定价： 260元 / 折扣价： 221 元 加购物车

定价： 260元 / 折扣价： 221 元 加购物车

5.1 Magnitude estimation may be used to measure and compare the intensities of attributes of a wide variety of products.5.2 Magnitude estimation provides a large degree of flexibility for both the experimenter and the assessor. Once trained in magnitude estimation, assessors are generally able to apply their skill to a wide variety of sample types and attributes, with minimal additional training.5.3 Magnitude estimation is not as susceptible to end-effects as interval scaling techniques. These can occur when assessors are not familiar with the entire range of sensations being presented. Under these circumstances, assessors may assign an early sample to a category which is too close to one end of the scale. Subsequently, they may “run out of scale” and be forced to assign perceptually different samples to the same category. This should not occur with magnitude estimation, as, in theory, there are an infinite number of categories.5.4 Magnitude estimation is one frequently used technique that permits the representation of data in terms of Stevens' Power Law.5.5 The disadvantages of magnitude estimation arise primarily from the requirements of the data analysis.5.5.1 Permitting each assessor to choose a different numerical scale may produce significant assessor effects. This disadvantage can be overcome in a number of ways, as follows. The experimenter must choose the approach most appropriate for the circumstances.5.5.1.1 Experiments can be designed such that analysis of variance can be used to remove the assessor effects and interactions.5.5.1.2 Alternatively, assessors can be forced to a common scale, either by training or by use of external reference samples with assigned values (modulus).5.5.1.3 Finally, each assessor's data can be brought to a common scale by one of a variety of normalizing methods.5.5.2 Logarithms must be applied before carrying out data analysis. This becomes problematic if values are near threshold, as a logarithm of zero cannot be taken (see 11.2.1).5.6 Magnitude estimation should be used:5.6.1 When end-effects are a concern, for example when assessors are not familiar with the entire range of sensations being presented.5.6.2 When Stevens' Power Law is to be applied to the data.5.6.3 Generally, in central location testing with assessors trained in the technique. It is not appropriate for home use or mall intercept testing with consumers.5.7 This test method is only meant to be used with assessors who are specifically trained in magnitude estimation. Do not use this method with untrained assessors or untrained consumers.1.1 This test method describes a procedure for the application of unipolar magnitude estimation to the evaluation of the magnitude of sensory attributes. The test method covers procedures for the training of assessors to produce magnitude estimations and statistical evaluation of the estimations.1.2 Magnitude estimation is a psychophysical scaling technique in which assessors assign numeric values to the magnitude of an attribute. The only constraint placed upon the assessor is that the values assigned should conform to a ratio principle. For example, if the attribute seems twice as strong in sample B when compared to sample A, sample B should receive a value which is twice the value assigned to sample A.1.3 The intensity of attributes such as pleasantness, sweetness, saltiness or softness can be evaluated using magnitude estimation.1.4 Magnitude estimation may provide advantages over other scaling methods, particularly when the number of assessors and the time available for training are limited. With approximately 1 h of training, a panel of 15 to 20 naive individuals can produce data of adequate precision and reproducibility. Any additional training that may be required to ensure that the assessors can properly identify the attribute being evaluated is beyond the scope of this test method.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

