1.1 This specification covers additive manufacturing of parts manufactured via laser beam powder bed fusion (PBF-LB) processing of niobium-hafnium alloy used in spaceflight applications. Parts made using this processing method are typically used in applications that require mechanical properties like wrought products. Products built to this specification may require additional post-processing in the form of machining, polishing etc. to meet necessary surface finish and dimensional tolerances.1.2 This specification is intended for the use of purchasers or producers, or both, of PBF-LB R04295 parts for defining the requirements based on classification methodology. These requirements shall be agreed upon by the part supplier and purchaser.1.3 Users are advised to use this specification as a basis for obtaining parts that will meet the minimum acceptance requirements established and revised by consensus of committee members.1.4 User requirements considered more stringent may be met by the addition to the purchase order.1.5 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. Other units are included only for informational purposes.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 This test method is not intended to simulate an actual use condition but it will give some indication of the elastomeric properties or flexibility of a building joint sealant at low temperature. It can serve to differentiate between elastomer-based sealants and sealants based on nonelastic binders that can harden or embrittle on aging and crack or lose adhesion when flexed at low temperature. In addition, it can aid in identifying sealants that have poor flexibility because they are overextended and contain a very low level of elastomeric binder as well as those sealants having binders that will embrittle at low temperature.1.1 This test method covers determination of the low-temperature flexibility and tenacity of one-part, elastomeric, solvent-release type sealants after cyclic high- and low-temperature aging.1.2 The subcommittee with jurisdiction is not aware of any similar ISO standard.1.3 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.1.4 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

5.1 General: 5.1.1 This guide is intended to support PBF-LB process and parameter development, part acceptance criteria, and process control tests.5.1.2 Flaws and Defects—Fabricating fully dense parts continues to be a challenge in AM as the process intrinsically introduces volumetric flaws into a part reducing the part relative density (that is, increasing porosity or the presence of small voids in a part making it less than fully dense) and mechanical performance.5.1.2.1 When a flaw reaches a size, shape, location, or criticality that makes it becomes unacceptable for part acceptance, it will be referred to as a defect.5.1.2.2 Flaw or defect formation is governed by the manufacturing process, build parameters, feedstock, and geometric factors. Therefore, accurate measurement of fabricated part relative density is an important initial step in determining part and process quality.5.1.2.3 The quantity, size, and shape of the volumetric flaws influences mechanical performance of a part, particularly under cyclic loading. These data could indicate irregularly shaped (for example, LOF pores or microcracking) or spherical porosity (for example, keyhole or entrapped gas porosity) and determine acceptability by assigning criteria. While these metrics can be quantified, in this guide, the general capabilities of each method to capture this data will be highlighted, but detailed recommendations on these data types will not be made and rather the focus will be on relative density measurements.5.1.3 Uncertainty and Error—Users should consider that each measurement technique considered in this guide has differing sensitivities to various sized features. The measurement methods will also have different potential systematic errors or measurement uncertainties due to sampling sizes, detection resolution, effect of surface condition, experimental set-up, or reliance on a theoretical material density. It is important that these effects are taken into consideration as well as the natural statistical variability in the measurements. Multiple measurements of nominally identical test specimens should be made to enable the quantification of statistical uncertainty. Systematic uncertainty contributions will not be reduced by greater numbers of repeated measurements. When measuring specimens with relative densities close to 100 % quantification of systematic uncertainty for the selected measurement technique(s) becomes more critical to separate measurement and systematic variation from variation driven by the AM process. Differing levels of rigor can be applied when determining the role of uncertainty and variation depending on whether the measurement is in support of process development (for example, identifying appropriate fabrication parameters) or part acceptance (for example, part qualification).5.1.4 Repeatability and Reproducibility—As uncertainty and error can be introduced into the measurement process through operator variation. Performing gage repeatability and reproducibility (Gage R&R), a process that determines a test method’s repeatability and reproducibility, is recommended for methods that rely on significant manual specimen preparation or operation such as Archimedes, pycnometry, ultrasonic, and metallography. Refer to Guide E2782 for guidance on performing this process evaluation.5.2 Method Selection: 5.2.1 When evaluating methods, it may be beneficial to understand how the various attributes compare from method to method. In Fig. 1, a summary matrix comparing these various methods and their qualities is given.FIG. 1 Comparison Matrix of the Test Methods Evaluated in This Guide5.2.2 Using Multiple