4.1 This classification identifies and hierarchically arranges the work elements, activities, and tasks required for environmental projects. This classification increases the level of communication and allows for more effective exchange of cost and performance data between environmental projects.4.2 This classification defines environmental work elements as major components of environmental projects. It is the common thread linking activities and participants in an environmental project from initial planning through operations and maintenance, D&D, and SLTM.4.3 The users of ECES include program and project managers, cost estimators, and cost analysts in both the public and private sector.4.4 This classification uses an increased level of standardization, uniformity, and consistency that provides a common basis for comparing, analyzing, and calibrating cost data. This classification can also be used as a checklist of project activities to be completed.4.5 Use this classification when:4.5.1 Developing a company-specific Code of Accounts (COAs) for capturing and reporting cost early in the project development for more effective project controls and management. COA is a logical breakdown of a project into controllable elements for the purpose of cost collection, control, and reporting. COA is organized at lower detailed levels that summarize to higher levels and is company or site, or both, and project-specific.4.5.2 Developing a work breakdown structure (WBS) early in the project development for proper management of the project. The WBS provides a framework for managing the cost, schedule, and performance objectives of a project. This framework allows the project to be separated into logical components and makes the relationship of the components clear. The WBS defines the project in terms of hierarchically related action and product-oriented elements. Each element provides logical summary points for assessing technical accomplishments and for measuring cost and schedule performance.4.5.3 Supporting programs and project functions. Use ECES for bid solicitation, collection, and evaluation; communicating project data between installations or agencies and industry; cost and schedule estimating; historical cost and schedule data collection; historical project data collection for technology deployments and project conditions; validating and calibrating cost estimates and software tools; and establishing and disseminating best practices and lessons learned.4.6 The hierarchical nature of the classification allows for collecting data using more detailed lower level elements or for summarizing data at higher levels.4.7 ECES, as described in this classification, is being included in the Remedial Action Cost Estimating Requirement (RACER)6 system and the Environmental Cost Analysis System (ECAS).7 RACER is used for estimating cost and ECAS is used to collect, maintain, and analyze the cost of completed projects. Federal agencies performing environmental work intend to incorporate the ECES.1.1 This standard establishes a classification of the comprehensive hierarchical list of elements for life-cycle environmental work. The classification is based on the Interagency Environmental Cost Element Structure (ECES).2 Elements, as defined here, are major components common to environmental projects.3 The elements represent the life-cycle activities for environmental projects regardless of the project design specification, construction method, technology type, or materials used. The classification serves as a consistent reference for cost estimating, analysis, and monitoring during the various phases of the project life cycle. Using ECES ensures consistency, over time and from project to project, in the cost management and performance measurement of environmental projects. It also enhances reporting at all phases of a project, from assessment and studies through design, construction, operations and maintenance (O&M), and surveillance and long-term monitoring (SLTM).1.2 This classification applies to all environmental work, including environmental restoration, waste management, decontamination and decommissioning (D&D), surveillance and long-term monitoring, and technology development.1.3 The use of this classification increases the level of standardization, uniformity, and consistency of collected environmental project costs. Such uniformity and standardization allows for ease of understanding project costs, provides a common “cost language” for sharing and comparing cost information, and allows for easier analysis and calibration of cost data. This standard classification can be used as a checklist of activities to be completed in environmental projects.1.4 Guide E2637 is intended to facilitate the application of the ECES to any environmental remediation project, without regard to project size.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： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

