5.1 This practice provides criteria that building design teams shall use to compare the environmental impacts associated with a reference building design and a final building design, including additions to existing buildings where applicable.5.2 This practice deals specifically with material selection for initial construction, including associated maintenance and replacement cycles over an assumed service life, taking operating energy use into account if required or explicitly allowed under the applicable code, standard, or rating system.1.1 This practice provides criteria to be applied irrespective of the assessment (LCA) tool that is used when LCA is undertaken at the whole building level to compare a final whole building design to a reference building design.1.2 The purpose of this practice is to support the use of whole building Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in building codes, standards, and building rating systems by ensuring that comparative assessments of final whole building designs relative to reference building designs take account of the relevant building features, life cycle stages, and related activities in similar fashion for both the reference and final building designs of the same building.1.3 The criteria do not deal with building occupant behavior, possible future changes in building function, building rehabilitation or retrofit, or other matters that cannot be foreseen or reasonably estimated at the design or permitting stage, or both where this practice applies.1.4 Only environmental impacts and aspects of sustainability are addressed in this practice. The social and economic impacts and aspects of sustainability are not addressed in this practice.1.5 This practice does not deal with basic LCA methodology, calculation methods or related matters that are covered in cited international standards.1.6 This practice does not supersede or modify existing ISO standards for the application of LCA at the product level, nor does it address any of the following related applications:1.6.1 Aggregation of building products Environmental Product Declarations (EPD) at the whole building level;1.6.2 Rules for applying EPDs in a building code, standard, or rating system; and1.6.3 Comparability of building product EPDs.NOTE 1: ISO 14025 and ISO 21930 provide guidance on use and comparability of building products EPDs.1.7 This practice does not specify the impact categories or sustainability aspects to be addressed in building codes, standards, or building rating systems and users of this practice conform to the impact category requirements specified in the applicable code, standard, or rating system.1.8 The text of this standard contains notes that provide explanatory material. These notes shall not be considered as requirements of the standard.1.9 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, 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： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

Unmanned aircraft present unique challenges for applicants and examiners. Unlike manned aircraft, in which, regardless of the size and complexity of the aircraft, there are still basic similarities in concepts and operations, unmanned aircraft are varied in both flight capability and pilot interaction. Many aspects of unmanned aircraft operations are automated, and the pilots may not have the same information available to them (that is, pitch and bank) that pilots flying manned aircraft have available to them. This will create a situation in which some unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) will not be capable of meeting all the requirements of this practice or will not require the same skill sets that manned aircraft require.The examiner will have to decide which tasks the applicant's UAS will be capable of completing and test those tasks. As required, the examiner will note any limitations as a result of the UAS being incapable of performing a task on the applicant's certificate per 14 CFR 61.45(b)(2). If the applicant desires to have a certificate with no restrictions or limitations, he/she will need to use a UAS that is capable of completing all the tasks in this practice.Information considered directive in nature is described in this practice by the use of “shall” and “must” indicating the actions are mandatory. Guidance information is described in terms such as “should” and “may” indicating the actions are desirable or permissive but not mandatory. A list of acronyms is in Section 3.This practice includes the areas of operation and tasks that will demonstrate the pilot's ability to fly the unmanned aircraft safely and proficiently.1.1 This practice defines the knowledge, skills, and abilities required of unmanned aircraft pilots to be able to fly unmanned aircraft—single-engine land (SEL) in the national airspace system safely and for hire.1.2 The commercial unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) pilot practical test standards (PTS)-unmanned aircraft include the areas of operation and tasks that will demonstrate the pilot's ability to fly the unmanned aircraft safely and proficiently.1.3 This practice does not apply to pilots who will fly mini/small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for hire within visual range of the pilot, mini/small UAVs being those UAVs listed as lightly regulated.1.4 This practice provides a PTS intended to meet the Civil Aviation Authority’s (CAA) requirements for issuing commercial UAS pilot authorizations.1.5 The values given in inch-pound units are to be regarded as the standard. The values in parentheses are for information only.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

4.1 The scope of the Committee F24 is the development of standard methods of testing, performance specifications, definitions, standard methods of maintenance and operations, and best practices for amusement rides and devices. The work of this Committee F24 will be coordinated with other ASTM Committees and other societies and organizations having mutual interest.4.2 The intent of this standard guide is to serve as an overview for F24 standards and to outline processes and procedures to manage the lifecycle of an amusement ride or device. Persons looking for more details on an individual type of amusement ride or device should reference the specific standards available. See Appendix X1.1.1 This guide provides an overview of the appropriate F24 standard(s) to be applied during development and operation and use phases of an amusement ride or device.1.2 This guide sets forth procedures for owners, operators, designers, engineers, manufacturers, vendors, and suppliers to apply throughout the lifecycle of an amusement ride or device.1.3 This guide sets forth procedures for assessing and managing the end of operational life for an amusement ride or device, sub-system or component.1.4 This guide includes an appendix, which provides additional information to improve the understanding and application of the criteria presented in this standard guide.1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

