定价： 646元 加购物车

定价： 712元 加购物车

5.1 Environmental data are often required for making regulatory and programmatic decisions. Decision makers must determine whether the levels of assurance associated with the data are sufficient in quality for their intended use.5.2 Data generation efforts involve three parts: development of DQOs and subsequent project plan(s) to meet the DQOs, implementation and oversight of the project plan(s), and assessment of the data quality to determine whether the DQOs were met.5.3 To determine the level of assurance necessary to support the decision, an iterative process must be used by decision makers, data collectors, and users. This practice emphasizes the iterative nature of the process of DQO development. Objectives may need to be reevaluated and modified as information related to the level of data quality is gained. This means that DQOs are the product of the DQO process and are subject to change as data are gathered and assessed.5.4 This practice defines the process of developing DQOs. Each step of the planning process is described.5.5 This practice emphasizes the importance of communication among those involved in developing DQOs, those planning and implementing the sampling and analysis aspects of environmental data generation activities, and those assessing data quality.5.6 The impacts of a successful DQO process on the project are as follows: (1) a consensus on the nature of the problem and the desired decision shared by all the decision makers, (2) data quality consistent with its intended use, (3) a more resource-efficient sampling and analysis design, (4) a planned approach to data collection and evaluation, (5) quantitative criteria for knowing when to stop sampling, and (6) known measure of risk for making an incorrect decision.1.1 This practice covers the process of development of data quality objectives (DQOs) for the acquisition of environmental data. Optimization of sampling and analysis design is a part of the DQO process. This practice describes the DQO process in detail. The various strategies for design optimization are too numerous to include in this practice. Many other documents outline alternatives for optimizing sampling and analysis design. Therefore, only an overview of design optimization is included. Some design aspects are included in the practice's examples for illustration purposes.1.2 DQO development is the first of three parts of data generation activities. The other two aspects are (1) implementation of the sampling and analysis strategies, see Guide D6311; and (2) data quality assessment, see Guide D6233.1.3 This guide should be used in concert with Practices D5283, D6250, and Guide D6044. Practice D5283 outlines the quality assurance (QA) processes specified during planning and used during implementation. Guide D6044 outlines a process by which a representative sample may be obtained from a population, identifies sources that can affect representativeness, and describes the attributes of a representative sample. Practice D6250 describes how a decision point can be calculated.1.4 Environmental data related to waste management activities include, but are not limited to, the results from the sampling and analyses of air, soil, water, biota, process or general waste samples, or any combinations thereof.1.5 The DQO process is a planning process and should be completed prior to sampling and analysis activities.1.6 This practice presents extensive requirements of management, designed to ensure high-quality environmental data. The words “must” and “shall” (requirements), “should” (recommendation), and “may” (optional), have been selected carefully to reflect the importance placed on many of the statements in this practice. The extent to which all requirements will be met remains a matter of technical judgment.1.7 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.7.1 Exception—The values given in parentheses are for information only.1.8 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.9 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 646元 加购物车

4.1 The intended use of this guide is to provide practical assistance in the development of an optimized sampling design. This standard describes or discusses:4.1.1 Sampling design selection criteria,4.1.2 Factors impacting the choice of a sampling design,4.1.3 Selection of a sampling design,4.1.4 Techniques for optimizing candidate designs, and4.1.5 The criteria for evaluating an optimized sampling design.4.2 Within a formal USEPA data generation activity, the planning process or data quality objectives (DQOs) development is the first step. The second and third are the implementation of the sampling and analysis design and the data quality assessment. Within the DQO planning process, the selection and optimization of the sampling design is the last step, and therefore, the culmination of the DQO process. The preceding steps in the DQO planning process address:4.2.1 The problem that needs to be addressed,4.2.2 The possible decisions,4.2.3 The data input and associated activities,4.2.4 The boundaries of the study,4.2.5 The development of decision rules, and4.2.6 The specified the limits on decision error.4.3 This guide is not intended to address the aspects of the planning process for development of the project objectives. However, the project objectives must be outlined and communicated to the design team, prior to the selection and optimization of the sample design.4.4 This guide references statistical aspects of the planning and implementation process and includes an appendix for the statistical calculation of the optimum number of samples for a given sampling design.4.5 This guide is intended for those who are responsible for making decisions about environmental waste management activities.1.1 This document provides practical guidance on the selection and optimization of sample designs in waste management sampling activities, within the context of the requirements established by the data quality objectives or other planning process.1.2 This document (1) provides guidance for selection of sampling designs; (2) outlines techniques to optimize candidate designs; and (3) describes the variables that need to be balanced in choosing the final optimized design.1.3 The contents of this guide are arranged by section as follows:1.   2. Referenced Documents   3. Terminology   4.   5. Summary of Guide   6. Factors Affecting Sampling Design Selection    6.1 Sampling Design Performance Characteristics    6.2 Regulatory Considerations    6.3 Project Objectives    6.4 Knowledge of the Site    6.5 Physical Sample Issues    6.6 Communication with the Laboratory    6.7 Analytical Turn Around Time    6.8 Analytical Method Constraints    6.9 Health and Safety    6.10 Budget/Cost Considerations    6.11 Representativeness   7. Initial Design Selection  8. Optimization Criteria  9. Optimization Process    9.2 Practical Evaluation of Design Alternatives    9.3 Statistical and Cost Evaluation   10. Final Selection     Annex A1 Types of Sampling Designs    A1.1 Commonly Used Sampling Designs    A1.2 Sampling Design Tools    A1.3 Combination Sample Designs   Appendix X1. Additional References   Appendix X2. Choosing Analytical Method Based on Variance and Cost   Appendix X3. Calculating the Number of Samples: A Statistical Treatment  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： 843元 加购物车

