4.1 Individuals will be initially or concurrently trained in accordance with U.S. D.O.T. Course Guide for First Responders4 and Guide F1453.4.2 This guide does not suggest a particular training sequence.4.3 This guide may be used by individuals developing training programs for non-traditional EMS environments.4.4 This guide acknowledges the need to provide additional specific training for first responders who will practice in the wilderness, delayed or prolonged transport settings.4.5 Individuals responsible for training first responders should identify those who will practice in the wilderness, delayed or prolonged transport settings and must ensure that such personnel are competent in all skills needed for the unique settings.1.1 This guide covers minimum training standards for first responders who may care for sick or injured persons in the specialized pre-hospital situations of the wilderness, delayed, or prolonged transport settings, including catastrophic disasters.1.2 This guide establishes supplemental or continuing education programs that will be taught to individuals trained to the first responder level by an appropriate authority.1.3 This guide does not provide training to be used, ordinarily, in the traditional EMS or ambulance transportation environments.1.4 Included in this guide is a standard for the evaluation of the knowledge and skills defined within this guide.1.5 Successful completion of a course based on this guide neither constitutes nor implies certification or licensure.1.6 This guide does not establish medical protocols, nor does it authorize invasive procedures without specific authorization and medical control.1.7 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.8 Operating within the framework of this guide may expose personnel to hazardous materials or environments, procedures, and equipment or all of these.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 and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

4.1 Numerous sources provide detailed information as to the loading, blocking, bracing, and unloading of specific types of cargo in unimodal and intermodal transport. Some of these sources are proprietary, others are massive and complex in scope, and none are consistently promulgated to shippers, carriers, and consignees. Many of the losses experienced by cargo in transport are due to the failure to practice proper basic cargo handling and loading techniques. These practices are intended to outline those techniques in simple, clear, generic, and easy to promulgate formats, including posters, slides, videotapes, and pamphlets, and are further intended to serve as the basis upon which a comprehensive cargo handling methodology may be built.4.2 Users of these practices should avail themselves of the detailed resource information available. The practices as defined are not sufficient to form a complete cargo handling protocol.1.1 These practices are intended to serve as a guide to shippers, carriers, and consignees for load planning, loading, blocking, and bracing of intermodal and unimodal cargo in surface transport. The practices are referenced to a bibliography of information concerning the above. Hazardous materials, bulk cargo, non-containerized break bulk in ocean carriage, and transport of cargo by air are not included in these practices at this time.1.2 These practices shall apply to cargo in surface transport on flat bed, open top, box car, truck, van, and intermodal containers.1.3 The practices are intended to form a framework for the safe and effective loading and unloading of cargo in intermodal and unimodal surface transport. They are not intended to provide comprehensive detail relating to specific types of cargo, but will reference to source materials wherein such detail may be found.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

3.1 General: 3.1.1 The methodology recommended in this guide specifies criteria for validating computational methods and outlines procedures applicable to pressure vessel related neutronics calculations for test and power reactors. The material presented herein is useful for validating computational methodology and for performing neutronics calculations that accompany reactor vessel surveillance dosimetry measurements (see Master Matrix E706 and Practice E853). Briefly, the overall methodology involves: (1) methods-validation calculations based on at least one well-documented benchmark problem, and (2) neutronics calculations for the facility of interest. The neutronics calculations of the facility of interest and of the benchmark problem should be performed consistently, with important modeling parameters kept the same or as similar as is feasible. In particular, the same energy group structure and common broad-group microscopic cross sections should be used for both problems. Further, the benchmark problem should be characteristically similar to the facility of interest. For example, a power reactor benchmark should be utilized for power reactor calculations. Non-power reactors may have special features that may affect pressure vessel fluence and require consideration when developing a benchmark, such as beam tubes, irradiation facilities, and non-core neutron sources. The neutronics calculations involve two tasks: (1) determination of the neutron source distribution in the reactor core by utilizing diffusion theory (or transport theory) calculations in conjunction with reactor power distribution measurements, and (2) performance of a fixed fission rate neutron source (fixed-source) transport theory calculation to determine the neutron fluence rate distribution in the reactor core, through the internals and in the pressure vessel. Some neutronics modeling details for the benchmark, test reactor, or the power reactor calculation will differ; therefore, the procedures described