for the intended geometry than the current shear test of ceramic joints (Test Method C1469), which uses an asymmetric four-point shear test on a flat adhesive face joint.5.4 The EPPO test method may be used for joining method development and selection, adhesive comparison and screening, and quality assurance. This test method is not recommended for adhesive property determination, design data generation, material model verification/validation, or combinations thereof.1.1 This test method covers the determination of the push-out force, nominal joint strength, and nominal burst pressure of bonded ceramic end-plugs in advanced ceramic cylindrical tubes (monolithic and composite) at ambient and elevated temperatures (see 4.2). The test method is broad in scope and end-plugs may have a variety of different configurations, joint types, and geometries. It is expected that the most common type of joints tested are adhesively bonded end-plugs that use organic adhesives, metals, glass sealants, and ceramic adhesives (sintered powders, sol-gel, polymer-derived ceramics) as the bonding material between the end-plug and the tube. This test method describes the test capabilities and limitations, the test apparatus, test specimen geometries and preparation methods, test procedures (modes, rates, mounting, alignment, testing methods, data collection, and fracture analysis), calculation methods, and reporting procedures.1.2 In this end-plug push-out (EPPO) test method, test specimens are prepared by bonding a fitted ceramic plug into one end of a ceramic tube. The test specimen tube is secured into a gripping fixture and test apparatus, and an axial compressive force is applied to the interior face of the plug to push it out of the tube. (See 4.2.) The axial force required to fracture (or permanently deform) the joined test specimen is measured and used to calculate a nominal joint strength and a nominal burst pressure. Tests are performed at ambient or elevated temperatures, or both, based on the temperature capabilities of the test furnace and the test apparatus.1.3 This test method is applicable to end-plug test specimens with a wide range of configurations and sizes. The test method does not define a standardized test specimen geometry, because the purpose of the test is to determine the nominal joint strength and nominal burst pressure of an application-specific plug-tube design. The test specimen should be similar in size and configuration with the intended application and product design.1.4 Calculations in this test method include a nominal joint strength which is specific to the adhesives, adherends, configuration, size, and geometry of the test specimen. The nominal joint strength has value as a comparative test for different adhesives and plug configurations in the intended application geometry. When using nominal joint strength for comparison purposes, only values obtained using identical geometries should be compared due to potential differences in induced stress states (shear versus tensile versus mixed mode). The joint strength calculated in this test may differ widely from the true shear or tensile strength (or both) of the adhesive due to mixed-mode stress states and stress concentration effects. (True adhesive shear and tensile strengths are material properties independent of the joint geometry.)1.5 In this test, a longitudinal failure stress is being calculated and reported. This longitudinal failure stress acts as an engineering corollary to the burst pressure value measured from a hydrostatic pressure test, which is a more difficult and complex test procedure. Thus this longitudinal failure stress is recorded as a nominal burst pressure. As a general rule, the absolute magnitude of the nominal burst pressure measured in this EPPO test is different than the absolute magnitude of a burst pressure from a hydrostatic burst pressure test, because the EPPO test does not induce the hoop stresses commonly observed in a hydrostatic pressure test.1.6 The use of this test method at elevated temperatures is limited by the temperature capabilities of the loading fixtures, the gripping method (adhesive, mechanical clamping, etc.), and the furnace temperature limitations.1.7 Values expressed in this test method are in accordance with the International System of Units (SI) and IEEE/ASTM SI 10.1.8 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.9 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.