Methods—It can be desirable to use multiple methods to determine relative density. For example, using low-resolution XCT to measure larger part flaws and metallography to identify the quantity of smaller process flaws could prove to be a highly useful way of producing accurate flaw data. Another approach to strengthen measurement accuracy is by implementing multiple methods that operate on similar principles, such as pycnometry and Archimedes.5.2.3 Non-destructive Methods—Archimedes, ultrasonic, pycnometry, and XCT are nondestructive methods, while metallographic methods require part destruction to get relative density measurements. All the nondestructive methods can be used to characterize part relative density; however, as part size increases, these methods can become cumbersome to use. Archimedes requires a much larger and dedicated setup for relative density calculation that can be expensive for the appropriate accuracy but remains the least cost-intensive option, XCT and ultrasonic results are highly geometry and size dependent, and many pycnometry devices cannot handle larger part volumes (many pycnometers are equipped to handle specimen volumes of 1 cm3 to 3.5 cm3, however there are some that can handle up to 10 cm3). While several of these methods may not be suitable for characterizing larger part volumes, all can provide relative density. Low-cost and quick measurement methods, such as Archimedes, can be used as a means of process development or data for statistical process control during production.5.2.4 Pore Morphology Data—Metallographic and XCT methods can provide relative density measurements and specific geometric details (that is, size, aspect ratio, and shape) of individual flaws in addition to the overall part relative density. However, metallographic and XCT measurements are highly dependent on the resolution of the data, whether that is the sections examined, quantity of images, or microscope resolution, or a combination thereof, for metallographic methods or voxel size used for XCT. Archimedes, ultrasonic, and pycnometry methods do not provide these types of data when measuring relative density.5.2.5 Relative Density Measurements Relying on Theoretical Material Density—Archimedes, ultrasonic, and gas pycnometry methods rely on theoretical material density values in the calculation of relative density. The theoretical material density value selected is a possible source of systematic error. Material density is composition dependent. Each material will have a compositional specification and an allowable variation of that composition. This combined with material vaporization during fabrication could lead to a different material density value than the reported value by a material vendor or online source. The user should use caution on the reliance of a reported value and ensure the theoretical density is representative of the material (that is, from the specific material lot, measured from final material, or from a reliable database such).5.2.5.1 For methods relying on comparing the measured and theoretical material densities to calculate the relative density of the specimen, the following formula should be used:5.3 Method Specific Recommendations: 5.3.1 Archimedes Method—The Archimedes method is highly cost effective, nondestructive, and relatively non-geometry dependent; however, a significant amount of variation can be introduced into the process from the operator, part size, surface finish of the part, fluid entrapment, evaporation of fluid, temperature, water purity, absorbed gases, surface pores or cracks, and bubbles. Uncertainties of approximately 0.1 % for relative density measurements can be achieved for fully dense materials using this method. The sources of variation combined with part size will increase this uncertainty. However, training and consistent practices can minimize the effects of variation between measurements. Additionally, there are two main ASTM International standards for Archimedes measurements, Test Methods B962 and B311. Test Method B311 is specifically designed for measuring material density of parts with less than 2 % porosity volume and is, therefore, recommended as the measurement method for PBF-LB parts. The major difference between the two methods is that Test Methods B962 require fluid impregnation to deal with surface-connected porosity and Test Method B311 does not. If a specimen increases in mass while submerged in water, use Test Methods B962, and if the specimen does not gain mass, then Test Method B311 is applicable. Agitating the PBF-LB specimens while submerged is recommended to reduce any air pockets that may exist on the part’s surface. Additionally, a benefit of AM is the ability to achieve high complexity—a potential source of error using this method would be internal channels or the ability for the liquid to cover the entire volume. It is recommended to take multiple measurements when using this method and compute a standard deviation.5.3.2 Gas Pycnometry Method—Gas pycnometry requires that specimens be free of contaminants that may outgas during the test, shall not react with the displacing gas, and shall have sufficient strength to avoid deformation in the pressurized gas environment. Additionally, this method should only be used to measure parts with high relative densities since this method uses a gas to determine volume. Specimens with surface porosity or interconnected pore structures (whether through process defect or by design) will measure the skeletal volume, resulting in an inaccurate relative density measurement. This method functions on similar principles to that of Archimedes; however, it does not possess as many potential sources of error related to using a liquid for volume displacement. Uncertainty in this method is a function of part size and equipment capacity. There are several equations