定价： 646元 加购物车

定价： 590元 加购物车

5.1 Continuous fiber-reinforced ceramic composites can be candidate materials for structural applications requiring high degrees of wear and corrosion resistance, and damage tolerance at high temperatures.5.2 Shear tests provide information on the strength and deformation of materials under shear stresses.5.3 This test method may be used for material development, material comparison, quality assurance, characterization, and design data generation.5.4 For quality control purposes, results derived from standardized shear test specimens may be considered indicative of the response of the material from which they were taken for given primary processing conditions and post-processing heat treatments.1.1 This test method covers the determination of shear strength of continuous fiber-reinforced ceramic composites (CFCCs) at ambient temperature. The test methods addressed are (1) the compression of a double-notched test specimen to determine interlaminar shear strength, and (2) the Iosipescu test method to determine the shear strength in any one of the material planes of laminated composites. Test specimen fabrication methods, testing modes (load or displacement control), testing rates (load rate or displacement rate), data collection, and reporting procedures are addressed.1.2 This test method is used for testing advanced ceramic or glass matrix composites with continuous fiber reinforcement having unidirectional (1D) or bidirectional (2D) fiber architecture. This test method does not address composites with 3D fiber architecture or discontinuous fiber-reinforced, whisker-reinforced, or particulate-reinforced ceramics.1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard and are in accordance with IEEE/ASTM SI 10.1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Specific hazard statements are given in 8.1 and 8.2.1.5 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 加购物车

5.1 The temperatures of opaque surfaces exposed to solar radiation are generally higher than the adjacent air temperatures. In the case of roofs or walls enclosing conditioned spaces, increased inward heat flows result. In the case of equipment or storage containers exposed to the sun, increased operating temperatures usually result. The extent to which solar radiation affects surface temperatures depends on the solar reflectance of the exposed surface. A solar reflectance of 1.0 (100 % reflected) would mean no effect on surface temperature while a solar reflectance of 0 (none reflected, all absorbed) would result in the maximum effect. Coatings of specific solar reflectance are used to change the temperature of surfaces exposed to sunlight. Coatings and surface finishes are commonly specified in terms of solar reflectance. The initial (clean) solar reflectance must be maintained during the life of the coating or finish to have the expected thermal performance.5.2 The test method provides a means for periodic testing of surfaces in the field or in the laboratory. Monitor changes in solar reflectance due to aging and exposure, or both, with this test method.5.3 This test method is used to measure the solar reflectance of a flat opaque surface. The precision of the average of several measurements is usually governed by the variability of reflectances on the surface being tested.5.4 Use the solar reflectance that is determined by this method to calculate the solar energy absorbed by an opaque surface as shown in Eq 1.5.4.1 Combine the absorbed solar energy with conductive, convective and other radiative terms to construct a heat balance around an element or calculate a Solar Reflectance Index such as that discussed in Practice E1980.1.1 This test method covers a technique for determining the solar reflectance of flat opaque materials in a laboratory or in the field using a commercial portable solar reflectometer. The purpose of the test method is to provide solar reflectance data required to evaluate temperatures and heat flows across surfaces exposed to solar radiation.1.2 This test method does not supplant Test Method E903 which measures solar reflectance over the wavelength range 250 nm to 2500 nm using integrating spheres. The portable solar reflectometer is calibrated using specimens of known solar reflectance to determine solar reflectance from measurements at four wavelengths in the solar spectrum: 380 nm, 500 nm, 650 nm, and 1220 nm. This technique is supported by comparison of reflectometer measurements with measurements obtained using Test Method E903. This test method is applicable to specimens of materials having both specular and diffuse optical properties. It is particularly suited to the measurement of the solar reflectance of opaque materials.1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with 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 加购物车

定价： 712元 加购物车

定价： 927元 加购物车

