5.1 This test method is a tool for quality assurance use. Given a pressure-sensitive label stock and a requirement in terms of the minimum or maximum peel adhesion value expected for this label stock, the data from the test can be used in conjunction with acceptance criteria.5.2 This test method can show the relative bond strength of a given label stock to one or more surfaces of varied material and texture as compared to the standard stainless steel panel. Substitution of panels representative of the proposed substrates for the standard stainless steel panel would be acceptable for this procedure.1.1 This test method covers the measurement of the peel adhesion of pressure-sensitive label stocks. This test method gives a measure of the adherence to a standard steel substrate or to other surfaces of interest for a pressure-sensitive label stock.1.2 This test method provides a means of assessing the uniformity of the adhesion of a given type of pressure-sensitive label stock. The assessment may be within a sheet or roll, between sheets or rolls, or between production lots.1.3 Variations in the label stock facestock and adhesive can affect the response; therefore, this test method cannot be used to pinpoint the specific cause(s) of nonuniformity.1.4 This test method may not be appropriate to test label stocks having either stiff backings or backings showing a high stretch at low forces. These characteristics could result in a high variability of the test response, which is not a true indication of the real nature of the adhesive bond.1.5 The values stated in either SI or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as the standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system must be used independently, without combining values in any way.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

4.1 The allocation of limited resources (for example, time, money, regulatory oversight, qualified professionals) to any one petroleum release site necessarily influences corrective action decisions at other sites. This has spurred the search for innovative approaches to corrective action decision making, which still ensures that human health and the environment are protected.4.2 The RBCA process presented in this guide is a consistent, streamlined decision process for selecting corrective actions at petroleum release sites. Advantages of the RBCA approach are as follows:4.2.1 Decisions are based on reducing the risk of adverse human or environmental impacts,4.2.2 Site assessment activities are focussed on collecting only that information that is necessary to making risk-based corrective action decisions,4.2.3 Limited resources are focussed on those sites that pose the greatest risk to human health and the environment at any time,4.2.4 The remedial action achieves an acceptable degree of exposure and risk reduction,4.2.5 Compliance can be evaluated relative to site-specific standards applied at site-specific point(s) of compliance,4.2.6 Higher quality, and in some cases faster, cleanups than are currently realized, and4.2.7 A documentation and demonstration that the remedial action is protective of human health, safety, and the environment.4.3 Risk assessment is a developing science. The scientific approach used to develop the RBSL and SSTL may vary by state and user due to regulatory requirements and the use of alternative scientifically based methods.4.4 Activities described in this guide should be conducted by a person familiar with current risk and exposure assessment methodologies.4.5 In order to properly apply the RBCA process, the user should avoid the following:4.5.1 Use of Tier 1 RBSLs as mandated remediation standards rather than screening levels,4.5.2 Restriction of the RBCA process to Tier 1 evaluation only and not allowing Tier 2 or Tier 3 analyses,4.5.3 Placing arbitrary time constraints on the corrective action process; for example, requiring that Tiers 1, 2, and 3 be completed within 30-day time periods that do not reflect the actual urgency of and risks posed by the site,4.5.4 Use of the RBCA process only when active remediation is not technically feasible, rather than a process that is applicable during all phases of corrective action,4.5.5 Requiring the user to achieve technology-based remedial limits (for example, asymptotic levels) prior to requesting the approval for the RBSL or SSTL,4.5.6 The use of predictive modelling that is not supported by available data or knowledge of site conditions,4.5.7 Dictating that corrective action goals can only be achieved through source removal and treatment actions, thereby restricting the use of exposure reduction options, such as engineering and institutional controls,4.5.8 The use of unjustified or inappropriate exposure factors,4.5.9 The use of unjustified or inappropriate toxicity parameters,4.5.10 Neglecting aesthetic and other criteria when determining RBSLs or SSTLs,4.5.11 Not considering the effects of additivity when screening multiple chemicals,4.5.12 Not evaluating options for engineering or institutional controls, exposure point(s), compliance point(s), and carcinogenic risk levels before submitting remedial action plans,4.5.13 Not maintaining engineering or institutional controls, and4.5.14 Requiring continuing monitoring or remedial action at sites that have achieved the RBSL or SSTL.1.1 This is a guide to risk-based corrective action (RBCA), which is a consistent decision-making process for the assessment and response to a petroleum release, based on the protection of human health and the environment. Sites with petroleum release vary greatly in terms of complexity, physical and chemical characteristics, and in the risk that they may pose to human health and the environment. The RBCA process recognizes this diversity, and uses a tiered approach where corrective action activities are tailored to site-specific conditions and risks. While the RBCA process is not limited to a particular class of compounds, this guide emphasizes the application of RBCA to petroleum product releases through the use of the examples. Ecological risk assessment, as discussed in this guide, is a qualitative evaluation of the actual or potential impacts to environmental (nonhuman) receptors. There may be circumstances under which a more detailed ecological risk assessment is necessary (see Ref (1).21.2 The decision process described in this guide integrates risk and exposure assessment practices, as suggested by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), with site assessment activities and remedial measure selection to ensure that the chosen action is protective of human health and the environment. The following general sequence of events is prescribed in RBCA, once the process is triggered by the suspicion or confirmation of petroleum release:1.2.1 Performance of a site assessment;1.2.2 Classification of the site by the urgency of initial response;1.2.3 Implementation of an initial response action appropriate for the selected site classification;1.2.4 Comparison of concentrations of chemical(s) of concern at the site with Tier 1 Risk Based Screening Levels (RBSLs) given in a look-up table;1.2.5 Deciding whether further tier evaluation is warranted, if implementation of interim remedial action is warranted or if RBSLs may be applied as remediation target levels;1.2.6 Collection of additional site-specific information as necessary, if further tier evaluation is warranted;1.2.7 Development of site-specific target levels (SSTLs) and point(s) of compliance (Tier 2 evaluation);1.2.8 Comparison of the concentrations of chemical(s) of concern at the site with the Tier 2 evaluation SSTL at the determined point(s) of compliance or source area(s);1.2.9 Deciding whether further tier evaluation is warranted, if implementation of interim remedial action is warranted, or if Tier 2 SSTLs may be applied as remediation target levels;1.2.10 Collection of additional site-specific information as necessary, if further tier evaluation is warranted;1.2.11 Development of SSTL and point(s) of compliance (Tier 3 evaluation);1.2.12 Comparison of the concentrations of chemical(s) of concern at the site at the determined point(s) of compliance or source area(s) with the Tier 3 evaluation SSTL; and1.2.13 Development of a remedial action plan to achieve the SSTL, as applicable.1.3 The guide is organized as follows:1.3.1 Section 2 lists referenced documents,1.3.2 Section 3 defines terminology used in this guide,1.3.3 Section 4 describes the significance and use of this guide,1.3.4 Section 5 is a summary of the tiered approach,1.3.5 Section 6 presents the RBCA procedures in a step-by-step process,1.3.6 Appendix X1 details physical/chemical and toxicological characteristics of petroleum products,1.3.7 Appendix X2 discusses the derivation of a Tier 1 RBSL Look-Up Table and provides an example,1.3.8 Appendix X3 describes the uses of predictive modeling relative to the RBCA process,1.3.9 Appendix X4 discusses considerations for institutional controls, and1.3.10 Appendix X5 provides examples of RBCA applications.1.4 This guide describes an approach for RBCA. It is intended to compliment but not supersede federal, state, and local regulations. Federal, state, or local agency approval may be required to implement the processes outlined in this guide.1.5 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