herein are general and apply to each case. (See NUREG/CR-5049, NUREG/CR-1861, NUREG/CR-3318, and NUREG/CR-3319.)3.1.2 It is expected that transport calculations will be performed whenever pressure vessel surveillance dosimetry data become available and that quantitative comparisons will be performed as prescribed by 3.2.2. All dosimetry data accumulated that are applicable to a particular facility should be included in the comparisons.3.2 Validation—Prior to performing transport calculations for a particular facility, the computational methods must be validated by comparing results with measurements made on a benchmark experiment. Criteria for establishing a benchmark experiment for the purpose of validating neutronics methodology should include those set forth in Guides E944 and E2006 as well as those prescribed in 3.2.1. A discussion of the limiting accuracy of benchmark validation discrete ordinate radiation transport procedures for the LWR surveillance program is given in Reference (1).4 Reference (2) provides details on the benchmark validation for a Monte Carlo radiation transport code.3.2.1 Requirements for Benchmarks—In order for a particular experiment to qualify as a calculational benchmark, the following criteria are recommended:3.2.1.1 Sufficient information must be available to accurately determine the neutron source distribution in the reactor core.3.2.1.2 Measurements must be reported in at least two ex-core locations, well separated by steel or coolant.3.2.1.3 Uncertainty estimates should be reported for dosimetry measurements and calculated fluences including calculated exposure parameters and calculated dosimetry activities.3.2.1.4 Quantitative criteria, consistent with those specified in the methods validation 3.2.2, must be published and demonstrated to be achievable.3.2.1.5 Differences between measurements and calculations should be consistent with the uncertainty estimates in 3.2.1.3.3.2.1.6 Results for exposure parameter values of neutron fluence greater than 1 MeV and 0.1 MeV [φ(E > 1 MeV and 0.1 MeV)] and of displacements per atom (dpa) in iron should be reported consistent with Practices E693 and E853.3.2.1.7 Reaction rates (preferably established relative to neutron fluence standards) must be reported for 237Np(n,f) or 238U(n,f), and 58Ni(n,p) or 54Fe(n,p); additional reactions that aid in spectral characterization, such as provided by Cu, Ti, and Co-Al, should also be included in the benchmark measurements. The 237Np(n,f) reaction is particularly important because it is sensitive to the same neutron energy region as the iron dpa. Practices E693 and E853 and Guides E844 and E944 discuss this criterion.3.2.2 Methodology Validation—It is essential that the neutronics methodology employed for predicting neutron fluence in a reactor pressure vessel be validated by accurately predicting appropriate benchmark dosimetry results. In addition, the following documentation should be submitted: (1) convergence study results, and (2) estimates of variances and covariances for fluence rates and reaction rates arising from uncertainties in both the source and geometric modeling. For Monte Carlo calculations, the convergence study results should also include (3) an analysis of the figure-of-merit (FOM) as a function of particles history, and if applicable, (4) the description of the technique utilized to generate the weight window parameters.3.2.2.1 For example, model specifications for discrete-ordinates method on which convergence studies should be performed include: (1) neutron cross sections or energy group structure, (2) spatial mesh, and (3) angular quadrature. Reference (3) evaluates the effects of many discrete-ordinates parameters individually and in combination and may help guide the analysis. For regions adjacent to the reactor core, one-dimensional calculations may be performed to check the adequacy of group structure and spatial mesh. Two-dimensional calculations should be employed to check the adequacy of the angular quadrature. A P3 cross section expansion is recommended along with a S8 minimum quadrature. For regions that are not adjacent to the reactor core, convergence studies for spatial mesh and angular quadrature should apply three-dimensional calculations.3.2.2.2 Uncertainties that are propagated from known uncertainties in nuclear data should be considered in the analysis. The uncertainty analysis for discrete ordinates codes may be performed with sensitivity analysis as discussed in References (4, 5). In Monte Carlo analysis the uncertainties can be treated by a perturbation analysis as discussed in Reference (6). Appropriate computer programs and covariance data are available and sensitivity data may be obtained as an intermediate step in determining uncertainty estimates.53.2.2.3 Effects of known uncertainties in geometry and source distribution should be evaluated based on the following test cases: (1) reference calculation with a time-averaged source distribution and with best estimates of the core and pressure vessel locations, (2) reference case geometry with maximum and minimum expected deviations in the source distribution, and (3) reference case source distribution with maximum expected spatial perturbations of the core, pressure vessel, and other pertinent locations.3.2.2.4 Measured and calculated integral parameters should be compared for all test cases. It is expected that larger uncertainties are associated with geometry and neutron source specifications than with parameters included in the convergence study. Problems associated with space, energy, and angle discretizations can be identified and corrected. Uncertainties associated with geometry specifications are inherent in the structure tolerances. Calculations based on the expected extremes provide a measure of the sensitivity of integral parameters to the selected