to calculate uncertainty from the equipment manufacturer; however, it will be equipment and part specific. Note that pycnometry determines a volume that can be compared directly to theoretical part volume based upon CAD dimensions of the part being produced. Differences can point directly to the volume of closed porosity in the produced part. Test Method B923 is used for measurement of skeletal or material density. While this test method is primarily for determination of skeletal density of metal powders, it has also been found to be useful for determination of skeletal volume and density of parts produced by traditional powder metallurgy methods. Note that it is best to try to choose a pycnometer capacity and specimen container configuration that result in the specimen under test occupying as much of the specimen container volume as possible. It can occur that a produced part is too large for any commercial gas pycnometers, and if so, another listed method shall be selected. Multiple measurements should be taken when using this method and compute a standard deviation.5.3.3 Ultrasonic Method—Ultrasonic relative density characterization is limited in application by part geometry and suffers errors induced by small part sizes and surface roughness inherent in AM parts. Larger specimen parts with simple geometries (for example, cubes) and polished surfaces to measure from should be used for data capture. Note that this method is typically used as an NDT method and not for relative density measurement. Changes in measured velocity can be indicative of cracking or flaws within parts. These data received through ultrasonic testing can be evaluated into several equations provided in Practice E494 to calculate material density. This can then be compared to theoretical material density to compute a relative density measurement. However, several material constants such as Poisson’s ratio or Young’s modulus are required. To determine accurate values, additional testing is required, which can be cumbersome. Otherwise, vendor or online sources may need to be used to estimate these values, which may not be representative of the true values or include uncertainty considerations. Because of these factors combined with measurement variability inherent to measuring as-built AM parts, this is not a preferred method for measuring relative density of PBF-LB parts.5.3.4 XCT Method—XCT provides highly descriptive data, such as pore size, shape, and distribution. However, it does require costly equipment and is time intensive. High-resolution (voxel size of ~1 µm to 5 µm) analysis is obtainable using XCT; however, there is a limitation on specimen size, requiring smaller parts, longer scanning times, and often more cost. Low resolution XCT can evaluate larger parts but is unable to detect fine details or smaller flaws. Successful parameters and software processing steps should be recorded to ensure repeatability. Additionally, the software tools used to filter noise and the grayscale thresholding can lead to uncertainty and variation as some pores can be missed in the analysis. Significant iterating may be required to find the proper scanning and processing parameters and operators should be trained. Resolution is governed by voxel size in this method; however, uncertainty can arise from this as well. Smaller gas pores can be unaccounted for in relative density computation if a larger voxel size is selected. Additionally, the thresholding criteria selected for identifying pores are another source of error.5.3.5 Metallography and Serial Sectioning Method—Metallurgical examination of porosity requires mechanical sectioning of the part or test specimen and an apparatus such as described in Practice E1245, a light microscope equipped with brightfield objectives and digital imaging. Image analysis software produces a binary image and counts black pixels against a white background or vice versa. This is a relatively low-cost relative density measurement technique. However, as it is a destructive method, it is, therefore, more applicable to test specimens than actual parts in a production setting. If sectioning a production part, examine critical design locations and areas prone to porosity. The microscopic images from which relative density data are derived are 2D and require mathematical relationships of stereology for planar surfaces to determine uncertainty. Multiple images of the full specimen area in several orientations and at multiple polishing depths should be taken when using this method. A significant amount of uncertainty exists within this method from systematic and sampling sources. Critical pores can be missed as the whole specimen is not measured. Another method, such as pycnometry, should be used to generate reliable relative density measurements of a specimen. Automated serial sectioning and imaging allows for expansive data collection that captures a significant number of micrographs from a specimen using metallurgical methods. However, the capital equipment involved and time to generate a large quantity of images makes this method costly. Serial sectioning images can be stitched in the polishing direction to render high resolution 3D data of the specimen. Serial sectioning can be used to reduce the uncertainty of the metallographic method by taking a large quantity of image data. Special care should be taken during the specimen preparation procedure to ensure minimal residual scratching.1.1 In this standard, guidelines for measuring post-manufacturing relative density of metallic additive manufactured (AM) parts and density assessment test specimens are given.1.2 In this guide, standard test methods commonly used to measure part relative density and details any procedural changes or recommendations for use with PBF-LB parts are referenced. Extensibility to other types of metallic AM processes may be considered on a case-by-case basis with user discretion.1.3 This guide is intended to be applied during the selection process of methods to measure the relative density of AM parts to balance cost, accuracy, complexity, part destruction, and part size concerns.1.4 Pore size, shape, and distribution and their implications relative to the AM process and material are beyond the scope of this guide; however, each method’s ability to obtain these metrics is discussed in the context of the various density measurement methods.1.5 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.