4.1 This test method may be used for material development, material comparison, quality assurance, characterization, and design data generation.4.2 Continuous fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix composites generally are characterized by glass or fine grain-sized (<50 μm) ceramic matrices and ceramic fiber reinforcements. CFCCs are candidate materials for high-temperature structural applications requiring high degrees of corrosion and oxidation resistance, wear and erosion resistance, and inherent damage tolerance, that is, toughness. In addition, continuous fiber-reinforced glass (amorphous) matrix composites are candidate materials for similar but possibly less demanding applications. Although shear test methods are used to evaluate shear interlaminar strength (τZX, τZY) in advanced ceramics, there is significant difficulty in test specimen machining and testing. Improperly prepared notches can produce nonuniform stress distribution in the shear test specimens and can lead to ambiguity of interpretation of strength results. In addition, these shear test specimens also rarely produce a gage section that is in a state of pure shear. Uniaxially forced transthickness tensile strength tests measure the tensile interlaminar strengthavoid the complications listed above, and provide information on mechanical behavior and strength for a uniformly stressed material. The ultimate strength value measured is not a direct measure of the matrix strength, but a combination of the strength of the matrix and the level of bonding between the fiber, fiber/matrix interphase, and the matrix.4.3 CFCCs tested in a transthickness tensile test (TTT) may fail from a single dominant flaw or from a cumulative damage process; therefore, the volume of material subjected to a uniform tensile stress for a single uniaxially forced TTT may be a significant factor in determining the ultimate strength of CFCCs. The probabilistic nature of the strength distributions of the brittle matrices of CFCCs requires a sufficient number of test specimens at each testing condition for statistical analysis and design, with guidelines for test specimen size and sufficient numbers provided in this test method. Studies to determine the exact influence of test specimen volume on strength distributions for CFCCs have not been completed. It should be noted that strengths obtained using other recommended test specimens with different volumes and areas may vary due to these volume differences.4.4 The results of TTTs of test specimens fabricated to standardized dimensions from a particular material, or selected portions of a part, or both, may not totally represent the strength and deformation properties of the entire full-size end product or its in-service behavior in different environments.4.5 For quality control purposes, results derived from standardized TTT specimens may be considered indicative of the response of the material from which they were taken for given primary processing conditions and post-processing heat treatments.4.6 The strength of CFCCs is dependent on their inherent resistance to fracture, the presence of flaws, damage accumulation processes, or a combination thereof. Analysis of fracture surfaces and fractography, though beyond the scope of this test method, is highly recommended.1.1 This test method covers the determination of transthickness tensile strengthunder monotonic uniaxial tensile loading of continuous fiber-reinforced ceramics (CFCC) at ambient temperature. This test method addresses, but is not restricted to, various suggested test specimen geometries, test fixtures, data collection, and reporting procedures. In general, round or square test specimens are tensile tested in the direction normal to the thickness by bonding appropriate hardware to the samples and performing the test. For a Cartesian coordinate system, the x-axis and the y-axis are in the plane of the test specimen. The transthickness direction is normal to the plane and is labeled the z-axis for this test method. For CFCCs, the plane of the test specimen normally contains the larger of the three dimensions and is parallel to the fiber layers for unidirectional, bidirectional, and woven composites. Note that transthickness tensile strength as used in this test method refers to the tensile strength obtained under monotonic uniaxial tensile loading, where “monotonic” refers to a continuous nonstop test rate with no reversals from test initiation to final fracture.1.2 This test method is intended primarily for use with all advanced ceramic matrix composites with continuous fiber reinforcement: unidirectional (1D), bidirectional (2D), woven, and tridirectional (3D). In addition, this test method also may be used with glass (amorphous) matrix composites with 1D, 2D, and 3D continuous fiber reinforcement. This test method does not directly address discontinuous fiber-reinforced, whisker-reinforced, or particulate-reinforced ceramics, although the test methods detailed here may be equally applicable to these composites. It should be noted that 3D architectures with a high volume fraction of fibers in the “z” direction may be difficult to test successfully.1.3 Values are in accordance with the International System of Units (SI) and IEEE/ASTM SI 10.1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Additional recommendations are provided in 6.7 and Section 7.1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 646元 加购物车

