4.1 This section lists and explains the characteristics that are used to describe a stationary obstacle.4.2 It is essential that sufficient information about the obstacle is recorded using this practice so that the obstacle can be replicated. This will allow comparisons to be made between test method performances that use obstacles with similar characteristics.4.3 Class: 4.3.1 When describing an obstacle to be utilized in ASTM Committee F45 test methods, two classes are defined:4.3.1.1 Genuine—The obstacle being described is an existing real world object (for example, a chair, table, machinery, or equipment). Any identifying information, such as make, model, SKU, etc., should be recorded.4.3.1.2 Artifact—The obstacle being described has been constructed according to the characteristics outlined in this section. Obstacles of this class are intended to be replicable.4.4 Parts of the Obstacle: 4.4.1 Each characteristic can be used to describe a property of the entire obstacle or a part of the obstacle. All parts of the obstacle must be uniquely named and identified in the test report described in Section 6.4.5 Shape: 4.5.1 The shape refers to the relationships between the external, physical boundaries of the obstacle. All shapes can be in contact with the ground or elevated above the ground (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3). The unique obstacle shapes are:4.5.1.1 Bar (for example, column)4.5.1.2 Panel (for example, sign, pallet, shelf)4.5.1.3 Cuboid4.5.1.4 Sphere4.5.1.5 Cone4.5.1.6 Other—Obstacle shapes that do not fall into one of the above categories (for example, a pile of fabric). An obstacle can use a single shape to describe its overall volume or multiple shapes to describe parts of the obstacle. For example, the shape of a desk could be described as an elevated horizontal panel with two vertical panels spanning from the ground to the horizontal panel or the shape of a table could be described as an elevated horizontal panel with one or more vertical bars spanning from the ground to the horizontal panel (see Fig. 3).FIG. 1 Obstacle Shapes, Shown with Hard Edges in Varying Directions (Left to Right):Vertical Bar, Horizontal Bar, Vertical Panel, Horizontal Panel, Elevated Horizontal PanelFIG. 2 Obstacle Shapes (Left to Right): Cuboid (Shown with Hard Edges), Sphere, ConeFIG. 3 Example Combinations of Obstacle Shapes, Shown with Hard Edges (Left to Right): Elevated Horizontal Panel with Two Vertical Panels Spanning from the Ground to the Horizontal Panel (for example, Desk), Elevated Horizontal Panel with Four Vertical Bars Spanning from the Ground to the Horizontal Panel (for example, Table), the Same as the Previous but with Inset Vertical Bars (for example, Table)4.6 Face Quality: 4.6.1 The faces of each obstacle can either be closed (that is, it has a surface that fills that face) or open (that is, it has no surface on that face).4.6.2 This characteristic can vary for each face of the obstacle or part of the obstacle: top, bottom, front, back, left, right. Some obstacles may not have clearly discernible faces (for example, sphere, cone).4.6.3 See Fig. 4 for examples of obstacles with closed and open faces.FIG. 4 Examples of Obstacle Face Variations (Left to Right): Sphere with Closed Faces, Cuboid with All Closed Faces, Cuboid with Open Front Face, and Cuboid with Open Top Face4.7 Taper: 4.7.1 If the boundaries of any part of the obstacle change dimension and narrow toward one end, it is considered tapered.4.8 Edge Quality.4.9 The quality of the vertices where the boundaries of the shape meet (see Fig. 5), which can be internal or external on the obstacle. The edge characteristics can be:4.9.1 Hard edges:4.9.1.1 Cornered (the angle between the two surfaces forming the edge is 90°)4.9.1.2 Chamfered (the angle between the two surfaces forming the edge is greater than 90°)4.9.2 Rounded:4.9.2.1 Fillets (partially rounded)4.9.2.2 Cylindrical (completely rounded, eliminating one or more faces of the shape)FIG. 5 Obstacle Shape Edge Variations, Shown on a Vertical Bar (Left to Right): Cornered, Chamfered, Fillets, and Cylindrical4.10 Direction: 4.10.1 The direction of the obstacle is dependent on which side is its front. This characteristic will be referenced in other standards when specifying how to orient the obstacle within a test method apparatus.4.11 Dimensions: 4.11.1 The size of the obstacle overall (that is, its entire volume) and of its individual parts (for example, for an obstacle whose shape is a plane with legs, the size of the horizontal plane, the vertical bars, and the inset of the vertical bars from the edge of the horizontal plane) can be described according to the following characteristics:4.11.2 Width4.11.3 Length/depth4.11.4 Height4.11.5 Elevation (from ground to bottom edge boundary)4.11.6 Taper (if applicable)4.11.6.1 Location on the obstacle where the taper begins (that is, when the boundaries begin to narrow)4.11.6.2 Length of the part of the obstacle that is tapered4.11.6.3 Angle of the taper4.11.7 Edge (if not cornered)4.11.7.1 Setback distance of chamfered edge (if applicable)4.11.7.2 Radius of rounded edge (if applicable)4.11.8 The units used to measure the dimensions of the obstacle and the approximate accuracy of those measurements shall be reported.4.12 Material: 4.12.1 The material(s) the obstacle is made of: metal, wood, foam, glass, plastic, fabric, composite materials, etc.4.12.2 If the material is intended to block or reflect a certain type of sensor, this should be stated on the test report.4.12.3 If the density of the material is known and is relevant for the test method in which the obstacle is utilized, this should be stated on the test report.4.13 Surface: 4.13.1 Characteristics of the obstacle’s surface include, but are not limited to:4.13.2 Color4.13.3 Reflectivity4.13.4 Opacity (for