1.1 This test method covers the determination of the color of cresylic acids. The material under test is compared to arbitrary color standards that are expressed in terms of the "C" series color standards.1.2 The following applies to all specified limits in this test method for purposes of determining conformance with this standard. An observed value or a calculated value shall be rounded off "to the nearest unit" in the last right hand digit used in expressing limit, in accordance with the rounding off method of Practice E29.1.3 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. For specific hazard statements, see Section 6.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

4.1 Conformable Eddy Current Sensors—Conformable, eddy current sensors can be used on both flat and curved surfaces, including fillets, cylindrical surfaces, etc. When used with models for predicting the sensor response and appropriate algorithms, these sensors can measure variations in physical properties, such as electrical conductivity or magnetic permeability, or both, as well as thickness of conductive coatings on any substrate and nonconductive coatings on conductive substrates or on a conducting coating. These property variations can be used to detect and characterize heterogeneous regions within the conductive coatings, for example, regions of locally higher porosity.4.2 Sensors and Sensor Arrays—Depending on the application, either a single-sensing element sensor or a sensor array can be used for coating characterization. A sensor array provides a better capability to map spatial variations in coating thickness or conductivity, or both (reflecting, for example, porosity variations), and provides better throughput for scanning large areas. The size of the sensor footprint and the size and number of sensing elements within an array depend on the application requirements and constraints, and the nonconductive (for example, ceramic) coating thickness.4.3 Coating Thickness Range—The conductive coating thickness range over which a sensor performs best depends on the difference between the electrical conductivity of the substrate and conductive coating and available frequency range. For example, a specific sensor geometry with a specific frequency range for impedance measurements may provide acceptable performance for an MCrAlY coating over a nickel-alloy substrate for a relatively wide range of conductive coating thickness, for example, from 75 to 400 μm (0.003 to 0.016 in.). Yet, for another conductive coating-substrate combination, this range may be 10 to 100 μm (0.0004 to 0.004 in.). The coating characterization performance may also depend on the thickness of a nonconductive topcoat. For any coating system, performance verification on representative coated specimens is critical to establishing the range of optimum performance. For nonconductive coatings, such as ceramic coatings, the thickness measurement range increases with an increase of the spatial wavelength of the sensor (for example, thicker coatings can be measured with larger sensor winding spatial wavelength). For nonconductive coatings, when roughness of the coating may have a significant effect on the thickness measurement, independent measurements of the nonconductive coating roughness, for example, by profilometry, may provide a correction for the roughness effects.4.4 Process-Affected Zone—For some processes, for example, shot peening, the process-affected zone can be represented by an effective layer thickness and conductivity. These values can in turn be used to assess process quality. A strong correlation must be demonstrated between these “effective coating” properties and process quality.4.5 Three-Unknown Algorithm—Use of multiple-frequency impedance measurements and a three-unknown algorithm permits independent determination of three unknowns: (1) thickness of conductive nonmagnetic coatings, (2) conductivity of conductive nonmagnetic coatings, and (3) lift-off that provides a measure of the nonconductive coating thickness.4.6 Accuracy—Depending on the material properties and frequency range, there is an optimal measurement performance range for each coating system. The instrument, its air standardization or reference substrate standardization, or both, and its operation permit the coating thickness to be determined within ±15 % of its true thickness for coating thickness within the optimal range and within ±30 % outside the optimal range. Better performance may be required for some applications.4.7 Databases for Sensor Response—Databases of sensor responses may be used to represent the model response for the sensor. These databases may be based upon physical models or empirical relations. The databases list expected sensor responses (for example, the real and imaginary parts or the magnitude and phase of the complex transimpedance between the sense element and drive winding) over relevant ranges in the properties of interest. Example properties for a coated substrate material are the magnetic permeability or electrical conductivity of the substrate, or both, the electrical conductivity and thickness of the coating, and the lift-off. The ranges of the property values within the databases should span the expected property ranges for the material system to be examined.1.1 This practice covers the use of conformable eddy current sensors for nondestructive characterization of coatings without standardization on coated reference parts. It includes the following: (1) thickness measurement of a conductive coating on a conductive substrate, (2) detection and characterization of local regions of increased porosity of a conductive coating, and (3) measurement of thickness for nonconductive coatings on a conductive substrate or on a conductive coating. This practice includes only nonmagnetic coatings on either magnetic (μ ≠ μ0) or nonmagnetic (μ = μ0) substrates. In