5.1 During the process of calibration of a groundwater flow model, each simulation is compared to site-specific information to ascertain the success of previous calibration efforts and to identify potentially beneficial directions for further calibration efforts. Procedures described herein provide guidance for making comparisons between groundwater flow model simulations and measured field data.5.2 This guide is not meant to be an inflexible description of techniques comparing simulations with measured data; other techniques may be applied as appropriate and, after due consideration, some of the techniques herein may be omitted, altered, or enhanced.1.1 This guide covers techniques that should be used to compare the results of groundwater flow model simulations to measured field data as a part of the process of calibrating a groundwater model. This comparison produces quantitative and qualitative measures of the degree of correspondence between the simulation and site-specific information related to the physical hydrogeologic system.1.2 During the process of calibration of a groundwater flow model, each simulation is compared to site-specific information such as measured water levels or flow rates. The degree of correspondence between the simulation and the physical hydrogeologic system can then be compared to that for previous simulations to ascertain the success of previous calibration efforts and to identify potentially beneficial directions for further calibration efforts.1.3 By necessity, all knowledge of a site is derived from observations. This guide does not address the adequacy of any set of observations for characterizing a site.1.4 This guide does not establish criteria for successful calibration, nor does it describe techniques for establishing such criteria, nor does it describe techniques for achieving successful calibration.1.5 This guide is written for comparing the results of numerical groundwater flow models with observed site-specific information. However, these techniques could be applied to other types of groundwater related models, such as analytical models, multiphase flow models, noncontinuum (karst or fracture flow) models, or mass transport models.1.6 This guide is one of a series of guides on groundwater modeling codes (software) and their applications.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.1.8 This guide offers an organized collection of information or a series of options and does not recommend a specific course of action. This document cannot replace education or experience and should be used in conjunction with professional judgment. Not all aspects of this guide 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 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.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

5.1 Information concerning the reaction model aids in the selection of the appropriate method (and test method) for evaluation of kinetic parameters. nth order reaction may be treated by isoconversion methods such as Test Methods E698 and E2890. Autocatalytic reactions are treated by Test Methods E2070.5.2 This practice may be used in research, forensic analysis, trouble shooting, product evaluation, and hazard potential evaluation.1.1 This practice describes a procedure for determining the “model” of an exothermic reaction using differential scanning calorimetry. The procedure is typically performed on 1 mg to 3 mg specimen sizes over the temperature range from ambient to 600 °C.1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.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 Biofilm characteristics such as thickness, matrix architecture, and population are dependent on factors such as shear and nutrient availability and composition. Additionally, sporulation can occur within biofilms, including those formed by Bacillus subtilis.5 The purpose of this test method is to define the parameters to grow and enumerate a B. subtilis biofilm comprised of vegetative cells and spores embedded in extracellular polymeric substance (EPS). This type of biofilm could provide a greater challenge to antimicrobials than vegetative biofilm or spores alone. The biofilm generated using this method is suitable for efficacy testing of antimicrobials.1.1 This test method specifies the operational parameters required to grow and quantify a Bacillus subtilis biofilm comprised of vegetative cells and endospores (spores) using the colony biofilm method (CBM).2,3 The resulting biofilm is representative of static environments that can develop a sporulating biofilm rather than being representative of one particular environment.1.2 This test method utilizes a modified CBM to grow the biofilm. The CBM uses a semipermeable membrane on an agar plate as the biofilm growth surface and nutrient source.2,3 In this test method, membranes are inoculated and incubated for a total of 8 days to promote sporulation within the biofilm.1.3 This test method describes how to sample and analyze the biofilm for vegetative cells and spores. Biofilm population is expressed as total colony forming units (CFU) and spores per membrane.1.4 Basic microbiology training is required to perform this test method.1.5 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