4.1 All measurements, including dose measurements, have an associated uncertainty. The magnitude of the measurement uncertainty is important for assessing the quality of the results of the measurement system.4.2 Information on the range of achievable uncertainty values for specific dosimetry systems is given in the ISO/ASTM standards for the specific dosimetry systems. While the uncertainty values given in specific dosimetry standards are achievable, it should be noted that both smaller and larger uncertainty values might be obtained depending on measurement conditions and instrumentation. For more information see also ISO/ASTM 52628.4.3 This guide uses the methodology adopted by the GUM for estimating uncertainties in measurements (see 2.4). Therefore, components of uncertainty are evaluated as either Type A uncertainty or Type B uncertainty.4.4 Quantifying individual components of uncertainty may assist the user in identifying actions to reduce the measurement uncertainty.4.5 Periodically, the uncertainty should be reassessed to confirm the existing estimate. Should changes occur that could influence the existing component estimates or result in the addition of new components of uncertainty, a new estimate of uncertainty should be established.4.6 Although this guide provides a framework for assessing uncertainty, it cannot substitute for critical thinking, intellectual honesty, and professional skill. The evaluation of uncertainty is neither a routine task nor a purely mathematical one; it depends on detailed knowledge of the nature of the measurand and of the measurement method and procedure used. The quality and utility of the uncertainty quoted for the result of a measurement therefore ultimately depends on the understanding, critical analysis, and integrity of those who contribute to the assignment of its value (JCGM 100:2008).1.1 This standard provides guidance on the use of concepts described in the JCGM Evaluation of Measurement Data – Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) to estimate the uncertainties in the measurement of absorbed dose in radiation processing.1.2 Methods are given for identifying, evaluating and estimating the components of measurement uncertainty associated with the use of dosimetry systems and for calculating combined standard measurement uncertainty and expanded (overall) uncertainty of dose measurements based on the GUM methodology.1.3 Examples are given on how to develop a measurement uncertainty budget and a statement of uncertainty.1.4 This document is one of a set of standards that provides recommendations for properly implementing dosimetry in radiation processing, and provides guidance for achieving compliance with the requirements of ISO/ASTM 52628 related to the evaluation and documentation of the uncertainties associated with measurements made with a dosimetry system. It is intended to be read in conjunction with ISO/ASTM 52628, ISO/ASTM 51261 and ISO/ASTM 52701.1.5 This guide does not address the establishment of process specifications or conformity assessment.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 and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

定价： 777元 / 折扣价： 661 元 加购物车

5.1 Knowledge of gas solubility is of extreme importance in the lubrication of gas compressors. It is believed to be a substantial factor in boundary lubrication, where the sudden release of dissolved gas may cause cavitation erosion, or even collapse of the fluid film. In hydraulic and seal oils, gas dissolved at high pressure can cause excessive foaming on release of the pressure. In aviation oils and fuels, the difference in pressure between take-off and cruise altitude can cause foaming in storage vessels and interrupt flow to pumps.1.1 This test method covers a procedure for estimating the equilibrium solubility of several common gases in petroleum and synthetic lubricants, fuels, and solvents, at temperatures between 0 and 488 K.1.2 This test method is limited to systems in which polarity and hydrogen bonding are not strong enough to cause serious deviations from regularity. Specifically excluded are such gases as HCl, NH3, and SO2, and hydroxy liquids such as alcohols, glycols, and water. Estimating the solubility of CO2 in nonhydrocarbons is also specifically excluded.1.3 Highly aromatic oils such as diphenoxy phenylene ethers violate the stated accuracy above 363 K, at which point the estimate for nitrogen solubility is 43 % higher than the observation.1.4 Lubricants are given preference in this test method to the extent that certain empirical factors were adjusted to the lubricant data. Estimates for distillate fuels are made from the lubricant estimates by a further set of empirical factors, and are less accurate. Estimates for halogenated solvents are made as if they were hydrocarbons, and are the least accurate of the three.1.5 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values in parentheses are for information only.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： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

5.1 In the United States, high sulfur content (defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)) middle distillate products and diesel fuel used for off-road purposes, other than aviation turbine fuel, are required by government agencies to contain red dye. The dye concentration required to be present in high-sulfur and off-road diesel products is regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Internal Revenue Service, respectively.5.2 Some fuels that are readily exchanged in the market have a color specification. The color of the base fuel is masked by the presence of the red dye. This test method provides a means of estimating the base color of Number 1 and Number 2 diesel fuel and heating oil in the presence of red dye.5.3 The test method provides a means to indicate conformance to contractual and legal requirements.1.1 This test method covers the determination of the red dye concentration of diesel fuel and heating oil and the estimation of the ASTM color of undyed and red-dyed diesel fuel and heating oil. The test method is appropriate for use with diesel fuel and heating oil of Grades 1 and 2 described in Specifications D396, D975, D2880, and D3699. Red dye concentrations are determined at levels equivalent to 0.1 mg/L to 20 mg/L of Solvent Red 26 in samples with ASTM colors ranging from 0.5 to 5. The ASTM color of the base fuel of red-dyed samples with concentration levels equivalent to 0.1 mg/L to 20 mg/L of Solvent Red 26 is estimated for the ASTM color range from 0.5 to 5. The ASTM color of undyed samples is estimated over the ASTM color range of 0.5 to 5.1.2 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 and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