example, glass, plexiglass)4.13.5 Porosity—Solid (for example, wood, steel) or non-solid surface with repeated perforations or openings (for example, fencing)4.13.6 Uniformity—Uniform or variable (that is, patterned, striped)4.13.7 Other—Obstacle surface qualities that do not fall into one of the above categories.4.14 Note—Test pieces from other standards can be described using this practice. For example, the cylindrical test pieces from ANSI/ITSDF B56.5 can be described as vertical or horizontal bars with cylindrical edges and flat black surface qualities.4.15 Examples of common surface characteristics referenced in other standards are listed in the appendix (see X1.1).4.16 Other Relevant Features: 4.16.1 Any other relevant characteristics that pertain to the physical nature of the obstacle should be recorded. For example, if the obstacle features lights, produces air flow, or emanates sound.4.17 Obstacle Description Persistence: 4.17.1 When the obstacle is utilized in a test method, the characteristics of the specific obstacle that are recorded shall not vary for the duration of the test, except if the obstacle contains flexible material, which may cause its shape or dimensions to vary. For example, a soft partition may move due to air flow in the environment. If the obstacle becomes damaged during testing causing its shape or dimensions, or both, to change, an A-UGV may now interact with the obstacle differently than it did before it was damaged. If any characteristics of the obstacle change, it is considered a new and different obstacle from what was previously utilized.1.1 This practice specifies physical characteristics that can be used to describe obstacles utilized within ASTM Committee F45 test methods. The obstacle characteristics specified in this practice are not described with respect to the manner in which they will be sensed or detected by an A-UGV. Rather, the obstacles are described according to their real world characteristics. For example, the real world characteristics of a wooden box that is flat black on one side can be described according to its actual dimensions, material, and color. An A-UGV with a lidar sensor may have difficulty detecting the side of the box that is flat black, which could make the obstacle appear smaller to the A-UGV compared to its actual dimensions in the real world. However, this may not be the case for other A-UGVs due to the wide variety of sensors used to detect obstacles, so the actual, real world characteristics are used to describe it instead.1.2 Real world, existing objects can be used as obstacles and described using this practice. The characteristics specified herein can also be used to construct test artifacts to use as representative obstacles that are intended to have similar characteristics to that of real world obstacles. The obstacles that can be described using this practice may be found in indoor and outdoor environments.1.3 This practice does not purport to cover all relevant obstacle characteristics that may have an effect on A-UGV performance. The characteristics specified in this practice are limited to the physical properties which are considered to be the most salient in terms of the effects they can have on A-UGV performance. As such, the user of this standard may select the level of detail to use in order to describe the characteristics of an obstacle in such a way. The characteristics are also limited to those which are more easily measurable and replicable when comparing test method results that use similar obstacles.1.4 This practice only covers obstacles that exist on or above the ground, sometimes referred to as positive obstacles, and remain stationary while the A-UGV is performing tasks. Stationary real world obstacles of this type include pallets on the ground, desks and tables, and other A-UGVs. This practice does not include obstacles that exist below the ground (for example, holes), sometimes referred to as negative obstacles. This practice does not cover boundaries or features in an environment that are unchanging and known prior to an A-UGV task, such as walls, racks, or other infrastructure.1.5 This practice specifies a variety of physical characteristics of an obstacle, including shapes, dimensions, and surface qualities. This practice does not specify the location properties of an obstacle within a test method apparatus aside from measurements in reference to the ground plane of the environment.1.6 When constructing a test artifact as an obstacle representative of a genuine obstacle (see 4.1), a combination of characteristics can be selected and used to guide fabrication. The use of similar genuine obstacles (that is, real world objects) may decrease reproducibility of testing conditions compared to using artifact obstacles (that is, those that are fabricated for the purposes of testing), unless the same real world object is used between multiple tests.1.7 This practice does not specify A-UGV performance in the presence of obstacles. The intent of this practice is to enable comparisons between tests that use obstacles with similar characteristics.1.8 This practice does not require that certain obstacle characteristics be used as part of a test method. The test requestor can elect specific obstacle characteristics to be used as part of a test method.1.9 Obstacles described using this practice can be utilized in test methods specified by other ASTM Committee F45 standards, such as Test Method F3244 – 17. In the appendix, a baseline test is described that can be used to determine if an obstacle is able to be detected by an A-UGV’s sensors prior to utilizing the obstacle in another ASTM Committee F45 test method (see X1.2).1.10 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are not precise mathematical conversions to imperial units. They are close approximate equivalents for the purpose of specifying material dimensions or quantities that are readily available to avoid excessive fabrication costs of test apparatuses while maintaining repeatability and reproducibility of the test method results. These values given in parentheses are provided for information only and are not considered standard.1.11 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.1.12 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