addition to discrete coatings on substrates, this practice can also be used to measure the effective thickness of a process-affected zone (for example, shot peened layer for aluminum alloys, alpha case for titanium alloys) and to assess the condition of other layered media such as joints (for example, lap joints and skin panels over structural supports). For specific types of coated parts, the user may need a more specific procedure tailored to a specific application.1.2 Specific uses of conventional eddy current sensors are covered by Practices D7091 and E376 and the following test methods issued by ASTM: B244 and E1004. Guidance for the use of conformable eddy current sensor arrays is provided in Guide E2884.1.3 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to inch-pound units 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： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 The reactivity and instability of O3 precludes the storage of O3 concentration standards for any practical length of time, and precludes direct certification of O3 concentrations as SRM's. Moreover, there is no available SRM that can be readily and directly adapted to the generation of O3 standards analogous to permeation devices and standard gas cylinders for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Dynamic generation of O3 concentrations is relatively easy with a source of ultraviolet (UV) radiation. However, accurately certifying an O3 concentration as a primary standard requires assay of the concentration by a comprehensively specified analytical procedure, which must be performed every time a standard is needed.5.2 The primary UV standard photometers, which are usually used at a fixed location under controlled conditions, are used to certify transfer standards that are then transported to the field sites where the ambient ozone monitors are being used. See Practice D5110.5.3 The advantages of this procedure are:5.3.1 All O3 monitors in a given network or region may be traced to a single primary standard.5.3.2 The primary standard is used at only one location, under controlled conditions.5.3.3 Transfer standards are more rugged and more easily portable than primary standards.5.3.4 Transfer standards may be used to intercompare various primary standards.1.1 These practices describe means for calibrating ambient, workplace or indoor ozone monitors, using transfer standards.1.2 These practices describe five types of transfer standards:Practice A—Analytical instruments,Practice B—Boric acid potassium iodide (BAKI) manual analytical procedure,Practice C—Gas phase titration with excess nitric oxide,Practice D—Gas phase titration with excess ozone, andPractice E—Ozone generator device.1.3 These practices describe procedures to establish the authority of transfer standards: qualification, certification, and periodic recertification.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. See Section 8 for specific precautionary statements.1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 843元 / 折扣价： 717 元 加购物车

4.1 The appearance of the various degrees of dry and wet abrasive blast cleaning, hand and power tool cleaning, and water jetting are influenced by the initial rust grades of the steel being cleaned and/or the type and condition of the coating on the existing steel. The standards and guides aid visually in judging and evaluating the degree of rusting and/or paint deterioration before cleaning and the degree of cleaning of steel surfaces prior to painting.4.2 Five methods have evolved because of differences in the practice of using visual standards and guides throughout the world, and the method of surface preparation employed. In Europe, the visual standards (Method A) are used as the primary means of assessing the degree of cleaning. In the U.S., the SSPC written definitions take precedence with the visual guides and reference photographs used as a supplement. The visual guides and reference photographs of Methods B, C, and D conform to the SSPC written definitions. There are written definitions for Method E, however, the visual guide for Method E does not contain a complete set of pictorials corresponding to each surface cleanliness definition.1.1 The visual surface preparation guides and standards consist of a series of color prints available as separate publications. Five different sets of photographs are described in this standard, designated as Method A (ISO/Swedish Standard2) and Methods B through E (SSPC Guides and Reference Photographs3). The methods differ in the depiction of the initial surface, in the definition and depiction of the cleaning conditions, and in the number of cleaning methods included. Because of these differences, the specifier should state which guide to use.1.2 The colored visual surface preparation guides represent different conditions of hot-rolled carbon steel before and after surface preparation. Prior to cleaning, there are four rust grades, A to D, that cover the range from intact mill scale to 100 % rusted and pitted steel. The standards then depict the appearance of the initial conditions after cleaning by one or more methods (for example, dry abrasive blast cleaning) to various degrees of thoroughness. In addition, Method B includes three painted conditions that contain various degrees of deterioration. The Guide3 depicts these conditions after various degrees of dry abrasive blast cleaning. Method C includes four rust grades and three painted conditions that contain various degrees of deterioration. The Guide4 depicts these conditions after various degrees of hand and power tool cleaning. Method D includes two rust grades and four painted conditions that contain various degrees of deterioration. The Guide5 depicts these conditions after various degrees of water jetting, with three levels of flash rusting. Method E includes two rust grades. The Guide6 depicts these conditions after various degrees of wet abrasive blast cleaning, with three levels of flash rusting.1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