4.1 Application: 4.1.1 LNAPL transmissivity is an accurate metric for understanding LNAPL recovery, is directly proportional to LNAPL recoverability and tracking remediation progress towards residual LNAPL saturation.4.1.2 LNAPL transmissivity can be used to estimate the rate of recovery for a given drawdown from various technologies.4.1.3 LNAPL transmissivity is not an intrinsic aquifer property but rather a summary metric based on the aquifer properties, LNAPL physical properties, and the magnitude of LNAPL saturation over a given interval of aquifer.4.1.4 LNAPL transmissivity will vary over time with changing conditions such as, seasonal fluctuations in water table, changing hydrogeologic conditions and with variability in LNAPL impacts (that is, interval that LNAPL flows over in the formation and LNAPL pore space saturation) within the formation.4.1.5 Any observed temporal or spatial variability in values derived from consistent data collection and analysis methods of LNAPL transmissivity is not erroneous, rather is indicative of the actual variability in subsurface conditions related to the parameters encompassed by LNAPL transmissivity (that is, fluid pore space saturation, soil permeability, fluid density, fluid viscosity, and the interval that LNAPL flows over in the formation).4.1.6 LNAPL transmissivity is a more accurate metric for evaluating recoverability and mobile LNAPL than gauged LNAPL thickness. Gauged LNAPL thickness does not account for soil permeability, magnitude of LNAPL saturation above residual saturation, or physical fluid properties of LNAPL (that is, density, interfacial tension, and viscosity).4.1.7 The accurate calculation of LNAPL transmissivity requires certain aspects of the LNAPL Conceptual Site Model (LCSM) to be completely understood and defined in order to calculate LNAPL drawdown correctly. The methodologies for development of the LCSM are provided in Guide E2531. The general conceptual site model aspects applicable to this guide include:4.1.7.1 Equilibrium fluid levels (for example, air/LNAPL and LNAPL/water).4.1.7.2 Soil profile over which LNAPL is mobile.4.1.7.3 LNAPL hydrogeologic scenario (for example, unconfined, confined, perched, macro pores, and so forth).4.1.7.4 LNAPL density.4.1.7.5 Hydraulic conductivity for each soil type within the well screen interval.4.1.7.6 Well screen interval in the vadose and saturated zones.4.1.8 Incorporation of LNAPL transmissivity can further LCSMs by providing a single comparable metric that quantifies LNAPL recoverability at individual locations across a site.4.1.9 Each of the methods provided in this document is applicable to LNAPL in confined, unconfined, and perched conditions. Any differences in evaluation are discussed in Section 5.4.2 Purpose—The methods used to calculate LNAPL transmissivity have been published over the past 20 years; however little effort has been focused on providing quality assurance for individual tests or refinement of field procedures. In addition to summarizing the existing methods to calculate LNAPL transmissivity, this document will provide guidance on refined field procedures for data collection and minimum requirements for data sets before they are used to calculate LNAPL transmissivity.4.2.1 Considerations—The following section provides a brief review of considerations associated with LNAPL transmissivity testing.4.2.1.1 Aquifer Conditions (confined, unconfined, perched)—In general, each testing type is applicable to confined, unconfined, and perched conditions; however, consideration should be given to how LNAPL drawdown is calculated from well gauging data relative to formation conditions. Calculation of LNAPL transmissivity for confined and perched conditions is possible; however, the soil profile needs to be considered in combination with the fluid levels to accurately calculate drawdown. Drawdown values for perched and confined conditions can easily be overestimated without proper consideration. This results in LNAPL transmissivity being underestimated. The calculations of drawdown under perched and confined conditions are discussed within this document. Tidal influences or a vertical gradient on the water table also affect measurements and could distort the transmissivity results. Tidal influences are discussed in more detail in Appendix X1.4.2.1.2 Well Construction—Any well being tested should be screened over the entire mobile interval of LNAPL. For locations where multiple discrete mobile intervals exist, it may be preferable to screen individual wells across each mobile interval. This will simplify the calculation of drawdown and derivation of LNAPL transmissivity. The interval of mobile LNAPL does not always correspond to the elevation of the air/LNAPL interface (for example, the mobile interval can be beneath the base of a confining layer under confined conditions). Appropriately screened wells can be substantiated based on vertical delineation of the entire LNAPL impacted interval (see Guide E2531).4.2.1.3 LNAPL Type—No limitations have been identified for LNAPL type. However, the specific gravity of the LNAPL must contrast with that of the water to be measurable with an interface probe.4.2.1.4 Well Development—In order to derive the most accurate LNAPL transmissivity value, appropriate well development should be conducted to ensure connectivity between LNAPL in the formation and the well (Hampton 2003) (3). Industry experience has observed that LNAPL can require up to several months following well installation to saturate the filter pack and establish