variables. Variations in the proposed convergence and uncertainty evaluations are appropriate when the above procedures are inconsistent with the methodology to be validated. As-built data could be used to reduce the uncertainty in geometrical dimensions.3.2.2.5 In order to illustrate quantitative criteria based on measurements and calculations that should be satisfied, let ψ denote a set of logarithms of calculation (Ci) to measurement (Ei) ratios. Specifically,where qi and N are defined implicitly and the wi are weighting factors. Because some reactions provide a greater response over a spectral region of concern than other reactions, weighting factors may be utilized when their selection method is well documented and adequately defended, such as through a least-squares adjustment method as detailed in Guide E944. In the absence of the use of a least-squares adjustment methodology, the mean of the set q is given byand the best estimate of the variance, S2, is3.2.2.6 The neutronics methodology is validated if (in addition to qualitative model evaluation) all of the following criteria are satisfied:(1) The bias, |q|, is less than ε1,(2) The standard deviation, S, is less than ε2,(3) All absolute values of the natural logarithmic of the C/E ratios (|q|, i = 1 ... N) are less than ε3, and(4) ε1, ε2, and ε3 are defined by the benchmark measurement documentation and demonstrated to be attainable for all items with which calculations are compared.3.2.2.7 Note that a nonzero log-mean of the Ci/Ei ratios indicates that a bias exists. Possible sources of a bias are: (1) source normalization, (2) neutronics data, (3) transverse leakage corrections (if applicable), (4) geometric modeling, and (5) mathematical approximations. Reaction rates, equivalent fission fluence rates, or exposure parameter values (for example, φ(E > 1 MeV) and dpa) may be used for validating the computational methodology if appropriate criteria (that is, as established by 3.2.2.5 and 3.2.2.6) are documented for the benchmark of interest. Accuracy requirements for reactor vessel surveillance specific benchmark validation procedures are discussed in Guide E2006. The validation testing for the generic discrete ordinates and Monte Carlo transport methods is discussed in References (1, 2).3.2.2.8 One acceptable procedure for performing these comparisons is: (1) obtain group fluence rates at dosimeter locations from neutronics calculations, (2) collapse the Guide E1018 recommended dosimetry cross section data to a multigroup set consistent with the neutron energy group fluence rates or obtain a fine group spectrum (consistent with the dosimetry cross section data) from the calculated group fluence rates, (3) fold the energy group fluence rates with the appropriate cross sections, and (4) compare the calculated and experimental data according to the specified quantitative criteria.3.3 Determination of the Fixed Fission Source—The power distribution in a typical reactor undergoes significant change during the life of the reactor. A time-averaged power distribution is recommended for use in determination of the neutron source distribution utilized for damage predictions. An adjoint procedure, described in 3.3.2, may be more appropriate for dosimetry comparisons involving product nuclides with short half-lives. For multigroup methods, the fixed source may be determined from the equation:where:r   =   a spatial node,g   =   an energy group,v   =   average number of neutrons per fission,xg   =   fraction of the fission spectrum in group g, andPr   =   fission rate in node r.3.3.1 Note that in addition to the fission rate, v and xg will vary with fuel burnup, and a proper time average of these quantities should be used. The ratio between fission rate and power (that is, fission/s per watt) will also vary with burnup for any given spatial node.3.3.2 An adjoint procedure may be used as suggested in NUREG/CR-5049 instead of calculation with a time-averaged source calculation.3.3.2.1 The influence of changing source distribution is discussed in Reference (8). For dosimetry comparisons involving product nuclides with short half-lives, these changes in the power distribution may be significant. In this situation, a suitably averaged power distribution can be obtained by weighting the time-dependent power distribution using a factor proportional to:where:f   =   weighting factor at time, t,λ   =   decay constant for the nuclide of interest, andt   =   time from the start of the exposure.This averaging is different for each nuclide, therefore the use of the adjoint procedure avoids unecessary repetitions of the transport calculations in order to validate calculations using dosimetry results as described in 3.2.2.3.3.2.2 Care should be exercised to ensure that adjoint calculations adequately address cycle-to-cycle variations in coolant densities and any changes to the geometric configuration of the reactor.3.4 Calculation of the Neutron Fluence Rate Based on a Fixed Source in the Reactor Core—The discussion in this section relates to methods validation calculations and to routine surveillance calculations. In either case, neutron transport calculations must estimate the neutron fluence rate in the core, through the internals, in the reactor pressure vessel, and outside the vessel, if for example, ex-vessel dosimetry is used. Procedures for methods validation differ very little from procedures for predicting neutron fluence rate in the pressure vessel or test facility; consequently, the following procedure is recommended:3.4.1 Obtain detailed geometric and composition descriptions of the material configurations involved in the transport calculation. Uncertainty in the data should also be estimated.3.4.2 Obtain applicable cross section sets from appropriate data bases such as:3.4.2.1 The evaluated nuclear data file (ENDF/B or its