4.1 Types of architectural joint systems included in this test method are the following:4.1.1 Metallic systems;4.1.2 Compression seals:4.1.2.1 With frames, and4.1.2.2 Without frames,4.1.3 Strip seals;4.1.4 Preformed sealant systems (see Appendix X1):4.1.4.1 With frames, and4.1.4.2 Without frames,4.1.5 Preformed foams and sponges:4.1.5.1 Self-Expanding, and4.1.5.2 Nonexpanding,4.1.6 Fire barriers:4.1.6.1 Used as joint systems, and4.1.6.2 Used as a part of the joint system, and4.1.7 Elastomeric membrane systems:4.1.7.1 With nosing material(s), and4.1.7.2 Without nosing material(s).4.2 This test method will assist users, producers, building officials, code authorities, and others in verifying some performance characteristics of representative specimens of architectural joint systems under common test conditions. The following performance characteristics are verifiable:4.2.1 The maximum joint width,4.2.2 The minimum joint width, and4.2.3 The movement capability.4.3 This test compares similar architectural joint systems by cycling but does not accurately reflect the system's application. Similar refers to the same type of architectural system within the same subsection under 4.1.4.4 This test method does not provide information on:4.4.1 Durability of the architectural joint system under actual service conditions, including the effects of cycled temperature on the joint system,4.4.2 Loading capability of the system and the effects of a load on the functional parameters established by this test method,4.4.3 Rotational, vertical, and horizontal shear capabilities of the specimen,4.4.4 Any other attributes of the specimen, such as fire resistance, wear resistance, chemical resistance, air infiltration, watertightness, and so forth, and4.4.5 Testing or compatibility of substrates.4.5 This test method is only to be used as one element in the selection of an architectural joint system for a particular application. It is not intended as an independent pass/fail acceptance procedure. In conjunction with this test method, other test methods are to be used to evaluate the importance of other service conditions such as durability, structural loading, and compatibility.1.1 This test method covers testing procedures for architectural joint systems. This test method is intended for the following uses for architectural joint systems:1.1.1 To verify movement capability information supplied to the user by the producer,1.1.2 To standardize comparison of movement capability by relating it to specified nominal joint widths,1.1.3 To determine the cyclic movement capability between specified minimum and maximum joint widths without visual deleterious effects, and1.1.4 To provide the user with graphic information, drawings or pictures in the test report, depicting them at minimum, maximum, and nominal joint widths during cycling.1.2 This test method is intended to be used only as part of a specification or acceptance criterion due to the limited movements tested.1.3 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.1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 Test Methods A, B, and C provide a means of evaluating the tensile modulus of geogrids and geotextiles for applications involving small-strain cyclic loading. The test methods allow for the determination of cyclic tensile modulus at different levels of prescribed or permanent strain, thereby accounting for possible changes in cyclic tensile modulus with increasing permanent strain in the material. These test methods shall be used for research testing and to define properties for use in specific design methods.5.2 In cases of dispute arising from differences in reported test results when using these test methods for acceptance testing of commercial shipments, the purchaser and supplier should conduct comparative tests to determine if there is a statistical bias between their laboratories. Competent statistical assistance is recommended for the investigation of bias. As a minimum, the two parties should take a group of test specimens which are as homogeneous as possible and which are from a lot of material of the type in question. The test specimens should then be randomly assigned in equal numbers to each laboratory for testing. The average results from the two laboratories should be compared using Student’s t-test for unpaired data and an acceptable probability level chosen by the two parties before the testing began. If a bias is found, either its cause shall be found and corrected or the purchaser and supplier shall agree to interpret future test results in light of the known bias.5.3 All geogrids can be tested by Test Method A or B. Some modification of techniques may be necessary for a given geogrid depending upon its physical makeup. Special adaptations may be necessary with strong geogrids, multiple-layered geogrids, or geogrids that tend to slip in the clamps or those which tend to be damaged by the clamps.5.4 Most geotextiles can be tested by Test Method C. Some modification of clamping techniques may be necessary for a given geotextile depending upon its structure. Special clamping adaptations may be necessary with strong geotextiles or geotextiles made from glass fibers to prevent them from slipping in the clamps or being damaged as a result of being gripped in the clamps.5.5 These test methods are applicable for testing geotextiles either dry or wet. It is used with a constant rate of extension type tension apparatus.5.6 These test methods may not be suited for geogrids and geotextiles that exhibit strengths approximately 100 kN/m (600 lbf/in.) due to clamping and equipment limitations. In those cases, 100-mm (4-in.) width specimens may be substituted for 200-mm (8-in.) width specimens.1.1 These test methods cover the determination of small-strain tensile properties of geogrids and geotextiles by subjecting wide-width specimens to cyclic tensile loading.1.2 These test methods (A, B, and C) allow for the determination of small-strain cyclic tensile modulus by the measurement of cyclic tensile load and elongation.1.3 This test method is intended to provide properties for design. The test method was developed for mechanistic-empirical pavement design methods requiring input of the reinforcement tensile modulus. The use of cyclic modulus from this test method for other applications involving cyclic loading should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.1.4 Three test methods (A, B, and C) are provided to determine small-strain cyclic tensile modulus on geogrids and geotextiles.1.4.1 Test Method A—Testing a relatively wide specimen of geogrid in cyclic tension in kN/m (lbf/ft).1.4.2 Test Method B—Testing multiple layers of a