connectivity within the well. Well development can help to reduce this time frame and should be completed in accordance with Guide D5521.4.2.2 Analysis Method—An understanding of the analysis method and theory is necessary prior to the field testing to ensure that all appropriate dimensions and measurements are properly recorded.4.3 Precision and Bias—At this time this document aims to provide methodologies for data collection and analysis to yield an accuracy of LNAPL transmissivity values within a factor of two (compared with the unknown actual value). This modest accuracy is reasonable based on the overall industry experience in implementing these procedures and the lack of comparison studies. The objectives initiated through development of this document are to provide improved guidance for more consistent data collection and analysis methodology, which in turn will provide a larger and more accurate data set on which to base future methodology revisions and improvements.1.1 This guide provides field data collection and calculation methodologies for the estimation of light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) transmissivity in unconsolidated porous sediments. The methodologies presented herein may, or may not be, applicable to other hydrogeologic regimes (for example, karst, fracture flow). LNAPL transmissivity represents the volume of LNAPL (L3) through a unit width (L) of aquifer per unit time (t) per unit drawdown (L) with units of (L2/T). LNAPL transmissivity is a directly proportional metric for LNAPL recoverability whereas other metrics such as apparent LNAPL thickness gauged in wells do not exhibit a consistent relationship to recoverability. The recoverability for a given gauged LNAPL thickness in a well will vary between different soil types, LNAPL types or hydrogeologic conditions. LNAPL transmissivity accounts for those parameters and conditions. LNAPL transmissivity values can be used in the following five ways: (1) Estimate LNAPL recovery rate for multiple technologies; (2) Identify trends in recoverability via mapping; (3) Applied as a leading (startup) indicator for recovery; (4) Applied as a lagging (shutdown) indicator for LNAPL recovery; and (5) Applied as a robust calibration metric for multi-phase models (Hawthorne and Kirkman, 2011 (1)2 and ITRC ((2)). The methodologies for LNAPL transmissivity estimation provided in this document include short-term aquifer testing methods (LNAPL baildown/slug testing and manual LNAPL skimming testing), and long-term methods (that is, LNAPL recovery system performance analysis, and LNAPL tracer testing). The magnitude of transmissivity of any fluid in the subsurface is controlled by the same variables (that is, fluid pore space saturation, soil permeability, fluid density, fluid viscosity, the interval that LNAPL flows over in the formation and the gravitational acceleration constant). A direct mathematical relationship exists between the transmissivity of a fluid and the discharge of that fluid for a given induced drawdown. The methodologies are generally aimed at measuring the relationship of discharge versus drawdown for the occurrence of LNAPL in a well, which can be used to estimate the transmissivity of LNAPL in the formation. The focus, therefore, is to provide standard methodology on how to obtain accurate measurements of these two parameters (that is, discharge and drawdown) for multi-phase occurrences to estimate LNAPL transmissivity.1.2 Organization of this Guide: 1.2.1 Section 2 presents documents referenced.1.2.2 Section 3 presents terminology used.1.2.3 Section 4 presents significance and use.1.2.4 Section 5 presents general information on four methods for data collection related to LNAPL transmissivity calculation. This section compares and contrasts the methods in a way that will allow a user of this guide to assess which method most closely aligns with the site conditions and available data collection opportunities.1.2.5 Sections 6 and 7 presents the test methods for each of the four data collection options. After reviewing Section 5 and selecting a test method, a user of this guide shall then proceed to the applicable portion of Sections 6 and 7 which describes the detailed test methodology for the selected method.1.2.6 Section 8 presents data evaluation methods. After reviewing Section 5 and the pertinent test method section(s) of Sections 6 and 7, the user of this guide shall then proceed to the applicable portion(s) of Section 8 to understand the methodologies for evaluation of the data which will be collected. It is highly recommended that the test methods and data evaluation procedures be understood prior to initiating data collection.1.3 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.1.4 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 document is applicable to wells exhibiting LNAPL consistently (that is, LNAPL transmissivity values above zero). This methodology does not substantiate zero LNAPL transmissivity; rather the lack of detection of LNAPL within the well combined with proper well development and purging procedures are required to confirm zero LNAPL transmissivity.1.6 This document cannot replace education or experience and should be used in conjunction with professional competence in the hydrogeology field and expertise in the behavior of LNAPL in the subsurface.1.7 This document cannot be assumed to be a substitute for or replace any laws or regulations whether federal, state, tribal or local.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： 983元 / 折扣价： 836 元 加购物车

