1.1 This specification is applicable to those sealed insulating glass units, with one or two airspaces, which are preassembled and sealed with organic sealant(s). 1.2 This specification is primarily intended to evaluate the test specimens by accelerating the water vapor transmission through the sealing systems into the desiccated air space(s). The classification of test specimens is based on the water vapor content remaining in the air space(s) after test. 1.3 Qualification under this specification is intended to provide a basis for judgment of acceptability of sealed insulating glass units. 1.4 The correlation between actual performance of the in-service units and the response to these tests has not been established because of insufficient data. Such correlation will be established as laboratory and field data are collected and analyzed. 1.5 This specification is not applicable to units that are constructed from vision materials other than glass. 1.6 This specification does not cover other physical requirements such as appearance, thermophysical properties, heat and light transmission, and glass displacement. Note 1-Sealed insulating glass units classified according to this specification are not necessarily suitable for structurally glazed applications. Factors such as sealant longevity to long term direct ultraviolet light exposure and sealant tensile strength must be reviewed for these applications.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

5.1 These test methods establish standard procedures designed for evaluating the performance wind safety and durability characteristics of MUs.5.2 These test methods are suitable for both end users and manufacturers to evaluate performance characteristics of MUs and base mounting components.5.2.1 End users may use these test methods to determine how well MUs and base components meet their particular application and conditions of use.5.2.2 Manufacturers of MUs and base mounting components may use these test methods to determine the wind performance characteristics in existing or proposed designs.5.3 Procedure A is an evaluation of MU structural integrity (pole, frame, canopy, and base components) by subjecting the MU to a uniform wind generated by a wind tunnel. Procedure B is an evaluation of MU and base component durability by subjecting the MU to a uniform wind generated by a wind tunnel for a fixed period of time. Each procedure is used to rate MU and base stanchion performance using the Beaufort Scale for users to be able to correlate the wind speed safety and durability determined in the testing to visual and subjective observation of the area of uses of the MU.5.4 Results from use of these test methods on one type of MU and base components are not comparable to other test results on a different MU due to differences in MU materials and designs used for poles, frames, canopies, vents, and hubs as well as base weights, shapes, and holding mechanisms.5.5 These test methods are not intended to assess cleaning or other weather stress resulting from wear and tear in an actual use environment.5.6 End users and manufacturers of MU and base components should consider these test methods to be minimum procedures for evaluating MU and base component wind safety and durability characteristics as a wind tunnel procedure is considered to produce the most accurate wind pressures of any method according to ASCE/SEI 7-10 Wind Tunnel Procedure. Users of these test methods may wish to consider additional tests and procedures that relate directly to their application such as finite element analysis software.5.7 Each buyer of a MU should establish its own criteria for assessing acceptable safety and durability performance.1.1 These test methods are intended for evaluating market umbrellas (MUs) to determine the suitability of the MU in a use environment on the basis of wind safety and durability.1.1.1 Procedure A is a safety scenario intended to test the structural strength of the MU to a uniform wind force generated by a wind tunnel.1.1.2 Procedure B is a wind durability scenario intended to determine the ability of the MU to perform in a high wind weather environment for a sustained period.1.1.3 The performance of the MU is then rated using the Beaufort Scale, as shown in Annex A1, to communicate the safety and durability performance of the MU.1.2 These test methods apply to most MUs designed for use in-home setting, such as pool or patio areas; recreation areas, such as the beach, pool, or tennis courts; and business settings, such as theme parks, water parks, resort pools, hotels, restaurants, cafés, and other business settings.1.3 The values as stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as the standard. The values in parentheses are given for information only.1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 Rock for erosion control consists of individual pieces of natural stone. The ability of these individual pieces of stone to resist deterioration due to weathering action affects the stability of the integral placement of rock for erosion control and hence, the stability of construction projects, structures, shorelines, and stream banks.5.2 The sodium sulfate or magnesium sulfate soundness test is one method by which to estimate qualitatively the durability of rock under weathering conditions. This