5.1 On-line, at-line, in-line, and other near-real time monitoring systems that measure fuel gas characteristics, such as heating value, are prevalent in various gaseous fuel industries and in industries either producing or using gaseous fuel in their industrial processes. The installation and operation of particular systems vary depending on process type, regulatory requirements, and the user’s objectives and performance requirements. This practice is intended to provide guidance for standardized start-up procedures, operating procedures, and quality assurance practices for calorimeter based on-line, at-line, in-line, and other near-real time heating value monitoring systems. Users employing gas chromatographic based instrumentation for measurement of gaseous fuel heating value are referred to Practice D7164.1.1 This practice is for the determination of the heating value measurement of gaseous fuels using a calorimeter. Heating value determination of sample gasses containing water vapor will require vapor phase moisture measurements of the pre-combustion sample gas as well as the non-condensed gasses exiting the calorimeter. Instruments equipped with appropriate conditioners and algorithms may provide heating value results on a net or gross and dry or wet basis.1.2 This practice is applicable to at-line and in-line instruments that are operated from time to time on a continuous basis.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： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

This specification covers malleable iron flanges, pipe fittings, and valve parts, including parts to be assembled for use in railroad, marine, and other heavy duty service applications. The sizes, shapes, and dimensions of the fittings shall conform to the requirements specified. The iron shall be produced under constant control of chemical composition and physical properties. Records of the chemical composition of the iron and of the physical properties of the test specimens shall be systematically made and maintained.1.1 This specification covers malleable iron flanges, pipe fittings, and valve parts, including parts to be assembled for use in railroad, marine, and other heavy-duty service applications where fittings furnished in accordance with American National Standard for Malleable Iron Threaded Fittings, Classes 150 and 300 (ANSI B16.3) are not considered adequate.1.2 Service shall include up to 650 °F (345 °C).21.3 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 international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

4.1 The dielectric breakdown voltage and dielectric strength of an insulating gas in a uniform field depends primarily on the molecular structure of the gas. As different gases are mixed either by plan or by contamination, any change in dielectric breakdown voltage and dielectric strength will depend on both the nature and proportion of the individual gases. This test method uses plane and spherical electrodes which provide a nearly uniform field (see Appendix) in the area of electrical discharge. It is suitable for determining the dielectric breakdown voltage and dielectric strength of different gases and mixtures thereof for research and application evaluations and also as a field test. A more complete discussion of the significance of the dielectric strength test is given in the Appendix.1.1 This test method covers the determination of the dielectric breakdown voltage and dielectric strength of insulating gases used in transformers, circuit breakers, cables, and similar apparatus as an insulating medium. The test method is applicable only to gases with boiling points below room temperature at atmospheric pressure.1.2 This standard may involve hazardous materials, operations, and equipment. This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.3 Mercury has been designated by EPA and many state agencies as a hazardous material that can cause central nervous system, kidney and liver damage. Mercury, or its vapor, may be hazardous to health and corrosive to materials. Caution should be taken when handling mercury and mercury containing products. See the applicable product Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for details and EPA's website — http://www.epa.gov/mercury/faq.htm for additional information. Users should be aware that selling mercury and/or mercury containing products into your state may be prohibited by state law.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 Viscosity values at the shear rate and temperature of this test method have been indicated to be related to the viscosity providing hydrodynamic lubrication in automotive and heavy duty engines in severe service.75.2 The viscosities of engine oils under such high temperatures and shear rates are also related to their effects on fuel efficiency and the importance of high shear rate, high temperature viscosity has been addressed in a number of publications and presentations.71.1 This test method covers the laboratory determination of the viscosity of engine oils at 150 °C and 1.0·106 s−1 using a viscometer having a slightly tapered rotor and stator called the Tapered Bearing Simulator (TBS) Viscometer.21.2 The Newtonian calibration oils used to establish this test method range from approximately 1.2 mPa·s to 7.7 mPa·s at 150 °C. The precision has only been determined for the viscosity range 1.47 mPa·s to 5.09 mPa·s at 150 °C for the materials listed in the precision section.1.3 The non-Newtonian reference oil used to establish the shear rate of 1.0·106 s−1 for this test method has a viscosity closely held to 3.55 mPa·s at 150 °C by using the absolute viscometry of the TBS.1.4 Manual, semi-automated, and fully automated TBS viscometers were used in developing the precision statement for this test method.1.5 Application to petroleum products such as base oils and formulated engine oils was determined in preparing the viscometric information for this test method.1.6 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.6.1 This test method uses the milliPascal·second (mPa·s) as the unit of viscosity. This unit is equivalent to the centipoise (cP).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

5.1 When an engine oil is cooled, the rate and duration of cooling can affect its yield stress and viscosity. In this laboratory test, a fresh engine oil is slowly cooled through a temperature range where wax crystallization is known to occur, followed by relatively rapid cooling to the final test temperature. These laboratory test results have predicted as failures the known engine oils that have failed in the field because of lack of oil pumpability.4 These documented field failing oils all consisted of oils normally tested at –25 °C. These field failures are believed to be the result of the oil forming a gel structure that results in either excessive yield stress or viscosity of the engine oil, or both.5.2 Cooling Profiles: 5.2.1 For oils to be tested at −20 °C or colder, Table X1.1 applies. The cooling profile described in Table X1.1 is based on the viscosity properties of the ASTM Pumpability Reference Oils (PRO). This series of oils includes oils with normal low-temperature flow properties and oils that have been associated with low-temperature pumpability problems (1-5).5 Significance for the −35 °C and −40 °C temperature profiles is based on the data collected from the “Cold Starting and Pumpability Studies in Modern Engines” conducted by ASTM (6, 7).5.2.2 For oils to be tested at −15 °C or −10 °C, Table X1.2 applies. No significance has been determined for this