5.1 This test method is used to determine the mechanical properties in flexure of engineered ceramic components with multiple longitudinal hollow channels, commonly described as “honeycomb” channel architectures. The components generally have 30 % or more porosity and the cross-sectional dimensions of the honeycomb channels are on the order of 1 mm or greater.5.2 The experimental data and calculated strength values from this test method are used for material and structural development, product characterization, design data, quality control, and engineering/production specifications.NOTE 1: Flexure testing is the preferred method for determining the nominal “tensile fracture” strength of these components, as compared to a compression (crushing) test. A nominal tensile strength is required, because these materials commonly fail in tension under thermal gradient stresses. A true tensile test is difficult to perform on these honeycomb specimens because of gripping and alignment challenges.5.3 The mechanical properties determined by this test method are both material and architecture dependent, because the mechanical response and strength of the porous test specimens are determined by a combination of inherent material properties and microstructure and the architecture of the channel porosity [porosity fraction/relative density, channel geometry (shape, dimensions, cell wall thickness, etc.), anisotropy and uniformity, etc.] in the specimen. Comparison of test data must consider both differences in material/composition properties as well as differences in channel porosity architecture between individual specimens and differences between and within specimen lots.5.4 Test Method A is a user-defined specimen geometry with a choice of four-point or three-point flexure testing geometries. It is not possible to define a single fixed specimen geometry for flexure testing of honeycombs, because of the wide range of honeycomb architectures and cell sizes and considerations of specimen size, cell shapes, pitch, porosity size, crush strength, and shear strength. As a general rule, the experimenter will have to define a suitable test specimen geometry for the particular honeycomb structure of interest, considering composition, architecture, cell size, mechanical properties, and specimen limitations and using the following guidelines. Details on specimen geometry definition are given in 9.2.5.4.1 Four-point flexure (Test Method A1) is strongly preferred and recommended for testing and characterization purposes. (From Test Method C1161 section 4.5: “The three-point test configuration exposes only a very small portion of the specimen to the maximum stress. Therefore, three-point flexural strengths are likely to be much greater than four-point flexural strengths. Three-point flexure has some advantages. It uses simpler test fixtures, it is easier to adapt to high temperature and fracture toughness testing, and it is sometimes helpful in Weibull statistical studies. However, four-point flexure is preferred and recommended for most characterization purposes.”)5.4.2 The three-point flexure test configuration (Test Method A2) may be used for specimens which are not suitable for 4-point testing, with the clear understanding that 3-point loading exposes only a very small portion of the specimen to the maximum stress, as compared to the much larger maximum stress volume in a 4-point loading configuration. Therefore, 3-point flexural strengths are likely to be greater than 4-point flexural strengths, based on statistical flaw distribution factors.5.5 Test Method B (with a specified specimen size and a 4-point-1/4 point flexure loading geometry) is widely used in industry for cordierite and silicon carbide honeycomb structures with small cell size (cell pitch ~2 mm). Test Method B is provided as a standard test geometry that provides a baseline specimen size for honeycomb structures with appropriate properties and cell size with the benefit of experimental repeatability, reproducibility and comparability. (See 9.3 for details on Test Method B.)NOTE 2: Specific fixture and specimen configurations were chosen for Test Method B to provide a balance between practical configurations and linear cell count effect limits and to permit ready comparison of data without the need for Weibull-size scaling.5.6 The calculation of the flexure stress in these porous specimens is based on small deflection elastic beam theory with assumptions that (1) the material properties are isotropic and homogeneous, (2) the moduli of elasticity in tension and compression are identical, and (3) the material is linearly elastic. If the porous material in the walls of the honeycomb is not specifically anisotropic in microstructure, it is also assumed that the microstructure of the wall material is uniform and isotropic. To understand the effects of some of these assumptions, see Baratta et al. (6).NOTE 3: These assumptions may limit the application of the test to comparative type testing such as used for material development, quality control, and flexure specifications. Such comparative testing requires consistent and standardized test conditions both for specimen geometry and porosity architecture, as well as experimental conditions—loading geometries, strain rates, and