test method was developed to be used in conjunction with additional test methods listed in Practice D4992. This test method does not provide an absolute value, but rather an indication of the resistance to freezing and thawing; therefore, the results of this test method are not to be used as the sole basis for the determination of rock durability.5.3 This test method has been used to evaluate many different types of rocks. There have been occasions when test results have provided data that have not agreed with the durability of rock under actual field conditions; samples yielding a low soundness loss have disintegrated in actual usage, and the reverse has been true.NOTE 1: The quality of results produced by this standard is dependent on the competence of the personnel performing it and suitability of the equipment and facilities used. Agencies that meet the criteria of Practice D3740 are generally considered capable of competent and objective testing/sampling/inspection/etc. Users of this standard are cautioned that compliance with Practice D3740 does not in itself assure reliable results. Reliable results depend on many factors and Practice D3740 provides a means of evaluating some of them.1.1 This test method covers test procedures for evaluating the soundness of rock for erosion control by the effects of a sodium or magnesium sulfate solution on slabs of rock. It is an accelerated weathering test. The rock slabs, prepared in accordance with procedures in Practice D5121, are intended to be representative of erosion control sized materials and their inherent weaknesses. The test is appropriate for breakwater stone, armor stone, riprap and gabion sized rock materials.1.1.1 The limitations of this test are twofold. First the test is a simulation of freezing and thawing conditions using accelerated life cycling techniques. The test evaluates the internal expansive force derived from the rehydration of the salt upon re-immersion, an event that may not occur in some natural environments, to simulate the expansion of water rather than the actual freezing of water. Secondly, the size of the cut rock slab specimens may eliminate some of the internal defects present in the rock structure. The test specimens may not be representative of the quality of the larger rock samples used in construction. Careful examination of the rock source and proper sampling are essential in minimizing this limitation.1.2 The use of reclaimed concrete and other materials for erosion control is beyond the scope of this test method.1.3 Units—The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in nonconformance with the standard. Reporting of test results in units other than SI shall not be regarded as nonconformance with this standard.1.3.1 The gravitational system of inch-pound units is used when dealing with inch-pound units. In this system, the pound (lbf) represents a unit of force (weight), while the unit for mass is slugs. The slug unit is not given unless dynamic (F=ma) calculations are involved.1.3.2 It is common practice in the engineering/construction profession to concurrently use pounds to represent both a unit of mass (lbm) and of force (lbf). This practice implicitly combines two separate systems of units; the absolute and the gravitational systems. It is scientifically undesirable to combine the use of two separate sets of inch-pound units within a single standard. As stated, this standard includes the gravitational system of inch-pound units and does not use/present the slug unit for mass. However, the use of balances or scales recording pounds of mass (lbm) or recording density in lbm/ft3 shall not be regarded as nonconformance with this standard.1.3.3 Calculations are done using only one set of units; either SI or gravitational inch-pound. Other units are permissible, provided appropriate conversion factors are used to maintain consistency of units throughout the calculations, and similar significant digits or resolution, or both are maintained.1.4 All observed and calculated values shall conform to the guidelines for significant digits and rounding established in Practice D6026, unless superseded by this standard.1.4.1 For purposes of comparing measured or calculated value(s) with specified limits, the measured or calculated value(s) shall be rounded to the nearest decimal or significant digits in the specified limits.1.4.2 The procedures used to specify how data are collected/recorded or calculated, in this standard are regarded as the industry standard. In addition, they are representative of the significant digits that generally should be retained. The procedures used do not consider material variation, purpose for obtaining the data, special purpose studies, or any considerations for the user’s objectives; and it is common practice to increase or reduce significant digits of reported data to be commensurate with these considerations. It is beyond the scope of this standard to consider significant digits used in analytical methods for engineering design.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： 702元 / 折扣价： 597 元 加购物车