4.1 Because of concerns for safety and the protection of nuclear materials from theft, stringent specifications are placed on chemical processes and the chemical and physical properties of nuclear materials. Strict requirements for the control and accountability of nuclear materials are imposed on the users of those materials. Therefore, when analyses are made by a laboratory to support a project such as the fabrication of nuclear fuel materials, various performance requirements may be imposed on the laboratory. One such requirement is often the use of qualified methods. Their use gives greater assurance that the data produced will be satisfactory for the intended use of those data. A qualified method will help assure that the data produced will be comparable to data produced by the same qualified method in other laboratories.4.2 This guide provides guidance for qualifying measurement methods and for maintaining qualification. Even though all practices would be used for most qualification programs, there may be situations in which only a selected portion would be required. Care should be taken, however, that the effectiveness of qualification is not reduced when applying these practices selectively. The recommended practices in this guide are generic; based on these practices, specific actions should be developed to establish a qualification program.1.1 This guide provides guidance for selecting, validating, and qualifying measurement methods when qualification is required for a specific program. The recommended practices presented in this guide provide a major part of a quality assurance program for the laboratory data (see Fig. 1). Qualification helps to assure that the data produced will meet established requirements.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

6.1 The purpose of this specification is to establish minimum impact attenuation requirements for playground surfacing materials in order to reduce the risk of severe head injury from falls.6.2 This specification provides a uniform means of quantifying the impact attenuation performance of playground surfacing materials and is appropriately used to compare the relative performance of different playground surfacing materials.6.3 This specification is to be used as a reference for specifying the impact attenuation performance of playground surfacing materials.6.4 In combination with data relating impact test scores to head injury, the information generated by application of this specification is suitable to estimate the relative risk of a severe head injury due to a fall.AbstractThis specification specifies impact attenuation performance requirements for playground surfaces and surfacing materials and provides a means of determining impact attenuation performance using a test method that simulates the impact of a child’s head with the surface. The test method quantifies impact in terms of g-max and Head Injury Criterion (HIC) scores. G-max is the measure of the maximum acceleration (shock) produced by an impact. The Head Injury Criterion or HIC score is an empirical measure of impact severity based on published research describing the relationship between the magnitude and duration of impact accelerations and the risk of head trauma..Two test methods shall be used to determine the impact attenuation of a playground surface or surfacing materials: critical fall height test, and installed surface performance test. The following apparatus shall be required for implementation of the two test methods: temperature measuring device, impact test system, acceleration measurement system, drop height measurement system, and battery-operated equipment.1.1 This specification establishes minimum performance requirements for the impact attenuation of playground surfacing materials installed within the use zone of playground equipment.1.2 This specification is specific to surfacing used in conjunction with playground equipment, such as that described in Specifications F1148, F1487, F1918, CSAZ614 (Canada), and SS457 (Singapore).1.3 This specification establishes an impact attenuation performance criterion for playground surfacing materials; expressed as a critical fall height.1.4 This specification establishes procedures for determining the critical fall height of playground surfacing materials under laboratory conditions. The laboratory test is mandatory for surfaces to conform to the requirements of this specification.1.5 The laboratory test required by this specification addresses the performance of dry surfacing materials.1.6 This specification also provides optional procedures to determine the critical fall height under wet or frozen test conditions, or both.1.7 The critical fall height of a playground surfacing material determined under laboratory conditions does not account for important factors that have the potential to influence the actual performance of installed surfacing materials. Factors that are known to affect surfacing material performance include but are not limited to aging, moisture, maintenance, exposure to temperature extremes (for example, freezing), exposure to ultraviolet light, contamination with other materials, compaction, loss of thickness, shrinkage, submersion in water, and so forth.1.8 The impact attenuation specification and test methods established in this specification are specific to the risk of head injury. There is only limited evidence