atmospheric/test conditions.5.7 Three flexure strength values (defined in Section 3 and calculated in Section 11) may be calculated in this test method. They are the nominal beam strength, the wall fracture strength, and the honeycomb structure strength.5.7.1 Nominal Beam Strength—The first approach to calculating a flexure strength is to make the simplifying assumption that the specimen acts as a uniform homogeneous material that reacts as a continuum. Based on these assumptions, a nominal beam strength SNB can be calculated using the standard flexure strength equations with the specimen dimensions and the breaking force. (See Section 11.)5.7.1.1 A linear cell count effect (specimen size-cell count effect) has been noted in research on the flexure strength of ceramic honeycomb test specimens (7, 8). If the cell size is too large with respect to the specimen dimensions and if the linear cell count (the integer number of cells along the shortest cross-sectional dimension) is too low (<15), channel porosity has a geometric effect on the moment of inertia that produces an artificially high value for the nominal beam strength. (See Appendix X1.) With the standard elastic beam equations the strength value is overestimated, because the true moment of inertia of the open cell structure is not accounted for in the calculation.5.7.1.2 This overestimate becomes increasingly larger for specimens with lower linear cell counts. The linear cell count has to be 15 or greater for the calculated nominal beam strength, SNB, to be within a 10 % overestimate of the wall fracture strength SWF.NOTE 4: The study by Webb, Widjaja, and Helfinstine (7) showed that for cells with a square cross section a minimum linear cell count of 15 should be maintained to minimize linear cell count effects on the calculated nominal beam strength. (This study is summarized in Appendix X1.)5.7.1.3 For those smaller test specimens (where the linear cell count is between 2 and 15), equations for wall fracture strength and honeycomb structure strength are given in Section 11. These equations are used to calculate a more accurate value for the flexure strength of the honeycomb, as compared to the calculated nominal beam strength.5.7.2 Wall Fracture Strength, SWF, is calculated using the true moment of inertia of the honeycomb architecture, based on the geometry, dimensions, cell wall thickness, and linear count of the channels in the honeycomb structure. The wall fracture strength is a calculation of the true failure stress in the outer fiber surface of the specimen. (Appendix X1 describes the calculation as cited in the Webb, Widjaja, and Helfinstine (7) report). Section 11 on calculations gives the formula for calculating the moment of inertia for test specimens with square honeycomb channels and uniform cell wall thickness.NOTE 5: The moment of inertia formula given in Section 11 and Appendix X1 is only applicable to square cell geometries. It is not suitable for rectangular, circular, hexagonal, or triangular geometries. Formulas for those geometries have to be developed from geometric analysis and first principles.5.7.3 Honeycomb Structure Strength, SHS, is calculated from the wall fracture strength SWF. This calculation gives a flexure strength value which is independent of specimen-cell size geometry effects. The honeycomb structure strength value can be used for comparison of different specimen geometries with different channel sizes. It also gives a flexure strength value that can be used for stress models that assume continuum strength. (See Appendix X1.) Section 11 on calculations gives the formula for calculating the honeycomb structure strength for test specimens with square honeycomb channels and uniform cell wall thickness.5.7.4 The following recommendations are made for calculating a flexure strength for the ceramic honeycomb test specimens.5.7.4.1 For flexure test specimens where the linear cell count is 15 or greater, the nominal beam strength SNB calculation and the honeycomb structure strength SHS are roughly equivalent in value (within 10 %). The nominal beam strength SNB calculation can be used considering this variability.5.7.4.2 For flexure test specimens where the linear cell count is between 5 and 15, the nominal beam strength SNB calculation may produce a 10 % to 20 % overvalue. The SNB value should be used with caution.5.7.4.3 For flexure test specimens where the linear cell count is less than 5, the nominal beam strength SNB calculation may produce a 20 % to 100 % overvalue. It is recommended that the honeycomb structure strength SHS be calculated and used as a more accurate flexure strength number.5.7.4.4 If specimen availability and test configuration permit, test specimens with a linear cell count of 15 or greater are preferred to reduce the specimen linear cell count effect on nominal beam strength SNB to less than 10 %.5.8 Flexure test data for porous ceramics will have a statistical distribution, which may be analyzed and described by Weibull statistics, per Practice C1239.5.9 This flexure test can be used as a characterization tool to assess the effects of fabrication variables, geometry and microstructure variations, and environmental