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 The type and amount of solvent used in these sealants can sometimes give rise to surface bubbling (blistering) problems. The substrate used, whether porous or nonporous, will also have an effect. Although bubbling is often caused by misapplication, this test method is useful in differentiating between a sealant that develops an acceptably smooth surface and one that may have bubbling tendencies.1.1 This test method covers determination of the degree of bubble formation or surface blistering in one-part, elastomeric solvent-release type sealants when exposed to elevated temperatures.1.2 The subcommittee with jurisdiction is not aware of any similar ISO standard.1.3 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.1.4 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

5.1 This guide provides instructions for sampling by collecting individual increments from part of a cross section of a moving stream of coal, as opposed to collection of individual increments by removal of a full cross section of material. The use of part-stream sampling, and the detailed procedures for each case, should be agreed upon in advance by all parties concerned. Samples collected by use of this guide are not probability samples. The user is cautioned that samples of this type do not satisfy the minimum requirements for probability sampling and as such cannot be used to obtain any meaningful statistical inferences such as the sampling precision, standard error, or bias.5.2 All parties should be cautioned that manual sampling of coal from a moving stream might not enable sampling of the material that is furthermost from the point of entry into stream by the sampling device.1.1 This guide covers general principles for obtaining a gross sample of coal by taking increments from part of a stream of coal rather than from the entire stream to be sampled. The usefulness of results from this guide will vary greatly depending on such factors as top size of the coal, size consistency of the coal, variability of the coal, and such logistical factors as the flow rate of the coal in process and physical accessibility of the sampling station.1.2 This guide should be used only when it is not possible to use a method of sampling that produces a probability sample.1.3 Sample preparation procedures involving crushing are contained in Practice D2013.1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values in parentheses are for information only.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 requirements 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： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

5.1 In-plant Oil Analysis—The particular five-part integrated tester practice is primarily used by plant maintenance personnel desiring to perform on-site analysis of as-received and in-service lubricating oils.5.2 Detect Common Lubrication Problems—The software application interprets data from integration of multiple sensing technologies to detect common lubrication problems from inadvertent mixing of dissimilar lubricant viscosity grades and from particulate or moisture contamination. The redundant views of ferrous particulates (sensor 2), all particulates larger than 4 μm (sensor 3), and all solid particulates larger than filter patch pore size (patch maker) provides screening for oil wetted mechanical system failure mechanisms from incipient to catastrophic stages.5.3 Supported by Off-Site Lab Analysis—The particular five-part integrated tester is normally used in conjunction with an off-site laboratory when exploring the particular nature of an alarming oil sample. An off-site laboratory should be consulted for appropriate additional tests.1.1 This practice covers procedures for analysis of in-service lubricant samples using a particular five-part (dielectric permittivity, time-resolved dielectric permittivity with switching magnetic fields, laser particle counter, microscopic debris analysis, and orbital viscometer) integrated tester to assess machine wear, lubrication system contamination, and lubricant dielectric permittivity and viscosity. Analyzed results trigger recommended follow-on actions which might include conducting more precise standard measurements at a laboratory. Wear status, contamination status, and lubricant dielectric permittivity and viscosity status are derived quantitatively from multiple parameters measured.1.2 This practice is suitable for testing incoming and in-service lubricating oils in viscosity grades 32 mm2/s at 40 °C to 680 mm2/s at 40 °C having petroleum or synthetic base stock. This practice is intended to be used for testing in-service lubricant samples collected from pumps, electric motors, compressors, turbines, engines, transmissions, gearboxes, crushers, pulverizers, presses, hydraulics and similar machinery applications. This practice addresses operation and standardization to ensure repeatable results.1.3 This practice is not intended for use with crude oils.1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.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： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