5.1 Spinal implants are generally composed of several components which, when connected together, form a spinal implant assembly. Spinal implant assemblies are designed to provide some stability to the spine while arthrodesis takes place. These test methods outline standard materials and methods for the evaluation of different spinal implant assemblies so that comparison between different designs may be facilitated.5.2 These test methods are used to quantify the static and dynamic mechanical characteristics of different designs of spinal implant assemblies. The mechanical tests are conducted in vitro using simplified load schemes and do not attempt to mimic the complex loads of the spine.5.3 The loads applied to the spinal implant assemblies in vivo will, in general, differ from the loading configurations used in these test methods. The results obtained here cannot be used directly to predict in-vivo performance. The results can be used to compare different component designs in terms of the relative mechanical parameters.5.4 Fatigue testing in a simulated body fluid or saline may cause fretting, corrosion, or lubricate the interconnections and thereby affect the relative performance of tested devices. This test should be initially performed dry (ambient room conditions) for consistency. The effect of environment may be significant. Repeating all or part of these test methods in simulated body fluid, saline (9 g NaCl per 1000 mL water), a saline drip, water, or a lubricant should be considered. The maximum recommended frequency for this type of cyclic testing should be 5 Hz.5.5 The location of the longitudinal elements is determined by where the anchors are clinically placed against bony structures. The perpendicular distance to the load direction (block moment arm) between the axis of a hinge pin and the anchor’s attachment points to a UHMWPE block is independent of anchor type. The distance between the anchor’s attachment point to the UHMWPE block and the center of the longitudinal element is a function of the interface design between the screw, hook, wire, cable, and so forth, and the rod, plate, and so forth.5.6 During static torsion testing, the rotation direction (clockwise or counter clockwise) may have an impact on the results.1.1 These test methods cover the materials and methods for the static and fatigue testing of spinal implant assemblies in a vertebrectomy model. The test materials for most combinations of spinal implant components can be specific, depending on the intended spinal location and intended method of application to the spine.1.2 These test methods are intended to provide a basis for the mechanical comparison among past, present, and future spinal implant assemblies. They allow comparison of spinal implant constructs with different intended spinal locations and methods of application to the spine. These test methods are not intended to define levels of performance, since sufficient knowledge is not available to predict the consequences of the use of a particular device.1.3 These test methods set out guidelines for load types and methods of applying loads. Methods for three static load types and one fatigue test are defined for the comparative evaluation of spinal implant assemblies.1.4 These test methods establish guidelines for measuring displacements, determining the yield load, and evaluating the stiffness and strength of the spinal implant assembly.1.5 Some spinal constructs may not be testable in all test configurations.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： 843元 / 折扣价： 717 元 加购物车

4.1 This practice provides guidance for verification and validation of structural FEMs that are used to support showings of compliance with CAA regulations.4.2 This practice is a companion to Specification F3114.1.1 This practice provides guidance for verification and validation of structural finite element models (FEMs) that are used to support showings of compliance with Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) regulations. This encompasses FEM predictions of internal loads, displacements, strains, stresses, stability, and post-buckling loads.1.2 This practice applies to normal category aeroplanes with a certified maximum take-off weight of 19 000 lb (8618 kg) or less and a passenger seating configuration of up to 19. Use of the term aircraft throughout this specification is intended to allow the relevant CAA(s) to accept this practice as a means of compliance for other aircraft as they determine appropriate.1.3 Code verification for FEM software is not included in the scope of this practice. It is expected, however, that the developer of software that is used to support showings of compliance has applied appropriate software quality assurance and numerical algorithm verification processes, including benchmark cases, to verify the accuracy and consistency of the solutions. Evidence of these activities should be recorded and documented and made available to the applicant and CAA upon request.1.4 The applicant for a design approval should verify CAA acceptance of this practice before using it to support showings of compliance. For information on which CAA regulatory bodies have accepted this practice (in whole or in part) as a means of compliance to airworthiness standards: normal category aeroplanes (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), refer to the ASTM F44 webpage (www.ASTM.org/COMMITTEE/F44.htm), which includes CAA website links.1.5 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.1.6 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 This guide covers animal implantation methods and analysis of bone void fillers to determine whether a material or substance leads to lumbar intertransverse process spinal fusion, as defined by its ability to cause bone to form in vivo.1.1 Historically, the single-level rabbit posterolateral, or intertransverse, lumbar spine fusion model was developed and reported on by Dr. Scott