4.1 The combination of stress and moisture decreases the durability of most adhesive joints. Stresses in the presence of water or water vapor may cause some adhesive joints to fail at some small fraction of the stress required to break the dry joint. The time to failure for a given adhesive joint generally decreases with increasing stress, temperature, and relative humidity.4.2 This test method may be used as an accelerated screening test for assessing the durability of adhesive joints. It may be used to measure durability of adhesive joints exposed outdoors or to environmental conditions experienced by adhesive joints in service. It may also be used to determine the effects of various surface preparations or substrates on durabilities of adhesive joints.4.3 The durability performance of various adhesives may be compared by using this test method under uniform sets of conditions. To assess the overall durability of a given adhesive, T-peel joints should be tested under a range of stress, relative humidity, and temperature. For a specific end use it may be possible to obtain the needed durability data using only one set of test conditions.1.1 This test method provides data for assessing the durabilities of adhesive joints by means of T-peel type specimens stressed in contact with air, air in equilibrium with certain solutions, water, aqueous solutions, or other environments at various temperatures.1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

4.1 The combination of stress and moisture decreases the durability of most adhesive joints. Stresses in the presence of water or water vapor may cause some adhesive joints to fail at some small fraction of the stress required to break the dry joint. The time to failure for a given adhesive joint generally decreases with increasing stress, temperature, and relative humidity.4.2 This test method may be used as an accelerated screening test for assessing the durability of adhesive joints. It may be used to measure durability of adhesive joints exposed outdoors or to environmental conditions experienced by adhesive joints in service. The tests may also be used to determine the effects of various surface preparations or substrates on durabilities of adhesive joints.4.3 The durability performance of various adhesives may be compared by using this test method under uniform sets of conditions. To assess the overall durability of a given adhesive, lap-shear joints should be tested under a range of stress, relative humidity, and temperature. For a specific end use it may be possible to obtain the needed durability data using only one set of test conditions.1.1 This test method covers data for assessing the durability of adhesive lap-shear joints while stressed in contact with air, air in equilibrium with certain solutions, water, aqueous solutions, or other environments at various temperatures.1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Specific precautionary statements are given in 7.4.1.3 The values stated in SI units are considered to be the standard. The values in parentheses are for information only.1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

5.1 Residential duct systems are often field designed and assembled. There are many joints, often of dissimilar materials that require both mechanical connection and air sealing. Without this sealing, duct systems would be extremely leaky and hence inefficient. While some duct sealants are rated on their properties at the time of manufacture or during storage, none of these ratings adequately addresses the in-service lifetime. This test method has been developed to address this durability issue.5.2 This standard applies to products which list duct sealing as one of their uses. This includes duct tape (cloth, metal foil, or plastic backed), mastics, and sprayed/aerosol sealants. It does not apply to caulks or plaster patches that are not intended to be permanent duct sealing methods.5.3 The standard duct leak site is a collar to plenum connection for round duct that is 10 cm to 20 cm [4 in. to 8 in.] in diameter. This perpendicular connection was chosen because almost all residential duct systems have this type of connection and in field observations of duct systems, it is often this type of connection that has sealant failure.1.1 This test method describes an accelerated aging test for evaluating the durability of duct sealants by exposure to temperatures and static pressures characteristic of residential duct systems.1.2 This test method is intended to produce a relative measure of the durability of duct sealants. This standard does not measure durability under specific conditions of weather and building operation that might be experienced by an individual building and duct system. Instead it evaluates the sealant method under fixed conditions that do not include the manifold effects of installation practice.1.3 This test method only addresses sealants not mechanical strength of the connections.1.4 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system are not necessarily exact equivalents; therefore, to ensure conformance with the standard, each system shall be used independently of the other, and values from the two systems shall not be combined.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. For specific hazard statements see Section 7.1.6 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

