5.1 This test has been widely used as an indicator of the relative quality or competence of various sources of aggregate having similar mineral compositions. The results do not automatically permit valid comparisons to be made between sources distinctly different in origin, composition, or structure. Assign specification limits with extreme care in consideration of available aggregate types and their performance history in specific end uses. The percent loss determined by this test method has no known consistent relationship to the percent loss for the same material when tested by Test Method C535.1.1 This test method covers a procedure for testing of coarse aggregates with a maximum size smaller than 37.5 mm ([11/2 in.] for resistance to degradation using the Los Angeles testing machine (Note 1).NOTE 1: A procedure for testing coarse aggregate larger than 19.0 mm [3/4 in.] is covered in Test Method C535. Thus coarse aggregates with a maximum size between 19 mm [3/4 in.] and 37.5 mm [11/2 in.] may be tested by Test Method C535 or Test Method C131/C131M.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 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.NOTE 2: Sieve size is identified by its standard designation in Specification E11. The Alternative designation given in parentheses is for information only and does not represent a different standard sieve size.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 The flash point temperature is one measure of the tendency of the test specimen to form a flammable mixture with air 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 classifications.5.3 This test method can be used to measure and describe the properties of materials in response to heat and a test flame under controlled laboratory conditions and shall not be used to describe or appraise the fire hazard or fire risk of materials under actual fire conditions. However, results of this test method may be used as elements of a fire risk assessment, that takes into account all of the factors that are pertinent to an assessment of the fire hazard of a particular end use.1.1 This test method covers the determination of the flash point of aviation turbine fuel, diesel fuel, kerosine and related products in the temperature range of 40 °C to 135 °C by a small scale closed cup apparatus.1.2 This test method is only applicable to homogeneous materials that are liquid at or near ambient temperature and at temperatures required to perform the test.1.3 This test method is not applicable to liquids contaminated by traces of highly volatile materials.1.4 This test method is a dynamic method and depends on a definite rate of temperature increase. It is one of many flash point methods available, and every flash point test method, including this one, is an empirical one.1.5 If the user's specification requires a defined flash point method, neither this test nor any other method should be substituted for the prescribed method without obtaining comparative data and an agreement from the specifier.1.6 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. For specific hazard statements, see Section 7 and the Material Safety Data Sheet for the product being tested.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

This specification establishes the indoor ballistic test range requirements for small arms and fragmentation testing of the following ballistic-resistant items: soft body armor, hard armor plates, body armor accessories, shields, and helmets. It specifies critical test range parameters in order to achieve consistency/repeatability among test ranges. It does not apply to “contact” shots taken on the test item (that is, the muzzle rests on the strike face of the test item).1.1 This standard specifies indoor ballistic test range requirements for small arms and fragmentation testing of the following ballistic-resistant items: soft body armor, hard armor plates, body armor accessories, shields, and helmets. The specification includes requirements for range geometry (for example, dimensions, alignment, spacing), range conditions (for example, temperature, humidity, lighting), test equipment (for example, receiver, mounting, test barrels, backing assembly mounting), instrumentation (for example, light screens, high speed cameras, radar), and measurement procedures (for example, projectile velocity, yaw).1.2 The purpose of this standard is to specify critical test range parameters in order to achieve consistency/repeatability among test ranges.1.3 This specification is not applicable for “contact” shots taken on the test item (that is, the muzzle rests on the strike face of the test item).1.4 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 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.1.4.1 The user of this standard will identify the system of units to be used, and it is critical to ensure that any cross-referenced standards maintain consistency of units between standards.1.5 This standard does not address environmental concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate practices and determine the applicability of regulatory requirements prior to use.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

5.1 This test method provides an indication of the presence of surfactants in aviation fuel. Like Test Methods D2550, D3602, D3948, and D7224, this test method can detect carryover traces of refinery treating residues in fuel as produced. In addition, these test methods can detect surface active substances added to or picked up by the fuel during handling from point of production to point of use. Certain additives can affect the WSI. Some of these substances affect the ability of filter separators to separate free water from the fuel.5.2 The small scale water separation tester has a measurement range from 0.0 WSI to 100.0 WSI.NOTE 1: WSI values greater than 100.0 WSI can be caused by a reduction in the light transmittance (see A1.1.5) of the test specimen due to material that was removed during the testing process.5.3 This test method was developed so refiners, fuel terminal operators, pipelines, and independent testing laboratory personnel can rapidly and precisely measure for the presence of surfactants, with a minimum of training, in a wide range of locations.1.1 This test method covers a procedure to rate the ability of aviation turbine fuels to release entrained and emulsified water when passed through a water-coalescing filter.1.2 Results are expressed as a Water Separation Index (WSI).1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard.1.3.1 Exception—Units in WSI are included.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

1.1 This specification provides the minimum requirements for a General Maintenance Manual (GMM) for an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) designed, manufactured, and operated in the small UAS category as defined by a Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).1.2 This specification applies to support professional entities that will receive operator certification by a CAA, and provide standards of practice for self- or third-party audit of operators of UAS.1.3 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

5.1 The induction period may be used as an indication of the oxidation and storage stability of spark ignition fuel.5.2 Compared to some other oxidation and storage stability test methods, this test method uses a small sample and gives a result in a short time period.1.1 This laboratory test method covers the quantitative determination of the stability of spark ignition fuel, including those containing alcohols or other oxygenates, under accelerated oxidation conditions, by an automatic instrument (Warning—This test method is not intended for determining the stability of gasoline components, particularly those with a high percentage of low boiling unsaturated compounds, as these can cause explosive conditions with the apparatus.2)1.2 This test method measures the induction period, under specified conditions, which can be used as an indication of the oxidation and storage stability of spark ignition fuel.1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as 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