Boden, et. al. (Emory Spine Center for Orthopedics) and the model has been proposed as a non-clinical model which may be used to replicate clinically-relevant fusion rates for iliac crest autograft in the posterolateral spine (1, 2).2 This model is used routinely in submissions to regulatory bodies for the purpose of evaluating the potential efficacy of bone void filler materials as compared to other materials or iliac crest autograft to effect spinal posterolateral fusion. The use of this standard’s recommendations as part of a regulatory submission does not provide any guarantee of regulatory clearance and should be considered as a part of the data provided for regulatory submission.1.2 This guide covers general guidelines to evaluate the effectiveness of products intended to cause and/or promote bone formation in the lumbar intertransverse process spinal fusion model in vivo. This guide is applicable to products that may be composed of one or more of the following components: natural biomaterials (such as demineralized bone), and synthetic biomaterials (such as calcium sulfate, glycerol, and reverse phase polymeric compounds) that act as additives, fillers, and/or excipients (radioprotective agents, preservatives, and/or handling agents). It should not be assumed that products evaluated favorably using this guidance will form bone when used in a clinical setting. The primary purpose of this guide is to facilitate the equitable comparison of bone void fillers and/or autograft extender products in vivo. The purpose of this guide is not to exclude other established methods.1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with the use of bone void fillers. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices involved in the development of said products in accordance with applicable regulatory guidance documents and in implementing this guide to evaluate the bone-forming/promoting capabilities of the product.1.5 This standard does not purport to address the requirements under 21 CFR Part 58 concerning Good Laboratory Practices or international standard counterpart OECD Principles of Good Laboratory Practice (GLP). It is the responsibility of the sponsor of the study to understand the requirements for conduct of animal studies whereby the data may be used to support premarket applications, including requirements for personnel, protocol content, record retention and animal husbandry.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

This procedure is able to predict the biodegradability of lubricants within a day without dealing with microorganisms. Excellent correlation is established between the test results and the conventional biodegradation tests (see Test Method D5864 and Test Method D6731).1.1 This test method covers a procedure for predicting biodegradability of lubricants using a bio-kinetic model.1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

5.1 Guidance is provided on designing model evaluation performance procedures and on the difficulties that arise in statistical evaluation of model performance caused by the stochastic nature of dispersion in the atmosphere. It is recognized there are examples in the literature where, knowingly or unknowingly, models were evaluated on their ability to describe something which they were never intended to characterize. This guide is attempting to heighten awareness, and thereby, to reduce the number of “unknowing” comparisons. A goal of this guide is to stimulate development and testing of evaluation procedures that accommodate the effects of natural variability. A technique is illustrated to provide information from which subsequent evaluation and standardization can be derived.1.1 This guide provides techniques that are useful for the comparison of modeled air concentrations with observed field data. Such comparisons provide a means for assessing a model's performance, for example, bias and precision or uncertainty, relative to other candidate models. Methodologies for such comparisons are yet evolving; hence, modifications will occur in the statistical tests and procedures and data analysis as work progresses in this area. Until the interested parties agree upon standard testing protocols, differences in approach will occur. This guide describes a framework, or philosophical context, within which one determines whether a model's performance is significantly different from other candidate models. It is suggested that the first step should be to determine which model's estimates are closest on average to the observations, and the second step would then test whether the differences seen in the performance of the other models are significantly different from the model chosen in the first step. An example procedure is provided in Appendix X1 to illustrate an existing approach for a particular evaluation goal. This example is not intended to inhibit alternative approaches or techniques that will produce equivalent or superior results. As discussed in Section 6, statistical evaluation of model performance is viewed as part of a larger process that collectively is referred to as model evaluation.1.2 This guide has been designed with flexibility to allow expansion to address various characterizations of atmospheric dispersion, which might involve dose or concentration fluctuations, to allow development of application-specific evaluation schemes, and to allow use of various statistical comparison metrics. No assumptions are made regarding the manner in which the models characterize the dispersion.1.3 The focus of this guide is on end results, that is, the accuracy of model