exposure on the mechanical properties of the honeycombs. The effect of these variables is assessed by flexure testing a specimen set in a baseline condition and then testing a second set of specimens with defined changes in geometry or fabrication methods or after controlled environmental exposure.5.9.1 Geometry and microstructure variations would include variations in cell geometry (shape dimensions, cell wall thickness, and count) and wall porosity (percent, size, shape, morphology, etc.).5.9.2 Fabrication process variations would include forming parameters, drying and binder burn-out conditions, sintering conditions, heat treatments, variations in coatings, etc.5.9.3 Environmental conditioning would include extended exposure at different temperatures and different corrosive atmospheres (including steam).5.10 This flexure test may be used to assess the thermal shock resistance of the honeycomb ceramics, as described in Test Method C1525.5.11 The flexure test is not the preferred method for determining the Young's modulus of these porous structures. (For this reason, the deflection of the flexure test bar is not commonly measured in this test.) Young's modulus measurements by sonic resonance (Test Method C1198) or by impulse excitation (Test Method C1259) give more reliable and repeatable data.5.12 It is beyond the scope of this standard to require fractographic analysis at the present time. Fractographic analysis for critical flaws in porous honeycomb ceramics is extremely difficult and of very uncertain value.1.1 This test method covers the determination of the flexural strength (modulus of rupture in bending) at ambient conditions of advanced ceramic structures with 2-dimensional honeycomb channel architectures.1.2 The test method is focused on engineered ceramic components with longitudinal hollow channels, commonly called “honeycomb” channels (see Fig. 1). The components generally have 30 % or more porosity and the cross-sectional dimensions of the honeycomb channels are on the order of 1 mm or greater. Ceramics with these honeycomb structures are used in a wide range of applications (catalytic conversion supports (1),2 high temperature filters (2, 3), combustion burner plates (4), energy absorption and damping (5), etc.). The honeycomb ceramics can be made in a range of ceramic compositions—alumina, cordierite, zirconia, spinel, mullite, silicon carbide, silicon nitride, graphite, and carbon. The components are produced in a variety of geometries (blocks, plates, cylinders, rods, rings).FIG. 1 General Schematics of Typical Honeycomb Ceramic Structures1.3 The test method describes two test specimen geometries for determining the flexural strength (modulus of rupture) for a porous honeycomb ceramic test specimen (see Fig. 2):FIG. 2 Flexure Loading ConfigurationsL = Outer Span Length (for Test Method A, L = User defined; for Test Method B, L = 90 mm)NOTE 1: 4-Point-1/4 Loading for Test Methods A1 and B.NOTE 2: 3-Point Loading for Test Method A2.1.3.1 Test Method A—A 4-point or 3-point bending test with user-defined specimen geometries, and1.3.2 Test Method B—A 4-point-1/4 point bending test with a defined rectangular specimen geometry (13 mm × 25 mm × > 116 mm) and a 90 mm outer support span geometry suitable for cordierite and silicon carbide honeycombs with small cell sizes.1.4 The test specimens are stressed to failure and the breaking force value, specimen and cell dimensions, and loading geometry data are used to calculate a nominal beam strength, a wall fracture strength, and a honeycomb structure strength.1.5 Test results are used for material and structural development, product characterization, design data, quality control, and engineering/production specifications.1.6 The test method is meant for ceramic materials that are linear-elastic to failure in tension. The test method is not applicable to polymer or metallic porous structures that fail in an elastomeric or an elastic-ductile manner.1.7 The test method is defined for ambient testing temperatures. No directions are provided for testing at elevated or cryogenic temperatures.1.8 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard (IEEE/ASTM SI 10). English units are sparsely used in this standard for product definitions and tool descriptions, per the cited references and common practice in the US automotive industry.1.9 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.10 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 843元 加购物车

定价： 646元 加购物车

定价： 590元 加购物车