relatively wide specimen of geogrid in cyclic tension in kN/m (lbf/ft).1.4.3 Test Method C—Testing a relatively wide specimen of geotextile in cyclic tension in kN/m (lbf/ft).1.5 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are provided for information only and are not considered standard.1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 This test method is a standard procedure for determining the resistance to water penetration under uniform or cyclic static air pressure differences of installed exterior windows, skylights, curtain walls, and doors. The air-pressure differences acting across a building envelope vary greatly. These factors should be considered fully prior to specifying the test pressure difference to be used.NOTE 1: In applying the results of tests by this test method, note that the performance of a wall or its components, or both, may be a function of proper installation and adjustment. In service, the performance will also depend on the rigidity of supporting construction and on the resistance of components to deterioration by various causes, vibration, thermal expansion and contraction, and so forth. It is difficult to simulate the identical complex wetting conditions that can be encountered in service, with large wind-blown water drops, increasing water drop impact pressures with increasing wind velocity, and lateral or upward moving air and water. Some designs are more sensitive than others to this upward moving water.NOTE 2: This test method does not identify unobservable liquid water which may penetrate into the test specimen.5.2 Laboratory tests are designed to give an indication of the performance of an assembly. Field performance may vary from laboratory performance since the supporting structure for the test specimen, methods of mounting, and sealing in the laboratory can only simulate the actual conditions that will exist in the building. Shipping, handling, installation, acts of subsequent trades, aging, and other environmental conditions all may have an adverse effect upon the performance of the installed product. This field test procedure provides a means for determining the performance of a product once installed in the building.5.3 The field test may be made at the time the window, skylight, curtain-wall, or door assemblies are initially installed and before the interior of the building is finished. At this time, it is generally easier to check the interior surfaces of the assemblies for water penetration and to identify the points of penetration. The major advantage of testing when assemblies are initially installed is that errors in fabrication or installation can be readily discovered and corrections made before the entire wall with its component assemblies is completed at which time the expense of corrective work may be increased many times.5.4 The field test may also be made after the building is completed and in service to determine whether or not reported leakage problems are due to the failure of the installed assemblies to resist water penetration at the specified static air pressure difference. Generally it is possible to conduct tests on window, skylight, and door assemblies without too much difficulty, and to identify sources of leakage. A curtain-wall assembly, on the other hand, may not be accessible from the inside without the removal of interior finished walls and ceilings. Even with removal of interior walls and ceilings, it may not be possible to observe curtain-wall surfaces behind spandrel beams. The feasibility of conducting a meaningful static air pressure difference water penetration test on an in-service building must be carefully evaluated before being specified.5.5 Weather conditions can affect the static air pressure difference measurements. If wind gusting causes pressure fluctuation to exceed ±10 % from the specified test pressure, the test should not be conducted.5.6 Generally it is more convenient to use an interior mounted pressure chamber from which air is exhausted to obtain a lower pressure on the interior surface of the specimen. A calibrated rack of nozzles is then used to spray water at the proper rate on the exterior surface. Under circumstances where it is desirable to use an exterior-mounted pressure chamber, the spray rack must be located in the pressure chamber and air supplied to maintain a higher pressure on the exterior surface. Exterior chambers are difficult to attach readily and seal to exterior surfaces.5.7 Even though the equipment requirements are similar, this procedure is not intended to measure air infiltration because of the difficulty of isolating the component air leakage from the extraneous leakage through weep holes, mullion joints, trim, or other surrounding materials.1.1 This test method covers the determination of the resistance of installed exterior windows, curtain walls, skylights, and doors to water penetration when water is applied to the outdoor face and exposed edges simultaneously with a static air pressure at the outdoor face higher than the pressure at the indoor face.1.2 This test method is applicable to any curtain-wall area or to windows, skylights, or doors alone. It is intended primarily for determining the resistance to water penetration through such assemblies for compliance with specified performance criteria, but it may also be used to determine the resistance to penetration through the joints between the assemblies and the adjacent construction. Other procedures may be appropriate to identify sources of leakage.1.3 This test method addresses water penetration through a manufactured assembly. Water that penetrates the assembly, but does not result in a failure as defined herein, may have adverse effects on the performance of contained materials such as sealants and insulating or laminated glass. This test method does not address these issues.1.4 The proper use of this test method requires a knowledge of the principles of pressure measurement.1.5 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. For specific hazard statements, see 7.1.1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

4.1 This test method is used to determine the dimensional changes and physical stability of the product upon exposure to specified cyclic thermal conditions. It is also useful in determining the integrity of the bond between the metal foil and the SBS-modified bituminous compound.1.1 This test method covers the measurement of movement due to cyclic thermal exposure of SBS (styrene-butadiene-styrene)-modified bituminous sheets with a factory-applied metal foil surface.1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values in parentheses are for information only.1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, 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