equivalent), or3.4.2.2 A fine group library obtained by processing the above file (for example, see Reference (9)).3.4.3 Perform a one-dimensional, fixed-source, fine-group calculation in order to collapse the fine-group cross sections to a broad-group set for multidimensional calculations. At least two broad-group sets are recommended for performing the one-dimensional group structure convergence evaluation. The broad-group structure should emphasize the high-energy range and should take cross section minima of important materials (for example, iron) into consideration.3.4.4 Perform the convergence studies outlined in 3.2.2.3.4.5 Perform two- or three-dimensional fixed-source transport calculations based on the model established in 3.4.1 – 3.4.4.3.4.6 Compare appropriate dosimetry results with neutronics results from 3.4.5 according to the procedure given in 3.2.2. It is recommended that all valid lifetime-accumulated reactor dosimetry data be included in this comparison each time new data become available except when dosimeter-specific comparisons are made.3.4.7 Repeat appropriate steps if validation criteria are not satisfied. Note that a reactor dosimetry datum may be discarded if the associated C/E ratios differ substantially from the average of the applicable C/E ratios and a measurement error can be suspected. A measurement error can be suspected if the deviation from the average exceeds the equivalent of three standard deviations. In addition, the source for reactor calculations may be scaled to minimize the bias and variance defined by Eq 2 and Eq 3 provided that data are not discarded as a consequence of scaling the source.3.4.8 Results from neutronics calculations may be used in a variety of ways:3.4.8.1 Determine a single normalization constant that minimizes bias in the calculated values relative to the measurements in order to scale the group fluences. This is a simple and frequently used alternative to adjustment procedures. However, the magnitude of this constant should be critically examined in terms of estimated source uncertainties.3.4.8.2 Use a spectrum adjustment procedure as recommended in Guide E944 using calculated group fluences and dosimetry data with uncertainty estimates to obtain an adjustment to the calculated group fluences and exposure parameters. Predicted pressure vessel fluences could then incorporate the spectral and normalization data obtained from the adjusted fluences.3.4.8.3 Use the calculated fluence spectrum with Practice E693 for damage exposure predictions.3.4.8.4 It is expected that in some cases the procedure recommended above will be inconsistent with some methodologies to be validated. In these cases procedural variations are appropriate but should be well documented.1.1 Need for Neutronics Calculations—An accurate calculation of the neutron fluence and fluence rate at several locations is essential for the analysis of integral dosimetry measurements and for predicting irradiation damage exposure parameter values in the pressure vessel. Exposure parameter values may be obtained directly from calculations or indirectly from calculations that are adjusted with dosimetry measurements; Guide E944 and Practice E853 define appropriate computational procedures.1.2 Methodology—Neutronics calculations for application to reactor vessel surveillance encompass three essential areas: (1) validation of methods by comparison of calculations with dosimetry measurements in a benchmark experiment, (2) determination of the neutron source distribution in the reactor core, and (3) calculation of neutron fluence rate at the surveillance position and in the pressure vessel.1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

This specification establishes the general requirements for two types, two classes, and seven grades of rubber seals used in solar energy systems employing air-heat transport, such as duct and damper seals. Particular applications may necessitate other requirements that would take precedence over these requirements when specified. The design requirement stated herein pertains only to permissible deflections of the rubber during thermal expansion or contraction of the seal in use and the tolerances in dimensions of molded and extruded seals. This specification does not address the requirements pertaining to the fabrication or installation of the seals. Type C seals are intended for use in cold climates, while Type W seals are intended for use in warm climates. Grade designations (Grades 2 to 8) represent differing degrees of hardness. Finally, Class PS are preformed rubber seals, while Class SC are sealing compounds. Each class shall conform to individually specified values of the following requirements: ultimate elongation; compression set at specified times and temperatures; resistance to heating (hardness and ultimate elongation change, and volatiles lost); resistance to ozone; resistance to low temperature; and adhesion loss.1.1 This specification covers the general requirements for the rubber seals used in solar energy systems employing air-heat transport. Examples are duct and damper seals. Particular applications may necessitate other requirements that would take precedence over these requirements when specified.NOTE 1: Rubber seals for the collector are covered in Specifications D3667 and D3771.1.2 Design requirement pertains only to permissible deflections of the rubber during thermal expansion or contraction of the seal in use and the tolerances in dimensions of molded and extruded seals.1.3 This specification does not include requirements pertaining to the fabrication or installation of the seals.1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.5 The following safety hazards caveat pertains only to the test methods portion, Section 10, of this specification: This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