1.1 This guide provides information for the development of ASTM standards (guides, practices, terminology, test methods, and specifications) relating to recycling and the use of recycled plastics.1.2 This guide is directed to consumer, commercial, and industrial products made in whole or in part with recycled plastics or recovered plastic products.1.3 This guide addresses terminology, performance standards, specifications and their revisions, quality assurance, separation or segregation of products by classes, identification and labeling of generic classes of polymers, contaminants, fillers, designing for recycling, degradable plastics, and certification and percentages of recycled plastics.1.4 This guide does not address general parameters or factors involving the original manufacture of virgin polymers or the fabrication of consumer products from these virgin polymers.1.5 This standard does not purport to address 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.Note 1--There is no equivalent ISO standard.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

4.1 To describe the uncertainties of a standard test method, precision and bias statements are required.3 The formulation of these statements has been addressed from time to time, and at least two standards practices (Practices E177 and E691) have been issued. The 1986 Compilation of ASTM Standard Definitions (6)4 devotes several pages to these terms. This guide should not be used in cases where small numbers of test results do not support statistical normality. 4.2 The intent of this guide is to help analysts prepare and interpret precision and bias statements. It is essential that, when the terms are used, their meaning should be clear and easily understood. 4.3 Appendix X1 provides the theoretical foundation for precision and bias concepts and Practice E691 addresses the problem of sources of variation. To illustrate the interplay between sources of variation and formulation of precision and bias statements, a hypothetical data set is analyzed in Appendix X2. This example shows that depending on how the data was collected, different precision and bias statements are possible. Reference to this example will be found throughout this guide. 4.4 There has been much debate inside and outside the statistical community on the exact meaning of some statistical terms. Thus, following a number of the terms in Section 3 is a list of several ways in which that term has been used. This listing is not meant to indicate that these meanings are equivalent or equally acceptable. The purpose here is more to encourage clear definition of terms used than to take sides. For example, use of the term systematic error is discouraged by some. If it is to be used, the reader should be told exactly what is meant in the particular circumstance. 4.5 This guide is intended as an aid to understanding the statistical concepts used in precision and bias statements. There is no intention that this be a self-contained introduction to statistics. Since many analysts have no formal statistical training, it is advised that a trained statistician be consulted for further clarification if necessary. 1.1 This guide covers terminology useful for the preparation and interpretation of precision and bias statements. This guide does not recommend a specific error model or statistical method. It provides awareness of terminology and approaches and options to use for precision and bias statements. 1.2 In formulating precision and bias statements, it is important to understand the statistical concepts involved and to identify the major sources of variation that affect results. Appendix X1 provides a brief summary of these concepts. 1.3 To illustrate the statistical concepts and to demonstrate some sources of variation, a hypothetical data set has been analyzed in Appendix X2. Reference to this example is made throughout this guide. 1.4 It is difficult and at times impossible to ship nuclear materials for interlaboratory testing. Thus, precision statements for test methods relating to nuclear materials will ordinarily reflect only within-laboratory variation. 1.5 No units are used in this statistical analysis. 1.6 This guide does not involve the use of materials, operations, or equipment and does not address any risk associated. 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 This practice is used for drafting impact test specification requirements, and it presupposes no special familiarity with statistical methods. It provides for specification values that will pass acceptable lots with a high degree of certainty. The impact test requirement is intended to discriminate between acceptable materials and manufacturing methods and those which are not; it is not a simulated service test.1.1 This practice describes a procedure for setting up impact test requirements on the basis of test data obtained by Test Method D2444.1.2 This practice is applicable to thermoplastic pipe and fittings.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

4.1 This guide is intended for use by those undertaking the development of fire-hazard-assessment standards. Such standards are expected to be useful to manufacturers, architects, specification writers, and authorities having jurisdiction.4.2 As a guide, this document provides information on an approach to the development of a fire hazard standard; fixed procedures are not established. Limitations of data, available tests and models, and scientific knowledge may constitute significant constraints on the fire-hazard-assessment procedure.4.3 While the focus of this guide is on developing fire-hazard-assessment standards for products, the general concepts presented also may apply to processes, activities, occupancies, and buildings.4.4 When developing fire-risk-assessment standards, use Guide E1776. The present guide also contains some of the guidance to develop such a fire-risk assessment standard.1.1 This guide covers the development of fire-hazard-assessment standards.1.2 This guide is directed toward development of standards that will provide procedures for assessing fire hazards harmful to people, animals, or property.1.3 Fire-hazard assessment and fire-risk assessment are both procedures for assessing the potential for harm caused by something–the subject of the assessment–when it is involved in fire, where the involvement in fire is assessed relative to a number of defined fire scenarios.1.4 Both fire-hazard assessment and fire-risk assessment provide information that can be used to address a larger group of fire scenarios. Fire-hazard assessment provides information on the maximum potential for harm that can be caused by the fire scenarios that are analyzed or by any less severe fire scenarios. Fire-risk assessment uses information on the relative likelihood of the fire scenarios that are analyzed and the additional fire scenarios that each analyzed scenario represents. In these