5.1 Manufacturers of thermal insulation for valves typically express the performance of their products in charts and tables showing heat loss per valve. These data are presented for both bare and insulated valves of different pipe sizes, ANSI classes, insulation types, insulation thicknesses, and service temperatures. Additional information on effects of wind velocity, jacket emittance, bare valve emittance, and ambient conditions are also required to properly select an insulation system. Due to the infinite combination of pipe sizes, ANSI classes, insulation types and thicknesses, service temperatures, insulation cover geometries, surface emittance values, and ambient conditions, it is not possible to publish data for each possible case.5.2 Users of thermal insulation for piping systems faced with the problem of designing large systems of insulated piping, encounter substantial engineering costs to obtain the required thermal information. This cost can be substantially reduced by both the use of accurate engineering data tables, or by the use of available computer analysis tools, or both.5.3 The use of this practice by the manufacturer, contractor, and users of thermal insulation for valves and flanges will provide standardized engineering data of sufficient accuracy and consistency for predicting the savings in heating energy use by insulating bare valves and flanges.5.4 Computers are now readily available to most producers and consumers of thermal insulation to permit use of this practice.5.5 The computer program in Practice C680 has been developed to calculate the heat loss per unit length, or per unit surface area, of both bare and insulated pipe. With values for bare valve or flange surface areas, heat loss can be estimated. By estimating the outer insulation surface area from an insulation manufacturer's or contractor's drawings, the heat loss from the insulation surface can likewise be calculated by taking the product of heat loss per unit area (from programs conforming to Practice C680) and the valve or flange insulation surface area. The area of the uninsulated surfaces also will need to be considered.5.6 The use of this practice requires that the valve or flange insulation system meets either Specification C1695 for removeable/reuseable or the Adjunct to Practice C4503 for insulation fabricated from rigid board and pipe insulation.1.1 The mathematical methods included in this practice provide a calculational procedure for estimating heat loss or heat savings when thermal insulation is added to bare valves and flanges.1.2 Questions of applicability to real systems should be resolved by qualified personnel familiar with insulation systems design and analysis.1.3 Estimated accuracy is limited by the following:1.3.1 The range and quality of the physical property data for the insulation materials and system,1.3.2 The accuracy of the methodology used in calculation of the bare valve and insulation surface areas, and the quality of workmanship, fabrication, and installation.1.4 This procedure is considered applicable both for conventional-type insulation systems and for removable/reuseable covers. In both cases, for purposes of heat transfer calculations, the insulation system is assumed to be homogenous.1.5 This practice does not intend to establish the criteria required in the design of the equipment over which thermal insulation is used, nor does this practice establish or recommend the applicability of thermal insulation over all surfaces.1.6 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.1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 In the United States, high sulfur content distillate products and diesel fuel used for off-road purposes, other than aviation turbine fuel, are required to contain red dye. A similar dye requirement exists for tax-free distillates. Contamination of aviation turbine fuel by small quantities of red dye has occurred. Such contamination presents major problems because airframe and engine manufacturers have severely limited operation on aviation turbine fuel containing red dye.5.2 An alternate methodology for the determination of the presence of red dye in aviation turbine fuel is the observation of the color of the fuel when placed in a white bucket. The presence of the dye can be masked in aviation turbine fuels having dark Saybolt color. This test method provides an objective means of quickly measuring red dye concentration, but to avoid confusion with trace levels of other materials which will be indicated by the instrument, the method requires that instrument readings below 0.026 mg/L be reported as No Dye Present.5.3 The color of the base fuel is masked by the presence of the red dye. This test method provides a means of estimating the base color of aviation turbine fuel and kerosine in the presence of red dye.1.1 This test method covers the determination of the red dye concentration of aviation turbine fuel and kerosine and the estimation of the Saybolt color of undyed and red dyed (<0.750 mg/L of Solvent Red 26 equivalent) aviation turbine fuel and kerosine. The test method is appropriate for use with aviation turbine fuel and kerosine described in Specifications D1655 and D3699. Red dye concentrations are determined at levels equivalent to 0.026 mg/L to 0.750 mg/L of Solvent Red 26 in samples with Saybolt colors ranging from +30 to –16. The Saybolt color of the base fuel for samples dyed red with concentration levels equivalent to 0.026 mg/L to 0.750 mg/L of Solvent Red 26 is estimated in the Saybolt Color range +30 to –16. The Saybolt Color for undyed samples is estimated in the Saybolt color range from +30 to –16.1.2 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： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

