5.1 LCC analysis is an economic method for evaluating alternatives that are characterized by differing cash flows over the designated project design life. The method entails calculating the LCC of each alternate capable of satisfying the functional requirement of the project and comparing them to determine which has (have) the lowest estimated LCC over the project design life.5.2 The LCC method is particularly suitable for determining whether the higher initial cost of an alternative is economically justified by reductions in future costs (for example, rehabilitation, or replacement) when compared to an alternative with lower initial costs but higher future costs. If a design alternative has both a lower initial cost and lower future costs than other alternatives, an LCC analysis is not necessary to show that the former is the economically preferable choice.1.1 This practice covers a procedure for using life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis techniques to evaluate alternative corrosion protection system designs that satisfy the same functional requirements.1.2 The LCC technique measures the present value of all relevant costs of producing and rehabilitating alternative corrosion protection systems, such as surface preparation, application, construction, rehabilitation, or replacement, over a specified period of time.1.3 Using the results of the LCC analysis, the decision maker can then identify the alternative(s) with the lowest estimated total cost based on the present value of all costs.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 results of the analysis may be used to compare to similar pieces of commercial food service equipment to determine the unit that has the lowest life cycle cost, or the highest net present value.1.1 This practice for life cycle cost analysis of commercial food service equipment is designed for producers and end-users to utilize when forecasting and (or) evaluating the life cycle costs of equipment by accounting for tangible differences in operating and maintenance costs of commercial food service equipment. Results of the analysis detailed in this standard practice are intended for budgetary purposes.1.1.1 The results may also be used to compare projected life cycle cost of different models from a single manufacturer, or models manufactured by multiple suppliers, or to establish when it is cost effective to replace a specific equipment versus incurring continued maintenance expenses.1.2 Major categories included in this analysis include total purchase price, service and repair costs, preventative maintenance costs, utility operating costs and disposal costs. The results may be quantified as a yearly running total and a net present value.1.3 Inputs for this life-cycle analysis will need to come from a variety of sources, including manufacturers, service agents, utility companies, and end users. Not all input variables need be considered for effective analysis. To avoid skewing the results, sections where reliable estimates are not available should be left out of the analysis.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： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

4.1 This practice provides one means for determining the scatter factors to establish either the safe-life, or inspection threshold, or recurring inspection intervals, or combinations thereof, as a result of aeroplane durability and damage tolerance assessments. This information can be used in conjunction with Specification F3115/F3115M.4.1.1 This practice defines scatter factors or factors to be used on the unfactored test or analytical mean lives, or both, for determining factored lives (that is, safe-life, inspection threshold, or recurring inspection intervals, or combinations thereof). These factors may be related to but are different from other factors such as load enhancement factor, and life factor that are used to compensate for long test duration. For guidance on life and load enhancement factors, refer to DOT/FAA/AR-10/6 or from relevant CAAs.4.1.2 The unfactored test or analytical mean life, or both, must be determined prior to the usage of this standard practice (see 4.5.1).4.2 The material presented herein is derived from the references listed in Section 2.4.3 Either the safe-life or inspection thresholds can be determined for the entire aeroplane or separately for components such as wing, empennage, landing gear, control surfaces, etc. Such determinations are based on test(s), similarity to previous test(s), or analysis supported by tests. Recurring inspection intervals are typically determined on the same basis but may also be supported by in-service data.4.4 The scatter factors described in this practice are applicable to cyclic test data that meets the following criteria:4.4.1 The cyclic test article must be representative of the production article. Careful consideration must be given for any modifications or alterations, or both, made to the test article prior to or during testing, or both, for metallic structures.4.4.2 At the completion of full-scale or component fatigue/cyclic tests (excluding landing gear), the residual strength capability must be demonstrated before determining either the safe-life, or inspection threshold.4.5 The following are not within the scope of this standard:4.5.1 Methodologies of durability, damage tolerance analysis, or test, or combinations thereof.4.5.2 Structures which use novel fabrication methods such as friction stir welding, additive manufacturing, and thermoplastic welding.4.5.3 Structural bonding (except already proven metal-to-metal bonding, etc.); for guidance on structural bonding refer to AC 20-107B (or AMC 20-29).4.6 The Finite Element Model (FEM) used for analysis must be validated with test data, or other independent analysis methods in accordance with relevant CAA requirements.4.7 The inspection intervals determined using this practice are independent of other inspection intervals that are defined by other process, such as Maintenance Steering Group (MSG).1.1 This practice