5.1 This test method measures the net change in pressure resulting from consumption of oxygen by oxidation and gain in pressure due to formation of volatile oxidation by-products. This test method may be used for quality control to indicate batch-to-batch uniformity. It predicts neither the stability of greases stored in containers for long periods, nor the stability of films of greases on bearings and motor parts.5.2 Induction period as determined under the conditions of this test method can be used as an indication of oxidation stability. This test method can be used for research and development, quality control, and specification purposes. However, no correlation has been determined between the results of this test method and service performance.1.1 This test method covers the quantitative determination of the oxidation stability of lubricating greases with a dropping point above the test temperature.1.2 This test method determines the resistance of lubricating greases to oxidation when stored statically in an oxygen atmosphere in a sealed system at an elevated temperature under conditions of test.1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

4.1 Using best practices for SGPE ensures that decisions made will be based on scientific principles, and the outputs obtained will be more objective than those evaluation sessions conducted without this planning, structure, focus, and best practices. These small group evaluations contrast with more formal product tests that include a prequalified participant sample, hypothesis testing, and statistical analysis. Without best sensory practices and procedures, SGPE may be unstructured, unsystematic, difficult to manage, and may lead to outputs that are unclear, not credible, or ignored. Additionally, the use of proper sensory practices reduces bias among participants with specific sample knowledge or a desire to advance an agenda. This guide provides a framework for conceptualizing, organizing, and executing these SGPE.4.2 SGPE are used in situations in which formal, hypothesis-driven product evaluations are not required. These include situations in which the decision risk is small or stakeholders feel comfortable in making a decision with the attendant risks, or both. Examples of these situations may include limited availability of samples or other resources, potential patent exposure, or low incidence of target population. The SGPE could be an initial screening step or a precursor test before a more formal product test. In the proper context, SGPE can also be a decision-making tool in and of itself. Using the framework presented here provides a degree of rigor that may be absent when a few people evaluate a product without controlled conditions. A poster presented at the 2009 Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium (1)3 reported the results of a survey on SGPE. 59 % of respondents (N = 92) stated that, at their place of employment, typically, non-sensory professionals organized SGPE. Table 1 summarizes key differences between a typical unstructured product evaluation with a small group not following best practices and an SGPE that follows the best practices outlined in this guide.1.1 This guide covers those occasions in which a small group of individuals (generally between three and ten) with potentially different functional roles and degrees of training in sensory and product evaluation, evaluates a product or series of products for a specific objective, with a pre-identified decision to be made, but without the use of formal hypothesis testing or statistics. In the product testing industry, these are often referred to as “benchings,” “cuttings,” or “bench screenings” or, in the case of food products, “tastings,” “informal tastings,” “team tastings,” or “technical tastings.” In this guide, the term “Small Group Product Evaluation” (SGPE) is used.1.2 The aim of this guide is to provide best practices to ensure that SGPE are conducted with sufficient rigor to enable the most appropriate decision or to yield the needed learning while considering the risk. Because the participants may be heterogeneous with respect to functional role, knowledge of the issue at hand, sensory sensitivity, and degree of sensory or product evaluation training, the likelihood of agreement on a path forward is not assured. Additionally, participants may have certain biases with respect to the issue to be decided, because of prior knowledge or their role within the organization. These potential derailers can be addressed through proper planning and execution of an SGPE. When SGPE are unstructured, unfocused and experimental error and biases uncontrolled, the outputs of SGPEs do not inform decisions or deliver the desired learning in a scientific manner. The goal of this document is to elevate the practice of small group product evaluations by outlining a structure, defining decision criteria in advance, and providing guidelines for implementation, drawing upon existing sensory theory and methods. Outputs from these SGPE are used to inform decisions and determine next steps including the risks involved with each of these.SGPE are widely used, and when properly conducted, are an option in the sensory professional’s toolbox. SGPE should be conducted only when the risks are known, stated, and