temperature profile because of the absence of appropriate reference oils. Similarly, precision of the test method using this profile for the −10 °C test temperature is unknown. The temperature profile of Table X1.2 is derived from the one in Table X1.1 and has been moved up in temperature, relative to Table X1.1, in consideration of the expected higher cloud points of the viscous oils tested at −15 °C and −10 °C.1.1 This test method covers the measurement of the yield stress and viscosity of engine oils after cooling at controlled rates over a period exceeding 45 h to a final test temperature between –10 °C and –40 °C. The precision is stated for test temperatures from –40 °C to –15 °C. The viscosity measurements are made at a shear stress of 525 Pa over a shear rate of 0.4 s–1 to 15 s–1. The viscosity as measured at this shear stress was found to produce the best correlation between the temperature at which the viscosity reached a critical value and borderline pumping failure temperature in engines.1.2 This test method contain two procedures: Procedure A incorporates several equipment and procedural modifications from Test Method D4684–02 that have shown to improve the precision of the test, while Procedure B is unchanged from Test Method D4684–02. Additionally, Procedure A applies to those instruments that utilize thermoelectric cooling technology or direct refrigeration technology of recent manufacture for instrument temperature control. Procedure B can use the same instruments used in Procedure A or those cooled by circulating methanol.1.3 Procedure A of this test method has precision stated for a yield range from less than 35 Pa to 210 Pa and apparent viscosity range from 4300 mPa·s to 270 000 mPa·s. The test procedure can determine higher yield stress and viscosity levels.1.4 This test method is applicable for unused oils, sometimes referred to as fresh oils, designed for both light duty and heavy duty engine applications. It also has been shown to be suitable for used diesel and gasoline engine oils. The applicability to petroleum products other than engine oils has not been determined.1.5 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.5.1 Exception—This test method uses the SI based unit of milliPascal second (mPa·s) for viscosity which is equivalent to, centiPoise (cP).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

4.1 A variety of products and materials are irradiated with X-radiation to modify their characteristics and improve the economic value or to reduce their microbial population for health-related purposes. Dosimetry requirements might vary depending on the type and end use of the product. Some examples of irradiation applications where dosimetry may be used are:4.1.1 Sterilization of health care products;4.1.2 Treatment of food for the purpose of parasite and pathogen control, insect disinfestation, and shelf life extension;4.1.3 Disinfection of consumer products;4.1.4 Cross-linking or degradation of polymers and elastomers;4.1.5 Curing composite material;4.1.6 Polymerization of monomers and oligomer and grafting of monomers onto polymers;4.1.7 Enhancement of color in gemstones and other materials;4.1.8 Modification of characteristics of semiconductor devices; and4.1.9 Research on materials effects of irradiation.NOTE 3: Dosimetry with measurement traceability and with known measurement uncertainty is required for regulated irradiation processes, such as the sterilization of health care products and treatment of food. Dosimetry may be less important for other industrial processes, such as polymer modification, which can be evaluated by changes in the physical properties of the irradiated materials. Nevertheless, routine dosimetry may be used to monitor the reproducibility of the radiation process.4.2 Radiation processing specifications usually include a pair of absorbed-dose limits: a minimum value to ensure the intended beneficial effect and a maximum value that the product can tolerate while still meeting its functional or regulatory specifications. For a given application, one or both of these values may be prescribed by process specifications or regulations. Knowledge of the dose distribution within irradiated material is essential to help meet these requirements. Dosimetry is essential to the radiation process since it is used to determine both of these limits and to confirm that the product is routinely irradiated within these limits.4.3 Several critical parameters must be controlled to obtain reproducible dose distributions in the process load. The absorbed-dose distribution within the product depends on the overall product dimensions and mass and irradiation geometry. The processing rate and dose distribution depend on the X-ray intensity, photon energy spectrum, and spatial distribution of the radiation field and conveyor speed.4.4 Before an irradiator can be used, it must be qualified (IQ, OQ) to determine its effectiveness in reproducibly delivering known, controllable absorbed doses. This involves testing the process equipment, calibrating the equipment and dosimetry system, and characterizing the magnitude, distribution and reproducibility of the absorbed dose delivered by the irradiator for a range of product densities.4.5 To ensure consistent dose delivery in a qualified irradiation process, routine process control requires procedures for routine product dosimetry and for product handling before and after the treatment, consistent product loading configuration, control and monitoring of critical process parameters, and documentation of the required activities and functions.1.1 This practice outlines the dosimetric procedures to be followed during installation qualification, operational qualification, performance qualification and routine processing at an X-ray (bremsstrahlung) irradiator. Other procedures related to operational qualification, performance qualification and routine processing that may influence absorbed dose in the product are also discussed.NOTE 1: Dosimetry is only one component of a total quality assurance program for adherence to good manufacturing practices used in radiation processing applications.NOTE 2: ISO/ASTM Practices 51649, 51818 and 51702 describe dosimetric procedures for electron beam and gamma facilities for radiation processing.1.2 For radiation sterilization of health care products, see ISO 11137-1, Sterilization of health care products – Radiation – Part 1: Requirements for development, validation and routine control of a sterilization process for medical devices. In those areas covered by ISO 11137-1, that standard takes precedence.1.3 For irradiation of food, see ISO 14470, Food irradiation – Requirements for development, validation and routine control of the process of irradiation using ionizing radiation for the treatment of food. In those areas covered by ISO 14470, that standard takes precedence.1.4 This document is one of a set of standards that provides recommendations for properly implementing and utilizing dosimetry in radiation processing. It is intended to be read in conjunction with ISO/ASTM Practice 52628, “Practice for Dosimetry in Radiation Processing”.1.5 In contrast to monoenergetic gamma radiation, the X-ray energy spectrum extends from low values (about 35 keV) up to the maximum energy of the electrons incident on the X-ray target (see Section 5 and Annex A1).1.6 Information about effective or regulatory dose limits and energy limits for X-ray applications is not within the scope of this practice.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 and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

定价： 777元 / 折扣价： 661 元 加购物车