that conformance with the requirements of this specification reduces the risk of other kinds of serious injury (for example, long bone fractures).NOTE 1: The relative risk of fatality and of different degrees of head injury may be estimated using the information in Appendix X1, which shows the relationships between the Head Injury Criterion (HIC) scores of an impact and the probability of head injury.1.9 This specification relates only to the impact attenuation properties of playground surfacing materials and does not address other factors that contribute to fall-related injuries. While it is believed that conformance with the requirements of this specification will reduce the risk of serious injury and death from falls, adherence to this specification will not prevent all injuries and deaths.1.10 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.1.11 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.1.12 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

5.1 This guide provides a list of the standards within Committee D04 that address the use of materials, specifications, and construction practices that could have broader sustainability benefits. This list is current, relative to the approval date of the standard.5.2 The standards discussed are listed in the Referenced Documents section.5.3 This guide is intended to be used as a reference for an owner, engineer, contractor, or combinations thereof, to identify potential sustainability strategies and the respective material and construction standards and specifications. It is important to note that these standards do not ensure sustainability goals are achieved; rather, they may be useful in determining inputs for sustainability metrics.1.1 This guide is intended to be a reference for locating specific test methods relating to materials and construction standards within the jurisdiction of Committee D04 on Road and Paving Materials that could be a strategy used to meet project sustainability goals.1.2 The guide needs to be reviewed and updated by Subcommittee D04.99 on Sustainable Asphalt Pavement Materials and Construction, on an as-needed basis, to remain viable.1.2.1 Additions or deletions to the reference list in Section 2 shall be submitted to Subcommittee D04.99 and balloted.1.3 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

Health information networks (HINs) have arisen in recent years as a way to share common information within organizational arrangements among those healthcare facilities that have been formed into large, more comprehensive integrated delivery systems (IDS) and managed care organizations (MCO) offering a full range of healthcare services, both inpatient and ambulatory.The specific organizational structures to which the MCO term was originally applied most probably have evolved into something quite different. Furthermore, IDS organizations are contracting with other organizations that have a market larger than a single IDS itself and are buying such services for themselves rather than offering them internally.These organizations will need a frame of reference for the global information needed to provide all of the services required during patient care. For a global Concept Model consult ADA Specification 1000.0–1000.18 and TR 1039.Pharmacotherapy will require a number of these services, including those of the clinical laboratory for therapeutic drug monitoring as well as pharmacy services of both resident and nonresident care organizations and stand-alone pharmacies to ensure freedom from medication errors and conduct ongoing investigations of both the outcomes of care and the management of resources related to pharmacotherapy.Pharmacotherapy functions include prescribing (clinical orders), dispensing, administering, and monitoring, which support “pharmaceutical care” defined as “provision of drug therapy to achieve desired therapeutic outcomes that improve a patient’s quality of life.” These functions address patients’ needs that require information support as noted in Table 1.Another aspect of the monitoring function is the development of instrumentation for testing at point of care (POCT) for high-value immediate-benefit services that support pharmacotherapy. POCT, however, needs supervision and training from skilled laboratorians for the actual performers, whether that supervision comes from within the IDS or outside of it. This range of operation is only achievable by distributed HIN structures that shall have the same quality of clinical and data services as offered by laboratories close at hand. Data management of POCT is documented separately (see CLSI POCT1, ASTP2), but such data management for support of pharmacotherapy shall be placed into the broader context of this practice and linked to CLSI LIS-9A. Thus, this practice should be used to first organize the global domain and then the interconnected subdomains.1.1 This practice applies to the process of defining and documenting the capabilities, logical data sources, and pathways of data exchange regarding pharmacotherapy information services within a given network architecture serving a set of healthcare constituents.1.2 This practice is not a technical implementation standard but, rather, describes how the implementation methods and techniques can be used to coordinate pharmacotherapy services logically within an electronic health record (EHR) systems environment involving participating organizations and sites connected by a networked communication system.1.3 This practice covers the content of the nodes and arcs of the resulting logical network involving EHR, pharmacy, and clinical laboratory-capable sites. This practice also considers the various purposes and organizational arrangements for coordinating pharmacotherapy services within the network boundaries and the considerations for connections