5.1 Although it would be desirable to measure the extent of profile distortion in any unknown sample by using a standard sample and this guide, measurements of interface width (profile distortion) can be unique to every sample composition (1, 2).4 This guide, describes a method that determines the unique width of a particular interface for the chosen set of operating conditions. It is intended to provide a method for checking on proper or consistent, or both, instrument performance. Periodic analysis of the same sample followed by a measurement of the interface width, in accordance with this guide, will provide these checks.5.2 The procedure described in this guide is adaptable to any layered sample with an interface between layers in which a nominated element is present in one layer and absent from the other. It has been shown that for SIMS in particular (3, 4) and for surface analysis in general (5, 6), only rigorous calibration methods can determine accurate interface widths. Such procedures are prohibitively time-consuming. Therefore the interface width measurement obtained using the procedure described in this guide may contain significant systematic error (7). Therefore, this measure of interface width may have no relation to similar measures made with other methods. However, this does not diminish its use as a check on proper or consistent instrument performance, or both.5.3 This guide can be used for both elemental and molecular depth profiles, provided that the materials have constant sputter rates throughout the depth of the overlayer, and minimal interlayer mixing is occurring. For more detailed information regarding measurements of interface widths during organic depth profiling, please see Mahoney (8).1.1 This guide provides the SIMS analyst with a method for determining the width of interfaces from SIMS sputtering data obtained from analyses of layered specimens (both organic and inorganic). This guide does not apply to data obtained from analyses of specimens with thin markers or specimens without interfaces such as ion-implanted specimens.1.2 This guide does not describe methods for the optimization of interface width or the optimization of depth resolution.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

定价： 260元 / 折扣价： 221 元 加购物车

1.1 In this specification, the standard of performance for weather information reports, analyses, and services performed by a weather information provider (WIP) in support of extensible traffic management (xTM) systems, unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) systems operating from the surface to 5000 ft (1524 m) above ground level (AGL) are addressed.1.2 This specification does not define how to report a meteorological aerodrome report (METAR). This specification supports evolving international and the sovereign civil aviation authority (CAA) and air navigation service provider (ANSP) regulations.1.3 Relationship to International WIP Standards—One objective of this specification is to harmonize the standard across CAAs internationally to enable subject matter compatibility across standards developed by other standards development organizations (SDOs). The existence of multiple standards for the same subject matter can occur when a region’s regulator requires that a necessary standard be developed by a particular SDO. In these cases, ASTM International may seek to establish a cooperative arrangement with the applicable SDO to ensure consistency between the related standards.1.4 This specification provides an initial version to provide guidance to commercial aviation operations including, but not limited to, UAS and VTOL users, for weather measurements and analyses. Research and development activities will continue to inform and lead to modifications to this specification.1.5 This specification will not cover the standard of performance for weather forecasts.1.6 Units—The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as the 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, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.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

5.1 The procedure described in this test method for determination of the shear resistance of the soil and geosynthetic or geosynthetic and geosynthetic interface is intended as a performance test to provide the user with a set of design values for the test conditions examined. The test specimens and conditions, including normal stresses, are generally selected by the user.5.2 This test method may be used for acceptance testing of commercial shipments of geosynthetics, but caution is advised as outlined in 5.2.1.5.2.1 The shear resistance can be expressed only in terms of actual test conditions (see Notes 2 and 3). The determined value may be a function of the applied normal stress, material characteristics (for example, of the geosynthetic), soil properties, size of sample, moisture content, drainage conditions, displacement rate, magnitude of displacement, and other parameters.NOTE 2: In the case of acceptance testing requiring the use of soil, the user must furnish the soil sample, soil parameters, and direct shear test parameters. The method of test data interpretation for purposes of acceptance should be mutually agreed to by the users of this test method.NOTE 3: Testing under this test method should be performed by laboratories qualified in the direct shear testing of soils and meeting the requirements of Practice D3740, especially since the test results may depend on site-specific and test conditions.5.2.2 This test method measures the total resistance to shear between a geosynthetic and a supporting material (substratum) or a geosynthetic and an overlying material (superstratum). The total shear resistance may be a combination of sliding, rolling, and interlocking of material components.5.2.3 This test method does not distinguish between individual mechanisms, which may be a function of the soil and geosynthetic used, method of material placement and hydration, normal and shear stresses applied, means used to hold the geosynthetic in place, rate of shear displacement, and other factors. Every effort should be made to identify, as closely as practicable, the sheared area and failure mode of the specimen. Care should be taken, including close visual inspection of the specimen after testing, to ensure that the testing conditions are representative of those being investigated.5.2.4 Information on precision among laboratories is incomplete. In cases of dispute, comparative tests to determine whether a statistical bias exists among laboratories may be advisable.5.3 The test results can be used in the design of geosynthetic applications including, but not limited to: the design of liners and caps for landfills, mining heap leach pads, tailings impoundments, cutoffs for dams and other hydraulic barriers, geosynthetic-reinforced retaining walls, embankments, and base courses; in applications in which the geosynthetic is placed on a slope; for determination of geosynthetic overlap requirements; or in other applications in which sliding may occur between soil and a geosynthetic or between two geosynthetic materials.5.4 The displacement at which peak strength and post-peak strength occurs and the shape of the shear stress versus shear displacement curve may differ considerably from one test device to another due to differences in specimen mounting, gripping surfaces, and material preparation. The user of results from this test method is cautioned that results at a specified displacement may not be reproducible across laboratories and that the relative shear displacement measured in this test at peak strength may not match relative shear displacement at peak strength in a field condition.1.1 This test method covers a procedure for determining the shear resistance of a geosynthetic against soil, or a geosynthetic against another geosynthetic, under a constant rate of deformation.1.1.1 The test method is intended to indicate the performance of the selected specimen by attempting to model certain field conditions. Results obtained from this method may be limited in their applicability to the specific conditions considered in the testing.1.2 The test method is applicable for all geosynthetics, with the exception of geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs), which are addressed in Test Method D6243/D6243M.1.3 The test method is not suited for the development of exact stress-strain relationships for the test specimen due to the nonuniform distribution of shearing forces and displacement.1.4 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 nonconformance with the standard.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： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