predictions and the discernment of whether differences seen between models are significant, rather than operational details such as the ease of model implementation or the time required for model calculations to be performed.1.4 This guide offers an organized collection of information or a series of options and does not recommend a specific course of action. This guide cannot replace education or experience and should be used in conjunction with professional judgment. Not all aspects of this guide may be applicable in all circumstances. This guide 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 it be applied without consideration of a project's many unique aspects. The word “Standard” in the title of this guide means only that the document has been approved through the ASTM consensus process.1.5 This standard applies to gaussian plume models; it may not be applicable to non-point sources, heavy gas models from evaporation from pool (for example, liquid spills), as well as near-field receptors.1.6 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this guide.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

This specification covers the standard procedures used to collect and analyze data, document the results, and make predictions for any characteristic used to quantify the value of any livestock, meat, and poultry species as measured by appropriate evaluation devices or systems. The procedures described here shall be used particularly when new prediction equations or models are established, or when a change is experienced that could affect the performance of existing equations.1.1 This specification covers methods to collect and analyze data, document the results, and make predictions by any objective method for any characteristic used to determine value in any species using livestock, meat, and poultry evaluation devices or systems.1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

5.1 Most site-specific groundwater flow models must be calibrated prior to use in predictions. In these cases, calibration is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition which must be obtained to have confidence in the model's predictions.5.2 Often, during calibration, it becomes apparent that there are no realistic values of the hydraulic properties of the soil or rock which will allow the model to reproduce the calibration targets. In these cases the conceptual model of the site may need to be revisited or the construction of the model may need to be revised. In addition, the source and quality of the data used to establish the calibration targets may need to be reexamined. For example, the modeling process can sometimes identify a previously undetected surveying error, which would results in inaccurate hydraulic head targets.5.3 This guide is not meant to be an inflexible description of techniques for calibrating a groundwater flow model; other techniques may be applied as appropriate and, after due consideration, some of the techniques herein may be omitted, altered, or enhanced.NOTE 1: Users of the inverse method should be aware that the method may have several solutions, all equally well calibrated. (1)41.1 This guide covers techniques that can be used to calibrate a groundwater flow model. The calibration of a model is the process of matching historical data, and is usually a prerequisite for making predictions with the model.1.2 Calibration is one of the stages of applying a groundwater modeling code to a site-specific problem (see Guide D5447). Calibration is the process of refining the model representation of the hydrogeologic framework, hydraulic properties, and boundary conditions to achieve a desired degree of correspondence between the model simulations and observations of the groundwater flow system.1.3 Flow models are usually calibrated using either the manual (trial-and-error) method or an automated (inverse) method. This guide presents some techniques for calibrating a flow model using either method.1.4 This guide is written for calibrating saturated porous medium (continuum) groundwater flow models. However, these techniques, suitably modified, could be applied to other types of related groundwater models, such as multi-phase models, non-continuum (karst or fracture flow) models, or mass transport models.1.5 Guide D5447 presents the steps to be taken in applying a groundwater modeling code to a site-specific problem. Calibration is one of those steps. Other standards have been prepared on environmental modeling, such as Guides D5490, D5609, D5610, D5611, D5718, and Practice E978.1.6 Units—The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units (given in brackets) are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the 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 guide offers an organized collection of information or a series of options and does not recommend a specific course of action. This document cannot replace education or experience and should be used in conjunction with professional judgment. Not all aspects of this guide 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 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 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