4.1 This test method may be used for material development, material comparison, quality assurance, and characterization. Extreme care should be exercised when generating design data.4.2 For a C-ring under diametral compression, the maximum tensile stress occurs at the outer surface. Hence, the C-ring specimen loaded in compression will predominately evaluate the strength distribution and flaw population(s) on the external surface of a tubular component in the hoop direction. Accordingly, the condition of the inner surface may be of lesser consequence in specimen preparation and testing.NOTE 1: A C-ring in tension or an O-ring in compression may be used to evaluate the internal surface.4.2.1 The flexure stress is computed based on simple curved beam theory (1-5).3 It is assumed that the material is isotropic and homogeneous, the moduli of elasticity are identical in compression or tension, and the material is linearly elastic. These homogeneity and isotropy assumptions preclude the use of this standard for continuous fiber reinforced composites. Average grain size(s) should be no greater than one fiftieth (1/50 ) of the C-ring thickness. The curved beam stress solution from engineering mechanics is in good agreement (within 2 %) with an elasticity solution as discussed in (6) for the test specimen geometries recommended for this standard. The curved beam stress equations are simple and straightforward, and therefore it is relatively easy to integrate the equations for calculations for effective area or effective volume for Weibull analyses as discussed in Appendix X1.4.2.2 The simple curved beam and theory of elasticity stress solutions both are two-dimensional plane stress solutions. They do not account for stresses in the axial (parallel to b) direction, or variations in the circumferential (hoop, σθ) stresses through the width (b) of the test piece. The variations in the circumferential stresses increase with increases in width (b) and ring thickness (t). The variations can be substantial (>10 %) for test specimens with large b. The circumferential stresses peak at the outer edges. Therefore, the width (b) and thickness (t) of the specimens permitted in this test method are limited so that axial stresses are negligible (see Ref. (5)) and the variations of the circumferential stresses from the nominal simple curved beam theory stress calculations are typically less than 4 %. See Refs. (4) and (6) for more information on the variation of the circumferential stresses as a function of ring thickness (t) and ring width (b).4.2.3 The test piece outer rim corners are vulnerable to edge damage, another reason to minimize the differences in the circumferential stresses across the ring outer surface.4.2.4 Other geometry C-ring test specimens may be tested, but comprehensive finite element analyses shall be performed to obtain accurate stress distributions. If strengths are to be scaled (converted) to strengths of other sizes or geometries, then Weibull effective volumes or areas shall be computed using the results of the finite element analyses.4.3 Because advanced ceramics exhibiting brittle behavior generally fracture catastrophically from a single dominant flaw for a particular tensile stress field in quasi-static loading, the surface area and volume of material subjected to tensile stresses is a significant factor in determining the ultimate strength. Moreover, because of the statistical distribution of the flaw population(s) in advanced ceramics exhibiting brittle behavior, a sufficient number of specimens at each testing condition is required for statistical analysis and design. This test method provides guidelines for the number of specimens that should be tested for these purposes (see 8.4).4.4 Because of a multitude of factors related to materials processing and component fabrication, the results of C-ring tests from a particular material or selected portions of a part, or both, may not necessarily represent the strength and deformation properties of the full-size end product or its in-service behavior.4.5 The ultimate strength of a ceramic material may be influenced by slow crack growth or stress corrosion, or both, and is therefore sensitive to the testing mode, testing rate, or environmental influences, or a combination thereof. Testing at sufficiently rapid rates as outlined in this test method may minimize the consequences of subcritical (slow) crack growth or stress corrosion.4.6 The flexural behavior and strength of an advanced monolithic ceramic are dependent on the material's inherent resistance to fracture, the presence of flaws, or damage accumulation processes, or a combination thereof. Analysis of fracture surfaces and fractography, though beyond the scope of this test method, is highly recommended (further guidance may be obtained from Practice C1322 and Ref (7)).1.1 This test method covers the determination of ultimate strength under monotonic loading of advanced ceramics in tubular form at ambient temperatures. The ultimate strength as used in this test method refers to the strength obtained under monotonic compressive loading of C-ring specimens such as shown in Fig. 1, where monotonic refers to a continuous nonstop test rate with no reversals from test initiation to final fracture. This method permits a range of sizes and shapes since test specimens may be prepared from a variety of tubular structures. The method may be used with microminiature test specimens.FIG. 1 C-Ring Test Geometry with Defining Geometry and Reference Angle (θ) for the Point of Fracture Initiation on the Circumference1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.2.1 Values expressed in this test method are in accordance with the International System of Units (SI) and IEEE/ASTM SI 10.1.3 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