5.1 The integrated tester is primarily used to perform on-site analysis of in-service lubricants used in the automotive, highway trucking, mining, construction, off-road “mining,” marine, industrial, power generation, agriculture, and manufacturing industries.5.2 The immediate results of analysis of in-service lubricants are critical when performing proactive and preventative maintenance. On-site oil analysis, when used in conjunction with these programs, allows continuous system monitoring and contamination control potentially improving equipment “up-time” and equipment life.1.1 This test method covers the quantitative analysis of in-service lubricants using an automatic testing device that integrates these varied technologies: atomic emission spectroscopy, infrared spectroscopy, viscosity, and particle counting.1.2 This is suited for in-service lubricating oils having viscosities in the range between ISO 10 and ISO 320 and properties in the ranges given in Tables 1 and 2.TABLE 1 Element Test Parameters Measured, Calculated, and ReportedElement Low Range, mg/kg High Range, mg/kg Element Low Range, mg/kg High Range, mg/kgAluminum 5 to 100 NA Molybdenum 10 to 1000 NABarium 25 to 150 150 to 2000 Nickel 5 to 100 NABoron 5 to 100 100 to 1000 Phosphorous 100 to 600 600 to 4000Calcium 25 to 500 500 to 9000 Potassium 10 to 1000 1000 to 4000Chromium 8 to 100 NA Silicon 5 to 150 150 to 3000Copper 5 to 500 500 to 1000 Sodium 10 to 1000 NAIron 6 to 1000 1000 to 3000 Tin 6 to 100 NALead 6 to 150 NA Titanium 8 to 100 NAMagnesium 5 to 100 100 to 3000 Vanadium 7 to 100 NAManganese 5 to 100 NA Zinc 8 to 100 100 to 4000TABLE 2 Physical Properties Parameters Measured, Calculated, and ReportedNOTE 1: Review Test Method D4739 and D2896 for particular lubricating oil applications.Physical Property RangeWater,  % by mass 0.1 to 3Glycol,  % by mass 0.1 to 2Soot,  % by mass 0.1 to 4Fuel Dilution,  % by mass 0.1 to 15Oxidation, abs. 0.1 to 50Nitration, abs. 0.1 to 35Calculated Viscosity - IR 4 to 35 (100° cSt)Viscosity 40 °C, cSt (optional) 30 to 320Viscosity 100 °C, cSt (optional) 5 to 25Viscosity Index 5 to 150Base Number, mg/g KOH 1.0 to 171.3 This test method may be used to establish trends in wear and contamination of in-service lubricants and may not give equivalent numerical results to current ASTM test methods.1.4 This test method is not intended for use with crude oil.1.5 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.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. (Specific hazard statements are given in Section 9 and 11.3.)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： 702元 / 折扣价： 597 元 加购物车

1.1 This test method provides an accelerated procedure for predicting the effects of ultraviolet (UV) exposure and cold box cycling on one-part, elastomeric, solvent-release sealing compounds, when used in channel glazing and sealing applications. 1.2 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as the standard. The values stated in parentheses are for information only. 1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety problems, 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

1.1 This document is provided as an introductory guide to assist developers in interactions with CAAs. Part I provides guidance for obtaining a FA for experimental and developmental work, while Part II describes some of the issues to be addressed when seeking a Type Certificate. Many readers will not need to read Part II as it relates to a much more rigorous and structured procedure that is expected to be applied when the developer wishes to have the UAS used in commercial operations. The material presented here is primarily based on existing practices, procedures and regulations of the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. Many countries adopt FAA procedures directly, while others, such as the European authorities, Australia and Canada, work with the FAA to ensure that regulatory practices are harmonized to the maximum extent practical. The guidance presented here is anticipatory, since it is likely that new regulations specific to UAS will be issued in due course; the contents of this document builds on existing regulations while looking forward to future changes.1.2 The FAA requires that a civil UAS, with the exception of those that are Public aircraft, must obtain an Experimental Certificate before operating in the National Airspace System (NAS). The procedures for obtaining a civil Certificate of Airworthiness (CofA) are contained in 14 CFR Part 21 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR Part 21). Civil UAS that expect substantially routine access to the NAS, operating for compensation and hire, will need to undergo a full FAR Part 21 Type Certification, followed by the issuance of an FAA standard CofA. The existing procedures for Type Certification are discussed in Part II of this Guide. Based on experience with conventional civil aircraft certifications, the procedures and requirements associated with the type certification process and issuance of a standard CofA are demanding, costly and time-consuming. Since UAS represent a new class of aircraft, the procedure will no doubt be rigorous.1.3 Many of the regulations and standards required for full application of standard airworthiness certification to UAS have not yet been developed. For an interim period, as the FAA and others develop and implement a civil UAS regulatory framework, the FAA is allowing individual civil UAS to have limited access to the NAS when they satisfy requirements for a FAR Part 21 Experimental Certificate. With an Experimental Certificate, operational use of the UAS is strictly defined and substantially limited, and the associated airworthiness requirements are less demanding than they would be for full, standard certification, consistent with the operational limits.1.4 This is clearly a time of transition for civil UAS regulation. It is also a time of