定价： 2184元 / 折扣价： 1857 元

This part of ISO/IEC 14165 describes the physical interface portions of a high performance serial link that supports the higher Upper Level Protocols (ULPs) associated with HIPPI, IPI, SCSI, IP and others.

定价： 1729元 / 折扣价： 1470 元

5.1 The modular interfaces of total joint prostheses are subjected to micromotion that could result in fretting and corrosion. The release of corrosion products and particulate debris could stimulate adverse biological reactions, as well as lead to accelerated wear at the articulation interface. Methods to assess the stability and corrosion resistance of the modular interfaces, therefore, are an essential component of device testing.5.2 Long-term in-vitro testing is essential to produce damage and debris from fretting of a modular interface (4, 5). The use of proteinaceous solutions is recommended to best simulate the in-vivo environment.5.3 Short-term tests often can be useful in evaluations of differences in design during device development (1-4). The electrochemical methods provide semiquantitative measures of fretting corrosion rates. The relative contributions of mechanical and electrochemical processes to the total corrosion and particulate release phenomena, however, have not been established; therefore, these tests should not be utilized to compare the effects of changes in material combinations, but rather be utilized to evaluate design changes of bore (head) and cone (stem) components.5.4 These tests are recommended for evaluating the fretting wear and corrosion of modular interfaces of hip femoral head and stem components. Similar methods may be applied to other modular interfaces where fretting corrosion is of concern.5.5 These methods are recommended for comparative evaluation of the fretting wear and corrosion of new materials, coatings, or designs, or a combination thereof, under consideration for hip femoral head and neck modular interfaces. Components for testing may be those of a manufactured modular hip device (finished product) or sample coupons, which are designed and manufactured for simulation of the head, taper, and neck region of a modular hip device.1.1 This practice describes the testing, analytical, and characterization methods for evaluating the mechanical stability of the bore and cone interface of the head and stem junction of modular hip implants subjected to cyclic loading by measurements of fretting corrosion (1-5).2 Two test methods described are as follows:1.1.1 Method I—The primary purpose of this method is to provide a uniform set of guidelines for long-term testing to determine the amount of damage by measurement of the production of corrosion products and particulate debris from fretting and fretting corrosion. Damage is also assessed by characterization of the damage to the bore and cone surfaces (4, 5).1.1.2 Method II—This method provides for short-term electrochemical evaluation of the fretting corrosion of the modular interface. It is not the intent of this method to produce damage nor particulate debris but rather to provide a rapid method for qualitative assessment of design changes which do not include material changes (1-4).1.2 This practice does not provide for judgment or prediction of in-vivo implant performance, but rather provides for a uniform set of guidelines for evaluating relative differences in performance between differing implant designs, constructs, or materials with performance defined in the context of the amount of fretting and fretting corrosion. Also, this practice should permit direct comparison of fretting corrosion data between independent research groups, and thus provide for building of a data base on modular implant performance.1.3 This practice provides for comparative testing of manufactured hip femoral heads and stems and for coupon-type specimen testing where the male taper portion of the modular junction does not include the entire hip implant, with the taper portion of the coupon identical in design, manufacturing, and materials to the taper of the final hip implant (4, 5).1.4 Method I of this practice permits simultaneous evaluation of the fatigue strength of a femoral hip stem (in accordance with Practice F1440) and the mechanical stability and debris generated by fretting and fretting corrosion of the modular interface.1.5 The general concepts and methodologies described in this practice could be applied to the study of other modular interfaces in total joint prostheses.1.6 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this 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, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.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

定价： 1257元 / 折扣价： 1119 元 加购物车