among external networks.1.4 This practice refers to other standards for conventions within various data domains, such as pharmacy systems, clinical laboratory information management systems (CLIMS), and EHR systems, and for messaging conventions.1.5 This practice is intended to outline how integration of pharmacy, CLIMS, and EHR information systems can be undertaken to result in a transparent pharmacotherapy clinical decision support environment, regardless of the underlying implementation architecture, by describing the logical interoperability of information domains as facilitated by information and communications technology (ICT).1.6 This practice is directed at pharmacists, clinical pharmacologists, clinical laboratorians, information system managers, and information systems vendors for use in planning and implementing coordinated pharmacotherapy services through effective dialog.1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

定价： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

4.1 This guide is intended for use by those undertaking the development of fire hazard assessments for upholstered seating furniture in health care occupancies.4.2 As a guide this document provides information on an approach to development of a fire hazard assessment, but fixed procedures are not established. Section 1.7 describes some cautions to be taken into account.4.3 A fire hazard assessment developed following this guide should specify all steps required to determine fire hazard measures for which safety thresholds or pass/fail criteria can be meaningfully set by responsible officials using the standard.4.4 A fire hazard assessment developed as a result of using this guide should be able to assess a new item of upholstered seating furniture being considered for use in a certain health care facility, and reach one of the conclusions in 4.4.1 – 4.4.4.4.4.1 The new upholstered seating furniture item is safer, in terms of predicted fire performance, than the one in established use. Then, the new product would be desirable, from the point of view of fire safety.4.4.2 There is no difference between the predicted fire safety of the new item and the one in established use. Then, there would be neither advantage nor disadvantage in using the new product, from the point of view of fire safety.4.4.3 The new upholstered seating furniture item is predicted to be less safe, in terms of fire performance, than the one in established use. Then, the new item would be less desirable, from the point of view of fire safety than the one in established use.4.4.3.1 If the new upholstered furniture item is predicted to be less safe, in terms of fire performance, than the one in established use, a direct substitution of the products would provide a lower level of safety and the new product should not be used, without other compensatory changes being made. A new upholstered furniture product can, however, be made acceptable if, and only if, it is part of a complete, comprehensive, fire safety design for the patient room. Such a patient room redesign should include one or more of the following features: use of an alternative layout (albeit one that cannot be altered by the patient room users) or increased use of automatic fire protection systems or changes in other furnishings or contents. In such cases, a more in-depth fire hazard assessment should be conducted to ensure that all of the changes together have demonstrated a predicted level of fire safety for the new design which is at least equal to that for the design in established use, in order to permit the use of the new upholstered seating furniture item.4.4.3.2 Alternatively, the new design may still be acceptable if the predicted level of fire safety is commensurate with new stated fire safety objectives developed in advance.4.4.4 The new upholstered seating furniture item offers some safety advantages and some safety disadvantages over the item in established use. An example of this outcome could be increased smoke obscuration with decreased heat release. Then, a more in depth fire hazard assessment would have to be conducted to balance the advantages and disadvantages.4.5 If the patient room does not contain an upholstered seating furniture item, then the fire hazard assessment implications of the introduction of an upholstered seating furniture item should be analyzed in the same way as in 4.4. The fire safety should then be compared with that achieved in the room in established use (which has no upholstered seating furniture). The same analysis would also apply if an additional upholstered furniture item is being considered for introduction in a patient room: the fire hazard assessment should compare the fire safety implications of the addition.4.5.1 An additional upholstered furniture item adds to the fuel load of a room. Thus, an analysis such as that in 4.4 would offer options 4.4.2 through 4.4.4 only.4.6 Following the analysis described in 4.4, a fire hazard assessment developed following the procedures in this guide would reach a conclusion regarding the desirability of the furniture product studied.4.7 An alternative to the analysis based on the anticipated fire performance of the materials or products contained in the patient room is the use of active fire protection measures, such as fire suppression sprinklers. Active fire protection involves measures such as automatic sprinklers and alarm systems, while passive fire protection involves using materials that are difficult to burn and give off low heat and smoke if they do burn. Traditional prescriptive requirements are based exclusively on passive fire protection, with the common approach being to describe the fire tests to be met for every property. The opposite extreme is based entirely on active fire protection, which assumes that active fire protection measures (mostly sprinklers) ensure fire safety. The fire safety record of sprinklers is excellent, but not flawless. Moreover, neither approach gives the type of flexibility that is the inherent advantage of fire hazard and fire risk assessments.4.7.1 Note that the activation of automatic fire suppression sprinklers does not ensure a safe level of smoke obscuration.4.8 This guide provides information on a different type of fire hazard assessment than Guide E2061. While Guide E2061 considers an entire occupancy, namely a rail transportation vehicle, this guide addresses a specific product, namely upholstered furniture.1.1 This is a guide to developing fire hazard assessments for upholstered seating furniture, within patient rooms of health care occupancies. As such, it provides methods and contemporary fire safety engineering techniques to develop a fire hazard assessment for use in specifications for upholstered seating furniture in such occupancies.1.2 Hazard assessment is an estimation of the potential severity of the fires that can develop with certain products in defined scenarios, once the incidents have occurred. Hazard assessment does not address the likelihood of a fire occurring, but is based on the premise that an ignition has occurred.1.3 Because it is a guide, this document cannot be used for regulation, nor does it give definitive instructions on how to conduct a fire hazard assessment.1.4 This guide is intended to provide assistance to those interested in mitigating the potential damage from fires associated with upholstered furniture in patient rooms in health care occupancies.1.5 Thus, this guide can be used to help assess the fire hazard of materials, assemblies, or systems intended for use in upholstered furniture, by providing a standard basis for studying the level of fire safety associated with certain design choices. It can also aid those interested in designing features appropriate to health care occupancies. Finally, it may be useful to safety personnel in health care occupancies.1.6 This guide is a focused application of Guide E1546, which offers help in reference to fire scenarios that are specific to upholstered furniture in health care occupancies, and includes an extensive bibliography. It differs from Guide E1546 in that it offers guidance that is specific to the issue of upholstered furniture in patient rooms of health care facilities, rather than general guidance. Appendix X11 includes some statistics on the magnitude of the potential problem in the U.S.1.7 A fire hazard assessment conducted in accordance with this guide is strongly dependent on the limitations in the factors described in 1.7.1 – 1.7.4.1.7.1 Input data (including their precision or accuracy).1.7.2 Appropriate test procedures.1.7.3 Fire models or calculation procedures that are simultaneously relevant, accurate and appropriate.1.7.4 Advancement of scientific knowledge.1.8 This guide addresses specific fire scenarios which begin inside or outside of the patient room. However, the upholstered furniture under consideration is inside the patient room.1.9 The fire scenarios used for this hazard assessment guide are described in 9.2. They involve the upholstered furniture item within the patient room as the first or second item ignited, in terms of the room of fire origin. Additionally, consideration should be given to the effect of the patient room upholstered furniture item on the tenability of occupants of rooms other than the room of fire origin, and on that of potential rescuers.1.10 This guide does not claim to address all fires that can occur in patient rooms in health care occupancies. In particular, fires with more severe initiating conditions than those assumed in the analysis may pose more severe fire hazard than that calculated using this guide (see also 9.5).1.11 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.12 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.1.13 This fire standard cannot be used to provide quantitative measures.1.14 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

定价： 843元 / 折扣价： 717 元 加购物车

This guide provides a recommended systematic sequence for using the referenced test methods for evaluating the durability of EC insulating glass units (IGUs) as described in section 1.2. , (See Appendix X1, Section X1.4.)This guide provides a summary of the durability issues addressed by each of the series of standards that are necessary for assesing the durability of electrochromic coatings (ECCs) in insulating glass units (IGUs). When fully implemented in buildings in the U.S., ECCs in IGUs have the potential of significantly reducing our current energy consumption for all uses-not just buildings. IGUs with ECCs will, of necessity, have to be able to pass the applicable standards listed in Appendix X1, Section X1.4, as well as an ASTM standard on wind loading for IGUs. Passing these will not be sufficient because the operating temperatures of ECCs in IGUs can potentially be as high as 90°C at the center-of glass, whereas the highest temperature used in Test Method E2188 is 60°C . Listings of existing and proposed standards are given in Table 1 and in Appendix X1, Section X1.4.1.1 This guide provides the recommended sequence for using the referenced ASTM test methods for assessing the durability of absorptive electrochromic coatings (ECCs) within sealed insulating glass units. Cross sections of typical electrochromic glazings have three to five-layers of coatings that include one to three active layers sandwiched between two transparent conducting electrodes (TCOs, see Section 3). Examples of the cross-sectional arrangements can be found in “Evaluation Criteria and Test Methods for Electrochromic Windows.” (For a list of acronyms used in this standard, see Appendix X1, Section X1.1).1.2 This guide is applicable only for layered (one