4.1 This test method provides a means of calculating the mean relative molecular mass of petroleum oils from another physical measurement.4.2 Mean relative molecular mass is a fundamental physical constant that can be used in conjunction with other physical properties to characterize hydrocarbon mixtures.1.1 This test method covers the estimation of the mean relative molecular mass of petroleum oils from kinematic viscosity measurements at 100 °F and 210 °F (37.78 °C and 98.89 °C).2 It is applicable to samples with mean relative molecular masses in the range from 250 to 700 and is intended for use with average petroleum fractions. It should not be applied indiscriminately to oils that represent extremes of composition or possess an exceptionally narrow mean relative molecular mass range.1.2 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

5.1 Appropriate application of this practice should result in an estimate of the test-method’s uncertainty (at any concentration within the working range), which can be compared with data-quality objectives to see if the uncertainty is acceptable.5.2 With data sets that compare recovered concentration with true concentration, the resulting regression plot allows the correction of the recovery data to true values. Reporting of such corrections is at the discretion of the user.5.3 This practice should be used to estimate the measurement uncertainty for any application of a test method where measurement uncertainty is important to data use.1.1 This practice establishes a standard for computing the measurement uncertainty for applicable test methods in Committee D19 on Water. The practice does not provide a single-point estimate for the entire working range, but rather relates the uncertainty to concentration. The statistical technique of regression is employed during data analysis.1.2 Applicable test methods are those whose results come from regression-based methods and whose data are intra-laboratory (not inter-laboratory data, such as result from round-robin studies). For each analysis conducted using such a method, it is assumed that a fixed, reproducible amount of sample is introduced.1.3 Calculation of the measurement uncertainty involves the analysis of data collected to help characterize the analytical method over an appropriate concentration range. Example sources of data include: (1) calibration studies (which may or may not be conducted in pure solvent), (2) recovery studies (which typically are conducted in matrix and include all sample-preparation steps), and (3) collections of data obtained as part of the method’s ongoing Quality Control program. Use of multiple instruments, multiple operators, or both, and field-sampling protocols may or may not be reflected in the data.1.4 In any designed study whose data are to be used to calculate method uncertainty, the user should think carefully about what the study is trying to accomplish and much variation should be incorporated into the study. General guidance on designing studies (for example, calibration, recovery) is given in Appendix X1. Detailed guidelines on sources of variation are outside the scope of this practice, but general points to consider are included in Appendix X2, which is not intended to be exhaustive. With any study, the user must think carefully about the factors involved with conducting the analysis, and must realize that the computed measurement uncertainty will reflect the quality of the input data.1.5 Associated with the measurement uncertainty is a user-chosen level of statistical confidence.1.6 At any concentration in the working range, the measurement uncertainty is plus-or-minus the half-width of the prediction interval associated with the regression line.1.7 It is assumed that the user has access to a statistical software package for performing regression. A statistician should be consulted if assistance is needed in selecting such a program.1.8 A statistician also should be consulted if data transformations are being considered.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： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 The significance of the number of scratches as far as correlation with field performance is concerned has not been established. A particle which is abrasive to plastic will not necessarily be abrasive to steel or other bearing materials. Some correlation was obtained in that the contaminant used in Sample 3 (see 10.1.1) had a greater wear rate in a laboratory ball bearing abrasive wear test than the contaminant in Sample 2.NOTE 1: The number of scratches obtained cannot be used to draw fine differences between greases, but rather, to group them into two or three general classes. One such possible division could be:  1 ... . less than 10 scratches  2 ... . 10 to 40 scratches  3 ... . more than 40 scratches5.2 An advantage of this test method is that each test takes only a few minutes to run.5.3 This test method is used for quality control and specification purpose.1.1 This test method covers a procedure for the detection and estimation of deleterious particles in lubricating grease.1.2 This test method is applicable to all lubricating greases. It can also be used to test other semi-solid or viscous materials. Grease fillers, such as graphite and molybdenum disulfide, can be tested for abrasive contaminants by first mixing them into petrolatum or grease known to be free of deleterious particles.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 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. Within the text, the SI units are shown in brackets.1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