shared. Limited timing and resources alone are not adequate reasons to utilize SPGE testing and forgo formal sensory testing. Risks in doing so must be clearly communicated and agreed to by all involved parties.The proper uses of SGPE are several: to screen variables, to establish hypotheses, to gain information about a product set or category, to take a course of action where a low risk product decision is needed or for product learning throughout a development program. In all of these cases, the team must accept the risks that come with having SGPE outputs to inform a decision. One risk involved in SGPE is missing small differences among products (beta risk), when the goal of the evaluation is to find such differences, particularly those differences that might be important to the consumer. An SGPE failure to find differences does not mean that product similarity or equivalence is established, since much larger sample sizes than are common to SPGE’s are required to establish similarity/equivalence.1.3 This guide covers the planning and implementation processes, including objective setting, method determination, number and types of participants, ballots, sample preparation, decision criteria, products to be included, review of information collected, and management of the post-product evaluation discussion to arrive at a decision within the small group. Documenting and communicating SGPE outputs are also covered, as well as next steps if a decision cannot be reached. Worked examples across industries including food, household, and personal care are included. The different types of SGPE covered include those commonly executed but is not exhaustive.1.4 This guide does not cover the use of small group evaluations to pilot research or test protocols before implementation in larger scale testing. In addition, the use of small group evaluations to substitute for larger evaluations that incorporate formal hypothesis testing and statistical analysis or to replace hedonic testing are neither recommended nor included within this guide. SGPE that are regular activities of a quality function and product reviews that are done for demonstration or informative purposes with no defined decision criteria are also not covered in this guide.1.5 See 5.2 for a best practice recommendation for the role of the sensory professional or trained delegate in the planning, designing, conducting, or oversight of structured SGPE.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

5.1 This practice is for use by designers and specifiers, regulatory agencies, owners, and inspection organizations who are involved in the installation of a sewer service cleanout.1.1 This practice covers (i) installation methods, test methods, and required materials for the installation of a sewer service clean out, by means of a small vacuum excavated borehole, and (ii) same-day site restoration. The utilization of this practice greatly reduces disruption and greatly improves safety for to residents, business owners, and the public.1.2 Units—The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this 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

Miniature specimen testing techniques are used to characterize the mechanical behavior of UHMWPE stock materials and surgical implants after manufacture, sterilization, shelf aging, radiation crosslinking, thermal treatment, and implantation (1). Furthermore, experimental UHMWPE materials can be evaluated after accelerated aging and hip or knee wear simulation. Consequently, the small punch test makes it possible to examine relationships between wear performance and mechanical behavior of UHMWPE. This test method can also be used to rank the mechanical behavior of UHMWPE relative to a reference control material (such as the NIST Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene Reference Material #8456).Small punch testing results may vary with specimen preparation and with the speed and environment of testing. Consequently, where precise comparative results are desired, these factors must be carefully controlled.1.1 This test method covers the determination of mechanical behavior of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) by small punch testing of miniature disk specimens (0.5 mm in thickness and 6.4 mm in diameter). The test method has been established for characterizing UHMWPE surgical materials after ram extrusion or compression molding (1,2) ; for evaluating as-manufactured implants after radiation crosslinking and sterilization (3,4); as well as for testing of implants that have been retrieved (explanted) from the human body (5,6).1.2 The parameters of the small punch test, namely the peak load, ultimate displacement, ultimate load, and work to failure, provide metrics of the yielding, ultimate strength, ductility, and toughness of UHMWPE under multiaxial loading conditions. Because the mechanical behavior of UHMWPE is different when loaded under uniaxial and multiaxial loading conditions (3), the small punch test provides a complementary mechanical testing technique to the uniaxial tensile testing specified for medical grade UHMWPE by Specification F 648.1.3 In addition to its use as a research tool in implant retrieval analysis, the small punch test can be used as a laboratory screening test to evaluate