3.1 This specification will be used to determine a velocity under standard test conditions for rating an archery bow.AbstractThis specification covers the testing technique to determine the rating velocities of an archery bow. Among the test methods are: force draw data, and the shooting test. The test arrow description and the test data correction are also detailed. This specification is not intended to provide any engineering or structural evaluation of the bow that would determine its fitness for the use intended, safe function, or any other attribute except as mentioned.1.1 This specification covers the testing technique to determine the rating velocities of a compound bow.1.2 This specification will provide only a certification of performance, that is, the velocities at which a given bow will launch arrows of specified weights under standard conditions.1.3 This specification is not intended to provide any engineering or structural evaluation of the bow that would determine its fitness for the use intended, safe function, or any other attribute except as stated.1.4 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.1.5 The following safety hazards caveat pertains only to the test methods portion, Section 4, of this specification: This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

5.1 This test method for the determination of magnetic rating is considered satisfactory for acceptance testing of commercial shipments of asbestos fibers, papers, felts, yarns, rovings, textile products, rigid sheet products, and granular or powdered products.5.2 Magnetic rating is one of the measurements used for determining the suitability of an asbestos material for electrical insulation.5.3 The electrical insulating properties of asbestos materials vary inversely with the magnetic rating. Therefore, a low magnetic iron content is required for good electrical insulating.5.4 The types of asbestos textiles classified by magnetic rating are described in Specification D2100.1.1 This test method covers the procedure for the determination of the magnetic rating of asbestos fiber and asbestos textile products. This test method is used primarily for testing asbestos insulating materials.1.2 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 non-conformance with the standard.1.3 Warning—Breathing of asbestos dust is hazardous. Asbestos and asbestos products present demonstrated health risks for users and for those with whom they come into contact. In addition to other precautions, when working with asbestos-cement products, minimize the dust that results. For information on the safe use of chrysoltile asbestos, refer to “Safe Use of Chrysotile Asbestos: A Manual on Preventive and Control Measures.”21.4 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. For specific safety hazard, see .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： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

5.1 The test provides a field test to evaluate visually a fuel sample for particulate matter and free water similar to Test Method D4176 plus a numerical rating for free water. High numerical ratings indicate that the fuel is relatively free of free water. The degree of water and particulate contamination can be measured using other methods such as Test Methods D2276, D2709, and D6304.NOTE 2: Clean and bright is sometimes used in place of clear and bright. The meaning is identical.5.2 The color of the sample does not affect the measurement. Limited laboratory evaluations of samples have determined the degree of free water can be rated in fuels with dark opaque color having a darker rating than five in Test Method D1500.1.1 This test method covers a rapid, portable means for field and laboratory use to inspect visually for particulate matter and numerically rate free water in aviation turbine and distillate fuels.1.2 The values stated in SI 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. For specific warning statements, see 11.2.3 and Annex A1.1.4 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 practice is used as a basis for determining the minimum motor octane requirement of naturally aspirated aircraft engines by use of PRFs.5.2 Results from standardized octane ratings will play an important role in defining the actual octane requirement of a given aircraft engine, which can be applied in an effort to determine a fleet requirement.1.1 This practice covers ground based octane rating procedures for naturally aspirated spark ignition aircraft engines using primary reference fuels.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： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

4.1 The simplicity and practicality of Rasch's probabilistic scale-free measurement models have brought within reach universal metrics for educational and psychological tests, and for rating scale-based instruments in general. There are at least 3 implications to the application of Rasch's models to the health-related calibration of universal metrics for each of the variables relevant to the Electronic Health Record (EHR) that are typically measured using rating scale instruments.4.1.1 First, establishing a single metric standard with a defined range and unit will arrest the burgeoning proliferation of new scale-dependent metrics.4.1.2 Second, the communication of the information pertaining to patient status represented by these measures (physical, cognitive, and psychosocial health status, quality of life, satisfaction with services, etc.) will be simplified.4.1.3 Third, common standards of data quality will be used to evaluate and improve instrument performance. The vast majority of test and survey data quality is currently almost completely unknown, and when quality is evaluated, it is via many