5.1 It is important to consider the durability of stent designs in deformation modes that are intended to model in vivo conditions. The appropriate amplitude and number of cycles in each of the modes have to be determined independently for the particular clinical use proposed for the stent. These tests do not replicate all varieties and aspects of the deployment process nor the in vivo mechanical environment in its entirety, and as such they cannot be proofs of durability. Instead, the tests provide evidence of durability. The durability tests can also provide a means of assessing design, material or processing changes.5.1.1 This guide might be useful for development testing, specification acceptance testing, and regulatory submission testing and filings as it provides a basic assurance that the tests are designed, executed, and reported in a suitable fashion.5.1.2 If the tests are conducted using a well defined FTF methodology, they can be useful in:5.1.2.1 Potential design improvement through identification of better and worse geometries, materials, and manufacturing processes;5.1.2.2 Understanding product durability by estimating the effects of changes in geometry, materials, or manufacturing processes;5.1.2.3 Estimating the safety factor relative to the amplitudes and other factors in use conditions; and5.1.2.4 Validating finite element analysis (FEA) and fatigue life models.5.1.3 As stated in the scope, this guide is not intended to provide the in vivo physiologic deformation conditions to which a vascular stent can be subjected. Reliable clinical data characterizing cyclic vascular deformation may be lacking for some indications. The user should develop and justify the boundary conditions (e.g., by literature review, in vivo studies, cadaver studies, or modeling of stent vessel interaction) for the chosen durability bench tests. Additional conditions that may be considered include vessel calcification, vessel taper, eccentric lesions, deformation excursions (e.g., exercise), and vessel remodeling.5.1.4 Test methods other than those provided in the annexes of this document might be appropriate, depending upon stent design. However, these methods are beyond the scope of this guide.1.1 This guide includes three separate cyclic deformation durability guides related to vascular stents: bending, axial, and torsional.1.2 This guide does not address flat plate, local crush durability, or multi-mode testing. Although this guide does not address multi-mode testing, the information included herein could be applicable to developing this type of test.1.3 This guide applies to balloon-expandable and self-expanding stents fabricated from metals and metal alloys. It does not specifically address any attributes unique to coated stents (i.e., stents with a surface layer of an additional material(s)), monolithically polymeric stents, or absorbable stents, although the application of this standard to those products is not precluded.1.4 This guide applies to endovascular grafts (“stent-grafts”) and other conduit products commonly used to treat aneurismal disease, peripheral vessel trauma, or to provide vascular access. The information provided herein does not address all issues related to testing of these devices.1.5 This guide is applicable to testing of stent(s) (or a representative portion of a stent). While durability testing of coupon samples (e.g., a scaled-up portion of the stent structure) can provide useful information, it is not within the scope of this guide.1.6 This guide applies to in vitro modeling of stent durability from non-radial arterial motions. Such motions may arise from musculoskeletal activities, including walking and breathing, and cardiac motion. Test Methods F2477 addresses pulsatile (i.e., radial) durability of vascular stents.1.7 This guide does not provide the in vivo physiologic deformation conditions for a vascular stent. It is incumbent upon the user of the standard to develop and justify these boundary conditions (e.g., by literature review, in vivo studies, cadaver studies, or modeling of stent vessel interaction) in these durability bench tests. Additional conditions that may be considered include vessel calcification, vessel taper, eccentric lesions, loading excursions (e.g., exercise), and vessel remodeling.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.1.9 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

This guide provides a recommended systematic sequence for using the referenced test methods for evaluating the durability of EC insulating glass units (IGUs) as described in section 1.2. , (See Appendix X1, Section X1.4.)This guide provides a summary of the durability issues addressed by each of the series of standards that are necessary for assesing the durability of electrochromic coatings (ECCs) in insulating glass units (IGUs). When fully implemented in buildings in the U.S., ECCs in IGUs have the potential of significantly reducing our current energy consumption for all uses-not just buildings. IGUs with ECCs will, of necessity, have to be able to pass the applicable standards listed in Appendix X1, Section X1.4, as well as an ASTM standard on wind loading for IGUs. Passing these will not be sufficient because the operating temperatures of ECCs in IGUs can potentially be as high as 90°C at the center-of glass, whereas the highest temperature used in Test Method E2188 is 60°C . Listings of existing and proposed standards are given in Table 1 and in Appendix X1, Section X1.4.1.1 This guide provides the