4.1 This practice may be used for material development, material comparison, quality assurance, characterization, reliability assessment, and design data generation.4.2 Continuous fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix composites are generally characterized by crystalline matrices and ceramic fiber reinforcements. These materials are candidate materials for structural applications requiring high degrees of wear and corrosion resistance, and high-temperature inherent damage tolerance (that is, toughness). In addition, continuous fiber-reinforced glass matrix composites are candidate materials for similar but possibly less demanding applications. Although flexural test methods are commonly used to evaluate the mechanical behavior of monolithic advanced ceramics, the nonuniform stress distribution in a flexural test specimen in addition to dissimilar mechanical behavior in tension and compression for CFCCs leads to ambiguity of interpretation of test results obtained in flexure for CFCCs. Uniaxially loaded tensile tests provide information on mechanical behavior for a uniformly stressed material.4.3 The cyclic fatigue behavior of CFCCs can have appreciable nonlinear effects (for example, sliding of fibers within the matrix) which may be related to the heat transfer of the specimen to the surroundings. Changes in test temperature, frequency, and heat removal can affect test results. It may be desirable to measure the effects of these variables to more closely simulate end-use conditions for some specific application.4.4 Cyclic fatigue by its nature is a probabilistic phenomenon as discussed in STP 91A (1) and STP 588 (2).4 In addition, the strengths of the brittle matrices and fibers of CFCCs 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. Studies to determine the influence of test specimen volume or surface area on cyclic fatigue strength distributions for CFCCs have not been completed. The many different tensile test 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 of material in the gage section of the test specimens.4.5 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, matrix microcracking, fiber/matrix debonding, delamination, cyclic fatigue crack growth, etc.)4.6 Cumulative damage 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, environmental influences (including test environment and pre-test conditioning), or combinations thereof. Some of these effects may be consequences of stress corrosion or subcritical (slow) crack growth which can be difficult to quantify. Other factors which may influence cyclic fatigue behavior are: matrix or fiber material, void or porosity content, methods of test specimen preparation or fabrication, volume percent of the reinforcement, orientation and stacking of the reinforcement, test specimen conditioning, test environment, force or strain limits during cycling, wave shapes (that is, sinusoidal, trapezoidal, etc.), and failure mode of the CFCC.4.7 The results of cyclic fatigue tests of test 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.4.8 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.4.9 The cyclic fatigue behavior of a CFCC 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 CFCC test specimen without any visual evidence such as the occurrence of a macroscopic crack. This can result in a 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, is recommended.1.1 This practice covers the determination of constant-amplitude, axial tension-tension cyclic fatigue behavior and performance of continuous fiber-reinforced advanced ceramic composites (CFCCs) at ambient temperatures. This practice builds on experience and existing standards in tensile testing CFCCs at ambient temperatures and addresses various suggested test specimen geometries, 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 ceramic matrix composites with continuous fiber reinforcement: uni-directional (1-D), bi-directional (2-D), and tri-directional (3-D) or other multi-directional reinforcements. In addition, this practice may also be used with glass (amorphous) matrix composites with 1-D, 2-D, 3-D, and other multi-directional continuous fiber reinforcements. This practice does not directly address discontinuous fiber-reinforced, whisker-reinforced or particulate-reinforced ceramics, although the methods detailed here may be equally applicable to these composites.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 and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Refer to Section 7 for specific precautions.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 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 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 The CPL test is intended as a performance test to quantify the benefits of geosynthetics in pavement structures, as recommended by AASHTO R 50-09. Performance is predominantly defined in terms of S-TBR.5.2 The CPL test is a laboratory test used to accelerate rutting in a roadway cross section using a stationary cyclic plate. While the application of load differs from actual roads, the results from similarly constructed CPL tests are useful to evaluate and compare the performance of various products or designs. The results from these tests are most relevant to roads having similar design characteristics (material strengths and thicknesses).NOTE 1: The extrapolation of cyclic plate results to designs that deviate significantly from the parameters tested may not be accurate, and performance calculations made at significantly different load cycle levels than the expected service life of an actual pavement may not provide an accurate estimate of the benefits actually realized.5.3 The number of load cycles applied by the CPL device corresponds to the number of equivalent single-axle loads (ESALs) used in the AASHTO 1993 pavement design equation.5.4 The test method is applicable to geosynthetics and soils used in typical pavement applications.5.5 This test method produces test data that can be used to compare geosynthetic products, construction methods, and cross section configurations used in design of roads.5.6 This test can be used to characterize specific behaviors of the geosynthetic under the conditions tested by including sensors to measure stresses and strains within the pavement cross section or on the geosynthetic itself. Sensors should be appropriately sized and installed to minimize their influence on the results of the test.5.7 The relationship between load cycles and deformation is a function of the composite stiffness of the constructed system and