1.1 This specification provides the format and guidelines for producing a catalog of current resources of air medical transport units, showing the patient care capability of each, in standard form.1.2 This specification applies to all the air transports involved in patient care that meet one or more applicable ASTM medical transport unit specifications.1.3 This specification incorporates only the information that is considered essential for use by the planners during an emergency. The intent is to provide information on what is available, what level of care it can provide, where it is, and the earliest it can respond, so that the most efficient use can be made of each unit, in accordance with the emergency plans.1.4 Information contained in the unit's operations manual, such as the weight and balance calculations for the "Specialized Medical Resources" listed in Appendix X1, is not included in the catalog but it will be available to the planners, on request.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

1.1 This specification pertains to rotary wing transport units involved in patient transportation and care at the basic life support level. It outlines the minimum requirements, including personnel, and the patient care equipment and supplies, that must be met before the unit can be classified as an basic life support transport unit. 1.2 This specification describes; the minimum vehicle configuration and capability, the minimum number of seats for personnel, and the provisions for the minimum medical equipment and supplies. 1.3 Other specifications of Committee F-30 will apply.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

1.1 This specification pertains to rotary wing transport units involved in patient transportation and care at the specialized medical transport level. It outlines the minimum requirements, including personnel and the patient care equipment and supplies, that must be met before the unit can be classified as a specialized medical transport unit.1.2 This specification describes the minimum vehicle configuration and capability, the minimum number of seats for personnel, and the provisions for the minimum medical equipment and supplies.1.3 Other specifications of Committee F-30 will apply.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

4.1 This test method is intended to evaluate the ability of packaging to resist the force of concentrated impacts from outside sources, such as those encountered in various modes of transportation and handling. These impacts may be inflicted by adjacent freight jostling against the package in a carrier vehicle, by accidental bumps against other freight when loaded or unloaded from vehicles, by packages bumping against one another during sorting on conveyors or chutes, or many other circumstances.4.2 This test method is intended to determine the ability of packaging to protect contents from such impacts, and to evaluate if there is sufficient clearance or support or both between the package wall and its contents.1.1 This test method covers procedures and equipment for testing complete filled transport packages for resistance against concentrated low-level impacts typical of those encountered in the distribution environment. The test is most appropriate for packages such as thin fluted/lighter grade corrugated boxes or stretch-wrapped packaging.1.2 The test result is a pass/fail determination, based on acceptance criteria previously established, and a record of the energy dissipated by the complete filled transport package during a low level concentrated impact.NOTE 1: This test method discusses the conduct of the test from a prescribed height that either meets or does not meet specific acceptance criteria. It may be possible to conduct this type of testing using modified procedures that provide a numerical response. These might include an incremental test where the drop height (or mass) is increased until a specific failure occurs or an up-and-down or staircase procedure used to find the average height to failure.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.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

1.1 This specification pertains to rotary wing transport units involved in patient transportation and care at the advanced life support level. It outlines the minimum requirements, including personnel and the patient care equipment and supplies, that must be met before the unit can be classified as an advanced life support transport unit. 1.2 This specification describes; the minimum vehicle configuration and capability, the minimum number of seats for personnel, and the provisions for the minimum medical equipment and supplies. 1.3 Other specifications of Committee F-30 will apply.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

1.1 This specification covers requirements and test methods for materials, dimensions, workmanship, and markings for on-site manufactured multilayer reinforced polyethylene composite pipe. It covers nominal sizes 6 in. through 36 in. (150 mm through 915 mm). These multilayered reinforced polyethylene composite pipe products2 are assembled and installed in various lengths, including long continuous lengths. These products are intended for the transport of crude oil, natural gas and hazardous liquids in the rehabilitation of existing pipelines and for new pipelines.NOTE 1: Hazardous liquids are those liquids defined by the U.S. Department of Transportation in 49 CFR 195.2.1.2 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.1.3 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