5.1 This practice was developed for the rapid determination of gamma-emitting radionuclides in environmental media. The results of the test may be used to determine if the activity of these radionuclides in the sample exceeds the action level for the relevant incident or emergency response. The detection limits will be dependent on sample size, counting configuration, and the detector system in use.5.2 In most cases, a sample container which is large in diameter and short in height relative to the detector will provide the best gamma-ray detection efficiency. For samples of water or other low-Z materials (for example, vegetation), the re-entrant or Marinelli-style beaker may yield the best gamma-ray detection efficiency.5.3 The density of the sample material and physical parameters of the sample container (for example, diameter, height, material) may have significant consequences for the accuracy of the sample analysis as compared to the calibration. For this reason, the ideal calibration material and container (often referred to as ‘geometry’) will be exactly the same as the samples to be analyzed. Differences in sample container or sample matrix may introduce significant errors in detector response, especially at low gamma-ray energies. Every effort should be made to account for these differences if the exact calibration geometry is not available.5.4 This practice establishes an empirical gamma-ray spectrometer calibration using standards traceable to the SI via a national metrology institute (NMI) such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the United States and the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) in the United Kingdom in a specific geometry selected to ensure that the container, density, and composition of the standard matches that of the samples as closely as possible. However, in some cases it may be beneficial to modify such initial calibrations using mathematical modeling or extrapolations to an alternate geometry. Use of such a model may be acceptable, depending on the measurement quality objectives of the analysis process, and provided that appropriate compensation to uncertainty estimates are included. The use of such calibration models is best supported by the successful analysis of a method validation reference material (MVRM).5.5 This practice addresses the analysis of numerous gamma-emitting radionuclides in environmental media. This practice should be applicable to non-environmental media (for example, urine, debris, or rubble) that have similar physical properties. The key determination of similar physical properties is the ability to demonstrate that the gamma spectrometry system response to the sample configuration is suitably similar to that for which the system is calibrated.5.6 For the analysis of radionuclides with low gamma-ray emission energies (<100 keV), self-absorption of the gamma-rays in the sample matrix can have a significant adverse effect on detection and quantification. The user should verify that instrument calibrations appropriately account for any self-absorption that may result from the sample matrix.5.7 Commonly available energy and efficiency calibration standards cover the energy range of approximately 60 keV to 1836 keV. Results obtained using gamma-ray peaks outside the efficiency calibrated energy range will have greater uncertainty not accounted for in the uncertainty calculations of this practice. Great care should be taken to review the efficiency calibration values and the shape of the efficiency curve outside this range. For greater accuracy in the analysis of radionuclides whose gamma-ray energies are outside this range, a calibration standard which includes radionuclide(s) whose gamma-ray energies span the energy range of radionuclides of interest is advised.1.1 This practice covers the quantification of radionuclides in environmental media (for example, water, soil, vegetation, food) by means of simple preparation and counting with a high-resolution gamma ray detector. Because the practice is designed for rapid analysis, extensive efforts to ensure homogeneity or ideal sample counting conditions are not taken.1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses after SI units 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 加购物车