provides guidance to determine scatter factors to establish either the safe-life, or inspection threshold, and inspection intervals to be published in the Airworthiness Limitation section of the maintenance manual in order to maintain continued airworthiness. The guidance materials presented herein for a means of compliance based on cyclic testing, damage tolerance testing, fatigue analysis, or damage tolerance analysis, or combinations thereof. The material was developed through open consensus of international experts in general aviation. The information was created by focusing on Levels 1, 2, 3 and 4 Normal Category aeroplanes. The content may be more broadly applicable; it is the responsibility of the applicant to substantiate broader applicability as a specific means of compliance.1.2 An applicant intending to propose this information as Means of Compliance for a design approval must seek guidance from their respective oversight authority (for example, published guidance from applicable civil aviation authorities, or CAAs) concerning the acceptable use and application thereof. For information on which oversight authorities have accepted this standard (whole or in part) as an acceptable Means of Compliance to their regulatory requirements (hereinafter “the Rules”), refer to the ASTM Committee F44 web page (www.astm.org/COMMITTEE/F44.htm).1.3 Units—This document may present information in either SI units, English Engineering units, or both; the values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents. Each system shall be used independently of the other; combining values from the two systems may result in nonconformance with the standard.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 Polychaetes are an important component of the benthic community, in which they generally comprise 30 to 50 % of the macroinvertebrate population. They are preyed upon by many species of fish, birds, and larger invertebrate species. Larger polychaetes feed on small invertebrates, larval stages of invertebrates, and algae. Polychaetes are especially sensitive to inorganic toxicants and, to a lesser extent, to organic toxicants (1).4 The ecological importance of polychaetes and their wide geographical distribution, ability to be cultured in the laboratory, and sensitivity to contaminants make them appropriate acute and chronic toxicity test organisms. Their relatively short life cycle enables the investigator to measure the effect of contaminants on reproduction.5.2 An acute toxicity or chronic text is conducted to obtain information concerning the immediate effects of an exposure to a test material on a test organism under specified experimental conditions. An acute toxicity test provides data on the short-term effects, which are useful for comparisons to other species but do not provide information on delayed effects. Chronic toxicity tests provide data on long-term effects.5.3 A life-cycle toxicity test is conducted to determine the effects of the test material on survival, growth, and reproduction of the test species. Additional sublethal endpoints (for example, biochemical, physiological, and histopathological) may be used to determine the health of the species under field conditions.5.4 The results of acute, chronic, and life-cycle toxicity tests can be used to predict effects likely to occur on marine organisms under field conditions.5.5 The results of acute, chronic, or life-cycle toxicity tests might be used to compare the sensitivities of different species and the toxicities of different test materials, as well as to study the effects of various environmental factors on the results of such tests.5.6 The results of acute, chronic, or life-cycle toxicity tests might be an important consideration when assessing the hazards of materials to marine organisms (see Guide E1023) or when deriving water quality criteria for aquatic organisms (2).5.7 The results of acute, chronic, or life-cycle toxicity tests might be useful for studying the biological availability of, and structure activity relationships between, test materials.5.8 The results of acute, chronic, and life-cycle toxicity tests will depend partly on the temperature, quality of food, condition of test organisms, test procedures, and other factors.1.1 This guide covers procedures for obtaining data concerning the adverse effects of a test material added to marine and estuarine waters on certain species of polychaetes during short- or long-term continuous exposure. The polychaete species used in these tests are either field collected or from laboratory cultures and exposed to varying concentrations of a toxicant in static or static-renewal conditions. These procedures may be useful for conducting toxicity tests with other species of polychaetes, although modifications might be necessary.1.2 Modifications of these procedures might be justified by special needs or circumstances. Although using appropriate procedures is more important than following prescribed procedures, the results of tests conducted using unusual procedures are not likely to be comparable to those of many other tests. Comparisons of results obtained using modified and unmodified versions of these procedures might provide useful information concerning new concepts and procedures for conducting acute, chronic, or life-cycle tests with other species of polychaetes.1.3 These procedures are applicable to most chemicals, either individually or in formulations, commercial products, and known or unknown mixtures. With appropriate modifications, these procedures can be used to conduct these tests on factors such as temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen. These procedures can also be used to assess the toxicity of potentially toxic discharges such as municipal wastes, sediments/soils, oil drilling fluids, produced water from oil well production, and other types of industrial wastes. An LC50 (medial lethal concentration) may be calculated from the data generated in each acute and chronic toxicity test when multiple concentrations are