1.1 This specification pertains to fixed wing transport units involved in patient transportation and care, at the basic life support level. It outlines the minimum requirements, including personnel, and the patient care equipment and supplies, that must be met before the unit can be classified as a basic life support transport unit.1.2 The specification describes: the minimum vehicle configuration and capability, the minimum number of seats for personnel, and the provisions for the minimum medical equipment and supplies.1.3 Other specifications of Committee F-30 will apply.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

5.1 The procedures described, herein, can be used to evaluate the severity of hydrogen charging of a material produced by exposure to corrosive environments or by cathodic polarization. It can also be used to determine fundamental properties of materials in terms of hydrogen diffusion (for example, diffusivity of hydrogen) and the effects of metallurgical, processing, and environmental variables on diffusion of hydrogen in metals.5.2 The data obtained from hydrogen permeation tests can be combined with other tests related to hydrogen embrittlement or hydrogen induced cracking to ascertain critical levels of hydrogen flux or hydrogen content in the material for cracking to occur.1.1 This practice gives a procedure for the evaluation of hydrogen uptake, permeation, and transport in metals using an electrochemical technique which was developed by Devanathan and Stachurski.2 While this practice is primarily intended for laboratory use, such measurements have been conducted in field or plant applications. Therefore, with proper adaptations, this practice can also be applied to such situations.1.2 This practice describes calculation of an effective diffusivity of hydrogen atoms in a metal and for distinguishing reversible and irreversible trapping.1.3 This practice specifies the method for evaluating hydrogen uptake in metals based on the steady-state hydrogen flux.1.4 This practice gives guidance on preparation of specimens, control and monitoring of the environmental variables, test procedures, and possible analyses of results.1.5 This practice can be applied in principle to all metals and alloys which have a high solubility for hydrogen, and for which the hydrogen permeation is measurable. This method can be used to rank the relative aggressivity of different environments in terms of the hydrogen uptake of the exposed metal.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： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

4.1 Ebullition is ubiquitous in sediment and is primarily a significant concern when there is associated NAPL/contaminant transport, resulting in exposure risk to humans, ecological receptors, or both. Ebullition may also be a concern when capping has been chosen as part of a site remedy.4.2 Understanding the potential for ebullition-facilitated NAPL/contaminant transport in sediment is an important element of an overall conceptual site model (CSM) that forms a basis for (1) evaluating if (and how) human and ecological receptors may be exposed to NAPL/contaminants, and (2) assessing remedial alternatives. In addition, demonstrating the potential for (and extent of) ebullition-facilitated transport of NAPL/contaminants in sediments to regulators and other stakeholders has been historically hampered by the lack of standardized terminology and characterization protocols. The complexity of ebullition-facilitated NAPL/contaminant transport in sediment, and the lack of agreed upon methods for analysis and interpretation of site data, has led to uncertainty in corrective action decision-making at sediment sites. This has sometimes resulted in misleading expectations about remedial outcomes. The ebullition-facilitated transport mechanisms for NAPL/contaminants in sediments are different from advective transport mechanisms in sediment or in upland environments, due to a variety of physical, geochemical, and biological differences, thus necessitating this guide.4.3 This guide is intended to serve as a stand-alone document to consider conditions that are unique to ebullition and ebullition-facilitated NAPL/contaminant transport, as well as to complement other guides used for CSM development at contaminated sediment sites (Guides E1689, E1739, E2081, E2531, and E3248). This guide will aid users in understanding the unique and fundamental characteristics of sediment environments that influence the occurrence of ebullition-facilitated NAPL/contaminant transport. Understanding the site characteristics that influence ebullition-facilitated NAPL/contaminant transport within the sediment column will aid in identifying specific data requirements necessary to investigate these conditions, which will enable further refinement of the CSM and provide a sound basis for remedy decisions.4.4 Ebullition-facilitated NAPL/contaminant transport is the primary transport mechanism that is addressed within this guide.4.4.1 In addition to ebullition-facilitated NAPL/contaminant transport, porewater advection may also facilitate NAPL/contaminant transport; however, this process is beyond the scope of this guide. Advective transport of NAPL in sediments is addressed in Guide E3248.4.4.2 Processes associated with NAPL/contaminant transport due to erosion (for example, propeller wash) are not within the scope of this guide.4.5 This guide identifies the relevant information necessary for a technically reliable and comprehensive CSM in support of the investigation or remediation of ebullition-facilitated NAPL/contaminant transport in sediments. It describes the conditions that lead to (or influence) ebullition-facilitated NAPL/contaminant transport, methods for quantifying the ebullition-facilitated NAPL/contaminant flux rate, considerations for field measurements, and use of field results in extrapolating the NAPL/contaminant flux rate. A technically reliable and comprehensive CSM will result in a more efficient and consistent investigation of ebullition-facilitated NAPL/contaminant transport in sediments to support remedy