Most site-specific groundwater flow models must be calibrated prior to use in predictions. In these cases, calibration is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition which must be obtained to have confidence in the model's predictions.Often, during calibration, it becomes apparent that there are no realistic values of the hydraulic properties of the soil or rock which will allow the model to reproduce the calibration targets. In these cases the conceptual model of the site may need to be revisited or the construction of the model may need to be revised. In addition, the source and quality of the data used to establish the calibration targets may need to be reexamined. For example, the modeling process can sometimes identify a previously undetected surveying error, which would results in inaccurate hydraulic head targets.This guide is not meant to be an inflexible description of techniques for calibrating a groundwater flow model; other techniques may be applied as appropriate and, after due consideration, some of the techniques herein may be omitted, altered, or enhanced.1.1 This guide covers techniques that can be used to calibrate a groundwater flow model. The calibration of a model is the process of matching historical data, and is usually a prerequisite for making predictions with the model.1.2 Calibration is one of the stages of applying a groundwater modeling code to a site-specific problem (see Guide D5447). Calibration is the process of refining the model representation of the hydrogeologic framework, hydraulic properties, and boundary conditions to achieve a desired degree of correspondence between the model simulations and observations of the groundwater flow system.1.3 Flow models are usually calibrated using either the manual (trial-and-error) method or an automated (inverse) method. This guide presents some techniques for calibrating a flow model using either method.1.4 This guide is written for calibrating saturated porous medium (continuum) groundwater flow models. However, these techniques, suitably modified, could be applied to other types of related groundwater models, such as multi-phase models, non-continuum (karst or fracture flow) models, or mass transport models.1.5 Guide D5447 presents the steps to be taken in applying a groundwater modeling code to a site-specific problem. Calibration is one of those steps. Other standards have been prepared on environmental modeling, such as Guides D5490, D5609, D5610, D5611, D5718, and Practice E978.1.6 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.1.7 This guide offers an organized collection of information or a series of options and does not recommend a specific course of action. This document cannot replace education or experience and should be used in conjunction with professional judgment. Not all aspects of this guide 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 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.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

5.1 RADT Object Model as a Basis for Communication—The RADT object model is the first model used to create a common library of consistent entities (objects) and their attributes in the terminology of object analytical models as applied to the healthcare domain. These object models can be used to construct and refine standards relating to healt care information and its management. Since the RADT object model underpins the design and implementation of specific systems, it provides the framework for establishing the systematics of managing observations made during health care. The observations recorded during health care not only become the basis for managing an individual's health care by practitioners but are also used for research and resource management. They define the common language for abstracting and codifying observations. The inconsistency and incompleteness of the data recorded in paper records is well known and has been noted by the Institute of Medicine's study (4). The ability to build the recommended EHR begins with RADT, as noted in Practice E1239. A more detailed specification of the RADT process and its specific functional domain shall begin with a formal model. Furthermore, following agreement on the initial model, that model shall evolve as knowledge accumulates and the initial view of the healthcare domain extends to other social and psychologic processes that link healthcare with other functional domains of society. The management of lifelong cases of care, such as those of birth defects in newborns, will involve interactions with social work and educational functional domains of experience. It has been recognized for some time (5) that a “healthcare team,” in the broader sense, is involved in dealing with these complex cases. The RADT model is the core to linking these functional domains together in a transparent way. For that reason, the object terminology is used to enable the most global view and vernacular that will facilitate communication among technical specialties that participate in managing some aspect of health care or that build systems to manage the required information.5.2 Common Terminology as a Basis for Education—The use of models and their associated terminology implies that education of the healthcare practitioners shall incorporate this view to a significant extent. While a detailed specification of systems requires extensive lexicons of carefully defined terms, a more understandable terminology shall evolve for the process of educating practitioners during their formal education as well as continuing to educate current practioners concerning how this new technology can be integrated with their existing practices. This challenge has yet to be met, but the objects and modeling concepts presented here are intended to be named with the most intuitive titles in order to promote clear understanding during their use in instruction. Nevertheless, relating these objects and their properties to everyday practice remains a significant