4.1 Various products and materials are routinely irradiated at pre-determined doses at electron beam facilities to preserve or modify their characteristics. Dosimetry requirements may vary depending on the radiation process and end use of the product. A partial list of processes where dosimetry may be used is given below.4.1.1 Polymerization of monomers and grafting of monomers onto polymers,4.1.2 Cross-linking or degradation of polymers,4.1.3 Curing of composite materials,4.1.4 Sterilization of health care products,4.1.5 Disinfection of consumer products,4.1.6 Food irradiation (parasite and pathogen control, insect disinfestation, and shelf-life extension),4.1.7 Control of pathogens and toxins in drinking water,4.1.8 Control of pathogens and toxins in liquid or solid waste,4.1.9 Modification of characteristics of semiconductor devices,4.1.10 Color enhancement of gemstones and other materials, and4.1.11 Research on radiation effects on materials.4.2 Dosimetry is used as a means of monitoring the irradiation process.NOTE 2: Dosimetry with measurement traceability and known uncertainty is required for regulated radiation processes such as sterilization of health care products (see ISO 11137-1 and Refs (1-36)) and preservation of food (see ISO 14470 and Ref (4)). It may be less important for other processes, such as polymer modification, which may be evaluated by changes in the physical and chemical properties of the irradiated materials. Nevertheless, routine dosimetry may be used to monitor the reproducibility of the treatment process.NOTE 3: Measured dose is often characterized as absorbed dose in water. Materials commonly found in single-use disposable medical devices and food are approximately equivalent to water in the absorption of ionizing radiation. Absorbed dose in materials other than water may be determined by applying conversion factors (5, 6).4.3 An irradiation process usually requires a minimum absorbed dose to achieve the desired effect. There may also be a maximum dose limit that the product can tolerate while still meeting its functional or regulatory specifications. Dosimetry is essential, since it is used to determine both of these limits during the research and development phase, and also to confirm that the product is routinely irradiated within these limits.4.4 The dose distribution within the product depends on process load characteristics, irradiation conditions, and operating parameters.4.5 Dosimetry systems must be calibrated with traceability to national or international standards and the measurement uncertainty must be known.4.6 Before a radiation facility is used, it must be characterized to determine its effectiveness in reproducibly delivering known, controllable doses. This involves testing and calibrating the process equipment, and dosimetry system.4.7 Before a radiation process is commenced it must be validated. This involves execution of Installation Qualification (IQ), Operational Qualification (OQ), and Performance Qualification (PQ), based on which process parameters are established that will ensure that product is irradiated within specified limits.4.8 To ensure consistent and reproducible dose delivery in a validated process, routine process control requires that documented procedures are established for activities to be carried out before, during and after irradiation, such as for ensuring consistent product loading configuration and for monitoring of critical operating parameters and routine dosimetry.1.1 This practice outlines dosimetric procedures to be followed in installation qualification (IQ), operational qualification (OQ) and performance qualifications (PQ), and routine processing at electron beam facilities.1.2 The electron beam energy range covered in this practice is between 300 keV and 25 MeV, although there are some discussions for other energies.1.3 Dosimetry is only one component of a total quality assurance program for adherence to good manufacturing practices used in radiation processing applications. Other measures besides dosimetry may be required for specific applications such as health care product sterilization and food preservation.1.4 Specific standards exist for the radiation sterilization of health care products and the irradiation of food. For the radiation sterilization of health care products, see ISO 11137-1 (Requirements) and ISO 11137-3 (Guidance on dosimetric aspects). For irradiation of food, see ISO 14470. In those areas covered by these standards, they take precedence. Information about effective or regulatory dose limits for food products is not within the scope of this practice (see ASTM Guides F1355, F1356, F1736, and F1885).1.5 This document is one of a set of standards that provides recommendations for properly implementing and utilizing dosimetry in radiation processing. It is intended to be read in conjunction with ISO/ASTM 52628, “Practice for Dosimetry in Radiation Processing”.NOTE 1: For guidance in the calibration of routine dosimetry systems, see ISO/ASTM Practice 51261. For further guidance in the use of specific dosimetry systems, see relevant ISO/ASTM Practices. For discussion of radiation dosimetry for pulsed radiation, see ICRU Report 34.1.6 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 requirements prior to use.

定价： 1011元 / 折扣价： 860 元 加购物车

3.1 This test method is a fundamental method for evaluating the magnetic performance of flat-rolled magnetic materials in either as-sheared or stress-relief annealed condition.3.2 This test method is suitable for design, specification acceptance, service evaluation, and research and development.1.1 This test method covers tests for the magnetic properties of basic flat-rolled magnetic materials at power frequencies (25 to 400 Hz) using a 25-cm Epstein test frame and the 25-cm double-lap-jointed core. It covers the determination of core loss, rms exciting power, rms and peak exciting current, and several types of ac permeability and related properties of flat-rolled magnetic materials under ac magnetization.1.2 This test method shall be used in conjunction with Practice A34/A34M.1.3 This test method2 provides a test for core loss and exciting current at moderate and high magnetic flux densities up to 15 kG [1.5 T] on nonoriented electrical steels and up to 18 kG [1.8 T] on grain-oriented electrical steels.1.4 The frequency range of this test method is normally that of the commercial power frequencies 50 to 60 Hz. With proper instrumentation, it is also acceptable for measurements at other frequencies from 25 to 400 Hz.1.5 This test method also provides procedures for calculating ac impedance permeability from measured values of rms exciting current and for ac peak permeability from measured peak values of total exciting currents at magnetic field strengths up to about 150 Oe [12 000 A/m].1.6 Explanation of symbols and abbreviated definitions appear in the text of this test method. The official symbols and definitions are listed in Terminology A340.1.7 The values and equations stated in customary (cgs-emu and inch-pound) or SI units are to be regarded separately as standard. Within this standard, SI units are shown in brackets except for the sections concerning calculations where there are separate sections for the respective unit systems. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with this standard.1.8 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.9 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

5.1 Insoluble material may form in oils that are subjected to oxidizing conditions.5.2 Significant formation of oil insolubles or metal corrosion products, or both, during this test may indicate that the oil will form insolubles or corrode metals, or both, resulting in varnish formation during field service. The level of varnish formation in service will be dependent on many factors (turbine design, reservoir temperature, duty-cycle, for example. peaking, cycling, or base-load duty, maintenance, and so forth) and a direct correlation between results in this test and field varnish formation are yet to be established.5.3 Oxidation condition at 120 °C under accelerated oxidation environment of Test Method D4310 and measurement of sludge and RPVOT value could reflect a practical oil quality in actual turbine operations. Results from this test should be used together with other key lubricant performance indicators (including other established oxidation and corrosion tests) to indicate suitability for service.1.1 This test method is used to evaluate the sludging tendencies of steam and gas turbine lubricants during the oxidation process in the presence of oxygen and metal catalyst (copper and iron) at an elevated temperature. This test method may be used to evaluate industrial oils (for example, circulating oils and so forth).1.2 This test method is a modification of Test Method D4310 where the sludging and corrosion tendencies of the same kinds of oils are determined after 1000 h at 95 °C in the presence of water. Water is omitted in this modification.1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard.1.3.1 Exception—The values in parentheses in some of the figures are provided for information only for those using old equipment based on non-SI units.