decisions. This guide may also be beneficial for evaluating ebullition alone at sites (for example, as input into sediment cap design).4.6 Many materials (for example, chlorinated solvents, petroleum products, and creosote) enter the subsurface as an immiscible liquid, known as NAPL, which may flow as a separate phase from water. NAPL can contain contaminants, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).4.6.1 Sheens may be observed on the surface of the water body from sources other than ebullition, such as natural/biogenic sheens, advective NAPL/contaminant transport, outfalls (for example, municipal and industrial), or vessel leaks. Identifying sources of sheens other than ebullition is not within the scope of this guide.4.7 This guide assumes that a CSM has been developed that includes the nature and extent of NAPL/contaminants in sediment. This CSM would include an understanding of (1) the hydrological setting, (2) the physical and chemical characteristics of the sediment and water body, (3) the physical and chemical characteristics of the NAPL/contaminants, (4) mechanism(s) of NAPL/contaminant emplacement, (5) the physical extent of the NAPL/contaminant zone, and (6) the potential for human and ecological exposures to NAPL/contaminants in sediment, or via NAPL/contaminant release to overlying surface water. The means and methods for collecting this information are not addressed in this guide.4.8 This guide assumes that the user has developed a CSM that provides a framework for developing a conceptual model (CM) that is a component of the overall CSM, which addresses ebullition-facilitated NAPL/contaminant transport. This guide will help users understand the physical and chemical conditions and emplacement mechanisms that lead to (or influence) ebullition-facilitated NAPL/contaminant transport, as well as aid in prioritizing and executing methods for gathering field data and interpreting results to support the development of a CSM for the site.4.8.1 The elements of the ebullition-facilitated NAPL/contaminant transport CM describe the physical and chemical properties of the environment, the hydraulic conditions, the source of the NAPL/contaminants, and the nature and extent of the NAPL/contaminant zone. The CM is a dynamic, evolving model that will change through time as new data are collected and evaluated or as physical conditions of the site change due to natural or engineered processes. The goal of the CM is to describe the nature, distribution, and setting of the NAPL/contaminants in sufficient detail, so that questions regarding current and potential future risks, longevity, and amenability to remedial action can be adequately addressed.4.8.2 The elements for the ebullition-facilitated NAPL/contaminant transport CM may include, but are not limited to:4.8.2.1 Factors affecting the rate of gas production:(1) Presence of microbial consortia capable of OM mineralization(2) Presence of labile OM(3) Geochemical conditions conducive to methanogenesis(4) Sediment temperature4.8.2.2 Factors affecting the nucleation of gas bubbles, bubble growth and migration through the sediment column:(1) Availability of nucleation sites(2) Sediment properties (for example, tensile strength, grain size, porosity, bulk density, cohesion, and heterogeneity)(3) Porewater properties (for example, gas concentrations, salinity, pH, and geochemistry)(4) Environmental setting (for example, hydrostatic pressure, atmospheric pressure, and groundwater seepage)4.8.2.3 Presence and extent of the NAPL/contaminant zone, including identification of where it is collocated with active ebullition zones.4.8.2.4 Ebullition-facilitated NAPL/contaminant transport rates, including spatial and temporal variability:(1) Screening-level evaluations(2) Quantitative evaluations4.9 The user of this guide should review the overall structure and components of this guide before proceeding with use, including:4.9.1 Section 1: ;4.9.2 Section 2: Referenced Documents;4.9.3 Section 3: Terminology;4.9.4 Section 4: ;4.9.5 Section 5: Fundamentals and Considerations During Development of a Conceptual Site Model4.9.6 Section 6: Initial Screening for Gas Ebullition and Ebullition Flux Measurement;4.9.7 Section 7: Gas Ebullition Measurement;4.9.8 Section 8: Quantification of Ebullition-Facilitated Transport of NAPL/Contaminants;4.9.9 Section 9: Field Considerations in the Measurement of NAPL/Contaminant Fluxes;4.9.10 Section 10: Keywords;4.9.11 Appendix X1: Organic Matter Degradation and Microbiology of Biogenic Gas Production in Sediments;4.9.12 Appendix X2: Carbon Source Identification Using Radioisotope Analysis;4.9.13 Appendix X3: Bench Scale Testing for Biogenic Gas; and4.9.14 References.4.10 This guide provides an overview of the unique characteristics influencing ebullition-facilitated NAPL/contaminant transport in aquatic sediment environments. This guide is not intended to provide specific guidance on sediment site investigation, risk assessment, monitoring, or remedial action.4.10.1 This guide may be used by various parties involved in a sediment site, including regulatory agencies, project sponsors, environmental consultants, site remediation professionals, environmental contractors, analytical testing laboratories, data reviewers and users, and other stakeholders.4.10.2 This guide does not replace the need for engaging competent persons to evaluate ebullition-facilitated NAPL/contaminant transport in sediments. Activities necessary to develop a CSM should be conducted by persons familiar with NAPL/contaminant-impacted sediment site characterization techniques, physical and chemical properties of NAPL/contaminants in sediments, fate and transport processes, remediation technologies, and sediment evaluation protocols. The users of this guide should consider assembling a team of experienced project professionals