定价： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

4.1 Lead can enter drinking water when service lines or plumbing fixtures that contain lead corrode, especially where the water has high acidity or low mineral content. According to the EPA, lead typically enters school drinking water as a result of interaction with lead-containing plumbing materials and fixtures within the building (EPA 2019 EPA 2018, (5)). Although lead pipes and lead solder were not commonly used after 1986, water fountains and other fixtures were allowed to have up to 8 percent lead until 2014 (GAO, 2018 (2)). Consequently, both older and newer school buildings can have lead in drinking water at concentrations that exceed the NPDWR.4.2 Following the reports in 2015 of elevated lead levels in the water in Flint, Michigan, Congress passed the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act in 2016 (Public Law 114-322), which, among other things, amended the SDWA, to establish a grant program for states to assist school districts in voluntary testing for lead contamination in drinking water at schools. As a condition of receiving funds, school districts are required to test for lead using standards that are at least as stringent as those in federal guidance for schools.4.3 California’s State Water Resources Control Board’s Division of Drinking Water initiated an aggressive program of sampling and public water systems supplying water to schools in 2018. California Assembly Bill 746 published on October 12, 2017, effective January 1, 2018, requires community water systems to test lead levels, by July 1, 2019, in drinking water at all California public, K-12 school sites that were constructed before January 1, 2010.4.4 Lobo (2021) (6) reports that two factors predominantly control lead leaching into the drinking water: (1) the presence or absence of lead-bearing plumbing materials, and (2) water quality that promotes the formation of soluble or insoluble lead corrosion products. This guide provides a method of using publicly-available information to determine if the water supplied to schools presents an unacceptable lead exposure hazard.4.5 The procedures described in the guide are consistent with Sections 4, 5, and 6 of Guide E3032.1.1 As the General Accountability Office (GAO) reported in 2018 (2), the discovery of toxic levels of lead in drinking water in Flint, Michigan in 2015 renewed awareness about the risks that lead poses to public health. Exposure to lead can result in elevated blood lead levels and negative health effects. Children are at particular risk, because their growing bodies absorb more lead than adults, so protecting them from lead is important to lifelong good health. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), elevated blood lead levels have been linked to anemia, kidney and brain damage, learning disabilities, and decreased growth. As a result of widespread human use, lead is prevalent in the environment; for example, it can be found in paint (lead in paint was banned in the United States in 1978)4 and soil, and can leach into drinking water from lead-containing plumbing materials, such as faucets and drinking fountains.1.2 Lead in school drinking water is a concern because it is a daily source of water for over 50 million children enrolled in public schools. The pattern of school schedules—including time off over weekends, holidays, and extended breaks—can contribute to standing water in the school’s plumbing system. If there is lead in the plumbing system, the potential for it to leach into water can increase the longer the water remains in contact with the plumbing. Estimating the risk of lead contamination of schools' drinking water at the State level is a complex and important challenge. Variable water quality among water systems and changes in water chemistry during distribution affect lead dissolution rates from pipes and fittings. In addition, the locations of lead-bearing plumbing materials are uncertain. EPA, 2002 (3), Triantafyllidou and Edwards, 2012 (4).1.3 The US EPA is responsible for enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) on Tribal land; there is no delegation of this authority to the States.1.4 Sections 50105 and 50110 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law 117–58) (1) provides funding and directs the US EPA and the Department of Interior to address lead in drinking water systems that provide potable water to schools and on Tribal land. EPA has announced that in accordance with this statute, the Agency discourages partial lead service line replacements and encourages full replacement of deficient service lines. The legislation provided the US EPA with approximately 15 billion over a 5-year period to achieve this goal.1.5 This guide describes steps to rapidly identify community and public water systems, as defined in the SDWA, at risk of lead concentrations exceeding the maximum contaminant level (MCL), using publicly available data. These steps augment and complement the records review activities that the US EPA encourages as part of the LSLR program.1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.7 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.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