two ways, fire-hazard assessment and fire-risk assessment allow the user to support certain statements about the potential for harm caused by something when it is involved in fire, generally.1.5 Fire-hazard assessment is appropriate when the goal is to characterize maximum potential for harm under worst-case conditions. Fire-risk assessment is appropriate when the goal is to characterize overall risk (average severity) or to characterize the likelihood of worst-case outcomes. It is important that the user select the appropriate type of assessment procedure for the statements the user wants to support.1.6 Fire-hazard assessment is addressed in this guide and fire-risk assessment is addressed in Guide E1776.1.7 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 fire standard cannot be used to provide quantitative measures.1.9 This standard is used to predict or provide a quantitative measure of the fire hazard from a specified set of fire conditions involving specific materials, products, or assemblies. This assessment does not necessarily predict the hazard of actual fires which involve conditions other than those assumed in the analysis.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： 843元 / 折扣价： 717 元 加购物车

4.1 This guide is intended for use by those undertaking the development of fire hazard assessment standards for electrotechnical products. Such standards are expected to be useful to manufacturers, architects, specification writers, and authorities having jurisdiction.4.2 As a guide, this document provides information on an approach to the development of a fire hazard assessment standard; fixed procedures are not established. Any limitations in the availability of data, of appropriate test procedures, of adequate fire models, or in the advancement of scientific knowledge will place significant constraints upon the procedure for the assessment of fire hazard.4.3 The focus of this guide is on fire assessment standards for electrotechnical products. However, insofar as the concepts in this guide are consistent with those of Guide E1546, the general concepts presented also may be applicable to processes, activities, occupancies, and buildings. Guide E2061 contains an example of how to use information on fire-test-response characteristics of electrotechnical products (electric cables) in a fire hazard assessment for a specific occupancy (rail transportation vehicle).4.4 A standard developed following this guide should not attempt to set a safety threshold or other pass/fail criteria. Such a standard should specify all steps required to determine fire hazard measures for which safety thresholds or pass/fail criteria can be meaningfully set by authorities having jurisdiction.1.1 This guide provides guidance on the development of fire hazard assessment standards for electrotechnical products. For the purposes of this guide, products include materials, components, and end-use products.1.2 This guide is directed toward development of standards that will provide procedures for assessing fire hazards harmful to people, animals, or property.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 fire standard cannot be used to provide quantitative measures.1.5 This standard is used to predict or provide a quantitative measure of the fire hazard from a specified set of fire conditions involving specific materials, products, or assemblies. This assessment does not necessarily predict the hazard of actual fires which involve conditions other than those assumed in the analysis.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 This guide provides a list of the standards within Committee D04 that address the use of materials, specifications, and construction practices that could have broader sustainability benefits. This list is current, relative to the approval date of the standard.5.2 The standards discussed are listed in the Referenced Documents section.5.3 This guide is intended to be used as a reference for an owner, engineer, contractor, or combinations thereof, to identify potential sustainability strategies and the respective material and construction standards and specifications. It is important to note that these standards do not ensure sustainability goals are achieved; rather, they may be useful in determining inputs for sustainability metrics.1.1 This guide is intended to be a reference for locating specific test methods relating to materials and construction standards within the jurisdiction of Committee D04 on Road and Paving Materials that could be a strategy used to meet project sustainability goals.1.2 The guide needs to be reviewed and updated by Subcommittee D04.99 on Sustainable Asphalt Pavement Materials and Construction, on an as-needed basis, to remain viable.1.2.1 Additions or deletions to the reference list in Section 2 shall be submitted to Subcommittee D04.99 and balloted.1.3 Units—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： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

4.1 Master Matrix—This matrix document is written as a reference and guide to the use of existing standards and to help manage the development and application of new standards, as needed for LWR-PV surveillance programs. Paragraphs 4.2 – 4.5 are provided to assist the authors and users involved in the preparation, revision, and application of these standards (see Section 6).4.2 Approach and Primary Objectives: 4.2.1 Standardized procedures and reference data are recommended in regard to (1) neutron and gamma dosimetry, (2) physics (neutronics and gamma effects), and (3) metallurgical damage correlation methods and data, associated with the analysis, interpretation, and use of nuclear reactor test and surveillance results.4.2.2 Existing state-of-the-art practices associated with (1), (2), and (3), if uniformly and consistently applied, can provide reliable (10 to 30 %, 1σ) estimates of changes in LWR-PV steel fracture toughness during a reactor’s service life (36).4.2.3 Reg. Guide 1.99 and Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Part NF2121 require that the materials used in reactor pressure vessels support “...shall be made of materials that are not injuriously affected by ... irradiation conditions to which the item will be subjected.”4.2.4 By the use of this series of standards and the uniform and consistent documentation and reporting of estimated changes in LWR-PV steel fracture toughness with uncertainties of 10 to 30 % (1σ), the nuclear industry and licensing and regulatory