transition for the communities of users and manufacturers of civil UAS, many of whom have relatively little experience in the regulated civil aviation domains. This document is meant to provide a bridge for these UAS practitioners, as the era of regulated commercial UAS emerges.1.5 ObjectivesThe objectives of this recommended practice document are to:1.5.1 Present, in a single, manageable document, an overview of the aircraft certification procedures that will be adapted to the needs of UAS as the civil UAS regulatory framework takes shape. The procedures will be based largely on the procedures presently applied by the U.S. FAA;1.5.2 Describe the procedures and requirements, based on currently available policy information, that govern the issuing of a FAR Part 21 Experimental Certificate for a UAS; and1.5.3 Describe, in some detail, the processes that are anticipated for achieving Type Certification of a UAS.1.6 OutlineThis document will begin with an overview of the regulatory structure as it currently is applied, followed by a discussion of some specific issues that relate to acquiring approval for operation of a UAS. This discussion includes a general description of Flight Authorities. This is followed by Part I, a review of procedures that presently apply to gaining approval for experimental operation of a UAS; and Part II, the procedures that may be expected to apply to a Type Certificate for a UAS. Flight Authorities obtained by following procedures in Part I may not permit operations for hire and compensation. Part II is provided for applicants who may wish to obtain full certification of their system in anticipation of commercial operations within the airspace under the jurisdiction of the appropriate CAA. Proponents who may wish to pursue full Type Certification should first become familiar with the contents of Part I.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

1.1 This practice is intended to be used to assign part grade across the automotive industry. For this standard the term classification was changed to grade to avoid confusion with existing classifications in the automotive industry.1.2 See Practice F3572 for aviation part classifications and NASA-STD-6030 for spaceflight part classifications.1.3 This practice is applicable to all AM technologies defined in ISO/ASTM 52900 used in automotive.1.4 This practice is intended to be used to establish a metric for AM parts in downstream documents.1.5 This practice is not intended to establish criteria for any downstream processes, but rather to establish a metric that these processes can use.1.6 The part grade metric could be utilized by the engineering, procurement, non-destructive inspection, testing, qualification, or certification processes used for AM automotive parts.1.7 The grading scheme in this practice establishes a consistent methodology to define and communicate the consequence of failure associated with AM automotive parts.1.8 The material or process, or both, in general does not affect the consequence of failure of a part, therefore the grading scheme defined in this document may be used outside AM.1.9 The user of this standard should not assume regulators’ endorsement of this standard as accepted mean of compliance.1.10 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.1.11 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 specification establishes requirements for the design and testing of high voltage detectors, used in the electrical power industry, to determine the presence or absence of nominal operating voltage or the measured voltage.AbstractThis specification covers portable, live-line tool-supported, direct-contact type capacitive voltage detectors to be used on electrical systems both indoors and outdoors for ac voltages. This specification establishes requirements for the design and testing of high voltage detectors, used in the electrical power industry, to determine the presence or absence of nominal operating voltage. The following tests shall be performed: voltage; low temperature impact; drop/impact; humidity; wet test; battery life test; durability of labeling; vibration resistance; continuous operation rating; response time; testing the self-test function; acceptable audible indication; acceptable visual indication; visual inspection; method to measure threshold voltage; interference voltage testing; leakage current testing; dielectric testing for detector housing; and wet testing.1.1 This specification covers portable, live-line tool-supported, direct-contact type capacitive voltage detectors to be used on electrical systems both indoors and outdoors for ac voltages from 600 V to 800 kV with frequency of 50/60 Hz. The function of the voltage detector is limited to the detection of the presence or absence of nominal operating voltage.1.1.1 Two types of voltage detectors are provided and are designated as Type I, audible/visual and Type II, numeric, with or without audible.1.1.2 Two styles of voltage detectors, differing in wet conditions characteristics, are provided and are designated as Style A, indoor use and Style B indoor/outdoor use.1.2 The use and maintenance of these high voltage detectors and any necessary insulated tool handles are beyond the scope of this specification.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.NOTE 1: Except where specified, all voltage defined in this specification refer to phase-to-phase voltage in a three-phase system. Voltage detectors covered by this specification may be used in other than three-phase systems, but the applicable phase-to-phase or phase-to-ground (earth) voltages shall be used to determine the operating voltage.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