different methods that are often insufficient to the task, misapplied, misinterpreted, or even contradictory in their aims.4.1.4 Fourth, currently unavailable economic benefits will accrue from the implementation of measurement methods based on quality-assessed data and widely accepted reference standard metrics. The potential magnitude of these benefits can be seen in an assessment of 12 different metrological improvement studies conducted by the National Science and Technology Council (Subcommittee on Research, 1996). The average return on investment associated with these twelve studies was 147 %. Is there any reason to suppose that similar instrument improvement efforts in the psychosocial sciences will result in markedly lower returns?4.2 Until now, it has been assumed that the Practice E1384 would necessarily have to stipulate fields for the EHR that would contain summary scores from commonly used functional assessment, health status, quality of life, and satisfaction instruments. This is because standards for rating scale instruments to date have been entirely content-based. Those who have sought “gold” or criterion standards that would command universal respect and relevance have been stymied by the impossibility of identifying content (survey questions and rating categories) capable of satisfying all users' needs. Communication of patient statistics between managers and clinicians, or payors and providers, may require one kind of information; between providers and referral sources, other kinds; between providers and accreditors, yet another; among clinicians themselves, still another; and even more kinds of information may be required for research applications.4.2.1 For instance, payors may want to know outcome information that tells them what percentage of patients discharged can function independently at home. A hospital manager, referral source, or accreditor might want to know more detail, such as percentages of patients discharged who can dress, bathe, walk, and eat independently. Clinicians will want to know still more detail about amounts of independence, such as whether there are safety issues, needs for assistive devices, or specific areas in which functionality could be improved. Researchers may seek even more detail yet, as they evaluate differences in outcomes across treatment programs, diagnostic groups, facilities, levels of care, etc.4.2.1.1 Members of each of these groups have, at some time, felt that their particular information needs have not been met by the tools designed and developed by members of another group. Despite the fact that the information provided by these different tools appears in many different forms and at different levels of detail, to the extent that they can be shown to measure the same thing, they can do so in the same metric. This is the primary result of the introduction of Rasch's probabilistic scale-free measurement models. The different purposes guiding the design of the instruments will still continue to impact the two fundamental statistics associated with every measure: the error and model fit. More general, and also less well-designed instruments, will measure with more error than those that make more detailed and consistent distinctions. Data consistency is the key to scale-free measurement.4.3 The remainder of this document (1) identifies, in Section 5, the fields in the current Practice E1384 targeted for change from a scale-dependent to a scale-free measurement orientation; (2) lists referenced ASTM documents; (3) defines scale-free measurement terms, often contrasting them with their scale-dependent counterparts; (4) addresses the significance and use of scale-free measures in the context of the EHR; (5) lists, in Annex A2, scientific publications documenting relevant instrument calibrations; (6) briefly presents some basic operational considerations; (7) lists minimum and comprehensive arrays of EHR database fields; and (8) lists, in Annex A3, the references made in presentation of the measurement theory, estimation methods, etc.4.4 Publications of calibration studies referencing this practice and the associated standard practice should require:4.4.1 The use of measures, not scores, in all capture of data from the EHR for statistical comparisons;4.4.2 The reporting of both the traditional reliability statistics (Cronbach's alpha or the KR20) and the additive, linear separation statistics (Wright & Masters, 1982), along with their error and variation components, for both the measures and the calibrations;4.4.3 A qualitative elaboration of the variable defined by the order of the survey questions or test items on the measurement continuum, preferably in association with a figure displaying the variable;4.4.4 Reporting of means and standard deviations for each of the three essential measurement statistics, the measure, the error, and the model fit;4.4.5 Statement of the full text of at least a significant sample of the questions included on the instrument;4.4.6 Specification of the mathematical model employed, with a justification for its use;4.4.7 Specification of the error estimation and model fit estimation algorithms employed, with mathematical details and justification provided when they differ from those routinely used;4.4.8 Evaluation of overall model fit, elaborated in a report on the details of one or more of the least and most consistent response patterns observed;4.4.9 Graphical comparison of at least two calibrations of new instruments from different samples of the same population to establish the invariance of the item calibration order across samples;4.4.10 Graphical comparison of measures produced by at least two subsets of items on new instruments to establish the invariance of the person measure order across