the interdependence between the individual components of the design.1.1 This standard test method outlines the procedure used to determine the performance of unpaved and paved roadway cross sections, with and without geosynthetics, that are built in a controlled manner and tested using a stationary, cyclic load applied to the surface to simulate traffic.1.2 Test section performance from these tests is normally calculated as a function of life extension, but can also be determined based on structural improvement. Life extension is related to the number of load cycles that can be accommodated by a particular configuration when compared to a similarly constructed control. Structural improvements are based on elemental or system-wide stiffness increases.1.3 The cyclic plate load (CPL) test is intended to be a performance test conducted as closely as possible to as-built unpaved and paved roadway cross sections. It has been used as a tool to compare different geosynthetics; soil types, strengths, and thicknesses; and construction procedures for a variety of pavement applications.1.4 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. Values in parentheses are for information only.1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

4.1 This test method can be used to describe the effects of materials, manufacturing, and design variables on the fatigue performance of metallic tibial trays subject to cyclic loading for relatively large numbers of cycles.4.2 The loading of tibial tray designs in vivo will, in general, differ from the loading defined in this practice. The results obtained here cannot be used to directly predict in vivo performance. However, this practice is designed to allow for comparisons between the fatigue performance of different metallic tibial tray designs, when tested under similar conditions.4.3 In order for fatigue data on tibial trays to be comparable, reproducible, and capable of being correlated among laboratories, it is essential that uniform procedures be established.1.1 This test method covers a procedure for the fatigue testing of metallic tibial trays used in partial knee joint replacements.1.2 This test method covers the procedures for the performance of fatigue tests on metallic tibial components using a cyclic, constant-amplitude force. It applies to tibial trays which cover either the medial or the lateral plateau of the tibia.1.3 This test method may require modifications to accommodate other tibial tray designs.1.4 This test method is intended to provide useful, consistent, and reproducible information about the fatigue performance of metallic tibial trays with unsupported mid-section of the condyle.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： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 The values obtained by this test method are applicable only to conditions that specifically duplicate the procedures used.5.2 After the regression characteristics of a pipe material and manufacturing process have been determined by this test method, one pressure may be used for quality-control purposes. This pressure shall be one of the points used in the original determination and be agreed upon between the individuals concerned.5.3 This test method deals with cyclic internal pressure performance of a pipe and omits creep and nonrecoverable deformation measurements.5.4 For determination of the cyclic hydrostatic design basis using data from this test method see Practice D2992.5.5 In the application of the following test requirements and recommendations it is assumed that test specimens of a given sample of pipe are truly representative of that material and manufacturing process. In tests conducted to show the effect of temperature and pressures on the life span of the pipe, great care must be taken to ensure that the specimens being tested are representative of the group being studied. Departure from this assumption could introduce discrepancies that are greater than those introduced by departure from the details of the procedure outlined in this test method.1.1 This test method covers the determination of the failure characteristics of reinforced plastic pipe when subjected to cyclic internal hydraulic pressure. It is limited to pipe in which the ratio of outside diameter to wall thickness is 10:1 or more.1.2 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as the standard. The values in parentheses are for information only.1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.NOTE 1: There is no known ISO equivalent to this standard.1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

4.1 The useful life of photovoltaic modules may depend on their ability to withstand repeated temperature cycling with varying amounts of moisture in the air. These test methods provide procedures for simulating the effects of cyclic temperature and humidity environments. An extended duration damp heat procedure is provided to simulate the effects of long term exposure to high humidity.4.2 The durations of the individual environmental tests are specified by use of this test method; however, commonly used durations are 50 and 200 thermal cycles, 10 humidity-freeze cycles, and 1000 h of damp heat exposure, as specified by module qualification standards such as IEC 61215 and IEC 61646. Longer durations can also be specified for extended duration module stress testing.4.3 Mounting—Test modules are mounted so that they are electrically isolated from each other, and in such a manner to allow free air circulation around the front and back surfaces of the modules.4.4 Current Biasing: 4.4.1 During the thermal cycling procedure, test modules are operated without illumination and with a forward-bias current equal to the maximum power point current at standard reporting conditions (SRC, see Test Methods E1036) flowing through the module circuitry.4.4.2 The current biasing is intended to stress the module interconnections and solder bonds in ways similar to those that are believed to be responsible for fill-factor degradation in field-deployed modules.4.5 Effects of Test Procedures—Data generated using these test methods may be used to evaluate and compare the effects of simulated environment on test specimens. These test methods require determination of both visible effects and electrical performance effects.4.5.1 Effects on modules may vary from none to significant changes. Some physical changes in the module may be visible when there are no apparent electrical changes in the module. Similarly, electrical changes may occur with no visible changes in the module.4.5.2 All conditions of measurement, effects of cycling, and any deviations from this test method must be