tested. Growth, determined by a change in measured weight, and reproduction, as the change in total number of organisms, are used to measure the effect of a toxicant on life-cycle tests; data are analyzed statistically to indicate that concentration at which a significant difference occurs between the test solutions and control(s).1.4 The results of dose-response acute or chronic toxicity tests with toxicants added experimentally to salt water should usually be reported in terms of an LC50 (mortality), or EC50 (medial effect concentration). The results of life-cycle toxicity tests with toxicants added experimentally to salt water should be reported as that concentration at which a statistically significant difference in the number of offspring or growth (determined by weight) is produced with reference to the control(s).1.5 Where appropriate, this standard has been designed to be consistent with or complementary to other methods for assessing toxicity to invertebrates described in Test Methods E1367 and E1706, and Guides E1391, E1525, E1611, and E1688.1.6 This guide is arranged as follows:  SectionReferenced Documents  2Terminology  3Summary of Guide  4  5Apparatus  6 Facilities  6.1 Construction Materials  6.2 Test Chambers  6.3 Cleaning  6.4 Acceptability  6.5Safety Precautions  7Dilution Water  8 Requirements  8.1 Source  8.2 Treatment  8.3 Characterization  8.4Test Material  9 General  9.1 Stock Solution  9.2 Test Concentrations  9.3Test Organisms 10 Species 10.1 Age 10.2 Source 10.3 Feeding 10.4 Holding 10.5 Quality 10.6Procedure 11 Experimental Design 11.1  Acute Test 11.1.1  Chronic Test 11.1.2  Life-Cycle Test 11.1.3 Test Condition Specifications 11.2  Dissolved Oxygen 11.2.1  Temperature 11.2.2  Loading 11.2.3  Salinity 11.2.4  Light 11.2.5 Beginning the Test 11.3 Feeding 11.4 Duration of Test 11.5 Biological Data 11.6 Other Measurements 11.7Hazards  Analytical Methodology 13Acceptability of Test 14Calculation of Results 15Report 16Keywords 17Appendixes:   Neanthes arenaceodentata Appendix X1 Capitella capitata Appendix X2 Ophryotrocha diadema Appendix X3 Dinophilus gyrociliatus Appendix X41.7 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.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, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Specific precautionary statements are given in Section 7.1.9 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： 843元 / 折扣价： 717 元 加购物车

4.1 This practice was prepared to meet a growing need for the use of standard sampling procedures and tables for life and reliability testing in government procurement, supply, and maintenance quality control (QC) operations as well as in research and development activities where applicable.4.2 A characteristic feature of most life tests is that the observations are ordered in time to failure. If, for example, 20 radio tubes are placed on life test, and ti denotes the time when the ith tube fails, the data occur in such a way that t1 ≤ t2 ≤ ... ≤ tn. The same kind of ordered observations will occur whether the problem under consideration deals with the life of electric bulbs, the life of electronic components, the life of ball bearings, or the length of life of human beings after they are treated for a disease. The examples just given all involve ordering in time.4.3 In destructive testing involving such situations as the current needed to blow a fuse, the voltage needed to break down a condenser, or the force needed to rupture a physical material, the test can often be arranged in such a way that every item in the sample is subjected to precisely the same stimulus (current, voltage, or stress). If this is done, then clearly the weakest item will be observed to fail first, the second weakest next, and so forth. While the random variable considered mostly in this guide is time to failure, it should be emphasized, however, that the methodology provided herein can be adapted to the testing situations mentioned above when the random variable is current, voltage, stress, and so forth.4.4 Sections 6 and 7 describe general procedures and definitions of terms used in life test sampling. Sections 8, 9, and 10 describe specific procedures and applications of the life test sampling plans for determining conformance to established reliability requirements.4.5 Whenever the methodology or choice of procedures in the practice requires clarification, the user is advised to consult a qualified mathematical statistician, and reference should be made to appropriate technical reports and other publications in the field.AbstractThis practice presents standard sampling procedures and tables for life and reliability testing in procurement, supply, and maintenance quality control operations as well as in research and development activities. This practice describes general procedures and definitions of terms used in life test sampling and describes specific procedures and applications of the life test sampling plans for determining conformance to established reliability requirements.1.1 This practice presents standard sampling procedures and tables for life and reliability testing in procurement, supply, and maintenance quality control operations as well as in research and development activities.1.2 This practice describes general procedures and definitions of terms used in life test sampling and describes specific procedures and applications of the life test sampling plans for determining conformance to established reliability requirements.1.3 This practice is an adaptation of the Quality Control and Reliability Handbook H-108, “Sampling Procedures and Tables for Life and Reliability Testing (Based on Exponential Distribution),” U.S. Government Printing Office, April 29, 1960.1.4 A system of units is not specified in this practice.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： 918元 / 折扣价： 781 元 加购物车