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 WARNING—Mercury has been designated by many regulatory agencies as a hazardous substance that can cause serious medical issues. Mercury, or its vapor, has been demonstrated to be hazardous to health and corrosive to materials. Use Caution when handling mercury and mercury-containing products. See the applicable product Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for additional information. The potential exists that selling mercury or mercury-containing products, or both, is prohibited by local or national law. Users must determine legality of sales in their location.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 RSA method provides risk and resource managers with an enhanced understanding of the ecological health concerns at the sites they oversee because unlike conventional terrestrial ERAs, actual site mammals are the ones evaluated. Additionally, the HQs of desktop efforts report only on the contaminant exposure route of ingestion, and can only evaluate chemicals singly, whereas RSA findings reflect all three exposure routes as well as the combined effects of multiple chemicals on a highly valued endpoint. Critically, the RSA method incorporates site history considerations that necessarily influence the phenomenon of biological response. If reproductive impacts at contaminated sites were ever to be elicited, such would be apparent today because evaluated sites have, at a minimum, continuously exposed their ecological receptors to chemicals for multiple decades during which time tens and often more than one hundred generations have passed (5).5.2 Application of the subject guide familiarizes remedial decision-makers and risk managers with two concepts. First, rather than attempting to predict health effects arising in site receptors, there may be more value in documenting demonstrated health effects, should such exist in actual site-exposed mammalian receptors. Second, the possibility exists that site receptors never experienced stress or impact over the years since a site first became contaminated.5.3 Application of the subject guide can allow for substantial cost savings. Often, the outcomes of HQ-based assessments are summarily relied upon to conduct ongoing studies, monitor sites, or implement site cleanups, all of which may be unnecessary. Where RSA applications should demonstrate that maximally site-exposed mammalian receptors (as defined in section 4.1) are not experiencing compromise with regard to the sensitive endpoint of reproductive success, it can become apparent that soil remediation efforts on behalf of mammals are not needed.5.4 The described RSA method can typically be applied at that point in the ERA process where HQs for one or more mammalian species are found to be greater than 1.0, as in the process’s Step 2 (Screening-Level Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation; where ecological threats are evaluated in a general, as opposed to a specific fashion). Alternatively and particularly at sites that are not governed as rigidly as, for example, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA; aka Superfund-type) sites, the guide can be applied once it is established that a site has a chemical contamination footprint of interest (that is, that soil concentrations are high enough to potentially be harmful to mammalian site receptors). In light of the propensity for preliminary and refined HQs to suggest mammals are ingesting unhealthful doses of site contaminants, in turn commonly leading to advancing to the field for a verification effort, the application of RSA as a first evaluative effort is intended to be a time- and cost-saving effort.5.5 The significance of this guide is the method design that reflects an understanding of certain unavoidable ERA process constraints, specifically in the areas of field mammal collection and subsequent tissue analysis. First, the RSA method recognizes that small rodents are the only mammals that can be routinely culled from the field (that is, to be removed and not returned), and further, that this reality is unlikely to ever change. Efforts to regularly harvest larger mammals (for example, fox) may be challenged by local governing agencies and animal care institutions. Additionally, acquiring a sufficiency of larger mammals is time-consuming and labor-intensive, owing to relatively miniscule animal densities. Further, many larger mammals (for example, long-tailed weasel, badger) are not found in all habitats or in all states. In contrast, small rodents occur in virtually every habitat, are relatively easy to collect, and are numerous enough to allow for defensible comparisons between or among sites. In selecting the maximally exposed small rodent to work with (that is, an animal confined to contaminated surroundings throughout its life due to a home range that is almost always of one acre or less), the RSA method features a common basis of comparison (and certainly wherever it should be applied in the United States).5.6 RSA theory understands that, generally at contaminated terrestrial sites, there is worry that receptors-of-concern might be reproductively compromised. The focus on reproduction as the dominant toxicological endpoint of concern (6, 7), recognizes that much method development for reproductive effects in rodents (in support of human health) has occurred (9, 17). That reproduction bears this status is evident in the hierarchy of preferred toxicity reference values (TRVs) that ecological risk assessors often select in support of HQ computation. Additional recognition is given to the reality that standardized means for effectively assessing other endpoints of interest in field-collected organisms, such as neurotoxicity or behavior, do not exist. Where established sperm parameter benchmark exceedances are not observed in contaminated site rodents, such can constitute a significant line of evidence in support of a determination that reproduction is proceeding adequately. The RSA method recognizes that impairments to other biological functions (for example, behavior, nerve impulse transmission) of contaminated-site rodents may be occurring despite reproduction proceeding normally (2, 3). Where such is the case, the method’s supporting theory understands that other endpoints being reached do not necessarily pose a concern for they have not impeded the ability of maximally exposed rodents to survive to the age of reproduction, find mates, and produce viable young (2, 18).5.7 This guide recognizes that an analagous reproductive assessment approach for female rodents, is not available at the present time. Importantly, an absent reproductive assessment approach for females does not constitute a shortcoming of the subject guide. Relevant U.S. EPA guidance, for example, supports evaluating one sex of a species where drug and chemical regulation is concerned, and drawing conclusions based on such information (19). In this context several noteworthy points follow. First, over 98 % of all mammalian toxicity studies considered in crafting the U.S. EPA’s Soil Screening Levels (SSLs) for ERA (for some 17 inorganic and 4 organic chemical species) are of the single-sex type, with 35 % of the studies being male-only (20). Additionally, for 37 % of the universe of chemicals with SSLs, the number of male-only toxicity studies exceeds the number of female-only toxicity studies. Finally, a significant percentage of the most commonly applied toxicological benchmarks for wildlife (21) derive from single-sex studies. Critically, with its focus on directly assessing reproduction in male rodents, RSA is notably far less destructive than would be a method involving the culling of female rodents from the field, given that the latter are the ones that bear the young.5.8 This guide recognizes the value in employing the wild rodent in field-based mammalian receptor assessment. Aside from the reality that rodents may constitute the only mammals that can regularly be culled from sites (discussed above), there are key advantages that accrue to working with these animals. Small rodents occur in nearly all terrestrial habitats, allowing the guide to be broadly applicable in a geographical sense. A second advantage is that the small rodent with perhaps no exception, will likely be the maximally-exposed mammal in terrestrial settings, this again, in terms of having direct contact with contaminated soils. This follows from rodents being non-migratory in nature, having extremely limited home ranges