new UHMWPE materials, such as those created by gamma or electron beam irradiation (1). The test method is also well suited for characterization of UHMWPE before and after accelerated aging (for example, Guide F 2003), and in that regard it can provide ranking of the mechanical degradation of different UHMWPE samples after oxidative degradation (4,7).1.4 The small punch test has been applied to other polymers, including polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) bone cement, polyacetal, and high density polyethylene (HDPE) (8,9). However, the small punch testing of polymers other than UHMWPE is beyond the scope of this standard.1.5 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The units in parentheses are mathematical conversions to inch-pound units that are provided for information only and are not considered 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 and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

5.1 The induction period may be used as an indication of the oxidation and storage stability of middle distillate fuel.5.2 Compared to some other oxidation and storage stability test methods, this method uses a small sample and gives a result in a short time period.1.1 This laboratory test method covers a quantitative determination of the stability of middle distillate fuels such as diesel fuels and heating oils, with up to 100 % biodiesel, under accelerated oxidation conditions, by an automatic instrument.NOTE 1: This test method is technically equivalent to test method EN 160911.2 This test method is designed for products complying with Specification D975 on Diesel Fuel, Grades No. 1D and 2D; Specification D396 on Burner Fuel, Grades No. 1 and No. 2; Specification D6751 on Biodiesel, B100, and Specification D7467 on Diesel Fuel Oil, B6 to B20.1.3 This test method measures the induction period, under specified conditions, which can be used as an indication of the oxidation and storage stability of middle distillate fuels.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： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 The test method is intended to be used by sUAS manufacturers, sUAS operators, and CAAs to assess the safety of sUA impacts to people on the ground during operations involving flight over people.5.2 The test method provides a framework for creating new designs and evaluating existing designs to determine the sUA’s blunt force trauma injury potential to the head or neck, or both, during a collision with a person on the ground.5.3 Applicants can determine whether to use Methods A, B, C, or D based upon their specific sUA characteristics, flight operations, and CAA requirements. In some cases, sUA with low impact KE below 54 ft-lbf [73 J] may not require rigorous testing to ensure safety to the nonparticipating public and can use Method A. Vehicles with higher impact KEs should conduct impact testing using Method B, Method C, or Method D. Method B is simpler than Method C and, therefore, less costly for the applicant. Method B results may be more conservative since the test setup is more rigid and can result in an increase in the amount of energy transferred during the impact than the injury metrics established using a full ATD. Method C testing is costlier and schedule-intensive, but provides a higher level of certainty of the injury potential of the sUA and is more directly comparable to established automotive injury metrics and injury metrics derived from ATD testing and used by the governing CAA. Method D allows for the direct comparison to energy-based requirement of some CAAs.5.4 The output of Method A is a verification that the sUA or sUA with mitigation does not exceed the 54 ft-lbf impact KE throughout its flight envelope based upon flight test data as means of obtaining approval for flight over people for Category 2 or 3 operations for the FAA. Other governing CAAs may only require a weight metric or other impact energy metric in lieu of the 54 ft-lbf impact KE.5.5 The output from Methods B and C is a characterization of the forces (measured in acceleration of the head form or ATD) expected during an MPWC head impact as a function of sUA KE. For Method B, this result is compared to the minimum impact energy resulting in a skull fracture based solely upon peak acceleration to determine the impact KE associated with this injury based upon energy transfer. Method C testing is more rigorous and may be correlated to other standards for both head and neck injury (such as the FMVSS 208 or other automotive standards) to determine whether the sUA is sufficiently safe to operate in Category 2 and 3 Operations.8 By evaluating sUA KE in the MPWC orientation and a variety of ATD impacts, the applicant should assess the sUA for injury potential using the governing CAA injury thresholds. The limiting impact KE may establish the operational limits that correspond to that specific value. This test method proposes the use of the standards called out in the ASSURE impact tests conducted as part of Task A14.95.6 The output from Method D is a verification that the sUA does not exceed the comparison metrics associated with the transfer of energy resulting from the impact of a rigid object at a specified impact KE for the rigid impactor. The impact KE of the rigid impactor is determined