recommended sequence for using the referenced ASTM test methods for assessing the durability of absorptive electrochromic coatings (ECCs) within sealed insulating glass units. Cross sections of typical electrochromic glazings have three to five-layers of coatings that include one to three active layers sandwiched between two transparent conducting electrodes (TCOs, see Section 3). Examples of the cross-sectional arrangements can be found in “Evaluation Criteria and Test Methods for Electrochromic Windows.” (For a list of acronyms used in this standard, see Appendix X1, Section X1.1).1.2 This guide is applicable only for layered (one or more active coatings between the TCOs) absorptive ECCs on vision glass (superstrate and substrate) areas planned for use in IGUs for buildings, such as glass doors, windows, skylights, and exterior wall systems. The layers used for electrochromically changing the optical properties may be inorganic or organic materials between the superstrate and substrate.1.3 The ECCs used in this guide will ultimately be exposed (Test Method E2141) to solar radiation and deployed to control the amount of radiation by absorption and reflection and thus, limit the solar heat gain and amount of solar radiation that is transmitted into the building.1.4 This guide is not applicable to other types of coatings on vision glass with other chromogenic coatings, for example, photochromic and thermochromic coatings.1.5 This guide is not applicable to IGUs that will be constructed from superstrate or substrate materials other than glass.1.6 The test methods referenced in this guide are laboratory test methods conducted under specified conditions.1.7 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.8 There is no comparable International Standards Organization Standard.1.9 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 requirements prior to use.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

5.1 Once implanted, active fixation systems are subjected to cyclic loading that can be caused by blood flow, musculoskeletal motion, and other sources. The focus of this document is on axial loading caused by hemodynamics. However, depending on the device design other loading modes could influence AFC or attachment mechanism durability (e.g., radial dilatation could lead to longitudinal foreshortening and axial loading on an active fixation system). Damage to AFCs and/or attachment mechanisms may not necessarily lead to device malfunction, but could cause embolization of portions of the device, device migration, endoleaks, or other patient complications (1-4).4 Therefore, durability testing of AFCs and attachment mechanisms is important to ensure that these components are capable of maintaining structural integrity for a defined lifetime.5.1.1 A test method developed following this standard guide can be used to determine the durability of AFCs and/or attachment mechanisms under the desired loading which can be used to assess conformance to product specifications, consensus standards, and guidance documents as well as to support regulatory submissions, quality control, and manufacturing.5.2 This guide provides examples and recommendations so that users can develop an appropriate active fixation durability test for their device design that mechanically challenges either the AFC, the attachment mechanism, or both simultaneously. It should be recognized that both AFCs and attachment mechanisms need to be evaluated to fully characterize active fixation system durability for design verification testing. While testing of the entire active fixation system may typically be preferable, this guide recognizes that there might be situations where this is not practical or desired and allows for independent testing of AFCs and attachment mechanisms. This guide does not contain an exhaustive list of test methods for active fixation durability and methods not included herein may be acceptable for evaluating active fixation durability. Furthermore, this guide does not include information on how to handle all patient complexities such as calcium deposits or weakened aortic tissue. For assistance regarding super-physiological testing, the user is referred to ASTM F3211.5.2.1 The success of an active fixation durability test method depends on the ability of the test apparatus to consistently induce the desired loading (force and/or displacement) to the test specimen at the applied test frequency for the entire duration of the test.5.3 For most devices, active fixation durability testing will need to be complemented by other types of durability testing such as pulsatile, axial, bending, or torsional. ASTM F2477 addresses pulsatile durability testing, ASTM F2942 addresses axial, bending, and torsional durability testing, and ISO 25539-1, in part, addresses general in vitro testing and durability testing of endovascular prostheses.1.1 This guide addresses how to conduct in vitro durability testing on active fixation components (AFCs) and attachment mechanisms of endovascular prostheses. It does not address the durability of fixation systems that reside solely within the vessel lumen to resist device migration (e.g, radial force and friction, adhesives, or geometric fit).1.2 This guide was developed to address active fixation durability for aortic stent grafts. It is not intended