that effectively contain them at contaminated sites, and their spending nearly all of their time directly contacting the ground (that is, contaminated soils; 2, 4, 18).5.9 In providing a useful line of evidence in support of ERAs for mammals, this guide employs a straightforward extrapolation approach (2, 18), one that is isomorphic to that applied in conventional HQ-based assessments. If site rodents, that have more constant and intimate contact with affected site soils than that of any other site mammal, are not found to have compromised reproduction, larger and wider-ranging mammals, with their considerably lesser degrees of site (that is, contaminated soil) contact, should also be free of reproductive compromise. An appreciation for this extrapolation scheme derives from a review of the principal extrapolation scheme of conventionally-applied desktop-based ERAs. There, a laboratory-based mouse or rat study is routinely used to determine if another mammal (for example, deer, fox, rabbit) is ingesting an unhealthful quantity of a given chemical. With the conventional ERA scheme, there are numerous differences to acknowledge, and even at the level of the rodent. Thus the test animal and the wild form inhabiting the site of interest that is to be assessed, do not match in terms of species, rearing, environment/habitat, or feeding design, and these differences weaken conclusions that can be drawn. In contrast, the subject standard in its initial extrapolation, compares sperm measures, each a proven barometer of reproductive success (22-25), in populations of conspecifics living less than a kilometer apart, with one population inhabiting a soil-contaminated area, and the other a contaminant-free one. The RSA method recognizes that small rodents of contaminated sites are integrators of potentially imposing environmental stressors that extend beyond chemicals that may be present in soil and diet items, to include such things as physical habitat disturbances (for example, noise or land vibration). RSA understands that conventional ecological assessments necessarily strive to know of small rodent reproductive capability, as this grouping is held to be a keystone ecosystem element. Where reproductive compromise is not observed in an RSA outcome, there is demonstration that a site’s exhaustive list of site stressors, in the actual arrays in which they occur, are not impinging on what is generally held to be the most important toxicological endpoint.5.10 One limitation of this guide is that the biologically-significant thresholds-for- (reproductive)-effect that are applied, are laboratory-derived. A second limitation of this guide is that shrews generally cannot submit to the RSA method, owing to their exceedingly high metabolism that interferes with their being live-trapped in the field. In the rare case where the only rodents present at a contaminated site of concern should be shrews, the RSA method can probably not be successfully applied. If for any reason a given contaminated site does not offer a small rodent population altogether, or if there is not at least one common small rodent species occurring at both the site of interest and a suitable habitat-matched reference location, or an appropriate reference location cannot be found (see 8.1), the method is not applicable. RSA is intended only to identify if site mammals are reproductively compromised. The method does not concern itself with identifying the chemical(s) or physical site stressors responsible for observed sperm parameter threshold-for-effect exceedances, or the determination of cleanup levels, and such are not method limitations. The situation is analogous to standardized whole effluent toxicity tests conducted with various aquatic test species (for example, Fundulus sp.). There, the objective is only to ascertain if the degree of wastewater treatment is adequate to support the aquatic life inhabiting a receiving waterbody’s mixing zone. (Standard whole effluent toxicity testing is not designed in the main, to identify the constituent or constituents in effluent that may be responsible for unacceptable test outcomes.)5.11 This guide is consistent with ERA guidance and guidelines (26, 27), where advancing to the field for an environmentally relevant assessment of the health of site receptors (so-called ‘field verification’) is a recognized formal step. In understanding that sufficient time has elapsed at contaminated sites for reproductive compromise to be evident (if that endpoint was ever to be triggered), this guide is designed to document such demonstrated compromise. Critically, RSA is not a risk assessment method that aims to forecast or predict health effects arising in mammals with ongoing contaminant exposures. The guide then is related to, but distinctly different from other ASTM standards that bear on the toxicological effects prediction aspect of ERA (Guides E1527-13, E1689, E1848-96, E2081, E2205-02, E2616, and E2790). The guide is also consistent with guidelines for reproductive toxicity risk assessment as per the U.S. EPA (19). Specifically, assessing the reproductive health of only one sex of a species is deemed adequate for an overall species assessment (17). In one key area however, this guide is quite unlike conventional ERAs that are largely restricted to the level of desktop analysis. Whereas conventional assessments rely on either statistically-significant differences in outcome, or on a commonly negotiated difference in biological response (for example, 20 %) when drawing conclusions, this guide primarily avails itself to the utility of a series of established biologically-significant thresholds alluded to previously (22-25). Further, a statistical comparison need only be applied for one of two possible RSA outcomes (see 9.3.1 and 9.4).1.1 This guide describes the procedures for obtaining and interpreting data associated with a direct health status assessment for mammalian receptors at chemically contaminated terrestrial sites where ERA work is either scheduled or ongoing, and irrespective of the number and type of chemicals that may be present. Through reviewing sperm features, the RSA method reports on the reproductive health of male rodents in their natural environmental settings, with these animals serving as surrogates for other (and larger) site mammals (4).1.2 These procedures are applicable at any terrestrial property that supports small mammals (for example, mice, voles, rats, squirrels) and has contaminated soil. Importantly, chemicals of concern in site soils need not be spermatoxins. Additionally, the RSA method considers that any combination of chemicals or other site stressors might collectively act to compromise reproduction, held to be a sensitive toxicological endpoint for mammals. The anticipated primary application of the method will be at historically contaminated sites (such as Superfund sites). The procedures describe tasks conducted in the field and in a laboratory. For the latter, tasks may be conducted either in an on-site mobile laboratory, or in a more conventional laboratory setting. For certain tasks, a make-shift work space may be suitable as well (see 7.3).1.3 Initial determinations of compromised or non-compromised reproduction in resident male small rodents are made through a cautious comparative review of sperm parameters. Briefly, for the rodents of a given species collected at both a contaminated site and a habitat-matched (non-contaminated) reference location, arithmetic means are first computed for each of the three sperm parameters of count, motility, and morphology. If one or more of the parameter means of the contaminated site rodents reflect an unfavorable shift (that is, count or motility is less than that of reference location animals; the percentage of abnormally-shaped sperm is greater relative to reference location animals), the percent decrease or increase in each mean is compared to the relevant established sperm parameter benchmark, each in the form of that degree of shift in an unfavorable direction that signifies lesser reproductive success (2) (see 9.3).1.4 Advanced determinations of compromised or non-compromised reproduction in larger site-contacting mammals, the true focus of the RSA method and this guide, are made through an applied spatial movements-based extrapolation scheme. Where established sperm parameter benchmark exceedances are not observed in contaminated-site rodents, other mammals contacting a site are