4.1 This practice may be used for material development, material comparison, quality assurance, characterization, reliability assessment, and design data generation.4.2 High-strength, monolithic advanced ceramic materials are generally characterized by small grain sizes (<50 μm) and bulk densities near the theoretical density. These materials are candidates for load-bearing structural applications requiring high degrees of wear and corrosion resistance, and high-temperature strength. Although flexural test methods are commonly used to evaluate strength of advanced ceramics, the nonuniform stress distribution in a flexure specimen limits the volume of material subjected to the maximum applied stress at fracture. Uniaxially loaded tensile strength tests may provide information on strength-limiting flaws from a greater volume of uniformly stressed material.4.3 Cyclic fatigue by its nature is a probabilistic phenomenon as discussed in STP 91A and STP 588 (1, 2).4 In addition, the strengths of advanced ceramics are probabilistic in nature. Therefore, a sufficient number of test specimens at each testing condition is required for statistical analysis and design, with guidelines for sufficient numbers provided in STP 91A (1), STP 588 (2), and Practice E739. The many different tensile specimen geometries available for cyclic fatigue testing may result in variations in the measured cyclic fatigue behavior of a particular material due to differences in the volume or surface area of material in the gage section of the test specimens.4.4 Tensile cyclic fatigue tests provide information on the material response under fluctuating uniaxial tensile stresses. Uniform stress states are required to effectively evaluate any nonlinear stress-strain behavior which may develop as the result of cumulative damage processes (for example, microcracking, cyclic fatigue crack growth, etc.).4.5 Cumulative damage processes due to cyclic fatigue may be influenced by testing mode, testing rate (related to frequency), differences between maximum and minimum force (R or Α), effects of processing or combinations of constituent materials, or environmental influences, or both. Other factors that influence cyclic fatigue behavior are: void or porosity content, methods of test specimen preparation or fabrication,test specimen conditioning, test environment, force or strain limits during cycling, wave shapes (that is, sinusoidal, trapezoidal, etc.), and failure mode. Some of these effects may be consequences of stress corrosion or sub-critical (slow) crack growth which can be difficult to quantify. In addition, surface or near-surface flaws introduced by the test specimen fabrication process (machining) may or may not be quantifiable by conventional measurements of surface texture. Therefore, surface effects (for example, as reflected in cyclic fatigue reduction factors as classified by Marin (3)) must be inferred from the results of numerous cyclic fatigue tests performed with test specimens having identical fabrication histories.4.6 The results of cyclic fatigue tests of specimens fabricated to standardized dimensions from a particular material or selected portions of a part, or both, may not totally represent the cyclic fatigue behavior of the entire full-size end product or its in-service behavior in different environments.4.7 However, for quality control purposes, results derived from standardized tensile test specimens may be considered indicative of the response of the material from which they were taken for given primary processing conditions and post-processing heat treatments.4.8 The cyclic fatigue behavior of an advanced ceramic is dependent on its inherent resistance to fracture, the presence of flaws, or damage accumulation processes, or both. There can be significant damage in the test specimen without any visual evidence such as the occurrence of a macroscopic crack. This can result in a specific loss of stiffness and retained strength. Depending on the purpose for which the test is being conducted, rather than final fracture, a specific loss in stiffness or retained strength may constitute failure. In cases where fracture occurs, analysis of fracture surfaces and fractography, though beyond the scope of this practice, are recommended.1.1 This practice covers the determination of constant-amplitude, axial, tension-tension cyclic fatigue behavior and performance of advanced ceramics at ambient temperatures to establish “baseline” cyclic fatigue performance. This practice builds on experience and existing standards in tensile testing advanced ceramics at ambient temperatures and addresses various suggested test specimen geometries, test specimen fabrication methods, testing modes (force, displacement, or strain control), testing rates and frequencies, allowable bending, and procedures for data collection and reporting. This practice does not apply to axial cyclic fatigue tests of components or parts (that is, machine elements with nonuniform or multiaxial stress states).1.2 This practice applies primarily to advanced ceramics that macroscopically exhibit isotropic, homogeneous, continuous behavior. While this practice applies primarily to monolithic advanced ceramics, certain whisker- or particle-reinforced composite ceramics, as well as certain discontinuous fibre-reinforced composite ceramics, may also meet these macroscopic behavior assumptions. Generally, continuous fibre-reinforced ceramic composites (CFCCs) do not macroscopically exhibit isotropic, homogeneous, continuous behavior and application of this practice to these materials is not recommended.1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard and are in accordance with IEEE/ASTM SI 10.1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Refer to Section 7 for specific precautions.1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 加购物车