4.1 Damage to pipe coating is almost unavoidable during transportation and construction. Breaks or holidays in pipe coatings may expose the pipe to possible corrosion since, after a pipe has been installed underground, the surrounding earth will be moisture-bearing and will constitute an effective electrolyte. Applied cathodic protection potentials may cause loosening of the coating, beginning at holiday edges. Spontaneous holidays may also be caused by such potentials. This test method provides accelerated conditions for cathodic disbondment to occur and provides a measure of resistance of coatings to this type of action.4.2 The effects of the test are to be evaluated by physical examinations and monitoring the current drawn by the test specimen. Usually there is no correlation between the two methods of evaluation, but both methods are significant. Physical examination consists of assessing the effective contact of the coating with the metal surface in terms of observed differences in the relative adhesive bond. It is usually found that the cathodically disbonded area propagates from an area where adhesion is zero to an area where adhesion reaches the original level. An intermediate zone of decreased adhesion may also be present.4.3 Assumptions associated with test results include:4.3.1 Maximum adhesion, or bond, is found in the coating that was not immersed in the test liquid, and4.3.2 Decreased adhesion in the immersed test area is the result of cathodic disbondment.4.4 Ability to resist disbondment is a desired quality on a comparative basis, but disbondment in this test method is not necessarily an adverse indication of coating performance. The virtue of this test method is that all dielectric-type coatings now in common use will disbond to some degree, thus providing a means of comparing one coating to another.4.5 The current density appearing in this test method is much greater than that usually required for cathodic protection in natural environments.4.6 That any relatively lesser bonded area was caused by electrical stressing in combination with the elevated and or depressed temperature and was not attributable to an anomaly in the application process. Ability to resist disbondment is a desired quality on a comparative basis, but most insulating materials will disbond to some extent under the accelerated conditions of this test. Bond strength is more important for proper functioning of some coatings than others and the same measured disbondment for two different coating systems may not represent equivalent loss of corrosion protection.4.6.1 The amount of current flowing in the test cell may be a relative indicator of the extent of areas requiring protection against corrosion; however, the current density appearing in this test is much greater than that usually required for cathodic protection in natural, inland soil environments.4.6.2 Test voltages higher than those recommended may result in the formation of chlorine gas. The subsequent chemical effects on the coating could cast doubt on the interpretation of the test results.1.1 This test method describes an accelerated procedure for determining comparative characteristics of insulating coating systems applied to steel pipe exterior for the purpose of preventing or mitigating corrosion that may occur in underground service where the pipe will be exposed to high temperatures and is under cathodic protection. This test method is intended for use with samples of coated pipe taken from commercial production and is applicable to such samples when the coating is characterized by function as an electrical barrier.1.2 This test method is intended for testing coatings submerged or immersed in the test solution at elevated temperature. When it is impractical to submerge or immerse the test specimen, Test Method G95 may be considered where the test cell is cemented to the surface of the coated pipe specimen. If room temperatures are required, see Test Methods G8. If a specific test method is required with no options, see Test Method G80.1.3 The values stated in SI units to three significant decimals are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.1.4 Warning—Mercury has been designated by EPA and many state agencies as a hazardous material that can cause central nervous system, kidney, and liver damage. Mercury, or its vapor, may be hazardous to health and corrosive to materials. Caution should be taken when handling mercury and mercury-containing products. See the applicable product Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for details and EPA’s website (http://www.epa.gov/mercury/faq.htm) for additional information. Users should be aware that selling mercury or mercury-containing products, or both, in your state may be prohibited by state law.1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.6 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.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

4.1 A discussion of the issues and limitations associated with the measurement of strength properties of adhesive bonds in shear by compression loading is found in Test Method D905.4.2 While various combinations of test temperature and heat exposure duration can be used, the provisions specified in 7.2.4 shall be based on the understanding that the objective of this test method is to evaluate adhesive bond performance just before wood begins to burn and the elevated temperature is selected to be slightly below the unpiloted ignition temperature for wood when taken into account the specific product and its end-use applications.4.3 When using this test method, consideration shall be given to the unique production conditions, such as wood moisture content, applied spread rate, press pressure, and curing temperature of the adhesive.1.1 This standard describes a test method for evaluating the comparative shear strength of a planar adhesive bond at both ambient and elevated temperatures relative to the performance of solid wood under the same conditions. The test method is based on the breaking load after