agencies can meet realistic LWR power plant operating conditions and limits, such as those defined in Appendices G and H of 10 CFR Part 50, Reg. Guide 1.99, and the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.4.2.5 The uniform and consistent application of this series of standards allows the nuclear industry and licensing and regulatory agencies to properly administer their responsibilities in regard to the toughness of LWR power reactor materials to meet requirements of Appendices G and H of 10 CFR Part 50, Reg. Guide 1.99, and the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.4.3 Dosimetry Analysis and Interpretation (1, 3-5, 21, 28, 29, 35, 37, 38)—When properly implemented, validated, and calibrated by vendor/utility groups, state-of-the-art dosimetry practices exist that are adequate for existing and future LWR power plant surveillance programs. The uncertainties and errors associated with the individual and combined effects of the different variables (items 1.4.1 – 1.4.10 of 1.4) are considered in this section and in 4.4 and 4.5. In these sections, the accuracy (uncertainty and error) statements that are made are quantitative and representative of state-of-the-art technology. Their correctness and use for making EOL predictions for any given LWR power plant, however, are dependent on such factors as (1) the existing plant surveillance program, (2) the plant geometrical configuration, and (3) available surveillance results from similar plants. As emphasized in Section III-A of Ref (7), however, these effects are not unique and are dependent on (1) the surveillance capsule design, (2) the configuration of the reactor core and internals, and (3) the location of the surveillance capsule within the reactor geometry. Further, the statement that a result could be in error is dependent on how the neutron and gamma ray fields are estimated for a given reactor power plant (1, 11, 28, 36, 39, 40). For most of the error statements in 4.3 – 4.5, it is assumed that these estimates are based on reactor transport theory calculations that have been normalized to the core power history (see 4.4.1.2) and not to surveillance capsule dosimetry results. The 4.3 – 4.5 accuracy statements, consequently, are intended for use in helping the standards writer and user to determine the relative importance of the different variables in regard to the application of the set of ASTM standards, Fig. 1, for (1) LWR-PV surveillance program, (2) as instruments of licensing and regulation, and (3) for establishing improved metallurgical databases.4.3.1 Required Accuracies and Benchmark Field Referencing: 4.3.1.1 The accuracies (uncertainties and errors) (Note 1) desirable for LWR-PV steel exposure definition are of the order of ±10 to 15 % (1σ) while exposure accuracies in establishing trend curves should preferably not exceed ±10 % (1σ) (1, 11, 21, 36, 40-46). In order to achieve such goals, the response of neutron dosimeters should therefore also be interpretable to accuracies within ±10 to 15 % (1σ) in terms of exposure units and be measurable to within ±5 % (1σ).NOTE 1: Uncertainty in the sense treated here is a scientific characterization of the reliability of a measurement result and its statement is the necessary premise for using these results for applied investigations claiming high or at least stated accuracy. The term error will be reserved to denote a known deviation of the result from the quantity to be measured. Errors are usually taken into account by corrections.4.3.1.2 Dosimetry “inventories” should be established in support of the above for use by vendor/utility groups and research and development organizations.4.3.1.3 Benchmark field referencing of research and utilities’ vendor/service laboratories has been completed that is:(1) Needed for quality control and certification of current and improved dosimetry practices; and(2) Extensively applied in standard and reference neutron fields, PCA, PSF, SDMF, VENUS, NESDIP, PWRs, BWRs (1), and a number of test reactors to quantify and minimize uncertainties and errors.4.3.2 Status of Benchmark Field Referencing Work for Dosimetry Detectors—PCA, VENUS, NESDIP experiments with and without simulated surveillance capsules and power reactor tests have provided data for studying the effect of deficiencies in analysis and interpretations; the PCA/PSF/SDMF perturbation experiments have provided data for more realistic PWR and BWR power plant surveillance capsule configurations and have permitted utilities’ vendor/service laboratories to test, validate, calibrate, and update their practices (1, 4, 5, 47). The PSF surveillance capsule test provided data, but of a more one-dimensional nature. PCA, VENUS, and NESDIP experimentation together with some test reactor work augmented the benchmark field quantification of these effects (1, 3, 4, 28, 36, 48-51).4.3.3 Additional Validation Work for Dosimetry Detectors: 4.3.3.1 Establishment of nuclear data, photo-reaction cross sections, and neutron damage reference files.4.3.3.2 Establishment of proper quality assurance procedures for sensor set designs and individual detectors.4.3.3.3 Interlaboratory comparisons using standard and reference neutron fields and other test reactors that provide adequate validations and calibrations, see Guide E2005.4.4 Reactor Physics Analysis and Interpretation (1, 3, 5, 11, 28, 35, 36, 39, 52)—When properly implemented, validated, and calibrated by vendor/utility groups, state-of-the-art reactor physics practices exist that are adequate for in- and ex-vessel estimates of PV-steel changes in fracture toughness for existing and future power plant surveillance programs.4.4.1 Required Accuracies and Benchmark Field Referencing: 4.4.1.1 The accuracies desirable for LWR-PV steel (surveillance capsule specimens and vessels) exposure definition are of the order of ±10 to 15 % (1σ). Under ideal conditions benchmarking computational techniques are capable of predicting absolute in- and ex-vessel neutron exposures and reaction rates per unit reactor core power to within ±15 % (but generally not to within ±5 %). The accuracy will be worse, however, in applications to actual power plants because of geometrical and other complexities (1, 3, 4, 11, 21, 36-39, 52).4.4.1.2 Calculated in-and ex-vessel neutron and gamma ray fields can be normalized to the core power history or to experimental measurements. The latter may include dosimetry from surveillance capsules, other in-vessel locations, or ex-vessel