by the CAA for different categories of operations over people. For example, an sUA meets this standard if its impact test results are lower than the rigid object test results.5.7 Outputs from Methods A, B, C, and D may be used in conjunction with governing CAA’s metrics for certifying the sUA for flight over people.1.1 This test method is applicable to small unmanned aircraft (sUA) that are limited in the United States in accordance with 14 CFR § 107.3 to be less than 55 lbf. The test method provides a standardized method for assessing the safety of sUA impacts with a person on the ground. Results from testing using Methods A, B, C, or D are intended to be used to support an applicant in obtaining permission from the governing Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) for flight over people. Approval of reports for the conduct of tests and the decision to grant permission rests with the governing CAA based upon adherence to the methodologies outlined in this test method.1.2 This test method is based on methods researched by the FAA Center of Excellence for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) supported by the Alliance for System Safety of UAS through Research Excellence (ASSURE). These methods expand on extensive research and testing conducted by the automotive industry to support quantitative automotive passenger safety standards and testing and test data on sUA collected by ASSURE.1.3 The purpose of this test method is to define a method to establish confidence in the overall injury potential of a particular sUA configuration under probable failure conditions. This testing is not meant to simulate the worst possible impact for the most conservative set of the population. It is expected that CAAs should determine what injury thresholds are acceptable under their public policy and determine operational limitations for various operations by using the data from this testing in conjunction with the specific concept of operations proposed by the applicant.1.4 The test method provides four methods for evaluating the potential for impact injury: a simple analytical method, a simplified test, a more rigorous test, and a test method normed to approximate energy transfer values with appropriate safety margins applied to each approach to address uncertainty in each of the approaches.1.5 The applicant should understand the actual operating characteristics of their sUA before starting the process outlined in this test method. It is assumed that the applicant is able to substantiate the most probable, worst-case (MPWC) impact orientation of the sUA; typical and maximum operating heights and speeds; and terminal velocity of their sUA as a function of altitude to compare the results of the impact analysis with the proposed operation for the sUA. This test method is intended to supplement the verification requirements of Specification F3298 and Specification F3322, as well as a supplement to Specification F2910. This test method should not be used as a stand-alone document without consideration of other ASTM UAS standards.1.6 These methods assume that a blunt force head impact is the most likely injury mechanism leading to serious injury or fatalities. The level of blunt force injury to the head may be adjusted for various applications (such as sUA operations around first responders with helmets) and compared with the amount of force or load factor that the sUA transfers during a collision.1.7 Method B is not appropriate for foam-built fixed-wing sUA due to the stiffness of the FAA Hybrid III ATD Head and Neck. Until a different impactor can be developed for Method B, these sUA should use Method C or D for evaluation.1.8 Units—The values stated in either International System (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.1.9 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, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.10 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

3.1 A number of laboratory procedures are used to evaluate the effectiveness of fire-retardant and fire-resistant treatments and coatings. In general, these methods measure the three stages of fire development: (1) ignition; (2) flame spread (rate of growth of the fire); and (3) conflagration extent. While all three are of extreme importance, flame spread has been recognized as the main factor associated with testing fire-retardant coatings.3.2 Flame spread ratings based upon Test Method E84 have acquired common acceptance by regulatory agencies, but such large-scale tests are seldom practical during the development or modification of a fire-retardant coating.3.3 This test method provides the relative flame spread of experimental coatings using small test specimens under the conditions established in the 2-foot tunnel. By experimentally calibrating the 2-foot tunnel with similar Test Method E84-rated fire-retardant paint, results obtained by this test method can be used to screen coatings for suitability for testing in the Test Method E84 tunnel.3.3.1 This test method is intended as an experimental tool in evaluating experimental coatings for further development. No direct correlation of results from this test method and the Test Method E84 tunnel have been made or are implied.3.3.2 The results obtained by this test