described in the report so that an assessment of their significance can be made.4.6 Sequencing—If these test methods are performed as part of a combined sequence with other environmental or non-environmental tests, the results of the final electrical tests (6.2) and visual inspection (6.3) determined at the end of one test may be used as the initial electrical tests and visual inspection for the next test; duplication of these tests is not necessary unless so specified.1.1 These test methods provide procedures for stressing photovoltaic modules in simulated temperature and humidity environments. Environmental testing is used to simulate aging of module materials on an accelerated basis.1.2 Three individual environmental test procedures are defined by these test methods: a thermal cycling procedure, a humidity-freeze cycling procedure, and an extended duration damp heat procedure. Electrical biasing is utilized during the thermal cycling procedure to simulate stresses that are known to occur in field-deployed modules.1.3 These test methods define mounting methods for modules undergoing environmental testing, and specify parameters that must be recorded and reported.1.4 These test methods do not establish pass or fail levels. The determination of acceptable or unacceptable results is beyond the scope of these test methods.1.5 Any of the individual environmental tests may be performed singly, or may be combined into a test sequence with other environmental or non-environmental tests, or both. Certain pre-conditioning tests such as annealing or light soaking may also be necessary or desirable as part of such a sequence. The determination of any such sequencing and pre-conditioning is beyond the scope of this test method.1.6 These test procedures are limited in duration and therefore the results of these tests cannot be used to determine photovoltaic module lifetimes.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 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： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

3.1 In this test method, susceptibility to localized corrosion of aluminum is indicated by a protection potential (Eprot) determined by cyclic galvanostaircase polarization (1). The more noble this potential, the less susceptible is the alloy to initiation of localized corrosion. The results of this test method are not intended to correlate in a quantitative manner with the rate of propagation of localized corrosion that one might observe in service.3.2 The breakdown (Eb), and protection potentials (Eprot) determined by the cyclic GSCP method correlate with the constant potential corrosion test (immersion-glassware) result for aluminum (1, 6, 7). When the applied potential was more negative than the GSCP Eprot, no pit initiation was observed. When the applied potential was more positive than the GSCP Eprot, pitting occurred even when the applied potential was less negative than Eb.3.2.1 Severe crevice corrosion occurred when the separation of Eb and Eprot was 500 mV or greater and Eprot was less than −400 mV Vs. SCE (in 100 ppm NaCl) (1, 6, 8). For aluminum, Eprot determined by cyclic GSCP agrees with the repassivation potential determined by the scratch potentiostatic method (1, 9). Both the scratch potentiostatic method and the constant potential technique for determination of Eprot require much longer test times and are more involved techniques than the GSCP method.3.3 DeBerry and Viebeck (3-5) found that the breakdown potentials (Eb) (galvanodynamic polarization, similar to GSCP but no kinetic information) had a good correlation with the inhibition of localized corrosion of 304L stainless steel by surface active compounds. They attained accuracy and precision by avoiding the strong induction effect which they observed by the potentiodynamic technique.3.4 If this test method is followed using the specific alloy discussed it will provide (GSCP) measurements that will reproduce data developed at other times in other laboratories.3.5 Eb and Eprotobtained are based on the results from eight different laboratories that followed the standard procedure using aluminum alloy 3003-H14 (UNS A93003). Eb and Eprot are included with statistical analysis to indicate the acceptable range.1.1 This test method covers a procedure for conducting cyclic galvanostaircase polarization (GSCP) to determine relative susceptibility to localized corrosion (pitting and crevice corrosion) for aluminum alloy 3003-H14 (UNS A93003) (1).2 It may serve as guide for examination of other alloys (2-5). This test method also describes a procedure that can be used as a check for one's experimental technique and instrumentation.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： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

This practice can be used to describe the effects of materials, manufacturing, and design variables on the fatigue resistance of metallic stemmed femoral components subjected to cyclic loading for relatively large numbers of cycles. The recommended test assumes a “worst case” situation where proximal support for the stem has been lost. It is also recognized that for some materials the environment may have an effect on the response to cyclic loading. The test environment used and the rationale for the choice of that environment should be described in the report. It is recognized that actual in vivo loading conditions are not ofconstant amplitude. However, there is not sufficient information available to create standard load spectrums for metallic stemmed femoral components. Accordingly, a simple periodic constant amplitude force is recommended. In order for fatigue data on femoral stems to be useful for comparison, it must be reproducible among different laboratories. Consequently, it is essential that uniform procedures be established.1.1 This practice describes a method for the fatigue testing of metallic stemmed femoral components used in hip arthroplasty. The described method is intended to be used to evaluate the comparison of various designs and materials used for stemmed femoral components used in the arthroplasty. This practice covers procedures for the performance of fatigue tests using (as a forcing function) a periodic constant amplitude force. 1.2 This practice applies primarily to one-piece prostheses and modular components, with head in place such that prostheses should not have an anterior/posterior bow, and should have a nearly straight section on the distal 50 mm of the stem. This practice may require modifications to accommodate other femoral stem designs. 1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. 1.4 For additional information see Refs. (1-5) .