to address fixation durability for other endovascular prostheses such as inferior vena cava filters, transcatheter heart valves, barbed venous stents, ancillary fixation devices (e.g, staples or adhesives), or cardiac devices (e.g., left atrial appendage device or mitral repair device). However, some of the techniques and guidance within may be applicable to the in vitro testing of those other devices.1.3 This guide does not directly apply to implants with absorbable AFCs although many aspects of this standard are applicable to those products.1.4 This guide does not provide the in vivo physiologic loading conditions for endovascular prostheses. It is the responsibility of the user to determine the loading or deformation conditions for their particular device and indication. Typically, an axial loading (force or displacement) mode caused by hemodynamics is used, although other modes are possible and should be considered.1.5 This guide does not recommend any specific test method or apparatus for evaluating active fixation durability. It is recognized that there are multiple valid ways to conduct active fixation durability testing and as such this guide provides general recommendations and topics to consider so that users can successfully develop a test plan for their device.1.6 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 Test Method D2051 is useful for testing to determine the effect of repeated laundering on the appearance of the decorative coating of a zipper.5.2 This test method is considered satisfactory for acceptance testing of commercial shipments because the method has been used extensively in the trade for acceptance testing.5.2.1 If there are differences of practical significance between reported test results for two laboratories (or more), comparative test should be performed to determine if there is a statistical bias between them, using competent statistical assistance. As a minimum, the test samples should be used that are as homogeneous as possible, that are drawn from the material from which the disparate test results were obtained, and that are randomly assigned in equal numbers to each laboratory for testing. Other materials with established test values may be used for this purpose. The test results from the two laboratories should be compared using a statistical test for unpaired data, at a probability level chosen prior to the testing series. If a bias is found, either its cause must be found and corrected, or future test results must be adjusted in consideration of the known bias.5.3 The test method(s) in the standard along with those in Test Methods D2052, D2053, D2054, D2057, D2058, D2059, D2060, D2061, and D2062 are a collection of proven test methods. They can be used as aids in the evaluation of zippers without the need for a thorough knowledge of zippers. The enumerated test methods do not provide for the evaluation of all zipper properties. Besides those properties measured by means of the enumerated test methods there are other properties that may be important for the satisfactory performance of a zipper. Test methods for measuring those properties have not been published either because no practical methods have yet been developed or because a valid evaluation of the information resulting from existing unpublished methods requires an intimate and thorough knowledge of zippers.1.1 This test method covers the determination of the durability of the enamel or other decorative coating of a zipper when subjected to laundering.1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses after SI units are provided for information only and are not considered standard.1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

5.1 Test Method D2058 is useful for determining the effect of repeated drycleaning on the appearance of the decorative coating of a zipper.5.2 This test method is considered satisfactory for acceptance testing of commercial shipments because the method has been used extensively in the trade for acceptance testing.5.2.1 If there are differences of practical significance between reported test results for two laboratories (or more), comparative tests should be performed to determine if there is a statistical bias between them, using competent statistical assistance. As a minimum, the test samples should be used that are as homogeneous as possible, that are drawn from the material from which the disparate test results were obtained, and that are randomly assigned in equal numbers to each laboratory for testing. Other materials with established test values may be used for this purpose. The test results from the two laboratories should be compared using a statistical test unpaired data, at a probability level chosen prior to the testing series. If a bias is found, either its cause must be found and corrected, or future test results must be adjusted in consideration of the known bias.5.3 The method(s) in the standard along with those in Test Methods D2051, D2052, D2053, D2054, D2057, D2059, D2060, D2061, and D2062 are a collection of proven test methods. They can be used as aids in the evaluation of zippers without the need for a thorough knowledge of zippers. The enumerated test methods do not provide for the evaluation of all zipper properties. Besides those properties measured by means of the enumerated test methods there are other properties that may be important for the satisfactory performance of a zipper. Test methods for measuring those properties have not been published either because no practical methods have yet been developed or because a valid evaluation of the information resulting from existing unpublished methods requires an intimate and thorough knowledge of zippers.1.1 This test method covers the determination of the durability of the enamel or other decorative coating of zippers when subjected to drycleaning.1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