scales (collections of items);4.4.11 Graphical comparison of new instrument calibrations with the calibrations produced by other instruments intended to measure the same variable in the same population, to establish the potential for sample-free equating of the instruments and establishment of reference standards;4.4.12 At least a useable prototype of the instrument employed, with the worksheet laid out to produce informative quantitative measures (not summed scores) as soon as it is filled out; and4.4.13 Graphical presentation of the treatment and control groups' measurement distributions, for the purpose of facilitating a substantive interpretations of differences' significance.1.1 This standard addresses the identification of data elements from the EHR definitions in Practice E1384 that have ordinal scale value sets and which can be further defined to have scale-free measurement properties. It is applicable to data recorded for the Electronic Health Record and its paper counterparts. It is also applicable to abstracted data from the patient record that originates from these same data elements. It is applicable to identifying the location within the EHR where the observed measurements shall be stored and what is the meaning of the stored data. It does not address either the uses or the interpretations of the stored measurements.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

4.1 This classification provides a single number rating for transmission loss or noise reduction data that have been measured or calculated. This rating is based on the difference between the overall A-weighted sound level of the sound spectrum given in Table 1 and the overall A-weighted sound level of the spectrum that results from arithmetically subtracting the transmission loss or noise reduction data from this spectrum. The spectrum shape is an average of three spectra from transportation sources (aircraft takeoff, road traffic, and diesel locomotive). A study showed that this classification correlated well with the A-weighted and loudness reductions (based on ISO 532:1975 in effect at the time) calculated for each of the individual spectra used in developing the rating for the one-third-octave band range of 50 Hz to 5000 Hz. The calculated numeric value of the rating is based on the sound transmission loss or noise reduction values for a particular specimen and depends only on that data and the shape of the reference source spectrum used in the calculation. The values shown in Table 1 have an arbitrary reference level. Use single-number ratings with caution. Specimens having the same rating can result in different indoor spectra depending on the variation of their transmission loss with frequency. Also, if the actual spectrum of the outdoor sound is different from that assumed in Table 1, the overall A-weighted outdoor-indoor noise reduction can be different from the OINIC. The strong low-frequency content of the spectrum in Table 1 means that specimen achieving a high rating must have strong low-frequency transmission loss. Use of this classification with the spectrum in Table 1 in situations where the source does not have a spectrum similar to Table 1 could result in requirements for more low-frequency transmission loss than is necessary for the application. Examples where this can occur are stage 3 jet aircraft, high-speed freeways with sound dominated by tire noise, emergency vehicle sirens, and train passes with sound dominated by horns.64.2 This classification requires data in one-third octave bands from 80 to 4000 Hz of sound transmission loss (TL) for outdoor-indoor transmission class (OITC), outdoor-indoor noise reduction (OINR(θ)) for outdoor-indoor noise isolation class (OINIC(θ)), or other data based on the rating definition for other ratings based on this classification.4.3 Due to accuracy limitations given in Test Method E90 and Guide E966 (related to the volume of enclosed measurement spaces), measurements below the 100 Hz one-third-octave band were not reported prior to the development of this classification. Studies have shown that data in the 80 Hz one-third octave band are necessary to obtain acceptable correlations for transportation sound sources. Test Method E90 (when testing façade elements or exterior doors or windows) and Guide E966 now require the reporting of data in the 80 Hz one-third-octave band. For the purposes of this classification, such data are deemed to be of acceptable accuracy.4.4 The low frequency measurements of sound transmission loss can be affected by the test specimen size or the specimen edge restraints, or both, particularly for small modular specimens such as doors or windows. Consequently, the outdoor-indoor transmission class (OITC) can also be affected by these factors, resulting in some uncertainty of the field performance of assemblies bearing a rating number using this classification, but to what extent is unknown.1.1 The purpose of this classification is to provide a method to calculate single-number ratings that can be used for assessing the isolation from outdoor sound provided by a building or comparing building facade specimens including walls, doors, windows, and combinations thereof, including complete structures. These ratings are designed to correlate with subjective impressions of the ability of building elements to reduce the penetration of outdoor ground and air transportation noise that contains strong low-frequency sound.2 These ratings provide an evaluation and rank ordering of the performance of test specimens based on their effectiveness at controlling the sound of a specific outdoor sound spectrum called the reference source spectrum.1.2 In addition to the calculation method, this classification provides the definition