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

5.1 This test method is a standard procedure for determining structural performance under cyclic air pressure differential. This typically is intended to represent the long-term effects of repeated applications of wind load on exterior building surface elements or those loads that may be experienced during a hurricane or other extreme wind event. This test method is intended to be used for installations of window, curtain wall, and door assemblies for which the effects of cyclic or repeated loads may be significant factors in the in-service structural performance of the system and for which such effects cannot be determined by testing under a single application of uniform static air pressure. This test method is not intended to account for the effect of windborne debris. This test method is considered appropriate for testing unique constructions or for testing systems that have insufficient in-service records to establish their performance under cyclic loading.5.1.1 The actual loading on building surfaces is quite complex, varying with wind direction, time, height above ground, building shape, terrain, surrounding structures, and other factors. The resistance of many window, curtain wall, and door assemblies to wind loading is also complex and depends on the complete history of load magnitude, duration, and repetition. These factors are discussed in ASCE/SEI 7 and in the literature (1-12).55.2 This test method is not intended for use in evaluating the adequacy of glass for a particular application. When the structural performance of glass is to be evaluated, the procedure described in Standard Test Method E997 or E998 shall be used.5.3 The proper use of this test method requires knowledge of the principles of pressure and deflection measurement.5.4 Two types of cyclic air pressure differentials are defined: (Procedure A) Life cycle load (X1.1) and (Procedure B) Wind event load (X1.2). When testing under uniform static air pressure to establish structural performance, including performance under proof load, Standard Test Method E330/E330M applies. Consideration of windborne debris in combination with cyclic air pressure differential representing extreme wind events is addressed in Standard Test Method E1886 and Standard Specification E1996.5.5 Typical practice in the United States for the design and testing of exterior windows, curtain walls, and doors has been to consider only a one-time application of design wind load, increased by an appropriate factor of safety. This design wind load is based on wind velocities with actual average probabilities of occurrence of once in the design life of the structure. The actual in-field performance of such assemblies, however, is dependent on many complex factors, and there exists significant classes of applications where the effects of repeated or cyclic wind loading will be the dominating factor in the actual structural performance, even though the magnitudes of such cyclic loads may be substantially lower than the peak load to which the assembly will be subjected during its design life. Examples of assemblies for which the effects of cyclic loading may be significant are included in Appendix X2.5.5.1 When cyclic load effects are significant, the actual in-field performance of the assembly will depend on the complete load history to which the assembly is subjected. The history includes variable sustained loads as well as gusts, which occur at varying frequencies and durations. Such load histories are not deterministic, requiring the specifier to resort to a probabilistic approach for test parameters. The resistance of an assembly to cyclic loading is similarly complex. When available, endurance curves (stress/number (S/N) curves) can be used to estimate the fatigue resistance of a particular material. A major uncertainty in applying these data, however, is that the stress in an element induced by a unit pressure load is usually not known a priori. The problem is further complicated by the fact that the load to which the in situ assembly is subjected is not a repetitive load of given magnitude but one that varies in frequency, duration, and magnitude such as loads associated with a wind event.5.5.2 To establish practical test parameters, the considerations in 5.1 – 5.5.1 must be modeled by a simple loading program that approximates the actual loading with respect to its damage potential. For the case of life cycle loads, the anticipated actual loading may include critical pressures that will occur with greater frequency during the design life of the structure than is practical to use for testing. In such cases, the actual load magnitude and number of repetitions must be represented in the test by an equivalent load of larger magnitude and fewer repetitions. For the case of specific wind event loads, the entire test loading program may be developed from wind tunnel testing or by using methods defined in the literature.5.5.3 In this test method, the test assembly is first subjected to pressure cycles. The assembly is expected to survive this loading without apparent structural distress. Following this, the assembly is subjected to positive and negative maximum test loads. The maximum test loads may represent sustained loads or gust loads, or both.5.6 Design wind velocities may be selected for particular geographic locations and probabilities of occurrence based on data from wind velocity maps such as provided in ASCE/SEI 7.5.7 The person specifying the test must translate the anticipated wind velocities and durations into static air pressure differences and durations. Complexities of wind pressures as related to building design, wind intensity versus duration, frequency of occurrence, and other factors must be considered. Superimposed on sustained winds are gusting winds which, for short periods of time, from fractions of seconds to a few seconds, may move at considerably higher velocities than the sustained winds. Wind tunnel studies, computer simulations, and model analyses are helpful in determining the appropriate wind