4.1 This test method is intended for use as a guide in cases where an experimental determination of heat of combustion is not available and cannot be made conveniently, and where an estimate is considered satisfactory. It is not intended as a substitute for experimental measurements of heat of combustion.Note 3—The procedure for the experimental determination of the net heat of combustion is described in Test Methods D240 and D4809.1.1 This test method covers the estimation of the net heat of combustion at constant pressure in SI units (megajoules per kilogram) or inch-pound units [Btu per pound].1.2 This test method is purely empirical and is applicable only to liquid hydrocarbon fuels derived by normal refining processes from conventional crude oil, which conform to the requirements of specifications for aviation gasolines, or aircraft turbine and jet engine fuels of limited boiling ranges and compositions as described in Note 1.Note 1—The estimation of the net heat of combustion of a hydrocarbon fuel from aniline-gravity product is justifiable only when the fuel belongs to a well-defined class for which a relation between heat of combustion and aniline-gravity product has been derived from accurate experimental measurements on representative samples of that class. Even in this case, the possibility that the estimates may be in error by large amounts for individual fuels should be recognized. The classes of fuels used to establish the correlation presented in this test method are represented by the following specifications:Fuel SpecificationAviation gasoline fuels: Specification D910Grades 80, 82, 100/130, and 115/145 Specification D6227  DEF STAN 91–90  NATO Code F-18 Aviation turbine fuels: MIL-DTL-5624JP-4,Avtag/FSII DEF STAN 91–88  NATO Code F-40 JP-5,Avcat/FSII MIL-DTL-5624  DEF STAN 91–86  NATO Code F-44 Jet A, Jet A-1, Avtur Specification D1655  DEF STAN 91–91  NATO Code F-351.3 This test method is not applicable to pure hydrocarbons. It is not intended as a substitute for experimental measurements of heat of combustion.1.4 The heat of combustion may also be determined in SI units by Test Method D4529. Test Method D4529 requires calculation of a single equation for all aviation fuels with a precision equivalent to that of this test method.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 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.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 and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

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

定价： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

Ranked set sampling is cost-effective, unbiased, more precise and more representative of the population than simple random sampling under a variety of conditions (1).3Ranked set sampling (RSS) can be used when:4.2.1 The population is likely to have stratification in concentrations of contaminant.4.2.2 There is an auxiliary variable.4.2.3 The auxiliary variable has strong correlation with the primary variable.4.2.4 The auxiliary variable is either quick or inexpensive to measure, relative to the primary variable.This guide provides a ranked set sampling method only under the rule of equal allocation. This guide is intended for those who manage, design, and implement sampling and analysis plans for management of wastes and contaminated media. This guide can be used in conjunction with the DQO process (see Practice D 5792).1.1 This guide describes ranked set sampling, discusses its relative advantages over simple random sampling, and provides examples of potential applications in environmental sampling.1.2 Ranked set sampling is useful and cost-effective when there is an auxiliary variable, which can be inexpensively measured relative to the primary variable, and when the auxiliary variable has correlation with the primary variable. The resultant estimation of the mean concentration is unbiased, more precise than simple random sampling, and more representative of the population under a wide variety of conditions.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