5.1 This guide provides test methods for evaluating the performance characteristics of a brush part designed to clean internal channel(s) of a medical device.5.1.1 The force required to move a brush part within a tube, an indicator of the friction a brush exerts on a surface, is a parameter of cleaning effectiveness and should be measured.5.1.2 The removal of soil from a tube by a brush part moved in a tube is a further indicator of the effectiveness of a brush to loosen and remove soil from a tube and should be measured.5.2 By providing objective, repeatable methods for evaluating performance, this guide can improve the ability to assess the effectiveness, under test conditions, of various brush part designs.1.1 Brushes used to clean a medical device after clinical use play an important role in effective reprocessing. This guide describes methods for characterizing, under prescribed laboratory conditions, the efficacy of brush parts designed to clean the internal channels of medical devices. The methods utilize a force tester to mechanically actuate a brush part within a channel: (1) Methods to measure, at an established speed, the force required to move a brush within a channel; (2) Methods utilize the same force tester and protocols to measure soil removal from a soiled tube, another indicator of performance.1.2 Inclusions: 1.2.1 This guide describes objective, quantifiable, and reproducible methods for evaluating the cleaning characteristics of a brush part under prescribed laboratory conditions, with test methods that simulate the cleaning challenge of a defined target area(s) of a medical device. This also makes possible the comparison of one design of a brush part to another.1.2.2 In this guide, a brush part is one that is intended to be moved within a tube.1.2.3 Tubes used for testing described in this guide are cylindrical and uniform in diameter. The test methods describe may not apply to non-cylindrical tubes.1.2.4 By use of this guide, medical device manufacturers can characterize the brush part designed for cleaning their device.1.2.5 By use of this guide, manufacturers of cleaning brushes can evaluate and characterize the cleaning performance of their brushes for the target area(s) of medical device(s), including allowing a comparison with existing brush part designs offered on the market. Further, they are able to evaluate modifications to designs and construction that might improve performance.1.2.6 This information can also be shared with the users of the brushes (medical device reprocessors) to help them evaluate the performance of commercially available brushes.1.3 Exclusions: 1.3.1 This guide does not assess potential damage that may be inflicted by the brush. For instance, brushes with rigid bristles (for example, stainless steel or other metals) or other abrasive materials are more likely to damage medical devices than brushes with flexible bristles (for example, nylon) or more pliable materials. Potential damage from more abrasive materials should be assessed.1.3.2 This guide does not specify acceptance criteria, and the results will be dependent on the specific parameters (for example, test soil, drying time, channel inside diameter and material, and so forth) that are tested.1.3.3 This guide is not intended to constitute all steps required to conduct validation of cleaning instructions for a medical device, including the use of brushes for this purpose, but provides methods that may be part of a broader protocol to conduct a complete cleaning instructions validation.1.3.4 If a brush is intended to clean a specific device(s), cleaning validation shall include testing with that device(s).1.4 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.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： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

5.1 This guide provides two test methods for evaluating the performance characteristics of a brush part designed to clean external surface(s) of a medical device by utilizing force testers.5.1.1 The first test method utilizes a force tester to measure the force required to actuate a brush part across a surface. This is an indicator of the friction a brush exerts on a surface, a parameter of cleaning effectiveness.5.1.2 The second test method measures the removal of soil from a surface by a brush part actuated across the surface. This is a further indicator of the effectiveness of a brush part to loosen and remove soil from a surface.5.2 By providing objective, repeatable methods for evaluating performance under test conditions, this guide can improve the ability to assess the effectiveness of various brush part designs1.1 This guide describes methods for characterizing the efficacy, under prescribed laboratory conditions, of a brush part designed to clean the external surface of a medical device. The method utilizes force testers to mechanically actuate a brush part across a surface at a constant rate and constant pressure. In the first method, the force required to actuate across the surface is measured. In the next method, which utilizes the same force testers and protocol (actuation motion), the brush part is actuated on a soiled surface and the amount of soil removed is measured, as another indicator of performance.1.2 Brushes designed to clean medical devices after clinical use play an important role in the effective reprocessing of those medical devices.1.3 Inclusions: 1.3.1 This guide describes objective, quantifiable, and reproducible methods for evaluating the cleaning characteristics of a brush part, under prescribed laboratory conditions, with a test method that simulates the cleaning challenge of a defined target area(s) of a medical device. This also makes it possible to compare one brush part design to another.1.3.2 By use of this guide, manufacturers of cleaning brushes will be able to evaluate and characterize the cleaning performance of their brushes for the target area(s) of medical device(s) and evaluate modifications to