5.1 The test method is used to estimate qualitatively the durability of weak rocks through weakening and disintegration resulting from a standard two cycles of wetting and drying in the service environment. (1-7).35.2 This test method is used to assign quantitative durability index values to weak rocks. A primary example is the Franklin Rating System (1).NOTE 1: The quality of the result produced by this standard is dependent on the competence of the personnel performing it, and the suitability of the equipment and facilities used. Agencies that meet the criteria of Practice D3740 are generally considered capable of competent and objective testing, sampling, inspection, and so forth. Users of this standard are cautioned that compliance with Practice D3740 does not in itself assure reliable results. Reliable results depend on many factors; Practice D3740 provides a means of evaluating some of those factors.1.1 This test method covers the determination of the slake durability index of a shale or other weak rock after three drying and two wetting cycles with abrasion effects.1.2 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to inch-pound units, which are provided for information only and are not considered standard. Reporting of test results in units other than SI shall not be regarded as nonconformance with this test method.1.3 All observed and calculated values shall conform to the guidelines for significant digits and rounding established in Practice D6026.1.3.1 The procedures used to specify how data are collected/recorded or calculated in this standard are regarded as the industry standard. In addition, they are representative of the significant digits that generally should be retained. The procedures used do not consider material variation, purpose for obtaining the data, special purpose studies, or any considerations for the user’s objectives; and it is common practice to increase or reduce significant digits of reported data to be commensurate with these considerations. It is beyond the scope of this standard to consider significant digits used in analysis methods for engineering design.1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

定价： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

1.1 This test method provides for the determination of the relative durability and compatibility of factory-primed wood and wood-based substrates with representative finish coats when exposed to the weather. 1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only. 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 and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

4.1 Demonstration plans developed in accordance with this practice will include all necessary content and key considerations to support an effective flight demonstration program aimed at approval or certification of UAS by the FAA through D&R demonstration.4.2 This practice does not address planning requirements for UAS development testing. It is assumed that a manufacturer has completed all UAS design and development and is preparing demonstration programs to support compliance demonstration on a stable and controlled system configuration. Manufacturers who wish to prepare a detailed design and development program should review Specification F3298 for programmatic examples.4.3 This practice is intended to be used on low-risk UAS that meet the following design criteria and operating limitations.4.3.1 The UAS has a command and control link that enables the pilot-in-command to take contingency action.4.3.2 The unmanned aircraft (UA) has a kinetic energy of ≤25 000 ft-lb calculated in accordance with methods specified within the MOC.4.3.3 The UA is operated ≤400 ft above ground level (AGL).4.3.4 No operations over open-air assemblies (operations over people are acceptable).4.3.5 No flight into known icing.4.3.6 Maximum of 20:1 aircraft to pilot ratio.4.3.7 The UA is electrically powered (excludes internal combustion engines and fuel cells).1.1 This standard practice is intended for low-risk UAS seeking type certification by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under 14 CFR Part 21.17(b) in accordance with the FAA durability and reliability (D&R) means of compliance (MOC). The definition of “low-risk UAS” does not necessarily align with other definitions found within corresponding ASTM standards (F3442/F3442M) or other UAS-related standards. For the purposes of this practice, “low-risk” is defined as a UAS operated in accordance with the concept of operations (CONOPs), eligibility criteria, and kinetic energy threshold specified in the G-1 Issue Paper (which will be provided to the applicant by the FAA). See 4.3 for design criteria and operating limitations for low-risk UAS.1.2 This standard practice establishes a common methodology and key considerations for the development of minimum flight plans for low-risk UAS that demonstrate aircraft reliability as part of a D&R MOC.1.3 The scope of this standard practice encompasses D&R planning, data collection, and reporting.1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. This is not intended to limit the systems of units used for design, development testing, or demonstration testing. However, the units of measurement used on pilot-facing placards and markings and manuals must be the same as those used on the corresponding equipment with recognition that international aviation utilizes feet for altitude and knots for airspeed as operational parameters.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： 843元 / 折扣价： 717 元 加购物车