method do not in themselves act as an accurate predictor of performance in Test Method E84 and shall not be used for the purpose of certification to any class of flame spread performance.1.1 This test method determines the protection a coating affords its substrate, and the comparative burning characteristics of coatings by evaluating the flame spread over the surface when ignited under controlled conditions in a small tunnel. This establishes a basis for comparing surface-burning characteristics of different coatings without specific consideration of all the end-use parameters that might affect surface-burning characteristics under actual fire conditions.1.2 In addition to the experimental flame spread rate, the weight of panel consumed, time of afterflaming and afterglow, char dimensions and index, and height of intumescence can be measured in this test. However, a relationship should not be presumed among these measurements.1.3 This standard is used to determine certain fire-test responses of materials, products, or assemblies to heat and flame under controlled conditions by using results obtained from fire-test response standards. The results obtained from using this standard do not by themselves constitute measures of fire hazard or fire risk.1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.1.5 This standard is used to measure and describe the response of materials, products, or assemblies to heat and flame under controlled conditions, but does not by itself incorporate all factors required for fire hazard or fire risk assessment of the materials, products, or assemblies under actual fire conditions.1.6  Fire testing is inherently hazardous. Adequate safeguards for personnel and property shall be employed in conducting these tests.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 Methods A, B, and C provide a means of evaluating the tensile modulus of geogrids and geotextiles for applications involving small-strain cyclic loading. The test methods allow for the determination of cyclic tensile modulus at different levels of prescribed or permanent strain, thereby accounting for possible changes in cyclic tensile modulus with increasing permanent strain in the material. These test methods shall be used for research testing and to define properties for use in specific design methods.5.2 In cases of dispute arising from differences in reported test results when using these test methods for acceptance testing of commercial shipments, the purchaser and supplier should conduct comparative tests to determine if there is a statistical bias between their laboratories. Competent statistical assistance is recommended for the investigation of bias. As a minimum, the two parties should take a group of test specimens which are as homogeneous as possible and which are from a lot of material of the type in question. The test specimens should then be randomly assigned in equal numbers to each laboratory for testing. The average results from the two laboratories should be compared using Student’s t-test for unpaired data and an acceptable probability level chosen by the two parties before the testing began. If a bias is found, either its cause shall be found and corrected or the purchaser and supplier shall agree to interpret future test results in light of the known bias.5.3 All geogrids can be tested by Test Method A or B. Some modification of techniques may be necessary for a given geogrid depending upon its physical makeup. Special adaptations may be necessary with strong geogrids, multiple-layered geogrids, or geogrids that tend to slip in the clamps or those which tend to be damaged by the clamps.5.4 Most geotextiles can be tested by Test Method C. Some modification of clamping techniques may be necessary for a given geotextile depending upon its structure. Special clamping adaptations may be necessary with strong geotextiles or geotextiles made from glass fibers to prevent them from slipping in the clamps or being damaged as a result of being gripped in the clamps.5.5 These test methods are applicable for testing geotextiles either dry or wet. It is used with a constant rate of extension type tension apparatus.5.6 These test methods may not be suited for geogrids and geotextiles that exhibit strengths approximately 100 kN/m (600 lbf/in.) due to clamping and equipment limitations. In those cases, 100-mm (4-in.) width specimens may be substituted for 200-mm (8-in.) width specimens.1.1 These test methods cover the determination of small-strain tensile properties of geogrids and geotextiles by subjecting wide-width specimens to cyclic tensile loading.1.2 These test methods (A, B, and C) allow for the determination of small-strain cyclic tensile modulus by the measurement of cyclic tensile load and elongation.1.3 This test method is intended to provide properties for design. The test method was developed for mechanistic-empirical pavement design methods requiring input of the reinforcement tensile modulus. The use of cyclic modulus from this test method for other applications involving cyclic loading should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.1.4 Three test methods (A, B, and C) are provided to determine small-strain cyclic tensile modulus on geogrids and geotextiles.1.4.1 Test Method A—Testing a relatively wide specimen of geogrid in cyclic tension in kN/m (lbf/ft).1.4.2 Test Method B—Testing multiple layers of a relatively wide specimen of geogrid in cyclic tension in kN/m (lbf/ft).1.4.3 Test Method C—Testing a relatively wide specimen of geotextile in cyclic tension in kN/m (lbf/ft).1.5 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are provided for information only and are not considered 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