定价： 843元 加购物车

定价： 646元 加购物车

定价： 156元 / 折扣价： 133 元 加购物车

定价： 260元 / 折扣价： 221 元 加购物车

5.1 The principal underlying the test is the sensitivity of the electrical contact interface to temperature and humidity cycling that electrical pressure connection systems experience as a result of usage and installation environment. The temperature cycling may cause micromotion at the mating electrical contact surfaces which can expose fresh metal to the local ambient atmosphere. The humidity exposure is known to facilitate corrosion on freshly exposed metal surfaces. Thus, for those connection systems that do not maintain stable metal-to-metal contact surfaces under the condition of thermal cycling and humidity exposure, repeated sequences of these exposures lead to degradation of the contacting surface indicated by potential drop increase.5.2 The test is of short duration relative to the expected life of connections in residential usage. Stability of connection resistance implies resistance to deterioration due to environmental conditions encountered in residential service. Increasing connection resistance as a result of the test exposure indicates deterioration of electrical contact interfaces. Assurance of long term reliability and safety of connection types that deteriorate requires further evaluation for specific specified environments and applications.5.3 Use—It is recommended that this test method be used in one of two ways. First, it may be used to evaluate and report the performance of a particular connection system. For such use, it is appropriate to report the results in a summary (or tabular) format such as shown in Section 17, together with the statement “The results shown in the summary (or table) were obtained for (insert description of connection) when tested in accordance with Test Method B812. Second, it may be used as the basis for specification of acceptability of product. For this use, the minimum test time and the maximum allowable increase in potential drop must be established by the specifier. Specification of connection systems in accordance with this use of the standard test method would be of the form: “The maximum potential drop increase for any connection, when tested in accordance with Test Method B812 for a period of weeks, shall be mV relative to the reference connections.” Connection systems that are most resistant to thermal-cycle/humidity deterioration, within the limitations of determination by this test method, show no increase in potential drop, relative to the reference connections, when tested for indefinite time. Connections that are less resistant to thermal-cycle/humidity conditions applied by this test will demonstrate progressive increases in potential drop with increasing time on test. Thus, the following examples of specifications are in the order of most stringent (No. 1) to least stringent (No. 3).  Duration, weeks Maximum Potential Drop Increase, mV1. 52 02. 16 0.23. 4 1.01.1 This test method covers all residential pressure connection systems. Detailed examples of application to specific types of connection systems, set-screw neutral bus connectors and twist-on wire-splicing connectors, are provided in Appendix X1 and Appendix X2.1.2 The purpose of this test method is to evaluate the performance of residential electrical pressure connection systems under conditions of cyclic temperature change (within rating) and high humidity.1.3 The limitations of the test method are as follows:1.3.1 This test method shall not be considered to confirm a specific lifetime in application environments.1.3.2 The applicability of this test method is limited to pressure connection systems rated at or below 600 V d-c or a-c RMS.1.3.3 This test method is limited to temperature and water vapor exposure in addition to electrical current as required to measure connection resistance.1.3.4 This test method does not evaluate degradation which may occur in residential applications due to exposure of the electrical connection system to additional environmental constituents such as (but not limited to) the following examples:1.3.4.1 Household chemicals (liquid or gaseous) such as ammonia, bleach, or other cleaning agents.1.3.4.2 Chemicals as may occur due to normal hobby or professional activities such as photography, painting, sculpture, or similar activities.1.3.4.3 Environments encountered during construction or remodeling such as direct exposure to rain, uncured wet concrete, welding or soldering fluxes and other agents.1.3.5 This test method is limited to evaluation of pressure connection systems.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 become familiar with all hazards including those identified in the appropriate Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for this product/material as provided by the manufacturer, to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices, and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.5 This standard should be used to measure and describe the properties of materials, products, or assemblies in response to electrical current flow under controlled laboratory conditions and should not be used to describe or appraise the fire hazard or fire risk of materials, products, or assemblies under actual installation conditions or under actual fire conditions. However, results of this test may be used as elements of a fire risk assessment which takes into account all of the factors which are pertinent to an assessment of the fire hazard of a particular end 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 加购物车