5.1 The durability of antimicrobial agents applied to textiles is an important attribute for many of the available technologies on the market. Antimicrobial agents that claim durability are typically fixed ionically, covalently or physically, or both, to a textile surface and are expected to retain their antimicrobial functionality after 5, 25 or 50 washes.5.2 Textile wash standards do exist that measure features as diverse as colorfastness or softener retention, pilling, or even the appearance of the decorative coatings of a zipper; however, no wash method exists that is specific for measuring the durability of an antimicrobial agent applied directly into or onto a textile surface.5.3 Current wash standards have been written to either closely simulate (AATCC TM135) or accelerate (AATCC TM61) the laundering conditions that would be experienced during normal home laundering. While shown to be effective when testing physical properties of textiles, these methods introduce variables to the washing protocol that can directly affect the final antimicrobial properties of a fabric. For example, many wash protocols add bleach or softeners which can build up over time and may introduce false positive results in industry standard microbiological tests. Conversely, powdered detergents if not completely rinsed after each wash can leave residual surfactants that can build up over time but are generally removed during wear. These residual detergents can potentially coat an antimicrobial surface and provide false negative results.5.4 Very specific parameters are identified within this practice to closely replicate home launderings as identified and studied in previous wash protocols (AATCC TM61) and accepted within the textile industry. This practice uses detergents and washing conditions which limit potential cross contamination of samples during washing and unrealistic deposition of residual detergents on the test fabric. These conditions increase the reproducibility and reliability of subsequent microbiological test methods.5.5 This practice allows for the simple washing of textile fabrics for the subsequent antimicrobial testing. Any industry accepted antimicrobial test standard could be used following this washing protocol.5.6 This practice is appropriate for porous materials such as textiles or any porous, soft substrate that is intended to withstand multiple home washes. This practice is intended to measure the durable antibacterial properties of such materials. In most instances, further studies will be required to support and substantiate actual claims being made for the performance of treated materials in practice or as part of a regulatory process.5.7 This standard practice has been shown to be effective at measuring the durability of polymer based antimicrobial agents to home laundering conditions. Particle based or other antimicrobial agents may require modifications of the current methodology to simulate laundering conditions in practice. The exact correlation between expressed laundry care instructions on the antimicrobial treated article and the exposure conditions identified in the standard practice must be determined separately for every antimicrobial active.1.1 To determine the durability of standard antibacterial treatments on textile products such as apparel, piece goods, household articles, hereinafter referred to as “textile” or “textile products” to multiple home launderings.1.2 This practice subjects textile products treated with antimicrobial agents to multiple simulated and accelerated home launderings under defined parameters such that reproducible and reliable antimicrobial analysis can be performed using standard industry accepted protocols.1.3 For some antimicrobial agents, the durability of antibacterial properties resulting from exposure to detergent solution and abrasive action of multiple home launderings has been shown to be approximated by one 45-minute laundering cycle. The exact correlation between expressed laundry care instructions and exposure conditions identified in the practice should be determined separately for every antimicrobial agent.1.4 The subsequent microbiological methods shall be performed by individuals experienced and adept in microbiological procedures and in facilities suitable for the handling of the microorganisms under test.1.5 This standard may involve hazardous materials, operation, 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, 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： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车