5.1 The flame height and color (indicative of air-to-gas ratio) for a test flame have traditionally been specified in the individual test method. The energy content of the flame has also been addressed by reference to a specific supply gas. It has been determined that the supply-gas back pressure and flow rate can be varied without affecting the height and color of the flame. However, the energy content of the flame is affected. This practice provides the back pressure and flow rate of the supply gas for a 20-mm (50-W) and a 125-mm (500-W) test flame, and a procedure for confirming the heat-evolution profile of the test flame.5.2 Information is provided for test flames using methane, propane, or butane. Using this information, these supply gases have the capability to be used interchangeably with a standardized burner to produce essentially the same test flame.1.1 This practice covers the confirmation of test flames for small-scale burning tests on plastic materials using the laboratory burner described in Specification D5025. Back pressures and flow rates for methane, propane, and butane supply gases are given for specific test flames. This practice describes a procedure to confirm the heat evolution of the test flame.1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard.1.3 This standard is used to measure and describe the response of materials, products, or assemblies to heat and flame under controlled conditions, but does not by itself incorporate all factors required for fire hazard or fire risk assessment of the materials, products, or assemblies under actual fire conditions.NOTE 1: There is no similar ISO standard. This practice is equivalent in technical content to, but not fully corresponding in presentation with, the confirmatory procedures of IEC/TS 60695-11-3, Method A and IEC/TS 60695-11-4, Method A.1.4 Fire testing is inherently hazardous. Adequate safeguards for personnel and property shall be employed in conducting these tests.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： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

4.1 Upper limits for the formaldehyde emission rates have been established for wood panel building products made with urea-formaldehyde adhesives and permanently installed in homes or used as components in kitchen cabinets and similar industrial products. This test method is intended for use in conjunction with the test method referenced by HUD 24 for manufactured housing and by Minnesota Statutes for housing units and building materials. This method may also be used for monitoring products for compliance to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulation for composite wood products and the Environmental Protection Agency Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products, EPA TSCA Title VI 40 CFR Section 770. This test method provides a means of testing smaller samples and reduces the time required for testing.4.2 Formaldehyde concentration levels obtained by this small-scale method may differ from expected in full-scale indoor environments. Variations in product loading, temperature, relative humidity, and air exchange will affect formaldehyde emission rates and thus likely indoor air formaldehyde concentrations.4.3 This test method requires the use of a chamber of 0.02 to 1 m3 in volume to evaluate the formaldehyde concentration in air using the following controlled conditions:4.3.1 Conditioning of specimens prior to testing,4.3.2 Exposed surface area of the specimens in the test chamber,4.3.3 Test chamber temperature and relative humidity,4.3.4 The Q/A ratio, and4.3.5 Air circulation within the chamber.1.1 This test method measures the formaldehyde concentrations in air emitted by wood product test specimens under defined test conditions of temperature and relative humidity. Results obtained from this small-scale chamber test method are intended to be comparable to results obtained from testing larger product samples by the large chamber test method for wood products, Test Method E1333. The results may be correlated to values obtained from Test Method E1333. The quantity of formaldehyde in an air sample from the small chamber is determined by a modification of NIOSH 3500 chromotropic acid test procedure. As with Test Method E1333, other analytical procedures may be used to determine the quantity of formaldehyde in the air sample provided that such methods give results comparable to those obtained by using the chromotropic acid procedure. However, the test results and test report must be properly qualified and the analytical procedure employed must be accurately described.1.2 The wood-based panel products to be tested by this test method are characteristically used for different applications and are tested at different relative amounts or loading ratios to reflect different applications. This is a test method that specifies testing at various loading ratios for different product types. However, the test results and test report must be properly qualified and must specify the make-up air flow, sample surface area, and chamber volume.1.3 Ideal candidates for small-scale chamber testing are products relatively homogeneous in their formaldehyde release characteristics. Still, product inhomogeneities must be considered when selecting and preparing samples for small-scale chamber testing.1.4 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.1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