design and construction that might improve performance.1.3.3 By use of this guide, this information can also be shared with the users of the brushes (medical device reprocessors) to help them evaluate the performance of commercially available brushes.1.4 Exclusions: 1.4.1 This guide is not intended to be used for brushes designed to clean medical devices using rotational motion.1.4.2 This guide does not assess potential damage that may be inflicted by the brush, or degradation of the brush that may occur during repeated use. Brushes with rigid bristles (for example, stainless steel or other metals) are predicted to be more likely to damage medical devices than brushes with flexible bristles (for example, nylon); damage from rigid-bristled brushes should be assessed. Assessing repeated use would require a greatly increased number of test repetitions than what is described in this guide.1.4.3 This guide does not specify acceptance criteria, and the results will be dependent on the specific parameters that are tested (for example, test soil, drying time, surface area, and materials, etc.) that are tested.1.4.4 This guide is not intended to constitute all steps required to conduct validation of cleaning instructions for a medical device, including use of brushes for this purpose, but provides methods that may be part of a broader protocol to conduct a complete cleaning instructions validation. Separate medical device cleaning instruction validation studies must be conducted.1.5 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.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： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

This specification covers additive manufacturing of components via full-melt powder bed fusion processing of titanium alloys. Components made using this processing method are commonly used in applications that require mechanical properties similar to wrought products. Products built to this specification may require additional post-processing in the form of machining, polishing, etc., to meet necessary surface finish and dimensional requirements. This specification establishes the requirements for material conditions. ordering information. manufacturing plan. feedstock, processing, chemical and mechanical composition of as-built components, microstructure, thermal post-processing, hot isostatic pressing, retests, certification, product marking and packaging, quality program, and numerical limits.1.1 This specification covers additive manufacturing of components via full-melt powder bed fusion processing of titanium alloys. Components made using this processing method are typically used in applications that require mechanical properties similar to wrought products. Products built to this specification may require additional post-processing in the form of machining, polishing, etc., to meet necessary surface finish and dimensional requirements.1.2 This specification is intended for the use of purchasers or producers, or both, of additively manufactured titanium components for defining the requirements and ensuring component properties.1.3 Users are advised to use this specification as a basis for obtaining components that will meet the minimum acceptance requirements established and revised by consensus of committee members.1.4 User requirements considered more stringent may be met by the addition to the purchase order of one or more supplementary requirements, which include, but are not limited to, those listed in Supplementary Requirements S1-S16.1.5 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. Other units are included only for informational purposes.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 applies to additively manufactured AlSi10Mg parts using powder bed fusion such as laser melting. The parts produced by these processes are commonly used in applications that require mechanical properties similar to or exceeding those of cast aluminum products of equivalent alloys. The requirements established by this specification cover ordering information, manufacturing plan, chemical composition of feedstock (pre-alloyed metal powder such as copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, nickel, silicon, zinc, titanium, lead, tin, and aluminum), processing, post build chemical composition, microstructure, mechanical properties (minimum tensile properties), thermal processing, retests, inspection, certification, product marking and packaging, quality program, and numerical limits.1.1 This specification covers additively manufactured AlSi10Mg (similar to DIN EN 1706:2013-12 EN AC-43000) parts using powder bed fusion such as laser melting. The parts produced by these processes are used typically in applications that require mechanical properties similar to or exceeding those of cast aluminum products of equivalent alloys. Parts manufactured to this specification are often, but not necessarily, post processed via machining, grinding, electrical discharge machining (EDM), polishing, and so forth to achieve desired surface finish and critical dimensions.1.2 This specification is intended for the use of purchasers or producers, or both, of additively manufactured AlSi10Mg parts for defining the requirements and ensuring part properties.1.3 Users are advised to use this specification as a basis for obtaining parts that will meet the minimum acceptance requirements established and revised by consensus of the members of the committee.1.4 User requirements considered more stringent may be met by the addition to the purchase order of one or more supplementary requirements, which may include, but are not limited to, those listed in Supplementary Requirements S1–S16.1.5 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. Other units are included only for informational purposes.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