6.1 The environmental chamber method is an accelerated test for determining the resistance of Wet Blue and Wet White to the growth of fungi, the causal agent of mold. See Test Method D3273.3,46.2 The environmental chamber method is useful in estimating the performance of fungicides and should assist in the prediction of storage time before fungal growth begins.6.3 The environmental chamber method duplicates the natural environment in which Wet Blue or Wet White is inoculated with fungal spores and subsequently disfigured or discolored by fungi.6.4 The environmental chamber method measures the resistance of the treated Wet Blue or Wet White to the germination of spores and subsequent vegetative growth that spreads over the surface of a comparatively large Wet Blue or Wet White specimen over a period of four weeks.6.5 The environmental chamber can be kept inoculated with fungi representative of those found in tanneries by adding samples of Wet Blue and Wet White with fungal growth from currently operating tanneries.6.6 Control specimens of Wet Blue and Wet White without fungicide treatment can be added to the chamber periodically to increase levels of fungal growth in the chamber.6.7 Leaching of fungicide from the test specimen into the agar often causes a zone of inhibition of fungal growth in the Petri dish test, but in the environmental chamber any leaching of fungicide from the test specimen drips into the water contained in the chamber and thus does not cause the types of false readings observed in the Petri dish test.1.1 This environmental chamber method measures the resistance of the treated Wet Blue and Wet White to the germination of spores and subsequent vegetative growth over a period of four weeks. The test method is useful in estimating the performance of fungicides and should assist in the prediction of storage time of Wet Blue and Wet White before fungal growth begins. The apparatus is designed so it can be easily built or obtained by any interested party and duplicate the natural environment in which Wet Blue and Wet White is inoculated with fungal spores. Spores that germinate on untreated or treated Wet Blue and Wet White can produce fungal growth, resulting in disfigurement or discoloration, or both, of the Wet Blue and Wet White.1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 加购物车