This test method is useful in determining the relative efficacy between various treatments and naturally occurring wood-destroying agents. It is an initial means of estimating the tolerance limits of the biologically destructive agents or the threshold values of the chemical preservative, or both.This test method is not intended to provide quantifiable reproducible values. It is a qualitative method designed to provide a reproducible means of establishing relative efficacy between experimental contract levels.1.1 This test method covers the relative effectiveness of wood preservatives in small wood specimens exposed to a natural marine environment. It is not within the scope of this test method to determine the retention or duration of protection for commercial size piles and timbers.1.2 The requirements for preparing the material for testing and the test procedures appear in the following order: SectionSummary of Test Method Test Specimens Pretreatment Handling Treatment Procedure Post-Treatment Handling Assembly of Test Specimens Exposure Inspection Evaluation of Results Reports 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

1.1 This specification covers marketing, packaging, labeling, and warning requirements for adult magnet sets containing small, powerful magnets. It is aimed at minimizing the identified hazards to children and teens associated with ingesting small, powerful magnets that are intended for adults, that is, those persons 14 years of age and older.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： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 This test method describes the means of determining the LRV of a tile specimen. Certain building codes require the use of materials rated by LRV. Application of this test method provides the means for rating ceramic tile. LRVs reported for ceramic tile should include reference to the observer and illuminant for which the rating is valid. 5.2 LRV is a property dependent on the overall color of a tile specimen. Control of LRV is achieved through control of color and adherence to color specifications will govern the acceptability of a product with respect to LRV. Therefore, a product cannot be judged as having an unacceptable LRV unless the color of the product is found to be unacceptable. 5.3 Mixtures of several tile products are commonly installed on a surface, requiring a means to calculate LRV for a product mix. The rating obtained for an individual tile product can be used to calculate the LRV for a product mix using the following equation: where: n   =   number of products included in the mix, p1 to n   =   the proportion of the surface area taken up by each product; the sum of p1 to pn must equal one), and LRV1 to n   =   the LRV for each product used. For example, a mixture of two products is used on a surface. Two thirds of the surface area is covered by product A with a LRV of 75 %, and one third of the surface is covered by product B with an LRV of 60 % (see Fig. 2). Using the equation, the product mix is found to have an LRV of 70 %. FIG. 2 Example of Product Mix Used on Surface 5.4 The test method described herein provides instrumental means as the basis for judging color difference. Magnitude of color difference between pairs of ceramic tile can be determined and expressed in numerical terms. 5.5 Based on interlaboratory investigation,3 color difference ΔE of plain-colored tile, if determined in accordance with this test method, should give excellent reproducibility with a standard deviation of not more than σ = ±0.15 units. LRV should also give excellent reproducibility when used for solid colored tile based on the relationship between LRV and either the Y tristimulus or L value. However, LRV reproducibility for multicolored, speckled, or textured surface tile will be dependent upon the degree of variation of the tile specimen, and will require a different measurement procedure to minimize the impact of the variation. 5.6 The test method requires the use of multiple illuminants for the determination of color difference between solid-colored tiles. Evaluation under incandescent, fluorescent and daylight illuminant conditions ensure the color differences calculated between a test and reference specimen account for the possible occurrence of metamerism. 1.1 This test method covers the measurement of Light Reflectance Value (LRV) and visually small color difference between pieces of glazed or unglazed ceramic tile, using any spectrophotometer that meets the requirements specified in the test method. LRV and the magnitude and direction of the color difference are expressed numerically, with sufficient accuracy for use in product specification. 