5.1 LCC analysis is an economic method for evaluating a project or project alternatives over a designated study period. The method entails computing the LCC for alternative building designs or system specifications having the same purpose and then comparing them to determine which has the lowest LCC over the study period.5.2 The LCC method is particularly suitable for determining whether the higher initial cost of a building or building system is economically justified by reductions in future costs (for example, operating, maintenance, repair, or replacement costs) when compared with an alternative that has a lower initial cost but higher future costs. If a building design or system specification has both a lower initial cost and lower future costs relative to an alternative, an LCC analysis is not needed to show that the former is the economically preferable choice.5.3 If an investment project is not essential to the building operation (for example, replacement of existing single-pane windows with new double-pane windows), the project must be compared against the “do nothing” alternative (that is, keeping the single pane windows) in order to determine if it is cost effective. Typically the “do nothing” alternative entails no initial investment cost but has higher future costs than the proposed project.1.1 This practice establishes a procedure for evaluating the life-cycle cost (LCC) of a building or building system and comparing the LCCs of alternative building designs or systems that satisfy the same functional requirements.1.2 The LCC method measures, in present-value or annual-value terms, the sum of all relevant costs associated with owning and operating a building or building system over a specified time period.1.3 The basic premise of the LCC method is that to an investor or decision maker all costs arising from an investment decision are potentially important to that decision, including future as well as present costs. Applied to buildings or building systems, the LCC encompasses all relevant costs over a designated study period, including the costs of designing, purchasing/leasing, constructing/installing, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, and disposing of a particular building design or system.1.4 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.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： 843元 / 折扣价： 717 元 加购物车

This specification covers the general characteristics of low stretch or static kern mantle ropes used for rescue applications, whatever their constituent material. The rope shall be fabricated from continuous filament heat and light-resistant material of industrial, high tenacity grade. Material used in the construction of life rescue rope shall be sufficient to produce a rope which meets the physical properties and performance requirements specified. Properties such as diameter, minimum breaking strength, elongation, and knotability of a life safety rope shall be determined. All rescue ropes shall have an internal marker running the entire length of the rope which includes at least the name of the manufacturer, the year of manufacture of the rope, the country of origin, and the standards with which the rope complies. All information shall be repeated at least every three feet. All rescue ropes shall include a warning label containing at least the following: a warning that serious death or injury may result from the improper use of the rope, a warning that special training and knowledge are required to use the rope, and a warning that the use and inspection of the rope shall be in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.1.1 This specification covers the general characteristics of low stretch or static kernmantle ropes used for rescue applications, whatever their constituent material. This specification does not apply to dynamic rope intended for lead climbing.1.2 This specification covers small diameter sizes commonly used in life safety applications. These include sizes 7 to 16 mm (9/32 to 5/8 in.).1.3 The values stated in SI units shall be considered as standard. Values in inch-pound units are included for reference.1.4 In the event of any conflict between the text of this specification and any references cited, the text of this specification takes preference.1.5 This specification may involve hazardous materials, operations, and equipment. 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.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