or more active coatings between the TCOs) absorptive ECCs on vision glass (superstrate and substrate) areas planned for use in IGUs for buildings, such as glass doors, windows, skylights, and exterior wall systems. The layers used for electrochromically changing the optical properties may be inorganic or organic materials between the superstrate and substrate.1.3 The ECCs used in this guide will ultimately be exposed (Test Method E2141) to solar radiation and deployed to control the amount of radiation by absorption and reflection and thus, limit the solar heat gain and amount of solar radiation that is transmitted into the building.1.4 This guide is not applicable to other types of coatings on vision glass with other chromogenic coatings, for example, photochromic and thermochromic coatings.1.5 This guide is not applicable to IGUs that will be constructed from superstrate or substrate materials other than glass.1.6 The test methods referenced in this guide are laboratory test methods conducted under specified conditions.1.7 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.8 There is no comparable International Standards Organization Standard.1.9 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory requirements prior to use.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

定价： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

4.1 A laboratory quality assurance program is an essential program for laboratories within the nuclear industry. Guide C1009 provides guidance for establishing a quality assurance program for an analytical laboratory within the nuclear industry. This guide deals with the control of measurements aspect of the laboratory quality assurance program. Fig. 1 shows the relationship of measurement control with other essential aspects of a laboratory quality assurance program.FIG. 1 Quality Assurance of Analytical Laboratory Data4.2 The fundamental purposes of a measurement control program are to provide the with-use assurance (real-time control) that a measurement system is performing satisfactorily and to provide the data necessary to quantify measurement system performance. The with-use assurance is usually provided through the satisfactory analysis of quality control samples (reference value either known or unknown to the analyst). The data necessary to quantify measurement system performance is usually provided through the analysis of quality control samples or the duplicate analysis of process samples, or both. In addition to the analyses of quality control samples, the laboratory quality control program should address (1) the preparation and verification of standards and reagents, (2) data analysis procedures and documentation, (3) calibration and calibration procedures, (4) measurement method qualification, (5) analyst qualification, and (6) other general program considerations. Other elements of laboratory quality assurance also impact the laboratory quality control program. These elements or requirements include (1) chemical analysis procedures and procedure control, (2) records storage and retrieval requirements, (3) internal audit requirements, (4) organizational considerations, and (5) training/qualification requirements. To the extent possible, this standard will deal primarily with quality control requirements rather than overall quality assurance requirements, which are addressed in Guide C1009.4.3 Although this guide uses suggestive rather than prescriptive language (for example, “should” as opposed to “shall”), the elements being addressed should not be interpreted as optional. An effective and comprehensive laboratory quality control program should, at minimum, completely and adequately consider and include all elements listed in Section 1 and in the corresponding referenced sections of this guide.1.1 This guide provides guidance for establishing and maintaining a measurement system quality control program. Guidance is provided for general program considerations, preparation of quality control samples, analysis of quality control samples, quality control data analysis, analyst qualification, measurement system calibration, measurement method qualification, and measurement system maintenance.1.2 This guidance is provided in the following sections:  SectionGeneral Quality Control Program Considerations 5Quality Control Samples 6Analysis of Quality Control Samples 7Quality Control Data Analysis 8Analyst Qualification 9Measurement System Calibration 10Qualification of Measurement Methods and Systems 11Measurement System Maintenance 121.3 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： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 This test provides a rapid means of evaluating tendencies for package seal failure when the package is exposed to a pressure differential. Pressure differentials may occur during such processes as sterilization and transportation. This test method provides an indicator of the burst strength of a package, where the burst will normally occur in one or more areas of the seal. An indicator of the minimum burst strength may be of importance to the package manufacturer and end user in ensuring adequate package integrity. This test method cannot provide a measure of package seal uniformity. This test method also cannot provide an evaluation of overall package integrity or the burst strength of areas of the package that contact the surface of the restraining plates used. This test method should be combined with other methods of evaluating overall package integrity, uniformity of the package seal, or opening functionality, if so required.5.2 This test frequently is used to quickly evaluate package seal strength during the manufacturing process and at various stages of the package's life cycle.5.3 If correlations between pieces of test equipment are to be made it is important that