the specimen is exposed to either ambient or a constant elevated temperature for a specified duration as described in Section 7. This standard does not preclude the development and implementation of other methods that provide equivalent performance meeting the intent of this method.1.2 This test method is intended for the evaluation of adhesives that can be used to assemble test specimens in accordance with Test Method D905. The evaluation of other types of adhesives, such as the binder systems used for strand-based products, is beyond the scope of this test method, except as noted in 1.4.1.3 This test method is intended for the evaluation of adhesives as a component of laminated wood products at elevated temperatures. The evaluation of fire performance on fire-rated laminated wood products or assemblies is beyond the scope of this test method.1.4 This test method may be used for the evaluation of heat durability for binder adhesives used in strand-based structural wood composites, such as oriented strand lumber (OSL) and laminated strand lumber (LSL), by substituting strand-based composite specimens for the bonded specimens.1.5 The formulation of adhesive supplied to the manufacturer of laminated wood products shall be evaluated. Modifications to the adhesive formulation require a separate evaluation unless approved by the manufacturer of the laminated wood product, qualified agency, and code evaluation agency.1.6 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.8 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.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 The significant features are typified by a discussion of the limitations of the technique. With the description and arrangement given in the following portions of this test method, the instrument will record directly the normal spectral emittance of a specimen. However, the following conditions must be met within acceptable tolerance:5.1.1 The effective temperatures of the specimen and blackbody must be within 1 K of each other. Practical limitations arise, however, because the temperature uniformities are often not better than a few degrees Kelvin.5.1.2 The optical path length in the two beams must be equal, or the instrument should operate in a nonabsorbing atmosphere or a vacuum, in order to eliminate the effects of differential atmospheric absorption in the two beams. Measurements in air are in many cases important, and will not necessarily give the same results as in a vacuum, thus the equality of the optical paths for dual beam instruments becomes very critical.NOTE 3: Very careful optical alignment of the spectrophotometer is required to minimize differences in absorptance along the two paths of the instrument, and careful adjustment of the chopper timing to reduce “cross-talk” (the overlap of the reference and sample signals) as well as precautions to reduce stray radiation in the spectrometer are required to keep the zero line flat. With the best adjustment, the “100 % line” will be flat to within 3 %; both of these measurements should be reproducible within these limits (see 7.3, Note 6).5.1.3 Front-surface mirror optics must be used throughout, except for the prism in prism monochromators and the grating in grating monochromators, and it should be emphasized that equivalent optical elements must be used in the two beams in order to reduce and balance attenuation of the beams by absorption in the optical elements. It is recommended that optical surfaces be free of SiO2 and SiO coatings; MgF2 may be used to stabilize mirror surfaces for extended periods of time. The optical characteristics of these coatings are critical, but can be relaxed if all optical paths are fixed during measurements or the incident angles are not changed between modes of operation (during “0 % line,” “100 % line,” and sample measurements). It is recommended that all optical elements be adequately filled with energy.5.1.4 The source and field apertures of the two beams must be equal in order to ensure that radiant flux in the two beams compared by the apparatus will pertain to equal areas of the sources and equal solid angles of emission. In some cases it may be desirable to define the solid angle of the source and sample when comparing alternative measurement techniques.5.1.5 The response of the detector-amplifier system must vary linearly with the incident radiant flux.1.1 This test method describes a highly accurate technique for measuring the normal spectral emittance of electrically conducting materials or materials with electrically conducting substrates, in the temperature range from 600 to 1400 K, and at wavelengths from 1 to 35 μm.1.2 The test method requires expensive equipment and rather elaborate precautions, but produces data that are accurate to within a few percent. It is suitable for research laboratories where the highest precision and accuracy are desired, but is not recommended for routine production or acceptance testing. However, because of its high accuracy this test method can be used as a referee method to be applied to production and acceptance testing in cases of dispute.1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values in parentheses are for information only.1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.5 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.