of the outdoor-indoor transmission class which is not defined elsewhere within ASTM standards. Other standards such as Guide E966 define additional ratings based on the method of this classification, one of which is discussed in this classification.1.3 The rating does not necessarily relate to the perceived aesthetic quality of the transmitted sound. Different facade elements with similar ratings differ significantly in the proportion of low and high frequency sound that they transmit, and the spectra of sources can vary significantly. It is best to use specific sound transmission loss values, in conjunction with actual spectra of outdoor and indoor sound levels, for making final selections of facade elements.1.4 Excluded from the scope of this classification are applications involving noise spectra differing markedly from that shown in Table 1. Thus excluded, for example, would be certain industrial noises with high levels at frequencies below the 80 Hz one-third octave band, relative to levels at higher frequencies, and any source, including some transportation sources, that does not have a spectrum similar to that in Table 1. However, for any source with a spectrum similar to that in Table 1, this classification provides a more reliable ranking of the performance of partitions and facade elements than do other classifications such as Classification E413.1.5 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

This practice provides a means of rating the serviceability levels of any building.This practice provides a method for comparing how well different buildings meet a particular set of requirements for serviceability, despite differences such as location, structure, mechanical systems, age, and building shape.This practice is not affected by the complexity of the requirements for serviceability.This practice provides a framework within which design professionals and managers can select the most cost-effective means to achieve a target level of serviceability.This practice can be used by any individual with sufficient knowledge of buildings to identify the features that are present.This practice can be applied to many functional types of buildings, provided that an appropriate set of classifications, including rating scales, has been established for each type (see Appendix X1).This practice can be used to determine (1) the serviceability (present capability) of an existing building for uses other than its present use; (2) the serviceability (potential capability) of a building that has been planned but not yet built; and (3) the serviceability (potential capability) of a building for which a remodeling or rehabilitation has been planned.This practice can be used to determine how well a building is capable of meeting some social objective and requirement, such as the impact of its location on the transportation needs of its present or future occupants, the need for water and energy conservation, the impact of the building systems, and materials on green building issues.Use of this practice will help the user understand how various subsystems and materials used in a building interact to provide an overall level of serviceability, and how various combination of features interact to determine the overall serviceability of the building.Examples of Potential Applications:Project Feasibility, For example, when the owner of an older building considers remodelling it into apartments, or needs to rehabilitate it to bring it up to current market demand.Select Option Before Leasing, For example, a corporate real estate and facility manager compares ratings of several office facilities before selecting which to lease.Compare Serviceability of Design Options, For example, an architect rates various designs to select the most effective way of achieving design objectives within a fixed construction budget.Marketing, For example, an owner rates a building for several potential uses to identify target markets that would find the building most serviceable in its present condition, or when remodelled for another use.Suitability of Existing or Proposed Use, For example, a potential buyer assesses the suitability of a facility for multi-tenant office use.Cost Reduction, For example, the owner rates various design options to select the most cost-effective means for achieving a target serviceability profile.Financial Analysis, For example, the owner or potential buyer assesses likely benefits of a proposed remodel and conversion from a warehouse to a highly technical manufacturing building.Energy and Water Conservation, The owner or potential buyer compares the likely relative levels of energy or water consumption of a facility, or the likely cost-effectiveness of options to reduce energy and water consumption, or improve indoor air quality.This practice is not intended for, and is not suitable for, use for regulatory purposes nor for fire hazard assessment nor for fire risk assessment.1.1 This practice covers a definitive procedure for rating the serviceability of a building or building-related facility, that is, for ascertaining its capability to perform the functions for which it is designed, used, or required to be used. A separate scale is used for each topic of serviceability. For each topic, a serviceability level is ascertained. Overall serviceability is expressed as a profile of levels (that is, not as a single number), and may be presented as a bar chart.1.2 This practice is not intended to be used for regulatory purposes.1.3 This practice can be used to rate the serviceability of a building or building-related facility that has been planned but not yet built, or which is about to be remodelled or rehabilitated, for example, for which single-line drawings and outline specifications