also assumed to have non-compromised reproduction. This follows from the latter all having notably lesser degrees of site exposure due to home ranges that are vastly larger than those of rodents. By way of example, with respective home ranges of 400+ and 640 acres for the red fox and white-tailed deer (10-14), these species would spend minimal amounts of their time (for example, 5 %) at prototypical contaminated sites that cover areas of 25 acres or less (15, 16). Where one or more sperm parameter benchmarks are exceeded in contaminated-site rodents (certainly indicating that the rodents are reproductively compromised), other site mammals may also be reproductively compromised. The greater the disparity between the home ranges of the target species (that is, the site rodent) and any of the other mammals known to contact the contaminated site in question, the less likely it will be that the latter are reproductively compromised. The RSA method employs the same toxicological extrapolation principles as that used for mammals in conventional desktop-based ERAs. In those ERAs, stressor-mediated responses of rodents (of a laboratory-based study) assist with the interpretation of health effects for an expanded list of mammals that cannot conveniently be evaluated directly for health status (for example, fox, skunk, raccoon, deer, coyote, etc.).1.5 This guide is arranged as follows:  Section 1Referenced Documents 2Terminology 3Summary of Guide 4 5Safety Precautions 6Apparatus 7Procedure 8Reporting 9Keywords 101.6 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 Assumptions of the Theis (1) equation affect specific capacity and transmissivity estimated from specific capacity. These assumptions are given below:5.1.1 Aquifer is homogeneous and isotropic.5.1.2 Aquifer is horizontal, of uniform thickness, and infinite in areal extent.5.1.3 Aquifer is confined by impermeable strata on its upper and lower boundaries.5.1.4 Density gradient in the flowing fluid must be negligible and the viscous resistance to flow must obey Darcy's Law.5.1.5 Control well penetrates and receives water equally from the entire thickness of the aquifer.5.1.6 Control well has an infinitesimal diameter.5.1.7 Control well discharges at a constant rate.5.1.8 Control well operates at 100 percent efficiency.5.1.9 Aquifer remains saturated throughout the duration of pumping.5.2 Implications of Assumptions and Limitations of Method.5.2.1 The simplifying assumptions necessary for solution of the Theis equation and application of the method are never fully met in a field situation. The satisfactory use of the method may depend upon the application of one or more empirical correction factors being applied to the field data.5.2.2 Generally the values of transmissivity derived from specific capacity vary from those values determined from aquifer tests utilizing observation wells. These differences may reflect 1) that specific-capacity represents the response of a small part of the aquifer near the well and may be greatly influenced by conditions near the well such as a gravel pack or graded material resulting from well development, and 2) effects of well efficiency and partial penetration.5.2.3 The values of transmissivity estimated from specific capacity data are considered less accurate than values obtained from analysis of drawdowns that are observed some distance from the pumped well.NOTE 1: The quality of the result produced by this practice is dependent on the competence of the personnel performing it, and the suitability of the equipment and facilities used. Agencies that meet the criteria of Practice D3740 are generally considered capable of competent and objective testing/sampling/inspection/etc. Users of this practice are cautioned that compliance with Practice D3740 does not in itself assure reliable results. Reliable results depend on many factors; Practice D3740 provides a means of evaluating some of those factors.5.3 Withdrawal well test field procedures are used with appropriate analytical procedures in appropriate hydrogeological sites to determine transmissivity and storage coefficient of aquifers and hydraulic conductivity of confining beds.1.1 This practice describes a procedure for conducting a specific capacity test, computing the specific capacity of a control well, and estimating the transmissivity in the vicinity of the control well. Specific capacity is the well yield per unit drawdown at an identified time after pumping started.1.2 This practice is used in conjunction with Test Method D4050 for conducting withdrawal and injection well tests.1.3 The method of determining transmissivity from specific capacity is a variation of the nonequilibrium method of Theis (1)2 for determining transmissivity and storage coefficient of an aquifer. The Theis nonequilibrium method is given in Practice D4106.1.4 Limitations—The limitations of the technique for determining transmissivity are primarily related to the correspondence between the field situation and the simplifying assumptions of the Theis method.1.5 The scope of this practice is limited by the capabilities of the apparatus.1.6 All observed and calculated values shall conform to the guidelines for significant digits and rounding established in Practice D6026.1.6.1 The procedures used to specify how data are collected/recorded and calculated in this practice are regarded as the industry standard. In addition, they are representative of the significant digits that should generally be retained. The procedures used do not consider material variation, purpose for obtaining the data, special purpose studies, or any considerations for the user’s objectives; and it is common practice to increase or reduce significant digits of reported data to commensurate with these considerations. It is beyond the scope of this practice to consider significant digits used in analysis methods for engineering design.1.7 Units—The values stated in SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values for the two systems may result in nonconformance with the standard. Reporting of results in units other than SI shall not be regarded as noncompliance with this standard.1.8 This practice offers a set of instructions for performing one or more specific operations. This document cannot replace education or experience and should be used in conjunction with professional judgment. Not all aspects of the practice may be applicable in all circumstances. This ASTM standard is not intended to represent or replace the standard of care by which the adequacy of a given professional service must be judged, nor should this document be applied without the consideration of a project’s many unique aspects. The word “Standard” in the title of this document means only that the document has been approved through the ASTM consensus process.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： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

4.1 This test method may be used for material development, material comparison, quality assurance, characterization, reliability assessment, and design data generation.4.2 Continuous fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix composites (CFCCs) are generally characterized by fine-grain sized (<50 μm) matrices and ceramic fiber reinforcements. In addition, continuous fiber-reinforced glass (amorphous) matrix composites can also be classified as CFCCs. Uniaxially loaded compressive strength tests provide information on mechanical behavior and strength for a uniformly stressed CFCC.4.3 Generally, ceramic and ceramic matrix composites have greater resistance to compressive forces than tensile forces. Ideally, ceramics should be compressively stressed in use, although engineering applications may frequently introduce tensile stresses in the component. Nonetheless, compressive behavior is an important aspect of mechanical properties and performance. The compressive strength of ceramic and ceramic composites may not be deterministic. Therefore, test a sufficient number of test specimens to gain an insight into strength distributions.4.4 Compression tests provide information on the strength and deformation of materials under uniaxial compressive stresses. Uniform stress states are required to effectively evaluate any nonlinear stress-strain behavior that may develop as the result of cumulative damage processes (for example, matrix cracking, matrix/fiber debonding, fiber fracture, delamination, etc.) that may be influenced