定价： 646元 加购物车

定价： 712元 加购物车

定价： 590元 加购物车

4.1 Environmental site characterization projects almost always require information regarding subsurface soil stratigraphy and hydraulic parameters related to groundwater flow rate and direction. Soil stratigraphy often is determined by various drilling procedures and interpreting the data collected on borehole logs. The electronic piezocone penetrometer test is another means of determining soil stratigraphy that may be faster, less expensive, and provide greater resolution of the soil units than conventional drilling and sampling methods. For environmental site characterization applications, the electronic piezocone also has the additional advantage of not generating contaminated cuttings that may present other disposal problems (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). Investigators may obtain soil samples from adjacent borings for correlation purposes, but prior information or experience in the same area may preclude the need for borings (11). Most cone penetrometer rigs are equipped with direct push soil samplers (Guide D6282/D6282M) that can be used to confirm soil types.4.2 The electronic piezocone penetration test is an in situ investigation method involving:4.2.1 Pushing an electronically instrumented probe into the ground (see Fig. 1 for a diagram of a typical cone penetrometer). The position of the pore pressure element may vary but is typically located in the u2 position, as shown in Fig. 1 (Test Method D5778).4.2.3.3 Robertson proposed the following equations estimating k from Ic and shown on Fig. 4  (11). These equations are used for some cone penetration testing commercial software for estimates of k based on normalized soil behavior type. However, as shown on Tables 1 and 2, the values estimated from Ic are not very accurate for example, the estimated k value may range over two orders of magnitude.FIG. 4 Proposed Relationship Between Ic and Normalized Soil Behavior Type and Estimated Soil Permeability, k (Robertson (1))4.3 When attempting to retrieve a soil gas or water sample, it is advantageous to know where the bearing zones (permeable zones) are located. Although soil gas and water can be retrieved from sediments with low hydraulic conductivity, the length of time required usually makes it impractical. Soil gas and water samples can be retrieved much faster from permeable zones, such as sands. The cone penetrometer tip and friction data generally can distinguish between lower and higher permeability zones less than 0.3 m [1 ft] very accurately.4.4 The electronic cone penetrometer test is used in a variety of soil types. Lightweight equipment with reaction weights of less than 10 tons generally are limited to soils with relatively small grain sizes. Typical depths obtained are 20 to 40 m [60 to 120 ft], but depths to over 70 m [200 ft] with heavier equipment weighing 20 tons or more are not uncommon. Since penetration is a direct result of vertical forces and does not include rotation or drilling, it cannot be utilized in rock or heavily cemented soils. Depth capabilities are a function of many factors (D5778).4.5 Pore Pressure Data: 4.5.1 Excess pore water pressure data often are used in environmental site characterization projects to identify thin soil layers that will either be aquifers or aquitards. The pore pressure channel often can detect these thin layers even if they are less than 20 mm [1 in.] thick.4.5.2 Excess pore water pressure data taken during push are used to provide an indication of relative hydraulic conductivity. Excess pore water pressure is generated during an electronic cone penetrometer test. Generally, high excess pore water pressure indicates the presence of aquitards (clays), and low excess pore water pressure indicates the presence of aquifers (sands). This is not always the case, however. For example, some silty sands and over-consolidated soils generate negative pore pressures if monitored above the shoulder of the cone tip. See Fig. 1. The balance of the data, therefore, also must be evaluated. There have been methods proposed to estimate hydraulic conductivity from dynamic excess pore water pressure measurements (12, 13, 14).4.5.3 Dissipation Tests: 4.5.3.1 In general, since the groundwater flows primarily through sands and not clays, modeling the flow through the sands is most critical. The pore pressure data also can be monitored with the sounding halted. This is called a pore pressure dissipation test. A rapidly dissipating pore pressure indicates the presence of an aquifer while a very slow dissipation indicates the presence of an aquitard. Fig. 5 shows a typical dissipation test showing the t50 determined by waiting for 50 % of the highest pressure registered to dissipate. In some soils there can first be a lag before the peak pore pressure occurs. This example also shows that sufficient time was reached to allow the pore pressure to reach full equalization.FIG. 5 Example Dissipation Test Showing t50 Determination and Equalization of Pore Pressure (Robertson (2))4.5.3.2 Fig. 6 shows one proposed relationship between t50 dissipation time and horizontal, hydraulic conductivity reported by Robertson (2, 11). This chart uses a tip resistance normalized for overburden stresses in the ground. This requires the estimation of the wet and saturated density of the soil and estimated water table location (2). The data points on the chart are laboratory test data from correlated samples. Figure 6 is developed for 10 cm2 diameter cones and a correction factor is required for 15 cm2 cones (multiply k values by factor of 1.5) (2).FIG. 6 Relationship Between CPTu t50 (in minutes) and Soil Hydraulic Conductivity (k) and Normalized Cone Resistance, Qtn (After Robertson (2, 11, 15))4.5.3.3 Included in Fig. 6 is a proposed relationship between dissipation time, soil type, and hydraulic conductivity proposed by Parez and Fauriel (15). This relationship is used in 4.5.3.4 by the high resolution piezocone (HRP) (16) for dissipation tests in sands.4.5.3.4 A pore pressure decay in a clean sand is almost instantaneous. The hydraulic conductivity, therefore, is very difficult to measure in a sand with a cone penetrometer. As a result, until recently the cone penetrometer was not used very often for measuring the hydraulic conductivity of sands in environmental applications. The HRP cone uses special high resolution hardware and software to allow for high resolution data collection even in rapidly dissipating sand formations (16, 17), although recent experience indicates that this might be limited to hydraulic conductivity values less than 10-3 cm/s (18, 19). Partial drainage can also become an issue for cone penetration testing in soils where t50 < 50s and the approximate limits for undrained cone penetration are shown on Fig. 6  (20).4.5.3.5 A thorough study of groundwater flow also includes determining where the water cannot flow. Cone penetrometer pore pressure dissipation tests can be used very effectively to study the hydraulic conductivity of confining units. However, long excessive times for dissipation may not be economical in production CPT. Burns and Mayne (21) have developed methods to model the pore pressure dissipations tests in clays considering the stress history of the clays and can predict k and consolidation characteristics. Their method uses a seismic piezocone to measure the soil stiffness using down-hole shear wave velocity measurements.4.5.3.6 The pore pressure data also can be used to estimate the depth to the water table or identify perched water zones. This is accomplished by allowing the excess pore water pressure to equilibrate and then subtract the appropriate head pressure. Due to high excess pore pressures being generated, typical pore pressure transducers are configured to measure pressures up to 3.5 MPa [500 lbf/in.2] or more. Since transducer accuracy is a function of maximum range, this provides a relative depth to water level accuracy of about ±100 mm [0.5 ft]. Better accuracy can be achieved if the operator allows sufficient time for the transducer to dissipate the heat generated while penetrating dry soil above the water table. Lower pressure transducers are sometimes used just for the purpose of determining the depth to the water table more accurately. For example, a 175-kPa [25-lbf/in.2] transducer would provide accuracy that is better than 10 mm [0.5 in.]