measurements in the cavity outside the vessel. In each case, the uncertainty arising from the calculation needs to be considered.4.4.2 Power Plant Reactor Physics Analysis and Interpretation: 4.4.2.1 Result of Neglect of Benchmarking—One quarter thickness location (1/4T) vessel wall estimates of damage exposure are not easily compared with experimental results. “Lead factors,” based on the different ways they can be calculated (fluence >0.1 or >1.0 MeV and dpa) may not always be conservative; that is, some surveillance capsules have been positioned in-vessel such that the actual lead factor is very near unity—no lead at all. Also the differences between lead factors based on fluence E > 0.1 or > 1 MeV and dpa can be significant, perhaps 50 % or more (1, 11, 21, 28, 36-38, 52).4.4.3 PCA, VENUS, and NESDIP Experiments and PCA Blind Test: 4.4.3.1 Test of transport theory methods under clean geometry and clean core source conditions shall be made (1, 4, 11, 52).4.4.3.2 This is a necessary but not sufficient benchmark test of the adequacy of a vendor/utility group’s power reactor physics computational tools.4.4.3.3 The standard recommendation should be that the vendor/utility group’s observed differences between their own calculated and the PCA, VENUS, and NESDIP measured integral and differential exposure and reaction rate parameters be used to validate and improve their calculational tools (if the differences fall outside the PCA, VENUS, and NESDIP experimental accuracy limits).4.4.4 PWR and BWR Generic Power Reactor Tests: 4.4.4.1 Test of transport theory methods under actual geometry and variable core source conditions (1, 3, 4, 28, 35, 36, 53).4.4.4.2 This is a necessary and partly sufficient benchmark test of the adequacy of a vendor/utility group’s power reactor physics computational tools.4.4.4.3 The standard recommendation should be that the vendor/utility group’s observed differences between their own calculated and the selected PWR or BWR measured integral and differential exposure and reaction rate parameters be used to validate and improve their calculation tools (if the differences fall outside of the selected PWR or BWR experimental accuracy limits).4.4.4.4 The power reactor “benchmarks” that have been established for this purpose are identified and discussed in Refs (1, 3, 4, 35, 53) and their references and in Guide E2006.4.4.5 Operating Power Reactor Tests: 4.4.5.1 This is a necessary test of transport theory methods under actual geometry and variable core source conditions, but for a particular type or class of vendor/utility group power reactors. Here, actual in-vessel surveillance capsule and any required ex-vessel measured dosimetry information will be utilized as in 4.4.4 (1, 3, 4, 28, 35, 36, 53). Note, however, that operating power reactor tests are not sufficient by themselves (Reg. Guide 1.190, Section 4.4.5.1).4.4.5.2 Accuracies associated with surveillance program reported values of exposures and reaction rates are expected to be in the 10 to 30 % (1σ) range (36).4.5 Metallurgical Damage Correlation Analysis and Interpretation (1-8, 10, 11, 13, 15-29, 36-38)—When properly implemented, validated, and calibrated by vendor/utility groups, state-of-the-art metallurgical damage correlation practices exist that are adequate for in- and ex-vessel estimates of PV-steel changes in fracture toughness for existing and future power plant surveillance programs.4.5.1 Required Accuracies and Benchmark Field Referencing: 4.5.1.1 The accuracies desirable and achievable for LWR-PV steel (test reactor specimens, surveillance capsule specimens, and vessels and support structure) data correlation and data extrapolation (to predict fracture toughness changes both in space and time) are of the order of ±10 to 30 % (1σ). In order to achieve such a goal, however, the metallurgical parameters (ΔNDTT, upper shelf, yield strength, etc.) must be interpretable to well within ±20 to 30 % (1σ). This mandates that in addition to the dosimetry and physics variables already discussed that the individual uncertainties and errors associated with a number of other variables (neutron dose rate, neutron spectrum, irradiation temperature, steel chemical composition, and microstructure) must be minimized and results must be interpretable to within the same ±10 to 30 % (1σ) range.4.5.1.2 Advanced sensor sets (including dosimetry, temperature and damage correlation sensors) and practices have been established in support of the above for use by vendor/utility groups (1, 4, 5, 11, 39, 50, 54, 55).4.5.1.3 Benchmark field referencing of utilities' vendor/service laboratories, as well as advanced practices, is in progress or being planned that is (1, 3-6, 28, 50, 54-56):(1) Needed for validation of data correlation procedures and time and space extrapolations (to PV positions: surface, 1/4 T, etc.) of test reactor and power reactor surveillance capsule metallurgical and neutron exposure data.(2) Being or will be tested in test reactor neutron fields to quantify and minimize uncertainties and errors (included here is the use of damage correlation materials—steel, sapphire, etc.).4.5.2 Benchmark Field Referencing—The PSF (all positions: surveillance, surface, 1/4T, 1/2T, and the void box) together with the Melusine PV-simulator and other tests, such as for thermal neutron effects, provide needed validation data on all variables—dosimetry, physics, and metallurgy (1, 4, 10, 19, 21, 22, 37, 38). Other test reactor data comes from surveillance capsule results that have been benchmarked by vendor/service laboratory/utility groups (1, 3, 4, 6, 11, 18, 27, 28, 36, 40-44, 47).4.5.3 Reg. Guide 1.99, NRC, EPRI Databases—NRC and Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) databases have been studied on an ongoing basis by ASTM Subcommittees E10.02 and E10.05, vendors, utilities, EPRI, and NRC contractors to establish improved databases for existing test and power reactor measured property change data. ASTM task groups recommend the use of updated and new exposure units (fluence total >0.1, >1.0 MeV, and dpa) for the NRC and EPRI databases (1, 2, 6, 7, 13, 18, 27, 36, 40-44, 47), and incorporate these recommendations in the appropriate standards. ASTM subcommittee E10.02 has updated the embrittlement database and the prediction model in E900–15. The exposure unit used is total fluence for E > 1 MeV. The basis of the prediction model is documented in an adjunct associated with E900, available from ASTM.4 The success of this