challenge, for both the implementors of systems and educators. The perspectives cataloged here can be used in the creation of system documentation and curricula represented in a variety of media.1.1 This practice is intended to amplify Practice E1239 and to complement Practice E1384 by detailing the objects that make up the reservation, registration, admitting, discharge, and transfer (RADT) functional domain of the computer-based record of care (CPR). As identified in Practice E1239, this domain is seminal to all patient record and ancillary system functions, including messaging functions used in telecommunications. For example, it is applicable to clinical laboratory information management systems, pharmacy information management systems, and radiology, or other image management, information management systems. The object model terminology is used to be compatible with other national and international standards for healthcare data and information systems engineering or telecommunications standards applied to healthcare data or systems. This practice is intended for those familiar with modeling concepts, system design, and implementation. It is not intended for the general computer user or as an initial introduction to the concepts.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

5.1 Model applications (1),4 are useful tools to:5.1.1 Assist in problem evaluation,5.1.2 Design remedial measures,5.1.3 Conceptualize and study groundwater flow processes,5.1.4 Provide additional information for decision making, and5.1.5 Recognize limitations in data and guide collection of new data.5.2 Groundwater models are routinely employed in making environmental resource management decisions. The model supporting these decisions should be scientifically defensible and decision-makers informed of the degree of uncertainty in the model predictions. This has prompted some state agencies to develop standards for groundwater modeling (2). This guide provides a consistent framework within which to develop, apply, and document a groundwater flow model.5.3 This guide presents steps ideally followed whenever a groundwater flow model is applied. The groundwater flow model will be based upon a mathematical model that may use numerical, analytical, or other appropriate technique.5.4 This guide should be used by practicing groundwater modelers and by those wishing to provide consistency in modeling efforts performed under their direction.5.5 Use of this guide to develop and document a groundwater flow model does not guarantee that the model is valid. This guide simply outlines the necessary steps to follow in the modeling process. For example, development of an equivalent porous media model in karst terrain may not be valid if significant groundwater flow takes place in fractures and solution channels. In this case, the modeler could follow the steps in this guide and not end up with a defensible model.1.1 This guide covers the application and subsequent documentation of a groundwater flow model to a particular site or problem. In this context, “groundwater flow model” refers to the application of a mathematical model to the solution of a site-specific groundwater flow problem.1.2 This guide illustrates the major steps to take in developing a groundwater flow model that reproduces or simulates an aquifer system that has been studied in the field. This guide does not identify particular computer codes, software, or algorithms used in the modeling investigation.1.3 This guide is specifically written for saturated, isothermal, groundwater flow models. The concepts are applicable to a wide range of models designed to simulate subsurface processes, such as variably saturated flow, flow in fractured media, density-dependent flow, solute transport, and multiphase transport phenomena; however, the details of these other processes are not described in this guide.1.4 This guide is not intended to be all inclusive. Each groundwater model is unique and may require additional procedures in its development and application. All such additional analyses should be documented, however, in the model report.1.5 This guide is one of a series of standards on groundwater model applications. Other standards include D5981, D5490, D5609, D5610, D5611, and D6033.1.6 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 guide offers an organized collection of information or a series of options and does not recommend a specific course of action. This document cannot replace education or experience and should be used in conjunction with professional judgment. Not all aspects of this guide 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 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.1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

4.1 Groundwater flow models are tools frequently applied for the analysis of hydrogeologic systems. Due to the significance of many decisions based upon modeling results, quality assurance measures need to be applied to model applications. Complete model documentation is a mechanism to ensure the quality of the effort.4.2 Several federal and state agencies have developed policies regarding model documentation. This guide provides consistency amongst current policies, and should be used as a framework for model documentation.1.1 This guide covers suggested components to be included in documenting and archival of numerical groundwater flow model applications. Model documentation includes a written and graphical presentation of model assumptions and objectives, the conceptual model, code description, model construction, model calibration, predictive