. Incorporation of a temperature transducer and appropriate calibration allows for high precision and rapid data collection. Caution must be used, however, to prevent these transducers from being damaged due to a quick rise in excess pressure. Some newer systems allow for large burst pressure protection without hysteresis, which enables users to collect data in highly stratified environments without as much concern for transducer damage.4.5.3.7 When coupled with appropriate models, three dimensional gradient can be derived from final pressure values collected from multiple CPT locations. Once gradient distributions have been derived, and hydraulic conductivity and effective porosity distributions have been generated, seepage velocity distributions can be derived and visualized. This type of information is critical to environmental investigations and remediation design. If contaminant concentration distributions are known, the same software can be used to derive three dimensional distributions of contaminant mass flux.4.6 For a complete description of a typical geotechnical electronic cone penetrometer test, see Test Method D5778.4.7 This practice tests the soil in situ. Soil samples are not obtained. The interpretation of the results from this practice provides estimates of the types of soil penetrated. Onboard CPT single rod soil samplers (D6282/D6282M) are available for short discrete interval soil sampling. Continuous soil cores can be obtained rapidly in a separate location using continuous direct push dual tube samplers (D6282/D6282M). Investigators may obtain soil samples from adjacent locations for correlation purposes, but prior information or experience in the same area may preclude the need for borings for soil samples.4.8 Certain subsurface conditions may prevent cone penetration. Penetration is not possible in hard rock and usually not possible in softer rocks, such as claystones and shales. Coarse particles, such as gravels, cobbles, and boulders may be difficult to penetrate or cause damage to the cone or push rods. Cemented soil zones may be difficult to penetrate depending on the strength and thickness of the layers. If layers are present which prevent direct push from the surface, rotary or percussion drilling methods can be employed to advance a boring through impeding layers to reach testing zones.NOTE 1: The quality of the result produced by this standard is dependent on the competence of the personnel performing it, and the suitability of the equipment and facilities used. Agencies that meet the criteria of Practice D3740 are generally considered capable of competent and objective testing/sampling/inspection/etc. Users of this standard are cautioned that compliance with Practice D3740 does not in itself assure reliable results. Reliable results depend on many factors; Practice D3740 provides a means of evaluating some of those factors.Practice D3740 was developed for agencies engaged in the laboratory testing or inspection of soils and rock or both. As such, it is not totally applicable to agencies performing this field practice. However, users of this practice should recognize that the framework of Practice D3740 is appropriate for evaluating the quality of an agency performing this practice. Currently there is no known qualifying national authority that inspects agencies that perform this practice.1.1 The electronic cone penetrometer test often is used to determine subsurface stratigraphy for geotechnical and environmental site characterization purposes (1).2 The geotechnical application of the electronic cone penetrometer test is discussed in detail in Test Method D5778, however, the use of the electronic cone penetrometer test in environmental site characterization applications involves further considerations that are not discussed. For environmental site characterization, it is highly recommended to use the Piezocone (PCPT or CPTu) option in Test Method D5778 so information on hydraulic conductivity and aquifer hydrostatic pressures can be evaluated.1.2 The purpose of this practice is to discuss aspects of the electronic cone penetrometer test that need to be considered when performing tests for environmental site characterization purposes.1.3 The electronic cone penetrometer test for environmental site characterization projects often requires steam cleaning the push rods and grouting the hole. There are numerous ways of cleaning and grouting depending on the scope of the project, local regulations, and corporate preferences. It is beyond the scope of this practice to discuss all of these methods in detail. A detailed explanation of grouting procedures is discussed in Guide D6001.1.4 Cone penetrometer tests are often used to locate aquifer zones for installation of wells (Practice D5092/D5092M, Guide D6274). The cone test may be combined with direct push soil sampling for confirming soil types (Guide D6282/D6282M). Direct push hydraulic injection profiling (Practice D8037/D8037M) is another complementary test for estimating hydraulic conductivity and direct push slug tests (D7242/D7242M) and used for confirming estimates. Cone penetrometers can be equipped with additional sensors for groundwater quality evaluations (Practice D6187). Location of other sensors must conform to requirements of Test Method D5778.1.5 This practice is applicable only at sites where chemical (organic and inorganic) wastes are a concern and is not intended for use at radioactive or mixed (chemical and radioactive) waste sites due to specialized monitoring requirements of drilling equipment.1.6 Units—The values stated in either SI units or in-lb units (presented in brackets) are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Units for conductivity are either m/s or cm/s depending on the sources cited.1.7 All observed and calculated values shall conform to the guidelines for significant digits and rounding established in Practice D6026, unless superseded by this standard.1.8 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.9 This practice offers a set of instructions for performing one or more specific operations. This document cannot replace education or experience and should be used in conjunction with professional judgment. Not all aspects of this practice may be applicable in all circumstances. This ASTM standard is not intended to represent or replace the standard of care by which the adequacy of a given professional service must be judged, nor should this document be applied without consideration of a project's many unique aspects. The word "Standard" in the title means only that the document has been approved through the ASTM consensus process.1.10 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 646元 加购物车