with appropriate expertise to scope, plan, and execute appropriate data acquisition activities.1.1 This guide addresses the processes that lead to (or influence) ebullition-facilitated nonaqueous phase liquid (NAPL)/contaminant transport, methods for quantifying that transport, considerations for sample timing, sampling procedures, and use of results in extrapolating an annual ebullition-facilitated NAPL/contaminant load to a site, or a portion of a site. This guide is not intended to address remediation of sites where ebullition-facilitated transport of NAPL/contaminants is occurring, fate and transport of contaminants subsequent to the ebullition transport mechanism, the measurement of contaminant concentrations within the gas bubbles, ebullition-associated human health and ecological risk, NAPL advection, or determining the depth of ebullition below the mudline. Additionally, gas transport without NAPL/contaminants is possible in areas with gas generation and limited NAPL contamination of the sediment, which is covered in this guide. Ebullition should be evaluated at sites where sediment capping is anticipated.1.2 The users of this guide should be aware of the appropriate regulatory requirements that apply to sediment sites where NAPL is present or suspected to occur. The user should consult applicable regulatory agency requirements to identify appropriate technical decision criteria and seek regulatory approvals, as necessary.1.3 ASTM standard guides are not regulations; they are consensus standard guides that may be followed voluntarily to support applicable regulatory requirements. This guide may be used in conjunction with other ASTM guides developed for sediment programs. The guide supplements characterization and remedial efforts performed under international, federal, state, and local environmental programs, but it does not replace regulatory agency requirements.1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

Subsurface fluid flow modeling is a well established tool that can aid in studying and solving soil and groundwater problems. Evaluation of more complex problems has been allowed as a result of advances in computing power and numerical analysis, yet confusion and misunderstanding over application of models still exists. As a result, some inappropriate use occurs and some problems which could be readily addressed are not. The purposes of this guide are to introduce the basic concepts of subsurface fluids modeling and to show how models are described and categorized. This guide should be used by practicing groundwater modelers, purchasers of modeling services, and by those wishing to understand modeling.1.1 This guide covers an overview of subsurface fluid-flow (groundwater) modeling. The term subsurface fluid flow is used to reduce misunderstanding regarding groundwater, soil water, vapors including air in subsurface pores, and non-aqueous phase liquids. Increased understanding of fluid-flow phenomena is the combined result of field investigations and theoretical development of mathematical methods to describe the observations. The results are methods for modeling viscous fluids and air flow, in addition to water, that are practical and appropriate. 1.2 This guide includes many terms to assist the user in understanding the information presented here. A groundwater system (soils and water) may be represented by a physical, electrical, or mathematical model, as described in 6.4.3. This guide focuses on mathematical models. The term mathematical model is defined in 3.1.11; however, it will be most often used to refer to the subset of models requiring a computer. 1.3 This guide introduces topics for which other standards have been developed. The process of applying a groundwater flow model is described in Guide D5447. The process includes defining boundary conditions (Guide D5609), initial conditions (Guide D5610), performing a sensitivity analysis (Guide D5611), and documenting a flow model application (Guide D5718). Other steps include developing a conceptual model and calibrating the model. As part of calibration, simulations are compared to site-specific information (Guide D5490), such as water levels. 1.4 Model use and misuse, limitations, and sources of error in modeling are discussed in this standard. This guide does not endorse particular computer software or algorithms used in the modeling investigation. However, this guide does provide references to some particular codes that are representative of different types of models. 1.5 Typically, a computer model consists of two parts; computer code that is sometimes called the computer program or software, and a data set that constitutes the input parameters that make up the boundary and initial conditions, and medium and fluid properties. A standard has been developed to address evaluation of model codes (see Practice E978). 1.6 Standards have been prepared to describe specific aspects of modeling, such as simulating subsurface air flow using groundwater flow modeling codes (see Guide D5719) and modeling as part of the risk-based corrective action process applied at petroleum release sites (see Practice E1739). 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

1.1 This specification pertains to fixed wing transport units involved in patient transportation and care, at the advanced life support level. It outlines the minimum requirements, including personnel and the patient care equipment, that must be met before the unit can be classified as an advanced life support transport unit.1.2 This specification describes the minimum configuration and capability required for the vehicle, the minimum number of seats for personnel, and the provisions for the minimum medical equipment and supplies.1.3 Other specifications of Committee F-30 will apply.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元