simulations, and conclusions. Model archival refers to a file or set of files (in both written and digital format) that contains logs of significant model simulations (that is, calibration, sensitivity and prediction simulations), supplemental calculations, model documentation, a copy of the model source code(s) or executable file(s) used, or both, and input and output data sets for significant model simulations.1.2 This guide presents the major steps in preparing the documentation and archival for a groundwater flow model application. Additional information on groundwater model documentation can be found in EPA-500-B-92-006.21.3 This guide is specifically written for saturated, uniform density, groundwater flow model applications. The elements presented for documentation and archival are relevant and applicable to a wide range of modeled processes (in and out of the realm of groundwater flow) and can be tailored for those applications.1.4 This guide is not intended to be all inclusive. Each model application is unique and may require supplementary documentation and archival.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 and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.6 This guide offers an organized collection of information or a series of options and does not recommend a specific course of action. This document cannot replace education or experience and should be used in conjunction with professional judgment. Not all aspects of this guide 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 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.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

5.1 Occipital-cervical and occipital-cervical-thoracic spinal implants are generally composed of several components which, when connected together, form either an occipital-cervical spinal implant assembly or an occipital-cervical-thoracic spinal implant assembly. Occipital-cervical and occipital-cervical-thoracic spinal implant assemblies are designed to provide some stability to the spine during the process of arthrodesis. These test methods outline standard materials and methods for the evaluation of different spinal implant assemblies to facilitate comparisons between different designs.5.2 These test methods are used to quantify the static and dynamic mechanical characteristics of different designs of occipital-cervical and occipital-cervical-thoracic spinal implant assemblies. The mechanical tests are conducted in vitro using simplified load schemes and do not attempt to mimic the complex loads of the occipital-cervical and occipital-cervical-thoracic spine.5.3 The loads applied to the spinal implant assemblies in vivo will, in general, differ from the loading configurations used in these test methods. The results obtained here cannot be used directly to predict in vivo performance. The results can be used to compare different component designs in terms of the relative mechanical parameters.5.4 Fatigue testing in a simulated body fluid or saline may cause fretting, corrosion, or lubricate the interconnections and thereby affect the relative performance of tested devices. This test should be initially performed dry (ambient room conditions) for consistency. The effect of the environment may be significant. Repeating all or part of these test methods in simulated body fluid, saline (9 g NaCl per 1000 mL water), a saline drip, water, or a lubricant should be considered. The maximum recommended frequency for this type of cyclic testing should be 5 Hz.5.5 The location of the longitudinal elements is determined by the intended in vivo location of the anchors. The perpendicular distance to the load direction between the axis of a hinge pin and the anchor's attachment points to a polyacetal block is independent of anchor-type for the cervical block, but dependent on the design for the occipital test block. The distance between the polyacetal block and the center of the longitudinal element is a function of the design of the implant.1.1 These test methods cover the materials and methods for the static and fatigue testing of occipital-cervical and occipital-cervical-thoracic spinal implant assemblies in a vertebrectomy model. The test materials for most combinations of occipital-cervical and occipital-cervical-thoracic spinal implant components can be specific depending on the intended location and intended method of attachment.1.2 These test methods are intended to provide a basis for the mechanical comparison among past, present, and future occipital-cervical and occipital-cervical-thoracic spinal implant assemblies. They allow comparison of occipital-cervical and occipital-cervical-thoracic spinal implant constructs with different methods of application to the spine. These test methods are not intended to define levels of performance, since sufficient knowledge is not available to predict the consequences of the use of a particular device.1.3 These test methods set out guidelines for load types and methods of applying loads. Methods for three static load types and two fatigue tests for the comparative evaluation of occipital-cervical and occipital-cervical-thoracic spinal implant assemblies are defined.1.4 These test methods establish guidelines for measuring displacements, determining the yield load, and evaluating the stiffness and strength of occipital-cervical or occipital-cervical-thoracic spinal implant assemblies.1.5 It may not be possible to test some occipital-cervical and some occipital-cervical-thoracic spinal constructs in all test configurations.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