1.2 LRV may be measured for either solid-colored tile or tile having a multicolored, speckled, or textured surface. For tile that are not solid-colored, an average reading should be obtained from multiple measurements taken in a pattern representative of the overall sample as described in 9.2 of this test method. Small color difference between tiles should only be measured for solid-color tiles. Small color difference between tile that have a multicolored, speckled, or textured surface are not valid. 1.3 For solid colored tile, a comparison of the test specimen and reference specimen should be made under incandescent, fluorescent and daylight illuminant conditions. The use of multiple illuminants allows the color difference measurement to be made without the risk of wrongly accepting a match when the tiles being compared are metamers (see 3.1.4). 1.4 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are provided for information only and are not considered 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： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

This practice covers basic procedures for the safe handling and transfilling of small paintball carbon dioxide cylinders for pressure cycling cylinder transfilling method most commonly used by paintball field and/or store operators. The basic standards presented herein should not be confused with federal, state, provincial, or municipal specifications or regulations, insurance requirements of national safety codes. Cylinder inspection include: conducting valve test twist on empty cylinders to ensure the valve is properly attached, checking on the rotation indication mark between tank and bottle, avoiding of polishing and rebuffing of cylinders and avoiding of refilling ruptured tanks. Safety procedures also include checking on pressure relief passages from any obstructions, inspecting on the correct burst disk as specified, avoiding of refilling cylinders failing to meet specified requirements, inspecting safety relief device, cylinder wall, and the valve body of cylinders as specified.1.1 This practice is intended to satisfy the demand for information on the basic procedures for the safe handling and transfilling of small (not bulk) paintball CO2 cylinders commonly used with a paintball marker for propulsion of a paintball. This standard does not address issues dealing with the transfilling, storage, and handling of supply cylinders that may be used in transfilling smaller cylinders.1.2 The CO2 fill procedures are written for the pressure cycling cylinder transfilling method most commonly used by paintball field or store operators, or both.1.3 This practice should not be confused with federal, state, provincial, or municipal specifications or regulations; insurance requirements; or national safety codes.1.4 This practice does not purport to address all of the safety problems, if any, associated with the safe handling and transfilling of small paintball cylinders. 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, such as and not limited to DOT, CGA, and OSHA, 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 Flash point measures the response of the test specimen to heat and ignition source under controlled laboratory conditions. It is only one of a number of properties that must be considered in assessing the overall flammability hazard of a material.5.2 Flash point is used in shipping and safety regulations to define flammable and combustible materials and classify them. Consult the particular regulation involved for precise definitions of these classes.5.3 Flash point can indicate the possible presence of highly volatile and flammable materials in a relatively nonvolatile or nonflammable material.5.4 These test methods use a smaller sample (2 mL to 4 mL) and a shorter test time (1 min to 2 min) than traditional test methods.5.5 Method A, IP 524 and EN ISO 3680 are similar methods for flash no-flash tests. Method B, IP 523 and EN ISO 3679 are similar methods for flash point determination.1.1 These test methods cover procedures for flash point tests, within the range of –30 °C to 300 °C, of petroleum products and biodiesel liquid fuels, using a small scale closed cup tester. The procedures may be used to determine, whether a product will or will not flash at a specified temperature (flash/no flash Method A) or the flash point of a sample (Method B). When used in conjunction with an electronic thermal flash detector, these test methods are also suitable for flash point tests on biodiesels such as fatty acid methyl esters (FAME).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 should be used to measure and describe the properties of materials, products, or assemblies in response to heat and flame under controlled laboratory conditions and should not be used to describe or appraise the fire hazard or fire risk of materials, products, or assemblies under actual fire conditions. However, results of this test may be used as elements of a fire risk assessment which takes into account all of the factors which are pertinent to an assessment of the fire hazard of a particular end use.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. Warning statements appear throughout. See also the Material Safety Data Sheets for the product being tested.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