2.1 This test method is used by producers of electrical heating alloys to measure the cyclic oxidation resistance of these alloys.2.2 Because of the effect of the environment, design, and use, the life values obtained from this test method may not correlate with that of an appliance or industrial heating unit.1.1 This test method 2 covers the determination of the resistance to oxidation of nickel-chromium and nickel-chromium-iron electrical heating alloys at elevated temperatures under intermittent heating. Procedures for a constant-temperature cycle are provided. This test method is used for internal comparative purposes only.1.2 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.1.3 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 become familiar with all hazards including those identified in the appropriate Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for this product/material as provided by the manufacturer, to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices, and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.4 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 This guide outlines sustainability factors for manufacturers to consider when comparing alternative chemicals or ingredients across the life cycle of a product.4.2 Methods exist for the evaluation of chemical hazards for product-chemical pairs. These methods are referenced in several regulatory, non-regulatory, and green building schemes and should be conducted as part of an analysis of this type.NOTE 1: Evaluation methods include, but are not limited to, Clean Production Action’s GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals,5 The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Design for the Environment (DfE) Alternatives Assessment Criteria for Hazards Evaluation (Safer Choice) methodology and the National Academy of Sciences’ A Framework to Guide Selection of Chemical Alternatives.8 Regulatory schemes include laws such as the Safer Consumer Products Rule9 in California or the Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH)10 regulations in Europe. Green building schemes include the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)11 system by the USGBC, which references these indirectly through third-party certifications. However, neither these assessment tools nor the various schemes that reference them have set guidance for using the data in making decisions on which products and ingredients are ultimately the most sustainable.4.3 Similarly, many tools exist for measuring economic viability, such as value-models and cost analysis. There are also many tools and techniques for measuring social acceptance of products such as sales trends, voice of the customer and many other types of surveys.4.4 This guide acknowledges the need for determining a baseline for comparing the performance (environmental, economic, and social) of an existing product-chemical pair in a product with the possible/potential alternatives. As such, when using this guide, companies shall use the same study boundaries for the original baseline case and for all alternative options under assessment. Further, when feasible, the same assessment tools should also be used for all options being analyzed.4.5 Sustainability is a very holistic and encompassing concept. As such, many factors cross all three attributes of sustainability. While factors may be assigned one way in this guide, it is recognized the user has discretion to assign them to whatever attribute(s) they deem appropriate when performing this analysis. However, the user should consistently categorize among all analyses for the purpose of easy comparison.4.6 This guide is structured such that the impacts of each life cycle stage (that is, raw material acquisition, raw material transport, manufacturing, use, and end of life) are considered in their entirety for each attribute of sustainability (that is, social, economic, and ecological). Users of this guide also may wish to take an alternative approach by considering the impacts associated with all three attributes of sustainability (for example, social, economic, and ecological) for each life cycle stage before moving on to the next life cycle stage. This alternate approach may provide a different perspective regarding identifying areas of high impact within each life cycle stage.1.1 This guide covers sustainability factors for product manufacturers to consider when comparing alternative chemicals or ingredients across the life cycle of a product. Such an analysis could be used in product development, answering customer inquiries, or replying to regulatory requests, among others.1.2 This guide integrates many of the principles of green chemistry and green engineering in evaluating the factors across the social (including human health), economic, and ecological attributes in the use of a particular material and potential alternatives in a particular product.1.3 This guide provides an outline for the contents of a report of the results of the analysis, including an executive summary, detailed report, and retrospective.1.4 This guide does not provide guidance on how to perform chemical risk assessment, alternatives assessment, life-cycle assessment, or economic analysis, or how the alternatives decision-making framework will be completed.1.5 This guide does not suggest in what order the social, ecological, or economic attributes of sustainability should be evaluated or which one is most important. This is a decision of the company performing the decision-making evaluation.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

5.1 For agencies and institutions, measuring and managing the LCC of ownership of property may directly result in improved accountability, in the form of cost savings, increased asset utilization, extended asset life, and increased mission effectiveness.5.2 For companies, measuring and managing the LCC of ownership of property may directly result in cost savings, increased asset utilization, and, therefore, improved profit margins.5.3 Including LCC in the three stages is consistent with Practice E2279 under the reporting principle.1.1 This practice covers the establishment of a process consensus model for determining the life-cycle cost (LCC) of property assets owned or used by an entity.1.1.1 For businesses, these property assets are required to seek to achieve financial returns from producing and selling goods or services, or both.1.1.2 For institutions and agencies, these property assets are required to accomplish their primary mission.1.2 Real and personal property assets may include capital (fixed) assets and movable assets including customer-supplied assets, rental/leased assets, contract/project direct-purchased assets, or expense items.1.3 Asset service lives can be divided into three distinct stages, each with several separate yet interrelated substages: acquisition, utilization, and disposition. These primary stages are not intended to be all-encompassing but are offered as the basis for establishing LCC.1.4 This practice is expected to be primarily used for considering the life-cycle cost of personal property, however, the concept can and should be used for various types of assets including personal, real, tangible, and intangible.1.5 This practice does not supersede applicable generally accepted accounting principles but is intended to be consistent with the accounting principles particularly in the area of internal controls (see the GAO Green Book) and processes and requirements for estimating. Some life-cycle cost estimating may be required for accounting purposes. (See AS 2501.)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 to 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： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