pressures for buildings by showing how a particular building acts under wind velocities established by others. (1-6).55.8 Specification of a test program based on a comprehensive treatment of all of the above considerations is a complex task. The procedures presented in Appendix X1 may be used to establish test parameters when a comprehensive analysis of the problem is not possible. The procedures account for the expected magnitude variation and occurrence frequency in wind velocities; they are not intended to account for turbulent wind load or structural resonance effects (2).5.9 Some materials have strength or deflection characteristics that are time dependent. Therefore, the duration of the applied test load may have a significant impact on the performance of materials used in the test specimen. The most common examples of materials with time-dependent response characteristics that are used in curtain walls are glass, plastics, and composites that employ plastics. For this reason, the strength of an assembly is tested for the actual time duration to which it would be exposed to a sustained or a gust load, or both, as discussed below. For practical purposes, cyclic load effects are to be considered to be duration-dependent, and the cyclic test loads need be applied only long enough for the chamber pressure to stabilize. In the past, practice in the United States generally has been to require a minimum test period for maximum test loads of 10 s for specified loads equal to 1.5 times the design pressure, unless otherwise specified. Thus a safety factor was incorporated in the testing. If the design wind load is determined through the analytical procedures of ASCE/SEI 7, the test load shall be based on the nominal loads derived from the load combinations used in allowable stress design. With higher test loads and longer time durations, the designer must also consider what safety factors are essential, particularly with regard to gust wind loads. Gust wind loads are of relatively short duration, so that care shall be exercised not to specify or allow unnecessarily long duration loads for purposes of testing the adequacy of the structure to withstand wind gusts.NOTE 1: In applying the results of tests by this test method, note that the performance of a wall or its components, or both, may be a function of fabrication, installation, and adjustment. The specimen may or may not truly represent every aspect of the actual structure. In service, the performance will also depend on the rigidity of the supporting construction and on the resistance of components to deterioration by various other causes, including vibration, thermal expansion, contraction, etc.1.1 This test method describes the determination of the structural performance of exterior windows, doors, skylights, and curtain walls under cyclic air pressure differential, using a test chamber. This test method is applicable to all curtain wall assemblies, including, but not limited to, metal, glass, masonry, and stone components.21.2 This test method is intended only for evaluating the structural performance associated with the specified test specimen, and not the structural performance of adjacent construction.1.3 Procedure A shall be used for life cycle test loads.1.4 Procedure B shall be used for wind event test loads.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. Specific hazard statements are given in Section 7.1.7 The text of this test method references notes and footnotes that provide explanatory materials. These notes and footnotes (excluding those in tables and figures) shall not be considered as requirements of the standard.1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

4.1 These test methods can be used to determine the effects of head and cone materials, design variables, manufacturing, and other conditions on the cyclic load-carrying ability of modular femoral heads mounted on the cones of femoral stem prostheses.4.2 The loading of modular femoral heads in vivo will, in general, differ from the loading defined in these methods. The results obtained here cannot be used to directly predict in-vivo performance. However, these methods are designed to allow for comparisons between the fatigue performance of different ceramic modular femoral head designs, when tested under similar conditions.4.3 These test methods may use actual femoral prostheses or neck-cone models of simplified geometry with the same geometrical and material characteristics as in the implants. In either case, the matching metallic cone region of the test specimen selected shall be of the same material, tolerances, and finish as the final femoral stem prosthesis.4.4 In the fatigue test methods, it is recognized that actual loading in vivo is quite varied, and that no one set of experimental conditions can encompass all possible variations. Thus, the test methods included here represent a simplified model for the purposes of comparisons between designs and materials. These test methods are intended to be performed in physiological solution.4.5 The test data may yield valuable information about the relative strengths of different head and cone designs.1.1 These test methods cover the evaluation of the cyclic fatigue strength of ceramic modular femoral heads, mounted on a cone as used on the femoral stem of the total hip arthroplasty.1.2 These test methods were primarily developed for evaluation of ceramic (Specification F603, ISO 6474-1, ISO 6474-2, ISO 13356) head designs on metal cones but may have application to other 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 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 Cyclic triaxial strength test results are used for evaluating the ability of a soil to resist the shear stresses induced in a soil mass due to earthquake or other cyclic loading.5.1.1 Cyclic triaxial strength tests may be performed at different values of effective confining pressure on isotropically consolidated specimens to provide data required for estimating the cyclic stability of a soil.5.1.2 Cyclic triaxial strength tests may be performed at a single