by testing mode, testing rate, effects of processing or combination of constituent materials, or environmental influences. Some of these effects may be consequences of stress corrosion or sub-critical (slow) crack growth which can be minimized by testing at sufficiently rapid rates as outlined in this test method.4.5 The results of compression tests of test specimens fabricated to standardized dimensions from a particulate material or selected portions of a part, or both, may not totally represent the strength and deformation properties of the entire, full-size product or its in-service behavior in different environments.4.6 For quality control purposes, results derived from standardized compressive test specimens may be considered indicative of the response of the material from which they were taken for given primary processing conditions and post-processing heat treatments.4.7 The compressive behavior and strength of a CFCC are dependent on, and directly related to, the material. Analysis of fracture surfaces and fractography, though beyond the scope of this test method, are recommended.1.1 This test method covers the determination of compressive strength, including stress-strain behavior, under monotonic uniaxial loading of continuous fiber-reinforced advanced ceramics at ambient temperatures. This test method addresses, but is not restricted to, various suggested test specimen geometries as listed in the appendixes. In addition, test specimen fabrication methods, testing modes (force, displacement, or strain control), testing rates (force rate, stress rate, displacement rate, or strain rate), allowable bending, and data collection and reporting procedures are addressed. Compressive strength, as used in this test method, refers to the compressive strength obtained under monotonic uniaxial loading, where monotonic refers to a continuous nonstop test rate with no reversals from test initiation to final fracture.1.2 This test method applies primarily to advanced ceramic matrix composites with continuous fiber reinforcement: unidirectional (1D), bidirectional (2D), and tridirectional (3D) or other multi-directional reinforcements. In addition, this test method may also be used with glass (amorphous) matrix composites with 1D, 2D, 3D, and other multi-directional continuous fiber reinforcements. This test method does not directly address discontinuous fiber-reinforced, whisker-reinforced, or particulate-reinforced ceramics, although the test methods detailed here may be equally applicable to these composites.1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard and are in accordance with IEEE/ASTM SI 10.1.4 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. Refer to Section 7 for specific precautions.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： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

4.1 This test method may be used for material development, material comparison, quality assurance, characterization, reliability assessment, and design data generation.4.2 Continuous fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix composites generally characterized by crystalline matrices and ceramic fiber reinforcements are candidate materials for structural applications requiring high degrees of wear and corrosion resistance, and elevated-temperature inherent damage tolerance (that is, toughness). In addition, continuous fiber-reinforced glass (amorphous) matrix composites are candidate materials for similar but possibly less demanding applications. Although flexural test methods are commonly used to evaluate strengths of monolithic advanced ceramics, the nonuniform stress distribution of the flexure test specimen, in addition to dissimilar mechanical behavior in tension and compression for CFCCs, leads to ambiguity of interpretation of strength results obtained from flexure tests for CFCCs. Uniaxially loaded tensile strength tests provide information on mechanical behavior and strength for a uniformly stressed material.4.3 Unlike monolithic advanced ceramics that fracture catastrophically from a single dominant flaw, CFCCs generally experience “graceful” (that is, non-catastrophic, ductile-like stress-strain behavior) fracture from a cumulative damage process. Therefore, the volume of material subjected to a uniform tensile stress for a single uniaxially loaded tensile test may not be as significant a factor in determining the ultimate strengths of CFCCs. However, the need to test a statistically significant number of tensile test specimens is not obviated. Therefore, because of the probabilistic nature of the strengths of the brittle fibers and matrices of CFCCs, a sufficient number of test specimens at each testing condition is required for statistical analysis and design. Studies to determine the influence of test specimen volume or surface area on strength distributions for CFCCs have not been completed. It should be noted that tensile strengths obtained using different recommended tensile test specimen geometries with different volumes of material in the gage sections may be different due to these volume differences.4.4 Tensile tests provide information on the strength and deformation of materials under uniaxial tensile stresses. Uniform stress states are required to effectively evaluate any nonlinear stress-strain behavior that may develop as the result of cumulative damage processes (for example, matrix cracking, matrix/fiber debonding, fiber fracture, delamination, and so forth) that may be influenced by testing mode, testing rate, effects of processing or combinations of constituent materials, environmental influences, or elevated temperatures. Some of these effects may be consequences of stress corrosion or subcritical (slow) crack growth that can be minimized by testing at sufficiently rapid rates as outlined in this test method.4.5 The results of tensile tests of test specimens fabricated to standardized dimensions from a particular material or selected portions of a part, or both, may not totally represent the strength and deformation properties of the entire, full-size end product or its in-service behavior in different environments or various elevated temperatures.4.6 For quality control purposes, results derived from standardized tensile test specimens may be considered indicative of the response of the material from which they were taken for the particular primary processing conditions and post-processing heat treatments.4.7 The tensile behavior and strength of a CFCC are dependent on its inherent resistance to fracture, the presence of flaws, or damage accumulation processes, or both. Analysis of fracture surfaces and fractography, though beyond the scope of this test method, is recommended.1.1 This test method covers the determination of tensile strength, including stress-strain behavior, under monotonic uniaxial loading of continuous fiber-reinforced advanced ceramics at elevated temperatures. This test method addresses, but is not restricted to, various suggested test specimen geometries as listed in the appendixes. In addition, test specimen fabrication methods, testing modes (force, displacement, or strain control), testing rates (force rate, stress rate, displacement rate, or strain rate), allowable bending, temperature control, temperature gradients, and data collection and reporting procedures are addressed. Tensile strength as used in this test method refers to the tensile strength obtained under monotonic uniaxial loading, where monotonic refers to a continuous nonstop test rate with no reversals from test initiation to final fracture.1.2 This test method applies primarily to advanced ceramic matrix composites with continuous fiber reinforcement: unidirectional (1D), bidirectional (2D), and tridirectional (3D) or other multi-directional reinforcements. In addition, this test method may also be used with glass (amorphous) matrix composites with 1D, 2D, 3D, and other multi-directional continuous fiber reinforcements. This test method does not directly address discontinuous fiber-reinforced, whisker-reinforced, or particulate-reinforced ceramics, although the test methods detailed here may be equally applicable to these composites.1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard and are in accordance with IEEE/ASTM SI 10.1.4 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. Refer to Section 7 for specific precautions.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： 843元 / 折扣价： 717 元 加购物车