have been prepared.1.4 This practice specifies how to ascertain serviceability levels for a specific building, but not what would cause a building to be rated at a given level. That information is found in standard classifications for specific topics of serviceability that contain a set of requirement and rating scales. This practice and one or more such standard classifications are mutually dependent. Each requires the other. The format of such standard classifications, and of related information, is described in Appendix X1. An example of the scales written for such classifications is given in Appendix X3.1.5 This practice does not cover building evaluation, building condition reports, nor diagnosis of performance; nor does it cover instruments, tools or quality of measurements for evaluation, condition reports, or diagnosis of performance.1.6 This practice applies only to facilities that are building constructions, parts thereof, or building-related. While this practice may be useful in rating the serviceability of facilities that are not building constructions, such facilities are outside the scope of this practice.1.7 The process for creating or adapting a set of classifications for a specific facility type or category is outside the scope of this practice.1.8 This practice contains the following information: Section Introduction 1Referenced Documents 2Terminology 3Summary of Practice 4 5Procedure 6Keywords 7Flow Chart for Rating Serviceability of a Building or Building-RelatedFacility for a Specific Purpose Fig. 1Format of a Classification for the Serviceability of a Facility Type orCategory Appendix X1Example: Checklist for Tour of a Building Appendix X2Example: Part of a Pair of Serviceability Scales for One Topic Appendix X3Example: Part of a Pair of Matching Serviceability Profiles Presented asBarcharts Appendix X4Example: Titles of Aspects, Topics, and Features Appendix X5Example: List of Common Generic Types of Facility Appendix X6FIG. 1 Summary Diagram of Procedure for Rating the Serviceability of a Building or Building-Related Facility

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

This practice covers the recommended method for rating the condition of electroplated test panels subjected to corrosive environments for test purposes. This method is used with standard-sized panels exposed on standard ASTM racks at outdoor test sites in both natural atmospheres and accelerated test conditions. This practice refers only to decorative-protective coatings that are cathodic to the substrate such as nickel/chromium or copper/nickel/chromium on steel or zinc die castings, and is not intended for use with anodic sacrificial coatings such as zinc and cadmium on steel. Any modifications needed to adapt the method to rating actual production parts are not considered here. Panels shall be assigned separate rating numbers based on the ability of the coating to protect the substrate from corrosion (protection rating), and the overall appearance of panels as affected by deterioration of the coating itself (appearance rating). Accordingly, rating numbers shall be derived from the type of defect that exists, that is: (1) protection defects, which include crater rusting, pinhole rusting, rust stains, blisters, and other defects that involve basis metal corrosion; and (2) appearance defects, which include surface pits, "crow's feet," crack patterns, surface stains, tarnishes, and other defects that detract from commercial acceptability as to appearance. Inspection should be made in the as-is condition, and defects to be taken into account are only those that can be seen with the unaided eye at normal reading distance.1.1 This practice covers a preferred method for evaluating the condition of electroplated test panels that have been exposed to corrosive environments for test purposes. It is based on experience in use of the method with standard 10- by 15-cm (4- by 6-in.) panels exposed on standard ASTM racks at outdoor test sites in natural atmospheres. It has been used also for rating similar panels that have been subjected to accelerated tests such as those covered by Practice B117, Method B287, Test Method B368, and Test Method B380. Any modifications needed to adapt the method to rating actual production parts are not considered in this practice.1.2 This practice refers only to decorative-protective coatings that are cathodic to the substrate, typified by nickel/chromium or copper/nickel/chromium on steel or zinc die castings. It is not intended for use with anodic sacrificial coatings such as zinc and cadmium on steel.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

This guide covers the definition and rating of the microstructure of carbide structures in annealed high carbon bearing steels. Requirements for the optical metallograph apparatus and specimen preparation including polishing and etching are detailed. The description of the reference photomicrographs (graded illustrations of annealed carbides categorized by size, network, and lamellar content (shape)) that shall be used in the evaluation and the equation that shall define the rating are given.1.1 This guide covers the description of carbide structures in annealed high carbon bearing steels.1.2 Included is a guide for rating steel specimens by a graded series of photomicrographs showing the incidence of certain conditions.1.3 The reference photomicrographs are graded illustrations of annealed carbides categorized by size, network, and lamellar content (shape).1.4 This guide is to facilitate communication and description of microstructure. It does not establish limits of acceptability. Such limits are a matter of agreement between user and producer.1.5 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车