effort depends on good cooperation between research and individual service laboratories and vendor/utility groups. An ASTM dosimetry cross section file based on the latest evaluations, as detailed in Guide E1018, and incorporating corrections for all known variables (perturbations, photo-reactions, spectrum, burn-in, yields, fluence time history, etc.) will be used as required and justified. Test reactor data will be addressed in a similar manner, as appropriate.1.1 This master matrix standard describes a series of standard practices, guides, and methods for the prediction of neutron-induced changes in light-water reactor (LWR) pressure vessel (PV) and support structure steels throughout a pressure vessel’s service life (Fig. 1). Referenced documents are listed in Section 2. The summary information that is provided in Sections 3 and 4 is essential for establishing proper understanding and communications between the writers and users of this set of matrix standards. It was extracted from the referenced standards (Section 2) and references for use by individual writers and users. More detailed writers’ and users’ information, justification, and specific requirements for the individual practices, guides, and methods are provided in Sections 3 – 5. General requirements of content and consistency are discussed in Section 6.FIG. 1 Organization and Use of ASTM Standards in the E706 Master Matrix1.2 This master matrix is intended as a reference and guide to the preparation, revision, and use of standards in the series.1.3 To account for neutron radiation damage in setting pressure-temperature limits and making fracture analyses ((1-12)2 and Guide E509), neutron-induced changes in reactor pressure vessel steel fracture toughness must be predicted, then checked by extrapolation of surveillance program data during a vessel’s service life. Uncertainties in the predicting methodology can be significant. Techniques, variables, and uncertainties associated with the physical measurements of PV and support structure steel property changes are not considered in this master matrix, but elsewhere ((2, 6, 7, 11-26) and Guide E509).1.4 The techniques, variables, and uncertainties related to (1) neutron and gamma dosimetry, (2) physics (neutronics and gamma effects), and (3) metallurgical damage correlation procedures and data are addressed in separate standards belonging to this master matrix (1, 17). The main variables of concern to (1), (2), and (3) are as follows:1.4.1 Steel chemical composition and microstructure,1.4.2 Steel irradiation temperature,1.4.3 Power plant configurations and dimensions, from the core periphery to surveillance positions and into the vessel and cavity walls,1.4.4 Core power distribution,1.4.5 Reactor operating history,1.4.6 Reactor physics computations,1.4.7 Selection of neutron exposure units,1.4.8 Dosimetry measurements,1.4.9 Neutron special effects, and1.4.10 Neutron dose rate effects.1.5 A number of methods and standards exist for ensuring the adequacy of fracture control of reactor pressure vessel belt lines under normal and accident loads ((1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 23-27), Referenced Documents: ASTM Standards (2.1), Nuclear Regulatory Documents (2.3) and ASME Standards (2.4)). As older LWR pressure vessels become more highly irradiated, the predictive capability for changes in toughness must improve. Since during a vessel's service life an increasing amount of information will be available from test reactor and power reactor surveillance programs, procedures to evaluate and use this information must be used (1, 2, 4-9, 11, 12, 23-26, 28). This master matrix defines the current (1) scope, (2) areas of application, and (3) general grouping for the series of ASTM standards, as shown in Fig. 1.1.6 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.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： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

3.1 The purpose of this standard practice is to provide the minimum requirements for the conduct of compliance audits.3.2 The intended use of standard is to provide a basis for an internal or external entity to develop an audit program. An audit program defines specific requirements for the execution of audits for a particular objective. An example of an audit program would be an external (third party) audit of LSA manufacturer’s quality assurance system.3.3 Compliance to this standard would insure that audit programs and those who develop and execute them are following a consensus set of minimum requirements.3.4 This standard does not mandate either internal or external audits.3.5 An auditing entity cannot request or approve an audit.3.6 Other Audit Criteria—Other audit criteria may be included in the audit scope if specified in the audit plan. Examples include safety, technical, operational, and management requirements. Items that are outside the scope of auditable criteria may be submitted as observations for possible resolution. However these are not binding and are not mandatory.3.7 Additional Services—Additional services are outside the scope of an audit objective. Examples of such services are consultation to resolve negative or open findings or any other service where the auditing entity conducts an activity other than an audit for the audited entity.3.8 Compliance Assurance—An audit is only an indicator of the compliance health of the facility and/or organization during only the period under review and therefore has limited compliance assurance and is not assumed to be exhaustive.3.9 Level of Review is Variable—The audit scope may vary to meet different audit objectives. For example, the audit scope may include only selected audit criteria, selected period under review, or selected portions of a facility or organization.1.1 This standard practice establishes the minimum set of requirements for auditing programs, methods, and systems, the responsibilities for all parties involved, and qualifications for entities conducting audits against ASTM standards on Light Sport Aircraft.1.2 This standard provides requirements to enable consistent and structured examination of objective evidence for compliance that is beneficial for the LSA industry and its consumers. It is the intent of this standard to provide the necessary minimum requirements for organizations to develop audit programs and procedures.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： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车