5.1 Sensory shelf life is the time period during which the product’s sensory characteristics and performance are as intended by the manufacturer. The product is consumable or usable during this period, providing the end-user with the intended sensory characteristics, performance, and benefits. After this period, however, the product has characteristics or attributes that are not as intended, or it does not perform the same functions as fresh products or those consumed or used before the end of shelf life.5.2 The goal of all shelf life determination is to estimate the time at which a consumer product is no longer usable, unfit for consumption, or no longer has the intended sensory characteristics.5.3 Prior to the commencement of sensory shelf life study, the criteria/criterion that are/is used to define shelf life end must be defined. The criterion or criteria could be sensory attributes, consumer acceptance or product performance. Once the criteria are defined, the test methodology for measuring the sensory shelf life can be selected. The criterion operationally defining the end of shelf life is generally chosen based on one or more of the following changes in the product’s sensory or functional parameters, or both: (1) the aged product is perceptibly different from the fresh product overall, (2) the aged product has changed in specific sensory or functional attributes, either increasing some, decreasing others, or the appearance of new attributes compared to the fresh product, or (3) product acceptability of the aged product has decreased to a specific degree from that of the fresh product. The determination of these sensory end-points is a function of the criteria selected, the test method used, and sampling and statistical risks chosen by the researcher.5.4 The three following test methods are most commonly used for the three end-point criteria cited above: (1) discrimination, (2) descriptive, and (3) affective. Researchers have to select criteria and methods that best suit the business risks associated with the selection of a final shelf life end-point.5.5 Once a product is made, underlying chemical and physical processes continue: Time, temperature, oxygen, humidity, or light are some of the variables that can contribute to these chemical changes. The interaction of the product with the packaging may also impact the sensory shelf life of the product. These are often the independent variables included in a shelf life study. However, research techniques designed to identify the causes of sensory shelf life changes or to develop predictive models of shelf life are beyond the scope of this document.5.6 Previous sensory research with similar products, marketing research, product technology, manufacturing considerations, marketing objectives, consumer comments, complaints, and other business criteria can all play a part in determining sensory end-point criteria.5.7 The decision risk, end-point criteria, and shelf life testing procedure should be reviewed and agreed to by stakeholders, such as Marketing, Market Research, R&D, Quality Assurance, and Manufacturing.1.1 This guide provides recommended sensory testing approaches and decision criteria for establishing the sensory shelf life of consumable products, including food, personal care, and household products, to manage business risk. It describes research considerations that include: product selection and handling, appropriate application of specific sensory test methods, selection of test intervals, and data analysis techniques for the determination of a product’s sensory shelf life end-point. This guide will focus on the practical considerations and approaches, risks, and criteria that must be considered in designing, executing, and interpreting sensory shelf life results.1.2 This guide is not intended to provide a detailed description of how to conduct reliable sensory testing. It assumes knowledge of basic sensory and statistical analysis techniques, focusing instead on special considerations for the specific application of sensory testing methods to shelf life determination.1.3 The shelf life measures in this guide refer to foods, household and personal care products stored as the manufacturer intended and do not account for changes in sensory properties occurring after opening, partial consumption/use or in-home storage. Once products have been manufactured, packaged and sent through the distribution channels, the condition of the products is not typically under study. However, a company may wish to include such variables in their shelf life studies when there is a need to evaluate the sensory quality of their products as they go through distribution channels or in-home storage, or both, and use.1.4 This guide is not intended to address non-sensory issues related to the shelf life of food, including microbial contamination and chemical changes of products associated with aging, nor is it intended to address potential safety issues associated with aging food and non-food consumer products.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： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