定价： 646元 加购物车

定价： 712元 加购物车

5.1 This test method is applicable to the measurement of airborne asbestos in a wide range of ambient air situations and for detailed evaluation of any atmosphere for asbestos structures. Most fibers in ambient atmospheres are not asbestos, and therefore, there is a requirement for fibers to be identified. Most of the airborne asbestos fibers in ambient atmospheres have diameters below the resolution limit of the light microscope. This test method is based on transmission electron microscopy, which has adequate resolution to allow detection of small thin fibers and is currently the only technique capable of unequivocal identification of the majority of individual fibers of asbestos. Asbestos is often found, not as single fibers, but as very complex, aggregated structures, which may or may not also be aggregated with other particles. The fibers found suspended in an ambient atmosphere can often be identified unequivocally if sufficient measurement effort is expended. However, if each fiber were to be identified in this way, the analysis would become prohibitively expensive. Because of instrumental deficiencies or because of the nature of the particulate matter, some fibers cannot be positively identified as asbestos even though the measurements all indicate that they could be asbestos. Therefore, subjective factors contribute to this measurement, and consequently, a very precise definition of the procedure for identification and enumeration of asbestos fibers is required. The method defined in this test method is designed to provide a description of the nature, numerical concentration, and sizes of asbestos-containing particles found in an air sample. The test method is necessarily complex because the structures observed are frequently very complex. The method of data recording specified in the test method is designed to allow reevaluation of the structure-counting data as new applications for measurements are developed. All of the feasible specimen preparation techniques result in some modification of the airborne particulate matter. Even the collection of particles from a three-dimensional airborne dispersion on to a two-dimensional filter surface can be considered a modification of the particulate matter, and some of the particles, in most samples, are modified by the specimen preparation procedures. However, the procedures specified in this test method are designed to minimize the disturbance of the collected particulate material.5.2 This test method applies to analysis of a single filter and describes the precision attributable to measurements for a single filter (see 13.1). Multiple air samples are usually necessary to characterize airborne asbestos concentrations across time and space. The number of samples necessary for this purpose is proportional to the variation in measurement across samples, which may be greater than the variation in a measurement for a single sample.1.1 This test method2 is an analytical procedure using transmission electron microscopy (TEM) for the determination of the concentration of asbestos structures in ambient atmospheres and includes measurement of the dimension of structures and of the asbestos fibers found in the structures from which aspect ratios are calculated.1.1.1 This test method allows determination of the type(s) of asbestos fibers present.1.1.2 This test method cannot always discriminate between individual fibers of the asbestos and non-asbestos analogues of the same amphibole mineral.1.2 This test method is suitable for determination of asbestos in both ambient (outdoor) and building atmospheres.1.2.1 This test method is defined for polycarbonate capillary-pore filters or cellulose ester (either mixed esters of cellulose or cellulose nitrate) filters through which a known volume of air has been drawn and for blank filters.1.3 The upper range of concentrations that can be determined by this test method is 7000 s/mm2. The air concentration represented by this value is a function of the volume of air sampled.1.3.1 There is no lower limit to the dimensions of asbestos fibers that can be detected. In practice, microscopists vary in their ability to detect very small asbestos fibers. Therefore, a minimum length of 0.5 μm has been defined as the shortest fiber to be incorporated in the reported results.1.4 The direct analytical method cannot be used if the general particulate matter loading of the sample collection filter as analyzed exceeds approximately 10 % coverage of the collection filter by particulate matter.1.5 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 843元 加购物车