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 The mechanical properties evaluated by this test method provide the following:5.1.1 Data for use in developing modification factors for the allowable design properties of fire-retardant treated lumber when used at or near room temperatures (see 6.3).5.1.2 Data for use in developing modification factors for allowable design properties of fire-retardant treated lumber when exposed to elevated temperatures and humidity (see 6.4).5.1.3 Data (optional) for use in modifying these factors for size effects when fire-retardant treated lumber is used at or near room temperature and when exposed to elevated temperatures and humidity (see 6.5).5.2 Data from the first two procedures in this test method of evaluation are indicative only for that species.NOTE 1: The results of the three listed species (Southern pine, Douglas fir, and either white spruce or a Spruce/Fir mixture) are allowed to be used together to make inference on untested wood species because the three tested species represent the full spectrum of expected treatability.5.3 Data from the optional third part of this three-part method of evaluation are indicative for all species because it is primarily used to assess size effects.1.1 This test method covers procedures for obtaining data to assess the initial adjustments to allowable design stresses for lumber treated with candidate commercial fire-retardant (FR) formulations and further procedures for obtaining data to assess the effect of extended exposure to elevated temperature of 66 ± 2°C (150 ± 4°F).1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.3 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.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

2.1 Weight loss represents the amount of combustibles and volatiles of the material at various temperatures between 315°C (600°F) and 815°C (1499°F). This procedure should not be used to determine percent of binder content.1.1 This test method covers the determination of gasket material weight loss upon exposure to elevated temperatures.1.2 This test method may include hazardous materials, operations, and equipment.1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.5 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.

定价： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

4.1 This test method may be used for material development, material comparison, quality assurance, characterization, and design data generation.4.2 Continuous fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix composites are candidate materials for structural applications requiring high degrees of wear and corrosion resistance and toughness at high temperatures.4.3 Creep tests measure the time-dependent deformation of a material under constant load at a given temperature. Creep rupture tests provide a measure of the life of the material when subjected to constant mechanical loading at elevated temperatures. In selecting materials and designing parts for service at elevated temperatures, the type of test data used will depend on the criteria for load-carrying capability which best defines the service usefulness of the material.4.4 Creep and creep rupture tests provide information on the time-dependent deformation and on the time-of-failure of materials subjected to uniaxial tensile stresses at elevated temperatures. Uniform stress states are required to effectively evaluate any nonlinear stress-strain behavior which may develop as the result of cumulative damage processes (for example, matrix cracking, matrix/fiber debonding, fiber fracture, delamination, etc.) which may be influenced by test mode, test rate, processing or alloying effects, environmental influences, or elevated temperatures. Some of these effects may be consequences of stress corrosion or subcritical (slow) crack growth. It is noted that ceramic materials typically creep more rapidly in tension than in compression. Therefore, creep data for design and life prediction should be obtained in both tension and compression.4.5 The results of tensile creep and tensile creep rupture tests of specimens fabricated to standardized dimensions from a particular material or selected portions of a part, or both, may not totally represent the creep deformation and creep rupture properties of the entire, full-size end product or its in-service behavior in different environments or at various elevated temperatures.4.6 For quality control purposes, results derived from standardized tensile test specimens may be considered indicative of the response of the material from which they were taken for given primary processing conditions and post-processing heat treatments.1.1 This test method covers the determination of the time-dependent deformation and time-to-rupture of continuous fiber-reinforced ceramic composites under constant tensile loading at elevated temperatures. This test method addresses, but is not restricted to, various suggested test specimen geometries. In addition, test specimen fabrication methods, allowable bending, temperature measurements, temperature control, data collection, and reporting procedures are addressed.1.2 This test method is intended primarily for use with all advanced ceramic matrix composites with continuous fiber reinforcement: unidirectional (1-D), bidirectional (2-D), and tridirectional (3-D). In addition, this test method may also be used with glass matrix composites with 1-D, 2-D, and 3-D continuous fiber reinforcement. This test method does not address directly discontinuous fiber-reinforced, whisker-reinforced, or particulate-reinforced ceramics, although the test methods detailed here may be equally applicable to these composites.1.3 Values expressed in this test method are in accordance with the International System of Units (SI) and IEEE/ASTM SI 10.1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Hazard statements are noted in 7.1 and 7.2.

定价： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车