all parameters of the test be equivalent. Typical parameters can include, but are not limited to the package size, material, type and configuration of seal, rate of air flow into the package, pressure detection sensing mechanism and sensitivity (machine response to pressure drop), position of test article, rigidity of restraining plates, and distance between restraining plates. See Appendix X2 for further information.5.4 This test may not necessarily provide correlation with package seal strength as typically measured using Test Methods F1140 or F88 (or equivalents).1.1 This test method covers the procedure for determining the minimum burst strength of a seal placed around the perimeter of a flexible package as it is internally pressurized and enclosed within restraining plates.1.2 The test methods described herein are functionally similar to Test Methods F1140 with the exception of the use of restraining plates. Test Methods F1140 describes methods of burst testing that do not include the use of restraining plates and are suitable to determine a packages general ability to withstand pressurization stresses. Under Test Methods F1140 the stresses are not distributed uniformly to all areas of the package seal. Under unrestrained conditions the stress on the package is highest at the middle of the pouch where it inflates to the packages maximum diameter; therefore, Test Methods F1140 may not reliably detect the weakest area of the seal.1.3 The burst test internally and increasingly pressurizes a package until an area of the package seal around the perimeter “bursts” open in response to pressurization. By placing the package within restraining plates during pressurization, the dimensional stability of the package is maintained in a manner that results in stresses applied more uniformly along the perimeter of the package, where seals are normally placed. This allows the test to have a higher probability of detecting the weakest area of the seal and provide a measurement of the pressure required to “burst” open the package.1.4 This test only applies to flexible packages with seals placed around the perimeter of a flexible package (often referred to as a pouch). In particular it is intended as applicable to packages with seals that have a peelable seal feature (peeled open by end user to remove contents of package).1.4.1 Porous barrier materials' failure to reach adequate pressure to burst the package seals may be due to insufficient volume flow. See Appendix X4 for information.1.5 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system are not necessarily exact equivalents; therefore, to ensure conformance with the standard, each system shall be used independently of the other, and values from the two systems shall not be combined.1.6 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. Particular caution is advised where users of this procedure may be required to design and fabricate restraining plate fixtures. Reference Appendix X3 for further information regarding calculation of stress factors and structural design considerations.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

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 Under the severe conditions of this test method, the specimens undergo degradation at a rate that is dependent upon the thermal endurance of the polypropylene material under examination.5.2 The thermal level of this test method is considered sufficiently severe to cause failure of commercial grades of heat-stable polypropylene within a reasonable period of time. If desired, lower temperatures can be applied to estimate the performance of polypropylene materials with lower heat stability.5.3 The technique of specimen rotation described in this test method provides an estimate of the life-temperature relationship of polypropylene. If this test method is conducted at different temperatures on the same material, a more reliable estimate of the life-temperature relationship of polypropylene is determined. This test method can be conducted at several temperatures and the data interpreted through use of the Arrhenius relation, by plotting the logarithms of times to failure against the reciprocals of the temperatures in kelvins (K). Temperatures in the range from 100 to 150°C, with intervals of 10°C, are suggested for this purpose.5.4 The stability as determined under the prescribed test method is not directly related to the suitability of the compound for a use where different conditions prevail.5.5 The specimen rotation technique of thermal aging increases the probability that all specimens will be exposed similarly and that the effect of temperature gradients in an oven will be minimized.1.1 This test method provides a means for estimating the resistance of polypropylene, in molded form, to accelerated aging by heat in the presence of air using a forced draft oven.1.2 The stability determined by this test method is not directly related to the suitability of the material for use when different environmental conditions prevail and shall not be used to predict performance.NOTE 1: The specified thermal levels in this test method are considered sufficiently severe to cause failure of commercial grades of heat-stable polypropylene within a reasonable period of time. If desired, lower temperatures can be applied to estimate the performance of polypropylene with lower heat stabilities.1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values in parentheses are for information only.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.NOTE 2: This test method and ISO 4577–1983 are technically similar but different in preparation of test specimens, thickness of test specimen, measurement of the number of air flow changes in the ovens, and the number of air changes per hour required.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