4.1 Service life test data often show different distribution shapes than many other types of data. This is due to the effects of measurement error (typically normally distributed), combined with those unique effects which skew service life data towards early failure (infant mortality failures) or late failure times (aging or wear-out failures) Applications of the principles in this guide can be helpful in allowing investigators to interpret such data.NOTE 2: Service life or reliability data analysis packages are becoming more readily available in standard or common computer software packages. This puts data reduction and analyses more readily into the hands of a growing number of investigators.1.1 This guide presents briefly some generally accepted methods of statistical analyses which are useful in the interpretation of service life data. It is intended to produce a common terminology as well as developing a common methodology and quantitative expressions relating to service life estimation.1.2 This guide does not cover detailed derivations, or special cases, but rather covers a range of approaches which have found application in service life data analyses.1.3 Only those statistical methods that have found wide acceptance in service life data analyses have been considered in this guide.1.4 The Weibull life distribution model is emphasized in this guide and example calculations of situations commonly encountered in analysis of service life data are covered in detail.1.5 The choice and use of a particular life distribution model should be based primarily on how well it fits the data and whether it leads to reasonable projections when extrapolating beyond the range of data. Further justification for selecting a model should be based on theoretical considerations.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

This specification covers extended life type, nonplowable, retroreflective raised pavement markers for nighttime lane marking and delineation. Pavement markers shall undergo tests to examine their conformance with specified construction, performance (retroreflectivity), and physical property (flexural strength, compressive strength, abrasion resistance, coefficient of luminous intensity, color, resistance to lens cracking, lens impact strength, and temperature cycling strength) requirements.1.1 This specification covers nonplowable, retroreflective raised pavement markers for nighttime lane marking and delineation.1.2 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.1.3 The following precautionary caveat pertains only to the test methods portion, Section 9, of this specification: 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： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

4.1 The nature of accelerated service life estimation normally requires that stresses higher than those experienced during service conditions are applied to the material being evaluated. For non-constant use stress, such as experienced by time varying weather outdoors, it may in fact be useful to choose an accelerated stress fixed at a level slightly lower than (say 90 % of) the maximum experienced outdoors. By controlling all variables other than the one used for accelerating degradation, one may model the expected effect of that variable at normal, or usage conditions. If laboratory accelerated test devices are used, it is essential to provide precise control of the variables used in order to obtain useful information for service life prediction. It is assumed that the same failure mechanism operating at the higher stress is also the life determining mechanism at the usage stress. It must be noted that the validity of this assumption is crucial to the validity of the final estimate.4.2 Accelerated service life test data often show different distribution shapes than many other types of data. This is due to the effects of measurement error (typically normally distributed), combined with those unique effects which skew service life data towards early failure time (infant mortality failures) or late failure times (aging or wear-out failures). Applications of the principles in this guide can be helpful in allowing investigators to interpret such data.4.3 The choice and use of a particular acceleration model and life distribution model should be based primarily on how well it fits the data and whether it leads to reasonable projections when extrapolating beyond the range of data. Further justification for selecting models should be based on theoretical considerations.NOTE 2: Accelerated service life or reliability data analysis packages are becoming more readily available in common computer software packages. This makes data reduction and analyses more directly accessible to a growing number of investigators. This is not necessarily a good thing as the ability to perform the mathematical calculation, without the fundamental understanding of the mechanics may produce some serious errors.31.1 This guide describes general statistical methods for analyses of accelerated service life data. It provides a common terminology and a common methodology for calculating a quantitative estimate of functional service life.1.2 This guide covers the application of two general models for determining service life distribution at usage condition. The Arrhenius model serves as a general model where a single stress variable, specifically temperature, affects the service life. It also covers the Eyring Model for applications where multiple stress variables act simultaneously to affect the service life.1.3 This guide emphasizes the use of the Weibull life distribution and is written to be used in combination with Guide G166.1.4 The uncertainty and reliability of every accelerated service life model becomes more critical as the number of stress variables increases and the extent of extrapolation from the accelerated stress levels to the usage level increases, or both. The models and methodology used in this guide are to provide examples of data analysis techniques only. The fundamental requirements of proper variable selection and measurement must still be met by the users for a meaningful model to result.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 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