4.1 This guide is intended to serve as a reference of recommended methodology for users developing relevant, reliable and valid tests for predicting natural weathering effects and for use in developing methods to determine design life of building sealant systems through the use of accelerated test protocols. The proposed standard corrects for some of the deficiencies of existing laboratory accelerated tests of sealants.4.2 The development of accelerated weathering tests capable of being used in protocols to reliably and accurately predict the long-term in-service performance of building sealant systems have limitations due to:4.2.1 The external factors that affect functional properties, which are numerous and require effort to quantify, so that many existing accelerated procedures do not include all factors of importance, and4.2.2 The sealant specimens are often tested in configurations different from those used in-service.1.1 This guide describes the steps for developing improved laboratory accelerated weathering tests for predicting the natural weathering effects on building sealant systems and for using those tests in development of methods for design life prediction of the systems.1.2 This guide outlines a systematic approach to development of laboratory accelerated weathering tests of building sealant systems including the identification of needed information, the development of accelerated tests, the application of data, and the reporting of results.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

This specification covers white or yellow preformed retroreflective pavement marking tapes that are designed to provide a service life of typically 3 to 6 months, on roads with up to 15 000 average daily traffic count (ADT). The tapes are intended for use as longitudinal, transverse, or word/symbol pavement markings that provide delineation day and night. The tapes may be either Type I (removable) or Type II (nonremovable). The marking tape shall be a reflective film coated with a pressure-sensitive adhesive with or without a protective liner. It shall be flexible and shall conform to the the typical road pavement surface. In addition, it shall adhere to asphalt or portland cement concrete roadway surfaces when applied. Also, the marking tape shall be retroreflective, reflecting white or yellow, respectively, and shall be readily visible when viewed with automobile headlights at night and shall have minimum reflective values as specified.1.1 This specification covers white or yellow preformed retroreflective pavement marking tapes that are designed to provide a service life of typically three to six months, depending on wear and durability factors.1.2 The tapes are intended for use as longitudinal, transverse, or word/symbol pavement markings that provide delineation day and night. The tapes may be either removable or nonremovable.1.3 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as the standard except where noted in the document. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.1.4 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

2.1 This test method is used by producers of electrical heating alloys to measure the cyclic oxidation resistance of these alloys.2.2 Because of the effect of environment, design, and use, the life values obtained from this test method may not correlate with that of an appliance or industrial heating unit.1.1 This test method covers the determination of the resistance to oxidation of iron-chromium-aluminum electrical heating alloys at elevated temperatures under intermittent heating using a constant-temperature cycle test. This test is used for internal comparative purposes only.1.2 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.1.3 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.1.4 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

1.1 This practice covers steps that should be followed in developing accelerated tests for predicting the service life of building components and materials. Although mathematical analyses needed for prediction of service life are not described in detail, either deterministic or probabilistic analysis may be used. Note 1-Comparative testing is an alternative to the steps identified in this practice; it involves qualitative comparison of the results of a test component or material with the results of a similar control component or material when exposed to identical conditions. 1.2 This practice outlines a systematic approach to service life prediction, including the identification of needed information, the development of accelerated tests, the interpretation of data, and the reporting of results.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

定价： 2048元 / 折扣价： 1741 元

3.1 This guide defines the shelf life of carbon black when stored under proper conditions.1.1 This guide defines the shelf life of carbon black.1.2 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

1.1 This specification pertains to fixed wing transport units involved in patient transportation and care, at the advanced life support level. It outlines the minimum requirements, including personnel and the patient care equipment, that must be met before the unit can be classified as an advanced life support transport unit.1.2 This specification describes the minimum configuration and capability required for the vehicle, the minimum number of seats for personnel, and the provisions for the minimum medical equipment and supplies.1.3 Other specifications of Committee F-30 will apply.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

1. Scope 1.1 General This Guideline provides a method for conducting environmental life cycle analysis and assessment. It guides industry formulation of product life cycle process stages, stage screening and problem definition, inventory analysis, an

定价： 865元 / 折扣价： 736 元