effective confining pressure, usually equal to 100 kN/m2 [14.5 lb/in.2], or alternate pressures as appropriate on isotropically consolidated specimens to compare cyclic strength results for a particular soil type with that of other soils, Ref (2).5.2 The cyclic triaxial test is a commonly used technique for determining cyclic soil strength.5.3 Cyclic strength depends upon many factors, including density, confining pressure, applied cyclic shear stress, stress history, grain structure, age of soil deposit, specimen preparation procedure, and the frequency, uniformity, and shape of the cyclic wave form. Thus, close attention must be given to testing details and equipment.5.4 There are certain limitations inherent in using cyclic triaxial tests to simulate the stress and strain conditions of a soil element in the field during an earthquake.5.4.1 Nonuniform stress conditions within the test specimen are imposed by the specimen end platens. This can cause a redistribution of void ratio within the specimen during the test.5.4.2 A 90° change in the direction of the major principal stress occurs during the two halves of the loading cycle on isotropically consolidated specimens.5.4.3 The maximum cyclic shear stress that can be applied to the specimen is controlled by the stress conditions at the end of consolidation and the pore-water pressures generated during testing. For an isotropically consolidated contractive (volume decreasing) specimen tested in cyclic compression, the maximum cyclic shear stress that can be applied to the specimen is equal to one-half of the initial total axial pressure. Since cohesionless soils are not capable of taking tension, cyclic shear stresses greater than this value tend to lift the top platen from the soil specimen. Also, as the pore-water pressure increases during tests performed on isotropically consolidated specimens, the effective confining pressure is reduced, contributing to the tendency of the specimen to neck during the extension portion of the load cycle, invalidating test results beyond that point.5.4.4 While it is advised that the best possible intact specimens be obtained for cyclic strength testing, it is sometimes necessary to reconstitute soil specimens. It has been shown that different methods of reconstituting specimens to the same density may result in significantly different cyclic strengths. Also, intact specimens will almost always be stronger than reconstituted specimens.5.4.5 The interaction between the specimen, membrane, and confining fluid has an influence on cyclic behavior. Membrane compliance effects cannot be readily accounted for in the test procedure or in interpretation of test results. Changes in porewater pressure can cause changes in membrane penetration in specimens of cohesionless soils. These changes can significantly influence the test results.5.4.6 The mean total confining pressure is asymmetric during the compression and extension stress application when the chamber pressure is constant. This is totally different from the symmetric stress in the simple shear case of the level ground liquefaction.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.1.1 This test method covers the determination of the cyclic strength (sometimes called the liquefaction potential) of saturated soils in either intact or reconstituted states by the load-controlled cyclic triaxial technique.1.2 The cyclic strength of a soil is evaluated relative to a number of factors, including: the development of axial strain, magnitude of applied cyclic stress, number of cycles of stress application, development of excess pore-water pressure, and state of effective stress. A comprehensive review of factors affecting cyclic triaxial test results is contained in the literature (1).21.3 Cyclic triaxial strength tests are conducted under undrained conditions to simulate essentially undrained field conditions during earthquake or other cyclic loading.1.4 Cyclic triaxial strength tests are destructive. Failure may be defined on the basis of the number of stress cycles required to reach a limiting strain or 100 % pore pressure ratio. See Section 3 for Terminology.1.5 This test method is generally applicable for testing cohesionless free draining soils of relatively high permeability. When testing well-graded materials, silts, or clays, pore-water pressures monitored at the specimen ends may not represent pore-water pressure values throughout the specimen. However, this test method may be followed when testing most soil types if care is taken to ensure that problem soils receive special consideration when tested and when test results are evaluated.1.6 All observed and calculated values shall conform to the guide for significant digits and rounding established in Practice D6026. The procedures in Practice D6026 that are used to specify how data are collected, recorded, and calculated are regarded as the industry standard. In addition, they are representative of the significant digits that should generally be retained. The procedures do not consider material variation, purpose for obtaining the data, special purpose studies, or any considerations for the objectives of the user. Increasing or reducing the significant digits of reported data to be commensurate with these considerations is common practice. Consideration of the significant digits to be used in analysis methods for engineering design is beyond the scope of this standard.1.6.1 The method used to specify how data are collected, calculated, or recorded in this standard is not directly related to the accuracy to which the data can be applied in design or other uses, or both. How one applies the results obtained using this standard is beyond its scope.1.7 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound 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. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard. Reporting of test results in units other than SI shall not be regarded as nonconformance with this test method.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 and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元